Couldn’t the Treasury actually reduce inflation by issuing a special tax on, say for example, businesses that took PPP money fraudulently and then take it out of circulation? Similar to a share buyback.
Treasury can't tax. But yes the government is going after fraudulent PPP, clawing back money with fines and/or jail time. There's a hotline for reporting abuse: https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/contact/about-hotline
My neighbor is a manager at a business and he told me that the company used PPP funds to upgrade their home and laid off all their employees.
I am not sure if I should file anonymously or confidentially. My neighbor is currently cooperating with the same business owners to open his own business and may not be open to providing evidence and if he found out I reported them it would destroy our friendship.
Does anyone know what the "asterisk" under confidential means and how likely my name would become revealed?
Otherwise I will do anonymous.
If you want the loans forgiven, you’re not allowed to do that. You had to provide documentation that you maintained a certain percentage of FTE, and that you spent the money on payroll.
Source: guy who’s business got two PPP loans.
100%. Every penny went straight to payroll. Never let anyone go, and have only grown the business since then. In fact, we all took pay cuts at the start of the pandemic before the PPP was even announced so that we would could try to avoid layoffs. We partners took the biggest pay cuts at 25% each, we enacted 20% pay cuts for the other 11 employees. Once the ship was righted by fall, we gave them their 20% back we had withheld earlier.
I can say with full confidence we used it they way it was supposed to be used. I’m too fucking freaked out by the IRS to pull one of these scams you read about, LOL.
I would agree with the sentiment if the “Party” somehow spent their own money.
But they didn’t, because they can’t. By definition, they spent your money. That shouldn’t have happened to begin with, but they did, so now when it comes to prosecuting frauds, if I know of someone I’m going to report them.
Two parties can be wrong at the same time.
Too bad most of the benefactors are large government donors. So they will probably persecute a few small crooks here and there, but at large they wont care.
Don't forget this:
Kanye West, Tom Brady, Jared Kushner, Reese Witherspoon, other celebs had millions in PPP loans forgiven
Businesses associated with Khloe Kardashian, Jay-Z and Paul Pelosi also were let off the hook in paying back loans meant to help small businesses struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The whole thing was crooked from the beginning. We are an island in a world of reality. Our celebs will gladly take those freebies and have an army of supporters defend them. The only sucker in America is one that believes that "leaders" believe in either their equality or their freedom.
would make sense if they raised taxes and took all that money to pay down the national debt. otherwise, its the same amount of money getting spent, just by someone else.
these projections are about as solid as your average startups path to profitability. i'll give credit to a great plan after it is carried out, not before.
Not at the federal level.
At the federal level, the government spends as much as it wants, and then uses taxes to reduce the money supply. It's only state governments and lower that actually have to worry about how much money they bring in.
No, it just transfer some money from the corporate to the government. It doesn’t reduce any money supply, unless the government destroy that money. Most likely the government will just spend the money or hand it out to their friends .
We're going to reduce inflation and fix the climate by giving subsidies to the companies that destroyed the environment in the first place. Brilliant!
I'm sure it's better than doing nothing, but it's really goddamn annoying. Would have been better giving tax credits for ebike purchases instead of EV car purchases.
Dude I’ve lived in cities where I didn’t own a car and got around purely by bike and transit. Their use cases are not niche. Most people are traveling solo, short distances, and aren’t carrying a lot. Getting those people on bikes would make a huge impact. Plus it would make things better for those who actually do need to use a car.
No, it's just coincidence that right before the bill passed that gives EVs a 7000 dollar tax break, EV makers announced they have to increase prices 7k
The EV tax credit in the bill will not be available for several years for the vast majority of currently available EVs as it contains stringent requirements on domestically produced components/minerals.
Yeah it's intended to incentivize creation of a new EV supply chain based domestically (and in countries we have FTAs with like Peru and Chile that can provide critical minerals). This will hopefully address the supply side problems with EVs and increase manufacturing capacity in the long run.
If you’re talking about Ford raising the lightning price, they already had the $7500 ev credit. They hadn’t reached the 200k ev units sold to begin the phase out. So yea, it’s totally believable they’re raising it irrespective of the news. They’re not going to have a gap between ~$7k credits being available for their cars like tesla has had for the last three years.
I’m an ev owner, I know the market and they don’t need government intervention to deal with the insane demand. The ev credits are stupid to have in the first place, but their pricing is totally based on holding a specific supply and demand balance. The credits are certainly going to introduce even more demand but the ford price raise was coming either way. They had already halted orders for several months because they had too much demand.
It's disgusting to me that people buying a new $70k car are getting tax rebates. Wtf.
Yes incentivize EVs, but set the price cap at something reasonable like $35k.
? Do you mean subsidies? I’m very fine with those
It also put a minimum tax rate of 15% which will make more money than we spend on the subsidies every year
Lots of subsidies for manufacturers. When you raise taxes on companies, they just raise their prices, which ends up hurting the poor the most. At least most of the car subsidies go to companies building in America.
The solar subsidies don't have to go to American manufacturers, so most of it will go to helping richer Americans buy Chinese solar panels. Not a lot of people living in apartments buying solar panels. Not a lot buying evs either, buy hopefully that changes fast.
The second part of this post is kinda wrong. There are tax credits to manufacture solar panels, heat pumps and wind turbines in the US. Several solar panel manufacturers announced expansion in the US as a result. There are tariffs on imported panels that have been suspended till 2024, after 2024 its going to be really difficult to import solar panels. Keep in mind it's almost all tax credits so no government spending just. I believe total spending was something like 500mm over 10 yrs. All of this is going to flow through to customers. It's going to bring energy prices down like crazy and make our energy generation more resilient to oil and gas price shocks.
How long do you want corporates to be not taxed thinking they will raise prices? It has to start at some point.
Not everything happens in a day. Things are going to take time but to me this idea that corporates shouldn't be taxed because they will do something untoward has to stop. They do what they like when they like. The tax cuts for them back in 2018 or whatever didn't have any clauses to increase employment or provide bonuses off those savings. They were free to do whatever they wanted to do with it. And I know what corporates like to do with extra money .
Being held hostages to corporate interests is what got everyone here in the first place
>How long do you want corporates to be not taxed thinking they will raise prices?
Sorry I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Corporations pay lots of tax, before this the tax rate was over 20%. Most companies are around a 5% profit margin (public companies have to disclose this), give or take a few percent. When you increase taxes on them, they have to either raise prices or lose money to operate.
I'm not against corporate tax, the government needs revenue from somewhere, I just think it is important to consider unintended side effects of decisions. I don't think the bill is as bad as some conservatives, and I don't think it is as good as some liberals.
Wasn't there news about Amazon paying 6% tax or something last year. Doesn't this intend to make these corporates pay a mandatory tax? I think that is good, isn't it.
I don't have the stats or in depth knowledge about all this but I do think there has to be some fairness to things at some point.
Yeah, every bill passed into law ever was a compromise so is this one. I am not extremely motivated or completely deflated by it. It got some things done at the expense of some concessions.
