Tax bill bad enough, but "fixing" its deficits make it much worse

The GOP’s Piece of Shit tax bill is still far from being law, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look ahead and figure out the fallout if that regressive plan becomes law. And that’s something that Yahoo! Finance’s Rick Newman examined Friday in a column titled “The Trump tax cuts could be much worse than advertised.” As Newman points out, if economic growth doesn't close the extra deficits that pile up from these tax cuts (and it won't), then who pays to make up the $1.5 trillion in lost tax revenue?

...To estimate that, the Tax Policy Center examined three scenarios meant to assess who the winners and losers would be if, or when, the bill comes due for the Republican tax plan. Since there are two ways to close a budget gap — either raise new revenue or cut spending — the group included both options in its analysis, and applied the analysis to legislation passed by both the House and the Senate.

None of the scenarios is comforting. If the cost of the tax cuts in the House plan were spread evenly among all taxpayers, 27% of households would enjoy a tax cut but 73% would face a tax hike. After-tax income would fall for lower- and middle-income workers, while rising for the top 20%.

If that $1.5 trillion were covered proportionally, according to income, the outcome would be slightly better, with 39% of households getting a tax cut and 59% facing a tax hike. The top 20% of earners would still end up better off, but not by as much in the first scenario.

If the cost of the tax cuts were covered proportionally, according to the portion of taxes household actually pay, it would be a bit better still. Sixty-five percent of households would get a tax cut, while 18% would face a tax hike. And the burden would fall a bit more heavily on high-income households than middle-income ones. (credit Newman for having a sense of humor for thinking this would happen with today’s Koched-up GOP). Results for all three scenarios were similar in an analysis of the Senate bill.

Trump and his fellow Republicans aren’t saying much about the cost of cutting taxes, although they are beginning to ramp up efforts to cut spending in 2018. If that happens, it will fall disproportionately on lower-income workers, if only because they receive more in government services. One Republican target is likely to be Medicaid, for example, which is designed to help those who can’t afford health insurance. Republicans may also target food and disability aid and other types of welfare programs.

Which means that tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the rich and corporate and encourage profit-hoarding over job creation will also take funding away from the working class and the poor. If you thought people were angry about the stagnant economy and standard of living that they were experiencing before….

And let me remind you that the $1.5 trillion is ADDITIONAL deficits- we already are looking at increasing deficits in a time of full employment BEFORE we account for this Piece of Shit.



The third option is that the deficits are never dealt with and are allowed to grow, and add onto the debt. Debt in itself isn’t a big deal unless it causes interest rates to rise (due to fewer people wanting to take on the debt), inflation rises (due to more dollars being printed), or the interest on the added debt crowds out other spending that might give the economy a bigger bang for the buck. Not a good situation, but if you value a stronger economy, it might be the best choice (well, next to taxing the rich back to 1950s or 1970s levels, a time when we had a middle-class with a better future ahead of it).

But of course, raising taxes on the rich or letting things ride for a few years is not what cynical Republicans would do, as they are already scheming as to how they will “fix” the added deficits their idiotic tax cuts will cause. Wisconsin’s own Lyin’ Paul Ryan made the mistake this week in admitting out loud what that meant.

"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit," Ryan said during an interview on Ross Kaminsky's radio show, The Washington Post reported. "Frankly, it's the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking."

Following private conversations between the two, Ryan said he also feels confident that the president will support his efforts to scale back Medicare, which Trump promised he wouldn't do on the campaign, along with Medicaid and Social Security.

"I think the president is understanding that choice and competition works everywhere in health care, especially in Medicare," Ryan explained. "This has been my big thing for many, many years. I think it's the biggest entitlement we've got to reform."

Why don't you pay up instead, a-hole?

No, you fuckhead! Ryan seems not to understand (or care) that health is pretty much a REQUIREMENT OF HAVING A DECENT QUALITY OF LIFE. And is something that is so indispensable that it would cost older and/or sicker people so much that they would either die or go broke.

Health or retirement security is not like a freaking iPhone that the average person can take or leave. While I understand that you stopped learning at age 15 Pau-lie, you should know that situation would destroy our country’s economy as people choose between living and dying, and spending more on health care vs less on other items.

So the disastrous after-effects of this Piece of Shit tax deformation are pretty obvious- more inequality and a decline in standard of living for most of us, and even more income and influence being gained by a small group of oligarchs who could not care less what happens to the rest of the country. Go look at the history of Banana Republics that have had a similar system and I'm betting it's not what you want. Banana Republics tend not to work out very well, either for the people, and for the oligarchs when the people catch on to who has been screwing them.