Poll: Most Americans don’t think the Republican tax bill will really cut their taxes

[Auburn85 432]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16792096/republican-tax-bill-poll

 

 

Quote

 

December 18

 

Half of Americans think the Republican tax plan will lead to higher taxes for them, not lower, according to a new Monmouth University poll. The survey lands as Republicans barrel toward getting their bill on the president’s desk this week.

The poll, released Monday, found that 50 percent of the public believes the federal taxes they pay will go up under the GOP’s proposal; 25 percent think their taxes will stay the same, and just 14 percent say their taxes will go down. (Most Americans will see animmediate, though temporary, tax cut.) Republicans have continually tried to frametheir plan as a middle-class tax cut, but the idea doesn’t appear to be trickling down to most Americans.

Just 26 percent of respondents said they approve of the Republican tax proposal, while 47 percent said they disapprove. And most Americans prefer the GOP abandon ship on their current proposal, with 39 percent saying lawmakers should scrap the current plan and start over and 24 percent saying the tax system should be left alone. Only 29 percent said they wanted Congress to work out a deal to pass the current proposal.

The poll was conducted from December 10 to 12, before the final conference versionof the Senate and House tax bills was released on Friday.

But Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said its findings are still significant in a statement accompanying the results. “The basic contours of the plan remain the same. Many Americans see this bill more as an attempt by Republicans to gain a political victory and would rather see Congress scrap this plan and start over,” he said.

Donald Trump, master salesman?

As NBC News’s Benjy Sarlin pointed out on Twitter, most Americans would actually get at least an initial tax cut, albeit perhaps temporary. Under the GOP’s proposal, tax cuts for individuals expire at the end of 2025. And by 2027, over half of all Americans would indeed pay more in taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of the bill.

But the public isn’t wrong to be skeptical of the plan and who it will mostly benefit — corporations and the wealthy, even if Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and other Republicans claim otherwise. Vox’s Ezra Klein recently wrote about the public’s (correct) reason for skepticism:

Rather than argue for the bill on its merits, Republicans have mostly lied about its design, framing it as a middle-class tax cut when it is clearly something very different, pretending it will pay for itself rather than deciding that it is either worth paying for or worth not paying for. There have been few hearings, few speeches, and an extraordinarily rushed process. Democrats legitimately thought the public would like Obamacare if they just knew more about what was in it. Republicans do not seem to hold that confidence in their own legislation.

Perhaps that simply reflects a more extreme strain of conviction politics: Republicans believe in a trickle-down theory of economic growth even though they don’t believe they can persuade the public of its merits, and so they’re going to do what they think is best and worry about the consequences afterward.

The GOP’s plan will increase the deficit by an estimated $1.5 trillion, or $1 trillion after taking into account economic growth, and largely stick middle-class Americans with the bill. Republicans have suggested they may seek to finance the tax cuts by slashing entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. “We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a radio interview earlier this month.

GOP leaders say economic growth and reduced corporate taxes will result in more jobs and better wages, but the evidence that will actually be the case is scant.

The Washington Post on Friday pointed out that the plan could actually push more jobs overseas, noting that many tax experts say the legislation fails to eliminate incentives for companies to move abroad and could instead increase them, namely through implementing a new minimum tax on overseas income.

The Tax Policy Center’s Steve Rosenthal recently laid out such a case in a blog post. “The minimum tax is intended to target, indirectly, profits from intangible property held abroad (such as patents, trademarks, brand names, and software), which can be highly mobile. Unfortunately, the bill’s approach could still encourage production and profits to be shifted abroad,” he wrote.

The Wall Street Journal this weekend published a story pointing out that cash returning from overseas under the Republican tax plan isn’t likely to create jobs and, in fact, could reduce them. And there aren’t really provisions in the Republican plan that would push corporations to share the benefits of a reduced rate in the US or abroad instead of putting them toward, say, dividends and buybacks for shareholders.

“I personally wish they had done more to directly link corporate rate reductions andpass-throughs, for that matter, to real and tangible benefits for employees, things like IRA matching or employee profit sharing or employee ownership,” Dean Zerbe, managing director at tax consultancy Alliantgroup and former tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, recently told me. “They would have had a better and easier time of selling it and convincing folks that this was real. Now, they’re just going to have to hope that all their words come to fruition.”

