The Sunset Argument about individuals losing their tax cuts

[Slade3200]

The Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.

For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But you do not have to vote against renewal, you just do not have to vote at all and the cuts are gone. That way nobody has to say they voted against them. These folks in congress are dirtier than a pig in the summer, but they are not totally stupid. They always give themselves an out.

 

[Slade3200]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

Not under reconciliation

 

[Slade3200]

But you do not have to vote against renewal, you just do not have to vote at all and the cuts are gone. That way nobody has to say they voted against them. These folks in congress are dirtier than a pig in the summer, but they are not totally stupid. They always give themselves an out.

If enough people abstained from voting so that the end result takes away tax cuts from individuals then a non-vote is just as bad as a vote against renewal and they would be held accountable politically. It is political suicide. I don't see that happening. Do you?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But you do not have to vote against renewal, you just do not have to vote at all and the cuts are gone. That way nobody has to say they voted against them. These folks in congress are dirtier than a pig in the summer, but they are not totally stupid. They always give themselves an out.

If enough people abstained from voting so that the end result takes away tax cuts from individuals then a non-vote is just as bad as a vote against renewal and they would be held accountable politically. It is political suicide. I don't seen that happening. Do you?

Well, first I think they can come up with a good enough reason to not have the vote at all, just never even bring it up.

And second, I no longer belive there is such a thing as political suicide in this country. Partisans are going to vote for their party no matter what because they have been brainwashed into believing the other side is evil incarnate.

 

[task0778]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

 

[Slade3200]

But you do not have to vote against renewal, you just do not have to vote at all and the cuts are gone. That way nobody has to say they voted against them. These folks in congress are dirtier than a pig in the summer, but they are not totally stupid. They always give themselves an out.

If enough people abstained from voting so that the end result takes away tax cuts from individuals then a non-vote is just as bad as a vote against renewal and they would be held accountable politically. It is political suicide. I don't seen that happening. Do you?

Well, first I think they can come up with a good enough reason to not have the vote at all, just never even bring it up.

And second, I no longer belive there is such a thing as political suicide in this country. Partisans are going to vote for their party no matter what because they have been brainwashed into believing the other side is evil incarnate.

Talk to Franken about political suicide

 

[Slade3200]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

Then, by that logic, the corporate tax cut should have been temporary as well.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.

For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!

bingo

 

[JakeStarkey]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

We will see how well that argument is spun by the Dems.

 

[task0778]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

I wouldn't say it's the greatest tax plan either, but to say that it takes money from the poor to the rich is nonsense. The poor aren't paying any taxes to begin with, and I believe this new tax plan increases the number of non-payers. As for the corp tax cuts being permanent, the next Congress and President can change that PDQ if they have the votes.
And so far as I know there is or was no other country in the world with a higher corp tax rate than the US, which is significant factor int he decision for many to shift their ops offshore enough to keep them here and even bring back some who have left. Yes, it helps the rich but it also helps so many of us in the middle class who have savings invested in 401ks. It is dumbshit stupid to shoot ourselves in the foot by adopting policies that restrict economic growth just because some rich guys are going to get richer. As long as the rest of us get richer too and more jobs get created OR SAVED (loved that one when the Dems came up with it), let's go for it.

 

[task0778]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

Then, by that logic, the corporate tax cut should have been temporary as well.

Not really, because businesses forecast well out into the future to base their current decisions for expansions and so do entrepeneurs and investors to do startups. If the corp tax rate is temporary it kinda puts a damper on the enthusiasm to get a little froggy. If you want to encourage growth you can't be half-assed about it.

 

[Aldo Raine]

The Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.

For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!

I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

We will see how well that argument is spun by the Dems.

So your argument is going to be what? Let the individual tax rates expire so you can then get the corporate rates back up? Is that your plan?

 

[task0778]

The Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.

For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!

I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?

Here are three big reasons the individual tax cuts would be temporary.

1. To get the bill to qualify with Senate rules
Republicans are attempting to pass the bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), through the process known as budget reconciliation. The process allows Republicans to avoid a Democratic filibuster and pass the bill on a party-line vote, but it comes with strings attached.

One of the rules included in the reconciliation process is known as the Byrd rule. A provision within that rule stipulates that any bill going through reconciliation cannot add to the federal deficit outside of 10 years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, chair of the Senate Finance Committee and author of the bill, has admitted that the original version of the Senate's TCJA did not meet such a requirement. Making the individual cuts temporary could allow the bill to meet those requirements.

2. To try and get companies to invest more
So: Why let the individual tax cuts expire and not the corporate tax cuts? Allowing the corporate tax cuts to fade would save roughly the same, if not slightly more money, against the debt, analyses show.

But a temporary tax cut for businesses could change the way they do business.

The policy rationale is that if a company believes the tax relief would be temporary, it would make short-term investments to maximize benefits within the window while eschewing long-term investment that could reap benefits in the longer-term.

In a study on a temporary corporate tax cut versus a permanent tax cut, the Tax Foundation found that short-term investments under a temporary cut would considerably mute the economic boost of cutting taxes on businesses.

Since the boost to economic growth and investment has been a key selling point for Republican leaders, anything that would dampen that investment would undermine the GOP's central argument.

Hatch made a similar argument in a statement.

"Additionally, the modified mark creates more permanence in our tax system so that American job creators can invest in the long term, grow their business and create new jobs," said Hatch.

3. To try to kick the can to a future Congress
Finally, there's a fairly simple political argument that Republicans can make to defend the sunset of the individual tax cuts: Congress would never let it happen.

Hatch and the GOP are banking that a future Congress would not allow the tax breaks to go away when they come up in 2025 — effectively enacting a tax increase on millions of Americans — but pass a bill to extend these cuts.

That would follow a similar playbook to tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush. Because of the same concerns about reconciliation, that legislation sunset individual tax cuts. In 2013, however, Congress extended those cuts with the American Taxpayer Relief Act, rather than letting people's tax bills jump. The cuts for certain incomes were allowed to expire.

Here's why Senate Republicans are making tax cuts for average Americans temporary

 

[Slade3200]

The Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.

For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!

I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?

Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budget

 

[BluesLegend]

There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill

Okay, name them.

 

[Slade3200]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

I wouldn't say it's the greatest tax plan either, but to say that it takes money from the poor to the rich is nonsense. The poor aren't paying any taxes to begin with, and I believe this new tax plan increases the number of non-payers. As for the corp tax cuts being permanent, the next Congress and President can change that PDQ if they have the votes.
And so far as I know there is or was no other country in the world with a higher corp tax rate than the US, which is significant factor int he decision for many to shift their ops offshore enough to keep them here and even bring back some who have left. Yes, it helps the rich but it also helps so many of us in the middle class who have savings invested in 401ks. It is dumbshit stupid to shoot ourselves in the foot by adopting policies that restrict economic growth just because some rich guys are going to get richer. As long as the rest of us get richer too and more jobs get created OR SAVED (loved that one when the Dems came up with it), let's go for it.

I think if there was a bipartisan approach the corporate rate would have gone to 25%, which is where obama wanted it, and that extra 4% could have gone to the middle class. There is also a lot of right wing pork in this bill like repealing the Obamacare mandate and lifting environment regulations that they snuck in, which is probably why they locked out the Dems.