The Debt Limit Deal Has Been Cut
Photo by The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Over the weekend, Democrats and Republicans reached a tentative deal on the debt limit. This was good news that sent foreign financial markets higher on Monday as American markets stayed closed for Memorial Day.
As predicted, the deal on the debt limit is being forged in the middle. My first clue that a deal had been reached was a Twitter friend’s Sunday morning tweet that “the Republicans folded like a cheap card table again and basically got steamrolled.” Then I saw reports that progressives were upset about the deal as well.
It’s axiomatic that a good compromise often leaves both sides unhappy. If that’s the case, this deal seems to fit the definition of fairness.
So, what is in the deal?
From various sources, the tentative agreement includes:
- A suspension of the debt limit through January 2025
- A limit of one percent for Fiscal Year 2024 for increases in nondefense spending
- A three-percent increase in military spending to $886 billion
- Veterans programs will be fully funded for FY 2024 at $121 billion, which includes $20.3 billion for a toxic exposure fund
- $637 billion for other nondefense programs
- Cuts of up to $21.4 billion in funds previously authorized for IRS enforcement. About $1.4 billion is rescinded immediately and the rest over several years.
- Rescission of up to $29 billion in unspent COVID funds
- An increase in the maximum age of able-bodied, low-income adults who are required to work in order to qualify for food aid through SNAP. The maximum age will be increased to 54 from 49.
- Eliminating work requirements for the homeless, veterans, and young people leaving foster care
- Lowering the share of exemptions from work requirements that states can grant from 12 percent of recipients to eight percent
- Forces a one-percent cut in government spending if all 12 appropriations bills are not passed by the end of the year
As you can see, there’s a little something for everyone… and a little something for everyone to hate. Republicans like the slowdown in the growth of spending, the cuts to the IRS budget, and the stiffer work requirements for federal aid. Democrats like the fact that Joe Biden won’t preside over a default and the elimination of work requirements for some groups.
Last week, I wrote that this year there seemed to be a real possibility of default. The fact that there is an agreement is a good sign, but it still has to get to President Biden’s desk. It must pass a Republican-controlled House where Speaker McCarthy has a tenuous hold on his caucus and a narrowly-divided Senate where a filibuster is a possibility. Ultimately, passage is likely, but the wingnuts at both ends of the spectrum may try to ensure that passage does not come easily.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a Freedom Caucus member, has already announced that he will oppose the deal. Other members of the “usual suspects” crowd such as Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Lauren Boebert (R-Col.), and even Ron DeSantis have indicated that they are opposed to the deal. I have not seen a statement from The Former Guy, but he presumably opposes the deal since he previously said Republicans should “not make a deal on the debt ceiling unless they get everything they want (Including [sic] the ‘kitchen sink’).”
Some have indicated an intent to make every one of the appropriations bills an individual battle. The provision for automatic cuts if the appropriations bills don’t pass could easily become a temptation to scuttle the whole process.
The deal may be even more costly for McCarthy than he now realizes. Thinking back a few months to January when McCarthy eked out enough support to become Speaker after 15 ballots, he agreed to several conditions in order to win over the necessary holdouts. One of those was a change to House rules that would allow a single Republican congressman to call a vote to fire the Speaker. With a lot of unhappy Republicans in his caucus, McCarthy may find that the bill for his speakership has come due.
Open opposition from sitting Democrats has been harder to find, but the White House has been on the defensive against progressives angry at the work requirements and who believe that there should have been no concessions at all.
I do think that there is a segment of the Republican Party that would be willing to default to either force spending cuts or simply to own President Biden. Similarly, some progressive Democrats would prefer to force a confrontation over the 14th Amendment. Thankfully, cooler heads seem to have prevailed.
If even half these things are true, they will further alienate both Democratic and Republicans base voters .
Idiots.Report
Any deal would enrage base voters. Considering the Dems lost congress this deal is not exactly terrible for them.Report
They didn’t loose congress – they lost the House and by a very slim majority.Report
And with the house, they lost total control of Congress. The GOP didn’t gain it, they just took it away from the Dems.Report
Biden negotiated exemptions- at any age- for homeless people, veterans, and young people leaving foster care.Report
Horse trading in advance: the deal also orders the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a large natural gas pipeline that transits West Virginia and would carry a lot of gas from the Marcellus shale formation to markets on the East Coast. Sen. Manchin has pushed for the pipeline a lot; this is presumably to keep him on-side. The bigger question is whether McConnell will stop any filibuster attempt.Report
Stop it? Unlikely, but McConnell will likely allow (or wrangle if necessary) the votes to get cloture.Report
[Yawn]
We have not had a good Debt Ceiling “crisis” since 2013.Report
Once a decade is really too often. Of course, as long as fiscal policy from the GOP remains cut taxes at the top and laugh at anyone who takes trickle down seriously I suppose this is what we will get. It’s disgusting.Report
This was never not going to be hammered out. The hand-ringing about it was silly.
But yes, DC politics is disgusting, among other pejorative terms.Report
Putting my analysis here now.
A- Debt ceiling lifted so it won’t be hit again before the 2024 election.
1-Some work requirements added onto SNAP recipients who’re 50-55 (the previous cutoff was 50) but some groups (homeless, Veterans) under 50 are now excluded from work requirements.
2-Budget caps for spending that basically holds spending levels on non defense items at around the current level. In nominal dollars that’s a spending cut as well because of inflation. They gave Biden the numbers he asked for on military spending.
3-A rule that if congress doesn’t pass their 12 budget bills then a continuing resolution automatically kicks in with a 1% across the board cut. Applies for several years.
4- Of Bidens 80 million dollar boost to IRS funding the GOP clawed 20 billion back and diverted it to other things but that’s in the long run, in immediate terms they diverted about 2 billion.
5-Remaining Covid relief funding is clawed back.
Noodling it all over it’s not terrible news for Biden. Lifting the debt ceiling issue (A) through the next election is good news for him. You can see where his messaging is going to aim and has already been aimed in claiming that this was a budget deal and the debt ceiling lift got tacked onto it.
The areas where Biden unambiguously had to give up ground are 1 and 4. I am sure the left is going to absolutely howl about the SNAP work requirements but compared to what the GOP was trying to force through it is peanuts. It’s ironic that the other big policy “win” the GOP got is IRS funding cuts which will increase the deficit but, as usual, all that truly matters to the GOP is larding benefits onto their wealthy backers not actual deficit reduction and in theory funding cuts to the IRS will help the wealthy cheat more on their taxes. On the other hand, Biden gets around billion through to the IRS still and that is a lot of scratch. Sure, he got a 20% haircut off it but the Dems lost congress. A 20% cut off an 80 billion dollar funding boost for the IRS isn’t a win but as losses go it’s not terrible, not also that most of this category of cuts is back loaded so if the Dems win congress again they can reverse it. This theme echoes through the whole deal- the Dems got really big funding levels for stuff they wanted when they had the trifecta and the cuts that are being forced through here are pretty modest. Also, the left isn’t the right- we shouldn’t want spending increases just for the sake of spending increased and macro-economically reining in the general numbers is a good prescription for cooling off inflation more.
