CookieCrisp · F
too much to read, so i had chat gpt give me its thoughts:
The text presents a defensible interpretation of the bill's effects, especially in political and fiscal terms. However, it leans toward a utilitarian perspective—emphasizing net benefits for the majority—while arguably underestimating the equity and moral dimensions of cutting aid to vulnerable groups. Whether one agrees with it likely depends on their values regarding economic inequality, fiscal policy, and the role of government support.
The text presents a defensible interpretation of the bill's effects, especially in political and fiscal terms. However, it leans toward a utilitarian perspective—emphasizing net benefits for the majority—while arguably underestimating the equity and moral dimensions of cutting aid to vulnerable groups. Whether one agrees with it likely depends on their values regarding economic inequality, fiscal policy, and the role of government support.
View 1 more replies »
CookieCrisp · F
@CedricH it was a little long ☺
CedricH · 22-25, M
@CookieCrisp 😅 you should take a look at my other posts
CookieCrisp · F
@CedricH 😯
ViciDraco · 41-45, M
good luck convincing people who‘ll actually benefit from the bill that they don’t deserve their tax cuts because some people (not them) will lose some benefits due to the spending cuts to partly offset the costs of their tax cuts.
You've basically summarized the problem with the US electorate there. Too many of them don't give a shit about other people or building a better society if they personally get to come out of things a little better. We are at the point where some people want policies that hurt others because it puts them in a relatively better position than the people getting pushed down even if nothing improves for them.
I am on the boundary of upper middle class / lower upper class for my area. I don't see a need to cut taxes on people like me and people who make more than me. I'm actually more in favor of efficiency audits and reforms to make what tax dollars are already being collected go further. I would even say that I believe most people in my position also don't really think we need tax cuts. And for most of the people getting cuts, the cuts aren't very impressive. Millionaires and billionaires are more concerned about this stuff.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@ViciDraco That’s a deeply thoughtful and insightful contribution, thanks.
As for millionaires and billionaires being the main beneficiaries of the bill — well, they are beneficiaries, no doubt, but they’re more interested in what isn’t in the bill than in what actually is. For instance, the carried interest tax structure won’t be altered, and capital gains taxes won’t be increased.
They’ll actively benefit from some highly questionable provisions — such as the increased estate tax exemption, which would rise from $14 million to $15 million for single filers and from $28 million to $30 million for married couples.
As a neoliberal, I‘m appalled because estate, gift and property taxes are probably the most progressive taxes and at the same time the most efficient and least harmful to economic growth and self-made wealth creation.
But it should be noted that many New York, New Jersey and California millionaire earners would actually benefit if the bill - as it is - were not passed. In the absence of the 2017 reform, which would otherwise expire, SALT deductions are virtually limitless.
But to your greatest point,
You‘re absolutely right, and I think it explains why many wealthy and educated Americans still voted for Trump even though they were probably the ones most capable of seeing and predicting the danger he posed to the country (compared to people who don’t read the Financial Times, Bloomberg or the Economist of which there are many in the Trump coalition). So much so that, despite policies they likely view as harmful — such as protectionism or the deportation of non-criminal, working immigrants — they still voted for Trump, believing they would benefit from his tax, regulatory, and antitrust policies.
Quite frankly, I think that’s the exact collective psyche of the overwhelming number of Wall Street Journal readers these days. And I say that as a reluctant subscriber, mind you.
As for millionaires and billionaires being the main beneficiaries of the bill — well, they are beneficiaries, no doubt, but they’re more interested in what isn’t in the bill than in what actually is. For instance, the carried interest tax structure won’t be altered, and capital gains taxes won’t be increased.
They’ll actively benefit from some highly questionable provisions — such as the increased estate tax exemption, which would rise from $14 million to $15 million for single filers and from $28 million to $30 million for married couples.
As a neoliberal, I‘m appalled because estate, gift and property taxes are probably the most progressive taxes and at the same time the most efficient and least harmful to economic growth and self-made wealth creation.
But it should be noted that many New York, New Jersey and California millionaire earners would actually benefit if the bill - as it is - were not passed. In the absence of the 2017 reform, which would otherwise expire, SALT deductions are virtually limitless.
But to your greatest point,
We are at the point where some people want policies that hurt others because it puts them in a relatively better position
You‘re absolutely right, and I think it explains why many wealthy and educated Americans still voted for Trump even though they were probably the ones most capable of seeing and predicting the danger he posed to the country (compared to people who don’t read the Financial Times, Bloomberg or the Economist of which there are many in the Trump coalition). So much so that, despite policies they likely view as harmful — such as protectionism or the deportation of non-criminal, working immigrants — they still voted for Trump, believing they would benefit from his tax, regulatory, and antitrust policies.
Quite frankly, I think that’s the exact collective psyche of the overwhelming number of Wall Street Journal readers these days. And I say that as a reluctant subscriber, mind you.