Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which refutes your claim that their hours increased.

THE LINK ITSELF SAYS THE HOURS WORKED BY HIGH-WAGE WORKERS INCREASED.

There's also this inconvenient fact:

Seattle Sees Fastest Wage Growth in the U.S. in October
Tied with San Francisco for best in the nation, Seattle's wages grew 2.1 percent from October 2016 to October 2017 to a median salary north of $60,000.
...
Barista (up 5.8% to a median salary of $29,172)​

And this:

Seattle Unemployment Rate Matches All-Time 2.8% Low​

May 7, 2017

So not sure what shit points you're trying to make, but following Seattle's minimum wage increase, the city saw the fastest wage growth and record-low unemployment.

But keep screeching nonsensically about low-wage workers, even though Baristas saw their wages increase too.

THE LINK ITSELF SAYS THE HOURS WORKED BY HIGH-WAGE WORKERS INCREASED.

You're such a fucktard.
They raised the minimum wage.
By doing so, they hurt low wage workers.

We're not talking about the high wage workers who weren't impacted by the minimum wage.

 

[The Derp]

No, we're talking about corporate rates.
And your moronic claim that corporations and their investors don't change their behavior
when tax rates change. That no behavior would change, even with a 95% corporate rate..

We were, and then you changed the topic to individual rates all to avoid answering the question of; how exactly do corporate income tax rates affect consumer demand? You can't answer that question. All you do is pose hyperbolic, hypothetical questions. At this point, it'd be easier on yourself just to admit that there is no connection between the corporate income tax rate and consumer demand.

Where did I say there would be magical growth? Or that the added growth would pay for the tax cut?

That's what you've been arguing this entire time; that cutting the corporate income tax rate, and/or cutting the rates for the rich will somehow trickle down into growth by way of increased consumer demand. Not once have you been able to tie those things to consumer demand. You leave the question unanswered because you cannot answer it truthfully. You can't say that cutting those rates leads to increased growth because no such data exists to support that. You say you're not arguing trickle-down, but that is precisely what you're arguing. Then you fall back on your sophistry and captious arguments because you're not even 100% clear on what you think.

Ireland cut their corporate tax rate. Ireland saw huge growth.

No they didn't. That's a lie.

It will.
You can't say how.
Corporations will invest here when they see they can keep more of their profits..

Why would they invest here if they didn't before when given the chance in 2004's repatriation holiday, and why would they invest here if there's no demand? They're only going to invest if there's demand to justify it, otherwise they're going to do what they do now; pay dividends, stock buybacks, and executive compensation. You have been unable to tie increased consumer demand to a corporate income tax cut. I think you think that businesses expand just because. And that belies your inexperience.

More hiring, more wage hikes.
Higher profits will mean higher dividends and higher stock prices.

So you're working from the assumption that there is already consumer demand to justify investment, and if that's the case, why not invest right now? Also, if a corporation invests, it doesn't pay taxes on that. So how does lowering the corporate income tax rate have anything to do with reinvestment, which happens pre-tax and in lieu of paying income taxes???????

This is that inexperience I was alluding to earlier. That, and the apparent cognitive dissonance.

More jobs, higher wages, more dividends, more capital gains.
People spend that money.

More jobs to fill demand. If you're not increasing consumer demand, then the jobs aren't going to be there. "If you build it, they will come" may work in the movies, but not real life. I'm not sure you know the difference between movies and real life.

 

[The Derp]

And hours worked for low wage workers declined..

Duh! Because there were fewer of those workers because they got higher wages and full-time work

Declined so much, that even with the hiked minimum wage, total take home declined.

Total employment for those workers declined, and total employment for higher-wage workers increased. Overall, the unemployment rate declined to an historic low, and Seattle had faster wage growth than the rest of the nation.

So something isn't squaring here. Is it you, who is somehow lamenting the decline of low-wage, part-time work, or is it me, who is providing you with the economic indicators of record-low unemployment and wage growth faster than the rest of the country? No...It's you.

Moron!
Minimum wages workers are low wage workers before and after the hike.

So minimum wage workers got better paying jobs! Which is one of the consequences proponents of the MW hike said would happen. If what you're saying is true, then wages in Seattle would have declined and the unemployment rate would have risen. But the opposite occurred and you can't explain why.