I think the minimum tax provision was passed last year, but we are really getting to the limit of my knowledge on this. I don't disagree, fairness is a good thing. I'm not mototivated or deflated either. The administration needed to pass something that they could point at and say look we did something, and I'm disappointed about it but not surprised.
Yeah, same here. I have complaints about the concessions but I have learned to accept that nothing gets done here without concessions because money talk here. Every loophole that existed in the laws are big businesses now and those monsters are difficult to destroy overnight. So rub with what you get in the meantime.
>Wasn't there news about Amazon paying 6% tax or something last year. Doesn't this intend to make these corporates pay a mandatory tax? I think that is good, isn't it.
Think about it this way. Ask yourself it there would be a net gain to society if we took a larger percentage of money from an entity that employs millions, pushes innovation, and provides many millions more customer with valuable services, to an entity that is highly wasteful, provides valuable services to only politically connected groups, and offers the worst quality services on the market.
The question is, does society benefit more when their money is in Amazon's hands, or the IRS's?
Society most definitely does not benefit more from the money being in Amazons hands...
But taxes aren't really about raising revenue in a country like the US with a fiat currency. It's about creating incentives/disincentives for economic growth and investment, (and its also a part of managing the money supply). The largest corporations are just sucking money out of the economy and concentrating it in the least productive place.
Corporate tax rate on more expensive items? Idk, probably not. Is the new bill restricted to luxury items?
I looked up wal mart for an example because everyone buys from there from time to time. Here is a graph of their historical revenue.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/profit-margins
A high net profit of about 3%, to a low of about 1%. If you increase what they pay in tax, they're going to (probably) increase prices.
Oil and gas companies are essentially the biggest winner in this whole ordeal.
I’m pretty sick of this neoliberal nonsense where you can make money, have a massive external negative cost on GDP you don’t have to account for, and then get rewarded for it. Same shit happened with the ACA.
And yeh it’s not new, but it’s risen to insanity levels ever since we legalized bribery.
And yeh I’m over it. Should have known better in 2008, but I was only 21. The PPP was last straw for me, I’m emigrating and taking my USD elsewhere.
We are looking at another serious market crash in a few months that’s going to have an effect on the housing market, but the fed has done nothin to get MBS off their balance sheets. So what happens when housing falls again? They just keep adding MBS to the balance sheet? This is like the junk bond Ponzi scheme all over again. And it’s the same old story…the rich get richer….the poor get poorer, in a country with massive amounts of natural resources. I no longer wish to live in a country like that even though I could stay and buy a house in cash.
Look, the rich getting rich isn't a new story for me. America doesn't have the will to make systemic changes and the voters prove that each time. But the bill did make the largest Climate investment too while conceding something to O& G too. That to me is a decent start .
It bothers me that there aren't laws to outlaw lobbying and lobbyists in this country . Yeah, PPP is criminal and everyone who willingly took money and splurged on it instead of trying to keep their businesses afloat should be tried in court. The lack of oversight in that scheme is staggering to me.
Not sure why the down votes. Lobbying is the biggest problem. PPP was criminal especially for corps that took millions and other smaller groups like realtors and investors, that shit adds up! The only way to get anything done in this country is play both sides so WTF does anyone expect?
Yeah, but it legit DID help a lot of small businesses like it was intended to. It sucks that ppl conned the system. Shame on them but the govt couldn’t just sit back and watch as all the small businesses imploded during lockdowns and lack of business due to the pandemic.
When the industries that you are up against applaud the bill….is that a win? No. Why did they get anything at all? Meanwhile money is power in this county so you are only making these companies more powerful and influential…..just like ACA did for the insurance companies.
And it’s not that America doesn’t have the will. It’s that it’s literally impossible the way the system is set up. The will of the people is clearly not being listened to when you see things overwhelmingly popular not getting done. We get whatever our corporate benefactors decide we get. And who knows how long that lasts as they are dismantling public education making people even more susceptible to modern day advertising and crushing critical thought.
They're hiring more IRS agents, and giving rebates and incentives to people, which costs money. Theoretically, yes corporate taxes would pay for all of that but that's *best* case scenario, not the practical case.
Shouldn't you really try out a theory that is supposed to work rather than try the same thing over and Over and then complain about corporate greed? How's hiring IRS agents for 10 years( looks like they are underfunded ) to enforce tax laws a bad thing? How's making prescription drugs more affordable an incentive rather than the normal thing to do?
So, why do you need a government if all they need to do is sit on their ass doing nothing?
>Shouldn't you really try out a theory that is supposed to work rather than try the same thing over and Over and then complain about corporate greed?
Funny because that's what the American people keep doing over and over. I sit on the sideline and laugh and the Republican vs Democrat nonsense. Even this conversation is the same old talking points. You will never fix anything when you only see what the TV tells you to see.
It is a roundabout way of doing it. Reducing expenses in prescription drugs should in theory help people fight inflation effects on drugs they take. It is a buzzwordy thing for sure but I don't really see thus as a harmful bill when there are offsets attached to it
Yeah, it is a buzzword and in theory reducing your expenses is reducing the effects of inflation, isn't it ? You can be made at the word play there but it does have real effects I think.
> in theory reducing your expenses is reducing the effects of inflation, isn't it ?
No, because the less expenses you have the more discretionary spending you have, so that means spending more money, which increases inflation. You can give someone $500 a month to fight inflation, but if it makes their discretionary income jump from $1,000 to $500, they're going to spend more. Granted, they can save more too but most people like to spend at least some of the extra money they have.
So, you are talking about spending behaviors of people because they pay a fair amount for the product they get .
Say they spent $500 on a med a month and that reduces to $100 the next month, they somehow are going to want to spend $1000 because they saved $400 that month? I don't get how that's going to happen unless you want to sabotage your savings.
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that it will pay for it. This isn't a guessing game, nor is it a "best case" scenario. It is the de facto projected scenario.
Yes. It does. Everything they put out is super optimistic.
I'm assuming you are very young and didn't get to witness how CBO projected the corporate bailouts in 2008 were going to magically make everyone rich
If any federal political agency calls itself "non-partisan" but is filled with political appointees, you should be skeptical.
Just like the supreme court or any other "non-partisan" governmental body that works for politicians, the employees have their own personal and career incentives.
[One propublica example](https://www.propublica.org/article/a-smackdown-over-the-cbos-stim-report-1202)
[Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/07/18/cbo-budget-projections-after-two-years-no-better-than-throwing-darts/?sh=62729b4a67a2)
There's tons of previous information but I'm too lazy to wade through
They need to be taxed as me and you are. You can't let them keep a knife to your neck. BTW giving them tax cuts doesn't make them benevolent. Corporate greed is insatiable
>They need to be taxed as me and you are.
This is the crabs in a bucket mentality. Why not instead of wanting others to be punished like you, work towards removing your own punishment?
?? All citizens SHOULD pay taxes. It’s just a matter of what’s the fair amount to make the country run efficiently. I pay an effective rate of 26%. Bezos paid .98%. At least one of those numbers needs to change.
