[victoro]

The Democrats had control of the presidency and the house in 2022 when this provision first went into effect but had 2 fewer senators (1 fewer if you count the tie-breaking VP). Why didn't they try to change it? Is there some reason a change in the tax code like this can't be modified or repealed once its in place?

[vineyardmike]

Politics are complicated.

Generally, in tax bills they try to keep them "neutral" where any tax cuts or tax breaks are coupled with tax increases elsewhere BUT they tend to report the 10-year affect for whatever reason. This bill provided a ~30% cut in corporate tax on profits, with a delayed increase in tax cost on Software R&D pushed to the next term.

If the next party wants to reverse it, they'd have to find the money with an increase in tax - directly undoing it would be a ~50% increase in corporate tax rate, which (I guess?) would be a tough sell politically. Meanwhile, the tax code on software engineering sounds too niche to expend political capital on.

Either way, its another example of how corporate America is trading long-term growth (R&D, product development) for short term gain (lower taxes today).

[tomrod]

They tried. They had Senate spoilers.

[candiddevmike]

As a progressive, it seems like the Democrats always have Senate spoilers...

[dragonwriter]

> As a progressive, it seems like the Democrats always have Senate spoilers...

With Republicans usually being dominant in a number of states, if Democrats have a Senate majority, it is usually both narrow and dependent on a very small number of Democratic and/or Dem-leading moderate independent Senators from Republican-majority states who vote with the party on leadership, but are soft (or firmly opposed to the progressive preference) on a number of issues important to progressives.

If the US were approximately an equal democracy, this might be less of an issue.

[Braxton1980]

>If the US were approximately an equal democracy, this might be less of an issue.

How? Evenly divided voters and representatives are the issue. Each side can barely afford to lose 10% or so during votes

[dragonwriter]

No, the reason the "there is always an in-party Senate spoiler" effect (when they have a Senate majority) seems to be more true of Democrats is because it is more true of Democrats, and the reason is that when the two parties in rough balance by popular support (or even rough balance in Presidential electoral prospects, which has the same directional bias as the Senate but of lesser magnitude), the Republican Party has a systematic edge in dominance of states, which translates into a systematic advantage in the Senate, which means that when the Democrats have a Senate majority, it tends to have a decisive segment in red-state Democratic Senators who are unreliable on key priorities.

The issue being discussed in the Senate is not a symmetric issue resulting from near balance in support between the parties.

[K0balt]

It’s also because republicans politically punish dissent, while it is more tolerated in the Democratic Party. The consequences of “disloyalty” are higher in the Republican Party.

[rayiner]

> If the US were approximately an equal democracy, this might be less of an issue

Equal to what?

[paulryanrogers]

Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. Other measures discourage voters likely to vote against them, like people who cannot easily take time off to vote in person or who have changed their name. Blocking rank choice and maintaining first past the post also disenfranchise third parties, and reinforces the power of incumbents.

Trump himself admitted it's better for Republicans when fewer people vote.

[Kamq]

> Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition.

This thread is talking about the Senate. The senate isn't gerrymandered. Both senators are state-wide races.

If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered". But the last time that was an option was in 1959, and both of those are just "the entire area the US owned, but wasn't a state yet. To get senate gerrymandering, you have to go back to 1912 and the admission of New Mexico/Arizona.

[jimbob45]

?? Both sides happily gerrymander. It’s been around since 1812 and both sides are equally guilty at this point.

[Braxton1980]

Governors are elected by popular vote.

[tomrod]

Hell, just first past the post would eviscerate the current parties.

[tomrod]

Argh. Too late to edit. Something else outside first past the post* like ranked choice voting.

[Filligree]

Which is why they’ll never vote for it. Such changes are remarkable rare. :(

[SpicyLemonZest]

Providing spoilers was the explicitly designed purpose of the US Senate. It's not a one-sided problem - Senate spoilers are also why the Affordable Care Act didn't get repealed in 2017.

[tomrod]

Explicitly?

[glompers]

US Senator was an office initially designed to be selected by state legislatures rather than by direct popular election like the representatives. To a populist or a party boss, that might count as a spoiler to the will of the people or to the will of those in DC, or to both. But I may misinterpret GP's point.

[mayneack]

I assume the person you're replying to is talking about the Filibuster and supermajority requirements not the direct election history. The filibuster is a senate rule not a constitutional design, so it wasn't part of the "design". Maybe they're both different ways of adding veto points to the same effect, but I think spoilers as "explicit design" is probably not how I'd describe it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...

[dboreham]

Not parent but the founders were like folks writing smart contract code, thinking about various exploits and vulnerabilities (that might reduce the wealth of their class) so many of the seemingly dysfunctional elements of the system turn out to be designed deliberately to be dysfunctional. Feature not bug.

[wvenable]

They were not thinking about various exploits and vulnerabilities but rather making whatever compromises were necessary in order to form the union. It was negotiation, not planning.

[Braxton1980]

And get blamed for it. If every single Republican and two Democrats vote against something guess who people blame?

[kenjackson]

But this is the type of thing that progressives would like support (tax big corporate America).

[rezonant]

No, this is a misunderstanding of the kind of taxation policy progressives tend to favor. Taxation on profit for businesses should be high, and taxation on upper tiers of individual income should be high, but taxation on funds businesses use to reinvest should be exempted or deductable. Basically the taxation we had in place after WW2 and on, with a steep corporate tax rate and more or less a maximum income for individuals. The R&D exemption removed in the 2017 bill, and discussed in the article, is key to that, because it encourages corporations to reinvest their income in building new products and paying workers rather than taking it directly as profit-- after all, at least they could reap the rewards (in growth and revenue) of the R&D later, instead of just giving the money to the government as taxes.

[rayiner]

I don’t think most progressives think about it in that detail. Raise taxes on the rich tech companies that are gentrifying san francisco.

[stahtops]

At first glance I support ... "social and economic equality" and "reforms to improve human conditions, combat corruption, and reduce inequality". Am I progressive?

If you ask me "should corporations pay more taxes?" I will say, yes. Famously so does Warren Buffet, is he also a progressive?

If you ask me, "hey should we gut tax incentives for R&D spending in the USA?" I will say, uhhh no? probably a bad choice?

[dgb23]

I‘m not American but the above description of a tax policy is what I hear a lot from progressives in media.

[const_cast]

But this doesn't raise taxes on rich tech companies, it effectively does the opposite - the tax burden is proportionally lower the larger/more successful the tech company is.

Therefore, even by your own admission, this isn't progressive policy.

[bloppe]

This tax is far more consequential for small companies than for large ones. It probably actually benefits larger companies because it hobbles competition.

[wvenable]

This time bomb was created because the bill slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Maintaining the status quo would mean taxing big corporate America more than this bill does.

[stahtops]

But it isn't tax big corporate America. Did you read the article?

It's a 10% tax cut for big corporate America, with some economic poison for blue states in the future.

[Braxton1980]

What makes you think this?

[cma]

Both parties tend to when there is a narrow majority, e.g. McCain thumbs downing at the repeal of the ACA.

[naijaboiler]

Why should they? Why did we allow a president to put in tax raise for the future. Replicants were playing politics from the start. Pass a bad bill, and then hope to get about it when the bad parts kick in when the other side woo be in power