At the moment, the public’s not buying it, but that’s not stopping plans to pass the final version of the bill by Wednesday of this week.

 

 

 

[creed 1,629]

I say let's keep this thread alive until February then report back the results.

[AU64 10,122]

Since nearly half of Americans don't pay Federal income tax they could be correct.   Those who currently pay income tax are likely to be pleasantly surprised next year.

.   

[homersapien 11,352]

55 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Since nearly half of Americans don't pay Federal income tax they could be correct.   Those who currently pay income tax are likely to be pleasantly surprised next year.

.   

Yeah, and households that run up huge consumer credit bills to do so, are going to enjoy Christmas.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

55 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Since nearly half of Americans don't pay Federal income tax they could be correct.   Those who currently pay income tax are likely to be pleasantly surprised next year.

.   

I pay a pretty penny in taxes every year and know I will get a few grand back because of the tax cuts.  However, it doesn't mean I find this to be a "pleasant surprise" as you put it.  Still think the bill is trash even though I stand to personally gain in the short term.

[AU64 10,122]

The "pleasant surprise" I'm talking about Brad  is for folks who learn that they have been lied to again by the major media and indeed....they will pay lower taxes next year.  For most people that would be a nice thing.....and for those who feel bad about getting to keep more of their own money, there are numerous worthy causes that can put the money to good use if you want to make a donation.  

Interesting to me is that some local arts groups....501c3s ..... have already sent out a note with some suggestions about how donors can possibly take advantage of the new tax law to help their organization with fulfillment of their 2018 gift before the end of this year. 

[homersapien 11,352]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

The "pleasant surprise" I'm talking about Brad  is for folks who learn that they have been lied to again by the major media and indeed....they will pay lower taxes next year.  For most people that would be a nice thing.....and for those who feel bad about getting to keep more of their own money, there are numerous worthy causes that can put the money to good use if you want to make a donation.  

Interesting to me is that some local arts groups....501c3s ..... have already sent out a note with some suggestions about how donors can possibly take advantage of the new tax law to help their organization with fulfillment of their 2018 gift before the end of this year. 

That's sort of backwards:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/charities-fear-gop-tax-overhaul-will-dry-up-donations-heres-how

Charities fear GOP tax overhaul will dry up donations. Here’s how

" The number of people who itemize is expected to drop really sharply. Part of the simplification of the tax law was to say you don’t need to itemize and to raise the standard deduction. Most people won’t need to itemize.

But that has a big impact on charities, because many middle-class and upper-middle-class people are ones who aren’t going to itemize anymore. They won’t have that charitable deduction.

So, the thinking is that they won’t think about making the contribution because it won’t add to their ability to reduce their tax bill; is that it?

 

They may think about making a contribution. They may change the amount that they’re going to give.

So, certainly, they don’t feel that they have that incentive that they now have to give, maybe to give a little bit more generously. So I don’t think people think Americans are going to stop giving entirely because of this, but certainly they’re going to drop the amount that they will give.

So, you are in charge of a magazine, “The Chronicle of Philanthropy,” that looks at this, at charitable giving all the time. How worried are charities about this?

 

Charities are very worried.

The estimates are that as much as $20 billion might not be given next year because of the change. Now, $20 billion is a lot of money, and it affects a lot of charities. But we’re a very generous country, and we give more than $300 billion.

So it’s not a giant hit, but it certainly is important, and what charities are worried about most is that it may be an uneven hit. Community charities, local groups, smaller nonprofits, those are the ones that may feel more of the pain. And so most charities are very upset that not every American gets this encouragement to give, that now the very wealthiest are the only ones who get that special incentive to give.

Read the rest at: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/charities-fear-gop-tax-overhaul-will-dry-up-donations-heres-how

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

The "pleasant surprise" I'm talking about Brad  is for folks who learn that they have been lied to again by the major media and indeed....they will pay lower taxes next year.  For most people that would be a nice thing.....and for those who feel bad about getting to keep more of their own money, there are numerous worthy causes that can put the money to good use if you want to make a donation.  

