Keep your so-called facts to yourself! Who are we expected to believe, educated professionals or the "best people?"Unit2Sucks said:
Could even drop to 2.8% or lower once the data is in. SAD!
Keep your so-called facts to yourself! Who are we expected to believe, educated professionals or the "best people?"Unit2Sucks said:
Could even drop to 2.8% or lower once the data is in. SAD!
Quote:
In 2018, gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 2.9%, about the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) projected rate published in 2017 before the tax cut. On the whole, the growth effects tend to show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy. Although growth rates cannot indicate the tax cut's effects on GDP, they tend to rule out very large effects particularly in the short run. Although investment grew significantly, the growth patterns for different types of assets do not appear to be consistent with the direction and size of the supply-side incentive effects one would expect from the tax changes. This potential outcome may raise questions about how much longer-run growth will result from the tax revision.
CBO, in its first baseline update post enactment, initially estimated that the Act would reduce individual income taxes by $65 billion, corporate income taxes by $94 billion, and other taxes by $3 billion, for a total reduction of $163 billion in FY2018. Corporate revenues were about $40 billion less than projected whereas individual revenues were higher, with an overall revenue reduction of about $9 billion. From 2017 to 2018, the estimated average corporate tax rate fell from 23.4% to 12.1% and individual income taxes as a percentage of personal income fell slightly from 9.6% to 9.2%.
Real wages grew more slowly than GDP: at 2.0% (adjusted by the GDP deflator) compared with 2.9% for overall real GDP. Such slower growth has occurred in the past. The real wage rate for production and non supervisory workers grew by 1.2%. Although significant amounts of dividends were repatriated in 2018 compared with previous years, the data do not appear to show a significant increase in investment flows from abroad. While evidence does indicate significant repurchases of shares, either from tax cuts or repatriated revenues, relatively little was directed to paying worker bonuses, which had been announced by some firms.
bearister said:
Study: Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Help Anybody But the Wealthy - New York Magazine
https://apple.news/AK4WkCu7xRwiUhHT64Mu-kg
oski003 said:bearister said:
Study: Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Help Anybody But the Wealthy - New York Magazine
https://apple.news/AK4WkCu7xRwiUhHT64Mu-kg
Define wealthy. I know quite a few people they helped that I dont consider wealthy.
bearister said:oski003 said:bearister said:
Study: Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Help Anybody But the Wealthy - New York Magazine
https://apple.news/AK4WkCu7xRwiUhHT64Mu-kg
Define wealthy. I know quite a few people they helped that I dont consider wealthy.
You Know Who the Tax Cuts Helped? Rich People
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/12/opinion/editorials/trump-tax-cuts.html
"The idea that the tax cuts were going to line workers' pockets was always a mirage. Most people will enjoy only a modest and temporary tax cut families earning $25,000 or less will save on average just $60 on their federal tax this year, and those making between $48,600 and $86,100 will save $930, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Families in the top 1 percent, on the other hand, will save an average of $51,140."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/mar/05/sherrod-brown/do-70-benefits-trumps-tax-law-benefit-wealthiest-1/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/12/18/18146253/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-stock-market-economy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/04/09/five-good-reasons-it-doesnt-feel-like-the-trump-tax-cut-benefited-you/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.amp.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
bearister said:oski003 said:bearister said:
Study: Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Help Anybody But the Wealthy - New York Magazine
https://apple.news/AK4WkCu7xRwiUhHT64Mu-kg
Define wealthy. I know quite a few people they helped that I dont consider wealthy.
You Know Who the Tax Cuts Helped? Rich People
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/12/opinion/editorials/trump-tax-cuts.html
"The idea that the tax cuts were going to line workers' pockets was always a mirage. Most people will enjoy only a modest and temporary tax cut families earning $25,000 or less will save on average just $60 on their federal tax this year, and those making between $48,600 and $86,100 will save $930, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Families in the top 1 percent, on the other hand, will save an average of $51,140."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/mar/05/sherrod-brown/do-70-benefits-trumps-tax-law-benefit-wealthiest-1/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/12/18/18146253/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-stock-market-economy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/04/09/five-good-reasons-it-doesnt-feel-like-the-trump-tax-cut-benefited-you/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.amp.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
This last year, the US government spent more than $1T than it took in. If our population is 333M, that equates to 3,000 per person.oski003 said:
People that pay more tax $ will save more $. Got it. Families in the top 1% make like $500,000-100,00,000+ per year. Of course families making 25k or less wont save that much because they hardly paid taxes prior to the cuts. Im not in the top 1%, and the tax cut saved me more than $1,000. It helped me.
concordtom said:This last year, the US government spent more than $1T than it took in. If our population is 333M, that equates to 3,000 per person.oski003 said:
People that pay more tax $ will save more $. Got it. Families in the top 1% make like $500,000-100,00,000+ per year. Of course families making 25k or less wont save that much because they hardly paid taxes prior to the cuts. Im not in the top 1%, and the tax cut saved me more than $1,000. It helped me.
