The GOP’s new tax bill is getting a lot of support from big name companies, including Comcast.
NBC happens to be a parent company of the media giant. But some people at MSNBC are not happy with how Comcast supported the bill by offering $1,000 bonuses to more than 100,000 employees.On Thursday, NBC’s Kristen Welker asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders about the bill. While it’s unclear what she said, Sanders handled her question by pointing out how Welker would directly benefit.
CBS News’s Mark Knoller tweeted about the exchange:
On Friday, Trump signed the bill into law, which means those bonuses are coming soon.
The GOP tax bill has had an immediate effect on America after several businesses decided to pay their employees more and pour money into their communities as a direct result of paying less in taxes.
The latest company to make a huge change as a result of the tax bill is Comcast.
In a shocking announcement Wednesday, Comcast stated it would be investing over $50 billion into infrastructure over the next five years to “radically improve and extend our broadband plant and capacity, and our television, film and theme park offerings.”You see, President Trump has long promised once in a generation tax reform, hoping to use the GOP’s majority in the Senate to pass THE BIGGEST TAX CUTS IN HISTORY while adding much needed simplicity to our morass of a tax law. And that promise begins its path to reality on Wednesday, when the House is slated to release the first draft of proposed legislation.
If you’re curious about the changes expected to be contained within that proposed legislation, feel free to read here. But the nature of any proposed tax cuts was not really what Sanders’ impromptu dissertation was about; rather, she took it upon herself to address what many Americans are preemptively speculating as they anticipate the release of the GOP plan: will this be a big tax cut for the rich, at the expense of the rest?
What followed was nearly four minutes that no one who was present for the performance will ever get back, and the point was clear: if the richest taxpayers get a bigger tax cut than everyone else, that’s perfectly OK, because:
- The rich pay more tax to begin with, and
- While the rich may get the biggest cut in terms of dollars saved, the remaining 99% of taxpayers would enjoy a bigger percentage reduction in their tax bill.
- If you’re particularly astute or if you had a valid AOL account back in 2011 – Sanders’ words might sound a bit familiar; this is because her words are not her own, but rather taken verbatim from a viral email that spread during the Obama administration to combat the former President’s assertion that the rich do not pay their “fair share.”
There’s just one problem with what Sanders did yesterday, aside from everything. Let’s break this thing down Zapruder style.I have no problem with the premise: Sanders presents a scenario where ten people share a burden of $100 in this case, for booze in the same distribution that the population of this country pays federal income tax.
- Of course, whether this is accurate depends on how much coin each of the ten reporters earns. For my purposes, I’m going to use the income splits generally used by the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center, which helps to illustrate the reality of the situation. Like so:
- There’s a reason I’m using these splits. In Sanders’ example, #10 pays 60% of the total bill, which corresponds to what the top 1% of taxpayers pay. In addition, the top 10% of taxpayers pay almost 75% of the total tax, and the top 50% of taxpayers pay 98% of the total tax. So if we’re going to give the allocation of the beer burden credence, these are the numbers we’re going with.
This is where things get interesting. In her story, the bar patrons get their price of drinks cut by $20, am amount which is meant to represent our impending tax cuts. Sanders then explains how that cut should be distributed among the patrons.
The first four get nothing, because they PAID nothing. Fair enough, though when you apply this concept to taxes instead of beers, this may not mean that #’s 1 through 4 are indifferent. After all, if those four were reliant on government programs that had to be cut in order to pay for the tax breaks, they are now getting screwed. In Sanders’ terms, it would be akin to #’s 5-10 telling #’s 4-10 that they’re no worse off by not getting a price reduction because they didn’t pay anything originally, only at the same time, to cover his losses, the bar owner had to raise the jukebox price to $5 a song, so that 3 can no longer end every night by spinning “Dancing Queen” on repeat. But I digress.
That leaves $20 to be split among 5-10, and as Sanders explains it, if it were to be shared equally, each person would enjoy a reduction of $3.33 in their nightly outlay. But that can’t work, Sanders explains, because a reduction of that size would leave 5 and 6 being paid to drink, and no one is lucky enough to do that, save for, it would appear, Steve Bannon.