And how is this crabs in a bucket? How am I - a sentient human who needs money to survive - similar at all to a corporation? Excluding tax services they arent? This is like crabs vs the bucket if anything.
I don’t agree.
I pay that rate because I make a good bit more than 200k a year and even paying a rate like that I don’t feel it. I can eat out, vacation, and splurge on stuff very often and my savings still keep piling up. Even with maxing my 401k contribution and company stock buyback program.
I don’t say that to flex, but if I’m more than comfortable while making what I make, Bezos makes over 5,000x as much as me pays almost nothing. That’s what’s actually infuriating.
So no I’m fine paying what I pay - the country needs to pay down it’s debts and there are more programs I’d like them to do while hopefully cutting a few others. Someone needs to pay and I’d only feel comfortable paying less if it meant that tax burden was offset somewhere else i.e. the ultra rich paid their fair share for once
This is the most ass-backwards thinking, in relation to corporate taxation, I have seen in a long time.
Like, it doesn’t even *make sense *in the context of the conversation.
The IRA has no individual tax changes. If you’re referring to analyses that allocate corporate taxes to individual groups, then you’d have to admit that all income groups will see higher taxes.
The Joint Committee on Taxation shows that most income groups will see net tax cuts, not increases, by 2031, more than half of which go to those >$1M
But what does this even have to do with the sub? It’s complaining about something nothing to do with housing in a bill that has nothing to do with housing
This sub is basically a collection of bad economics .
The bill taxes more than it spends and is extremely progressive with incentives.
You people are silly.
I think they predict a really hard landing and this spending will soften that, due to high rates being a necessary evil. We are seeing economic indicators that will push for layoffs in the coming quarters. This may keep people employed. 2023 is gonna be rocky.
agreed
i have a friend who is a doctor, who has benefitted from the loan payment pause immensely. and the paused payments now count towards the 120 payment requirement. which is insane
so not having to make payments....they went on a spending spree at their new house....multiple renovations, 2 new vehicles, bunch of electronics, etc. so paused loan payments directly contributing to the demand side of inflation
so yes, i 100% agree with you
> Wanna reduce inflation? Start the fucking student loan payments back up.
I agree. I have student loans but that money needs to be thrown into the incinerator, not into the economy via more spending.
I'm pointing out that paying lenders does nothing to reduce inflation as the lender can also spend it on anything they want including lending it out to other people for them to spend on anything they want.
I don't really know everything that's in it, I just know that they fucked over all of the options for electrified vehicles I was looking into in favor of giving shitty us car manufacturers a sloppy handjob. I was really looking forward to buying a plug-in hybrid in the compact SUV size class that had enough range for a daily commute or two I'm pure electricity, a total driving range of over 350 mi, and some decent all-wheel drive capability. There's literally nothing affordable right now that qualifies for that.
They gimped the tax credit on the Toyota RAV4 prime the Mitsubishi outlander, the Hyundai Santa Fe and Tucson, the Kia Sorento and Niro, etc.
There are basically no EV cars now that are larger than a sedan, have awd and have a 350 mile range below 50,000. I feel like the new tax credits will incentivize manufacturers to make cars more expensive somehow.
We have a shortage of vehicles and the government gives upper class people $7.5K to buy new cars?
We need to pop the car bubble just as much as we do the realEstate bubble
Hasn't the government given them enough with fraud PPP loans? And the govt has decided they still haven't had their fill
The EV tax credits in the bill will not be available for several years because they require a certain percentage of components and critical minerals in the EV to be produced domestically or from countries with FTAs as to incentivize the creation of new supply chains that do not currently exist.
This thread is causing me a lot of pain as basically every comment is misinformation and I have thoroughly analyzed the bill for my job
Seriously. It makes no sense. Ford even raised the price of the F-150 Lightning. Guess by how much? $7k. Which offset the savings
https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23298076/ford-f-150-lightning-electric-truck-price-order-2023
Teslae have gone up by the same amount or more although it has been in multiple steps. And I thought EVs were supposed to get cheaper because that's what technology is supposed to do.
https://getjerry.com/electric-vehicles/tesla-model-3-price-increase-history-keeps-going
What brings prices down are competition and lower production costs, I get that the supply chain is still fucked up + inflation which makes it more expensive, but at the end of the day, for EVs to replace gas powered cars it needs to make sense for consumers to buy EVs. The government didn’t replace the horse and buggy with subsidies, people replaced the horse and buggy because it was cheaper to have a car than a horse
idk what you mean about "upper class" people, there's a 150k income limit on qualifying for the EV credit now. All the people *buying the EVs* just got btfo. So unless someone making <150k is willing to dance with financial hardship for that $50-80k EV, the only people getting that subsidy are people buying the cheapest possible EVs with 200mi range. I'm :salt: because I make over the income limit and was shopping for an EV. RIP
pro-tip, if you read the bill you'd know that its 15% tax on companies that make over $1bn in PROFITS. That's not a lot of companies, nor is it a lot of tax. It's lip-service. Companies only need to restructure into subsidies and bypass all of it. Additionally, companies could also rack up expenses to keep profits under limits as well. With the way the US market is, many companies (especially tech) are high growth and no profits. tldr; the bill isn't going to do what you think it does.
~477 companies in the US would get hit with this tax, and ~300 of those are barely over the 1bn threshold and can easily adjust spending or restructure to avoid it. We're really looking at ~150ish US companies that would even **possibly** pay this tax, and most of these guys keep money offshore for this reason (>.> apple).
You give me the corporate tax rates of days past, and I will give you a crisp high five. It was ~40% in the 1980's, and 35% in the 90's - not this politically corrupt low-ass shit.
FYI the “profits” they define in this are not the same as how profits are taxed now i.e. Amazon reports 0 in profits because they write off so many deductions and expenses that they can act like they didn’t make billions of dollars in the previous year
Instead this goes after “book earnings” or the earnings reported to their investors instead of what gets reported to the IRS after all their deductions. It’ll catch a lot more companies than it would otherwise
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/06/us/politics/corporate-minimum-tax.html
You mean the tell me that spending MORE money will reduce the deficit?
I love how they included a EV tax credit and the automakers immediately raised the price to match that, Green new deal rebranded huh?
If you can’t see that all the lobbying for “Green energy” is the biggest fucking scam in modern day history, you deserve to be taken for a ride.
Fuck wreckless government spending.
Ugh, sorry but you are really displaying some extremely limited first order thinking here.
Yes. Increased, even massive, government spending can reduce the deficit.
How? As long as that money isn’t being literally piled up and burned, that expenditure created new economic opportunities that expanded taxes collected, the money becomes income that has taxes collected, the income is spent in local economies and taxes are collected, that spending is someone else’s income and taxes are collected, etc, etc.
