[ad_1]
Published 2:26 PM, November 2, 2021
EPI research director Josh Bivens dismissed critics’ recent claims on Twitter that the “Better Rebuild Act” (BBBA) was only “paid in full” due to accounting stunts. Bivens emphasized that this statement is “bad economics” and added that BBBA was indeed paid in full.read Full Twitter thread Explain why below.
Parents can’t find a decent job child? Moderate unconditional tax credits are underserved. Millionaire heir? A zero tax rate on inherited capital gains should be maintained. 2
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
The essence of the new complaint is that BBBA’s revenue increase is permanent, but some expenditure regulations and tax credits ended before the end of the 10-year budget window. Therefore, the bill is not really “paying”, but will increase the budget deficit. 4
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
The source of funding for BBBA negotiations is income rather than debt-this is great! The tax terms themselves are indeed valuable and will not offset any macroeconomic gains from expenditures. 6
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
Gullible commentators will inevitably compare it with the tax cuts passed by George W Bush and Donald Trump. All of these tax cuts include at least some clauses that expire within the 10-year budget window, and are designed to make their deficit effects appear smaller. 8
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
It may seem strange to need to say more about this, but critics of the BBBA further claim that the failing provisions of the fiscal bill have never really failed. The future Congress, in this proposal, will be unwilling to reduce BBBA expenditures. Therefore, the shell game. 10
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
Logically-if the future Congress thinks that BBBA’s spending clauses are so popular among the public that they cannot be eliminated, will they also think that these clauses are popular enough to require the public to support them by increasing some income? 12
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
According to the rule of thumb, the rule will never be cancelled—an important part of Bush’s tax cuts are indeed allowed to be cancelled—about 20%. Importantly, these accounted for a much larger share of the cuts offered to high-income households. 14
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
Yes, I will roll back more – but the simple fact is that tax cuts for the rich were not small during the Obama administration. This is a struggle, but regulations that most people don’t like can be rolled back or allowed to stop. 16
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
The real fear here obviously has nothing to do with the size of the deficit. If so, today’s critics will only support any number of wise and incremental measures to increase revenue. 18
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
On the contrary, the concern seems to be that the BBBA may actually provide enough information to remind American families of what a decent government might do, and remind them that our government has done very little for them for a long time. 19
— Josh Bivens (@joshbivens_DC) November 2, 2021
[ad_2]
Source link
