3.3% GDP !

[Superfreak]

Or you could just discuss what reforms are being debated in Congress

Given the way you attacked, perhaps you could have just led with the above instead? The reform I was referring to is the corporate tax rate reduction. That would tend to have a good impact on the bottom line of the companies, increasing earnings and thus reducing the PE ratio we were discussing.

 

[Althea]

Given the way you attacked, perhaps you could have just led with the above instead? The reform I was referring to is the corporate tax rate reduction. That would tend to have a good impact on the bottom line of the companies, increasing earnings and thus reducing the PE ratio we were discussing.

That's not reform. That's a tax cut. If there were mandatory levels of hiring IN THIS COUNTRY attached to the cuts, that would be reform.

Corporate cuts will increase cash, but won't create jobs. Overseas labor/lax enviro are the reasons manufacturing isn't done here at the scale it used to be done. These cuts will increase dividend checks. Not much more.

Corporations are flush with cash. Investment in machinery/employees is a tax deduction. Asking for more money via tax reduction makes no sense.

 

[Althea]

That's not reform. That's a tax cut. If there were mandatory levels of hiring IN THIS COUNTRY attached to the cuts, that would be reform.

Corporate cuts will increase cash, but won't create jobs. Overseas labor/lax enviro are the reasons manufacturing isn't done here at the scale it used to be done. These cuts will increase dividend checks. Not much more.

Corporations are flush with cash. Investment in machinery/employees is a tax deduction. Asking for more money via tax reduction makes no sense.

I read something from a CEO of A.T.T, citing the need for tax cuts in order to spend a billion dollars or so to create thousands of jobs.

Let's say via a tax cut, (of course, ATT currently pays almost nothing in taxes) ATT sees 3 million dollars in their coffers. They claim that they need that money for infrastructure spending. They already have plenty of cash, so if they just spent that $3 million, it would come directly off the top of their earnings...thus reducing their tax liability.

Tax cuts don't create jobs. If ATT needed the infrastructure, they'd pay for it and move forward. Unless they plan to have huge gains in market share, increasing infrastructure makes no sense.

If the consumer doesn't have the money to purchase their product, they won't see any gains by spending this money.

 

[Darth Omar]

One of the reasons I voted for Trump was because I was confident the economy would rebound once he got in office, and so far my vote is looking pretty good.

I’m also confident his tax plan will be good for the economy if it passes.

Actually, call it a prediction.

 

[dukkha]

One of the reasons I voted for Trump was because I was confident the economy would rebound once he got in office, and so far my vote is looking pretty good.

I’m also confident his tax plan will be good for the economy if it passes.

Actually, call it a prediction.

De-regulations is the key..over-regs literally put up a wall of reasons not to expand.

But the corp tax is whacked out too.
Many corps pay less by using existing deductions -so close those and simplify.
Then taxes do not become the primary reason -marketing does.

can you imagine if Hillary was in there? it would be yet more regs!

 

[Darth Omar]

De-regulations is the key..over-regs literally put up a wall of reasons not to expand.

But the corp tax is whacked out too.
Many corps pay less by using existing deductions -so close those and simplify.
Then taxes do not become the primary reason -marketing does.

can you imagine if Hillary was in there? it would be yet more regs!

And the best that could be said of it would be ‘at least were no longer in the Great Recession’ lol.

I’m tired of settling for mediocrity or ‘new normals’. Let’s grow this sucker.

 

[countryboy]

I read something from a CEO of A.T.T, citing the need for tax cuts in order to spend a billion dollars or so to create thousands of jobs.

Let's say via a tax cut, (of course, ATT currently pays almost nothing in taxes) ATT sees 3 million dollars in their coffers. They claim that they need that money for infrastructure spending. They already have plenty of cash, so if they just spent that $3 million, it would come directly off the top of their earnings...thus reducing their tax liability.

Tax cuts don't create jobs. If ATT needed the infrastructure, they'd pay for it and move forward. Unless they plan to have huge gains in market share, increasing infrastructure makes no sense.

If the consumer doesn't have the money to purchase their product, they won't see any gains by spending this money.

Why have tax cuts historically coincided with increased revenues, and thriving economies? In and of themselves tax cuts may not "create jobs", but thriving economies certainly do.

