How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

It's going to phase out for you boy. So the rich and corporations will keep getting their breaks but your breaks will expire. And you don't care? Sucker.

It's going to phase out for you boy.

The Dems could make my cuts deeper and permanent.
Or don't they want the middle class to keep more of their own money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

blah blah blah blah blah

Do you understand what this chart means?

Do you understand what this means?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Do you understand what this means?

Yes, I do. It's irrelevant.

So. Are you going to answer my question or not?

Do it. Tell us what you know about that, Toddster. Show us that wisdom of yours.

 

[Theowl32]

Do you understand what this means?

Yes, I do. It's irrelevant.

So. Are you going to answer my question or not?

Do it. Tell us what you know about that, Toddster. Show us that wisdom of yours.

You never my question doofus. Dont think I have not noticed. Know it all gasbag.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you understand what this means?

Yes, I do. It's irrelevant.

So. Are you going to answer my question or not?

Do it. Tell us what you know about that, Toddster. Show us that wisdom of yours.

Yes, I do. It's irrelevant.

You can't know what it means and also think it's irrelevant.

The rate reductions that just passed are much, much larger than the change in the inflation calculation will have on bracket creep, for years and years and years.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You never my question doofus. Dont think I have not noticed. Know it all gasbag.

Your question was only germane to the limited capacity of that football mentality of yours. You're about as deep as a mud puddle. Hit the bricks, punk. You're not worth the bandwidth. pst..

 

[Natural Citizen]

You can't know what it means and also think it's irrelevant.

The rate reductions that just passed are much, much larger than the change in the inflation calculation will have on bracket creep, for years and years and years.

Toddster, are you going to make me answer the question that I asked you? Are you gonna make me do it in front of all of your friends? Because you know I will. I know that ego of yours is your pride and joy. You tend to dodge discussion. And this time I might not let you. And it might sting.

 

[Theowl32]

You never my question doofus. Dont think I have not noticed. Know it all gasbag.

Your question was only germane to the limited capacity of that football mentality of yours. You're about as deep as a mud puddle. Hit the bricks, punk. You're not worth the bandwidth. pst..

My farts are smarter than you

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't know what it means and also think it's irrelevant.

The rate reductions that just passed are much, much larger than the change in the inflation calculation will have on bracket creep, for years and years and years.

Toddster, are you going to make me answer the question that I asked you? Are you gonna make me do it in front of all of your friends? Because you know I will. I know that ego of yours is your pride and joy. You tend to dodge discussion. And this time I might not let you. And it might sting.

Do it!!! Make it sting!!!

 

[usmbguest5318]

The point is the media lying, saying it's a hike for the middle class when it's actually a cut for the middle class.

Bull puckey. The real point is (and should only be) that the government is lying by purposefully understating the effects of inflation through adoption of chained CPI into their bill.

What's worse is that right-wing statists like you, who think you're conservative when you're actually not, pass the government lie around with your little government graphs. To your credit, you likely have no idea what you're actually doing by passing around those bogus graphs and figures that purposely understate that hidden tax.

Any gains are illusionary because of that. As a consequence, Americans in the middle class will eventually be put into a higher tax bracket while the little remaining spending power with that 4 cent dollar they have continues to drop further and further and further into the deep, dark, abyss.

Toddster, you're as mainstream as any mainstream media outlet. So spare us.

The left that are liking your posts, I am curious. Do you think they know what they are liking?

I will tell you there are a whole lot of things I don't like about this tax bill. Then again my problem is there are not enough tax cuts. At least not for me.

Are you saying you think there ought to be more tax cuts? Pretty sure you are and I know the left wingers that "like" your posts dont want that.

That is funny to me.

OT:

there are a whole lot of things I don't like about this tax bill. Then again my problem is there are not enough tax cuts. At least not for me.

Are you a member of a middle class or lower earning (wealth holding) household? If so, I'm not surprised you feel that way. Many such households will see their tax cut vanish and become a tax increase.

Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provided multiple charts that estimate the impact of the tax changes on various income groups over 10 years in two-year increments. One of the charts measures the change (relative to "today," which one can see from the second and third charts shown below) in federal business and individual income taxes collected (see first chart below) by income group for 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025 and 2027. Reading the JCT's chartst, one finds that households earning $75K or less per year will by 2027 incur a tax increase relative to what they pay now (last column in the first chart below). [1]

The JCT's analysis shows furthermore that some income groups would pay more in taxes beginning in 2023. This new tax credit (in section 1101 of the bill) would provide families with a $300 tax credit per parent and non-child dependent, but only until Jan. 1, 2023. In 2023, then, taxes increase compared with pre-TCJA law by $302 million for those earning less than $10,000 and nearly $1.9 billion for those earning between $20,000 and $30,000. (See or click on the chart below and read the report which you'll find at the links above.)

