> Republicans passed the largest tax cuts for billionaires

There were no tax cuts for billionaires in the BBB.

(Not increasing the tax is not a "cut".)

It absolutely is when the status quo would have increased taxes. That may not be a cut of current taxes, but in the longer timeframe it is absolutely a tax cut.

▲

WalterBright 3 days ago | parent [-]

Framing it as not increasing taxes being a cut is misleading.

It's just as disingenuous as scaling back a proposed budget increase and calling it a "cut".

The FTC wouldn't let businesses get away with such language, why should the government get a pass?

▲

tired-turtle 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If a bill due at the end of the month is forgiven on the 25th, were expenses cut? What if the debt is forgiven on the 2nd of the next month?

I’d wager most people would consider those scenario cuts. However, in your framework, the verbiage is different despite a shared outcome.

▲

WalterBright 3 days ago | parent [-]

Bills are not due in advance. The analogy is inapt.

The taxes were cut 8 years ago. There aren't further "cuts". Billionare tax rates have been the same for the last 8 years, and will continue at the same rate at least into next year.

▲

wat10000 3 days ago | parent [-]

Weren’t those cuts set to expire?

	▲	amanaplanacanal 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. They were temporary cuts so that they could claim they didn't raise the deficit. Now they are claiming that everybody knew they were going to be permanent. So they either raised the deficit in that cut, or the current one. It's the same party, claiming they didn't raise the deficit either time. And Americans put up with this shit.

▲

kyralis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. The total tax bill over the next five years was X, given the current laws. Then a bill was passed that reduced that total tax bill over the next five years. This is a tax cut. It's a little absurd to try to claim otherwise.

▲

WalterBright 3 days ago | parent [-]

Failing to increase taxes is not a tax cut.

	▲	kyralis 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is the same as saying that a tax cut with an expiration date should be treated as if it were permanent. Are you not aware that these things are different? That there is a difference between an adjustment to a proposed budget and a budget that has been enshrined in law? What's the magical time horizon that changes this? If I change the taxes due for 2026, is that a tax cut? How about 2027? Where's the line between a change in law that is or is not a tax cut with this philosophy? If you want consistency, a change in law that adjusts the tax burden downward from what the burden would be without the change in law is a tax cut. Therefore, a change in the law that makes previously temporary reduced tax levels into permanent reduced tax levels is a tax cut.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

amanaplanacanal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They made a temporary cut permanent. Come on, you already know this. And you know why.

	▲	WalterBright 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I understand why some people try to frame not raising taxes as a tax cut.