Having said that, this "tax cut" proposal from the GOP sucks. It doesn't go far enough. They should just slash taxes across the board like Reagan did. This class warfare nonsense used to be strictly for Democrats, now you can't tell the difference between Dems and Repubs in this regard. Dems are going to scream "tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich!!!!" no matter what, just do it.

 

[Althea]

Why have tax cuts historically coincided with increased revenues, and thriving economies? In and of themselves tax cuts may not "create jobs", but thriving economies certainly do.

I need you to define 'thriving economies'? The stock market does not reflect the economy, but everyone loves to cite the numbers as proof of a thriving economy. Increased govt revenues? There is an initial surge, followed by unchecked Republican spending, only to create a disaster afterward. It happened after Reagan's cuts, Bush's cuts, and will most certainly happen now.

Having said that, this "tax cut" proposal from the GOP sucks. It doesn't go far enough. They should just slash taxes across the board like Reagan did. This class warfare nonsense used to be strictly for Democrats, now you can't tell the difference between Dems and Repubs in this regard. Dems are going to scream "tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich!!!!" no matter what, just do it.

Reagan came into office with a top marginal rate of 70%. Are you suggesting we go back to the rates under Reagan? Because that would be fine.

If you examine the cuts, they overwhelmingly favor the ultra wealthy. As for the corporate cuts, why not tie them directly to hiring, and the triggers that Republicans refuse to agree to, as they make bold claims about the economy 'taking off like a rocket'?

 

[dukkha]

And the best that could be said of it would be ‘at least were no longer in the Great Recession’ lol.
I’m tired of settling for mediocrity or ‘new normals’. Let’s grow this sucker.

exactly.
the goal now is 3 quarters of 3%+ GDP. that hasn't happened under Obama

Next year it will be an annual growth rate of 3% or better. MAGA time!

 

[Superfreak]

That's not reform. That's a tax cut. If there were mandatory levels of hiring IN THIS COUNTRY attached to the cuts, that would be reform.

Corporate cuts will increase cash, but won't create jobs. Overseas labor/lax enviro are the reasons manufacturing isn't done here at the scale it used to be done. These cuts will increase dividend checks. Not much more.

Corporations are flush with cash. Investment in machinery/employees is a tax deduction. Asking for more money via tax reduction makes no sense.

1) Investment in machinery also means jobs for those that create those machines
2) Investment in employees means they get more cash/benefits... also good
3) If the company chooses to increase dividends... more money to stockholders, which means they have more money to spend/save. Everyone with a 401k/403b/457 plan would benefit from companies choosing to pay greater dividends.
4) The other option for the extra cash is of course that the CEO's/executives decide to pay themselves more. This is the least desirable outcome of course.

That said, the corporate tax rate is highly regressive. The tax can be passed along to one of four groups:

1) CEO/Executives/Board of directors
2) Other Employees via lower wages/benefits
3) Stockholders
4) Consumers via higher prices

Which of those four do you think the CEO/Executives will try to pass the tax on to? I'd bet group one is the last place they go.

That said, my point to Wacko was regarding the effect of this current tax bill on the stock market. As you mentioned, it increases cash to the company. That enhances value. It increases earnings which in turn (all other things being equal) drops the PE. Which was my point in my discussion with Wacko as to whether or not the current PE levels were sustainable if interest rates were to rise.

 

[Superfreak]

I read something from a CEO of A.T.T, citing the need for tax cuts in order to spend a billion dollars or so to create thousands of jobs.

Let's say via a tax cut, (of course, ATT currently pays almost nothing in taxes) ATT sees 3 million dollars in their coffers. They claim that they need that money for infrastructure spending. They already have plenty of cash, so if they just spent that $3 million, it would come directly off the top of their earnings...thus reducing their tax liability.

Tax cuts don't create jobs. If ATT needed the infrastructure, they'd pay for it and move forward. Unless they plan to have huge gains in market share, increasing infrastructure makes no sense.

If the consumer doesn't have the money to purchase their product, they won't see any gains by spending this money.

Now take your example to the next level. Go to all the small business owners out there and ask them what decrease in their tax liability means to them. The added jobs/growth potential or the increase in wages for them and their employees would be a huge plus for them.

