> Not everyone got a tax cut and the cuts went primarily to businesses and the ultra wealthy. The President also tried to make the cuts look bigger by changing withholding requirements.
I don't think the first claim is representative, and I don't think the second claim is true? Most people did get tax cuts; even if the bulk of the value went to businesses that's not in dispute. And despite concerns in 2017 that it could happen, there's no evidence that withholdings were artificially over-reduced. People who were already withholding the right amount were basically unaffected, while the people shifted from overpaying to underpaying constitute more symmetrical error. (Which does have some downsides for collection.) Even the Government Accountability Office views this as a purely logistical event.
More cynically, conventional wisdom says that popular perception of tax cuts is based almost entirely on the fact/size of the return received. Increased take home pay was talked up, but reducing the number of people receiving rebates is hardly a productive trick to score votes.
I don't think the first claim is representative, and I don't think the second claim is true? Most people did get tax cuts; even if the bulk of the value went to businesses that's not in dispute. And despite concerns in 2017 that it could happen, there's no evidence that withholdings were artificially over-reduced. People who were already withholding the right amount were basically unaffected, while the people shifted from overpaying to underpaying constitute more symmetrical error. (Which does have some downsides for collection.) Even the Government Accountability Office views this as a purely logistical event.
More cynically, conventional wisdom says that popular perception of tax cuts is based almost entirely on the fact/size of the return received. Increased take home pay was talked up, but reducing the number of people receiving rebates is hardly a productive trick to score votes.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/6/18214039/ir...