168

House passes $78B tax bill in rare bipartisan vote (www.politico.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There was strong support from both Democrats and Republicans for the expansion of the Child Tax Credit and a trio of business tax breaks.

The House passed bipartisan tax legislation Wednesday evening that would expand the Child Tax Credit and restore several business tax breaks — a rare feat in an otherwise bitterly divided Congress that has frequently suffered crippling dysfunction.

The $78 billion tax package was sent to the Senate on a vote of 357 to 70, with strong support from both Republicans and Democrats. It awaits an uncertain future in the upper chamber, with some Senate Republicans calling for hearings and others eager to make changes in the bill.

Some House progressives voted against the package, saying it wouldn’t do enough to slash child poverty. They were joined by Republicans on the right who grumbled that it’s an expansion of the welfare state in disguise.

But moderates from both parties provided the tax deal with the two-thirds majority it needed to get through the House under an expedited procedure known as suspension of the rules.

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] skydivekingair@lemmy.world 57 points 7 months ago

Should be a rule if you post a story about a law that doesn’t include a link to the actual law you should post the link.

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_tax_relief_for_american_families_and_workers_act_of_2024_technical_summary.pdf

For anyone with questions - it’s not a long read, I do have more questions after reading. Like why was a full part about Taiwan residency? I read through it twice and didn’t understand why there exclusively.

[-] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

I'm thinking it's a way of treating Taiwan more like other countries we deal with, rather than treating them as a part of China.

"Subtitle B – United States-Taiwan Tax Agreement Authorization Act Because the U.S. is unable to enter into a bilateral tax treaty with Taiwan due to Taiwan’s unique status, subtitle B provides authorization to the President to negotiate and enter into a U.S.-Taiwan tax agreement that includes provisions generally conforming with those customarily contained in U.S. tax treaties."

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 56 points 7 months ago

Some House progressives voted against the package, saying it wouldn’t do enough to slash child poverty.

Never let perfect be the enemy of good. In a Republican-majority House did they honestly expect anything better was possible?

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

My guess is it was negotiated in a back room so that Republicans could save face by voting for it but then claim Dems hated the deal so it was okay.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Harumph! I'm only voting for it if Rep. Ocasio-Cortez scowls at it. 😤

Republicans

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

They can only perform when a woman is cross with them.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago

It is a weird kink for sure. In this case, I will kinkshame them.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Some House progressives voted against the package, saying it wouldn’t do enough to slash child poverty. They were joined by Republicans on the right who grumbled that it’s an expansion of the welfare state in disguise.

They can't even agree when they disagree.

[-] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Time to start working on next year's deal so it might be ready in time. No more of this edging routine where they get close and then back off because somebody's bullshit addendum to a rider on an appendix wasn't appropriately punctuated.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

Time to start working on next year’s deal so it might be ready in time.

That would be a waste of time. That's at least two different GOP Speakers of the House by then.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

But how are they going to get all their riders passed if they can’t blackmail everyone with a government shutdown?

[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago

Okay, they agreed on something, so how does this screw the average person?

[-] neuropean@kbin.social 10 points 7 months ago

More corporate welfare.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

More people who shouldn't be parents using their kids as a source of income.

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago

Yeah we should let them starve, there will be no negative consequences if we do that - Private prisons owners

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

That isn't at all what I'm saying.

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I didn't say we that the children born shouldn't be taken care of.

[-] GluWu@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

13934851-3982005598

this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024

168 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18894 readers

2911 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News