You are correct that the larger companies are not as likely to use the money for internal growth. They may use it to grow externally through M&A activity. Or they may use the extra cash to raise dividends to stockholders or benefits/salaries to them and other employees.

 

[Superfreak]

I need you to define 'thriving economies'? The stock market does not reflect the economy, but everyone loves to cite the numbers as proof of a thriving economy. Increased govt revenues? There is an initial surge, followed by unchecked Republican spending, only to create a disaster afterward. It happened after Reagan's cuts, Bush's cuts, and will most certainly happen now.

Reagan came into office with a top marginal rate of 70%. Are you suggesting we go back to the rates under Reagan? Because that would be fine.

If you examine the cuts, they overwhelmingly favor the ultra wealthy. As for the corporate cuts, why not tie them directly to hiring, and the triggers that Republicans refuse to agree to, as they make bold claims about the economy 'taking off like a rocket'?

While the stock market only reflects a small portion of the companies out there, it is indeed a good indicator as to the health of the economy.

You mention unchecked REP spending??? LMAO... both parties are guilty of continuous over spending. Despite the increase in revenues which we have seen in probably 47 out of the past 50 years, the idiots in DC still outspend. Ike was the President the last time our national debt was lowered in a fiscal year.

You don't tie tax cuts to hiring as that may not be the best use of the companies money. What if that company needs new equipment? By purchasing that equipment they are providing jobs for those that make said equipment. Other companies may not have room to grow due to competition or stagnating sectors of the market. They may be better off returning money to shareholders via dividends or employees via salary/benefits.

 

[Rune]

One of the reasons I voted for Trump was because I was confident the economy would rebound once he got in office, and so far my vote is looking pretty good.

I’m also confident his tax plan will be good for the economy if it passes.

Actually, call it a prediction.

 

[Rune]

De-regulations is the key..over-regs literally put up a wall of reasons not to expand.

But the corp tax is whacked out too.
Many corps pay less by using existing deductions -so close those and simplify.
Then taxes do not become the primary reason -marketing does.

can you imagine if Hillary was in there? it would be yet more regs!

You stupid simpleton, every tax plan has been sold as simplification yet it has never happened.
Why would this time be different?
retard.

 

[Althea]

Now take your example to the next level. Go to all the small business owners out there and ask them what decrease in their tax liability means to them. The added jobs/growth potential or the increase in wages for them and their employees would be a huge plus for them.

I can't get on board with the claim that tax cuts will do this. Every business pays taxes on profits. Nobody is going to hire anyone, if there is no demand for their product. If demand now exists, they will hire...further reducing tax liability. Why not simply give the raises now (something that will NEVER EVER happen with a tax cut)and see a reduction in tax liability? I believe in the end, it all amounts to the same tax bill.

You are correct that the larger companies are not as likely to use the money for internal growth. They may use it to grow externally through M&A activity. Or they may use the extra cash to raise dividends to stockholders or benefits/salaries to them and other employees.

There is no 'may' about it. CEO pay, and dividends rise when corporations get tax cuts. The claim on the table, is that tax cuts will propel the economy like rocket fuel.
Sure...the market will rise, because of stock buybacks, and dividends. That doesn't create jobs, notwithstanding the claims made for decades.

While the stock market only reflects a small portion of the companies out there, it is indeed a good indicator as to the health of the economy.

For a specific segment of the economy. And the valuations right now are nonsense. The market simply reflects our boom bust economy, which is pretty much the only economy we've had for quite some time. Save for the last 8 years.

You mention unchecked REP spending??? LMAO... both parties are guilty of continuous over spending. Despite the increase in revenues which we have seen in probably 47 out of the past 50 years, the idiots in DC still outspend. Ike was the President the last time our national debt was lowered in a fiscal year.

No real debate here, but I'd rather see the spending on domestic jobs/programs, than a bloated military coupled with billions in giveaways to the private military complex....as long as we're 'Ikeing' it.

You don't tie tax cuts to hiring as that may not be the best use of the companies money

You most certainly do, when the claims on the table are that these cuts are necessary for job creation. Corps are swimming in record amounts of money. They don't need more.