Biden’s obviously going to point at the budget deal and say “this is how I didn’t pay ransom”. Whether the media fish-faces play ball on this or not it is a modest “win” for the Dems for it to go down this way. On the face of it one can say “oh no, spending cuts if a budget isn’t passed” but that’s a facile reading. The previous status quos were “if the government doesn’t pass a budget or a continuing resolution then we have a government shut down.” Now the new status will be “if the government doesn’t pass a budget or a continuing resolution a continuing resolution with a 1% cut kicks in automatically.” That’s a significant improvement from Biden’s pov because it means no further market roiling fooferaws before the election along with a very small spending trim that is, again, not terrible medicine in our current macro-economic environment. This isn’t 2011. Also this deal applies for the next several years which means that the threat of the GOP forcing a government shut down is eliminated. On the other hand they now can simply force a 1% cut by refusing to do their jobs, but it’ll be indiscriminant.
So, did Biden “knuckle under”? I would argue “no” because he got more than a debt ceiling lift in exchange for the cuts he agreed to.
Did the GOP “win”? I’d concede “yes” but can we be real here? Do we think a deal along these lines wouldn’t have been obtained had the GOP raised the debt ceiling and then fought in a normal budgeting process in the fall? The only reason the GOP has resorted to debt ceiling extortion attempts is because they’ve realized that they get blamed if the shut the government down. I just don’t think the GOP got anything more from this conflict than the policy spoils they are entitled to for winning congress (barely).
Permitting reform didn’t make it into this deal- not because both sides didn’t want it but because it’s too complicated and big to stuff into a bill that needs to be written at lightning speed. That’s a pity but also a correct decision. The parameters that have been discussed can very plausibly pass through a bipartisan bill independent of the debt ceiling/budget dealings.
Will McCarthy be able to hang onto his job with this bill? Who knows? It’ll depend on where the talking heads within the right wing media bubble decide to go. But moreover, who fishin’ cares? I don’t. If the winger nutbars come for him Jeffries can provide enough votes to keep Kev afloat long enough to ink the deal- after that? Let him roast.
The moment the Dems get a trifect again the debt limit has to go. This is two times now the GOP has used it for extortion attempts and you can literally see the Dems getting sick of it in real time. The debt limit survived last time by the skin of Sinmanchin’s teeth and neither of them are rising lights in the party. When the opportunity comes- they will kill it and good riddance when they do.
Big picture- not a horrible outcome for Biden considering that the GOP took congress. If they can land this turkey it’ll be some solid government work and eliminates a lot of potential drama before the 2024 campaign.Report
The wing nuts don’t have the support to fire him. They had the votes to prevent him from getting the job unless Team Blue would vote for him.Report
I’m not sure they need to fire him – just bring him to a vote periodically to remind him they made him. Almost like parliamentary no confidence votes, but without a resignation at the end.Report
The 7th time in a week they bring this up, I suspect the rules will be changed back to what they were.Report
The moment the Dems get a trifect again the debt limit has to go.
If I had a nickel…Report
I do not think this is remotely a BSDI situation but I have seen it written that behind the scenes parts of the Democratic leadership see these stand offs as a useful reminder to the voting public of how unpopular Republican economic policies are. However I would think that after the farcical way this has played out so far, plus risking uncertain but potentially catastrophic damage over what looks to be turning into a simple budget deal, that the card will have been deemed ‘played’ with no upside to keeping it around.
Frankly they should have just conditioned raising the debt ceiling for Trump on abolishing it altogether. I think he almost certainly would have signed it as he doesn’t have all the zombie Reaganite commitments that would pressure him against it.Report
My assumption is that there is a whiteboard in Pelosi’s office that has (or had, at one point) two different “upside/downside” columns on two different sides of the board.
On one side was “lifting the debt limit forever” and on the other was “keeping it around”.
And my guess is that “keeping it around” had more upsides/fewer downsides.Report
I disagree. While we Dem voters have been down on the debt limit for some time I think Democratic political leadership was more balanced towards it. I get the vibe that they’re rapidly souring on it. And there’s no both sides to it. The Dems have never pulled this kind of extortion demand.Report
If this deal goes through I think the retrospective will be that Biden effectively called the GOP bluff on the whole thing at SOTU.Report
Yes, which makes the whole fooferaw entirely useless except for jacking interest rates on federal bonds, embarrassing the country internationally and giving the media idiots something to show their asses over.Report
I’m not “both sides”ing this.
I’m saying that the Dems have had trifectas in living memory and, wouldn’t you know it, something always came up instead.
We’ll be having this argument again the next time the Republicans win back congress and there’s a dem in the White House again.
“The Dems totally need to stop doing this next time they have the numbers to change it!”Report
Well if you look at the history of debt limit repeals you’ll see the water getting higher and higher against that debt limit dam. Last trifecta it survived by literally 2 Senators, Manchin and Sinema, both of whom are not looking at long futures in the Senate.Report
There’s a difference, not in ideology, but of temperament of the generation of Democrat’s in office post and pre-Obama. Every cycle, Senator and House members who actually remembers when deals were actually made of substance retires. Hell, it’s likely one of the holdouts of getting rid of it last time around (Sinema) will be replaced by Gallego.
Even putting that aside, when folks like Dick Durbin or Tom Carper retires, the person who replaces him will likely have the same views on say, abortion, spending, and such, but also not think the blue slip or debt ceiling has any reason to exist.
Like, Laura Blunt Rochester in Delaware will like Carper be very friendly to MBNA, just like Schumer is friendly to Wall Street, Cantwell is friendly to Boeing and Bennett is friendly to whatever is in Colorado, but she’ll likely be a vote to reform the filibuster and so on.Report
The Long March Continues, I guess.
It’ll be awesome when the new topia is finally here. Imagine how great the gated communities will be!Report
It never ceases to impress me how seamlessly and constantly you transcribe the ideology of left wing social media onto the Democratic party Jay. It’s almost sweet, honestly, to think you dress that ancient, cynical, hoary, warty party up in that bridal white of ideological naiveté in your mind.Report
You read what Jesse pointed out, right? Because, seriously, that’s what I responding to.
And the ratchet *HAS* been tightening since 2008. He sees it, I sees it…Report
I did indeed. But Democrats moving away from a “we can just strike great deals with the GOP as reasonable adults” idealism is moving -away- from utopianism and towards realism, not the inverse.
