MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

House Republicans Just Passed a Major Tax Reform Bill

The process of passing tax reform will only become more difficult from here.

House Republicans passed a major overhaul to the tax code todayRon Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/NewscomRon Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom. The bill passed 227 to 205 on a party line vote, with a handful of Republicans, mostly from high-tax blue states, joining Democrats in opposition.

The House plan cuts taxes by roughly $1.5 trillion over the next decade, with tax reductions for both businesses and individuals. The plan would slash the corporate tax rate from 35 percent down to 20 percent, and would condense the current seven individual income tax brackets into four while expanding the child tax credit and doubling the standard deduction.

The lower corporate tax rate would be a permanent change. However, a new $300 tax credit dubbed the "family flexibility credit" that is intended to help middle would expire in 2023, leading one analysis to find that, after that year, only 40 percent of Americans would pay lower taxes under the plan—and 22 percent would pay more.

The House legislation also reduces or eliminates many major deductions, including carve outs for medical expenses, cars, moving, tax preparation, and student loan interest. The plan gets rid of the state and local tax deduction for income and sales tax would be eliminated, and caps the deduction for property taxes.

That deduction provides the biggest benefit to residents of high-income, high-tax states that tend to vote Democratic—hence the handful of GOP blue state defectors. Unlike the revised Senate tax plan that was released earlier in the week, it does not repeal Obamacare's individual mandate to purchase health coverage.

Although some Republican representatives grumbled about the plan's treatment of various deductions, the passage of a tax bill in the House was never really in question. Republicans will now move forward with a related bill in the Senate, where passage is far less certain. Senate Republicans plan to pass the legislation with only Republican votes and a simple majority. They hold just 52 seats, which means they can lose just two votes (Vice President Mike Pence would break a tie).

But one Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), has already said he will not vote for the plan. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has said he will oppose any plan that substantially increases the deficit, which potentially puts him in the "no" camp as well. And while the decision to repeal Obamacare's individual mandate helps to offset the budgetary effects of the Senate plan's tax reductions, it also ties the tax bill to health coverage, which, as we saw this summer with the failed health care overhaul, could complicate the vote math too. The possibility of losing a GOP senator in the Alabama special election next month adds a further wrinkle.

Indeed, at this point, the GOP's tax reform effort looks remarkably similar to its health care push. After some initial complications, the health care bill eventually passed in the House, despite some GOP objections. Senate leadership tried to rush a health care bill to vote, but found themselves stymied by a handful of holdouts. The same dynamic could play out again with tax reform.

Republicans are generally more comfortable with tax policy than with health care, and, after the failure of their first major legislative initiative, are feeling an awful lot of pressure from supporters to pass some sort of tax legislation. So I suspect the odds of some sort of tax bill passing are better than the odds of health care were. But the bumpy process so far makes clear it won't be easy. Passage in the House is a significant first step, but the tax bill still has a long way to go.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Al Franken is groping it as we speak.

  • ||

    The plan gets rid of the state and local tax deduction for income and sales tax would be eliminated, and caps the deduction for property taxes.

    This means that most people's taxes will go up. Maybe their Federal tax will go down somewhat, but the overall taxes paid between state & Fed will certainly go up for most people.

    So - higher taxes, and increasing deficit.

    The Repubs are definitely outdoing themselves with this one.

  • BYODB||

    The obvious answer is 'don't fuck with state tax exemptions' but I'm sure you already knew that, eh?

  • BYODB||

    I thought about it, but it was such an obvious response to the question that it seemed a wonder you even asked it.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, and for the record the state I live in doesn't even have an income tax in the first place.

  • ||

    I doubt he'll believe you - he's gotten into such a tizzy that he thinks you, I, and a couple of other people are playing sock puppet games with him.

  • BYODB||

    It's become clear that someone is shitting all over this thread in particular with about half a dozen sock puppets, although I'll refrain from pointing fingers since I literally have no idea who it might be.

    Nor do I care.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Yes, and I'll add that maybe it will keep us from having to bail out high tax states like NY and Illinois, so... win-win.

    I would much prefer that if I have to give a fixed portion of my money to the government, that the proportion to local and state grows relative to federal. That's a small win for small government.

  • ||

    I would much prefer that if I have to give a fixed portion of my money to the government, that the proportion to local and state grows relative to federal. That's a small win for small government.

    This will do the opposite of that.

  • BYODB||

    What makes you think that the FedGov won't continue to bail out high tax states, again?

  • Careless||

    While Illinois is a high tax state, it's not a high income tax state

  • ||

    While I don't disagree, that's on the state legisalators, not the GOP in DC.

    I agree that the deduction gives an incentive to state governments to increase spending and taxation because people won't really notice it, and that's a problem, too.

    But eliminating the deduction means middle class people's taxes in high-tax states (which includes the majority of the country) will nearly double.

    That's not going to stimulate the economy. It's not going to reduce the deficit. It's just going to piss people off.

    The GOP in DC needs to cut spending. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

  • BYODB||


    The GOP in DC needs to cut spending. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

    I'll drink to that!

  • Rhywun||

    But eliminating the deduction means middle class people's taxes in high-tax states (which includes the majority of the country) will nearly double.

    Not with the doubling of the standard deduction.

  • KDN||

    My wife and I are wage jockeys with a mortgage, and we'd have paid an extra $3k in federal taxes last year if this bill was law. And that's in our lowest earnings year of the past five and the first with a child.

    It's like the GOP has no interest in ever competing in blue states ever again. The GOP is basically begging me to start voting Democrat - since both parties are out to get me, I might as well vote for the one that's going to gouge people two states over to make my wife's retirement comfortable.

    Thinking that this is going to eventually cause a groundswell of support for Republicans at the state level is being too clever by half.

