back to article Republican tax bill ready to rescue hard-up tech giants, struggling rich

Wealthy individuals and businesses can direct their underlings to ice the Dom Perignon and fuel their private jets in celebration of the US Senate's expected passage of the Republican tax bill on Wednesday. It would have happened Tuesday but for a procedural problem that required two provisions to be removed from the bill. The …

  1. Jonathan Schwatrz
    WTF?

    Hate much?

    So, corporations legally keeping their funds outside America = bad, but then establishing tax rules that encourage the repatriation of that cash also = bad because it somehow doesn't punish "the rich"? It seems that whatever Trump proposed the journalistic population of San Fran was going to whine.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Hate much?

      Why would corporations repatriate money and be taxed on it - even at 15% ?

      At the moment Apple can borrow money from Apple (Bermuda) and pay 15 % interest, which it gets a tax write-off on, and then us that to buy back its own shares.

      Somehow this will benefit the average American by $4000 / year

      1. Richard Plinston Silver badge

        Re: Hate much?

        > Somehow this will benefit the average American by $4000 / year

        There was a claim about $4,000 average, but it wasn't about the 'average American', it was the 'average tax cut'.

        If there are 250 households, one gets a cut of $1,000,000 and 249 get nothing, then the average is $4,000 per household.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Hate much?

        "Why would corporations repatriate money and be taxed on it"

        so they can effectively make the money WORK [and earn more] instead of [effectively] being STUFFED INTO A MATTRESS. Stagnant money is bad. Working capital is good. That sort of thing.

        I would've made the corporate tax ZERO. I also would FLATTEN the income tax so everone pays the SAME RATE [with no deductions other than 'how many people in your household'], no special rates for married/single, no special deductions for children over others, ALL income treated the same, and a large enough personal deduction so that "poor" individuals pay NO federal tax.

        But no politician has the TESTICULAR FORTITUDE to actually do that.

        And what we have here is a "good first step". I expect even those whiners that can't deduct their state/local taxes [as much] any more, who NOW have higher 'effective' tax rates [they're all "super rich" anyway, not middle class, so class envy types SHOULD be happy they're getting 'soaked'], will actually take home MORE money than before because of the economic boon. So, in reality, it would help THEM too.

        What I did _NOT_ see in the article is the repeal of the [unconstitutional] INDIVIDUAL MANDATE to PURCHASE health insurance that meets certain [ridiculous] requirements as specified by OBAKA-"Care". Buhbye!! THAT is probably the BEST news [to me].

        In any case, "nice first step". I hope to see MORE of the SAME from con-grab over the next few years.

        Oh - I also predict that the UK will benefit indirectly from this, as well as everyone ELSE in the world. You should be happy! "A rising tide lifts all boats". When the USA does well, so does EVERYONE ELSE. This is why I hated the globalist "hamper the USA so the others can catch up" approach. That's really wat it was, ya know? A nice recession followed THAT approach. I think the 80's method is BETTER. And so it will be, AGAIN, in the late twenty-teens and 20's

    2. Dinsdale247

      Re: Hate much?

      I worked in the Cayman Islands for 5 years. The entire world financial system is a disgusting abuse of, well, everything. Repatriation of funds is an inevitability; doing it on the books at least means there is a chance of re-investment.

      Stop using banks, stop buying from corporations. That, or we should stop complaining because it's our own fault. (Don't give me smug European non-sense, I saw you drink that Coca-Cola while you were playing on your iphone).

    3. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: Hate much?

      No, giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyone else is what's bad. And that's what this tax plan appears to be.

  2. cirby

    Yeah, that $1000 or so per year I'm going to get to keep sure makes me sad.

    Hey, waitaminute...

    1. BillG Silver badge
      Angel

      Math

      I did the math, using the just the straight tax tables, for the average techie making $100K filing single, taxes drop from the present $21,036.75 to $13,979 annually.

      Personally I don't give a damn what the "rich" do with their money. Call me selfish, but I care about MY money and I taking care of MY family.

      1. strum Silver badge

        Re: Math

        >but I care about MY money and I taking care of MY family.

        But not about your grandchildren, who are going to have to pay for this (eventually).

      2. ecofeco Silver badge

        Re: Math

        The average techie does not make 100K. Not even close.

      3. ckm5

        Re: Math

        The side effect of this is that your health insurance is likely to double or triple.

        Why?

        Because there is no longer an individual mandate and programs like Medicare are going to be cut, thus massively increasing healthcare costs overall.

        And most of the deductions for medical care have been eliminated. Never mind the cap on your mortgage deduction. Whatever you do, just don't get sick until a sane group of politicians actually decide they care about middle income Americans.

        I'm in the top tax bracket, so my taxes will be going down enormously - at least 7%, probably more as I will restructure payouts from my company to give myself a roughly 20% tax cut (from 39.7% to 20% passthrough). I still think this whole thing blows.

        Basically, anyone middle class in a very affluent (e.g. successful, growing, job-creating) areas is being screwed over, and, if you are a millennial (or younger), you are doubly screwed. It may not be clear right now, but creating a $1.5 trillion deficit is just a excuse to cut that much out of the federal budget. And if you don't think that's going to affect anyone making less than $500k, I have a bridge to sell you.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: Math

          "The side effect of this is that your health insurance is likely to double or triple"

          FUD. WRONG. CLUELESS. prices/costs already _DID_ that because of OBAKA-"Care".

          I will continue to *REFUSE* to purchase insurance UNTIL it becomes "affordable". for ME. with the features _I_ want, and ONLY what _I_ want to pay for. Until then, if I need something, there's a "doc-in-a-box" a mile from my house, in a shopping center. I've used those before. They're reasonably priced, and it's easier to just use a credit card or cash than to deal with insurance-style bureaucracy.

          It is _NOT_ the business of a _GUMMINT_ to _FORCE_ me to _BUY_ something! it's un-American, too, to even THINK that way. What part of "freedom" includes GUMMINT FORCING YOU TO BUY SOMETHING??? [oh, "for your own good", I forgot, duuuhhh... </sarcasm>]

          1. elip

            Re: Math

            Bob, shhhhh! Don't tell them how the private insurance companies got that provision added to the ACA, or who came out of a meeting with a somewhat concerned United Healthcare CEO, proudly proclaiming "Single payer is off the table!".

          2. Comments are attributed to your handle
            Paris Hilton

            Re: Math

            'FUD. WRONG. CLUELESS. prices/costs already _DID_ that because of OBAKA-"Care".'

            Last I checked, just because something already happened doesn't mean it can't happen again. Want to try your comment again with an actual explanation for why ckm5 is wrong? I am genuinely interested to hear it.

      4. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: Math

        First, if you're making $100k filing single, you're well above middle class income -- you're at the very lower edge of the group of people who the tax plan is intended to benefit.

        Second, the tax break you're anticipating is a temporary one, as opposed to the permanent one that the truly wealthy and corporations are getting.