I'm upset that assholes with no clue about economics, that includes you, thought they'd help low wage workers by boosting the minimum wage. What could go wrong? Apparently the workers the morons tried to help ended up getting hurt..

They didn't get hurt. Wages in Seattle rose faster than the rest of the country and the unemployment rate declined to a record low. That data is very inconvenient for you.

 

[The Derp]

You're such a fucktard.
They raised the minimum wage.
By doing so, they hurt low wage workers.

They hurt low wage workers by getting them higher wages and creating better paying jobs? You think those low-wage workers were hurt by getting higher wages and working more hours. That's how ******* stupid you are.

We're not talking about the high wage workers who weren't impacted by the minimum wage.

Actually, they were as wages in Seattle rose faster than the rest of the country after the MW hike.

Seattle's unemployment rate is also below 3%, an historic low.

If the MW increase hurt MW workers, it sure isn't coming through in the data!

But I can see how you think it's a bad thing for a MW worker to get a higher paying job...it ruins the false narrative you're trying to construct.

 

[The Derp]

Corporations will invest here when they see they can keep more of their profits.

Corporations don't need a low income tax rate to "reinvest" because "reinvestment" happens pre-tax.

 

[The Derp]

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.
Since the rate doesn't change from 2019-2020-2021 etc, that doesn't explain the steady increases.

You are completely wrong, and don't know what the **** you're talking about. The marginal rate goes from 10% to 12% beginning in 2019.

And the fact that the standard deduction is doubled more than offsets the 2% hike.

First of all, the "doubling" of the standard deduction only applies to families. For individuals, the standard deduction increases only by about 20%. For seniors collecting Social Security, it increases the deduction by about 5%.

Secondly, when you remove the Child Tax Credit, individual deduction, dependent deduction, the various housing deductions, the various medical deductions, the various interest deductions, the various SALT deductions, the charitable deductions, and the various education deductions, you don't come out ahead, and society falls behind because you've reduced charitable giving because you've removed itemizing deductions. And not only that, but you've also crashed the value of everyone's home because those housing deductions are baked into home values. So if you remove the deductions, then home values drop. When home values drop, a housing crisis occurs. When a housing crisis occurs, an economic collapse follows. We know because we've just lived through it.

 

[Flash]

I have posted links to the calculations in other threads

Bullshit. You haven't posted shit. Here's the tax cut effect, and how your taxes will be raised by 2021. This comes directly from the JCT:

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase
In 2021, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2023, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2025, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2027, those making up to $75,000 will see a tax increase

You claim to be "middle class". $75K is middle class. So you're going to see a tax increase.

Bullshit!

This is the fake news shit that is coming out of the filthy ass Democrats now. The CBO is notorious about getting things like this wrong. Just look how they fucked up the calculations for Obamcare as an example. They are a joke.

I would love to see how those stupid numbers are calculated because you don't get there by increasing the bottom deductions and decreasing the tax brackets.

Did you bother to even look at the silly shit you posted? How can somebody making $30K be facing a tax increase when the standard deduction is increased and the tax brackets for lower income decreased? Huh?

My retirement income is significantly more than $75K and every calculation that I have made says I will save several thousands . We will see what the savings will be when the final bill is sent to Trump. Beats the hell out of that Obama asshole that increased taxes.

I don't know why you stupid Moon bats are against tax cuts so much. Are you stupid or what?

 

[The Derp]

I have posted links to the calculations in other threads

Bullshit. You haven't posted shit. Here's the tax cut effect, and how your taxes will be raised by 2021. This comes directly from the JCT:

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase
In 2021, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2023, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2025, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2027, those making up to $75,000 will see a tax increase

You claim to be "middle class". $75K is middle class. So you're going to see a tax increase.

Bullshit!

This is the fake news shit that is coming out of the filthy ass Democrats now. The CBO is notorious about getting things like this wrong. Just look how they fucked up the calculations for Obamcare as an example. They are a joke.

I would love to see how those stupid numbers are calculated because you don't get there by increasing the bottom deductions and decreasing the tax brackets.

Did you bother to even look at the silly shit you posted? How can somebody making $30K be facing a tax increase when the standard deduction is increased and the tax brackets for lower income decreased? Huh?

My retirement income is significantly more than $75K and every calculation that I have made says I will save several thousands . We will see what the savings will be when the final bill is sent to Trump. Beats the hell out of that Obama asshole that increased taxes.