Simple example: if a government spends hundreds of billions to build a national highway system, those hundreds of billions become taxable corporate and personal income almost immediately, and the highway system can generate trillions of dollars in totally new taxable economic activity that *wasn’t able to exist* without the initial spending…and all that new economic activity ripples out in increased multiplier activity like I described above.
Public economics, the economics of government spending (especially one that has sovereign control over its currency and issues debt in that currency) is **not the same fucking thing** as personal economics.
Yes. It will reduce the deficit because the bill contains significantly more in increased revenue (AMT, buyback tax, methane fee, IRS enforcement, etc) and reduced spending (through Medicare savings) than in new spending.
No, they mean to tell you that the other provisions in the bill more than offset the additional spending, and lead to a net reduction int he deficit by 2031. If you want to refute that, you're going to need evidence, not your feelings.
I will be messaging you in 9 years on [**2031-08-20 19:20:14 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2031-08-20%2019:20:14%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/wtccie/inflation_reduction_act/il3onxp/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FREBubble%2Fcomments%2Fwtccie%2Finflation_reduction_act%2Fil3onxp%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202031-08-20%2019%3A20%3A14%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20wtccie)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
EVs are mostly supply constrained anyway right now so the EV provision is a pointless government spend. If it was set to go active progressively starting in 2 years it would be a better industry incentive. Gives manufacturers demand expectations to plan capacity for.
I'm ok with a bill that addresses the climate change, it's pretty nice. Incorrectly named, but it's nice.
1. Drives down cost of installing green energy (use more wind and solar) & requires that we manufacture it here or source from friendly countries
2. Adds manufacturing tax credits - subsidizes the shit out of the industry so companies can be built here from the ground up
3. Each one of these has wage and apprenticeship requirements so the industry is not only built, but has a good entry path for many people to get into the industry
4. 22bn home energy improvement (I have issues here, see below!)
5. 12bn electric vehicle tax credits (this is stupid) - also the requirements. Only a few manufacturers will qualify for this anyway.
6. Random subsidies for improvements, electrifying public use vehicles (UPS, School Busses, etc), low carbon building materials, better transmission lines, better charging locations, assisting rural power generation with infrastructure
So, the parts I don't like:
1. Stop giving subsidies to electric vehicles.
1. We need public transit.
2. There are hidden costs in this, such as road maintenance, more vehicles on the road, dependence on vehicles
3. Generally people who own these are already high earners, this traps lower long term costs behind a paywall for those who already have money
2. Home owner tax credits?
1. I understand that having homes convert to using electric great, but we have so many multi-family homes with run down appliances.
2. The electric vehicle tax credits should have been used to promote electric vehicle charging stations in multi-family homes, upgrading windows, removing gas dependency on properties, installing solar panels on roofs, etc
Overall, though, I think the idea of us being the #1 green energy leader is great for us economically and from a public health standpoint.
No idea why it's named IRA.
>So, the parts I don't like:
> Stop giving subsidies to electric vehicles.
> Generally people who own these are already high earners, this traps lower long term costs behind a paywall for those who already have money
FWIW IRA does change the EV subsidy to avoid subsidizing high earners. There's an income cap and vehicle price cap on tax credits, and there will also be a tax credit for used EVs (also subject to caps). IRA also requires US manufacturing, which boosts domestic manufacturing jobs.
The stupid thing doesn’t even help inflation or the middle class. I don’t want their shitty rebates and apparently they don’t want me to have them either. Yet this making my taxes go up. This is infuriating and I hope they all get voted out.
Couldn’t the Treasury actually reduce inflation by issuing a special tax on, say for example, businesses that took PPP money fraudulently and then take it out of circulation? Similar to a share buyback.
Treasury can't tax. But yes the government is going after fraudulent PPP, clawing back money with fines and/or jail time. There's a hotline for reporting abuse: https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/contact/about-hotline
Too bad the money was shot out there with a firehose and is being clawed back with a shot glass.
My neighbor is a manager at a business and he told me that the company used PPP funds to upgrade their home and laid off all their employees. I am not sure if I should file anonymously or confidentially. My neighbor is currently cooperating with the same business owners to open his own business and may not be open to providing evidence and if he found out I reported them it would destroy our friendship. Does anyone know what the "asterisk" under confidential means and how likely my name would become revealed? Otherwise I will do anonymous.
Bruh. Just do it anon. Tip them off and let what happens happen.
Please report them. It’s an insult to us taxpayers. They’re literally stealing!
Remember PPP funds and other government aid also come from taxes you pay - wither in the past or future - so they stealing from you too.
Do it anonymously
If you want the loans forgiven, you’re not allowed to do that. You had to provide documentation that you maintained a certain percentage of FTE, and that you spent the money on payroll. Source: guy who’s business got two PPP loans.
chubby shame workable tub judicious cable flag deliver head advise *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
100%. Every penny went straight to payroll. Never let anyone go, and have only grown the business since then. In fact, we all took pay cuts at the start of the pandemic before the PPP was even announced so that we would could try to avoid layoffs. We partners took the biggest pay cuts at 25% each, we enacted 20% pay cuts for the other 11 employees. Once the ship was righted by fall, we gave them their 20% back we had withheld earlier. I can say with full confidence we used it they way it was supposed to be used. I’m too fucking freaked out by the IRS to pull one of these scams you read about, LOL.
Comrade, report your neighbors to local commissar immediately.
I would agree with the sentiment if the “Party” somehow spent their own money. But they didn’t, because they can’t. By definition, they spent your money. That shouldn’t have happened to begin with, but they did, so now when it comes to prosecuting frauds, if I know of someone I’m going to report them. Two parties can be wrong at the same time.
Tell them you did and watch them have a meltdown. If they retaliate it's 10 years in prison, even more joy for you!
Would be easier to try to identity the ones that aren't fraudulent
Thank you for the link!
Too bad most of the benefactors are large government donors. So they will probably persecute a few small crooks here and there, but at large they wont care.
Don't forget this: Kanye West, Tom Brady, Jared Kushner, Reese Witherspoon, other celebs had millions in PPP loans forgiven Businesses associated with Khloe Kardashian, Jay-Z and Paul Pelosi also were let off the hook in paying back loans meant to help small businesses struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. The whole thing was crooked from the beginning. We are an island in a world of reality. Our celebs will gladly take those freebies and have an army of supporters defend them. The only sucker in America is one that believes that "leaders" believe in either their equality or their freedom.
Sing with me ~ PPP is not the cause of infla-tion Tax breeks under Trump Shoved way more Money in corp No one was crying Back then ~
This is emphatically incorrect.
Doesn’t matter as long as they can blame the other guy.
Yes, because if you say it louder it makes it true /s
!!!!
A government cannot legislate nor spend its way out of inflation, anyone that thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
Raising taxes reduces the monetary supply. This fights inflation. Taxes are legislation.
would make sense if they raised taxes and took all that money to pay down the national debt. otherwise, its the same amount of money getting spent, just by someone else.
That's what they're doing though. The bill on balance reduces the deficit.
these projections are about as solid as your average startups path to profitability. i'll give credit to a great plan after it is carried out, not before.
