Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
dude, I've been in my job for 41 years now same company. If you don't think that isn't working hard, you failed. again, a company has to make profits for promotions and merit increases to exist. My company has flushed out 10,000 jobs since 2003. I'm still here. I'm thankful for my salary, and why I never left. It is but a fact, I have not received a merit increase since the telecom winter of '03. And let me tell you, that is hundreds of thousands of us in the telecommunication market. You should read about it.well actually they are mostly based on how well the company is doing financially. You're a lucky one. I haven't had an increase in salary since 2003. and many a folk lost their job during obummer. quite a few and they were out so long they fell off the unemployment numbers. this is a complicated subject. However, when someone gets something unexpected they are most always grateful. I realize punks like you take that kind of thing for granted. shame.did you get a raise under obummer?I got a 12,200 a year raise in Jan, I do not need to rely on tax cuts for more money, I earn it the old fashioned way.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Of course I did. My promotions are based off of my performance, not who the president is. In my five (well, five in April) years with my current employer I have received two promotions totaling about 22 grand a year from when I first started.
During that time I finished my masters and two certificate programs and did the PMP training and testing and received my PMP certification.
I do not take anything for granted, I work hard for what I have. Instead of standing pat and whining like you are doing I worked to make myself more valuable to my employer and was rewarded for doing so.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
well actually they are mostly based on how well the company is doing financially. You're a lucky one. I haven't had an increase in salary since 2003. and many a folk lost their job during obummer. quite a few and they were out so long they fell off the unemployment numbers. this is a complicated subject. However, when someone gets something unexpected they are most always grateful. I realize punks like you take that kind of thing for granted. shame.did you get a raise under obummer?so you wouldn't take 200 a month extra eh? wow, you truly are a leftist loon.
I got a 12,200 a year raise in Jan, I do not need to rely on tax cuts for more money, I earn it the old fashioned way.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Of course I did. My promotions are based off of my performance, not who the president is. In my five (well, five in April) years with my current employer I have received two promotions totaling about 22 grand a year from when I first started.
During that time I finished my masters and two certificate programs and did the PMP training and testing and received my PMP certification.
This buthead thinks people lost jobs under Obama.
well actually they are mostly based on how well the company is doing financially. You're a lucky one. I haven't had an increase in salary since 2003. and many a folk lost their job during obummer. quite a few and they were out so long they fell off the unemployment numbers. this is a complicated subject. However, when someone gets something unexpected they are most always grateful. I realize punks like you take that kind of thing for granted. shame.did you get a raise under obummer?I got a 12,200 a year raise in Jan, I do not need to rely on tax cuts for more money, I earn it the old fashioned way.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Of course I did. My promotions are based off of my performance, not who the president is. In my five (well, five in April) years with my current employer I have received two promotions totaling about 22 grand a year from when I first started.
During that time I finished my masters and two certificate programs and did the PMP training and testing and received my PMP certification.
This buthead thinks people lost jobs under Obama.
People lose jobs under every president, it happens every day.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
well actually they are mostly based on how well the company is doing financially. You're a lucky one. I haven't had an increase in salary since 2003. and many a folk lost their job during obummer. quite a few and they were out so long they fell off the unemployment numbers. this is a complicated subject. However, when someone gets something unexpected they are most always grateful. I realize punks like you take that kind of thing for granted. shame.did you get a raise under obummer?
Of course I did. My promotions are based off of my performance, not who the president is. In my five (well, five in April) years with my current employer I have received two promotions totaling about 22 grand a year from when I first started.
During that time I finished my masters and two certificate programs and did the PMP training and testing and received my PMP certification.
This buthead thinks people lost jobs under Obama.
People lose jobs under every president, it happens every day.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
No shit!
I'm glad you are here to set the record straight.
The federal government getting more revenue is always a bad thing... think of them as a junky, cold turkey is the only cure...so first month the tax cuts have been in play and lo and behold the treasury collected more in taxes.
Who would have thought cutting taxes would raise revenues? I mean other than everyone who understands economics
Yup it worked for Kennedy and Reagan. Who knew???
No it did not. The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts, tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut, revenue increased at a rate of 6%. This is an indisputable fact, I have given the numbers year by year twice in this thread.