  • BYODB||


    The GOP is basically begging me to start voting Democrat - since both parties are out to get me, I might as well vote for the one that's going to gouge people two states over to make my wife's retirement comfortable.

    Unfortunately, I suspect most people are going to see it exactly like this.

  • KDN||

    It's a pretty obvious takeaway. They should just call it the "FUCK NJ, NY, AND CA TAXPAYERS ACT OF 2017." It's amazing how these people manage to get so far in politics without any idea of how to grow their own party.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Trump vetoes this in its current form just because that's what I expect an ordinary Staten Islander to do, and he never seems to disappoint in that respect.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not sure how any party could 'grow' these days on any platform other than 'free stuff and ponies' to be honest.

    Of course, that's just me being a defeatist. Truthfully, it does seem there are plenty of people out there that want to cut spending but they are a clear minority of the populace and, worse, are inconsistent about it.

  • Flinch||

    Given the sad state of civics education in public schools, it is no wonder we have devolved into a rainbows and unicorns approach to governance. None of my teachers ever drew any analogy between pickpocket politics and being mugged. The only difference is... the existence of a committee [or whatever political body]. It takes a politician to tell us we are to be mugged in advance, and offer arrest if we resist their wealth transfer schemes... but it's your neighbor getting your money [after the mobsters take their cut]. So... what if people in Maxine Waters district starting seeing "public notices" on telephone poles of a proposed "hubcap tax" to be levied by MS13 every 5th thursday on the block, allowing residents to show up to a meeting to complain? Is there a difference? Hmm...

  • CE||

    And Maryland. One third of the benefits of the tax reform plan go to Texas and Florida, since they have no state income tax, and relatively low priced homes.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Not to throw any shade here, but when were the Republicans going to be able to compete in NJ, NY or CA anyway?

    But it does beg the question, you would have paid $3k extra in federal taxes - is that because the state write-off goes away? How come people don't fight to lower their state income taxes since the states you listed have highest?

    I know it's like putting out a fire with an eye dropper but still.

  • Flinch||

    The quick answer: the moment they adopt a philosophy of governance and stop living to get cocktail party invites. Yes, that's sacrilege to New Yorkers, but it's the place to start. Being surrounded by wobblies on the upper west side every week warps the brain. Until then, serving up 'socialism lite' is going to be roundly rebuffed by people who want the real deal. That, and Puerto Rican's don't vote for people with no spine generally speaking.

  • Queen Screwup||

    I love people who keep voting for the same two parties just so they can have something to bitch about.

  • Queen Screwup||

    I love people who keep voting for the same two parties just so they can have something to bitch about.

  • Rhywun||

    Well, I don't get any of the social-engineering deductions, so I benefit. *shrug*

  • Flinch||

    The GOP has no idea of how to compete today. How could they? They abandoned any philosophy of governance right around the time Hastert took the gavel as speaker and haven't looked back. Only the general revulsion of a democrat party trying to move left of Mao [minus the gulags] has kept republicans in office. They offer nothing other than "not democrat" looking at the last decade of campaigns, and based on this years record breaking vacation time on their calendar, it won't change until leadership is swept out of office - house and senate.

  • CE||

    The standard deduction is not doubled. It's trick math. They are also removing the personal exemption (4K per person).

  • BYODB||

    The whole damn thing is trick math and lies. The more I read about it, the more obvious it becomes.

  • Flinch||

    I not aware of any accounting methods used in DC that come close to anything my accountant is allowed to use. The man on the street will pay more, while the clowns call it a tax cut. If there is anyone out there that thinks your state will cut their income tax rates because of federal changes to tax code, guess again. And... I know somebody that has a bridge to sell you. If anything, we can expect governor Moonbeam to use the event of change to make the argument that California must increase it's tax rates - that's how these loons operate.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    oh well. don't live in a high tax state. Not my problem idiots vote in people who spend a ton

  • ctylerliberty||

    I'm sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit. It isn't up to state legislators to allow tax deductions on the federal level, that was enacted and legislated by congress in the first place. State taxes being deductible is a problem, a problem created by Washington DC politicians in the first place. They incentivized the states by allowing these deductions in the first place and now they want to take them away? HAHA Talk about having your cake and eating it too, blame the states for having high taxes but don't blame congress for allowing them to deduct those taxes in the first place? Man I wish I could live in this fantasy world of reasoning you have.

    Everyone in congress should have to pay their income to make up the difference because just FYI, California is 1/9th of the US population and if you remove that deduction you are basically raising taxes on everyone so that you can cut taxes on corporations. In fact that is all this bill really does, it shifts the tax burden onto the middle class instead of corporations. This isn't a tax cut, it is a tax shift to fuck over people like me who make a middle class income in a blue state. If this bullshit passes, it will be the last time you ever see an R on my voter registration. I guess I should just start voting for those who will tax the rich and give me stuff since it is clear no one in Washington really wants to help the middle class.

  • Rhywun||

    A tax on corporations IS a tax on you. Who do you think is paying it in the end?

  • ctylerliberty||

    Ok great, so give me the taxes back on my income and I'll choose what overpriced shit too buy.

  • Flinch||

    Amen. The consumer gets stuck with the bill, and employees have raises they can't ask for under a progressive tax system.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Or maybe your state should work on it's budget and not tax like crazy. Your property taxes are insane. State taxes are also insane.

    Wait, I know you need that high speed rail train that is way over budget and never be built. What about paying for all those illegal immigrants? Wait, how about health care for all that will cost 800 billion.

    You can please anyone. Other states have no or lower state taxes. Why should everyone pay for your higher taxes?

    I do agree DC politicians suck so some common ground there.

  • regeya||

    Let's be real: the mainstream right-wing talking point right now, if Democrats eliminated a bunch of deductions, would be to talk about a massive tax hike. If a Democrat wins the White House in 2024, and especially if the Dems pick up seats before then, the expiration of the new breaks will be the talking point Republicans use against Democrats. I know this because they did it in 2009.