        Third, if you're only looking at your tax bill rather than the impact on the totality of your expenditures, you're falling for the scam. Look at the overall impact and you will likely see a very different picture.

  3. Long John Baldrick

    Thomas Claburn - Define Wealthy

    Just who is wealthy? And how does wealth figure into income tax? Is an individual making 250,000 per annum a high earner? Or 10,000,000? A sports figure such as a footballer may make a tidy sum while playing for the few years that they play but then that income evaporates afterwards. It is times like these that I miss Tim Worstall for information and analysis that makes me think. I may not agree or start yelling and disturb the cats, but he does make me think.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Thomas Claburn - Define Wealthy

      Is an individual making 250,000 per annum a high earner? Or 10,000,000?

      Aim higher than 10M and make sure said individual does not do anything particularly productive like run/own companies that provide services or build goods. Think real estate scum or people whose entire investment portfolio is run by someone else on their behalf. The Golfogarchy. They can all declare themselves pass-through entities and pay < 5% effective tax rate.

      Anyone who actually does something economically productive benefits very little.

      As far as company funds repatriation, the current standard arrangements for loans, payments for IPR, etc are still more tax efficient so any funds to come this route will be for PR purposes. Majority will stay abroad.

    2. Tim Worstal

      Re: Thomas Claburn - Define Wealthy

      Wealth and income is one of those difficult problems to which there is no correct answer. Take our footballer, makes a mint for a decade, then lives off it. If we tax both wealth and income then that pattern of lifetime earnings pays more tax than earning the same total amount over a lifetime but at a lower annual rate.

      Is that a fair way to do it? Dunno myself but it is a problem, one with perhaps no right answer.

      My own prejudice (and it is prejudice, this is not an economic point, it's a gut feel) is that people on less than median earnings should not be paying income tax. Pigou taxes (carbon, congestion etc) yes, sin taxes yes, VAT even, but not income taxes. Those on above median should be paying for society. There's a limit on how much you can get out of them meaning that government will be smaller than it is now. But, you know, there's prejudice for you.

      Re Trump's tax bill. Some bollocks in it, the cut on pass through entities is bollocksy in a bad, bad way. They already pay much less than other forms of business organisation. The personal tax cuts being time limited is a result of the silly way they measure. It's the effect upon the deficit in a decade's time which is used as the benchmark. Thus tax cuts (like some of Bush's) have a roughly decade sunset clause. The clause to benefit Trump - weeeell....that's much more like making sure than an extant break (depreciation on buildings and yes, buildings do depreciate, even if land doesn't) stays on the code rather than inventing something new.

      Good stuff too. Doubling the standard allowance takes many more on less than median earnings out of the Federal tax net (which is largely, not exclusively, taxes on incomes, sales and property tax are State or even more local) which accords with my above prejudice. Limiting the mortgage deduction is good. Reducing the state tax allowance is good (for you can deduct your state and local taxes from your taxable income, thus saving your marginal Federal tax rate on what you've paid more locally. This means that high tax states are being subsidised by lower tax ones at the Federal level, shouldn't be happening at all. People want a high tax state in NY? Great, you pay for it, why should Kentucky?).

      All of those above are unremittingly good.

      There are good arguments either way about the corporate tax cut. The US rate is waaaay too high (even if we're going to commit the mistake of thinking that companies pay tax, rather than the true mixture of shareholders and workers in some portion). You have to add the dividend tax rate (15%) to the corporate income tax rate of 35% (because dividends can only be paid from tax paid profits, that offshore cash etc cannot be used) and standard economics says returns to capital should be taxed lower, not higher, than labour income.

      But what's really interesting here is that no economist - not even Paul Krugman who really doesn't like the idea at all - is saying that it won't boost growth. It will. Absolutely. The argument instead is over "How Much?" Some trivial amount we don't care about while the plutocrats make out like bandits (copyright P Krugman) or a substantial amount that will benefit all (Trump and friends and a few others but not many).

      If the state and mortgage deductions had been abolished overall I would have supported this as being excellent, whatever else was going on. Limiting them is a benefit but, you know, Meh for the overall.

      1. Long John Baldrick

        Re: Thomas Claburn - Define Wealthy

        Tim,

        Thanks for making my Christmas. You have given me something to ponder other than how much snow will fall.

      2. Philip Stott

        Re: Thomas Claburn - Define Wealthy

        Tim,

        Thank you for that. Would just like to say that I miss your regular contributions to The Reg too.

        I can only hope that the lack is caused by your time and energy being taken up by managing the massive profits from your rare earth metals bet.

        Merry Christmas.

    3. ckm5

      Re: Thomas Claburn - Define Wealthy

      It's probably easiest to define as what percent your earnings fall into. I would argue that anyone in the top 2% of earnings is 'rich' (over $400k/year in the US)+. Of course, a lot depends on geography as well, but I have yet to see a geographically weighted earnings percentage chart.

      Just as a side note, in San Francisco a family of four is considered below poverty if they earn less than about $105k*, which in some parts of the US would make them rich....

      + http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/index.html

      * see https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2017/2017summary.odn

  4. J.Smith

    Well, the nation is ruled by billionaires and their chronies, so it would be rude not to line their substantial pockets further. What is government fo anyhowr, other than to enrich the rich?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Since you obviously don't know the answer, I suggest you do some reading before attempting to comment again. Oh, and learn to spell while you're at it.

    2. PhilipN Silver badge

      “chronies”

      Unix programmer whose typing muscles have built-in macros which he forgot to switch off?

      1. Stoneshop Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: “chronies”

        Unix programmer whose typing muscles have built-in macros which he forgot to switch off?

        Then it would have come out as 'crontabies'.

      2. Alistair Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: “chronies”

        @philipn

        no, warcraft player typo.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just how much of those investments in infrastructure and manufacturing go towards automation will be interesting to see. In which case, the job market is going to sour farther than current workforce participation numbers already do.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't get it

    I'm sure I'm going to be downvoted into oblivion since saying anything positive around here these days seems to be frowned upon, but...

    The source quoted in the article says "increasing overall average after-tax income by 2.2 percent", and yet the entire article is full of snarkiness about how great is it for the companies. Isn't having 2.2% more income great for EVERYBODY?

    1. Random Q Hacker

      Re: I don't get it

      It depends. If we all get 2.2% more income at the expense of desperately needed social and medical programs, it would be wrong. If the 2.2% bump is just a bribe so we ignore a much higher percentage going to billionaires, that too is wrong. If it were 2.2% coming from government waste, the war on drugs, and efficiency gains, then it would be great.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I don't get it

        > "It depends. If we all get 2.2% more income at the expense of desperately needed social and medical programs, it would be wrong."

