OP might be exaggerating, but they are not talking about who lobbies, they are talking about the politicians who pass the bills and implement the tax cuts. In that they are right. In the house, 191 democrats voted against the tax overhaul, 0 voted for it. 227 republicans voted for it, 12 against it [0]. The senate was much the same [1].

You can say what you want, but this is a republican tax bill no matter who it benefits. It was supposed to benefit the rich, and thats what it does (I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so). It won't discriminate in who it hurts in the long run either (the middle class and the poor, like usual). The wealthy are going to take 90% of whatever economic gains result, they won't end up in schools or in communities, again like usual. Unemployment is already low and cant go much lower without even more illegal immigrants and wages will probably continue on their current trajectory and we'll be arguing for the next decade about who is to blame. My guess is some hidden variable will be scapegoated to explain why it didn't work.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/t... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/t...

> I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so

It actually does seem to do that fairly effectively from my understanding, by restricting the deductions those in high tax states (ie Democrat) can claim.

Correct, the bill benefited lower-tax (that is, Republican-controlled) states very disproportionately.

Good points, I forgot about that.

Benefits the rich? You mean it benefits everyone. I'm not rich and my taxes went down.

I should have said benefits the rich disproportionately. They are throwing most of us a bone (sometimes even a half-decent bone) while treating themselves to a 11 course meal. I don't think that this is a controversial statement, its just how it is going to be. They know that a few thousand dollars in the pockets of average Americans is a huge deal, even if it results in millions in the pockets of others.

The question is, in the long run, does that couple grand benefit us more than it costs us in terms of long term deficits, reductions in government services, etc?

The "hell yeah I'll take more money anyday!" mentality is what they depend on to sell the bill and it works.

The rich pay the most tax, so any cut would benefit them more no?

It is more complicated than that, but even on a basic level it is not proportional [0]. If you consider the purpose of a progressive tax system it gets even murkier.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/562884070/charts-heres-how-go...

The liberal media narrative for every tax cut ever is that it only benefits the rich. Forget that your paycheck and mine saw taxes go down, it was only for the rich according to the media.

Got any sources on that? I expect you'll see a lot of them say it benefits the rich more, but saying it only benefits the rich? Not that I've seen, not legitimate sources (I know its hard to tell the difference between a left-wing blog and a multi-Pulitzer winning newspaper over 100 years old).

I should have said it disproportionately benefits the rich and in the long run I think it probably does only benefit the rich because the middle class and the poor will be hurt by the cuts necessary to pay for the thing and the resulting deficits.

Here are examples of the "liberal media" saying its disproportionate, not that it only benefits the rich. I hate to break it to you, but most of the "liberal media" is pretty nuanced, it may not say what you want but you don't see nearly as much "always/never" as you would expect.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/562884070/charts-heres-how-go...

[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-senate-tax-bil...

It's not just corporate rates. Doubling the standard deduction is the most reckless thing that has ever been done to our federal tax code for individuals. The fact that I am going to pay an effective 15% this year on a $100k salary is absolutely insane.

Doubled the standard deduction but eliminated exemptions but doubled the child tax credit (with much higher phase-out).

But didn't make the child tax credit fully refundable which hurts middle class families. I on the other hand am going to make out like a bandit with an approximate $6k tax cut, but I don't really need it. I'm going to dump it into the market and forget about it for 20 years.

Ish, this really benefits renters and penalizes property owners.

Not property owners, people with a mortgage.

People with a mortgage in expensive markets California, Massachusetts, New York...

With the new tax reform the top 20% of income earners will still pay more than 87% of income taxes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87...

Yeah, not nearly enough for that top few percentage points.

Could be lying, or maybe they contribute 12% to their 401k, or pay for daycare with pretax dollars, or have an HSA and an IRA, etc. There's lots of causes for taxable income ≠ salary- there's no need to make baseless accusations

daycare max is only $5000

Yeah. Although when I looked at the math[1] it's a moot point since if you make $100k/year you're only paying 15% _without_ any of those mitigations.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/03/07/new...

>You are lying.

No, I'm not. Do the calculations yourself.

https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calcula...

I get that it's hard to believe at first how insane this new bill is. I was in absolute disbelief when I first did the numbers.

A single person earning $100,000, claiming the standard deduction, will have a total federal tax liability of $15,410 for 2018, or an effective rate of 15.4%.

So send a check to the Treasury. Nobody is stopping you. You could even organize a bunch of like minded people to send checks to the Treasury.

I needed the tax cut. If you don’t, you don’t have to keep it. I am a better steward of my money than the government, especially when it comes to saving and investing for my family’s future.

If you needed the tax cut, you likely didn't get much of a tax cut.

How can you expect him to afford to keep his ferraris going without the tax cut? Heartless.

> I am a better steward of my money than the government,

Really, ok what have you done with your money? How many buses do you run? How many schools, roads, armies?

This argument is so lazy and seems to crop up every time income tax is discussed. It's perfectly fair to criticize tax policy while also acknowledging that you (and others like you) are paying a lot less than what you should be paying.

Why would that person necessarily acknowledge that? I suspect they don't agree with you.

It's not as if there is an objectively correct amount of taxation, the matter is up for debate. To the founders of the country, for example, the federal tax rate in the US as it is today would constitute an obscene violation of their expectations.

Only if you instantly revived them and never provided them with the details of why we have an income tax. They would also be shocked by the lack of tariffs and other taxes.

"In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, 'I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.'"

Unless you're taxing them federally for provisions outlined in the constitution, I'm inclined to disagree that they wouldn't have a problem with it.

Maybe you did, maybe you're just a greedy asshole who doesn't want to pay for society. Who knows.

I certainly didn't need a tax cut. You say you needed a cut, so maybe you did and maybe we should cut your taxes, leave mine alone, and tax raise taxes on people making a lot more.