Lolwell actually they are mostly based on how well the company is doing financially. You're a lucky one. I haven't had an increase in salary since 2003. and many a folk lost their job during obummer. quite a few and they were out so long they fell off the unemployment numbers. this is a complicated subject. However, when someone gets something unexpected they are most always grateful. I realize punks like you take that kind of thing for granted. shame.did you get a raise under obummer?so you wouldn't take 200 a month extra eh? wow, you truly are a leftist loon.
I got a 12,200 a year raise in Jan, I do not need to rely on tax cuts for more money, I earn it the old fashioned way.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Of course I did. My promotions are based off of my performance, not who the president is. In my five (well, five in April) years with my current employer I have received two promotions totaling about 22 grand a year from when I first started.
During that time I finished my masters and two certificate programs and did the PMP training and testing and received my PMP certification.
This buthead thinks people lost jobs under Obama.
The federal government getting more revenue is always a bad thing... think of them as a junky, cold turkey is the only cure...so first month the tax cuts have been in play and lo and behold the treasury collected more in taxes.
Who would have thought cutting taxes would raise revenues? I mean other than everyone who understands economics
Yup it worked for Kennedy and Reagan. Who knew???
No it did not. The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts, tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut, revenue increased at a rate of 6%. This is an indisputable fact, I have given the numbers year by year twice in this thread.
This is true, that is the reason why the federal government has no credibilityThe federal government getting more revenue is always a bad thing... think of them as a junky, cold turkey is the only cure...so first month the tax cuts have been in play and lo and behold the treasury collected more in taxes.
Who would have thought cutting taxes would raise revenues? I mean other than everyone who understands economics
Yup it worked for Kennedy and Reagan. Who knew???
No it did not. The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts, tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut, revenue increased at a rate of 6%. This is an indisputable fact, I have given the numbers year by year twice in this thread.
This would only be accurate if there was a correlation between money coming in and money going out. But there is not, the Govt spends the same regardless of how much they bring in
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
/----/ My expert sources contradict your home made chart. You'll never give a republican credit for helping the economy, so run along and play with your friends./-----/ No matter what source I post you'll just dismiss it./-----/ Deny deny deny. Well I believe the Wall Street Journal over you anytime. They even give Carter some of the credit:/——-/ build all the charts you want. You can’t compare% increases to fluctuations in the revenue. You want 90% of a dollar or 1% of $100 ?
I figured you would stick your head back up Trump's ass and deny the cold hard facts. That is what all Trump zealots do.
Reagan Cut Taxes, Revenue Boomed
The Reagan tax cuts laid the foundation for a quarter-century of strong, noninflationary growth, which, despite three subsequent recessions, averaged 3.4% until the beginning of the Obama administration. And tax revenue was generated by an expanding economy rather than pilfered through bracket creep.
The numbers do not lie. You cannot refute the facts, all you have is empty talk and no facts.
View attachment 176542
So, stop posting sources and refute my numbers.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
/----/ Sure it is, but only in LiberalPropagandaville.so first month the tax cuts have been in play and lo and behold the treasury collected more in taxes.
Who would have thought cutting taxes would raise revenues? I mean other than everyone who understands economics
Yup it worked for Kennedy and Reagan. Who knew???
No it did not. The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts, tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut, revenue increased at a rate of 6%. This is an indisputable fact, I have given the numbers year by year twice in this thread.
/----/ From today's Investors Business daily: Walmart (WMT) announced in January that it was hiking base pay to $11 an hour, three years after it last announced a boost in starting pay to $9 an hour. Last week, CVS Health (CVS) said it also will adopt an $11 minimum wage in April. Both companies tied their wage hikes at least loosely to their tax cuts, but that's only part of the story. Competition for quality workers led Target (TGT) to boost its wage to $11 starting last October, when tax reform was still up in the air. At the time, Target made a commitment to raise its base wage to $15 an hour by the end of 2020. Starbucks (SBUX), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Wells Fargo (WFC) also are among the dozens of big employers who have hiked wages in the wake of tax cuts.to this day, there hasn't been one politician to say what is a fair share. not one. They've been spewing that for fking ever. Not once explained what it means other than it sounds nice off their tongue.I'm getting two hundred a month more. that's yuge.Employers had till Feb 15th to implement the withholding changes and I do not know anyone that saw a change before the 20th, a lot of people I know didn’t see the change till the start of Feb
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I did on my 15th paycheck, hundreds of dollars more in my pocket oh man Go Trump! MAGA!!
