Plutocracy wins again

WASHINGTON — Once again, carried interest carried the day.

The last-minute removal by Senate Democrats of a provision in the climate and tax legislation that would narrow what is often referred to as the “carried interest loophole” represents the latest win for the private equity and hedge fund industries. For years, those businesses have successfully lobbied to kill bills that aimed to end or limit a quirk in the tax code that allows executives to pay lower tax rates than many of their salaried employees.

In recent weeks, it appeared that the benefit could be scaled back, but a last-minute intervention by Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat, eliminated what would have been a $14 billion tax increase targeting private equity.

Lawmakers’ inability to address a tax break that Democrats and some Republicans have called unfair underscores the influence of lobbyists for the finance industry and how difficult it can be to change the tax code.


the way it’s written, even though this is squarely on the democrats, they can’t help but try to make them the hero’s and slight the republicans at the same time.

Also I struggle to see how a tax loophole like this should be addressed in a climate change bill. The govt is so fucking corrupt.


It’s ridiculous that its so hard to change an obvious loophole in the tax code.

It’s also not a climate change bill lol

Trudeau closed some big tax loopholes in his first term. He’s no genius and the American politician system just doesn’t work for anyone else but lobbyists anymore

1 Like

I’m all for anything that keeps money out of government hands.


It’s not

Normally I’d agree with this, but private equity can be quite parasitic.

1 Like

I thought they were all a put taxing the rich…
What Happened GIF by Warner Archive


Can anyone explain to me the downside of banning all lobbyists? I’m just assuming that they’re all lobbying for corporations.

1 Like

It would be unconstituional for one thing


Lobbyists can’t be banned under current laws but their influence can be massively limited through campaign donation reforms.

[quote=“nek, post:5, topic:3744704”]

People here constantly make statement like this as if they are factual, but lack the context needed to be factual

Here is your context: Both Clinton and Trump, and Biden and Trump, ran on platforms that were against the carried interest loophole. Two elections, almost a decade, two different administrations from opposite parties and nobody gets it done despite overwhelming public support for change. Trump even had complete control of the voting majorities in the house and senate and still couldn’t get it done.

The reason is because wall street owns the voting majority of both parties. They can’t lose because they rigged the game

What are you quoting me on?

you have no idea what you are talking about do you? lol

That just means they need to take more money from the middle class to make up the difference.

1 Like

Fuck making up the difference.

Trump didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the senate.

If you think the GOP would in a million years vote to repeal the carried interest loophole you are very naïve.

1 Like

I’m in favor of anything that means less tax dollars for our corrupt government.

Edit- Looks like alto beat me to it.

I was simply pointing out that, even though the Republicans controlled the senate, they couldn’t pass everything they/Trump may have wanted because they didn’t have 60 votes.

1 Like

This, and equally if people think the Dems would do it…Neither group at any point has addressed this…