    Don't buy into the hype. This isn't taking subsidies away from blue states, this is a tax hike.

  • Just Say'n||

    Except they're not raising anyone's taxes, the state legislators raised their taxes. How can you justify Texas subsidizing California increasing income taxes?

  • BYODB||

    People have made long term plans based upon tax exemptions, and essentially every last one of us just got fucked in the ass. But no, tell me more about it's a great thing that my long term fiscal planning was just thrown in the toilet.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, 'oops' is right considering they just fucked over basically everyone who was actually paying their student loan debt.

    Guess I might as well just stop making those payments like everyone else now, right? ^_-

  • BYODB||

    In the sense that I trusted the government wouldn't alter agreements that I made a decade ago, way after the fact? Hmm...

    Definitely going to need to talk a CPA about this.

  • BYODB||


    Well, yeah. You trusted the governement. The time frame is kind of inconsequential, because they have a known, proven history of fucking people.

    Except you, it seems, which is one reason you appear to be 'for' such a 'simplification' of the tax code by shifting it upwards for almost everyone. Except for you, of course, who claim to be receiving a lower tax burden.

    Coincidence?

    Note that I don't blame you for that whatsoever, it's very reasonable, but it seems if you're not getting a tax increase it also implies that you were not taking the exemptions before.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    so in other words, you are stupid, low IQ idiot?

  • BYODB||


    I think anyone making long term plans could see the way the wind was blowing on that one for a while. I did.

    Cute. Well you do explain why you're for it below: your taxes in particular will be lower.

    Seems legit, but don't expect across-the-board approval just because your taxes in particular end up lower.

  • BYODB||

    So you deny that you've explained why you're for it below, and that one of those reasons happens to be because your taxes will be lower?

    You've made other arguments, to be sure, but that was included as one of them. One need only read further down to see it.

    Did I imply it was a leading reason? Yes. And I did so because personal utility is usually an individuals primary concern.

    And I have not denied that I'm against it, primarily, because it raises my taxes. A subordinate reason is because spending is sacrosanct, which pisses me off because cutting spending is preferable to raising taxes on anyone in my book.

  • ||

    Shut up Tulpa

    Okay - this has got to be satire at this point.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Ha, you got sloppy. Again.

  • ctylerliberty||

    Of course because anyone that claims to be for smaller government or libertarianism wants everyones taxes to be lower. So the question is, why the fuck are you even here?

    Let me help you out, you seem to be lost: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    When Reagan simplified the tax code it killed one of my income streams owning and renting mobile homes. It wasn't great for me, but it was very good for the economy and in the end I probably benefited.

    I took a gamble and lost. You also took a gamble and might lose as well. If you didn't plan for this eventuality, it wasn't much of a long term plan.

  • BYODB||

    Eh, it's my spit take anyway. Obviously more reading than a Reason blog is going to be required.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, and if this was anything like the Reagan cuts I'd probably eat the shit sandwich and smile but frankly a tax increase bears little to no similarity to the Reagan cuts.

  • BYODB||

    Not to mention that fact that what they are saying, in effect, is that you're paying taxes on money that you never see because of, wait for it, taxes.

  • ||

    ^ This is the other thing.

    To me, another part of the whole point of the deduction is that your state may tax you to the point where you don't have enough income left to pay the feds.

    This is what I mean when I say that the Fed Income Tax should be regarded as secondary after the state tax or at least Fed Tax should be deductible from state tax, because in either case without the deduction you're being taxed on money that has already been taken from you.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Aye, this is the winning argument to me. I get the point that it looks like states are incentivized to raise taxes higher than people would otherwise bear (in theory, anyway), but we're dealing with an income tax here. It's pretty awful for the feds to calculate your taxed money as part of your income.

    Certainly, if you're a tax-hating, flat-tax, no-deductions kind of guy, this should be the last deduction to be phased out.

  • BYODB||


    It's pretty awful for the feds to calculate your taxed money as part of your income.

    Yep, it is beyond awful in my view. If memory serves this was actually one of the reasons for that exemption in the first place.

  • King's Ransom||

    I would generally agree but only after we decide any sort of federal income tax is unconstitutional. Barring that the Fed's simply incentivise the locals to raise taxes

  • ||

    The whole premise behind that question is flawed, but I did hear a GOP congress critter use that same reasoning - "why should we the Federal Government be 'subsidizing' state governments?"

    State governments, conceptually anyway, have prior existence to the Federal Government. The logic behind the deduction was "your more local layer of government is already taxing the shit out of you, so we'll take a little more off the top as a secondary layer of government."

    State governments are not franchises of the Federal Government, or at least they shouldn't be. At root, there just shouldn't be a Federal Income Tax at all, and the Federal Government really should be funded by the states, who then tax their citizens, rather than having multiple levels of government taxing everyone in parallel and then arguing about who owes whom what for what.

    This is just one more step down the long, long road of ignoring state sovereignty that we've been down for a little over a century now.

    Why not just eliminate state governments entirely and get it over with?

  • Just Say'n||

    Federalism assigns sovereignty to both the states and the federal government. None is superior to the other, in theory. So in no way should the federal government be required to subsidize state spending

  • ||

    You're completely ignoring my point.

    I'm saying that Federal Government isn't "subsidizing" state governments any more than state governments are "subsidizing" the Federal Government when it takes so much tax money from people that they don't have anything left over to pay their local governments.

    I'm not even saying that the Federal Government is "required" to do anything for the states.

    I'm saying that Republican are pretending to be giving us tax cuts when they're doing nothing of the kind.

    And lastly, high tax states like NY and CA are net payers into the Federal budget. No one is "subsidizing" CA or NY in any way that I'm aware of.

  • Just Say'n||

    You're right, the federal government isn't subsidizing these states. The residents of low tax states are subsidizing the high tax states.

