IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

[Independent thinker]

Percentages matter. 100% of nothing is still nothing. If the rich get 80% of the income but pay only 20% of the taxes, that means that those who receive less, are being taxed more.

And yet you refuse to acknowledge that the Trump tax cuts benefitted the poorer more when you talk about difference in tax rates before and after the tax cut. You only want to talk about tax rate percentages when it benefits you and then with this article you say percentages don't matter. By the way, if you want to talk about zeros, then there were more poor who paid zero federal taxes under the Trump tax cuts than before.

 

[pknopp]

What a crock of bullshit. Tax revenues are tax revenues and they went up. Our spending went up more and that is why the debt went up.

Right, we weren't printing billions, it was all a figment of everyone's imagination.

 

[Nostra]

What a snowflake you are!!! Funny that you think my saying that she MAY not have filed taxes is some sort of accusation. I said nothing about her not paying taxes. It seems you hate having your "story" blown out of the water and are now moving the goal posts.

The only people not receiving the child tax credit are those who didn't file taxes and haven't applied.

Funny that you think my saying that she MAY not have filed taxes is some sort of accusation.

It's the very definition of an accusation, Stupid.

 

[Nostra]

Percentages matter. 100% of nothing is still nothing. If the rich get 80% of the income but pay only 20% of the taxes, that means that those who receive less, are being taxed more.

If the rich get 80% of the income but pay only 20% of the taxes,

What a crock of shit. You are the biggest lying assbag on this board.

 

[Independent thinker]

Right, we weren't printing billions, it was all a figment of everyone's imagination.

Yes, we were printing billions but that has nothing to do with it. Tax revenues collected were higher after the Trump tax cuts than before. The tax cuts brought in more tax revenue but we spent more, which caused us to print up money for the difference.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, we were printing billions but that has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does.

Tax revenues collected were higher after the Trump tax cuts than before. The tax cuts brought in more tax revenue but we spent more, which caused us to print up money for the difference.

Because of billions being interjected into the markets.

 

[Papageorgio]

And who was president in 2008?
MAGA

Sorry, it was his next best was Dec 2015, In 2008 it was 3.8% increase, higher than Obama ever got. Thanks for pointing out the error.

 

[Papageorgio]

Funny that you think my saying that she MAY not have filed taxes is some sort of accusation.

It's the very definition of an accusation, Stupid.

That's why I just left it alone, you can't fix stupid and she keeps proving it all the time.

 

[AntonToo]

Sorry, it was his next best was Dec 2015, In 2008 it was 3.8% increase, higher than Obama ever got. Thanks for pointing out the error.

Yep, everyday Obama laments about how his economic record did not match Bush's

Adjusted for inflation 2015 was the strongest median family income growth in the last 20 years, if single year records impress you so much.

Overall non-partisan principle of wage growth is supply and demand of labor, so while unemployment is high wages fall, when unemployment is moderate they are stagnant, and when you are near full employment they grow. Obama inherited high unemployment and turned over to Trump near full employment, along with solid wage growth expectancy.

Median Household Income In May 2020

Political Calculations' initial estimate of median household income in May 2020 is $65,669, down 0.5% from April 2020's initial estimate of $66,027.

seekingalpha.com

 

[Papageorgio]

Yep, everyday Obama laments about how his economic record did not match Bush's

Just corrected a mistake brought to my attention and the person wanted me to tell them who was President in 2008. I don't care what Bush or Obama laments, the facts are what they are, you can do your incessant partisan whining, it's all good for me.

 

[AntonToo]

Just corrected a mistake brought to my attention and the person wanted me to tell them who was President in 2008. I don't care what Bush or Obama laments, the facts are what they are, you can do your incessant partisan whining, it's all good for me.

You know, for a guy who constantly posts partisan talking points instead of sound economics, you sure do whine a lot about partisan whinning.

Economics of the matter are not very complicated - when unemployment is low and labor is in higher demand wages for workers grow. Chasing single year highs unadjusted for inflation is politico sandbox economics.

 

[Dragonlady]

What a crock of bullshit. Tax revenues are tax revenues and they went up. Our spending went up more and that is why the debt went up.

Where and how the revenues went up matters a lot. If I get a lottery win of $10,000, I can ill afford to raise my standard of living so that my fixed annual costs go up by $10,000 per year because my income hasn't gone up at all. If I raise my standard of living, I'll continue to go into debt.an

I can use the windfall to pay off debts, or make a capital purchase I couldn't otherwise afford -
a new(er) car, or some home improvements, without endangering my financial future, but I can't increase my fixed cost spending like buying a more expensive house with a bigger mortgage. I would need an extra $10,000 every year to do that.

One of the reasons why Republicans go on a spending spree right after they cut taxes, is that the revenues generated by the spending spree, will cover up the loss of revenue from the tax cuts. Reagan's tax cuts/spending spree did generate jobs, but they also crashed the economy.

After cutting 700,000 government jobs in his first term, when the unemployment rate hit 6% at the end of his first term and Reagan went on a government hiring spree, adding more than 1 million workers to the government's payrolls , Reagan responded that government workers have mortgages and contribute to the economy, too.

At least, under Reagan, the deficit dollars were spent at home on a defense force build up, and not spent on foreign wars blowing up people in Third World countries like with W, and Trump's first three years. The USA spent more money on building infrastructure in Afghanistan than they spent on American infrastructure at home over the past 20 years, which is a sad statement to make.

 

[Papageorgio]

You know, for a guy who constantly posts partisan talking points instead of sound economics, you sure do whine a lot about partisan whinning.

Good point thank you for your astute observation and I will give it the consideration it deserves.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

What a BULLSHIT article. The whole premises is that taxes were reduced by a larger percentage of total income for lower and middle class workers - 16% decrease for low income workers, 9% for workers earning more than $500,000.