Liberals will be along shorty to inform you the rich...blah blah corporations...blah blah and how you should have voted for Hillary.
They are trying to make people feel less creepy about taking other people's money, somehow the 'rich' cheated them out of their fair share so confiscating their money is somehow righteous and okay. Meanwhile the bunch of dumb asses never get it, the 'rich' have the means to pass these tax increases right back down to the poor and middle class, the idiots are heaping tax increases on themselves.
/----/ Sure it is, but only in LiberalPropagandaville.so first month the tax cuts have been in play and lo and behold the treasury collected more in taxes.
Who would have thought cutting taxes would raise revenues? I mean other than everyone who understands economics
Yup it worked for Kennedy and Reagan. Who knew???
No it did not. The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts, tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut, revenue increased at a rate of 6%. This is an indisputable fact, I have given the numbers year by year twice in this thread.
but more money/ revenue is received If I read your table correctly right?/——/ Like a ping pong ball tossed against a brick wall, facts can not penetrate a libtards closed mind. So for the 101st time since 2002: Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues/——/ Debunked a 100 timesit's the way it always works out. it's the little secret dems hate so much and why they are always against them.
No, actually it does not, that is just a GOP myth.
The 5 years prior to the Reagan tax cut tax revenue increased at an average of 15% per year. The 5 years after the Reagan tax cut tax revenue increased an average of 6% per year.
I gave the data. Try and show my math is wrong or you can kiss my ass also. You can stick your head up Trumps ass as far as it will go and that still will not change the cold hard facts
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Typical fucking zealot, would rather fall for a propaganda piece than look at the data for themselves. Always have to have someone else telling you what to think.
Lets look at the actual data, if you have the balls to do so.
Here are the actual numbers, not opinion, not propaganda, but pure, cold hard facts.
The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 6%.
So, while it is true that revenue still went up, there is no denying it went up at a slower rate after the tax cuts. The numbers do not lie, even if you do.
I am not going to build another table, but in the 5 years prior to the Bush II tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 7% per year and the 5 years after it increased at a rate of 4% per year.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Year Tax Revenue in billions Amount of change in billions Percent of change 1977 356 + 58 19% 1978 399 + 43 12% 1979 463 + 64 16% 1980 517 + 54 12% 1981 599 + 82 16% 1982 618 + 19 3% 1983 601 - 17 -3% 1984 666 + 65 11% 1985 734 + 68 10% 1986 796 + 62 8%
The cold, hard fact that nobody on this forum can deny is that revenue increases slow after tax cuts, the numbers do not lie.
but more money/ revenue is received If I read your table correctly right?/——/ Like a ping pong ball tossed against a brick wall, facts can not penetrate a libtards closed mind. So for the 101st time since 2002: Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues/——/ Debunked a 100 timesNo, actually it does not, that is just a GOP myth.
The 5 years prior to the Reagan tax cut tax revenue increased at an average of 15% per year. The 5 years after the Reagan tax cut tax revenue increased an average of 6% per year.
I gave the data. Try and show my math is wrong or you can kiss my ass also. You can stick your head up Trumps ass as far as it will go and that still will not change the cold hard facts
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Typical fucking zealot, would rather fall for a propaganda piece than look at the data for themselves. Always have to have someone else telling you what to think.
Lets look at the actual data, if you have the balls to do so.
Here are the actual numbers, not opinion, not propaganda, but pure, cold hard facts.
The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 6%.
So, while it is true that revenue still went up, there is no denying it went up at a slower rate after the tax cuts. The numbers do not lie, even if you do.
I am not going to build another table, but in the 5 years prior to the Bush II tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 7% per year and the 5 years after it increased at a rate of 4% per year.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Year Tax Revenue in billions Amount of change in billions Percent of change 1977 356 + 58 19% 1978 399 + 43 12% 1979 463 + 64 16% 1980 517 + 54 12% 1981 599 + 82 16% 1982 618 + 19 3% 1983 601 - 17 -3% 1984 666 + 65 11% 1985 734 + 68 10% 1986 796 + 62 8%
The cold, hard fact that nobody on this forum can deny is that revenue increases slow after tax cuts, the numbers do not lie.
it's still more revenue, and it results in a greater GDP that causes higher wages and more higher paying jobs for americans.but more money/ revenue is received If I read your table correctly right?/——/ Like a ping pong ball tossed against a brick wall, facts can not penetrate a libtards closed mind. So for the 101st time since 2002: Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues/——/ Debunked a 100 times
I gave the data. Try and show my math is wrong or you can kiss my ass also. You can stick your head up Trumps ass as far as it will go and that still will not change the cold hard facts
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Typical fucking zealot, would rather fall for a propaganda piece than look at the data for themselves. Always have to have someone else telling you what to think.