How do you feel about the tax cuts and your $1,000 gain now?
Fair enough.oski003 said:concordtom said:This last year, the US government spent more than $1T than it took in. If our population is 333M, that equates to 3,000 per person.oski003 said:
People that pay more tax $ will save more $. Got it. Families in the top 1% make like $500,000-100,00,000+ per year. Of course families making 25k or less wont save that much because they hardly paid taxes prior to the cuts. Im not in the top 1%, and the tax cut saved me more than $1,000. It helped me.
How do you feel about the tax cuts and your $1,000 gain now?
That's not relevant to my point. i am simply addressing misleading claims that the tax cuts only helped the wealthy.
concordtom said:Fair enough.oski003 said:concordtom said:This last year, the US government spent more than $1T than it took in. If our population is 333M, that equates to 3,000 per person.oski003 said:
People that pay more tax $ will save more $. Got it. Families in the top 1% make like $500,000-100,00,000+ per year. Of course families making 25k or less wont save that much because they hardly paid taxes prior to the cuts. Im not in the top 1%, and the tax cut saved me more than $1,000. It helped me.
How do you feel about the tax cuts and your $1,000 gain now?
That's not relevant to my point. i am simply addressing misleading claims that the tax cuts only helped the wealthy.
Point taken.
But now, as a separate question, given what I pointed out, how do you feel about the tax cuts?
Okay, so you like the cuts because you want govt to have less money.oski003 said:concordtom said:Fair enough.oski003 said:concordtom said:This last year, the US government spent more than $1T than it took in. If our population is 333M, that equates to 3,000 per person.oski003 said:
People that pay more tax $ will save more $. Got it. Families in the top 1% make like $500,000-100,00,000+ per year. Of course families making 25k or less wont save that much because they hardly paid taxes prior to the cuts. Im not in the top 1%, and the tax cut saved me more than $1,000. It helped me.
How do you feel about the tax cuts and your $1,000 gain now?
That's not relevant to my point. i am simply addressing misleading claims that the tax cuts only helped the wealthy.
Point taken.
But now, as a separate question, given what I pointed out, how do you feel about the tax cuts?
My experience has been positive. I and most other people I know have more money in their pockets, despite what the MSM writes. I am not foolish enough to believe 100% in trickle down economics. However, I see so much government waste and laziness. Until public enterprise can function like an actual business that cares about costs, the less money it has the better.
concordtom said:Okay, so you like the cuts because you want govt to have less money.oski003 said:concordtom said:Fair enough.oski003 said:concordtom said:This last year, the US government spent more than $1T than it took in. If our population is 333M, that equates to 3,000 per person.oski003 said:
People that pay more tax $ will save more $. Got it. Families in the top 1% make like $500,000-100,00,000+ per year. Of course families making 25k or less wont save that much because they hardly paid taxes prior to the cuts. Im not in the top 1%, and the tax cut saved me more than $1,000. It helped me.
How do you feel about the tax cuts and your $1,000 gain now?
That's not relevant to my point. i am simply addressing misleading claims that the tax cuts only helped the wealthy.
Point taken.
But now, as a separate question, given what I pointed out, how do you feel about the tax cuts?
My experience has been positive. I and most other people I know have more money in their pockets, despite what the MSM writes. I am not foolish enough to believe 100% in trickle down economics. However, I see so much government waste and laziness. Until public enterprise can function like an actual business that cares about costs, the less money it has the better.
Do you care about a $1T annual debt?
If so, how would you balance the budget, "like an actual business"?
In other words, what expenditure areas would you cut?
And it looks like we'd have to cut $1T out of $4T (25%) in order to balance.
How would/should one do that without slowing the economy to such a drastic manner so as to immediately cause a severe recession. Like, what happens to unemployment if $1T were to suddenly happen?
concordtom said:
I'm sorry.
I don't think you understood my post.
Could you please read it again, and answer it?
I'm not trying to grill you.
It's a very serious issue which requires a quite tricky solution.
dajo9 said:
I don't know if oski003 is a Baby Boomer but he sure sounds like one
Unit2Sucks said:dajo9 said:
I don't know if oski003 is a Baby Boomer but he sure sounds like one
Bingo. Tom is asking a question about the future to a generation of people who have made it clear that long-term ends when they do.