Interesting to me is that some local arts groups....501c3s ..... have already sent out a note with some suggestions about how donors can possibly take advantage of the new tax law to help their organization with fulfillment of their 2018 gift before the end of this year. 

I'm not sure whay media you are watching, but literally all of them have said that the vast majority people will receive a cut in 2018.  Even Democratic lawmakers have said as much on the record.  What they have also said, accurately I might add, is that these cuts for individuals expire in 10 years and at the end, people's taxes will actually rise if the cuts aren't renewed by a future Congress.  They have also pointed out the facts that only a small percentage of the overall bill is aimed at the middle class, which again, is accurate based on every non-partisan review of the legislation.

Stop blaming everything on the media when you're looking for a boogeyman.

Finally, it's not that people "feel bad" about keeping more money.  It's that some of us think there are major long term concerns with this bill that was rushed through Congress.  Do you fully get that the U.S. tax code was just completely overhauled in 7 weeks?!  And that is wasn't done within regular order, but through a budget reconciliation process so that the Republican party could pass it without following the traditional rules of the Senate (where you need 60 votes).  The current tax code took several years to write and has tons of hearings.  Even Obamacare took more than a year to pass, had lots of hearings, and went through the Senate on 60 votes (thanks to a Super majority).

Basically, what I don't think a lot of Republicans understand is that for many, this whole process stinks to high heaven.  It goes back to judicial nominations as well, by blocking a vote for Garland and then passing Gorsuch through the "nuclear option".  The current folks in charge have seemed more interested in scoring political points and ramming through their ideology than running the country the way our founding fathers intended it to be run.

[TexasTiger 12,800]

13 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm not sure whay media you are watching, but literally all of them have said that the vast majority people will receive a cut in 2018.  Even Democratic lawmakers have said as much on the record.  What they have also said, accurately I might add, is that these cuts for individuals expire in 10 years and at the end, people's taxes will actually rise if the cuts aren't renewed by a future Congress.  They have also pointed out the facts that only a small percentage of the overall bill is aimed at the middle class, which again, is accurate based on every non-partisan review of the legislation.

Stop blaming everything on the media when you're looking for a boogeyman.

Finally, it's not that people "feel bad" about keeping more money.  It's that some of us think there are major long term concerns with this bill that was rushed through Congress.  Do you fully get that the U.S. tax code was just completely overhauled in 7 weeks?!  And that is wasn't done within regular order, but through a budget reconciliation process so that the Republican party could pass it without following the traditional rules of the Senate (where you need 60 votes).  The current tax code took several years to write and has tons of hearings.  Even Obamacare took more than a year to pass, had lots of hearings, and went through the Senate on 60 votes (thanks to a Super majority).

Basically, what I don't think a lot of Republicans understand is that for many, this whole process stinks to high heaven.  It goes back to judicial nominations as well, by blocking a vote for Garland and then passing Gorsuch through the "nuclear option".  The current folks in charge have seemed more interested in scoring political points and ramming through their ideology than running the country the way our founding fathers intended it to be run.

Autocrats don't care about any of those things. They don't even recognize what you're talking about.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Stop blaming everything on the media when you're looking for a boogeyman.

The MSM has no one to blame but themselves. You cannot commit to "fake news" and subsequent retractions then expect no retribution. To infer as much is comical. 

[AU64 10,122]

52 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Stop blaming everything on the media when you're looking for a boogeyman

So where did all those Americans polled in the OP get their information that lead they to believe they would pay more in taxes? ....since probably not one person in 10 has even the most remote idea about the tax bill......where did the get all of this misinformation?....from Chuck Schumer and Nancy P of course and their willing accomplices in the liberal media.     

And nobody seems to understand the concept of marginal tax rates and what the changes in the tax brackets does for them....even some "expert" on MSNBC pointed out the threat of moving up into a higher tax bracket....and paying more taxes....not bothering to mention that all the brackets below that have changed and all income  will be taxed at a lower rate and in the odd situation where someone moved into a higher bracket, only the last dollars would be taxed at the higher rate,  not their entire taxable income.as was implied.   . 