What if that company needs new equipment? By purchasing that equipment they are providing jobs for those that make said equipment. Other companies may not have room to grow due to competition or stagnating sectors of the market. They may be better off returning money to shareholders via dividends or employees via salary/benefits.

Please stop saying 'via higher salaries/benefits'. That has never happened, and it never will. Corporations are squeezing every drop of blood from employees now. New equipment is typically used to reduce the labor force further.

Again...if the companies have cash for equipment, that lowers tax liability, especially with the accelerated depreciation that's been in place for a long time now. You have to earn the profits to realize the supposed gains a tax cut brings. Otherwise....you aren't paying taxes.


Have you heard/read anything about removal of tax credits for corps if they're lowering rates? The average right now it around 18%, with most paying less. They'll be paying zero in taxes unless there is actual reform.

 

[Althea]

1) Investment in machinery also means jobs for those that create those machines

OK...I've decided to slow down and start from the ground floor. Companies already have all the cash necessary to invest in machinery if it's needed. If not, they can't buy the machinery with money from a tax credit, if they aren't earning profits to get the lowered tax rate. All expenditures on machinery reduce tax liability. Claiming they will buy machinery because of a tax credit, is backward thinking. Money is free right now. Borrow money, and take the write off plus depreciation to lower your tax liability.

2) Investment in employees means they get more cash/benefits... also good

What's the over under on this happening? Better yet...when has this ever happened.

3) If the company chooses to increase dividends... more money to stockholders, which means they have more money to spend/save. Everyone with a 401k/403b/457 plan would benefit from companies choosing to pay greater dividends.

Does absolutely nothing for jobs. Dividends stay in the accounts, and typically are used for reinvestment.

4) The other option for the extra cash is of course that the CEO's/executives decide to pay themselves more. This is the least desirable outcome of course.

And the only one that has ever happened.

That said, the corporate tax rate is highly regressive. The tax can be passed along to one of four groups:

1) CEO/Executives/Board of directors
2) Other Employees via lower wages/benefits
3) Stockholders
4) Consumers via higher prices

The free market tends to have a small effect on 2 and 4. Although with a tight jobs market, we see most employees getting squeezed. Taxes are computed on profits only, so raising prices for no reason increases taxes.

Which of those four do you think the CEO/Executives will try to pass the tax on to? I'd bet group one is the last place they go.

Unless we have been living in a cave, we know exactly where all monies ever go.

That said, my point to Wacko was regarding the effect of this current tax bill on the stock market. As you mentioned, it increases cash to the company. That enhances value. It increases earnings which in turn (all other things being equal) drops the PE. Which was my point in my discussion with Wacko as to whether or not the current PE levels were sustainable if interest rates were to rise.

That's another story altogether, and one that doesn't affect the ability of people to find quality jobs....which is what this tax giveaway is billed as being necessary for. Sure...higher interest slows spending, but it also allows more people to earn interest on their cash.

Something that hasn't been possible in decades. And frankly, I'm ready for the bond market to come back

 

[Superfreak]

I can't get on board with the claim that tax cuts will do this. Every business pays taxes on profits. Nobody is going to hire anyone, if there is no demand for their product. If demand now exists, they will hire...further reducing tax liability. Why not simply give the raises now (something that will NEVER EVER happen with a tax cut)and see a reduction in tax liability? I believe in the end, it all amounts to the same tax bill.

I think you are close on this, but the difference is in predictability of income. If a firm knows the corporate tax is reduced permanently (or at least until new legislation comes to light), then they know that they have greater profit margins going forward. This allows them more confidence to use the extra money for investment... either in plant/equipment/employees etc... Saying that raises won't happen with a tax cut is unsubstantiated, especially in a tight labor market and most especially at small businesses in a tight labor market.

There is no 'may' about it. CEO pay, and dividends rise when corporations get tax cuts. The claim on the table, is that tax cuts will propel the economy like rocket fuel.
Sure...the market will rise, because of stock buybacks, and dividends. That doesn't create jobs, notwithstanding the claims made for decades.

Again, you are talking about what happens at large companies. Those companies are usually mature and typically don't have as much room to grow. For small and mid size businesses, typically the upside potential for growth is greater. But lets address the large companies you refer to... if there is an increase in dividends, that money goes to investors who will typically spend or invest that money. That helps the economy as well. CEO pay is out of control at many large companies. Similar to how it is in Pro Sports and the movie industry. The few take a lot of the money off the top. So if the money does trend that way at large firms, then we the people have the right to not use their products etc... But even if that happens, the benefit to small and mid size businesses will be an economic driver.