"Voodoo economics" is bad enough when the Congress imposes such notions on federal government policy. It's wholly another matter when the Congress enacts tax provisions that literally "giveth and then taketh away," and then some. It doesn't get more "voodoo" than that. After all, I doubt any middle income taxpayers in the =< $75K brackets will be keen to pay more then than they do now.


Note:

1. The same report (JCX-68-17) contains charts that show the tax revenue collection distribution applicable to corporations. The short of it that's relevant for this post's/thread's discussion topic is that corporations do not lose their tax cut.

Are you saying you think there ought to be more tax cuts?

Speaking for myself, I don't think there should be more federal income tax cuts in the bill. I think the balance of the cuts present in the bill, thus who benefits from them, should be shifted to middle income earners/households and away from upper income earners/households.

I think that not only because I find reprehensible the "distributional equity" of the TCJA (see above), but also because I am certain that only a minority of high-earning capitalists and corporations will expand their entrepreneurship behavior because their federal income tax liability decreases. I'm certain of that not only because economic research indicates as much, but also in recent conferences, corporate execs said so, noting too that they would spend the money to liquidate debt and buy back stock rather than capital investments such as production or even new businesses.

• Trickle-Down Tax Cuts Don’t Create Jobs
  
• Macroeconomic Analysis of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”

The strongly growing economy, which has been doing so for the past 86 or so months, will spur business investment on its own, which is precisely in line with basic economics.

• Economic Development: A Definition and Model for Investment
  
• Creating a Better Environment for Business, Innovation and Green Growth
• Entrepreneurship and Economic Development: Theory, Evidence and Policy

Sure, some tax cuts do catalyze business investment and spending that greatly boosts the economy, but those tax cuts are not federal income tax cuts. Federal income tax cuts provide an immediate short-term boost to a weak economy, but they do not deliver long-term boosts and not when an economy is strong. Rather, it is payroll tax cuts that produce long term economic boosts. They do so via four demand increasing behaviors:

• Some firms use the savings to reduce prices, which increases demand for elastic goods and services.
  
• Some firms raise wages to retain good workers, who then spend more, thereby increasing demand.
• Some firms keep the tax savings, allowing them to buy more and increase demand.
  
• Firms that already have popular products use the savings to hire more workers. This behavior is both the most cost-effective and direct way to create jobs.

Congressional Budget Office researchers found that 13 jobs are created for each million dollar reduction in payroll taxes.

Some might think federal income tax reductions would/should spur the same economic behaviors that payroll tax reductions do. They don't. They don't not so much because of pure economics, but rather because of the way business activity is measured and analyzed. Payroll taxes are accounted for as "operating" expenses, for obvious reasons. In contrast, federal (and state) income taxes are "non-operating" expenses; they do not increase and decrease as a function of productive activity and staffing levels and incurring them has nothing to do with firm operations' economic merit and viability. Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of the difference between the role of payroll taxes and income taxes is seen in the very existence of the financial analysis measures EBIT and EBITDA.


Then there is the matter of the deficit impact of federal income tax reductions. The Laffer Curve indicates that tax cuts reduce government revenue dollar-for-dollar, but recoup that loss over the long term by boosting economic growth, thus the tax base. To realize the tax-base-boosting revenue-recouping effect, however, the taxes that were reduced must be prohibitive. As the past 86 months of economic growth show, federal income taxes, particularly business/corporate taxes, in the U.S. were far from prohibitive.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

What is that? The tax of dissemblance and disingenuousness?

Ha. Yeah. Precisely. Good choice of language.

Thank you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

Middle class taxes will be raised.. some now some later..
But you have to lie about it because you trust the guvment.

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

What income range is middle class?

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049
As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

Middle class taxes will be raised.. some now some later..
But you have to lie about it because you trust the guvment.

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

What income range is middle class?

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049
As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is that why you continuously increase spending?

Well, wait a minute. What about that trillion and a half that we just spent. Where'd that money come from. We're broke. We're 21 trillion in debt and carrying around 4 cent dollars to buy things that are costing more and more.

Oh, the so-called right dindu nuffin? Is that what you're saying? lolol.

What Trillion and a half?

Oh, you're just lying again, as you Stalinists tend to do.

Your little tin god actually DID spend $11 trillion, actually spent.

Yes, you Stalinists object to the middle class

Existing at all.

But you particularly object to the middle class keeping their own money. People should give the money they work for to the rulers of the party, who will then decide what the peasants need based on the favorability of the groups peasants are assigned to with the party.