Or to put it in Jaybird speak: the GOP has been blatantly and flagrantly defecting for decades now and the Democrats are sensibly adjusting their priors and strategies for this round of the iterated game.Report
Oh, I can dig that phrasing.
That said, the ratchet does seem to keep turning, doesn’t it?
The attitude that says “we no longer need to make deals” is one that will strike out and force through the new and improved changes that, surely, we will all benefit from.
We will be dragged to our new destination, kicking and screaming, and when we get there, only the most recalcitrant will fail to acknowledge how much better off everybody now is.Report
After the Biden led Democratic Party’s performance in Biden’s first term I think your concern about that implodes. Deals have been made despite the GOP’s behavior, to everyones (including my) astonishment.
Jesse is merely observing that a breed of Democrats are vanishing. That breed is the”When I was young and didn’t have to get up to pee twice every night, these gestures of comity worked so these meaningless gestures of comity will continue even though the GOP is flagrantly using it to beat our faces in while the media clucks and says we’re both uncivil.” Democrat and they’re disappearing because they are getting old and they’re being replaced and -most importantly- the circumstances that forged Democrats like them no longer exist.Report
Those old Dems are being replaced by new Dems and the new Dems don’t feel like they have to compromise anymore.
Hey, and with the emerging Democratic majority, they won’t have to!
Won’t that be great!Report
The GOP doesn’t WANT to compromise on big stuff. They want to seize and hold power. Period. You don’t compromise your way to permanent minority rule.Report
Imagine what will be possible when you no longer have to worry about compromising with people who won’t compromise in the first place!Report
Compromise – by definition – takes two parties to arrive at an agreement. When one party refuses to even discuss options in good faith, much less adhere to them, why exactly should you continue to try?Report
Heck yeah, they shouldn’t!
Just get the deal you wanted in the first place!
THE SKY IS THE LIMIT.Report
What are we defining as “big stuff”?
Culture war stuff where both sides have professional activists whose jobs are to disagree?
War in Ukraine: Both sides support Ukraine.
Immigration: Both sides don’t want to touch the issue and neither has the votes to overcome the xenophobes.
Big picture we don’t have big disagreements at the moment, that’s why the fights are so bitter.Report
Federal spending. Taxation. Basic Civil rights. Education policy. And we don’t actually agree on Ukraine – it just happens that Biden doesn’t need to get Congressional approval for most of what he’s done so far.Report
Democrats are no longer capitulating to Republicans.
Here’s why that’s bad news for AmericaReport
See? Chip is ON BOARD!!!
THE SKY IS THE LIMIT!!!Report
To revert to Jaybird speak: the game is iterated and trust is declining. The GOP has been flagrantly defecting for decades now while the Dems have been, imperfectly and with decreasing consistency, honoring older rules of comity. That honoring of old rules of comity is coming to an end because the new generations of Dems are (correctly) observing that the GOP is flagrantly defecting and has been defecting for decades now.
I am rusty on game theory but my general understanding is that in an iterated game if one side begins consistently defecting the only rational response is to begin consistently defecting as well. If you continue to not defect then the defecting side reaps outsized benefits at your expense and is incentivized to continue to defect. If both sides consistently defect then both sides end up worst off but incentives begin to align to reach a new détente wherein both sides agree not to defect.
By your own Jaybird reason, Democrats beginning to consistently defect is the only rational response in this iterated game. It is a move -away- from utopianism and towards forging a rational new baseline. And I would like to note that -I- am aware that if you had not been banned from Redstate you’d also be over there telling the right-wing crowd that “trust is declining and this game is iterated. If you continue defecting and celebrate defecting do you honestly think the Dems won’t begin to reciprocate?”Report
I agree that it is the only rational response! Seriously!
And when the majority is reached, we’ll finally be able to pass the laws we said we wanted and, indeed, pass better ones than the ones we were willing to compromise for!
I’m not arguing that congressional dems should compromise!
(I am, however, implying that there will be a lot of excuses taken away for why things aren’t working the way we were told they would.)Report
Oh well sure but that is the very essence of politics! You get control, you change policy, if the outcomes are good you crow and brag (and likely get re-elected), if they’re indeterminate you spin and if they’re bad you make excuses and rationalize until you get kicked out and then the other side takes a spin.
It’s a mausy game but it beats the alternative.Report
California, and Michigan are both good examples of your argument.
Once Dems finally gained control and stopped worrying about trying to be “bipartisan” they passed a tremendous amount of progressive policies.Report
Is California well governed?Report
Absolutely.
By most metrics, it ranks better than most states.Report
If California could build housing at the same rate it did during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, it’d be the best place to live in the world, outside of maybe a the warmer parts of France.
Now, the housing thing is a massive issue, but outside of that, the actual CA economy is doing quite well, and so on.Report
If California had available land in attractive places it might be able to. Consider Orange County. In 1960, population 700,000. In 2020, 3.2M. With few exceptions, they’ve built everywhere from the ocean to the mountains. The entire LA basin is pretty much built.
Note that when I say “attractive” I don’t mean scenery. Transportation, communication, higher ed, weather, etc.Report
That’s 800 people per square mile. My very attractive sub-urb has a pop density of 2800 per square mile.
If everything it built then it’s not being built with an effective use of land. My locality isn’t great but we don’t insist on single family only.Report
800 per square mile in1960. Today, almost 4,000 per square mile. A significant chunk of the county is not buildable. Santa Ana’s density is 11,000 per square mile, Anaheim’s 7,000.Report
There’s still plenty of buildable land, that’s currently zoned for SFH housing, that currently has SFH housing, that could quickly no longer have SFH zoning.
Sorry, this “we don’t have any room to build” is true in very small parts of the country, but there is wide swaths of perfectly buildable land that we’ve been underbuilding for the past 40 years.
There’s no geographic reason Santa Ana & Anaheim can’t be at Barcelonan levels of density.Report
We can agree to disagree, then. You think there would be something wonderful about California with Barcelona-like densities. Myself, I don’t think California culture would survive; that would be something different.Report
Something like 75% of your land is sfh, but about 43% of your pop are renters.
There is a disconnect between what the population wants and what is allowed to be built.
You could stop well short of Barcelona for the bulk, or at least build to that slowly over the next few centuries.Report
I think people being allowed to build what they want to build on land they build (accounting for residential/commercial/industrial differences) allowing more people to live where they want is more important than some vague notion of culture.
The “Califorrnia culture” you’re talking about was invented in like 1956 by ad execs who had moved from Ohio or whatever.Report
Why did Cabrini-Green fail?
Or, perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself…
Did Cabrini-Green fail?Report
Cabrini-Green failed for the reason much of the welfare state had issues – instead of making certain provisions of the welfare state universal, we basically segregate poor people into their own little corners, then didn’t adequately fund said segregated public housing (along with the general strangulation of the Great Society in the crib), then acted surprised when it didn’t work well.