I don't know why you stupid Moon bats are against tax cuts so much. Are you stupid or what?

That information comes directly from the Joint Committee on Taxation. So go **** off, amateur.

 

[Flash]

[QUO


How does a corporate tax cut stimulate the economy? How does a corporate tax cut cause increased consumer spending? Take me through that, because in no world has that ever been the case.

You obviously never took a course in economics and are very confused. Taxes are a burdensome expense that artificially runs up the cost of goods and services. Lower expense is good for business growth. What is bad is when money is taken out of the productive economy and given to the filthy government to be spent on the welfare queens and illegals or any of the other shit that the government waste money on that only benefits the greedy special interest groups that live off of the government..

That doesn't even include the flight of American businesses to other countries that have lower corporate taxes.

First of all, if you're middle-class, your tax liability is probably close to 0 already. So you're not paying for shit. Secondly, if you're middle-class, your taxes will be going up by 2027 under this plan. Thirdly, it's not illegals and welfare queens sucking up government dollars, it's Conservative red states that use welfare to pay for tax cuts.

First of all you don't know what the tax plan is because it hasn't come out of committee yet. Second of all that statement comes from the CBO and the hate Trump media that are notorious for lying to the American people. For instance. the news today is that they are upping the deductions for state and local taxes by almost 50% to $14K and that would change the CBO predictions by a significant amount.

You don't get higher taxes when you increase standard deductions and decrease tax brackets, do you? Maybe if I lived in a commie state with high taxation and was very rich and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in state income tax and property tax I would be affected but most Americans won't be affected.

You're going to be paying for people's health care one way or another. Would you rather pay a little bit now or a lot later?

**** the welfare state. **** socialism. I don't want to ever pay anything. You pay your bills and I will pay mine. There are oppressive assholes in this country that will steal my money to give to other and that is despicable, don't you agree?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, we're talking about corporate rates.
And your moronic claim that corporations and their investors don't change their behavior
when tax rates change. That no behavior would change, even with a 95% corporate rate..

We were, and then you changed the topic to individual rates all to avoid answering the question of; how exactly do corporate income tax rates affect consumer demand? You can't answer that question. All you do is pose hyperbolic, hypothetical questions. At this point, it'd be easier on yourself just to admit that there is no connection between the corporate income tax rate and consumer demand.

Where did I say there would be magical growth? Or that the added growth would pay for the tax cut?

That's what you've been arguing this entire time; that cutting the corporate income tax rate, and/or cutting the rates for the rich will somehow trickle down into growth by way of increased consumer demand. Not once have you been able to tie those things to consumer demand. You leave the question unanswered because you cannot answer it truthfully. You can't say that cutting those rates leads to increased growth because no such data exists to support that. You say you're not arguing trickle-down, but that is precisely what you're arguing. Then you fall back on your sophistry and captious arguments because you're not even 100% clear on what you think.

Ireland cut their corporate tax rate. Ireland saw huge growth.

No they didn't. That's a lie.

It will.
You can't say how.
Corporations will invest here when they see they can keep more of their profits..

Why would they invest here if they didn't before when given the chance in 2004's repatriation holiday, and why would they invest here if there's no demand? They're only going to invest if there's demand to justify it, otherwise they're going to do what they do now; pay dividends, stock buybacks, and executive compensation. You have been unable to tie increased consumer demand to a corporate income tax cut. I think you think that businesses expand just because. And that belies your inexperience.

More hiring, more wage hikes.
Higher profits will mean higher dividends and higher stock prices.

So you're working from the assumption that there is already consumer demand to justify investment, and if that's the case, why not invest right now? Also, if a corporation invests, it doesn't pay taxes on that. So how does lowering the corporate income tax rate have anything to do with reinvestment, which happens pre-tax and in lieu of paying income taxes???????

This is that inexperience I was alluding to earlier. That, and the apparent cognitive dissonance.

More jobs, higher wages, more dividends, more capital gains.
People spend that money.

More jobs to fill demand. If you're not increasing consumer demand, then the jobs aren't going to be there. "If you build it, they will come" may work in the movies, but not real life. I'm not sure you know the difference between movies and real life.

We were, and then you changed the topic to individual rates

You made the moronic claim that corporations and their investors do not change their behavior when tax rates change.
You even said you'd invest all you could in a profitable business hit with a 95% tax rate.
Would individuals change their behavior if hit with a 95% tax rate?

