And the risk of more such damaging measures should be kept in mind and steps taken, when progressives are in power, to do what one can to avoid that being the way new (or old) commitments end up getting paid for. end/

Notably, the recent passage of this summer’s reconciliation bill—with its highly regressive financing—and Trump’s tariffs show the kinds of damaging measures that some would use to pay for the govt.

For instance: a paid leave program financed with a small payroll tax (as leading senators have proposed) may end up with more progressive results than one paid for from a slate of high income and corporate tax provisions (policies I also support and hope are enacted).

Policies that seem more progressive may be exactly the opposite when the ultimate financing is properly considered. And, it can lead to a re-evaluation of the wisdom of policy.

Answering that critical q requires analyzing the politics of the government–and under not just one’s preferred leaders but the ones we have and could have in the future–and asking what they will use to pay for new commitments by the govt.

(4) And on the clean energy credits, the details on the severe cuts and unworkable restrictions: taxlawcenter.org/blog/house-b...

(3) While SALT cap shouldn't be used to finance this regressive / unfair bill and instead for other purposes, that's the right thing for this policy. This reading is clear in the text but contrary to public reporting / others initial reading. They should stick w/ this version.

(2) On SALT cap, the text of legislation -- contrary to our initial reading -- clearly limits SALT workarounds (which are unfair and expensive) for all biz including 199A biz. taxlawcenter.org/blog/ways-an...

(7) And even as the IRS is radically cut making it even harder to administer any such misguided EITC precertification program even as higher income Americans escape from audit when it comes to complex tax planning. end/

(6) This is about making it harder for lower-income working families to get access to one of the key supports – even while those with higher incomes face no such barriers, whether it be in cutting their rate by 23% for biz income or claiming other tax expenditures.

(5) We can have a serious and worthwhile discussion about how to improve compliance up and down the income spectrum. But, between radical cuts to the IRS and gameable / hard to enforce new provisions in this bill, this isn’t about compliance.

(4) The contrast between an expanded special deduction for biz income disproportionately for highest income + no tax on tips / overtime to the new, burdensome precertification system for working families getting the EITC is particularly stark.

(3) On the onerous EITC precertification: taxlawcenter.org/blog/ways-an...

(2) On unfair and complex new provisions: taxlawcenter.org/blog/the-hou...

(12) There’s much more to be said (and much more reading to do) and @taxlawcenter.org will have more to say as we do.... end/

(11) Now, it’s much more of a Frankenstein when it comes to the tax base. Some of those elements remain but even more mixed with unfair / complex / expanded giveaways -- all the while losing trillions in regressive fashion.

(10) The draft stands in contrast to some of the philosophy 2017, with the notable exception of 199A. That bill lost trillions. But, had a number of real base broadeners / simplifications. Like limiting mortgage interest deduction. Swapping itemized for standard deduction.