[okreallywtf]

OP might be exaggerating, but they are not talking about who lobbies, they are talking about the politicians who pass the bills and implement the tax cuts. In that they are right. In the house, 191 democrats voted against the tax overhaul, 0 voted for it. 227 republicans voted for it, 12 against it [0]. The senate was much the same [1].

You can say what you want, but this is a republican tax bill no matter who it benefits. It was supposed to benefit the rich, and thats what it does (I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so). It won't discriminate in who it hurts in the long run either (the middle class and the poor, like usual). The wealthy are going to take 90% of whatever economic gains result, they won't end up in schools or in communities, again like usual. Unemployment is already low and cant go much lower without even more illegal immigrants and wages will probably continue on their current trajectory and we'll be arguing for the next decade about who is to blame. My guess is some hidden variable will be scapegoated to explain why it didn't work.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/t... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/t...

[mcintyre1994]

> I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so

It actually does seem to do that fairly effectively from my understanding, by restricting the deductions those in high tax states (ie Democrat) can claim.

[stochastic_monk]

Correct, the bill benefited lower-tax (that is, Republican-controlled) states very disproportionately.

[okreallywtf]

Good points, I forgot about that.

[refurb]

Benefits the rich? You mean it benefits everyone. I'm not rich and my taxes went down.

[okreallywtf]

I should have said benefits the rich disproportionately. They are throwing most of us a bone (sometimes even a half-decent bone) while treating themselves to a 11 course meal. I don't think that this is a controversial statement, its just how it is going to be. They know that a few thousand dollars in the pockets of average Americans is a huge deal, even if it results in millions in the pockets of others.

The question is, in the long run, does that couple grand benefit us more than it costs us in terms of long term deficits, reductions in government services, etc?

The "hell yeah I'll take more money anyday!" mentality is what they depend on to sell the bill and it works.

[refurb]

The rich pay the most tax, so any cut would benefit them more no?

[okreallywtf]

It is more complicated than that, but even on a basic level it is not proportional [0]. If you consider the purpose of a progressive tax system it gets even murkier.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/562884070/charts-heres-how-go...

[skrowl]

The liberal media narrative for every tax cut ever is that it only benefits the rich. Forget that your paycheck and mine saw taxes go down, it was only for the rich according to the media.

[okreallywtf]

Got any sources on that? I expect you'll see a lot of them say it benefits the rich more, but saying it only benefits the rich? Not that I've seen, not legitimate sources (I know its hard to tell the difference between a left-wing blog and a multi-Pulitzer winning newspaper over 100 years old).

I should have said it disproportionately benefits the rich and in the long run I think it probably does only benefit the rich because the middle class and the poor will be hurt by the cuts necessary to pay for the thing and the resulting deficits.

Here are examples of the "liberal media" saying its disproportionate, not that it only benefits the rich. I hate to break it to you, but most of the "liberal media" is pretty nuanced, it may not say what you want but you don't see nearly as much "always/never" as you would expect.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/562884070/charts-heres-how-go...

[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-senate-tax-bil...