That's what you've been arguing this entire time; that cutting the corporate income tax rate, and/or cutting the rates for the rich will somehow

Increase employment, increase wages, increase dividends, increase capital gains.
Absolutely.

No they didn't. That's a lie.

Yes, they cut their corporate rate. Yes, they saw huge growth.

Why would they invest here if they didn't before when given the chance in 2004's repatriation holiday

The holiday didn't change the rate they pay on US profits.

otherwise they're going to do what they do now; pay dividends, stock buybacks, and executive compensation.

Yeah, I hate higher dividends, higher stock prices and higher executive compensation.
Nobody benefits from any of that. DURR!

You have been unable to tie increased consumer demand to a corporate income tax cut.

You just mentioned 3 things that would increase consumer demand.
Do you have a brain tumor?

So you're working from the assumption that there is already consumer demand to justify investment, and if that's the case, why not invest right now?

It's true that after 8 years of Obama over-regulation and an expected 4 years, or until the cirrhosis kills her, of Hillary over-regulation, businesses were reluctant to expand.

You didn't build that yourself, you greedy kulak.........

Also, if a corporation invests, it doesn't pay taxes on that.

When normal people consider an investment, that excludes you, obviously, they consider the after tax return on that investment.
Keeping 80% of your profit is much preferred to keeping 65%.

And don't get me started on the moron who thought keeping 5% was plenty.

 

[Flash]

I have posted links to the calculations in other threads

Bullshit. You haven't posted shit. Here's the tax cut effect, and how your taxes will be raised by 2021. This comes directly from the JCT:

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase
In 2021, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2023, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2025, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2027, those making up to $75,000 will see a tax increase

You claim to be "middle class". $75K is middle class. So you're going to see a tax increase.

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase

Is that an actual increase in the amount the Federal government takes out of their paychecks?
Or is it a reduction in the amount the government spends on Obamacare subsidies for people
who freely choose to stop getting Obamacare or stop paying the penalty.

That would be a typical liberal lie, eh?
People have more in their paycheck from reduced rates. More in their pocket from no more Obamacare penalty and the Dems twist that into a tax hike.

This Derp Moon Bat is confused as hell and is quoting this Democrat fake news. You know, like Peloski claiming that a tax cut will be the destruction of the country or Armageddon or some other silly shit.

Nobody in this country making $30K a year will be paying more taxes under the new tax plan with a larger standard deduction and lower incremental tax bracket. Hell, even nowadays I bet everybody in this country that has a family income of $30K is in that 49% that don't pay income taxes. If they are paying income taxes then they are not doing it right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And hours worked for low wage workers declined..

Duh! Because there were fewer of those workers because they got higher wages and full-time work

Declined so much, that even with the hiked minimum wage, total take home declined.

Total employment for those workers declined, and total employment for higher-wage workers increased. Overall, the unemployment rate declined to an historic low, and Seattle had faster wage growth than the rest of the nation.

So something isn't squaring here. Is it you, who is somehow lamenting the decline of low-wage, part-time work, or is it me, who is providing you with the economic indicators of record-low unemployment and wage growth faster than the rest of the country? No...It's you.

Moron!
Minimum wages workers are low wage workers before and after the hike.

So minimum wage workers got better paying jobs! Which is one of the consequences proponents of the MW hike said would happen. If what you're saying is true, then wages in Seattle would have declined and the unemployment rate would have risen. But the opposite occurred and you can't explain why.

I'm upset that assholes with no clue about economics, that includes you, thought they'd help low wage workers by boosting the minimum wage. What could go wrong? Apparently the workers the morons tried to help ended up getting hurt..

They didn't get hurt. Wages in Seattle rose faster than the rest of the country and the unemployment rate declined to a record low. That data is very inconvenient for you.

Duh! Because there were fewer of those workers because they got higher wages and full-time work

Hey, fucktard, if minimum wage workers at $10/hour are considered low-wage, minimum wage workers at $13/hour are still low-wage workers, because they make the ******* minimum wage.

And they didn't become full-time workers, they lost hours. That means they worked less, not more.

they didn't get hurt. Wages in Seattle rose faster than the rest of the country

You wouldn't be including all workers in this claim?
Because that would be dishonest...or proof that you know **** all about statistics.
Most likely both. You're a liar and a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're such a fucktard.
They raised the minimum wage.
By doing so, they hurt low wage workers.

