The so-called Inflation Reduction Act also comes as the White House seeks to calm mounting fears of a recession. Data released on Thursday showed the US economy has shrunk over two consecutive quarters.
The bill invests $369bn (305bn) into tax incentives for renewable energy production . That includes $60bn in tax credits for clean energy manufacturing, $30bn in tax credits for wind and solar production, and tax breaks for consumers who go green - such as a $7,500 write-off on new electric vehicle purchases for anyone making $75,000 or less annually.
Also included in the package is a three-year $64bn (53bn) extension of health insurance subsidies purchased through the government marketplace. Consumers were soon to be informed their rates will go up later this year, but the move ensures that will not happen.
Much of the revenue for the bill is raised by a new 15% minimum tax on corporations that earn more than $1bn in annual profits.
The Biden administration has been negotiating with several countries around the world since last year on a 15% global minimum corporate tax, in an effort to limit international tax havens. If executed in the US, the tax will target some 200 US corporations and raise some $313bn (258bn) over the next decade, Democrats say.
The legislation also raises money by beefing up tax enforcement, closing what's viewed as a tax loophole for investment managers, and lowering prescription drug costs for seniors by allowing Medicare - the government health insurance programme for the elderly - to negotiate drug prices.
Democrats say the proposal would put $300bn towards reducing a federal deficit that rose sharply during the Covid-19 pandemic.
So how does this 'inflation fighting' bill actually fight inflation?
I still feel like Sinema will kill this bill and the CHIP bill
Much of the revenue for the bill is raised by a new 15% minimum tax on corporations that earn more than $1bn in annual profits.So... all that changes is a shift from companies being subsidiaries of bigger companies, to companies all being "independent" but with nigh identical boards of directors.
So... all that changes is a shift from companies being subsidiaries of bigger companies, to companies all being "independent" but with nigh identical boards of directors.
This guarantees that no company will bring in a billion ever again, at least on paper.
So... all that changes is a shift from companies being subsidiaries of bigger companies, to companies all being "independent" but with nigh identical boards of directors.
This guarantees that no company will bring in a billion ever again, at least on paper.
While that can certainly happen, I don't know if every company wants to go through the huge headache of restructuring/dividing that would also affect stock prices etcHe shills for corps every chance he can get.
You seem to be drawing one possibility as set in stone
He shills for corps every chance he can get.When a law has an exception, that exception is the law.
He shills for corps every chance he can get.pretty sure that poster is just a parody account of the enlightened centrist/libertarian
pretty sure that poster is just a parody account of the enlightened centrist/libertarian"cynical ass", thanks.
He shills for corps every chance he can get.
I think people confuse shilling with providing a realistic interpretation of how the world will respond to something.
Like, at no point did he say companies restructuring so their profit is valued at less than a billion was a good thing, but to push out a new tax and pretend to like the rest of the world will go "okay" without reacting is naive.
Somewhere along the way we got this crazy idea that highlighting the consequences of somebody's actions means defending those consequences as good and just, rather than literally just following through a proposal to it's natural conclusion.
If the people writing the bills did this sort of exercise they would have provisions for these consequences written into the bill, but that's hard work.
like what?It's a tax on profits, which can easily be restructured and finessed.
Being a Doomer and saying No company will ever make a billion again on paper! Is not being realisticlike what?
How does a bill that has $400B in credits and subsidies, paid for with a tax that will raise $300B over a decade, reduce inflation with the $300B they're saying is set aside to reduce the deficit? Am I taking crazy pills here? The bill costs $100B more than it raises just for the tax incentives, BEFORE setting aside another $300B for deficit reduction.
as shown, the bill raises 700b and sets 300b of that aside as deficit reductionA balanced budget amendment would end the deficit immediately.
as shown, the bill raises 700b and sets 300b of that aside as deficit reduction
i see users ignoring what emblem-man posted and repeating incorrect information so i think we need to repeat this statement a few dozen times while hitting them with a hammer
also the answer is "because companies currently pay taxes on their profits, since sometimes evading taxes costs more than the taxes do"
How is it shilling, though? Even if you want to say it's hyperbolic, at what point does highlighting how businesses may work in response to a new tax represent defending them or their interests? What is the actual harm in calling out how companies might get around it and why is that harm so bad that some users want to try and shut down posters who are pointing it out?
I'm not accusing him of shilling or defending - my post was calling into question his logic and what seemed to be a fallacy. Saying "here's a possible outcome that isn't good" is very different from his "this is guaranteed to happen". You'll notice he never responded to my post.
I definitely wasn't ignoring it, but allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices doesn't actually bring down the deficit unless you also reduce the budget for Medicare by the amount it's going to save.If it brings spending down to what there's actually money for, instead of some arbitrary amount that doesn't really care how much red ink is involved, then yes, this brings down the deficit.
I'm not really keen on tightening the purse strings rn thanksKeynesian theory tells us that deficit spending is what you do in "ohshit" times. But, you need actual fiscal responsibility in the good times to get that to work.
you need actual fiscal responsibility in the good timesthese aren't good times
these aren't good times...and we definitely don't want Greece-times out of this.
...and we definitely don't want Greece-times out of this.okay?
Like, the point is, you just don't want the taxes.I mean that's really what it all boils down to. Temporarily embarrassed millionaires terrified they'll be taxed into the poor house lol
okay?The closest we've come to actual fiscal responsibility was the dotcom boom during the Clinton era.
If it brings spending down to what there's actually money for, instead of some arbitrary amount that doesn't really care how much red ink is involved, then yes, this brings down the deficit.
The federal government spends about $1.25 for every dollar it actually takes in, or likely more over the past couple years or so. That has to stop.
these aren't good timestbh these are good times
unless you reduce the allocated funding for Medicare in a future budget