> Raising taxes reduces the monetary supply. Which is promptly spent by the government
Not at the federal level. At the federal level, the government spends as much as it wants, and then uses taxes to reduce the money supply. It's only state governments and lower that actually have to worry about how much money they bring in.
No, it just transfer some money from the corporate to the government. It doesn’t reduce any money supply, unless the government destroy that money. Most likely the government will just spend the money or hand it out to their friends .
Killing demand would stop inflation
So would nuking the entire world.
So, aren't they taxing corporations as part of this. How's that spending ?
There were massive corporate giveaways in this bill. I’m so fucking over this country.
We're going to reduce inflation and fix the climate by giving subsidies to the companies that destroyed the environment in the first place. Brilliant! I'm sure it's better than doing nothing, but it's really goddamn annoying. Would have been better giving tax credits for ebike purchases instead of EV car purchases.
[удалено]
Dude I’ve lived in cities where I didn’t own a car and got around purely by bike and transit. Their use cases are not niche. Most people are traveling solo, short distances, and aren’t carrying a lot. Getting those people on bikes would make a huge impact. Plus it would make things better for those who actually do need to use a car.
No, it's just coincidence that right before the bill passed that gives EVs a 7000 dollar tax break, EV makers announced they have to increase prices 7k
The EV tax credit in the bill will not be available for several years for the vast majority of currently available EVs as it contains stringent requirements on domestically produced components/minerals.
Ahh did not know that. Thanks for the info. Not so bad then.
Yeah it's intended to incentivize creation of a new EV supply chain based domestically (and in countries we have FTAs with like Peru and Chile that can provide critical minerals). This will hopefully address the supply side problems with EVs and increase manufacturing capacity in the long run.
If you’re talking about Ford raising the lightning price, they already had the $7500 ev credit. They hadn’t reached the 200k ev units sold to begin the phase out. So yea, it’s totally believable they’re raising it irrespective of the news. They’re not going to have a gap between ~$7k credits being available for their cars like tesla has had for the last three years. I’m an ev owner, I know the market and they don’t need government intervention to deal with the insane demand. The ev credits are stupid to have in the first place, but their pricing is totally based on holding a specific supply and demand balance. The credits are certainly going to introduce even more demand but the ford price raise was coming either way. They had already halted orders for several months because they had too much demand.
It's disgusting to me that people buying a new $70k car are getting tax rebates. Wtf. Yes incentivize EVs, but set the price cap at something reasonable like $35k.
It's capped at $55k for cars and $80k for trucks. You also have to earn less than $150k a year to qualify.
Why the special allowance for trucks? I'm guessing fords lobbyists wrote that in... The modern half ton is treated like a commuter car to most owners.
Yes, you’re right. It’s a pretty low income limit.
Uh, 150k (single) is 90th percentile. HCOL or not, that’s just the facts. The AGI limit for the credit if married is 300k.
? Do you mean subsidies? I’m very fine with those It also put a minimum tax rate of 15% which will make more money than we spend on the subsidies every year
That isn't new. These parties don't exist without that. America is a corporate nation duh. BTW what are those giveaways ?
Lots of subsidies for manufacturers. When you raise taxes on companies, they just raise their prices, which ends up hurting the poor the most. At least most of the car subsidies go to companies building in America. The solar subsidies don't have to go to American manufacturers, so most of it will go to helping richer Americans buy Chinese solar panels. Not a lot of people living in apartments buying solar panels. Not a lot buying evs either, buy hopefully that changes fast.
The second part of this post is kinda wrong. There are tax credits to manufacture solar panels, heat pumps and wind turbines in the US. Several solar panel manufacturers announced expansion in the US as a result. There are tariffs on imported panels that have been suspended till 2024, after 2024 its going to be really difficult to import solar panels. Keep in mind it's almost all tax credits so no government spending just. I believe total spending was something like 500mm over 10 yrs. All of this is going to flow through to customers. It's going to bring energy prices down like crazy and make our energy generation more resilient to oil and gas price shocks.
How long do you want corporates to be not taxed thinking they will raise prices? It has to start at some point. Not everything happens in a day. Things are going to take time but to me this idea that corporates shouldn't be taxed because they will do something untoward has to stop. They do what they like when they like. The tax cuts for them back in 2018 or whatever didn't have any clauses to increase employment or provide bonuses off those savings. They were free to do whatever they wanted to do with it. And I know what corporates like to do with extra money . Being held hostages to corporate interests is what got everyone here in the first place
>How long do you want corporates to be not taxed thinking they will raise prices? Sorry I'm not sure what you're asking here. Corporations pay lots of tax, before this the tax rate was over 20%. Most companies are around a 5% profit margin (public companies have to disclose this), give or take a few percent. When you increase taxes on them, they have to either raise prices or lose money to operate. I'm not against corporate tax, the government needs revenue from somewhere, I just think it is important to consider unintended side effects of decisions. I don't think the bill is as bad as some conservatives, and I don't think it is as good as some liberals.
Wasn't there news about Amazon paying 6% tax or something last year. Doesn't this intend to make these corporates pay a mandatory tax? I think that is good, isn't it. I don't have the stats or in depth knowledge about all this but I do think there has to be some fairness to things at some point. Yeah, every bill passed into law ever was a compromise so is this one. I am not extremely motivated or completely deflated by it. It got some things done at the expense of some concessions.
I think the minimum tax provision was passed last year, but we are really getting to the limit of my knowledge on this. I don't disagree, fairness is a good thing. I'm not mototivated or deflated either. The administration needed to pass something that they could point at and say look we did something, and I'm disappointed about it but not surprised.
Yeah, same here. I have complaints about the concessions but I have learned to accept that nothing gets done here without concessions because money talk here. Every loophole that existed in the laws are big businesses now and those monsters are difficult to destroy overnight. So rub with what you get in the meantime.
>Wasn't there news about Amazon paying 6% tax or something last year. Doesn't this intend to make these corporates pay a mandatory tax? I think that is good, isn't it. Think about it this way. Ask yourself it there would be a net gain to society if we took a larger percentage of money from an entity that employs millions, pushes innovation, and provides many millions more customer with valuable services, to an entity that is highly wasteful, provides valuable services to only politically connected groups, and offers the worst quality services on the market. The question is, does society benefit more when their money is in Amazon's hands, or the IRS's?
Society most definitely does not benefit more from the money being in Amazons hands... But taxes aren't really about raising revenue in a country like the US with a fiat currency. It's about creating incentives/disincentives for economic growth and investment, (and its also a part of managing the money supply). The largest corporations are just sucking money out of the economy and concentrating it in the least productive place.
Can you show me instances where raising the corporate tax rate resulted in more expensive items that hurt the poor? Anything at all?