        Aren't all taxpayer funded social and medical freebies "desperately needed" at ALL times? By your logic we would NEVER get a tax cut, and the only moral thing to do would be to double.. no, triple the tax rates, because the "most vulnerable" amongst us are so very, very desperate.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: I don't get it

          "Aren't all taxpayer funded social and medical freebies "desperately needed" at ALL times?"

          To some rabid lefties, yes. To most reasonable people, no. But there ARE some core social programs that ARE needed at all times and need to be funded. Cutting taxes for a large majority of people, or even for everyone is good. Cutting taxes so that the richest of the rich are the biggest benefactors - Not good.

          And I say 'Not good' not from an ideological point of view, but a pragmatic one, in 2 points:

          1) "trickle-down economics" does not work. It was tried in the 30s and resulted in spectacular market blowout and depression. It was tried by Reagan and ended in the end-of-80s recession. Republicans refuse to admit it, but it doesn't work. And Clinton's minor tax increases resulted in a booming economy and a budget surplus that was then wanked away by Bush II

          2) In the last 8-10 years of growth, the richest of the rich have already grown far richer, raking in almost all of the recent growth, while most people saw their incomes flatline even as the economy recovered. The playing field is already heavily tilted towards the richest of the rich, it shouldn't be tilted even further their way

          1. phuzz Silver badge

            Re: I don't get it

            "To some rabid lefties, yes. To most reasonable people, no."

            Sure, an individual might not need healthcare every day (although some do), but across an entire nation, healthcare will be required every minute of every day.

          2. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: I don't get it

            ""trickle-down economics" does not work"

            ugh. You sound like a Ross Perot supporter...

            Keynsian economics: FAIL

            Supply-side economics: works EVERY TIME it is tried! JFK, Regan, Trump.

            Socialist/communist/fascist economics: don't even get me started on that one...

            1. HereIAmJH

              Re: I don't get it

              Here is the problem with supply side economics and every first year econ student knows its. The basic fact of the supply and demand curve.

              Lets look at how they say trickle down is supposed to work:

              Give businesses more capital and they will hire people to increase production.

              But increasing production increases supply, and increasing supply with a static demand means prices have to go DOWN. No business is going to invest in new employees and capital just to see revenue per widget drop. So they will sit on the cash, buy back shares, give bigger bonuses to C-level management, or make financial investments.

              You have to work on the demand side because increasing demand always increases supply side revenue. Don't believe me, it's Christmas, look at the prices of the hot toys on eBay.

              If the demand is there, businesses will increase production without external forces. Or their competitors (existing or new ones) will.

            2. jmch Silver badge

              Re: I don't get it

              "Supply-side economics: works EVERY TIME it is tried! JFK, Regan, Trump."

              I guess that depends what you mean by "works". Supply-side economics "works" as intended by giving the rich more money. But for me what "works" bst is a slowly but steadily growing economy, maybe with some wobbles but no major crashes, where both average and median incomes steadily rise (inequality is growing less).

              Supply-side economics might make an initial economic improvement (enjoyed mostly by the richest) but results after a few years in a big crash and long recession / depression. Happened in the 30s, happened with with Reagan, happened with Bush II (I don't really know about JFK).

              The very fact that you are claiming it "works" with Trump before the cuts have even come into effect shows that for you this is a matter of faith, not evidence.

        2. netminder

          Re: I don't get it

          Social Security and Medicare are paid for by wage earners. Every paycheck up to $108k a year has deductions for them. This is cutting taxes on the top 5% while stealing what is in truth an insurance payment (for retirement care) from workers. It has been proven over and over these last 40 years, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, they do not create jobs and they do cause worsening income inequity.

        3. strum Silver badge

          Re: I don't get it

          >By your logic we would NEVER get a tax cut,

          Not if it blows up the deficit, or slashes essential services, no.

    2. Lysenko

      Re: I don't get it

      Isn't having 2.2% more income great for EVERYBODY?

      Not if you're doing it by taking out loans that the following generation of taxpayers are going to have to pay for. It's quite ironic that (many) Republicans are fixated on the "rights of the unborn" except when it comes to adding over $1T to the deficit tomorrow so they can party like drunken sailors on their golf courses today.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I don't get it

        Dude, are you aware of how many trillions of dollars were added to the US debt during the last admin? I'd guess not, or you wouldn't make such an asinine comment.

        Also, when an economy grows the debt shrinks, something that NEVER happened under Obama...

        1. Lysenko

          Re: I don't get it

          Dude, are you aware of how many trillions of dollars were added to the US debt during the last admin? I'd guess not, or you wouldn't make such an asinine comment.

          Also, when an economy grows the debt shrinks, something that NEVER happened under Obama...

          You walked into a lamp post yesterday so you are obliged to do so again today because ... precedent? Tradition? Bone-headed stupidity?

          You're so locked into your little dichotomy that you assume that everyone who criticises Republican legislation must be a Democrat and consequently a supporter of the Obama Executive, even though the Executive branch isn't empowered to control taxation and spending (other than vetoing it) which makes Obama (and Trump) essentially irrelevant in this context..

          Democrats want to borrow and tax so that the government can spend whereas Republicans want to borrow and cut tax so that the electorate can spend. What if you're a fiscal conservative? What if "borrow" is the consistent feature that concerns you so you want to both cut spending and raise taxes? Too complicated, right? Reasoned analysis be damned. All we need to know is whether Satan Obama would approve and that determines which side we're on.

        2. DougS Silver badge

          Re: I don't get it

          Yes, tons of debt was added during Obama's administration. All the more reason to actually CARE about it now, and not decide that we should add another $1.5T to it on the hope that economic growth will magically pay for it (which it provably didn't for Bush's tax cuts)

          The CBO already estimates based on Trump's budget wanting big defense spending increases that the deficit will top $1T per year in FY 2021, and continue to grow beyond that. If he's in office eight years (which thankfully looks extremely unlikely) he would easily beat Obama's record for adding to the debt.

          Also don't forget, if the economic growth being wishfully projected by republicans comes to pass, interest rates will have to rise, and fast. Then the interest expense on our outstanding debt starts rising FAST so strong economic growth could actually be worse for us than the tepid growth we've had the past seven years.

          Trump knows a thing or two about interest rate increases causing problems for outstanding debt, it caused multiple bankruptcies in his businesses in the 90s where he was saved only by huge loans and guarantees from his father - that part is a matter of public record. There are also rumors his entire empire came very close to going under in the aftermath of 2008 - and that perhaps that's the reason he 1) won't release his tax returns and 2) he was rescued by dirty Russian money which is what enables Putin pull Trump's puppet strings.

        3. netminder

          Re: I don't get it

          Ah, so you are an idiot incapable of actually understanding what actually happened outside your wingnut bubble. Thanks for making that clear so we all can discount anything you say and ignore you.

        4. strum Silver badge

          Re: I don't get it

          >Dude, are you aware of how many trillions of dollars were added to the US debt during the last admin?

          Are you aware that most of it was due to the financial crash, which happened on Shrub's watch?