Tax rate for workers earning $40,000 are 12% or $4,800. If you reduce their taxes by 16%, that's $768 which works out to $68 per month. Tax rate for those making $500,000 is 35% or $175,00. That worker will get a 9% refund or $15,750, or $1312.50 per month.

This bullshit article claims that since lower wage workers received a tax cut which is a larger percentage of taxes they paid, the low wage workers got a bigger tax break than those making in excess of $500,000 and thus received more benefit from Trump's tax breaks. No matter how you slice it, $758 per year is a WHOLE lot less than the $15,750 that the high wage workers received.

This is why we say "Figures never lie, by liars often figure".

ILMAO @ the snowflake breaking out raw numbers because she's butthurt the Orange-man breathes.

 

[Independent thinker]

Of course it does.



Because of billions being interjected into the markets.

Because tax cuts spurred economic growth. Tax revenues grew and you just can't stand the fact that Republican policies work. The debt increased only because we spent more, your "billions" interjected into the market. How about cutting spending?

 

[Foolardi]

the tax cuts were terrific. we need more

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups.

thehill.com

Just a nutter proven pile of MSM/Democrat Driven bunk to be corrected.
That Trump's Tax Cuts not only worked but were greatly appreciated by the
Middle Class.Of course Dems aren't interested in any Middle class.There is no
middle class in Marxism.Inner city blacks also aren't interest in tax cuts because they'd
rather git some handout than work.Or if they do have a job,show up for work late or
not at all.That's is why the Democrats Party cottons blacks.They must keep them as
a favored voting block so they must be on The Government Plantation no matter what.
That's a Fact ... Jack.
All Work and No Play makes Jack a Non-black.

 

[Independent thinker]

Where and how the revenues went up matters a lot. If I get a lottery win of $10,000, I can ill afford to raise my standard of living so that my fixed annual costs go up by $10,000 per year because my income hasn't gone up at all. If I raise my standard of living, I'll continue to go into debt.an

I can use the windfall to pay off debts, or make a capital purchase I couldn't otherwise afford -
a new(er) car, or some home improvements, without endangering my financial future, but I can't increase my fixed cost spending like buying a more expensive house with a bigger mortgage. I would need an extra $10,000 every year to do that.

One of the reasons why Republicans go on a spending spree right after they cut taxes, is that the revenues generated by the spending spree, will cover up the loss of revenue from the tax cuts. Reagan's tax cuts/spending spree did generate jobs, but they also crashed the economy.

After cutting 700,000 government jobs in his first term, when the unemployment rate hit 6% at the end of his first term and Reagan went on a government hiring spree, adding more than 1 million workers to the government's payrolls , Reagan responded that government workers have mortgages and contribute to the economy, too.

At least, under Reagan, the deficit dollars were spent at home on a defense force build up, and not spent on foreign wars blowing up people in Third World countries like with W, and Trump's first three years. The USA spent more money on building infrastructure in Afghanistan than they spent on American infrastructure at home over the past 20 years, which is a sad statement to make.

Spin city. After the Trump tax cuts, revenues increased. That's the fact. It's also a fact that during that time the nation's debt increased because we spent more money than what the increased tax revenues were. The goal is to increase tax revenues without stifling the economy and to spend less. We increased tax revenues due to the Trump tax cuts but we spent more. You don't have to write a book to explain this. You only have to write a book to spin the truth.

 

[AntonToo]

Because tax cuts spurred economic growth. Tax revenues grew

Our economy and revenues have been growing since 2010. Did tax cuts that didn't go into effect until 2018 cause it too?

 

[Nostra]

You know, for a guy who constantly posts partisan talking points instead of sound economics, you sure do whine a lot about partisan whinning.

Economics of the matter are not very complicated - when unemployment is low and labor is in higher demand wages for workers grow. Chasing single year highs unadjusted for inflation is politico sandbox economics.

Real wages are down under Veggie Joe.

 

[Nostra]

Where and how the revenues went up matters a lot. If I get a lottery win of $10,000, I can ill afford to raise my standard of living so that my fixed annual costs go up by $10,000 per year because my income hasn't gone up at all. If I raise my standard of living, I'll continue to go into debt.an

I can use the windfall to pay off debts, or make a capital purchase I couldn't otherwise afford -
a new(er) car, or some home improvements, without endangering my financial future, but I can't increase my fixed cost spending like buying a more expensive house with a bigger mortgage. I would need an extra $10,000 every year to do that.

One of the reasons why Republicans go on a spending spree right after they cut taxes, is that the revenues generated by the spending spree, will cover up the loss of revenue from the tax cuts. Reagan's tax cuts/spending spree did generate jobs, but they also crashed the economy.

After cutting 700,000 government jobs in his first term, when the unemployment rate hit 6% at the end of his first term and Reagan went on a government hiring spree, adding more than 1 million workers to the government's payrolls , Reagan responded that government workers have mortgages and contribute to the economy, too.

At least, under Reagan, the deficit dollars were spent at home on a defense force build up, and not spent on foreign wars blowing up people in Third World countries like with W, and Trump's first three years. The USA spent more money on building infrastructure in Afghanistan than they spent on American infrastructure at home over the past 20 years, which is a sad statement to make.

is that the revenues generated by the spending spree, will cover up the loss of revenue from the tax cuts.

Most likely the dumbest thing you have ever posted................and that bar is high.




Reagan's tax cuts/spending spree did generate jobs, but they also crashed the economy.


Link to this "crash"?

The USA spent more money on building infrastructure in Afghanistan than they spent on American infrastructure at home over the past 20 years, which is a sad statement to make.

Once again, gotta link to your data?