Tax Cuts for the Top 1 Percent Cost More Than SNAP

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
85,393
Reputation
3,531
Daps
150,601
Reppin
Brooklyn
Tax Cuts for the Top 1 Percent Cost More Than SNAP
By Galen Hendricks and Alex Rowell Posted on May 1, 2018, 12:01 am
conaway-1024x683.jpg

Tom Williams/GettyRep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the Capitol, on July 28, 2017.
The recently passed 2017 tax legislation, commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, provided a massive windfall to wealthy individuals and large corporations. According to estimates from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the richest 1 percent of households, those with incomes higher than $607,090, stand to receive a total tax cut of more than $84 billion in 2019 alone. To put this number in perspective, in 2019, the total cost of nutrition assistance benefits paid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—which will support 39 million individuals—is expected to be only $58 billion. SNAP is the nation’s largest food assistance program, helping 1 in 8 families—and 1 in 4 American children—afford to put food on the table. This means that the tax cuts to the top 1 percent alone could finance the entire SNAP program for nearly 1 1/2 years. What’s more, congressional Republican leaders have made it clear that they plan on partially paying for the 2017 tax law by cutting assistance programs that benefit families in need, as well as flagship programs—such as Medicare and Social Security—on which the middle class relies. The House majority is already moving to cut SNAP in its 2018 Farm Bill, which if passed, would cut nutrition assistance for more than 2 million people.

While the revenue generated from taxes on wealthy individuals does not directly pay for SNAP benefits, comparing the tax cuts for the top 1 percent with the relatively modest cost of providing nutrition to families in need highlights the misguided priorities of the current administration and congressional majority. As seen in Table 1, the SNAP program in nearly every state could be fully funded, and in many cases expanded, had this windfall gone to nutrition benefits instead of to the 1 percent in each state.

TaxCutsSNAP-table1-693.png

Galen Hendricks is a special assistant for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress. Alex Rowell is a policy analyst for Economic Policy at the Center.

Authors’ note: This analysis uses state-level spending and participant data for SNAP from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 2017. Data on state-level spending and participants are estimated for 2019 using national projections on SNAP spending and participants from the Congressional Budget Office. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s state-level estimates for the top 1 percent tax cuts are for calendar year 2019.


Tax Cuts for the Top 1 Percent Cost More Than SNAP - Center for American Progress


Welp?
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,718
Reputation
4,365
Daps
88,648
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
One can be undone, the other is permanent... not sure why they are being compared.

Welfare programs always cost more in the long run. It’s just a matter of the pendulum swinging back the other way.
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
42,978
Reputation
6,697
Daps
137,532
Reppin
CookoutGang
One can be undone, the other is permanent... not sure why they are being compared.

Welfare programs always cost more in the long run. It’s just a matter of the pendulum swinging back the other way.
Black Americans need more pain in order to overcome racism and their current precarious position in the workforce :coffee:
 

Secure Da Bag

Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
37,025
Reputation
19,715
Daps
118,170
One can be undone, the other is permanent... not sure why they are being compared.

Wait. Isn't the the tax cuts for the rich permanent though?

Also, rich people don't need tax cuts nearly as much as poor people need assistance. And yet, rich people got more assistance from the government than poor people.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,718
Reputation
4,365
Daps
88,648
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Wait. Isn't the the tax cuts for the rich permanent though?

Also, rich people don't need tax cuts nearly as much as poor people need assistance. And yet, rich people got more assistance from the government than poor people.
Tax rates are adjustable...
Unless congress changed that and I missed it... link?
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,718
Reputation
4,365
Daps
88,648
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
shyt. Not a damn thing. Ion even know why folks entertain him on the Coli. He offers no solutions.
Then what are you content with? What do you think are the solutions?
Accelerationism.
I believe the fastest way is through it.
It being:
White supremacy
Capitalism
Or whatever you think the issue is

The risk is short term pain for long term success vs constant lesser pain but no relief.
People spiral when they get confused about the goals of this vs incrementalism.
 