          1. DougS Silver badge

            @strum

            Claiming the explosion in the deficit at the start of Obama's term was due to the crash of 2008 that happened during Bush's watch goes in one ear and out the other of hyperpartisans like Big John. He'll tell you the crash was the democrats fault for mortgage policies started under Clinton in the early 90s even though Bush had been president for 8 years and could have reversed them if they were so dangerous. He'll also tell you 9/11 was Clinton's fault, even though Bush was in office when it happened. But had another 9/11 type event happened in 2009 it would have been 100% Obama's fault and not Bush's!

            He'll give Trump full credit for this year's growth in the stock market - and probably for last year's growth too (he'd probably tell you because the market expected/hoped Trump would win) but if the market crashes next year it will be Obama's or the democrats fault somehow.

            Basically anything good = republicans get the credit, anything bad = democrats get the blame. That's seriously how guys like that think - but what's worse they really, truly and honestly BELIEVE it!

    3. Filippo

      Re: I don't get it

      But it's not 2.2% more income for everybody; not sustainably. Not even nation-states can create money from nothing.

      In a few years, in order to prevent the deficit from exploding, they will have to raise taxes again or cut something or both. At that point, if you are in the groups which get hit by the tax hike and/or public spending cut, then the net consequence of this tax reform will likely put you in a far worse situation than before.

      Or, of course, they could just let the deficit grow; this will push the problem on to the next generation and make it much worse.

      Unless the tax cuts result in such a big GDP increase that they pay for themselves, but that's crystal-ball logic. You can believe it, or not, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

      1. elip

        Re: I don't get it

        "Or, of course, they could just let the deficit grow; this will push the problem on to the next generation and make it much worse."

        This, this right here is all we've ever done, and all we'll ever continue to do. Just check out the debt charts and you can clearly see every and each time the debt "ceiling" was hit, and then subsequently lifted (rinse, repeat). It will not end, until everyone realizes that we print money and the dollar is worth fuck-all.. or we just do what Japan's been doing for the last few years. :-)

    4. netminder

      Re: I don't get it

      You don't get averages? If Bill Gates and I were in a room the average net worth of everyone in that room would be 10s of billions of dollars. The average savings of 2.2% for you will be substantially less when Mr. Gates gets his 12% reduction.

      Add that this is going to blow a USD1.5 trillion hole in the budget that they intend to use as an excuse to steal Social Security and Medicare money (money that working people are paying in every paycheck for) to try and fill and that pittance that is your end is not going to pay the rent. Or anything really.

    5. handleoclast
      Boffin

      Re: I don't get it

      The source quoted in the article says "increasing overall average after-tax income by 2.2 percent", and yet the entire article is full of snarkiness about how great is it for the companies. Isn't having 2.2% more income great for EVERYBODY?

      See that bit you quoted about it being an average of 2.2%?

      It isn't distributed evenly. It's distributed unevenly at first. Later on, some provisions expire and then it will be distributed very unevenly. There are also other provisions that are set to expire that will redress the balance somewhat, but the Republicans in Congress have all cheerily admitted that those "temporary" provisions will stay in place as long as they have control, because they'll keep renewing them.

      Oh, and there are tax cuts for the rich. Big tax cuts. But if you're rich because you own companies rather than rich because you run companies, you get even bigger tax cuts. So they're not giving an incentive to the CEOs, they're giving incentives to the parasitical major shareholders. If you work your balls off running a big company you get a tax cut. The guy who owns the company and does fuck-all gets a much bigger tax cut.

      Oh, and the property/state tax thing adversely affects those in states with high property/state taxes. They won't be able to write off as much of those against federal taxes. Big John and bombastic bob will be along to say that's a good thing, because why should people in Shithole, Alabama subsidize people in New York? Except. New York pays more in federal taxes than it receives (as do most Democratic states). Alabama receives more in federal taxes than it receives (as do most Republican states). So New York already subsidizes Alabama, but now New Yorkers are going to subsidize Alabamians even more.

      Oh, and the estate tax thing affects only the incredibly rich.

      So yes, it's 2.2% on average. Right now, but not in future years. And the vast bulk of that will end up in the pockets of 0.1% if the population.

      Do you get it now?

      How about Senator Bob Corker saying he was going to vote against the bill because it would balloon the deficit and Corker is very much against increasing the deficit. Then a provision got added to give more breaks to real estate companies. Then Bob Corker changed his mind for no discernible reason and voted for the bill. It's pure coincidence that he owns a very big real estate company.

      Do you get it now?

      The maths behind saying the bill will only add $1.5 trillion to the deficit is based on a very unrealistic assumption for growth that sane economists everywhere (and even some of the insane ones at the Chicago School of Economics) say cannot happen.

      Do you get it now?

      It was written in secret and rammed through Congress with almost no debate, because if the public had chance to learn the full implications they'd have been hanging Congresscritters from lamp posts.

      Do you get it now?

      1. jmch Silver badge

        Re: I don't get it

        @handleoclast - with you on pretty much everything you said, except this:

        "not giving an incentive to the CEOs, they're giving incentives to the parasitical major shareholders. If you work your balls off running a big company you get a tax cut. The guy who owns the company and does fuck-all gets a much bigger tax cut."

        For a ton of small and medium businesses, the owner IS the CEO and sometimes also CFO, CIO, general manager, tea-lady and janitor. I do not in any way begrudge them their well-deserved tax break, given that company tax in US is (was) much higher than in many other parts of the world.

        With respect to the 'owners' of large companies, sure there are many investors raking in a windfall, but keep in mind that a significant portion of those investors are pension funds and mutual funds hat are a large chunk of life's savings of the working class

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: I don't get it

        *ahem*

        @handleoclast

        rich people (and corporations) don't just stuff their mattresses with extra money when they earn it [exception: expatriated money stuffed into offshore banks, waiting for lower tax rates so it can be re-patriated].

        they SPEND IT! You know, on houses, cars, boats, planes, vacations, "things"... and they HIRE people! "Hey I have more money this year, let's hire a contractor/butler/cook/driver/gardner/whatever - or invest venture capital into a NEW BUSINESS, because I can RISK IT now!"

        (and of course, THAT creates JOBS and boosts the economy). So let rich people KEEP what they earn, because it's GOOD for EVERYONE when they do!

        Do you get it now?

        1. DougS Silver badge

          @bombastic bob

          Calling Trump's tax cuts "supply side" is laughable. Reagan really did reform the tax system, and cut rates significantly while closing loopholes which made things more equitable all around. Trump's tax cuts are concentrated almost totally on corporations, when there is zero evidence that giving corporations more money will cause them to hire more people or give raises - just look at the crickets when Gary Cohn was addressing a roomful of CEOs a month ago and he asked for them to raise their hands if they they were going to use the windfall to hire more people or increase investment and only a few did causing him to ask "where's the rest?"