Lets look at the actual data, if you have the balls to do so.
Here are the actual numbers, not opinion, not propaganda, but pure, cold hard facts.
The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 6%.
So, while it is true that revenue still went up, there is no denying it went up at a slower rate after the tax cuts. The numbers do not lie, even if you do.
I am not going to build another table, but in the 5 years prior to the Bush II tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 7% per year and the 5 years after it increased at a rate of 4% per year.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Year Tax Revenue in billions Amount of change in billions Percent of change 1977 356 + 58 19% 1978 399 + 43 12% 1979 463 + 64 16% 1980 517 + 54 12% 1981 599 + 82 16% 1982 618 + 19 3% 1983 601 - 17 -3% 1984 666 + 65 11% 1985 734 + 68 10% 1986 796 + 62 8%
The cold, hard fact that nobody on this forum can deny is that revenue increases slow after tax cuts, the numbers do not lie.
Yes, more is received, what is slowed is the rate of growth at which it is received.
Let me ask you, would you rather your income grew at 15% or 6%?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
well that depends on the status of the economy. See if more people are out of work I am not. so basically what you have is higher revenue % with unemployment or lower %'s more revenue still and record employment I'll take the tax cuts. Cut spending.but more money/ revenue is received If I read your table correctly right?/——/ Like a ping pong ball tossed against a brick wall, facts can not penetrate a libtards closed mind. So for the 101st time since 2002: Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues/——/ Debunked a 100 times
I gave the data. Try and show my math is wrong or you can kiss my ass also. You can stick your head up Trumps ass as far as it will go and that still will not change the cold hard facts
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Typical fucking zealot, would rather fall for a propaganda piece than look at the data for themselves. Always have to have someone else telling you what to think.
Lets look at the actual data, if you have the balls to do so.
Here are the actual numbers, not opinion, not propaganda, but pure, cold hard facts.
The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 6%.
So, while it is true that revenue still went up, there is no denying it went up at a slower rate after the tax cuts. The numbers do not lie, even if you do.
I am not going to build another table, but in the 5 years prior to the Bush II tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 7% per year and the 5 years after it increased at a rate of 4% per year.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Year Tax Revenue in billions Amount of change in billions Percent of change 1977 356 + 58 19% 1978 399 + 43 12% 1979 463 + 64 16% 1980 517 + 54 12% 1981 599 + 82 16% 1982 618 + 19 3% 1983 601 - 17 -3% 1984 666 + 65 11% 1985 734 + 68 10% 1986 796 + 62 8%
The cold, hard fact that nobody on this forum can deny is that revenue increases slow after tax cuts, the numbers do not lie.
Yes, more is received, what is slowed is the rate of growth at which it is received.
Let me ask you, would you rather your income grew at 15% or 6%?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
it's still more revenue, and it results in a greater GDP that causes higher wages and more higher paying jobs for americans.but more money/ revenue is received If I read your table correctly right?/——/ Like a ping pong ball tossed against a brick wall, facts can not penetrate a libtards closed mind. So for the 101st time since 2002: Tax Cuts Increase Federal RevenuesI gave the data. Try and show my math is wrong or you can kiss my ass also. You can stick your head up Trumps ass as far as it will go and that still will not change the cold hard facts
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Typical fucking zealot, would rather fall for a propaganda piece than look at the data for themselves. Always have to have someone else telling you what to think.
Lets look at the actual data, if you have the balls to do so.
Here are the actual numbers, not opinion, not propaganda, but pure, cold hard facts.
The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 6%.
So, while it is true that revenue still went up, there is no denying it went up at a slower rate after the tax cuts. The numbers do not lie, even if you do.