    "And lastly, high tax states like NY and CA are net payers into the Federal budget. No one is "subsidizing" CA or NY in any way that I'm aware of."

    That's prog logic that is based on the fact that the median income in NY and CA is higher than in states like TX (which has a lower cost of living). As a result of their higher median income they get less of a Medicaid match than FL or TX. Medicaid funding is the largest federal outlay to states. So, it's the Medicaid funding mechanism that does that.

  • ||

    That's prog logic that is based on the fact that the median income in NY and CA is higher than in states like TX (which has a lower cost of living). As a result of their higher median income they get less of a Medicaid match than FL or TX. Medicaid funding is the largest federal outlay to states. So, it's the Medicaid funding mechanism that does that.

    So, in other words, it's true that CA and NY are net payers and aren't subsidized by the Federal Government?

  • ||

    No, it isn't. Sorry.

    Compelling. Thanks for your input.

  • ||

    You think this is true, which explains why you might think your point is being ignored. You don't seem to understand the argument at all.

    Prove me wrong and I'll admit I'm wrong.

  • ||

    When they are, the finances look very different. Feel free to educate yourself.

    Okay - I'll get right on that. Because God knows how the CA economy relies on military bases, unlike those poor little rural states.

  • EscherEnigma||

    (A) where did you find 2016 numbers? Most recent I found was 2015, which matches your number (after rounding)
    (B) California's federal tax bill in 2015 was $405 billion.

    For context, while California was #2 for defense spending in 2015, it's also the most populous state.
    That $50 billion only accounted for 2.1% of the states GDP, be putting right in the middle of the pack for race #24. per resident spending was $1260, which gives it really 16 or 17 for part resident spending.

    While the raw totals are large, when you measure by per capita or GDP California is neither the greatest or least among the states.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If you think it's impossible to measure, then you shouldn't have brought up $50 billion in the first place.

    But people who *aren't* quitters and have looked at this regularly find that California pays more in federal taxes every year then the federal government pays into California through employment, contacts, entitlements and so-on.

    Yes, $50 billion in defense spending in 2015. That is party of the $376 billion federal dollars that went into California in 2015. And in that same year paid $405 billion. This is not impossible to analyze.

  • Loss of Reason||

    The LAO also cites figures from a March 2016 report by the Pew Charitable Trusts. It found the federal government spent nearly $356 billion in California in fiscal year 2014, for salaries and wages, grants, contracts, retirement benefits and other benefits. That same year, California paid about $369 billion in total federal tax -- or about $13 billion more than it received -- according to the Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2014.

  • ||

    Virginia is first. California is 2nd.

    Yet it's a relatively insignificant sector of our economy. What does that tell you? Probably something you don't want to hear.

  • ||

    I don't understand what it is you think made me look foolish. I said CA isn't being subsidized. You said that was wrong. I asked you to prove it. You pointed out that CA doesn't get $0 from the Feds, but gets more than that.

    That doesn't change the fact that we pay more than we get. See?

    Your $50B that you think makes such a difference to the CA economy - it doesn't. And, as a Californian, I'm paying a bigger percentage of that $50B than you are.

    CA paid about $370B to the Feds in 2014. How does your assertion that we get $50B back contribute to this discussion?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Oh, Tulpa. Never change.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What happened to "letting people keep more of their own money isn't a subsidy"?

  • ||

    It stopped being convenient.

  • Just Say'n||

    The federal government isn't taking that money- their state is. And people in low tax states are very much subsidizing high tax states.

  • ||

    And people in low tax states are very much subsidizing high tax states.

    How so, when the high tax states are net payers, and the low tax states are net receivers?

  • ||

    That's just one example of how that number gets fudged.

    Yeah. And it's not a particularly good one, but you seem to find it persuasive. I'm sure you have all kinds of other examples, too.

  • ||

    Calm yourself.

    The CA economy = $2.42 trillion. It's the seventh largest economy in the world.

    Take your $50 billion. We won't notice it.

  • ||

    I love that you discuss net taxes, then list the total economy (WTF?).

    Okay - you're dumber than I thought. I'm starting to regret having engaged you.

    You brought up CA's dependence on this $50B in military spending. My showing you the size of the CA economy was pointing out that $50B, contrary to your assertion is not a significant chunk of the CA economy.

    Try to keep track of what your own argument is - you'll be less confused about things.

  • ||

    By the way, class, this is what happens when you're stupid and don't realize it. You spend a bunch of time misunderstanding what someone says, then make a giant fool of yourself attacking an argument no one made ever.
    Rashid Abadi|11.16.17 @ 3:27PM|#

    That's actually not true at all when you factor in all expenses and collections. Things like vast military complexes that subsidize the local economy aren't figured in. That's just one example of how that number gets fudged.

    *slow clap*

  • Just Say'n||

    That has to do with the way the federal government provides Medicaid funds and it all has to do with median income. High tax states also happen to have higher median incomes (because their cost of living is higher). Medicaid funds are the largest federal outlay from the federal government to the states.

    Your beef is with the way that the federal government distributes money and not with how you're taxed

  • ||

    Your beef is with the way that the federal government distributes money and not with how you're taxed

    I can have a beef with both, actually.

    High tax states are also states where the cost of living and wages are much higher than in other states.

    How does it even pass a basic sniff test that states where the median income and property values are very low and that have low tax rates subsidize states where those costs are much higher and where tax rates are much higher? The guy who's making $8 in Alabama and not paying any Fed income tax is somehow subsidizing houses that cost $750k in CA where the poorest people typically make twice that?

    That's like saying Zimbabwe is subsidizing the USA. It's just nonsense on the face of it. You guys are going to have to do a lot more than hand-waive about Medicare and army bases to make this remotely believable.

