I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you were engaging in critical thinking you'd realize that motion to exempt below $1m, $10m, and then $100m was just a stunt and was just done in the last few days.
You
are misrepresenting things. You are misrepresenting the complaints about the policy as being "tax cuts for the rich" as applying to the entire policy, rather than the parts of the policy that, you know, offer tax cuts for the rich, or that it disproportionately aids the already wealthy. The exemptions sought, even if just as a stunt, highlighted quite clearly that the policy includes tax cuts for the rich. That is what people are complaining about, and the extent to which they do. And you are misrepresenting their complaints as being complaints of all aspects of the policy.
No one was referring to extending cuts for some but not all. The whole bill in it's entirety was what people were talking about No one was doing as you suggest and supporting cuts for the middle-class.
If one complains about the part of the bill that offers tax cuts to the rich, that doesn't mean that they're
not supporting cuts for the less well off, does it?? They were complaining about the bill, yes, because it offered tax cuts to the rich. No other bill was being offered, because the Reps - as demonstrated by the "stunt" - had no intention of putting forward a bill that exempted the rich from tax cuts.
You are continuing to confuse the complaint against the tax cuts for the rich as being a complaint against the whole bill.
The bit about the $1m, $10m, $100m, wouldn't make a dent if you excluded those since it would still leave millions in the middle class and that is where the money would be.
Sure, but by exempting them, you could increase the tax-reductions of the least well off, even if just by a bit. You know, helping the least well off a bit more. The Republicans chose not to. They provided tax cuts, yes, to all, but that benefit the rich far more. To a person earning under $50k, for example, the tax cut would barely afford them an extra cup of coffee a week. To someone earning over $1m, it would almost enable them to buy a new Tesla a year. That is what people complain about with these "tax cuts for the rich".
It also makes no sense to be OK with someone making $400k but $1 million is just too much?
Lines need to be drawn somewhere when looking at progressive taxation. And one can easily make the differences between each band less impactful between those on either side of the lines. So a small tax cut to those between $400k and $1m, then a slightly larger one for those between $200k and $400k, etc, all the way down to the largest at those at the bottom end of things.
In any event, as posted, since we have this debt problem, I wouldn't extend these cuts just because we could use the $400 billion that would be generated to reduce the deficit and we are only talking about having the top rate go from 37% to 39%.
Not extending any of those tax cuts in some form would hit the lowest earners by far the hardest. So that would be even worse than extending them as-is.
For example, the cuts included a near-doubling of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12k, so those at the lowest would have to find another $600 a year minimum. Sure, those at the top would have to find a few $10k, but they have income. And they got by far the biggest boost from the tax cuts when they really didn't need it.
For someone earning $50k, for example, if the tax rates and bandings returned to pre-Trump-tax-cuts then the person would pay c.$2.3k MORE. A change from c.$6.6k down to $4.3k That's a significant difference. It's an increase of c.30% in their tax bill.
For someone earning $1m, this would be a change from £326k to $350k - just a 7% increase in their tax bill.
Sure, the absolute $ amount is higher, but who would you rather be in that situation? Earning a million and having to find an extra $24k, or earning $50k and having to find another $2.3k??
Note, this is just impact of Federal income tax.
Yes, those initial tax-cuts did help the less well off, but they, and other tax cuts, still significantly helped those at the upper ends - e.g. through corporation tax reduction, inheritance tax exemption being doubled, etc.
And the issue has always been that if you reduced tax cuts to the already wealthy you could increase the tax cuts to those that need them the most.
Again, no one over here was only referring to the top portion of the Trump tax cuts for the rich while proposing to keep the bottom cuts. You just made that up (until the recent stunt in committee).
I have made nothing up. Criticism of the bill is because, taken as a whole, the tax-cuts help the wealthy more than the lower earners. Noone is saying that there are not tax cuts for the poor.
It's not ironic at all and there are still not many people here discussing their solutions. Bill and I are fine and Tiassa and Parmalee are angry and violent but still few suggestions. No irony there.
Your "solutions" (e.g. critical thinking) aren't solutions, though. They are tools, as explained. Useful, but not solutions. And as has been asked: solutions to what, exactly??
Yes, I'm good with rational people, thinking critically and living with whatever the outcomes are. The outcomes will be better that way. Rates are within a normal realm and result in near optimal tax receipts. Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been remarkably similar regardless of the top tax rate. Spending is wildly out of control.
Your concern seems solely about the economy. Is that what you're looking for "solutions" for?
Arguing about Trump, Musk, the Republicans, or the Democrats doesn't change that (or anything really). Critical thinking, give it a try?
If all you're concerned about is the deficit, then cutting spending is eminently sensible. Complaining about Musk, Trump, the Republicans goes beyond just concern for the deficit. In fact, very little of the complaints against them is to do with the deficit. So if you're framing all of this solely with regard to the deficit, your criticisms are merely arguing against a strawman.