          A couple companies offered well-timed "we're giving workers $1000 bonuses thanks to the tax cut", one of them being AT&T. Then the next day (today) AT&T announced they were laying off 700 installation techs. Because that's the thing, companies only pay workers enough to hire/keep them, they aren't going to pay them more just because they can afford it. They only hire enough workers to do the work they need done, they aren't going to hire extra workers just because they can afford it. The tax cuts will go toward stock buybacks to raise their stock price, so that the executives who are compensated based on the stock price either directly or indirectly can get richer.

          Even Laffer conceded that his curve on a napkin claiming tax cuts will increase economic growth enough to pay for themselves was written in the late 70s when the top tax rate was 70%, and wouldn't hold at significantly lower rates.

        2. CarbonLifeForm

          Re: I don't get it

          The rich arent also just rich guys and gals spending their money on luxuries. Many of them own business. CBS ran a study on three families - single mother, dual income no kids college professors, and another couple who owned a company.

          All got money back of course. The single mom's refund was the size of her paycheck ( she assumed she'd be owing more, not getting a paycheck sized bonus).

          The DINKS got O (1000) dollars back, think 3K.

          The business owner couple got 25K.

          Horrors. Damn rich people. But these aren't idle rich people like the Kardashians. They owned i think a construction company. They were deeply shocked, as like everyone there it had been carefully explained to them by our media that the tax cut would raise taxes, on all except the true idle rich, because Trump.

          So the couple decided to build a money pit and wallow in gold bullion a la Scrooge McDuck.

          NO!!!!!

          Our following of *idle* rich pseudo aristocrats has programmed us to expect all rich people are wankers who blow their money on stupid s%1t.

          They looked at each other and said 'we can actually do that expansion.

          But they must've lied for the camera. Money Pit!!!!

    6. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: I don't get it

      " Isn't having 2.2% more income great for EVERYBODY?"

      Not if your other expenses increase more than 2.2% as a result.

    7. Citizens untied

      Re: I don't get it

      No. Much like trickle down has been proven to be specious at best, down right destructive at worst, and since the world seems to revolve around lowest common denominator democracy; the fallacy "innovation" depends on investment is effective fear mongering, designed to keep the "let em eat cake" people safe from the rest of us, by sustaining the illusion that their consumer products are essential, most simply are not .

      Progress will occur in all respects whether or not some asshole gets exorbitantly rich from it. I am confident of this. Good ideas are a currency all their own, and actually have more to do with nature than dollars or pounds.

      What is really happening is that the people most responsible for the lack of sustainability of the current world are not content to steal your present, but your future as well, and has always been the case, winners and losers are basically defined by whether or not they survive.

  7. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Wages

    Finally Apple will be able to afford 1.7% rise in salary for its poor workers

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's Robin Hood

    Not 'Robbing Hood'

    Steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

    America!

    1. W4YBO

      Re: It's Robin Hood

      Since you apparently haven't read/seen Robin Hood lately, here's a reminder. He steals from the government and gives back to those they took it from, the taxpayer.

    2. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: It's Robin Hood

      It's the Sheriff of Nottingham.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good move

    Ferrari sales are up!

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wouldn't get too giddy in the tech industry about the 15.5%, I'm pretty sure some jurisdictions are going to want the tax they didn't pay.

  11. JimJimmyJimson

    Whats wrong with this..

    It seems perfectly reasonable that the people who contribute such a large proportion of tax revenue should also benefit more when those taxes are reduced. Will be interesting to see how much revenue is actually reduced from these groups in any event - no need to structure your affairs as aggressively to reduce your tax liability if your tax burden is reduced...

    1. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Whats wrong with this..

      "It seems perfectly reasonable that the people who contribute such a large proportion of tax revenue should also benefit more when those taxes are reduced. "

      Except that when taking into account not only income tax but also sales tax, national insurance and all the other duties and taxes, the richest 10% pay less than 50% of taxes and get more than 50% of the income

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The rich are greedy...

    The middle class are greedy...

    The poor are greedy...

    Everyone is greedy.

    You aren't any better so stop crying about the rich. Oh wait you're a liberal and don't believe in personal responsibility... carry on.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: The rich are greedy...

      No need to post anonymously Marie Antoinette, we know it's you.

  13. lglethal Silver badge
    Go

    What was only menitoned very briefly in passing, but probably needs a stronger look at, was that the savings to tax on businesses are permanent, where the tax savings for personal are time limited (until 2025). i.e. after 8 years your taxes will bounce right back up. Coincidently directly after Trump - if he won a second term - would exit the White House. So the following president has to deal with an unhappy electorate as their taxes bounce back to current levels (or probably higher).

    Additionally taxes for the lower and middle calass begin to rise from 2021 (so after the next presidential election) - specifically those earning less than 30k/year will be taxed more by 2021, by 2023 those earning 40k/year will be paying more tax then currently and by 2027 everyone on any income will be paying more tax then currently. So you are getting a short tax Holiday before it all comes crashing down.

    There is a pretty detailed write up here:

    https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

    Anyway, enjoy your short term tax cuts Americans, I will happily pay higher levels of tax then any of you to ensure I live in a country with a working medical system and a good social saftey net...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >Anyway, enjoy your short term tax cuts Americans, I will happily pay higher levels of tax then any of you to ensure I live in a country with a working medical system and a good social saftey net...

      Tax the hell out of a person so they become dependent on government handouts. That's the liberal dream. Oh and don't forget to accuse me of racism, sexism, Islamophobia and whatnot while you're at it.

      1. Potemkine! Silver badge

        "Again I tell you..."

        ... "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God"

        Oh and don't forget to accuse me of racism, sexism, Islamophobia and whatnot while you're at it.

        Nah, selfishness, short-sightedness and psychopathic lack of empathy would fit better.

        But it's no surprise coming from someone living in the country where the Golden Calf is venerated above all...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Again I tell you..."

          >Nah, selfishness, short-sightedness and psychopathic lack of empathy would fit better.

          I 100% agree! Europe in unable to protect its own citizens due to selfishness, short-shortsightedness and psychopathic lack of empathy all in the name of political correctness. At least Trump has the spine you are clearly lacking.

          1. lglethal Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: "Again I tell you..."

            Europe in unable to protect its own citizens

            Just for the record there:

            Murder rate US - 4.88 per 100,000

            Murder rate Europe - 3,0 per 100,000

            (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate).

            Trump is obviously doing a great job there. :rolleyes:

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Again I tell you..."

              >Trump is obviously doing a great job there. :rolleyes:

              Attempting to pin that on Trump... I laughed. Are you seriously that delusional? No you aren't, but you're a liberal and liberals love to blame everything on Trump. Look, while I'll never vote Democrat, I wish Republicans would apply common sense to gun control. Where I live in the middle of nowhere, taking away guns makes no sense. But if you live in Chicago or another city with a major gang problem... gun control makes a lot of sense. Gun control should be up to states and cities. But seriously blaming Trump for everything undermines your credibility.