I am not going to build another table, but in the 5 years prior to the Bush II tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 7% per year and the 5 years after it increased at a rate of 4% per year.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Year Tax Revenue in billions Amount of change in billions Percent of change 1977 356 + 58 19% 1978 399 + 43 12% 1979 463 + 64 16% 1980 517 + 54 12% 1981 599 + 82 16% 1982 618 + 19 3% 1983 601 - 17 -3% 1984 666 + 65 11% 1985 734 + 68 10% 1986 796 + 62 8%
The cold, hard fact that nobody on this forum can deny is that revenue increases slow after tax cuts, the numbers do not lie.
Yes, more is received, what is slowed is the rate of growth at which it is received.
Let me ask you, would you rather your income grew at 15% or 6%?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
but it isn't my income. it is the country's and there are ties that I don't control. I'd cut spending and keep unemployment low and make less welfare payments allowing for infrastructure growth.it's still more revenue, and it results in a greater GDP that causes higher wages and more higher paying jobs for americans.but more money/ revenue is received If I read your table correctly right?/——/ Like a ping pong ball tossed against a brick wall, facts can not penetrate a libtards closed mind. So for the 101st time since 2002: Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues
Typical fucking zealot, would rather fall for a propaganda piece than look at the data for themselves. Always have to have someone else telling you what to think.
Lets look at the actual data, if you have the balls to do so.
Here are the actual numbers, not opinion, not propaganda, but pure, cold hard facts.
The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 6%.
So, while it is true that revenue still went up, there is no denying it went up at a slower rate after the tax cuts. The numbers do not lie, even if you do.
I am not going to build another table, but in the 5 years prior to the Bush II tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 7% per year and the 5 years after it increased at a rate of 4% per year.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Year Tax Revenue in billions Amount of change in billions Percent of change 1977 356 + 58 19% 1978 399 + 43 12% 1979 463 + 64 16% 1980 517 + 54 12% 1981 599 + 82 16% 1982 618 + 19 3% 1983 601 - 17 -3% 1984 666 + 65 11% 1985 734 + 68 10% 1986 796 + 62 8%
The cold, hard fact that nobody on this forum can deny is that revenue increases slow after tax cuts, the numbers do not lie.
Yes, more is received, what is slowed is the rate of growth at which it is received.
Let me ask you, would you rather your income grew at 15% or 6%?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
You did not answer the question, would you rather your income increased at 15% or 6%? Which would be better?
And please show the data proving that tax cuts result in a higher GDP
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
so first month the tax cuts have been in play and lo and behold the treasury collected more in taxes.
Who would have thought cutting taxes would raise revenues? I mean other than everyone who understands economics
/-----/ As a commission sales rep in the legal publishing industry, whenever I wanted a raise I sold more books to lawyers. As a short term option trader, my portfolio is up 41% for the year. Sorry, your question doesn't apply to me.it's still more revenue, and it results in a greater GDP that causes higher wages and more higher paying jobs for americans.but more money/ revenue is received If I read your table correctly right?/——/ Like a ping pong ball tossed against a brick wall, facts can not penetrate a libtards closed mind. So for the 101st time since 2002: Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues
Typical fucking zealot, would rather fall for a propaganda piece than look at the data for themselves. Always have to have someone else telling you what to think.
Lets look at the actual data, if you have the balls to do so.
Here are the actual numbers, not opinion, not propaganda, but pure, cold hard facts.
The 5 years leading up the Reagan tax cuts tax revenue increased at a rate of 15% per year. The 5 years after the tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 6%.
So, while it is true that revenue still went up, there is no denying it went up at a slower rate after the tax cuts. The numbers do not lie, even if you do.
I am not going to build another table, but in the 5 years prior to the Bush II tax cut revenue increased at a rate of 7% per year and the 5 years after it increased at a rate of 4% per year.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Year Tax Revenue in billions Amount of change in billions Percent of change 1977 356 + 58 19% 1978 399 + 43 12% 1979 463 + 64 16% 1980 517 + 54 12% 1981 599 + 82 16% 1982 618 + 19 3% 1983 601 - 17 -3% 1984 666 + 65 11% 1985 734 + 68 10% 1986 796 + 62 8%
The cold, hard fact that nobody on this forum can deny is that revenue increases slow after tax cuts, the numbers do not lie.
Yes, more is received, what is slowed is the rate of growth at which it is received.
Let me ask you, would you rather your income grew at 15% or 6%?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
You did not answer the question, would you rather your income increased at 15% or 6%? Which would be better?
And please show the data proving that tax cuts result in a higher GDP
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
