I am shocked. Shocked I tell you. Oh wait, no I'm not. Of course the US government couldn't help out lower class people without making sure their rich cronies got a piece of the pie. I'm truly...
I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.
Oh wait, no I'm not. Of course the US government couldn't help out lower class people without making sure their rich cronies got a piece of the pie.
I'm truly ashamed of the people my fellow Americans voted for.
The title is misleading. It is a tax credit. From my perspective, I have no qualms about the lack of distinction but I recognize that it isn't an accurate or honest description.
The title is misleading. It is a tax credit. From my perspective, I have no qualms about the lack of distinction but I recognize that it isn't an accurate or honest description.
The title is blatantly misleading clickbait, and I don't really think it is appropriate for Tildes. The Washington Post article that Forbes references appears to have a far better, and more...
The title is blatantly misleading clickbait, and I don't really think it is appropriate for Tildes. The Washington Post article that Forbes references appears to have a far better, and more honest, explanation.
By it's honesty, it has more weight, as well. It's easy to discount this title as ridiculous, because it is: no one is getting a $1.7m check. The Washington Post title points out that (a) the analysis is coming from a congressional body, and (b) their analysis found that the vast majority of the benefits from the tax changes are to people making over $1m in income a year.
And it also explains the context of this change. This is a change to how much in business losses can be deducted in certain situations. Like other tax code changes that are not immediately obvious on their own as problematic, the problem here is that it's removing provisions that were meant to offset other tax cuts. The article points out that, in fact, the limitations that this change reverses were put in place by the Republican tax bill.
Thanks, I've edited the link and title to point to that article instead. Forbes "Contributor" articles are almost universally low-quality, and usually little more than sensationalized blogspam.
Thanks, I've edited the link and title to point to that article instead. Forbes "Contributor" articles are almost universally low-quality, and usually little more than sensationalized blogspam.
I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.
Oh wait, no I'm not. Of course the US government couldn't help out lower class people without making sure their rich cronies got a piece of the pie.
I'm truly ashamed of the people my fellow Americans voted for.
The title is misleading. It is a tax credit. From my perspective, I have no qualms about the lack of distinction but I recognize that it isn't an accurate or honest description.
The title is blatantly misleading clickbait, and I don't really think it is appropriate for Tildes. The Washington Post article that Forbes references appears to have a far better, and more honest, explanation.
By it's honesty, it has more weight, as well. It's easy to discount this title as ridiculous, because it is: no one is getting a $1.7m check. The Washington Post title points out that (a) the analysis is coming from a congressional body, and (b) their analysis found that the vast majority of the benefits from the tax changes are to people making over $1m in income a year.
And it also explains the context of this change. This is a change to how much in business losses can be deducted in certain situations. Like other tax code changes that are not immediately obvious on their own as problematic, the problem here is that it's removing provisions that were meant to offset other tax cuts. The article points out that, in fact, the limitations that this change reverses were put in place by the Republican tax bill.
Thanks, I've edited the link and title to point to that article instead. Forbes "Contributor" articles are almost universally low-quality, and usually little more than sensationalized blogspam.
I wish I could say I was surprised