Senate Democrats spent nearly 2 years attacking Trump's tax law for exploding the deficit & benefiting the wealthy.
Then, yesterday, they tried to pass a tax cut that would have mostly benefited the rich while expanding the deficit.
👇
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Then, yesterday, they tried to pass a tax cut that would have mostly benefited the rich while expanding the deficit.
👇
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
The privileged Democratic measure -- very important to Dem leader Chuck Schumer of New York -- would have nixed Treasury rules designed to crack down on states like New York which designed a way to bypass the Trump law's $10,000 cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction.
Felt like each party's senators adopted the other team's talking points for a day -- with Democrats decrying higher taxes & Republicans opposing a tax cut as primarily benefiting the rich and effectively subsidizing higher tax states (like New York).
One Dem crossed party lines to vote no: deficit hawk & presidential candidate Michael Bennet.
(He said nixing the cap would be expensive and there are better ways to help the middle class.)
Klobuchar voted aye, while Warren, Harris and Sanders missed the vote.
(He said nixing the cap would be expensive and there are better ways to help the middle class.)
Klobuchar voted aye, while Warren, Harris and Sanders missed the vote.
One Senate Republican crossed party lines on the SALT vote:
Rand Paul.
Rand Paul.
Below is the JCT table on who would benefit from repealing the SALT cap.
Most of the $77 billion annual cost would benefit taxpayers with more than $1 million in income.
~94% of the dollars would go to taxpayers with >$200,000 income.
Most of the $77 billion annual cost would benefit taxpayers with more than $1 million in income.
~94% of the dollars would go to taxpayers with >$200,000 income.
Are there are a lot of people/voters who would see a tax cut? Yes - 13.1 million, per JCT. But the overwhelming majority of the *dollars* flow to the wealthy, per JCT.