But of course the tax breaks that allow those whom you Stalinists hate haven't spent a dime. IF the reduction of business taxes fails to support continued growth - and 4% is spectacular, double what Obama ever managed, then allowing the peasants to keep more of their own money will have an impact on the federal treasury. Of course if the 4% growth continues and in fact increases, then the federal receipts will in fact increase.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Democrats can't be honest about anything.
They've adopted the Islamic method of lying about everything.
At least 87 of them are card carrying communists that believe the ends justify the means.
That means every one of them is a lying criminal.

Republicans can't be honest about anything.
They've adopted the Nazi method of lying about everything.
At least 93 of them are card carrying Fascists that believe the ends justify the means.
That means every one of them is a lying criminal.

Lying again edtheliar?

You are true to your name..

 

[Uncensored2008]

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

When you know this tax gift to millionaires means eventual cuts to Medicare, you don’t want it. Social security cuts too dummies

What "cuts to medicare?"

Oh, you're just lying.

 

[Uncensored2008]

blah blah blah blah blah

Do you understand what this chart means?

View attachment 167060

Do you understand what this means?

That democrats are doomed in 2018...

 

[usmbguest5318]

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

Middle class taxes will be raised.. some now some later..
But you have to lie about it because you trust the guvment.

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

What income range is middle class?

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049
As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced. (You don't think I posted everything that's here relevant and also contained in those documents, do you? I didn't, and when I post links, one can be sure I have not. I didn't/don't and won't ever do so because I provide(-d) links to them.)

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) research which you insisted I examine, like the JTC's research that I referenced earlier, asserts that the JTCA will ultimately amount to being a tax hike.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....That is what you've been "on about" even though the topic isn't, as I made clear not in the OP and title, but also that I reiterated to you in post 14.

Besides trying to derail this thread, you have followed Procrustes' bad example so comprehensively that, if I'm to refrain from accusing you of utter villainy, I must infer that, as with the JCT reports to which I linked, you also haven't read the TPC's report to which the other member linked, for had you, given the talking point you've been advancing, you damn sure would not have bid me to raise my concerns/exceptions with the TPC. (see your quoted passage below) When will you endeavor to invest more effort in informing yourself than it takes to look at and read more than just the pictures?

To be a good chess player, you must know, not presume to know, what you are doing and what your opponent is doing.
-- My chess mentor/instructor​

[Xelor wrote:] The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

[Toddsterpatriot wrote:] Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

They don't materially disagree with the JCT, so why would I do that? In the opening paragraph of TPC's full report (dated December 18t, 2017) on the distributional effects of the JTCA, the report from which the data in the chart the other member obtained from the NPR website, is found the following statement.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025,and 53 percent in 2027.

Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

The JTCA is an "on the sly" tax increase, and everyone except Trump, GOP partisan sycophants, and myopic know-not-nearly-enoughs, who, like you, don't do more than make invalid inferences from cherry-picked pictures, know it! Even the GOP members of Congress know it; however, for purely temporal political expediency they chose to pass a major bill that's bad rather than take the time to craft a major tax bill that (1) revenue neutral (by which I here mean doesn't increase the deficit any more than it otherwise would increase), (2) is distributionally equitable to middle and lower income groups, and (3) that lowers corporate marginal tax rates. something which could have been done paid for largely via a mix of eliminating corporate loopholes and eliminating high-income individuals' loopholes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

Middle class taxes will be raised.. some now some later..
But you have to lie about it because you trust the guvment.

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

What income range is middle class?

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049
As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced. (You don't think I posted everything that's here relevant and also contained in those documents, do you? I didn't, and when I post links, one can be sure I have not. I didn't/don't and won't ever do so because I provide(-d) links to them.)

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) research which you insisted I examine, like the JTC's research that I referenced earlier, asserts that the JTCA will ultimately amount to being a tax hike.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....That is what you've been "on about" even though the topic isn't, as I made clear not in the OP and title, but also that I reiterated to you in post 14.

Besides trying to derail this thread, you have followed Procrustes' bad example so comprehensively that, if I'm to refrain from accusing you of utter villainy, I must infer that like the JCT reports to which I linked, you didn't read the TPC's report to which the other member linked. When will you endeavor to invest more effort in informing yourself than it takes to look at and read more than just the pictures?​

[Xelor wrote:] The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

[Toddsterpatriot wrote:] Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

They don't materially disagree with the JCT, so why would I do that? In the opening paragraph of TPC's full report (dated December 18t, 2017) on the distributional effects of the JTCA, the report from which the data in the chart the other member obtained from the NPR website, is found the following statement.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025,and 53 percent in 2027.

Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

The JTCA is an "on the sly" tax increase, and everyone except Trump, GOP partisan sycophants, and myopic know-not-nearly-enoughs, who, like you, don't do more than make invalid inferences from cherry-picked pictures, know it! Even the GOP members of Congress know it; however, for purely temporal political expediency they chose to pass a major bill that's bad rather than take the time to craft a major tax bill that (1) revenue neutral (by which I here mean doesn't increase the deficit any more than it otherwise would increase), (2) is distributionally equitable to middle and lower income groups, and (3) that lowers corporate marginal tax rates. something which could have been done paid for largely via a mix of eliminating corporate loopholes and eliminating high-income individuals' loopholes.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

Be sure to tell whiny liberals to specify that in their next whine.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....

Only because the media keeps saying it will hike taxes on the middle class.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

 

[Clementine]

Of course, the left will claim tax cuts are bad. We have a large group of people who don't pay taxes and yet receive huge "refunds". Many of those are illegal aliens who are claiming a dozen children to get the big checks, some averaging around $10,000. The left has conditioned some people for decades to completely rely on government for survival. Those people will continue to vote for those who promise them more and when they become the majority, the left can finally destroy America and bring in socialism. Then the useful idiots will suffer with the rest of us with no hope of things changing. It will be too late if the left is allowed to get away with this.

The ones dependent on them are also uneducated and they are stuck in a narrow-minded state of mind where they won't listen to reason. It's because the left has convinced them that capitalism and wealthy people are responsible for their lousy lot in life. And because they have been indoctrinate to view capitalism and wealthy people as evil, they support politicians who vow to take them down.

We are in a sorry state. It seems impossible to enlighten the indoctrinated idiots and convince them that they do have as much opportunity as anyone else but they aren't mentally or emotionally prepared to actually to reach goals on their own. They wait, as they've waited for decades, for some politician to elevate them. They must expect magic or maybe just more handouts so they can live the same quality of life as those they've been taught to envy and hate.

The left has been attempting to buy them off and it's the constant promise of more, more, more, that keep people hooked.

Middle class, especially married couples, have footed much of the bill for the billions given to non-tax payers each year. Marriage is being punished by the left. Hard to create more government dependents when people form functional families that take care of their own. Definitely something frowned upon by the left.

Tax cuts are only unpopular with those who prefer to steal from others to buy votes. And those on the receiving end of people's earnings might also dislike the money faucet being shut off.


"Of the 150,493,263 filers who submitted individual income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service for the 2015 tax year, only 99,040,729 paid any income tax at all.

Together, those Americans paid a record $1,457,891,441,000 in total income taxes — for an average of $14,720 per taxpayer.

The other 51,452,534 — or about 34.2 percent of all filers — did not pay a penny. Their average income tax payment was $0.

This is a fundamental divide in the American tax system. On one side are those who do pay taxes; on the other, those who don't.

And the divide gets worse.

There were 30,417,609 filers who did not pay income taxes and received $89,614,869,000 in cash back from the federal government.

In other words, they got $89,614,869,000 in welfare payments.

We know this because the IRS tells us so. It calls the $89,614,869,000 in cash that the federal government paid to tax-return filers who paid no taxes the "refundable portion" of "refundable credits."

"Refundable credits were broken out into three parts: the portion used to offset income tax before credits, the portion used to offset all other taxes, and the refundable portion," the IRS explained in its comprehensive report on the individual income taxes it collected for 2015 (the latest year for which the data is available).

"The first portion, which was included in total tax credits, offset income tax before credits," said the IRS report. "The second portion offset all other taxes besides income tax, such as the self-employment tax.

"The IRS treated the last portion, the refundable portion, as a refund and paid it directly to taxpayers who had no tax against which to apply the credits, or whose credits exceeded income tax (and other income-related taxes)," the report said.

"In total, taxpayers claimed $105.3 billion in refundable tax credits," the IRS said. "Of this, $5.7 billion was applied against income taxes and $10.0 billion against all other taxes. The remaining $89.6 billion in refundable credits was refunded to taxpayers."

That is to say it was "refunded" to "taxpayers" who paid no income taxes.

This was not a boon for the "rich."

In fact, according to data published in Table 3.3 of the report, 27,786,931 — or about 91.2 percent — of the 30,417,609 tax-return filers who did get a "refundable portion" from the IRS had an adjusted gross income of less than $40,000.

So who paid the taxes the federal government needed to send that $89,614,669,000 to those 30,417,609 who paid no income tax?

One major contributor was a group the IRS calls "married persons filing jointly."

30,417,609 Paid $0 Income Taxes, Got $89.6 Billion Back