They hurt low wage workers by getting them higher wages and creating better paying jobs? You think those low-wage workers were hurt by getting higher wages and working more hours. That's how ******* stupid you are.

We're not talking about the high wage workers who weren't impacted by the minimum wage.

Actually, they were as wages in Seattle rose faster than the rest of the country after the MW hike.

Seattle's unemployment rate is also below 3%, an historic low.

If the MW increase hurt MW workers, it sure isn't coming through in the data!

But I can see how you think it's a bad thing for a MW worker to get a higher paying job...it ruins the false narrative you're trying to construct.

This paper evaluates the wage, employment, and hours effects of the first and second phase-in of the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance, which raised the minimum wage from $9.47 to as much as $11 per hour in 2015 and to as much as $13 per hour in 2016. Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. Evidence attributes more modest effects to the first wage increase. We estimate an effect of zero when analyzing employment in the restaurant industry at all wage levels, comparable to many prior studies.

Minimum Wage Increases, Wages, and Low-Wage Employment: Evidence from Seattle

 

[Papageorgio]

The Republican tax cuts won't trickle down, CEO writes in scathing op-ed

It's not a surprise to Todd Carmichael, co-founder and CEO of La Colombe Coffee Roasters in Philadelphia.

"I can tell you what no other CEO wants to tell you," Carmichael writes in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A half-trillion dollars of corporate tax giveaways proposed by the GOP aren't going to do a thing for the middle class, or create a single job. Because what every CEO knows but won't tell you is this: A tax break for their company simply means a fatter bottom line. Not jobs. Not investment." CEOs have "a powerful fiduciary duty to return all profits to shareholders — not to the employees, or the suppliers, or the community and certainly not to the unemployed or left behind," he explained. "Profit goes to shareholders (and the CEO) and not to the employees."


Just like when we cut taxes before. Cut taxes on the wealthy........and they just keep it

I could be or not be, depending on the company, when my profits went up, I would tend to hand out bonuses to my employees, however I also realize every business is different.

In 2008 many companies were criticized by not having a large cash reserve and it helped create the downturn in 2008. So, I am not sure what people want companies to do, either build up reserves, expand, both.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations will invest here when they see they can keep more of their profits.

Corporations don't need a low income tax rate to "reinvest" because "reinvestment" happens pre-tax.

Corporations don't need a low income tax rate to "reinvest" because "reinvestment" happens pre-tax.

Corporations need a low income tax rate to have higher after tax profits.
When you get a dividend, did it come from pre-tax earnings or after tax earnings?

 

[Flash]

I have posted links to the calculations in other threads

Bullshit. You haven't posted shit. Here's the tax cut effect, and how your taxes will be raised by 2021. This comes directly from the JCT:

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase
In 2021, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2023, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2025, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2027, those making up to $75,000 will see a tax increase

You claim to be "middle class". $75K is middle class. So you're going to see a tax increase.

Bullshit!

This is the fake news shit that is coming out of the filthy ass Democrats now. The CBO is notorious about getting things like this wrong. Just look how they fucked up the calculations for Obamcare as an example. They are a joke.

I would love to see how those stupid numbers are calculated because you don't get there by increasing the bottom deductions and decreasing the tax brackets.

Did you bother to even look at the silly shit you posted? How can somebody making $30K be facing a tax increase when the standard deduction is increased and the tax brackets for lower income decreased? Huh?

My retirement income is significantly more than $75K and every calculation that I have made says I will save several thousands . We will see what the savings will be when the final bill is sent to Trump. Beats the hell out of that Obama asshole that increased taxes.

I don't know why you stupid Moon bats are against tax cuts so much. Are you stupid or what?

That information comes directly from the Joint Committee on Taxation. So go **** off, amateur.

You really believe that silly shit Moon Bat? I bet you believe Peloski when she said that this tax reduction is Armageddon or something.

It is amazing to see the lies and misinformation you stupid Moon Bats spread about Trump's efforts to make this country great again.

I bet you are one of these Moon Bats that believed the CBO estimates on Obamacare and believed Obama when he said that he would not raise taxes on anybody in the US making less than $250K a year, aren't you? How precious!