People who pay more in taxes are going to see bigger $$$ savings....big surprise..... and people who don't pay federal income tax at all.will continue to pay no income tax.  

As for the process....the Dems had ample opportunity to participate and decided not to.....that's their right and it gives them the opportunity to complain about the result.....but not the right to say they had no opportunity for input.   They wanted to be able to "blame" the new tax bill on the Republicans in 2018 and now they can. 

[AU64 10,122]

Re donations and the tax law.....guess I can understand that some organizations might worry.   Nobody knows for sure and the authors are trying to judge the motives of donors without knowing them.   In my experience at least,  I'm thinking that not many people make donations just to get a tax deduction unless they like the goals of the organization they are donating to.   .  

It's nice if the tax deduction applies to a gift but I'm betting it's rarely the primary reason for the donation.  And as a person involved in fund raising for 501c3 organizations for quite some time,  I can say from experience that the worst hit that we took in the last 7 or 8 years was caused by miniscule interest rates and the fact the foundations were not able to raise money on their investments and had to cut back on their giving.   Not related to tax rates, but a robust investment market is the best solution to robust giving to charitable institutions. JMO.

There is also a school of thought that people might have more discretionary income after the tax reductions and might be more generous.  Who knows?  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

The MSM has no one to blame but themselves. You cannot commit to "fake news" and subsequent retractions then expect no retribution. To infer as much is comical. 

The use of the term "fake news" is one that I've decried on here several times.  Not getting into that debate again when people have no intention of talking about it on an intellectual level.  Unless you've spent time in a newsroom, you have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

8 minutes ago, AU64 said:

So where did all those Americans polled in the OP get their information that lead they to believe they would pay more in taxes? ....since probably not one person in 10 has even the most remote idea about the tax bill......where did the get all of this misinformation?....from Chuck Schumer and Nancy P of course and their willing accomplices in the liberal media.     

And nobody seems to understand the concept of marginal tax rates and what the changes in the tax brackets does for them....even some "expert" on MSNBC pointed out the threat of moving up into a higher tax bracket....and paying more taxes....not bothering to mention that all the brackets below that have changed and all income  will be taxed at a lower rate and in the odd situation where someone moved into a higher bracket, only the last dollars would be taxed at the higher rate,  not their entire taxable income.as was implied.   . 

People who pay more in taxes are going to see bigger $$$ savings....big surprise..... and people who don't pay federal income tax at all.will continue to pay no income tax.  

As for the process....the Dems had ample opportunity to participate and decided not to.....that's their right and it gives them the opportunity to complain about the result.....but not the right to say they had no opportunity for input.   They wanted to be able to "blame" the new tax bill on the Republicans in 2018 and now they can. 

So wait?  Because Chuck and Nancy made statements, that's on the media?  That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen.  And guess what, in the end, people DO pay more in taxes as rates are scheduled to rise.  Not immediately, but they will when the bill expires.  This is literally in the bill.

You act like its a big surprise that people at the top will save more.  It's not on an actual dollar basis for obvious reasons.  But on a percentage basis, the middle class is getting a far lower reduction than the wealthy.  For example, folks making an average of 60k will see an extra $1,000 a year.  But if you make $732k per year, you save $55,000 on average.  So tell me how is that good for the middle class?  If the math worked the same, the upper class should see roughly $13k in savings, not $55k.  That's the problem.  An extra $1k per year doesn't change anyone's life in the middle class at all.  Basically, it's a hope bill.  The Republicans hope that companies will invest in jobs and raises long term.  It's not a slam dunk guarantee, as history has shown that trickle down does not and has never worked in America.