But, I find it interesting, when I talk about making it much easier for private owners of land to build duplexes, triplexes, or even apartment buildings, your first thought is public housing for poor people.
Since after all, I made no mention of public housing in my argument about making cities denser like Europe, where the vast majority of denser housing is privately-owned buildings, unless your brain automatically connects denser building to public housing in the inner city, which honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised act, considering your a Gen X white guy who has predominately lived in right-leaning areas and continue to be awash in right-leaning media, judging by the Tweets and news you bring up on this website.
Ironically, I’m pushing a pretty free market idea – if you own land, and want to build an apartment building, as long as that land is zoned for residential, have at it.Report
My thought of Cabrini-Green was that that was an example of making our cities denser like Europe.
Detroit gets brought up from time to time as a city that has entire blocks with the potential for water and sewer waiting right there.
For what it’s worth, I would support building massive apartments there.
Landlords are nuts to be leaving so much money on the table, don’t you think?Report
We might as well ask why so many rural towns are dying.Report
“Because young people are moving away from them.”
“Yes, but *WHY*?”
“Because they have better opportunities elsewhere.”
“Q.E.D.!”
“Can we go back to discussing density?”
“Maybe people left Detroit because they had better opportunities elsewhere!”
“Yeah. That’s certainly true.”
“See? That means that we should enact my preferred policies!”
“Your preferred policies made Detroit unattractive in the first place.”
“Let me change the subject again, then.”Report
Cabrini Green has even less to do with density than dying rural towns.Report
No, not really. Unless you think you can pull off “density” with quarter acre lots.Report
Why do you think the first example that came to your head, when a more denser city was mentioned, was a unfortunate failure of a public housing project?
I’m glad you’re OK w/ massive apartment buildings in Detroit, where we don’t need massive apartment buildings, because of a lack of demand.
My question is, are you OK w/ massive apartment buildings on the corner closest to your house, across the street from you, and so on, and so forth, if a landlord wants too?Report
If the reason it failed was that it didn’t get enough funding, I am wondering whether Sky High Housing would get enough funding.Report
This never happened. From 1972 to 2012, means-tested federal spending increased tenfold in inflation-adjusted dollars (population increased 50% during this time), and went from 1% of GDP to nearly 4%.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/43934-means-testedprogramsone-column0.pdf
I don’t have more recent data on hand, but I guarantee you that it has increased further since then, possibly not as a percentage of GDP (as the economy was still in recovery in 2012), but certainly in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars per capita.Report
4% of the GDP is roughly a Trillion dollars. So that’s about $30k per person in the US.
Of course since this is means tested and only going to the “poor”…
If those benefits are only going to the bottom 10%, then that’s $303k per person. If it’s to the bottom 20% then it’s more like $151,500
These numbers suggest that we don’t have poor people in the US anymore by historical standards.
We may not even have them by world standards.Report
Yeah, that’s crazy.
Unless we’re not really spending a trillion dollars a year on anti-poverty programs.Report
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard “a Trillion” claimed, nor the only source.
Of course, “spending a Trillion” isn’t “giving the poor a trillion” rather it’s “giving the program a trillion”.
Thus the temptation to just eliminate all these programs and hand out cash. However we’d be trading one set of problems for another set so there’s that.
On a side note if you argue we should have as robust a social network as Europe, well we already have that in terms of raw dollars spent. They spend more in terms of “percentage of GDP” but our GDP is so much higher that we still do better than almost all.Report
Social Security ($1.2T last fiscal year) is an anti-poverty program. Medicare ($750B last fiscal year) is arguably an anti-poverty program. Medicaid ($600B last fiscal year in federal funds, probably $900B when state money is added in) is definitely an anti-poverty program. Other income security programs ($550B last fiscal year). Something over $3T?Report
I think that part of the problem is that poverty also has this amorphic “vibes” thing.
You know that whole “$200,000 isn’t *THAT* much in San Francisco?” conversation that floats up periodically?
Good luck ever addressing poverty in a world like that.Report
First sentence of the wiki for Poverty includes the definition: Poverty is a state or condition in which one lacks the financial resources and essentials for a certain standard of living.
In addition there’s “absolute poverty”, which is meeting basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter.
Then there’s “relative poverty” which is comparing you to others in the same place.
So yes, you can make $200k and be living in Poverty in SF. Of course this takes us to “no one should be in the bottom 10% of society”.Report
If we hammer out that poverty can never be stamped out, not even in theory…
Well, it then becomes less morally offensive that we haven’t yet stamped out poverty.
Despite spending $3T on it.Report
Yep, I knew that before I commented, because that is the old bait and switch conservatives love to use.
“Ermagerd, we spend eleventy gazillion dollars on welfare!!”
Without mentioning that “welfare” is Grandma’s Social Security and Medicare.
So I will outsource my comments to Joe Brandon: If Republicans want to cut Social Security, let them have the balls to come out and say so.
But its at this point in the conversation that they always back down and mumble something about drag queens or immigrants or something.Report
Yes, free money is very popular unless you’re paying for it.
State and Local spend another $800B, so we’re probably at $4T a year since all those before were just Federal.
And the gov putting all these efforts in different programs makes this evaluation way more complex than it needs to be.
Of course the origin of that is the same on why we have dozens of training programs. Each program was created by a different set of politicians.Report
You’re off by an order of magnitude. GDP per capita is about $75k; 4% of that is $3k.
Of course, this is only explicitly means-tested programs. As Michael Cain points out, Social Security and Medicare are also anti-poverty programs, but since they’re not means-tested, they’re not counted. State and local spending aren’t counted, either.
Also, about a sixth of GDP is depreciation, i.e. money we have to spend to replace aging and obsolete capital just to maintain current levels of productivity. So the percentage of net domestic product that gets spent on anti-poverty programs is about 20% higher than the percent of GDP that gets spent.Report
Build housing and transit so people can get around without cars.Report
which do seem to be doing a lot of good . . . .Report
Reporting this AM has Chip Roy of Texas vowing to sink the deal, and believing the Speaker McCarthy gave him the power to do in the Rules Committee. This is not a done deal.Report
Seems like wishcasting to me. If the GOP sinks the deal I can only assume that, in the resulting disarray, the discharge petition will get used. I don’t think we live in a timeline that bright.Report
Some Republicans now saying something along the lines of, “We don’t run the Rules Committee based on secret verbal agreements, and what Roy says isn’t in the written rules.” Next question: how much floor debate and how many amendments will the Rules Committee allow?Report
There are 9 Republicans and 4 democrats on the Rules Committee currently. If the three hard liners defect, and the Democrats vote no just cause, that’s enough to sink it. If 4 Republicans defect, and the democrats vote with them its down. And if it does get to the floor, allowing any amendments turns this into the speaker’s election all over again.Report
This is one of those deals where McCarthy all but folded to Biden but the Very Online are wailing about what a big loss it is. Yes, spending is static and work requirement was added to food stamp recipients and that’s about it. No savage cuts in welfare spending or anywhere else. This is a big as a victory as possible under current political conditions.Report
Spending is not static. No growth in spending will be a roughly 5% cut in 24 and somewhere between 3-5% in 25 if inflation holds. That’s 8-10 % over two years. That will impact federal service delivery, even if it is the best option that could be won.Report
There just seem to be a committed group of people on the left who are very very angry that Biden is not willing to find out what happens when:
1. He declares the debt ceiling unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment;
2. He mints the trillion dollar coin;
3. He tells the Supreme Court that they made their decision and now let them enforce it.
Said group as convinced themselves that if Biden does all these things, the GOP will collapse and super welfare state will be here.Report
As a poster on the other blog put it, there is a faction dispute between the people that want a direct confrontation with the Republicans and the group that wants to get done what can get done and let the Republicans infight among themselves.Report
I’m looking at this as a political branding exercise.
Like, what is the takeaway that the average low info voter is left with? What is the impression, if any, that this is having on the party identification?
I don’t think there is any way to know for sure right now and I would bet that any impact is very slight.
But brand identification is built on a million insignificant things. I’ve asked a bunch of times here, what the GOP message might be to some unaffiliated voter, and its hard for me to see what it might be other than “Ban Abortion/ We Hate F@gs, Trannies, Immigrants and Coloreds”
But as a partisan, I suppose I am blind to whatever charming messages of hope and unity they are selling.Report
They’re not selling unity. For that matter neither is Blue although they like to think they are.Report
I don’t know. I think there is a very sour mode going on in this country right now for a lot of reasons, valid and invalid. A lot of our problems are because of decades of purposeful policy choices combined with COVID and post-COVID havoc and increasing radicalization and negative partisanship. The problem is that a lot of voters just want the problems to go away over night.
I am not sure this means a right-wing sweep of government because people are complicated but I think it could mean real limits for progressivism/liberalism too. I don’t think SF is in danger of turning Republican but there is a universal sour feeling against all our politicians whether moderate or DSA.Report
One of the things I’m, let’s say, curious about is how the IRS expansion will play out in practice.
The Left of the aisle formulation that it will secure funds from the Rich tax cheats strikes me as possible, but probably incidental to what the expansion will actually usher in. [On this my skepticism comes from the fact that billionaires and the ‘Rich’ have Tax Experts that can and will fight the IRS]
The thing about our tax code that I think a lot of us know, but don’t want to admit is that it requires us to make ‘reasonable’ judgement calls about our tax situation. The individual filer has to make a lot of ‘choices’ in how they file their taxes. Now, I’m in the camp that most of us are making these ‘reasonable choices’ with the proper intentions, and that most of the time we’re looking at $1k +/- swing on taxes already paid and collected. That is, we’re haggling not to ‘pay’ taxes, but how much we may or may not have over/under paid.
Precisely because my income can be highly variable and put me in different tax situations I always ‘choose’ the path of conservative compliance… I’ve *never* claimed a Home Office, though I have a dedicated room that I’ve worked from for 15-years — the guidance is just too unclear. I stopped itemizing deductions once my mortgage dropped below a certain threshold. I have to file a Schedule F (Farm) for ‘other’ tax purposes, but I always make it >$0 but <$500 -- purposefully eating thousands in expenses -- just to avoid questions about whether it's a 'business' or a 'hobby' the distinctions between which are not at all clear; and ultimately not worth the potential of getting flagged for additional scrutiny. For those of us in the corporate world... more and more folks are getting small amounts of Equity in the form of RSU's and the like. My observation after this Tax Year that calculating the tax implications of *miniscule* RSU grants vesting monthly was actually a cynical micro-aggression from employers. And, as I mentioned first... this is with 'Standard Deductions' I'm not doing anything other than vanilla. If only 1/2 the money allocated is used for auditors ($4B/yr), that's approximately an additional 25,000 auditors... In our mind palaces those 25k folks are going after the rich, but in reality I'm expecting that a lot of 'judgment' calls and ambiguities in the tax code are going to require regular people to wake up to 'enhanced enforcement' who didn't think they needed their Tax interpretations enforced. We already know that EIC is already flagged a high rates... add-in work requirements and all the complexities at the *bottom* of the Tax Code? Yeah, I can see a lot of $$ will be clawed back from Tax Cheats. Ultimately, the answer isn't $80B for Tax Enforcement, it's reforming the Tax Codes first, then making sure the enforcement matches the code. Right now, just a hunch... I've seen Accounting Industry folks say you *can't* ramp up 25k new hires in any sort of reasonable way. So maybe nothing will change in practice. But, my hunch is that when it *does* change in actual practice 'regular' folks will wonder why the IRS is challenging so many of *their* judgement calls. edit: This is related (however belabored) to the Deal and the narrative around the IRS expansion... which I think is naively understood by the left, even if their cynicism about the Right's motives are 75% correct.Report
That isn’t unreasonable and the Dems answer to that was to specifically and explicitly instruct the IRS to focus on returns on the high income end of the spectrum. The wealthy do indeed have tax specialists and lawyers to fight the IRS on tax matters but the wealthy also have become a lot more complacent due to the IRS’s lack of resourcing to actually review their returns and there’s a lot of legitimate tax revenue being left on the table due to it. But regardless of the wealthies tax fighting minions the best ROI for the IRS remains going after the wealthier end of the tax paying spectrum because that’s where the money is and because their bosses are going to notice if the IRS is shaking down normies for pennies instead of Uncle Pennybags for hundies despite being explicitly told not to. And the wealthy -know- it which is why they yank so hard on their party’s leash to prevent enforcement. An expensive tax lawyer can help you on the margins but if you’re flat out cheating on your taxes and the IRS eyeballs you you’re gonna be fished.
As to tax reform? Sure. But there’s no party for the Dems to negotiate with on tax reform currently so what can they do?Report
Maybe? But that’s the entire basis of my agnosticism. It’s one thing to say we’re going to control this to only go after the stuff we want it to go after. But tax cheating is tax cheating and easier victories have a powerful bureaucratic incentive that is well documented.
And, I’m not even accounting for the downstream ‘benefits’ of making the Tax Code even *more* ambiguous on behalf of the IRS incentives.