              1. lglethal Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: "Again I tell you..."

                >Trump is obviously doing a great job there. :rolleyes:

                Attempting to pin that on Trump...

                I was only following your comment Coward - let me Quote it below again:

                At least Trump has the spine you are clearly lacking.

                So Trump is the reason that the US is safer than Europe according to you. Even though the data proves that's NOT the case. My rolleyes was at the irony of your comment. Sorry i should have known better than to assume an American might understand irony... nevermind.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: "Again I tell you..."

                  >So Trump is the reason that the US is safer than Europe according to you. Even though the data proves that's NOT the case.

                  Never did I state the US is safer than Europe. But when it comes to doing something about immigrants from certain countries who are causing a lot of problems, you're damn right Trump has the spine you are clearly lacking.

                  1. jmch Silver badge

                    Re: "Again I tell you..."

                    "when it comes to doing something about immigrants from certain countries who are causing a lot of problems, you're damn right Trump has the spine you are clearly lacking."

                    Trump talks a big game, but it's all delusional talk like the wall on the Mexican border. But that's OK because to his supporters, talk is enough, what he says is gospel truth, and any facts that contradict the great leader's tweete is fake news

                    sad

            2. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Unhappy

              Re: "Again I tell you..."

              "Murder rate US - 4.88 per 100,000"

              Trump still needs to un-do DECADES of failed policies that result in inner city high unemployment rates, to deal with the murder rate and crime problems. Yeah, he got BOATLOADS of good things done in under a year, but still has a long way to go.

              But as for actually ARRESTING and INCARCERATING these bozos that commit crimes [like murder], a good portion of that problem falls in the hands of STATE and local governments, not the Feds.

              Recently, Cali-Fornicate-You "relaxed" the crime level (felonies becoming misdemeanors, for example) of certain "non-violent" crimes, causing prisoners to be released, among other things. The 'petty crime' increase predictably followed. We had a 3-strikes law that was WORKING. Not any more. Thanks, Jerry "2nd time around [like eating vomit]" "Moonbeam" Brown and corrupt state legislature.

              Trump can't control governors or state legislatures. MOST crimes involve state law, not federal law, and are prosecuted by individual states.

              And don't forget about cases where ILLEGAL ALIENS (including MS-13) are the CAUSE of the murders... like a recent high profile case in San Francisco where the perp was ACQUITTED on B.S. technicalities, "the bullet ricocheted" or some such nonsense, when HE! FIRED! THE! BULLET!! Trump can't control THAT, either.

              I think the NRA _ALSO_ has some interesting statistics involving states where gun ownership and/or concealed carry permits are being INFRINGED upon... showing that restrictive anti-gun laws actually INCREASE the murder/crime rates.

              So, blame where blame belongs, please?

          2. Hero Protagonist

            Re: "Again I tell you..."

            “At least Trump has the spine you are clearly lacking.”

            ...says the spineful Anonymous Coward

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Again I tell you..."

              > ...says the spineful Anonymous Coward

              So what? Or do you want to know who I am so you could do something malicious with my personal information. I wouldn't put it past you, simply Google, "Arizona restaurant closes following backlash from its pro-Trump Facebook post." Poor liberals couldn't handle freedom of speech so they resorted to harassment.

      2. lglethal Silver badge
        Go

        "Tax the hell out of a person so they become dependent on government handouts."

        Do you really believe that's how it works in the rest of the world? Wow thats one crazy point of view.

        As a uni Student without rich parents I got money (a handout if you like) from the government to help me attend University. After I finished uni i went to work and paid my taxes to cover what i got and to help others in the same position. And I'm fine with that.

        I've been unemployed for short periods between Jobs, and received government assistance during those periods. I certainly dont resent paying taxes in order to give other people that same safety net. I also have no problem paying high taxes so that i can attend a doctor whenever I feel ill, and know that if there is something wrong, they will send me to a specialist or organise surgery and I can go ahead without needing to worry about exorbitant medical costs. Hell i got surgery on my shoulder last year and didnt have to pay a cent. I'm also happy that my taxes pay for other people to also have the same care.

        I pay approximately 40% of my wages in taxes (and I am nowhere near a high earner). Sure if we had an american style system i could get more money in my pocket, but we live in a Society. And Society is, and should be, judged on how it looks after the weakest among us. If a bit more in my pocket means others are forced to the wall, then thanks but no thanks...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          >Do you really believe that's how it works in the rest of the world? Wow thats one crazy point of view.

          Letting people decide what to do with their money is one crazy point of view? LOL.

          I'm glad you enjoy paying 40% of your wages in taxes. Not everyone is good at managing their finances and seeking opportunities, but at least it is a choice. When you hand all your options to the government, your choices are what the government dictates.

          Because of the lowered tax rate and Obamacare individual mandate being repealed, I now have more choices. And that feels much better than any socialist paradise you can fabricate.

          1. strum Silver badge

            >Letting people decide what to do with their money is one crazy point of view?

            The rich didn't create the wealth they hoard - society did. They may be entitled to a few extra bunts for cleverness and dynamism - but not 200 times the guys that do the real work.

            I've known a few rich folks in my time. For the most part, they don't even work very hard for it. They may have put in a few years hard as junior execs, or in start-up mode (but they usually did so for the sheer joy of achievement, not for the money). It's almost always sheer luck - either in birth or in timing.

            With very few exceptions, the rich are lazy sods, who only put in long hours at the office to get away from their families.

      3. Blank Reg

        We should probably accuse you of idiocy and delusion while we're at it.

        US policy ensures that the poor stay poor, thus keeping them dependent on the government. Social mobility in the US is terrible, if you're poor you are likely to stay poor because there is little to help you get out of that cycle.

        Other countries have learned that if you invest in education and other social support mechanisms, then you can help break the poverty cycle. Then those people become successful tax paying members of society and your country will prosper.

      4. Mike Moyle Silver badge

        "Oh and don't forget to accuse me of racism, sexism, Islamophobia and whatnot while you're at it."

        Nope. just cowardice at being insulting, then not being willing to own your opinions on a website

    2. Long John Baldrick

      Permanent

      Other than executions, nothing a government does is permanent. Not even the US Constitution - it has been amended 27 times. Laws are much easier to amend or revoke or rewrite. Congress could, if it so chooses, change the way debt is scored by the CBO, or simply pass a bill stating that the same tax cuts just issued will be passed again every year to keep those tax cuts "permanent". For another 10 years. Likewise Congress and President can(and will) change tax laws for corporations.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Obamacare individual mandate

    Democrats want the poor to stay poor so they can help them with handouts. I don't want handouts, just let me keep my paycheck. Republicans are getting rid of the Obamacare individual mandate which was literally a tax on people like me who are too poor to afford health insurance. So all this talk about Democrats helping the poor is propaganda for the ignorant. President Trump has my vote next election.