  • ctylerliberty||

    Good argument, that is what I would probably say if I just got destroyed too.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    High tax states are also states where the cost of living and wages are much higher than in other states.

    Fuckloads of onerous Team Blue regulations probably play no small part in that. Talk to your state and local politicians, maybe.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Congressional action leads to a higher federal tax bill, leading to the federal government collecting more. But somehow that isn't the federal government raising and collecting more taxes.

    Do you expect this to be persuasive to anyone that isn't already floating over sticking it to "blue" states?

  • ctylerliberty||

    Texas has every opportunity to do the same thing California does right now right? So not really understanding your complaint here. You are bitter because people who have higher taxes than you can write more of them off? Are you seriously complaining about that? You pay less in taxes right now than someone in California on just about everything, property, sales taxes, income, bonus taxes, the gasoline tax just went up in California also. And you are upset because heaven forbid someone in California might get a tax break, even though they will still pay more than you do in taxes in every single possibly category?

    Sounds very libertarian of you to want income taxes raised on those not in your state though, for sure.

  • ctylerliberty||

    It must be fun living in your fantasy world.

  • ctylerliberty||

    Are you paying taxes? So your argument is gone, thanks for playing.

  • ||

    At least I didn't trust the governement like you did, Square.

    Now you're just proving your ignorance.

    Everyone knows we're all sock puppets of Weigel.
  • BYODB||

    I know you won't believe me, but Square isn't a sock-puppeteer. At least, not that I know of, and nothing they've ever said has led me to think they are disingenuous even while I don't always agree with them.

    Oops, guess I'm a sock puppet now too since I stuck up for one of the more reasonable Reasonoids.

  • ctylerliberty||

    WE all are. I think this is my first time posting here and he thinks I am Square too. Anyone who argues with him must be the same person, he couldn't possibly be wrong!

  • EscherEnigma||

    If we're all the same person, who gets to be Id, Ego and Super Ego? I nominate myself for Super Ego cause I've whipped out the most numbers.

  • BYODB||

    I guess I'll go with Id because I'd rather just whip it out.

  • ||

    I guess that leaves me being ego, which is the one that gets all the praise, anyway.

    *preens in mirror*

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Maybe CA could, I dunno, lower their property, sales, income, bonus, and gasoline taxes? Then you'd get to keep more of your money. Maybe you ought to bring up that idea at the next town hall meeting.

  • ctylerliberty||

    Maybe the Federal Government shouldn't have an income tax in the first place? There are many things we all wish the government didn't do, but hey I'm a libertarian so I want everyone to have lower taxes, why the fuck are you here again?

  • King's Ransom||

    Yes I am pissed about it dipshit because I dont give a fuck about CA disability or ESL or the CA prisons paying for gender reassignment or the dipshit super train to nowhere or any of the other ridiculous fucking shit you have decided to cede to your local masters in return for a fucking break on your federal W4. Why should you get a break on your federal tax for giving away the farm at home...fuck you.

  • ctylerliberty||

    There is so much ignorance in your comment. IT must be fun being a bitter unhappy person who wants to tax others that live in different states. Are you also a racist? wouldn't surprise me. Just so you know the math, California pays more to the federal government than it receives back.

    But you know, math is hard for bitter, ignorant, unhappy people I know.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Except they're not raising anyone's taxes, the state legislators raised their taxes.

    Interesting definition of "raised" to mean "did not act."

  • CE||

    Check the brackets. Some of them go up. (Like 260K to 417K for MFJ went up from 33 to 35 percent.)

  • CE||

    And people who had a lot of deductions are going to see their taxes go up.

  • BYODB||

    I think I saw that the top bubble rate is 49% and some decimals.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, fuck Republicans on this one. My taxes are going to go way, way up because of their bald-faced lying.

  • ||

    My taxes are going to go way, way up because of their bald-faced lying.

    Mine, too. And I'm far from convinced we're going to see any "economic stimulus" from this. This is starting to look like just another shell game.

  • BYODB||

    There will be no economic stimulus, since it's not a tax cut. Seems obvious.

    I imagine that my stocks will do better, but it's little consolation. Maybe that's what they're counting on for 'stimulus'. In fact, that seems likely.

  • ||

    Maybe that's what they're counting on for 'stimulus'. In fact, that seems likely.

    I think you're right - I think they're counting on the cut to corporate tax rate to make up for the rest of it. I'm skeptical.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Isn't your state leaving so it won't matter?

    I agree not everyone in CA is blue but your state government makes you hard to like.

  • SIV||

    Pay you fair share, Yankees

  • EscherEnigma||

    Per capita federal taxes average $9,527 across all states, with a median of $8,870.

    Top ten states for federal taxes per capita:
    Delaware $23,982
    Minnesota $19,504
    New Jersey $17,226
    Connecticut $16,507
    Massachusetts $15,927
    New York $13,659
    Rhode Island $13,616
    Nebraska $13,256
    Illinois $12,310
    Ohio $12,148

    California is down at#15 with $10,408.

    Again: the average is $9,527 per capita, and the median is $8,870 per capita.

    The bottom ten are
    Arizona $6,253
    Idaho $5,920
    Hawaii $5,769
    Montana $5,625
    Maine $5,615
    Alabama $5,165
    South Carolina $4,921
    New Mexico $4,312
    West Virginia $4,005
    Mississippi $3,836

    Just a little context.

  • ||

    You haven't actually responded to any of it with any sort of compelling case at all, and now you're just moving into the name-calling phase.

    Sad.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Sorry you live in a poor state and are poor.

  • BYODB||


    Actually, I live abroad. Running my business.

    Well this suddenly explains rather a lot.

    Do you enjoy paying taxes to two different nations, and is that related to your supposed 'tax break' that you mentioned?

  • Flinch||

    If you live outside the continental US the required number of days per year and take a foreign tax credit, it's not a bad gig. Not bad at all...