Basically I’m skeptical we can make water run uphill for more than a brief period. And when the downstream effects inevitably hit the poor and middle class? Well, Tax Cheats are Tax Cheats.Report
Perhaps, but this isn’t just normal bureaucratic ambiguity we’re talking about. The “easy” victories with lousy ROI’s are specifically being identified as “failures” by leadership. Even in the foggy world of bureaucracies that’s hard to wobble around and the IRS has no illusions about where this funding is coming from, why it’s coming to them and what behavior on their part will make it go away. Perhaps you’re talking longer term than a few election cycles but frankly I think the near term effects should be salutary.Report
Sure, but this isn’t just vague bureaucratese, this is leadership saying “We want you going after the rich powerful tax cheats not the small low dollar fish”. So following the path of least resistance and going after hapless low dollar edge cases isn’t going to net the IRS any bureaucratic benefit. They know why they’re getting this dough, what it’s intended for and what’ll happen if they don’t perform. Perhaps in the long run the focus will shift away from the wealthy tax cheats but it’s unlikely it will in the short term.
I’d also note that the wealthy also think the same way I do, otherwise they wouldn’t be raising Cain about this IRS funding and sending their Republican lackies out onto an idiotic limb to make deficit increasing demands on an ostensibly deficit decreasing crusade. They’re that freaked at the thought of the IRS coming after them. They don’t think the agency is going to go after some middle income folks home office deductions. Sure they have tax lawyers and professional accountants but there’re degrees of tax dodging that even those high paid attack dogs can’t help you with if the IRS actually looks under the hood.Report
“I’d also note that the wealthy also think the same way I do, otherwise they wouldn’t be raising Cain about this IRS funding”
I think it’s coming from the middle class, who neither trust the government to only go after the rich (or go after them at all), nor to play fair.Report
Yeah, heheh, the GOP’s congrescritters are well known to go out on limbs on behalf of the middle class; they truly care about the deficit too.Report
For the last 40 years or so, there’s been a back-and-forth on tax policy where Republicans cut taxes on all income levels, followed by Democrats raising taxes only on the rich. As a result, effective federal tax rates have fallen dramatically over time for the lower brackets, while effective federal tax rates on the top 1% have gone up and down with no discernible long-run trend. The bottom three quintiles are now paying virtually no federal taxes other than payroll taxes, which on average aren’t even enough to fund their expected retirement benefits.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households
The reason Republicans keep cutting taxes on the rich is that Democrats keep jacking them back up.Report
By middle class, I’m assuming you mean petit bourgeoisie Small Business Owners who make six figures and have taken questionable deductions for their home office or their daily work lunches, or whatever.
Because nobody w/ a normal W-2 middle class job really gets audited unless you really go off the rails with your return, and if they’re worried, they’re kind of dumb.Report
One third of all US households make six figures, and they’ve learned that when people complain about “the rich”, those people will come after them just as readily.Report
I’d be happy to have them come for me – since I woefully underpay – legally – versus the services I receive from government.Report
I honestly think the Left is wrong that the Ultra Rich are worried about this.
The Ultra Rich pay millions to Tax Attorneys to stay on the right side of the law — they have no idea what their tax strategy is.
The meaty middle won’t be the Ultra Rich (maybe there are some outliers that are pure scoffers… but even the most sketchy will simply be executing complex schemes that are ‘legal’ and will fight the IRS counter-interpretation and many (most?) will win).
The meaty middle will be Lawyers, Doctors, and Business owners with LLPs that aren’t so much cheating as employing accountants to keep them within the Letter of the Law rather than the spirit.
We can all agree that extracting $25B from Lawyers, Doctors and Car Dealerships will be a win for everyone. I look forward to legislators tsk tsking the collateral damage.Report
Are we saying “rich” or “ultra rich”? Because I’d be worried if we’re saying “rich”, but I’m completely unconcerned if people are saying “ultra rich”.Report
It depends on what vector we’re using to deflect.
I think ‘officially’ and pragmatically it will attempt to prioritize $400k and above.
Which is a lot of money, but it’s squarely in the HENRY category of professionals… not the ‘rich’ who live off of capital.
So, Not Rich Yet, Rich, Ultra-Rich… probably gonna land on the Not Rich Yet – like I said, Lawyers, Doctors and Car Dealerships.Report
I remember reading a story about the IRS auditing Yoko Ono. The IRS agent talked about putting on his best suit for the meeting but she didn’t show up, only her lawyers. The six figures that the IRS went in there expecting her to pay ended up being something about $400.Report
Yeah OMB is even a little skeptical that the IRS will be able to hire/train enough mid-career folks to meet the mandate. And one has to wonder how below-market early/mid-career IRS folks will fare against team Wealthy.Report
You can not think it, Marchmaine but the GOP, and their wealthy backers* behavior says otherwise as does professional analysis by both the agency itself and by the assorted economists both left and right who all agree that increasing enforcement on the wealthy will produce considerably more revenue than it costs. I think it’s sweet and romantic that you believe that the very wealthy simply employ tax accountants and stay strictly within the letter of taxation law (except for honest mistakes on complicated questions). It’s emblematic of the right wing article of faith that the wealthy elite are blameless angels (a mirror image of the far lefts presumption that the very poor or minority communities are the same). Regardless, the GOP has failed utterly in their effort to defund the IRS and has basically lost any ability to change that prior to 2024 so we should get at least some empirical results in the next couple of years.
*And note that for this discussion the “very wealthy” are defined as households making 400k+ per year as that is the threshold the IRS has been instructed to aim at or above.Report
We can revisit in 5-yrs.
My observation isn’t that Republicans will be hurt more than Dems… it’s that people will be surprised that the IRS expansion will impact regular folks much more than we’re imagining. I’m predicting Atlantic think pieces on how Good Person Jenny thought she was playing by the rules, but somehow she didn’t think her wedding cake hobby should cost her $4k in fines.
And yes, I have absolute, complete, and withering disdain for any notion that we’ll constrain 87,000 IRS new auditors to $400k and up.
For fun, I have a trifecta bet that not only will it impact HENRY’s and down, but that it will flow into the Easy Cases which will include and expand EIC and other types of poor/working class fraud.
On the under side of the over/under… there’s a legitimate question of whether the IRS can even find and hire those numbers… so possibly the impact will be NULL on the complex/audit dreams, but still $80B in customer service make-work program.Report
We’ll certainly see. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if we see a big string of cases of wealthy (not likely super wealthy) folks getting burnt vigorously because more IRS enforcement means a long list of lucrative little tax cheats that the wealthy have enjoyed for ages without adequate enforcement suddenly get swept out into the glare of administrative examination.Report
Well sure, there will absolutely be some number of folks who will be caught for tax fraud… some spectacularly so. My measure will be how much of that = $25B annually vs. pure spectacle.
A secondary metric will be after we catch the spectacular failures in years 1 and 2 … what does that $25B annual compliance revenue look like in years 3 – 5 and 6 – 10.Report
If heightened enforcement results in heightened compliance and thus lower penalties in the long run that is, itself, salutary since it’d mean both higher revenues as a baseline AND a potential relief valve on class resentment if the masses have greater confidence that the rich are not skipping out on the tab.