And the Dems did not have an opportunity to be in the process.  They were literally kept out of closed door meetings when this bill was being written.  I question what sources you read or watch with that kind of false statement.  From the below linked article:

“Democrats should join us and make it bipartisan and permanent, not just criticize,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas wrote on Twitter earlier this month in response to a criticism of the GOP’s then-unreleased tax plan. Linking back to Cornyn’s post, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) replied “I accept!! Tell me where the secret room is where you are writing the bill and I WILL BE THERE!”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/trump-house-tax-reform-bill-democrats-246544

And even with this, it still doesn't excuse Republicans for eschewing rules and norms on Capitol Hill for a political win, particularly the 60 vote threshhold.  In fact, your tax cuts expire in 10 years because they did this through budget reconciliation instead of normal rules.  It's a hastily written bill that has already been shown to have loopholes galore in it because it was written so quickly and with large input from lobbyists.  Here's just a small taste:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/12/19/tax-bill-loopholes-still-exist-for-wall-street-fat-cats-trish-reagan.html

Educate yourself on these things before responding please.  This isn't a party line debate to me.  It's a common sense one.  This is a monumental piece of legislation with ramifications that I will be paying for long after my parents are gone.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

And there's this.  If true, should anyone be shocked?

http://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-rich-friends-lot-richer-tax-bill-758234

President Donald Trump joined his family at their "Winter White House" for the holidays Friday night after signing the GOP Tax Bill into Law, and reportedly told wealthy friends dining at Mar-a-Lago "you all just got a lot richer."

[AUFAN78 3,889]

I thought this was pretty good.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-real-fake-news-of-2017

[homersapien 11,352]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

The MSM has no one to blame but themselves. You cannot commit to "fake news" and subsequent retractions then expect no retribution. To infer as much is comical. 

What's comical is that anyone could make such a post and actually be serious about it. 

1. Everyone makes mistakes.
2. Mistakes are not "fake news".
3. Subsequent retractions/corrections after a mistake reflective the source's commitment to the truth, depending on the promptness of the correction and how it is publicized.
4. Who in hell, exactly is the MSM anyway?  
5. Assuming you can define the "MSM",  what is the mistake-free alternative?     (Refer to point #1)

[Auburn85 432]

6 hours ago, AU64 said:

The "pleasant surprise" I'm talking about Brad  is for folks who learn that they have been lied to again by the major media and indeed....they will pay lower taxes next year.  For most people that would be a nice thing.....and for those who feel bad about getting to keep more of their own money, there are numerous worthy causes that can put the money to good use if you want to make a donation.  

Interesting to me is that some local arts groups....501c3s ..... have already sent out a note with some suggestions about how donors can possibly take advantage of the new tax law to help their organization with fulfillment of their 2018 gift before the end of this year. 

I agree. For those that don't want their tax break, they could donate some or all of it to a charity. Personally, I  could use to keep more of my money, but I will put my money where my sarcastic mouth is. So now, we'll see if some of the upper-income non- deplorables will use their personal wealth and social power to ensure that the least amount of fiscal pain will be inflicted on the most vulnerable. 

 

[homersapien 11,352]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

I thought this was pretty good.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-real-fake-news-of-2017

Seriously?   That was one of the largest "nothing" pieces I've ever seen. 

The author's big examples of "fake news":

1. Trump not getting credit for the "defeat of ISIS" which happened on his watch. 
2. The 2016 election forecasts."
3. They think the idiot Trump—for that is how they see him—set in motion complicated collusions with Putin and the Russians, and simultaneously undermined the national media with Fake News, and lulled an entire nation into the belief that he could not be elected."

First, I didn't know ISIS was "defeated".  Did they not exist before they took over some real estate?  Losing that real estate means they are now defeated?  And it's not like Trump had anything to do with this  - other than not touching it.  Yet the news is fake because they didn't hail Trump with a great victory?  (Maybe he should have visited an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner. 

Seriously, reporting on polls that were mostly wrong - yet still within margins of error - is "fake news".   Did someone report something that what the polls said?  Was their collusion or conspiracy among the poll takers?   I understand that the polls were wrong, but what about them was faked?

Trump got himself into this investigation by saying what he said.  He said he fired Comey because of the Russian thing.  That's just simple fact.  Nothing fake about it.  Maybe he will be exonerated, but there's nothing fake about why this investigation was started.