For a specific segment of the economy. And the valuations right now are nonsense. The market simply reflects our boom bust economy, which is pretty much the only economy we've had for quite some time. Save for the last 8 years.

The comment above is not accurate. Saying we have been in a boom or bust with the exception of the last 8 years? Why? Because a President was in office you liked? The largest bubble ever has formed in the Treasury market. If that bursts we are all screwed. That was built due to all the QE programs under the Fed during Obama's tenure.

That said, PE ratio's are not out of control. They are in line with where they should be given the historic low interest rate environment we have seen the past 8 years. This tax cut will bring the PE ratio's down. Which is good if the Fed's intent is to raise long term as well as short term rates.

No real debate here, but I'd rather see the spending on domestic jobs/programs, than a bloated military coupled with billions in giveaways to the private military complex....as long as we're 'Ikeing' it.
You most certainly do, when the claims on the table are that these cuts are necessary for job creation. Corps are swimming in record amounts of money. They don't need more.

No, you do not. You keep referring to corporations and then inferring that they all have massive amounts of cash lying around. Some of the big ones do indeed. But the majority do not... especially small and mid size companies. You seem to forget them when discussing corporate tax rates. Your comments are accurate for some of the very large ones. But that same process would destroy small and mid size companies.

Please stop saying 'via higher salaries/benefits'. That has never happened, and it never will. Corporations are squeezing every drop of blood from employees now. New equipment is typically used to reduce the labor force further.

Again, you are referring to some large companies. The bulk of hiring comes from small and mid size firms. They have to compete for labor, especially in a tight labor market. You are simply wrong on this point because your focus is on the biggest of the large cap companies rather than on ALL sized companies.

Again...if the companies have cash for equipment, that lowers tax liability, especially with the accelerated depreciation that's been in place for a long time now. You have to earn the profits to realize the supposed gains a tax cut brings. Otherwise....you aren't paying taxes.

Again, yes, many companies aren't profitable in which case it is irrelevant to them with regards to taxation. We are talking about all the companies out there that ARE profitable. A drop in taxes (an expense) increases their profitability.

Have you heard/read anything about removal of tax credits for corps if they're lowering rates? The average right now it around 18%, with most paying less. They'll be paying zero in taxes unless there is actual reform.

No, I have not heard or seen much detail on reductions in loopholes/deductions. That said, I understand the corporate tax rate is regressive in nature. I do not support it at all. I think it should be eliminated and all income sources should be taxed the same. Which means raising capital gains taxes to the same level as ordinary income from salary and some dividends. I also think the carry provisions should be eliminated (which would increase taxation on hedge funds etc...).

That way, if the CEO does increase his/her salary/benefits/dividends/stock price then that CEO gets taxed more.

I believe you an I would agree that we need to eliminate a ton of loopholes and deductions that benefit the most wealthy.

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $500k (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.

It is our responsibility to pay our own way and not dump trillions of dollars of debt on future generations. We need to begin electing leaders that are fiscally responsible. The future of our nation depends upon it. We are our own worst enemy. It will be our ever-increasing debt that leads to our demise. We must act now.

 

[Althea]

I think you are close on this, but the difference is in predictability of income. If a firm knows the corporate tax is reduced permanently (or at least until new legislation comes to light), then they know that they have greater profit margins going forward. This allows them more confidence to use the extra money for investment... either in plant/equipment/employees etc... Saying that raises won't happen with a tax cut is unsubstantiated, especially in a tight labor market and most especially at small businesses in a tight labor market.

History shows that tax cuts have never resulted in hiring or increased wages. The top CEOs admitted that they wouldn't hire anyone just because they got a massive tax cut. Nobody hires, unless demand exceeds capability. Many of the companies that will benefit, don't even manufacture here. Nor will they.

If you work the numbers re. current (actual) taxation on profits, and subtract the investment you speak of (employing accelerated depreciation now enjoyed by corps.) the difference in cash on hand isn't that much. Sure..when you get into millions, the money adds up. But if you're going to slash taxes to zero, which is what many companies will see without actual 'tax reform', then you have to remove the accelerated depreciation.