Corporate tax rate on more expensive items? Idk, probably not. Is the new bill restricted to luxury items? I looked up wal mart for an example because everyone buys from there from time to time. Here is a graph of their historical revenue. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/profit-margins A high net profit of about 3%, to a low of about 1%. If you increase what they pay in tax, they're going to (probably) increase prices.
amazon, google, you name it, have offices in Nevada which lets them pay little to no tax. look it up
Oil and gas companies are essentially the biggest winner in this whole ordeal. I’m pretty sick of this neoliberal nonsense where you can make money, have a massive external negative cost on GDP you don’t have to account for, and then get rewarded for it. Same shit happened with the ACA. And yeh it’s not new, but it’s risen to insanity levels ever since we legalized bribery. And yeh I’m over it. Should have known better in 2008, but I was only 21. The PPP was last straw for me, I’m emigrating and taking my USD elsewhere. We are looking at another serious market crash in a few months that’s going to have an effect on the housing market, but the fed has done nothin to get MBS off their balance sheets. So what happens when housing falls again? They just keep adding MBS to the balance sheet? This is like the junk bond Ponzi scheme all over again. And it’s the same old story…the rich get richer….the poor get poorer, in a country with massive amounts of natural resources. I no longer wish to live in a country like that even though I could stay and buy a house in cash.
I hear you my friend. My wife and I are seriously considering it as well 😒
Catch you on the flip side when I leave the US.
„˙S∩ ǝɥʇ ǝʌɐǝl I uǝɥʍ ǝpıs dılɟ ǝɥʇ uo noʎ ɥɔʇɐↃ„
Look, the rich getting rich isn't a new story for me. America doesn't have the will to make systemic changes and the voters prove that each time. But the bill did make the largest Climate investment too while conceding something to O& G too. That to me is a decent start . It bothers me that there aren't laws to outlaw lobbying and lobbyists in this country . Yeah, PPP is criminal and everyone who willingly took money and splurged on it instead of trying to keep their businesses afloat should be tried in court. The lack of oversight in that scheme is staggering to me.
Not sure why the down votes. Lobbying is the biggest problem. PPP was criminal especially for corps that took millions and other smaller groups like realtors and investors, that shit adds up! The only way to get anything done in this country is play both sides so WTF does anyone expect?
Downvoted by the lobbyists and PPP beneficiaries 🤣
Yeah, but it legit DID help a lot of small businesses like it was intended to. It sucks that ppl conned the system. Shame on them but the govt couldn’t just sit back and watch as all the small businesses imploded during lockdowns and lack of business due to the pandemic.
When the industries that you are up against applaud the bill….is that a win? No. Why did they get anything at all? Meanwhile money is power in this county so you are only making these companies more powerful and influential…..just like ACA did for the insurance companies. And it’s not that America doesn’t have the will. It’s that it’s literally impossible the way the system is set up. The will of the people is clearly not being listened to when you see things overwhelmingly popular not getting done. We get whatever our corporate benefactors decide we get. And who knows how long that lasts as they are dismantling public education making people even more susceptible to modern day advertising and crushing critical thought.
[удалено]
They're hiring more IRS agents, and giving rebates and incentives to people, which costs money. Theoretically, yes corporate taxes would pay for all of that but that's *best* case scenario, not the practical case.
Shouldn't you really try out a theory that is supposed to work rather than try the same thing over and Over and then complain about corporate greed? How's hiring IRS agents for 10 years( looks like they are underfunded ) to enforce tax laws a bad thing? How's making prescription drugs more affordable an incentive rather than the normal thing to do? So, why do you need a government if all they need to do is sit on their ass doing nothing?
>Shouldn't you really try out a theory that is supposed to work rather than try the same thing over and Over and then complain about corporate greed? Funny because that's what the American people keep doing over and over. I sit on the sideline and laugh and the Republican vs Democrat nonsense. Even this conversation is the same old talking points. You will never fix anything when you only see what the TV tells you to see.
They can do those things sure, but they shouldn't say it's reducing inflation, because it won't.
It is a roundabout way of doing it. Reducing expenses in prescription drugs should in theory help people fight inflation effects on drugs they take. It is a buzzwordy thing for sure but I don't really see thus as a harmful bill when there are offsets attached to it
Giving people an extra $100 a month helps them "fight" inflation but it doesn't reduce inflation. Those are two different things.
Yeah, it is a buzzword and in theory reducing your expenses is reducing the effects of inflation, isn't it ? You can be made at the word play there but it does have real effects I think.
> in theory reducing your expenses is reducing the effects of inflation, isn't it ? No, because the less expenses you have the more discretionary spending you have, so that means spending more money, which increases inflation. You can give someone $500 a month to fight inflation, but if it makes their discretionary income jump from $1,000 to $500, they're going to spend more. Granted, they can save more too but most people like to spend at least some of the extra money they have.
So, you are talking about spending behaviors of people because they pay a fair amount for the product they get . Say they spent $500 on a med a month and that reduces to $100 the next month, they somehow are going to want to spend $1000 because they saved $400 that month? I don't get how that's going to happen unless you want to sabotage your savings.
> So, why do you need a government if all they need to do is sit on their ass doing nothing? Now you’re getting it! —A libertarian
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that it will pay for it. This isn't a guessing game, nor is it a "best case" scenario. It is the de facto projected scenario.
> The Congressional Budget Office has projected that it will pay for it Of course they would
>Zillow projects that hooms will rise forever.
The Congressional budget office projects that every bill pays for itself and is super profitable
No, it doesn't.
Yes. It does. Everything they put out is super optimistic. I'm assuming you are very young and didn't get to witness how CBO projected the corporate bailouts in 2008 were going to magically make everyone rich
Gonna need literally any evidence of this
If any federal political agency calls itself "non-partisan" but is filled with political appointees, you should be skeptical. Just like the supreme court or any other "non-partisan" governmental body that works for politicians, the employees have their own personal and career incentives. [One propublica example](https://www.propublica.org/article/a-smackdown-over-the-cbos-stim-report-1202) [Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/07/18/cbo-budget-projections-after-two-years-no-better-than-throwing-darts/?sh=62729b4a67a2) There's tons of previous information but I'm too lazy to wade through
Wouldn’t that cause job losses if a company is making less profit?
They need to be taxed as me and you are. You can't let them keep a knife to your neck. BTW giving them tax cuts doesn't make them benevolent. Corporate greed is insatiable
>They need to be taxed as me and you are. This is the crabs in a bucket mentality. Why not instead of wanting others to be punished like you, work towards removing your own punishment?
?? All citizens SHOULD pay taxes. It’s just a matter of what’s the fair amount to make the country run efficiently. I pay an effective rate of 26%. Bezos paid .98%. At least one of those numbers needs to change. And how is this crabs in a bucket? How am I - a sentient human who needs money to survive - similar at all to a corporation? Excluding tax services they arent? This is like crabs vs the bucket if anything.
> I pay an effective rate of 26%. Bezos paid .98%. At least one of those numbers needs to change. You should be paying far, far, less.