Considerably greater sums have been spent by the Feds for considerably less potential benefit (or flat out harm).Report
“It’s emblematic of the right wing article of faith that the wealthy elite are blameless angels”
Separate comment because this is uncharacteristically tone deaf from you.
In no way do I think the wealthy elite are blameless angels… I think the wealthy elite have a hand in writing the tax code and spend small fortunes to protect large fortunes by manipulating it to their advantage. They structure and restructure their income/wealth to comply with the code as it benefits them.
This is one of those things where I’m just saying we’re going to be surprised when ‘wealthy’ means you.Report
I think this is possible but I also think the people in the demographic most at risk at least in terms of team blue already got a much bigger kick in the balls with the SALT cap, and that came from the GOP. Even if more aggressive enforcement turns out to be a turning of the screws on, let’s say, the 85th-98th percentile the long term outcome may translate into cross partisan pressure for a less arcane tax structure, which would be a good thing.
I think the 40,000 feet on this issue is that the US’s middle to upper middle class rests in part on a tenuous goldilocks zone in the tax structure. Other wealthy democracies have in practice concluded that this group doesn’t need to exist and has eliminated them as a separate economic constituency. Whether you agree with them or not I guess depends on if you see them as petit bourgeois or important engines of productivity and economic growth. Based on today’s coalitions my bet is the politics weigh heavily towards the kind of moderation North predicts with the Democrats, and creates tougher choices for the Republicans who have to chose between long standing plutocratic commitments and holding back on a group that is quickly becoming a cultural/class enemy to their populist base.Report
Right, I was trying to figure out how to work in SALT as a sign-post… but it’s a sign-post as to how the expansion will land.
However, I also would suggest that you consider that SALT is only disproportionately D coded because of geographic State Tax codes.
From this perspective they are going to eat SALT *and* the IRS Expansion… with their (actually) Wealthy fellow Liberals calling for more.
This follows the usual American paradigm that ‘Wealthy’ means other people, the ones who obviously have more than what I, a mere middle class W-2 worker, have.Report
There’s certainly a plausible outcome where the dynamic of high tax blue states bleeding people and revenue to low tax red states gets a big kick even further along.
The paradox of course is that if that happens it naturally pushes the blue or at least purple-ification of culture in once red areas more than the red-ifucation of blue areas. Not sure where it leads in the long term. Maybe equilibrium where the issue is settled at the federal level, maybe something else.Report
“US’s middle to upper middle class rests in part on a tenuous goldilocks zone in the tax structure.”
This is either true or completely false depending upon what we mean by ‘Upper Middle Class’
The “Goldilocks Zone” for taxation is combined W-2 Less than $200k
Greater than $200k W-2 is ‘Retail-no-discount-Taxes’. The opposite of a Goldilocks Zone.
The next ‘Goldilocks Zone’ is when your W-2 is proforma (or, pshaw, W-2’s are for plebes) and your Income/Wealth comes from Capital/Equity.
So if Upper Middle Class is, say, $100k-$200k? Sure. For clarification, I use HENRY for $200k plus because they aren’t ‘wealthy’ in the sense that the W-2 wage is High, but the Capital to exist without the W-2 hasn’t been amassed. Yet. If you talk to your SALT people in this earning band, they will tell you they are ‘Upper Middle Class’.
So, depending on the forever semantic argument over Upper Middle Class vs. Rich/Wealthy? Depends on the terms used.Report
Point taken. Maybe the meta take is that the objective decision about who is and who is not upper middle class is de facto downstream of the tax code. When I made my comment I was thinking mainly about the HENRY’s who still benefit from some deductions (kids, mortgage, previously SALT, maybe some charitable, etc. and maybe ability to lower their taxable income with normal stuff like 401(k) contributions) but who are still ducking below the AMT. So wealthy by any objective and comparative national standard but probably still below W2s are for plebes.Report
I endorse, unreservedly, InMD’s comment in toto but I’d like to clarify that even on these terms I still think your assertion is pie in the sky idealism. The idea that the wealthy are uniformly political manipulating masters of the universe has the same idealistic wealth exaltation that thinking they’re angels does. No, the wealthy are a bunch of people just like every other class and while the manipulative masters of the universe set most assuredly exists I think there are far more varieties within the numbers of the wealthy including the flat out foolish and lucky; the “skilled at making money and so they think they know everything about everything” brand of foolish; the “taxation is theft so I’m going to do everything I can to hide my money from the gummint and if the IRS comes for me I’ll hire tax lawers like people hire dentists to address suppurating cavities” brand of idealist and so many many more. The IRS is unlikely to extract much money from the masters of the universe set, agreed, but from those other types of wealthy? I agree with the experts that it’s reasonable to think that considerable wells of uncollected taxes due lie in those groups waiting to be collected. And the GOP thinks so too.Report
I dunno, North, I feel like you’re arguing with some weird Libertarian Ayn Randian spectre that is not me.Report
If you feel I’m misunderstanding you I apologize but I read your objection to the policy as being “the wealthy are uniformly clever folks who have gamed the rules of the tax system to their advantage and are adhering to those gamed rules so increased enforcement of those rules will yield little new revenue from the wealthy.” I allow that assertion but assert in contrast that the ranks of the wealthy are considerably less uniform than your comment asserts. Is that incorrect?Report
I think that the difference is that you see “the wealthy” as “the top sextile” or thereabouts and he sees “the wealthy” as “the top 1%” or thereabouts.
So you see the percentages between 85% and 98% as seeing their taxes go up. Hey. Mission accomplished.
And the top 1% will continue to send their lawyers and turn a six-figure audit into a check for $400.
And you know what? They will!Report
Sure, but in this context the wealthy are households bringing in 400k and up who the IRS has been formally instructed to focus their collection efforts on. That group of households is far closer to the “top sextile” than the “top 1%”.Report
I’d say that “400k and up” should really be something like “400k-1500k”. (Not married to that last number. We can change it if you want.)
And, above that, nothing much will change.
Given that my assumptions involve some undercurrent of “taxation as fairness”, the fact that 400k-1500k will finally start paying their fair share will come as some small relief… but the gnawing pain will remain.
We’ll have to fix it again. Fix it right, this time.Report
Sure, but it’ll take two parties for that and right now the Good Ship ‘Murica is operating on only one.Report
That is the most important reason that we find ourselves where we do.Report
Here’s one positive change that happened already – https://apnews.com/article/filing-season-irs-tax-day-taxpayer-4ad340b6dc83b4b4dce89658eda7bbd1
There’s also news stories about backlogged cases being fixed quicker.
Also, frankly, I’m Law and Order when it comes to the Tax Police – yes, if you make $2,000 from your side-gig eBay store, pay your fair share. The fact that somebody else is getting away with something, doesn’t mean you get too as well until they get caught.