Again, you are talking about what happens at large companies. Those companies are usually mature and typically don't have as much room to grow. For small and mid size businesses, typically the upside potential for growth is greater. But lets address the large companies you refer to... if there is an increase in dividends, that money goes to investors who will typically spend or invest that money. That helps the economy as well. CEO pay is out of control at many large companies. Similar to how it is in Pro Sports and the movie industry. The few take a lot of the money off the top. So if the money does trend that way at large firms, then we the people have the right to not use their products etc... But even if that happens, the benefit to small and mid size businesses will be an economic driver.

I think you have to properly define 'small businesses'. Are you saying that we should redefine the term? See link below. I don't buy the claim you make about dividends. Far and away, most people have mutual funds that do their investing for them. Dividends are typically reinvested. Or...those who have stocks that pay dividends, they too typically reinvest or pay the marginal rate on that gain.

I'd be willing to go as far as giving the lower tax rates to corps that hire employees, give substantial raises, or invest in machinery/equipment. Increased CEO pay/dividends shouldn't qualify. That gives companies that you consider 'small', and advantage in both the labor, and resale market.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-small-business-cut-details-2017-9

The comment above is not accurate. Saying we have been in a boom or bust with the exception of the last 8 years? Why? Because a President was in office you liked? The largest bubble ever has formed in the Treasury market. If that bursts we are all screwed. That was built due to all the QE programs under the Fed during Obama's tenure.

It has nothing to do with a Democrat being in office. It has to do with actual numbers. Reagan had the bubble that gave us unfinished corporate parks/malls, unfinished time shares, and the crash of the savings and loan industry.
Clinton, through no credit of his own, had the tech bubble.

Bush created the housing bubble that crashed the economy due to greed on Wall St.

Obama had a disaster that required Stimulus, and the economy slowly came back on a steady pace. The Treasury bubble was considered 'necessary' because we'll never let the banks go under again. The Fed bailed out the industry, by gobbling up bad debt in order to keep the economy moving.
Banks took the money, and loaned nothing.

That said, PE ratio's are not out of control. They are in line with where they should be given the historic low interest rate environment we have seen the past 8 years. This tax cut will bring the PE ratio's down. Which is good if the Fed's intent is to raise long term as well as short term rates.

That's just addressing the market, which rarely equates to the real economy.

No, you do not. You keep referring to corporations and then inferring that they all have massive amounts of cash lying around. Some of the big ones do indeed. But the majority do not... especially small and mid size companies. You seem to forget them when discussing corporate tax rates. Your comments are accurate for some of the very large ones. But that same process would destroy small and mid size companies.

Read the B.I link re. small companies. The ACTUAL small companies rely on the middle class to have money to spend. Giving working class families $100/month does nothing to stimulate buying.

Again, you are referring to some large companies. The bulk of hiring comes from small and mid size firms. They have to compete for labor, especially in a tight labor market. You are simply wrong on this point because your focus is on the biggest of the large cap companies rather than on ALL sized companies.

No. I'm referring to any company that wants to hire more people, or as you correctly stated, make major business investment IN THIS COUNTRY. trump has numerous 'small businesses'.

Again, yes, many companies aren't profitable in which case it is irrelevant to them with regards to taxation. We are talking about all the companies out there that ARE profitable. A drop in taxes (an expense) increases their profitability.

Who cares about profitability, if they aren't contributing to the economy in this country? This tax giveaway is being sold as a job creation tool. Are you suggesting that Republicans stop lying?

 

[sear]

"Republicans stop lying?" A #218

Psychologist Joy Browne says lies are told to bridge a gap between what is, and what the liar would wish to be.

The reality is, Majority Leader McConnell's (R-KY) original bill was touted as a tax cut for the middle class.
McConnell couldn't get enough votes to clear the senate, so had to sweeten the pot, by adding special provisions to please specific senators.

The result is a plunder of the U.S. treasury. It adds $trillions to the $debt, for the benefit of $millionaires, while simultaneously stifling growth by ~doubling taxes on grad. students.

If your work product was that disgraceful, you'd be likely to lie about it too.