  • ctylerliberty||

    If doesn't matter where you live, you still pay federal taxes if you are a US citizen. So either you are dodging taxes or you aren't a US citizen.

    "If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien (Green Card Holder) living and/or working in a foreign country, the rules for filing U.S. income tax returns and paying estimated taxes are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad."

    Maybe read the law?

  • ||

    Actually, I live abroad. Running my business.

    Suki - is that you?

    Good morning, Reason!

  • Calidissident||

    You haven't provided any sources for your argument. Please show us how the analyses of dependency don't account for this, and how the picture changes once it is accounted for. A reputable source, please, not simply your own assertions.

    Taking the $50B value for granted - the feds spend $600-700 billion on the DoD every year, considering California has over 10% of the population, I'm not sure why $50 billion of that total going to California is supposed to be indicative of major dependency.

  • ctylerliberty||

    Don't even reply to this fool he actually thinks me and you are the same person. That is how blind he is too the arguments he is making. The guy is a progressive democrat, clearly wants to raise taxes on people he doesn't agree with and lower his own.

  • ||

    Jesus Christ, Square WTF is wrong with you?

    This is just getting sad. You should go take a walk around the block or something.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What number would you like? I've got a bit more time before lunch is over so if it's something I can quickly find out calculate I might go for it.

    That said, given the absolute pack of context to your $50 billion number earlier, this complaint is kind of funny.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Taxes paid isn't relevant to whether or not someone is paying their "fair share"?

    Interesting.

  • Flinch||

    Don't let California bamboozle you. They abuse every corner imaginable to form a kaleidoscope of taxation most voters cannot comprehend, much less challenge in court. From little things like beer costing an extra $2 a six pack compared to other states, to effectively doubling property taxes abusing "assessments" as a way to do violence to prop 13. Keeping your car "registered" is a joke too - their "fees" are 10x of several states which makes it work as a property tax [based not on vehicle type/weight, but bluebook value extrapolation]. I'm not sure if NY, NJ or Connecticut has them beat, but no way they are not in the top five worst tax environments. 15th my eye... not with gasoline costing an extra 30% compared to most the nation.
    For people to be soaked for taxes in excess of 50% during peacetime should be labeled a breach of the 13th amendment, but then again... that's why they broke it up into a hundred small pieces. You could move from CA to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and experience an effective [net] tax cut of 20% or better.

  • marshaul||

    "Most people" probably take the standard deduction, and my state's taxes are a joke compared to Federal income tax.

  • King's Ransom||

    It's rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior at the state level. How does it make sense for the federal government to reward or incentivise state governments to drive higher local tax rates? From a libertarian standpoint this incentive correlates to a reduction in individual liberty. Does it suck if you live in NY, CA, NJ etc...yep, however it also provides impetus for behavior change in said states. I'm still all for a complete revocation of any federal income tax, I am also a big advocate for a massive spending reduction but you cant win elections/office/power leading with that type of honesty now on planet Earth. This tax "scheme" is less progressive than our current scheme and that is a baby step in the right direction.

  • Ariel||

    Ahh, gee guys, you focus on the relationship of taxes to the States, and you just forget the individual. Here's the hint that you individualists miss: The Republican bill removes deductions for medical expenses by the false choice of 'do you want a once-in-a-lifetime-deduction or do you want lower taxes every year' (that's a quote from the Az Republic). Individuals with chronic illnesses, individuals with chronically ill children, aren't making once-in-a-lifetime payments. They are making payments year after year.

    Ah, but the ideology says...

  • Curmudgeon44||

    In no way does this mean "most people's taxes will go up". Most people don't itemize in the first place. Of those that do, these deductions are often moot because they incur AMT.

    A few people's taxes will go up. Simplification means special interests are taken away, and this is one special interest.

  • CE||

    A tax cut for most....

    ...the House bill would force taxpayers in California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland to pay $16.7 billion more in personal income taxes in 2027 than they would under current law, while taxpayers in the other 46 states would pay $101.5 billion less. More than one-third of the cuts would flow to Texas and Florida.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion.....story.html

  • Just Say'n||

    California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland want more government- they can pay for it

  • Juice||

    I live in Maryland and I don't. Sucks to be me, I guess.

    Maybe I should move back to DC for the lower taxes (I'm not kidding).

  • KevinP||

    And they can pat themselves on the back by saying that they are paying their fair share.

  • CE||

    Actually, state income tax in California for a family earning 100K is lower than it is in South Carolina or Idaho, since California's top rates kick in at a much higher level.

    Californians and New Yorkers have more deductions because they earn higher incomes and houses cost more there.

  • BYODB||

    What a shit sandwich this is. I guess there's no one left to vote for if you want lower taxes. Fuck.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Where's the money from lower taxes going to come from? Who's going to pay for you keeping more of your own money? That's not free, you know.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Taxes after all are negative spending, so cutting taxes raises spending! DUH!

  • BYODB||

    This does appear to be the argument, or at least one of them.

    I don't mind corporate tax cuts, in fact I think they're a great idea. But apparently cutting spending is so impossible that we get to make up the difference.

    Frankly, that's relatively fair since we likely use most of those 'benefits' but the main takeaway point is that it's unnecessary unless you take current government spending as a given. Since I do not consider it that way, it enrages me.

    Simple.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The mortgage tax deduction subsidizes the housing market and needs to be done away with"

    "You can't take away my state tax deduction which subsidizes the high taxes imposed by my local legislators"

    Same people. Unreal

  • ||

    You can't take away my state tax deduction which subsidizes the high taxes imposed by my local legislators

    Because not giving is taking and not taking is giving! Today.

