At the same time, they’re dropping long-standing plans to roll back former President Donald Trump’s cut in the corporate tax rate — something many Democrats had been eager to campaign on. That left lawmakers hurrying to find a substitute, which they unveiled Tuesday: a complicated new corporate minimum tax plan aimed at preventing companies from erasing their tax bills. And there are major questions over how much money another proposal, to begin taxing stock buybacks by big corporations, will raise — if the government starts taxing companies on buybacks, many businesses will surely find other ways to spend their money. Democrats are now working through those details while beating back complaints by Neal (D-Mass.) and others that lawmakers don’t have time to vet the complex proposals. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) rejects that assertion. “I’ve been working my proposal to tax billionaires for two years — thousands of hours have been spent on it,” he said. “We’ve vetted it with outside experts, some of the best tax attorneys in the country. We’ve worked with the White House and the Treasury Department. “Anyone who tells you this is something new is wrong.” The problem for Neal and others wary of the proposals is that, with time running short, many lawmakers are becoming more interested in reaching a deal than debating all of its specifics. The big loser here, potentially, is Neal. He spent months developing his tax plan — the only one that’s been fully fleshed out, that has passed muster with congressional scorekeepers and that was approved by a committee. He had been reluctant to put out a plan in the first place, without knowing what the Senate would ultimately be willing to accept, fearful of asking colleagues to vote for unpopular tax increases that end up going nowhere. But now he is threatened with the prospect of much of his plan being thrown overboard because Sinema is more willing than he is to threaten the Democrats’ top legislative priority — though Neal is not giving up the fight, predicting his colleagues will come back around to his plan. “The only thing I’m going to concede on tax is that our plan looks better every day,” he told reporters Monday evening, emphasizing the uncertainties surrounding a billionaires tax. “In the end here, efficiency, predictability are going to gain some traction.” Until recently, Sinema didn’t appear to have much interest in the tax issues. She hasn’t explained much of her thinking, rarely speaking with reporters, which has left people guessing about her motivations. “Simply raising tax rates will not in any way address the challenge of tax avoidance or improve economic competitiveness,” her spokesperson said in a statement Friday. She has been “engaged for months in substantive, nuanced policy negotiations and is well-versed in the range of current tax proposals being considered.” But all of the tax hikes Democrats are considering in lieu of Neal’s proposals come with big open questions. Wyden released an outline of the billionaire tax proposal last week, which would require people with more than $1 billion in wealth or who earn more than $100 million for three consecutive years to pay taxes each year on the appreciation of assets they hold, even if they don’t sell them. But there are lots of implementation questions, such as how it would deal with hard-to-value assets and how the IRS will administer it. Said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.): “This is the ultimate 'where the devil’s in the details.'” And Neal is trying to rally opposition in the House to the proposal. On Tuesday, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) echoed Neal’s concerns, telling MSNBC: “The . . . read the full article here.