Senate version of tax plan will dominate what ends up being passed

A US tax bill (if one is passed) will more closely resemble the Senate bill because they can only lose two votes and still pass it without Democrat support.

Republicans control 52 votes in the 100-seat Senate, meaning they can only lose two members if they want to pass a bill without Democratic support. A 50-50 tie would go to Republicans, as Vice President Pence would cast the tiebreaking vote.

To use special Senate procedures to get around a filibuster from Democrats, Republicans must write a bill that does not add more than $1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years.

The Senate tax package would delay cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent until 2019.

The one-year delay would lower the cost of the tax bill by more than $100 billion, and negotiators are trying to preserve as much revenue as they can for other changes.

The Senate bill would prohibit Americans from deducting state and local income and property taxes from their federal bills, a change which could raise taxes overall for Americans in high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois.

The Senate plan would also keep the mortgage interest deduction largely intact, capped at the current level of $1 million.

The Senate bill will propose to lower tax rates across income levels as a way to lower tax bills for most Americans, Senate Finance Committee aides said.

27 thoughts on “Senate version of tax plan will dominate what ends up being passed”

  1. This is ridiculous.

    There are like 5 Dem senators in Trump states that are up for re-election next year. This is why the Dems & McCain-sellout RINOs are working so hard to keep this from ever being voted on in the first place.

    Because when it is voted on, those two GOP votes won’t matter if three of those 5 Dems cross the aisle to pass it as a BIPARTISAN vote, with or without Pence’s tie breaker needed.

    Reply
  2. Note, there are GOP congressmen in the Blue States upset really upset about eliminating the state tax deduction so the bill might not get through congress because of that alone.

    Reply
    • Well here in CA most of the districts with people who would pay more are represented by Democrats. I’m pretty sure they are already upset with Republicans.

      Reply
    • Congressman. Not senators. And a divide-and-conquer strategy was successfully implemented to ease things for non-California blue states while royally screwing over California. I refer to the $10k on property taxes write-off in the House version that Californians won’t be able to get much relief from because of California”s unusually low property tax rates due to Prop 13.

      Reply
  3. Point of interest. Those four states mentioned comprise just over 25% of the total US population. That’s a lot of people to piss off.

    Reply
    • See my reply above abour how mostly California gets screwed in the House version and the other three not so much.

      As for being 25% of the population that means the remaining 75% see nothing but upside with this. So…that 25% doesn’t matter. It is the Libtard’s own fault for self-sorting themselve’s in such a geographically concentrated way, too.

      Reply
    • But those high income states actually tend to subsidize the lower income states and it’s not like the tax brackets adjust to the local cost of living…. so the people that would be at the same level of quality of life pay a greater amount of Federal taxes in the high income states and thus have a lower quality of life.. There are lots of unfair things about the tax system that this or any tax bill will never address. Note, not having the deduction also means people in essence are getting taxed twice on their income. How fair is that?!?

      Reply
      • Note, not having the deduction also means people in essence are getting taxed twice on their income. How fair is that?!?

        Just like the inheritance tax.

        Alternately it isn’t the job of the Federal government to subsidize state taxes. As a CA resident elimination of the SALT deductions would cost me a $23k deduction (not $23k, just $23k in deductions).

        Of course tax brackets do not adjust to the cost of living. That would just subsidize the cost of living.

        Reply
      • ” But those high income states actually tend to subsidize the lower income states and it’s not like the tax brackets adjust to the local cost of living ”

        Which even if it were true (and it isn’t) would still be no excuse for low income individuals in most (low tax) localities subsidizing the local tax expenditures of high tax localities where generally only high income individuals get that subsidy.

        Reply
      • They are not being taxed twice. They are being taxed once each by two different governments…sometimes three times like in NY.

        Also, I don’t see you bitching about double taxation with regards to investment income, which is what the corporate income tax does.

        Reply
  4. Bannon’s taking the right approach of purging the Congressional wing of GOP by eliminating swamp rats. They can stymie/delay/dilute reform this time around, but once they’re purged the way will be open for fuller reform.

    Reply
    • It is quite clear now that Bannon’s ‘ousting’ from the WH was all part of just this sort of plan. Excellent Good Cop & Bad Cop game between his actions and Trump’s, too.

      I love it.

      Reply
  5. The only pro-growth provisions are on the corporate tax side, so this is much ado about not much. In fact, I’d say almost all the positives are already priced into the stock market.

    Deregulation has been a big plus, but I fear the “yuuuge” Trump market rally is running on fumes. Caveat emptor.

    Reply
    • Yes/no.

      These firms are not yet binge spending on cap ex until they get that full 100% write-off, for example. Ditto for the real hiring boom to come.

      Reply
    • They haven’t released the income levels of the tax brackets yet so how do you know that it costs you thousands?

      Revenue raised from eliminating SALT (State And Local Taxes) is used to raise income tax bracket dollar values. More of what you make is taxed less so until they release the income levels of the tax brackets neither you or I know what is in there and it is premature to complain.

      Reply
      • Maybe so but I’m going to complain anyway because on the face of it it looks like a whole lot of taxes being raised on the little guy to support a big fat cut in the corporate tax. I’m not sure how that will play in Peoria.

        Reply
        • If the House bill is a guide it will play well in Peoria.

          Both bills double the standard deduction and both bills increase the income levels for their tax brackets. I recall that the house bill had a 12% taxable bracket up to the first $90k of income.

          Reply
          • But there is such a thing as how corporate income taxes impact the decisions made by the execs and their investors.

        • Peoria is getting a whopping increase in the standard deduction and will get more capital investment from this. So it will play extremely well.

          Reply
      • Actually we so know that it would hit a lot of Californians hard. Mostly via indirect means like suppressing CA’s raging homevalue hyperinflation (good for buyers, bad for current homeowners). As the $500k mortgage interest deduction cap would impact future home buyers…not sure about refis, though.

        Reply
    • Eliminating state tax deductions might well be crafted by certain cynical parties not giving a hoot whether or not it hurts the big Blue States.

      Reply

Leave a Comment