  • Just Say'n||

    So eliminating the mortgage tax deduction is bad too? There is chicanery in the tax system and deductions are a large part of this

  • ||

    I have mixed feeling about that one. It's not double taxation, which I feel like is what is essentially going on when state deductions are eliminated. Mortgage interest deduction is a carve-out for homeowners that feels a bit arbitrary, but I do benefit from it so I'm not going to lie and say I won't be sad to see it go.

    But the elephant in the room is that they need to cut spending. Shifting costs around and pitting us all against each other while we argue about who's taking it in the shorts in order to subsidize whom is not at all productive.

  • BYODB||


    It's not double taxation, which I feel like is what is essentially going on when state deductions are eliminated.

    It's not double taxation, it's being taxed on income that you literally will never see in the first place because it's taken out for taxes. Thus you are being taxed on 'invisible' income as if it was somehow available in the first place for you to spend, which it is not.

  • ||

    ^ That's a better way of putting it.

  • BYODB||

    Not sure if you and Rashid are the same person, despite the fact you both have the same link in your names, but I have decided that neither of you are interested in being non-assholes about whatever points you might, or might not, have.

  • ||

    On a self-awareness scale, I'm gonna give you a full 1.5 Tonys.

  • BYODB||


    I would expect you to say that after being made a fool of.

    So far, the only fool on this particular page is you. A fool tries to shut people down rather than engaging with ideas. Thus far, your main argument amounts to 'you're dumb', assuming that you're the same person as the other socks. Cute, but a fallacy at heart.

    And now, back to our regularly scheduled trolling extravaganza brought to you by 'someone who knows Tulpa's name'.

  • marshaul||

    Shifting costs around and pitting us all against each other while we argue about who's taking it in the shorts in order to subsidize whom is not at all productive.

    This is literally the primary tactic of both parties at all levels of government. Welcome to democratic republicanism...

  • Mitsima||

    "The rich need to pay their fair share!"

    "This big-ass house implies you are, 'the rich', cough it up."

    "I meant people richer than me!"

  • ||

    A study recently showed that most people agree on a couple of basic principles:

    1) I pay too much in taxes.
    2) People who make more than me should pay more in taxes.

    These two principles alone explain most people's political stances.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    You know what's weird? State taxes are imposed. Mortgages aren't.

    Sorry you're poor.

  • Just Say'n||

    You know what else is weird? Voters choose the politicians that are giving them the high taxes, which also lead to higher housing costs.

    Sorry, you suck at tax policy

  • Hail Rataxes||

    No they don't, sorry you suck at political science.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Go fuck yourself, Tulpa.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Also, higher housing costs tend to mean...it's more valuable to live somewhere. There's not some magical "higher cost of living." People just don't tend to want to live where you live, because it's less prosperous. Which is why those states aren't net federal taxpayers and need to be subsidized.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes, because higher property taxes do not translate into higher property costs and there is no such thing as rent control. No one wants to live in Florida and Texas. Also, you're an idiot

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Compared to CA and NY, few people want to live in TX or FL. Is that even arguable?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Eh... If we're talking total pop, then yeah, California is still king at 39 million. But Texas (27 million) and Florida (20 million) are catching up. New York is also at 20 million, but less then Florida. They just look the same cause rounding.

    When it comes to net migration it's more complicated, but the bottom line is that while all four are growing, Florida and Texas are growing faster.

    And if course,*why* people move is always complicated.

    So I'd hesitate to draw conclusions based on available data.

  • Flinch||

    Depends on net worth and income level. If you are a high income earner, TX is awesome: your taxes are a function of how much house you want to chew on (voluntarily). If you want to enjoy a multi million dollar mansion and protect it from creditors [in event of bankruptcy], then FL is a great gig. You get to enjoy your mansion in perpetuity, as long as property taxes are paid.

  • Flinch||

    So... you know a way out of effectively renting your property from the state in perpetuity with no contract? Do tell.
    Property taxes are idiotic to me, as it is people that need services - property does not. Roads, sewage, trash, electric... that's all people. If only we could get a constitutional amendment to outlaw property taxes... because property is not a crime. What to replace it? An occupancy tax, based on number of bedrooms & baths [or number of employees in the case of a business], not square footage or other things is appropriate. Whether its lush gardens or a car up on blocks... is irrelevant.

  • CE||

    Texans in Congress: "No way you can deduct state income taxes!" (Since we don't have a state income tax in TX)

    Texans in Congress to themselves: "But we can keep our property tax deductions, up to $10K!" (Yeah, that's fair.)

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    Exactly! So called libertarians hate deductions unless it's THEIR deductions. There is a solution to living in a high tax state...move. Half of NJ and NY have moved to the southeast and out west to states with lower taxes. Why do you think so many athletes and celebrities "live" in Florida? Is it a perfect solution? No, but it's not like those states just started increasing taxes last year. I feel no more sympathy for people who have chosen to live in high tax states who complain about taxes than someone who buys a house by the airport who complains about noise.

  • Rhywun||

    caps the deduction for property taxes

    Why is this not eliminated?

  • ctylerliberty||

    Because they want to give tax breaks to the middle class, because the middle class are all property owners remember?

  • Rhywun||

    Not in those high-tax states that were mentioned. Not "all" middle class are property owners in any state, in fact.

  • ctylerliberty||

    Sorry, that was a sorry attempt at sarcasm....

    I live in California, average price of a home is 500k... Rich people own property more often than the middle class obviously.

  • BYODB||

    Since you aren't 'rich' unless you own real assets in my book, this seems to check out.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Because people who live in states with low income taxes still have property taxes.

  • Just Say'n||

    Ummmm....are you really suggesting that this benefits low tax states more than high tax states like Illinois and New Jersey who have the two highest property taxes in the country? Sorry that your state can't manage its finances. Keep voting Democrat!

  • ctylerliberty||

    When you remove state tax deductions you are basically screwing anyone who doesn't own property in those high tax states though...

    removing all state deductions unless you own property? Haha so more tax breaks for rich and well off, less tax breaks for struggling 20-30 year olds who can't afford property already.