There's a long list of lies Trump has made which are demonstrably and clearly false.  He is playing the classic tactic of accusing his accusers of what he is so obviously guilty of - LYING.  It muddies the water and he doesn't have to answer to anything in the atmosphere it creates.  Plus, it makes for great reality show entertainment.  He just wants to keep the pot boiling.  If there's not something boiling over he creates something - the announcement on Jeruselem is a perfect example.

What's sad, is there are so many people who are willing to buy into this schtick.   But then, things could be worse I suppose, considering other statistics about our society - such as the number of people with realistic retirement plans.

 

 

[homersapien 11,352]

4 minutes ago, Auburn85 said:

I agree. For those that don't want their tax break, they could donate some or all of it to a charity. Personally, I  could use to keep more of my money, but I will put my money where my sarcastic mouth is. So now, we'll see if some of the upper-income non- deplorables will use their personal wealth and social power to ensure that the least amount of fiscal pain will be inflicted on the most vulnerable. 

 

I don't think it's a question of not wanting it.  It's more of a question of not noticing it.

 

[AUFAN78 3,889]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

What's comical is that anyone could make such a post and actually be serious about it. 

1. Everyone makes mistakes.
2. Mistakes are not "fake news".
3. Subsequent retractions/corrections after a mistake reflective the source's commitment to the truth, depending on the promptness of the correction and how it is publicized.
4. Who in hell, exactly is the MSM anyway?  
5. Assuming you can define the "MSM",  what is the mistake-free alternative?     (Refer to point #1)

What does the public think about fake news?  I know you are a polling fan, so I'll leave you this little dose....................

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/18/trump-media-fake-news-poll-243884

[wdefromtx 3,159]

22 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I pay a pretty penny in taxes every year and know I will get a few grand back because of the tax cuts.  However, it doesn't mean I find this to be a "pleasant surprise" as you put it.  Still think the bill is trash even though I stand to personally gain in the short term.

Have you been able to fully determine if you will come out ahead? I know we've discussed it before.

 

I have crunched numbers and it's looking like either no change or just a little extra refund. Wish it was more so I could get excited about it. LOL 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, I didn't know ISIS was "defeated".  Did they not exist before they took over some real estate?  Losing that real estate means they are now defeated?  And it's not like Trump had anything to do with this  - other than not touching it.  Yet the news is fake because they didn't hail Trump with a great victory?  (Maybe he should have visited an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner. 

Following up on this.  Similar line regarding the middle east this year:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/24/middleeast/ben-wedeman-year-in-review-intl/index.html

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Have you been able to fully determine if you will come out ahead? I know we've discussed it before.

 

I have crunched numbers and it's looking like either no change or just a little extra refund. Wish it was more so I could get excited about it. LOL 

I will come out ahead by a couple of grand initially.  Averages to about $40 per week for me in my paycheck (I get paid weekly).  It's certainly nothing I'm going to notice considerably.  Maybe buys me an extra couple of steaks at the grocery store.  The bigger problem is that I stand to pay considerably more as the years pass and this cut expires.

[homersapien 11,352]

10 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Following up on this.  Similar line regarding the middle east this year:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/24/middleeast/ben-wedeman-year-in-review-intl/index.html

"Traditional Europeans allies are breaking ranks with Washington, stepping back as the United States and Saudi Arabia careen from one self-created crisis to another in the Middle East. As the Western alliance splinters, Russia methodically pursues closer ties with an ever more empowered Iran and Turkey.

Washington, consumed and distracted by its own toxic domestic politics, is rushing head-long into, at best, irrelevance, at worst, catastrophe, in the Middle East. If you thought 2017 was a rocky ride in the Middle East, brace yourself for 2018."

[homersapien 11,352]

12 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I will come out ahead by a couple of grand initially.  Averages to about $40 per week for me in my paycheck (I get paid weekly).  It's certainly nothing I'm going to notice considerably.  Maybe buys me an extra couple of steaks at the grocery store.  The bigger problem is that I stand to pay considerably more as the years pass and this cut expires.

I don't see your problem. 

Trump Told Friends ‘You All Just Got a Lot Richer’ From Tax Bill: Report

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-tax-bill-richer_us_5a3fd687e4b0b0e5a7a2c345?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009