    1. Richard Plinston Silver badge

      Re: Obamacare individual mandate

      > Republicans are getting rid of the Obamacare individual mandate which was literally a tax on people like me who are too poor to afford health insurance.

      And after the individual mandate is dropped, and those who think they will never get sick drop their insurance, there will be few left who will be able to afford the increased rates for health insurance that will result. Medicare and Medicaid will be dumped and no one but the very rich will be able afford medical care.

      > President Trump has my vote next election.

      You think that there will be a 'next election'? Trump is creating many opportunities for disasters and emergencies* that will 'justify' him (and his dynasty) being made President For Life.

      * North Korea, Israel, rest of UN, internal civil war, etc.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Obamacare individual mandate

        " there will be few left who will be able to afford the increased rates for health insurance that will result. "

        WRONG. FUD. CLUELESS.

        more like this:

        Insurance companies will offer plans that people CAN afford and are willing to buy, because they do NOT have to comply with some ridiculous federal requirement. This includes "emergency only" and high-deductible catastrophic plans. Trump says he LIKES those. So do I. But you can't BUY them with OBAKA-CARE individual mandate in place. You _HAVE_ to pay 10 times as much for things you do NOT want, to "cover everyone else".

        I say *NO* to Obaka-care mandates, and give it my upright middle finger. It's a "financial hardship" which allows me to NOT purchase it under THAT law [as it turns out] so I did NOT have to pay "the fine". And I did NOT buy it. And now, I won't EVER HAVE to! [I may get a high deductible catastrophic policy, now that I can, maybe like the old style 'blue cross' plans - for 1/10 the price - and for anything else, I'll just go to the neighborhood "doc in a box" or pharmacy where they can do things like flu shots without an exam first, things like that].

        1. Richard Plinston Silver badge

          Re: Obamacare individual mandate

          > Insurance companies will offer plans that people CAN afford and are willing to buy, because they do NOT have to comply with some ridiculous federal requirement. This includes "emergency only" and high-deductible catastrophic plans.

          The major problem with American system is that it is the health care providers (hospitals, doctors, etc) that are setting the amount of revenue that they want and this must come from the users either directly or via the insurance companies or the government through taxes. There is nothing that limits the health care demand for revenue.

          Having insurance providers between the carers (as if they actually care) and the users merely adds a markup to the costs, though it does average out the risks.

          Removing the 'ridiculous federal requirements' allows, as you say, for cheaper plans that do not cover particular health problems. In doing so it makes insuring for those problems completely unaffordable because the risk is spread over far fewer potential insured. This leads to even fewer people buying insurance, or people buying less effective insurance, until the whole system collapses.

          > This includes "emergency only"

          If the only insurance you have is 'emergency only' then _everything_ becomes an 'emergency'. The insurance companies know this and will charge appropriately (ie unaffordably).

        2. jmch Silver badge

          Re: Obamacare individual mandate

          "Insurance companies will offer plans that people CAN afford and are willing to buy"

          You mean, like they were doing before Obamacare?

          Hahahahahahaha!!!!!

    2. Mike Moyle Silver badge

      Re: Obamacare individual mandate

      "I don't want handouts, just let me keep my paycheck. Republicans are getting rid of the Obamacare individual mandate which was literally a tax on people like me who are too poor to afford health insurance."

      So, you're willing to die rather than take a "handout" at the ER if you're whacked by a hit-and-run while crossing the street or your appendix bursts or your case of the flu turns into pneumonia?

      It's good to know that there are still individualists in the world who won't abandon their beliefs and go whining to the hospitals for free treatment just because they're having a heart attack or because that funny-looking mole turned out to be malignant and metastatic. Go, you!

      No, really: Go, you.

    3. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Obamacare individual mandate

      "Democrats want the poor to stay poor "

      Oh, yes, it's the Republicans who want the poor to become rich (or at least not poor anymore). And the way to do that is to give more money to the rich!

      "the Obamacare individual mandate which was literally a tax on people like me who are too poor to afford health insurance."

      The Republicans have pulled off a proper propaganda coup on a huge swath of USA-ians. Apparently they convinced you that you are too poor to be healthy, and that it's not a good idea to tax the rich so that you and others like you can have basic healthcare (like everywhere else in the civilised world)... and you seem to support a stance that is both preventing you from having accessible healthcare, and blaming you for that.

      I have to say,a big Bravo to the latter-day Goebbels who pulled that one off!!

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It shocks me that so many people don't understand that the tax system as set up by FDR was what built America. Substantial changes to the higher rates have been hurting the "middle class" that was built under this system of taxation. You know the "middle class", we're that, once, large group of people who buy the products and services that all Corps. sell. Much of NA and EU are now mature markets so no real growth, so all these changes to the tax code are to strip our little wealth redirecting it to the the wealthy political supporters. The problem for these Corps. is getting penetration into non-mature markets. The Russians and Chinese, at the least, will build and control their own. So, the Corps. are stripping what they can at all cost, including ruining the societies that have been built since WW2.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Flame

      "the tax system as set up by FDR was what built America"

      WRONG. FUD. CLUELESS.

      FDR's socialism actually SLOWED DOWN the recovery from the 'Great Depression'. A few things, like deposit insurance, made sense [this kept most banks from making high risk loans due to regulation involving the insurance requirement, which is what caused the banking crisis of the late 1920's]. But *MOST* of what FDR did domestically was CRAP, and should be ABANDONED, starting with Keynsian economics and ending with the so-called "progressive" taxation of incomes [it keeps people from BECOMING "the rich"].

      What ended the depression was the war-time economy cause by WORLD WAR 2, and the massive spending at the end of the war as soldiers and sailors and marines came back home and bought houses and cars and other stuff they'd saved up for.

      During the 1950's tax rates were INCREASED with the top marginal rate being 90% (yes, 90%) and *TONS* of loopholes for tax shelters "for the rich" to go with it [to 'stimulate' certain pet areas of the economy], so as to *SLOW* *DOWN* the U.S. economy, most likely [from a 'globalist' kind of perspective] to "allow Europe and Asia to 'catch up' to the USA after having to repair all of that war damage".

      By the 1960's, JFK saw how this was STIFLING the US economy, and basically laid out supply side economics and TAX CUTS to the New York Economic Society in December of 1962. This actually made him the BETTER choice over Nixon, who was pretty much the same as Kennedy on most points that were important to people at the time. [yes, I _JUST_ praised a Democrat!]

      And so I conclude: FDR's policies *STIFLED* the US economy, by putting more gummint control over it. JFK's, and Regan's, and now Trump's policies *UNLEASH* the economy, by lowering the marginal tax rates.