We discuss the tax bill when it is finalized. Until then **** off with your ignorant Libtard shit, Moon Bat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.
Since the rate doesn't change from 2019-2020-2021 etc, that doesn't explain the steady increases.

You are completely wrong, and don't know what the **** you're talking about. The marginal rate goes from 10% to 12% beginning in 2019.

And the fact that the standard deduction is doubled more than offsets the 2% hike.

First of all, the "doubling" of the standard deduction only applies to families. For individuals, the standard deduction increases only by about 20%. For seniors collecting Social Security, it increases the deduction by about 5%.

Secondly, when you remove the Child Tax Credit, individual deduction, dependent deduction, the various housing deductions, the various medical deductions, the various interest deductions, the various SALT deductions, the charitable deductions, and the various education deductions, you don't come out ahead, and society falls behind because you've reduced charitable giving because you've removed itemizing deductions. And not only that, but you've also crashed the value of everyone's home because those housing deductions are baked into home values. So if you remove the deductions, then home values drop. When home values drop, a housing crisis occurs. When a housing crisis occurs, an economic collapse follows. We know because we've just lived through it.

The marginal rate goes from 10% to 12% beginning in 2019.

Does it increase after that?
No.

Secondly, when you remove the Child Tax Credit, individual deduction, dependent deduction, the various housing deductions, the various medical deductions, the various interest deductions, the various SALT deductions, the charitable deductions, and the various education deductions, you don't come out ahead,

Lots of taxpayers in the 10% bracket getting those things?

 

[Flash]

I have posted links to the calculations in other threads

Bullshit. You haven't posted shit. Here's the tax cut effect, and how your taxes will be raised by 2021. This comes directly from the JCT:

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase
In 2021, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2023, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2025, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2027, those making up to $75,000 will see a tax increase

You claim to be "middle class". $75K is middle class. So you're going to see a tax increase.

Bullshit!

This is the fake news shit that is coming out of the filthy ass Democrats now. The CBO is notorious about getting things like this wrong. Just look how they fucked up the calculations for Obamcare as an example. They are a joke.

I would love to see how those stupid numbers are calculated because you don't get there by increasing the bottom deductions and decreasing the tax brackets.

Did you bother to even look at the silly shit you posted? How can somebody making $30K be facing a tax increase when the standard deduction is increased and the tax brackets for lower income decreased? Huh?

My retirement income is significantly more than $75K and every calculation that I have made says I will save several thousands . We will see what the savings will be when the final bill is sent to Trump. Beats the hell out of that Obama asshole that increased taxes.

I don't know why you stupid Moon bats are against tax cuts so much. Are you stupid or what?

That information comes directly from the Joint Committee on Taxation. So go **** off, amateur.

Since you are posting that shit chart how about explaining a few things to me.

What are the inputs to the chart?

What are the assumptions?

What are the projections based upon?

Is it the Senate version or the House version?

If the Committee changes either the House version or the Senate version how will that effect the chart?

Answer those questions Moon Bat or shut the **** up. We get enough of these lies and bullshit on a daily basis.

Tax cuts are good for this country. If you weren't a dumbass hate filled Moon Bat you would understand that.

 

[Flash]

Notice that The Derp didn't even have the courage to post a link for his stupid chart.

 

[Boss]

When was the last time black unemployment was lower than white unemployment in America? I realize you may not believe black unemployment has ever been lower than white unemployment but it was at one time. Can you tell us when?.

When they were slaves.

Nope, wasn't when they were slaves. I knew you wouldn't know the answer.

The last time in America when black unemployment was lower than white unemployment was 1930. The year before passage of the nation's very first "minimum wage" law. It was called the Davis-Bacon Act.

You see, in 1927, back in Senator Bacon's district, a veteran's hospital was awarded to a contractor who used black laborers from Alabama to save on labor cost. This angered local whites in the midst of the depression who were seeking employment. So Bacon decided the way to "fix this problem" was to price black labor out of the market by mandating contractors pay prevailing local rates for labor on government contracts. His measure failed the first couple times around but finally passed in 1931.

Since 1931, black unemployment has always been higher than white unemployment. When you implement a mandated minimum wage, the lower-skilled and less-educated workers suffer as a result. This is why you have to shift to talking about the middle class and how they benefited in Seattle. Of course they benefited at the expense of the working poor.... but you don't really give two shits about the working poor, do ya?