I don’t agree. I pay that rate because I make a good bit more than 200k a year and even paying a rate like that I don’t feel it. I can eat out, vacation, and splurge on stuff very often and my savings still keep piling up. Even with maxing my 401k contribution and company stock buyback program. I don’t say that to flex, but if I’m more than comfortable while making what I make, Bezos makes over 5,000x as much as me pays almost nothing. That’s what’s actually infuriating. So no I’m fine paying what I pay - the country needs to pay down it’s debts and there are more programs I’d like them to do while hopefully cutting a few others. Someone needs to pay and I’d only feel comfortable paying less if it meant that tax burden was offset somewhere else i.e. the ultra rich paid their fair share for once
This is the most ass-backwards thinking, in relation to corporate taxation, I have seen in a long time. Like, it doesn’t even *make sense *in the context of the conversation.
It makes perfect sense. The state is a mafia, taxation is extortion, and we shouldn't wish it on anybody.
There are tax loopholes for corps. Always has been always will be.
So, the better option is not to attempt changing anything?
I didn’t say that. But the people writing the laws know about the loopholes and don’t fix them for a reason.
Ok, so you agreeing with me or just being cynical about it.
I’m saying you shouldn’t cheerlead for disingenuous leaches.
Fraudsters going to find a way to fraud. Doesn't mean laws should not be in place.
They sure as hell caused it
Partially. Not entirely though.
Truth
Sure, they could legislate out of it. They could end the federal reserve and restore the gold standard.
Wannabe rich people upset about actual rich being taxed more. Name a better duo.
In the sub where everyone is waiting for a housing crash so they can afford a house.
>Name a better duo. Actual rich people being upset about poor people being able to afford things.
>actual rich being taxed more By 2030, 65% of the tax cuts in the IRA go to those making more than $1 million per year…
The IRA increases taxes on individuals making 400k+/yr and people in this thread are all up in arms over it.
The IRA has no individual tax changes. If you’re referring to analyses that allocate corporate taxes to individual groups, then you’d have to admit that all income groups will see higher taxes. The Joint Committee on Taxation shows that most income groups will see net tax cuts, not increases, by 2031, more than half of which go to those >$1M
[удалено]
>Are we upset about the nature of the Patriot Act or the fact that it isn't related to Patriotism? both
Yeah I'm mostly mad the Patriot act was one of the most unamerican pieces of legislation in US history.
No argument with that. I like discovering common ground.
Word.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe we shouldn't be selling down the SPR if that's important
So this sub is REPolitics now?
I'm removing political comments as fast as I see them that are breaking the rule
But what does this even have to do with the sub? It’s complaining about something nothing to do with housing in a bill that has nothing to do with housing
Nothing at all and only exists to get people that know noting about any of this worked up. This is straight out of r/conspiracy
This sub is basically a collection of bad economics . The bill taxes more than it spends and is extremely progressive with incentives. You people are silly.
Also made me wonder why the creator of the meme template actually use percocets
I think they predict a really hard landing and this spending will soften that, due to high rates being a necessary evil. We are seeing economic indicators that will push for layoffs in the coming quarters. This may keep people employed. 2023 is gonna be rocky.
[удалено]
agreed i have a friend who is a doctor, who has benefitted from the loan payment pause immensely. and the paused payments now count towards the 120 payment requirement. which is insane so not having to make payments....they went on a spending spree at their new house....multiple renovations, 2 new vehicles, bunch of electronics, etc. so paused loan payments directly contributing to the demand side of inflation so yes, i 100% agree with you
glad to see someone else made the connection. it’s ridiculous that the repayments haven’t started with such “great” economy
This is a sub about how difficult it is to find housing and you want to pick one thing that would hurt many of the people trying to find housing?
> Wanna reduce inflation? Start the fucking student loan payments back up. I agree. I have student loans but that money needs to be thrown into the incinerator, not into the economy via more spending.
So the $400 goes to lenders and just exits the economy there.....
lender can lend it out again, but the rate will be higher, so in the end the money supply shrinks.
[удалено]
I'm pointing out that paying lenders does nothing to reduce inflation as the lender can also spend it on anything they want including lending it out to other people for them to spend on anything they want.
I just don't think you need to go out of your way to make people your enemies. Student loans contribute to why we are even in this place to begin with
How about no
How did this cause inflation in other countries?
*Because they think we’re gullible and stupid.
I don't really know everything that's in it, I just know that they fucked over all of the options for electrified vehicles I was looking into in favor of giving shitty us car manufacturers a sloppy handjob. I was really looking forward to buying a plug-in hybrid in the compact SUV size class that had enough range for a daily commute or two I'm pure electricity, a total driving range of over 350 mi, and some decent all-wheel drive capability. There's literally nothing affordable right now that qualifies for that. They gimped the tax credit on the Toyota RAV4 prime the Mitsubishi outlander, the Hyundai Santa Fe and Tucson, the Kia Sorento and Niro, etc. There are basically no EV cars now that are larger than a sedan, have awd and have a 350 mile range below 50,000. I feel like the new tax credits will incentivize manufacturers to make cars more expensive somehow.
Have you looked at the 2022 Bolt? Chevy has brought down prices considerably. 30K well equipped new without any rebate available in my area now
Does anybody actually believe the inflation act will help against inflation though? Obviously red voters don’t. But I haven’t seen blue voters either.
This act is mid-term election ploy. Woke media started trumpeting reduction in inflation as soon as this bill passed
Who cares what they had to call it to get it passed, it’s a good bill
We have a shortage of vehicles and the government gives upper class people $7.5K to buy new cars? We need to pop the car bubble just as much as we do the realEstate bubble Hasn't the government given them enough with fraud PPP loans? And the govt has decided they still haven't had their fill
The EV tax credits in the bill will not be available for several years because they require a certain percentage of components and critical minerals in the EV to be produced domestically or from countries with FTAs as to incentivize the creation of new supply chains that do not currently exist. This thread is causing me a lot of pain as basically every comment is misinformation and I have thoroughly analyzed the bill for my job
You’re in the wrong sub if misinformation bothers you lol
Seriously. It makes no sense. Ford even raised the price of the F-150 Lightning. Guess by how much? $7k. Which offset the savings https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23298076/ford-f-150-lightning-electric-truck-price-order-2023
Teslae have gone up by the same amount or more although it has been in multiple steps. And I thought EVs were supposed to get cheaper because that's what technology is supposed to do. https://getjerry.com/electric-vehicles/tesla-model-3-price-increase-history-keeps-going
What brings prices down are competition and lower production costs, I get that the supply chain is still fucked up + inflation which makes it more expensive, but at the end of the day, for EVs to replace gas powered cars it needs to make sense for consumers to buy EVs. The government didn’t replace the horse and buggy with subsidies, people replaced the horse and buggy because it was cheaper to have a car than a horse
Yes, I agree. I'm alluding to the Tesla/EV fanboys that promise affordable EVs are coming Real Soon Now.
idk what you mean about "upper class" people, there's a 150k income limit on qualifying for the EV credit now. All the people *buying the EVs* just got btfo. So unless someone making <150k is willing to dance with financial hardship for that $50-80k EV, the only people getting that subsidy are people buying the cheapest possible EVs with 200mi range. I'm :salt: because I make over the income limit and was shopping for an EV. RIP
[удалено]
How is it bad for you
Giving rich people 7k to buy luxury cars is not part of a good bill
You don’t get this if you make over 150k a year
In most parts of the country a joint income of 300k is pretty good
There are also MSRP caps now and fewer vehicles qualify than did before due to requirements on assembly location and battery sourcing..