      Our current income tax was implemented (after the approval of the relevant constitutional amendment) during the time of Woodrow Wilson, a globalist, socialist, "chicken in every pot" type of Demo-Rat politician who NEVER should have been President of the USA. Only the top 10% of income earners were affected by the 2 percent tax. Now, look where it is _NOW_ !!!

      And America was MOSTLY built without an income tax. BIG GUMMINT was built WITH it.

      1. jmch Silver badge

        By the way, Bob, are you the only Republican in the known universe who does not know how to spell "Reagan", or are all Trump supporters that thick?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Republican tax bill ready to rescue hard-up tech giants, struggling rich

    This headline was clearly written by someone who assumes that poor people are idiots. Let's tax the hell out of my boss, that would never come back to bite me in the ass, no siree! Give me a break.

  17. Potemkine! Silver badge

    What a surprise!

    So, debt rising does matter for Republicans only when they are the opposition... And who will pay for the crumbling infrastructure, making the US close from a third world country?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What a surprise!

      >So, debt rising does matter for Republicans only when they are the opposition... And who will pay for the crumbling infrastructure, making the US close from a third world country?

      How about we tax the rich even more and be wonder why nobody wants to do business in the US?

  18. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge
    Trollface

    Straight face

    "The final tax reform bill is strong in the key areas that encourage innovation and entrepreneurship and create jobs in America," said Linda Moore, president and CEO of TechNet

    And she said that with a straight face...?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The rich never did the poor a favour

    Other than employ them down their mines or in their factory yards....

    Eat the rich.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The rich never did the poor a favour

      >Other than employ them down their mines or in their factory yards....Eat the rich.

      What mines or factory yards? Socialists and unions are perfectly happy making it impossible to hire people. High unemployed is perfectly acceptable as you feel good about yourself.

  20. steward

    You missed a clause:

    "The Tax Foundation, a tax policy non-profit"

    headed by David P. Lewis, Chief Tax Executive for major drug firm Eli Lilly and Company...

  21. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. ecofeco Silver badge
    FAIL

    Bullshit

    "Wages, long stagnant, would increase 1.5 per cent, while the reform would produce 339,000 jobs."

    Yeah, no. Not gonna happen.

    And 1.5% doesn't even come close to matching inflation. Let alone the last 35 years of inflation.

  23. TVU

    Republican tax bill ready to rescue hard-up tech giants, struggling rich

    However, all overhigh corporate taxation rates does is encourage rampant tax avoidance and the USA's corporation take rate was way out of line with other countries. In return for a sensible corporation tax rate, I would now like to see a clampdown on corporate tax avoidance and evasion because there's no longer any justification for it.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Republican tax bill ready to rescue hard-up tech giants, struggling rich

      Oh bullshit. It was a law that makes overseas tax avoidance feasible, not fucking taxes.

      And a law can be changed.

      1. TVU

        Re: Republican tax bill ready to rescue hard-up tech giants, struggling rich

        "Oh bullshit. It was a law that makes overseas tax avoidance feasible, not fucking taxes.

        And a law can be changed"

        Punitive tax rates, especially in comparison with rates in similar and comparable countries, serves as an active incentive for tax avoidance and evasion whether you like it or not (and, just for the record, I disapprove of both activities).

  24. unwarranted triumphalism

    A long overdue end to the burdensome anti-business regulations from the Obama administration that have hampered American competitiveness.

  25. AdamWill

    'can expect'

    "Individuals – particularly the super-rich – can expect lower taxes until the end of 2025, when the cuts expire"

    This does not display a sufficiently cynical understanding of the US political process.

    The authors of this bill certainly don't intend the cuts to expire. They were forced to include a sunset provision under rules restricting unfunded tax/spending policy changes; there are restrictions on increased spending that isn't funded by increased taxation, and decreased taxation that isn't compensated for by decreased spending.

    One way to somewhat bypass these rules is to make the changes "temporary", so that's what the bill had to do. But you're a fool if you think that what will actually happen in 2025 is that Congress will say "ah, yes, those taxes are expiring now, so everything goes back to how it was, no action here". Low tax Republicans will push a narrative that the expiry of the temporary tax cuts constitutes a tax increase, and push for cuts to spending to preserve what they will certainly refer to as the "status quo". There will be an argument over how much of the "temporary" tax cuts to preserve vs. how much spending to cut, and a *meta-argument* about how this is framed, with low tax Republicans pushing to frame it as a "Democratic tax increase" (if the Democrats happen to be in charge at the time), for instance.

    1. Mike Moyle Silver badge

      Re: 'can expect'

      "They were forced to include a sunset provision under rules restricting unfunded tax/spending policy changes; there are restrictions on increased spending that isn't funded by increased taxation, and decreased taxation that isn't compensated for by decreased spending."

      Let's be clear, here: The expiration of the individual tax cuts was included because, if the total bill threatened to balloon the national debt any MORE than it does, the Republicans couldn't have passed it in a manner that only took a simple majority, but would have required two-thirds of the Senate to approve it, which would have required -- you know -- negotiation with the other party, time for public comment, the risk of filibusters, and all that messy stuff that gets in the way of pushing their agenda.

      Now, they COULD have made those cuts permanent and brought the bill in under the cost that triggers full debate, etc., by trimming a couple of percentage points off of the cuts to the highest individual rates and the corporate rates (which are now the only parts that DON'T expire!)...

      ...but that would have been wrong, I guess.

  26. John 104
    IT Angle

    IT Angle?

    Oh, that's right, el Reg isn't a tech site any more. I can't believe this bull shit political article made it to the front page. You guys are twats for letting this fly, and for allowing the political editorializing in it.

    Stick to technology and leave the rest to the foul media.

    *No, mentioning Apple, Microsoft, et. all, does NOT qualify this as an IT article.

  27. IGnatius T Foobar
    Megaphone

    Tax cuts for everyone

    The political left describes *any* GOP tax reform as "tax cuts for the rich" regardless of what the bill actually says. They don't even read it. They just start spouting that same tired old line. The new bill could cut taxes to zero for anyone making less than a million dollars a year, and they'd *still* call it "tax cuts for the rich." The political left are the modern day successors of Joeseph Goebbels -- they repeat a lie often enough for it to be perceived as the truth.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tax cuts for everyone

      Allow me to put out the flaws in your reasoning.

      All money is printed by and therefor belongs to the government. People are poor because the rich people are taking more than their fair share from the government.

      If you can make yourself believe this, then everything else begins to fall into place.

    2. Richard Plinston Silver badge

      Re: Tax cuts for everyone

      > The political left describes *any* GOP tax reform as "tax cuts for the rich" regardless of what the bill actually says.

      The bill gives >80% of the benefit to the top 1 or 2%.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Obligatory El Reg Hogwash

    I notice Der Speigel - and anyone else who thinks about it - expects to see corporations migrating to the US to take advantage of the new corporate tax rates. So: more jobs and more corporations and more people making money and paying taxes will provide an offset for lost revenue. Of course, that is a bad thing too.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019