But, part of the reason why previously, the underfunded IRS went after EITC cases and the like, is that they’re a lot easier to prove than high-income tax cheats that take actual investigation, and that’s before any nudging from previous administrations, going back to the 80’s and 90’s. Now, with actual funding, they hopefully can.
Frankly, as I said below, 90% of complaining online about IRS funding comes from three main sources – people who have normie job who think they’ll be audited because of polarization, dumb leftists who think any government not run by leftists like them will never actually do things correctly, but largely, it’s very worried right-leaning to right-wing business owners upset they’re not going to get away with open tax cheating anymore.Report
If this cuts down on console scalping, I’m 100% for it.Report
Cash only… will increase friction in the console scalping market… so higher prices to make-up for the loss of Venmo!Report
Form 3949-A, baby.Report
Heh, send them a 1099 at the end of the year.Report
I don’t much care about the online complaining for clout. I’m complaining online for love.
“yes, if you make $2,000 from your side-gig eBay store, pay your fair share”
I hear you… a tax cheat is a tax cheat – let’s not forget the absent business license and the business expenses that can’t be expensed without a proper business. Are we sure they are materially engaged? Hobby? $2k is probably just the tip of the compliance iceberg. FICA for self-employed isn’t just 6.2%, you also have to pay the Employer portion too…
I’m making a prediction based on a ‘hunch’ tied to ‘how the world works’ that we’ll be able to review 5-years from now (CBO says 30-mos minimum to see revenues). If I’m wrong and we’re extracting an additional $25B/yr from Billionaires and no one else notices any change? Then I was wrong.
But even IF they do ‘prioritize’ billionaires… I expect a *lot* more people will be surprised that their judgement calls were wrong and that the IRS takes a *very* broad view of cheating on taxes. Further, the presumption when you get the letter is that you pay, not that you sit down and discuss how you thought you were doing it right. You *can* attempt to do that, but it’s not easy or free.
And friends, spending 24- 30-months on *hard* cases that won’t be 100% wins is simply going to see the Agency prioritize wins and revenue enhancements — the easier the better. Ultimately we have to be mindful that we can’t simply selectively enforce Tax Laws on a subset of citizens. No matter how well curated our lists. Else, beware the lists when Executives change.
On the plus side, my Senator tweeted out that IRS response times for your Tax questions should be better! [oh, that’s what your article says too!]
CBO summary: $200B over 10-years for $80B cost.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444Report
With the ease of using Turbo Tax these days – and similar programs – a lot of that hobby income won’t be hard to figure out.Report
That’s not the question… the thing is that you *can’t* deduct expenses from a Hobby, but you can from a business.
Whether or not your $2k business is actually a hobby is, I assure you, not cut and dried… and the tax implications can cascade.Report
I could be wrong, but that doesn’t sound right to me. I know that you can’t deduct hobby expenses from your income from other sources like your full-time job, but surely you can use them to offset income from the hobby itself?Report
My understanding is that the Tax Reform in ’18 changed the rules:
If a taxpayer receives income for an activity that they don’t carry out to make a profit, the expenses they pay for the activity are miscellaneous itemized deductions and can no longer be deducted.
The taxpayer must still report the income they receive on Schedule 1, Form 1040, line 21.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tips-for-taxpayers-who-make-money-from-a-hobbyReport
It’s actually hard to overstate how much damage the tax prep industry has done to this country by lobbying to keep the US government from automatically calculating 95% of all taxes automatically.
People think it’s just creating hassles and making things more expensive for filers, which it is, but it also is making people dislike taxes more…and on top of that it also causes completely paranoia about the IRS auditing people who are not, in any circumstances, going to get audited.
I fill out my taxes by reading a bunch of information that someone else has written to summarize tax law, and then copying information from forms that various companies sent me, as required by law, into what I hope are the right fields.
I’m not going to get audited, and if I was, it would be over a simple mistake of ‘You put this in a wrong field’, and I’d say ‘Okay. Put it in the other field, I guess. What’s the new math, and do I owe you more?’, which I’m sure wouldn’t be fun, but I’m pretty sure they couldn’t _charge_ me with any crime, and at worst I’d have to pay some added interest.
But everyone is paranoid about the IRS auditing them, because we’re having to do this ourselves instead of the government doing it for us, and a bunch of media (used to) show it as something common.Report
Joe Biden is the Columbo of politics. He is criminally underestimated, every single time.Report
There are some people who spend 50 years in Washington without ever learning how things work.
Joe Brandon isn’t one of them.Report
You might enjoy this You Tube video of Peter Falk, in character as Lt. Columbo, performing at a Friar’s Club roast of Frank Sinatra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_UN2S8SasYReport
Nancy Mace has a sad: https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1663510647190040578?s=20Report
My favorite comment from her to the Tweet:
https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1663518628904304643?s=20Report
She seems stupid enough not to realize what a self-own her tweets are.Report
You’d think her Legislative Director would solve that for her social media interns.Report
The other thing this deal does is take away the issue for the next Presidential election which makes it all about culture war stuff and other things that are not good for Republicans.Report
I will fully admit to being wrong about the Rules Committee vote – though two hardline GOP’ers voting with the Dems is not the surprise some outlets think it is. And Speaker Kevin MAY get 150 votes to the table calling Democrats bluff. But this is not yet sown up.Report
It’s big of you to admit it Philip. Our Kevin knows his only way out now is through now that he’s put this deal on the table. If he passes it on to the Senate he might be able to survive as Speaker. If it fails he’ll be utterly discredited and whatever happens next (either a default or the Dems getting a clean raise through discharge petition) would be on him.Report
it will be interesting to see how well he whips his caucus. If the HFC folks do carry out their threats to vote no as a block, he may not get to 150 . . . on the other hand this is revealing who on that side of the right side is all bark and no bite.Report
If he doesn’t get to 150 the wheels may fall off. But I suspect he’ll get to 150. The wingnuts are wild but there’s no one else who really wants to do the job or has a better realistic offer so I double anyone but the wingers will vote against and, on top of that, Kevin has coopted some of the wingers to give him cover.Report
He got 149Report
Debt ceiling passes the house with 314 votes for yay, 117 votes against. More Democrats (165) voted yay than Republicans (149). Democrats do not want to watch the world burn.Report
149? He broke the “Hastert” rule? LOL. Oh well it’s gonna be smooth sailing now. The GOP Senators will puff and bliovate but it’ll be passed.Report
Actually, it’s the “Ephebophilia” rule.Report
No, the Hastert rule says a “majority of the majority” must support the bill. 149 of 222 is a majority of the Republicans.Report
Thank you Michael.Report
So McCarthy basically folded to Biden and the the Debt Celling deal passed. This might even surpass LGJ levels of political mastery.Report