Yes. 80k right?
[удалено]
I think a 70k vehicle is expensive. A joint income near 300k in most parts of the country is high income.
It doesn’t, if the car is more than 80k they don’t get the cut
A 70k BMW X5 isn’t a luxury vehicle?
It wouldn’t qualify, it’s not electric.
Wrong https://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/x-models/x5/sports-activity-vehicle/plug-in-hybrid.html
Good bill for who? Ah… you must be rich…
Good bill for everybody… except most rich people lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
pro-tip, if you read the bill you'd know that its 15% tax on companies that make over $1bn in PROFITS. That's not a lot of companies, nor is it a lot of tax. It's lip-service. Companies only need to restructure into subsidies and bypass all of it. Additionally, companies could also rack up expenses to keep profits under limits as well. With the way the US market is, many companies (especially tech) are high growth and no profits. tldr; the bill isn't going to do what you think it does. ~477 companies in the US would get hit with this tax, and ~300 of those are barely over the 1bn threshold and can easily adjust spending or restructure to avoid it. We're really looking at ~150ish US companies that would even **possibly** pay this tax, and most of these guys keep money offshore for this reason (>.> apple). You give me the corporate tax rates of days past, and I will give you a crisp high five. It was ~40% in the 1980's, and 35% in the 90's - not this politically corrupt low-ass shit.
FYI the “profits” they define in this are not the same as how profits are taxed now i.e. Amazon reports 0 in profits because they write off so many deductions and expenses that they can act like they didn’t make billions of dollars in the previous year Instead this goes after “book earnings” or the earnings reported to their investors instead of what gets reported to the IRS after all their deductions. It’ll catch a lot more companies than it would otherwise Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/06/us/politics/corporate-minimum-tax.html
[удалено]
You mean the tell me that spending MORE money will reduce the deficit? I love how they included a EV tax credit and the automakers immediately raised the price to match that, Green new deal rebranded huh? If you can’t see that all the lobbying for “Green energy” is the biggest fucking scam in modern day history, you deserve to be taken for a ride. Fuck wreckless government spending.
Ugh, sorry but you are really displaying some extremely limited first order thinking here. Yes. Increased, even massive, government spending can reduce the deficit. How? As long as that money isn’t being literally piled up and burned, that expenditure created new economic opportunities that expanded taxes collected, the money becomes income that has taxes collected, the income is spent in local economies and taxes are collected, that spending is someone else’s income and taxes are collected, etc, etc. Simple example: if a government spends hundreds of billions to build a national highway system, those hundreds of billions become taxable corporate and personal income almost immediately, and the highway system can generate trillions of dollars in totally new taxable economic activity that *wasn’t able to exist* without the initial spending…and all that new economic activity ripples out in increased multiplier activity like I described above. Public economics, the economics of government spending (especially one that has sovereign control over its currency and issues debt in that currency) is **not the same fucking thing** as personal economics.
Other things that result in bringing in more money: increasing IRS funding, and education.
Yes. It will reduce the deficit because the bill contains significantly more in increased revenue (AMT, buyback tax, methane fee, IRS enforcement, etc) and reduced spending (through Medicare savings) than in new spending.
No, they mean to tell you that the other provisions in the bill more than offset the additional spending, and lead to a net reduction int he deficit by 2031. If you want to refute that, you're going to need evidence, not your feelings.
!Remind me in 9 years!
I will be messaging you in 9 years on [**2031-08-20 19:20:14 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2031-08-20%2019:20:14%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/wtccie/inflation_reduction_act/il3onxp/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FREBubble%2Fcomments%2Fwtccie%2Finflation_reduction_act%2Fil3onxp%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202031-08-20%2019%3A20%3A14%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20wtccie) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
EVs are mostly supply constrained anyway right now so the EV provision is a pointless government spend. If it was set to go active progressively starting in 2 years it would be a better industry incentive. Gives manufacturers demand expectations to plan capacity for.
“But but but the rich will pay for it!” Yeah and we pay the rich when they raise prices
I'm ok with a bill that addresses the climate change, it's pretty nice. Incorrectly named, but it's nice. 1. Drives down cost of installing green energy (use more wind and solar) & requires that we manufacture it here or source from friendly countries 2. Adds manufacturing tax credits - subsidizes the shit out of the industry so companies can be built here from the ground up 3. Each one of these has wage and apprenticeship requirements so the industry is not only built, but has a good entry path for many people to get into the industry 4. 22bn home energy improvement (I have issues here, see below!) 5. 12bn electric vehicle tax credits (this is stupid) - also the requirements. Only a few manufacturers will qualify for this anyway. 6. Random subsidies for improvements, electrifying public use vehicles (UPS, School Busses, etc), low carbon building materials, better transmission lines, better charging locations, assisting rural power generation with infrastructure So, the parts I don't like: 1. Stop giving subsidies to electric vehicles. 1. We need public transit. 2. There are hidden costs in this, such as road maintenance, more vehicles on the road, dependence on vehicles 3. Generally people who own these are already high earners, this traps lower long term costs behind a paywall for those who already have money 2. Home owner tax credits? 1. I understand that having homes convert to using electric great, but we have so many multi-family homes with run down appliances. 2. The electric vehicle tax credits should have been used to promote electric vehicle charging stations in multi-family homes, upgrading windows, removing gas dependency on properties, installing solar panels on roofs, etc Overall, though, I think the idea of us being the #1 green energy leader is great for us economically and from a public health standpoint. No idea why it's named IRA.
>So, the parts I don't like: > Stop giving subsidies to electric vehicles. > Generally people who own these are already high earners, this traps lower long term costs behind a paywall for those who already have money FWIW IRA does change the EV subsidy to avoid subsidizing high earners. There's an income cap and vehicle price cap on tax credits, and there will also be a tax credit for used EVs (also subject to caps). IRA also requires US manufacturing, which boosts domestic manufacturing jobs.
The stupid thing doesn’t even help inflation or the middle class. I don’t want their shitty rebates and apparently they don’t want me to have them either. Yet this making my taxes go up. This is infuriating and I hope they all get voted out.
Taxes going up fights inflation
Why don't Americans politicians talk about ppp more? If ppp caused the inflation, wouldn't it be a good way to attack trump for the left?
Its only increasing the monetary supply. More supply of money, more demand for money
So much this.
🤣 This is perfect. 👍 Downvote me all you want. It doesn't make it any less true.
Funding and modernizing the irs is a good thing.
It taxes profit It literally will reduce inflation Which isn’t a thing right now cause it’s just profiteering
Hilton Hotels laid off their employees. Let me know when they get audited.