Secure Da Bag

Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
37,025
Reputation
19,715
Daps
118,170
Tax rates are adjustable...
Unless congress changed that and I missed it... link?

Analysis | The final GOP tax bill is complete. Here’s what is in it.

Most Americans will pay less in taxes until 2026. The final plan lowers the tax rates for each income level and nearly doubles the standard deduction (while also scrapping the personal exemption). The result is that the vast majority of Americans will see their tax bills drop next year. Trump is fond of saying the "typical" family will save $2,000, but the reality is the amount will vary greatly depending up the size, location and circumstances of each family. The bill will also increase the number of Americans who owe nothing in taxes from 44 percent today to 47.5 percent after the plan tax effect on January 1, 2018. But all of the individual tax cuts are scheduled to go away after 2025. Republicans opted to make tax cuts for families temporary and reductions for businesses permanent.

The individual health insurance mandate goes away in 2019: Beginning in 2019, Americans would no longer be required by law to buy health insurance (or pay a penalty if they don't). The individual mandate is part of the Affordable Care Act, and removing it was a top priority for Trump and congressional Republicans. The final bill does not start the repeal until 2019, though. The Congressional Budget Office projects the change will increase insurance premiums and lead to 13 million fewer Americans with insurance in a decade, while also cutting government spending by more than $300 billion over that period. Some Republicans hope to make other changes to health care to prevent insurance costs from rising dramatically by the time the repeal kicks in.

You can pass your heirs up to $22 million tax-free: In the end, the estate tax (often called the “death tax” by opponents) would remain part of the U.S. tax code, but far fewer families will pay it. Under current law, Americans can pass on up to $5.5 million tax-free (that threshold is $11 million for married couples). The House wanted to do away with the estate tax entirely, but some senators felt that was too much of a giveaway to the mega-rich. The final compromise was to double the threshold, so now the first $11 million that people pass on to their heirs in property, stocks and other assets won't be taxed (and yes, that means $22 million for married couples).

“Pass through” companies get a 20 percent reduction: Most American businesses are organized as “pass through” companies in which the income from the business is “passed through” to the business owner's individual tax return. S corporations, LLCs, partnerships and sole proprietorships are all examples of pass-through businesses. In the final GOP bill, the majority of these companies get to deduct 20 percent of their income tax-free, a large reduction that mirrors what was in the Senate bill. The changes, however, expire after 2025. The National Federation of Independent Business initially opposed the House version, arguing that it didn't do enough for small businesses. But the NFIB later endorsed the House and Senate plans. Service businesses such as law firms, doctor's offices and investment offices can take only the 20 percent deduction if they make up to $315,000 (for married couples).

No corporate “AMT” tax: The final GOP bill gets rid of the corporate alternative minimum tax, a big relief to the business community. The Senate included the corporate AMT in its version of the bill, but the House did not. The corporate AMT makes it difficult for businesses to reduce their tax bill much lower than 21 percent. CEOs complained that this was a backdoor tax that would make them less likely to build new plants, buy more equipment and invest in more research, since the corporate AMT made the tax credits for those investments essentially null and void.

Yes, they are adjustable. But some of these tax cuts are permanent. Yeah, if the Democrats get enough votes, a supermajority, and/or a Democratic President in 2020, then I guess they can reverse some of these laws. But that's a big-if.
 

Secure Da Bag

Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
37,025
Reputation
19,715
Daps
118,170
Accelerationism.

:wtf:

Now I have to look this up? That was a very undetailed response from you. A bit disappointed actually. :francis:


Accelerationist theory has been divided into mutually contradictory left-wing and right-wing variants. "Left-accelerationism" attempts to press "the process of technological evolution" beyond the constrictive horizon of capitalism, for example by repurposing modern technology for socially beneficial and emancipatory ends; "right-accelerationism" supports the indefinite intensification of capitalism itself, possibly in order to bring about a technological singularity.[4][5][6]

I like left-accelerationism theory. Which one do you prefer? :sas1:
 
Last edited:
Top