  • Brendan||

    In an ideal world, they would then begin questioning the taxes they pay in those states.

  • ctylerliberty||

    Except property taxes you mean?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    are you really suggesting that this benefits low tax states more than high tax states like Illinois and New Jersey who have the two highest property taxes in the country?

    No, I'm suggesting red state congressmen didn't want to screw red states and did want to screw blue ones.

  • ctylerliberty||

    Which is obvious based on the tax structure that they plan on implementing...

  • CE||

    Bingo.

  • marshaul||

    What I want to know is, why the fuck would you still be living in CA, NY, NJ or MD unless you want to pay more in taxes?

    No, it's not automatically or inherently "more valuable" to live in CA. I tried it, and I quit.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Hi Tulpa, go fuck yourself

  • CE||

    So Texas and Florida can get a big tax cut, subsidized by California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.

  • marshaul||

    Seems fair to me. I get shafted enough by the congressvermin from those states in other arenas.

  • Rich||

    The House plan cuts taxes by roughly $1.5 trillion over the next decade

    , and, one surmises, cuts spending by roughly $0.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Don't worry, Tulpa, that's exactly how we feel about you.

  • BYODB||

    Can you quote where I said 'everyone else is Tulpa'? Maybe even link it?

    Not that it matters, I've been posting here almost every day for years. ^_-

  • ||

    I said it. Therefore you said it.

    It's like you don't even Tulpa.

  • BYODB||

    I...do not. Thankfully the schizophrenia that runs in my family skipped me.

  • Brendan||

    Given how many lunatics here are against it, I'm thinking this is probably a decent bill.

  • CE||

    ...would condense the current seven individual income tax brackets into four while expanding the child tax credit and doubling the standard deduction.

    Don't forget removing the personal exemptions, which wipe out the standard deduction increase if you have 2 or more kids.

  • AndyWingall||

    "it does not repeal Obamacare's individual mandate to purchase health coverage"

    Probably the most important tax reform needed, and they failed. Why is the GOP afraid to touch Obamacare? They're labeled as racist child molesters no matter what they do, so why not do what their constituents voted them into office for? I suspect maybe some palm greasing by the insurance companies.

  • ||

    so why not do what their constituents voted them into office for?

    That's why Senate Republicans are proposing it, but they're not doing what their constituents voted them into office for.

    Their constituents wanted a repeal of the ACA. Repealing the mandate without repealing guaranteed issue is not a repeal of the ACA. It's taking the ACA and making it an even bigger disaster than it already is.

  • Flinch||

    If the comments of senator McCain [calling constituents "hobbits"] is any indication, the senate has zero concern for for anyone not lined up to give them tomorrows free lunch and a shot of booze.

  • PTSD||

    So, I've gotta ask, since it's the most discussed issue in this thread: Who the fuck is Tulpa?

  • ||

    He's a troll who used to hang out here about 10 years ago who would keep showing up under different handles and would engage people in pointless arguments because he got a kick out of stirring people up.

    There're particular commentators who believe every new troll is a new Tulpa sockpuppet, and it's become something of a running joke. Whether or not Tulpa has actually been here at all in the last decade is anyone's guess, but "Fuck off, Tulpa" has become a standard dismissal line.

  • Eeyore||

    Why did they have to subsidize having children? Why should breeders get a tax break?

  • Jerryskids||

    For the same reason home owners get a tax break. If you've got kids and a mortgage you're kinda tied down in one place. The shepherd knows where to find you when he needs a new wool sweater or a pot of mutton stew.

  • marshaul||

    Anyone with more than 2 kids is a fuckin' idiot anyway. They're not that great, and your genes aren't important.

  • Flinch||

    Here's one idea: in the US, we don't adhere to the old world model of your children being your retirement plan. We are able to save and invest for old age [mostly], and have a fairly new historical opportunity only enjoyed by royalty in past millenia: not burdening our children.
    Sad to say, the regressives among us are trying to bring that back, but freedom is a timeless battle.

  • Flinch||

    Two thoughts on why we should expect this "reform" to be fakery. First, is the tone set by the calender - record breaking vacation time as a primary method of stiffarming the presidents agenda [good or bad]. Second is the turds they wrapped in gold foil and pretended they were working on repealing the ACA - a system so bad, healthcare has only survived the past year by having both insurers and policy holders gifted "assistance" from the treasury. If that doesn't smell like a bear trap to you, wake up and smell the power play: Pelosi and company didn't care what it cost, only that they get to make the public dance on command. The GOP has fought hard to preserve this ill wind we know as Obamacare.
    So what of the hapless GOP that continues to pursue a political existence without a philosophy of governance? Well, in the case of "tax reform", we can expect nothing less than the rearranging of chairs on the Titanic. They are so stupid, they thought creating a new super [record breaking] tax bracket for millionaires would prevent democrats from playing the "fair share/tax cuts for the rich" card. That's a reflexive response that occurs without reading any proposed bill or listening to any arguments - it's automatic, and a glance at truth is never considered. I expect that whatever is passed, 60% of the middle class gets a tax hike.

  • jbsnc||

    Sen. Corker: A recent static CBO projection of a proposed tax reform showed a $1.5 trillion (or $1.7 trillion) deficit over 10 years. We've been rolling along during the Obama administration with yearly deficits of $1 trillion and nearly 10 trillion deficits during his reign. Why no dynamic projections but only the CBO's static projection? A very rough analogy would be showing sun shine increasing the atmosphere's temperature, period. In reality over millions of years it added plant and animal life by the trillions. Why can't our hopelessly politicized, self empowering Congress get together and make a statement about dynamic vs. static projections? Further, how does this static projection factor in the reported $100 trillion in current unfunded liabilities? $100 trillion and it isn't there, is it?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online