Seriously, Why Do So Many Liberals Keep Lying About the Trump Tax Cuts?

[mikegriffith1]

Not all of us on the “Left” are coming from a bad place. Take care

Then it would be nice if more of you on the left would stop repeating your fellow liberals' lies about the Trump tax cuts. For example, it would be nice it you guys would stop repeating the lie that the tax cuts were "a giveaway to billionaires," "really only helped the rich," etc., etc. That is demonstrably, abjectly false. I have yet to see a single liberal admit that the Trump tax cuts gave the biggest rate cuts, by far, to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, and that the second bracket, where most middle-income earners fall, got the largest cut, a whopping 20% reduction.

The tax cuts also imposed a sizable added tax on the rich by way of the $10K cap on SALT deductions.

 

[Timmy]

The bottom line is that left-wing ideology is built on lies and myths.

Asking why a left-winger lies, is like asking why a snake bites.

It's what they do.

Honestly if they didn't lie, they wouldn't be able to rationalize their support for thousands of terrible policies that have never worked in human history.

Social security and Medicare, both progressive policies and both very good for the people of this country... the VA, a progressive government program and very good for our vets. Many more out there but we don’t have all night... you should stop with the partisan rhetoric

So lets look at the facts, rather than your opinion.

Trustees Report Summary

Social Security’s total cost is projected to exceed its total income (including interest) in 2020.​

When Social Security was created, it was a 1% tax. Now it is a 15% tax, and still going broke. Not only that but the average monthly benefit from Social Security is barely $1,400 a month, meaning 50% of all recipients are getting less than that.

That same amount of money flushed down the toilet of Social Security, if invested in real assets, would result in most people with a half million, to a million or more by retirement. Instead they are living in poverty, most being forced to work menial jobs to make ends meet, and still bankrupting the country.

The people of Greece said the same thing about their pension system, until their country imploded.

You people are a joke. You keep everyone impoverished at the low income levels with your 15% tax, and then keep them impoverished in their old age with your McJob level Social Security benefit, and then are ignorant enough to think you are helping people. You guys are like the abusive husband, hitting his wife over saying "You should be thanking me!".

If rich people had to pay the same percentage of their income to Social Security as poor people, social security would be fine.

Rich people only pay on the first $132,900 of income. Then they don't pay anymore.

Because what would happen if nobody protected the rich people? They would starve.

But here's the problem with that... Do you believe that you should get out what you pay in? Because this is supposed to be a pension fund, right? So would I pay in $10,000 into my 401K, so I could get back $5,000? Would you?

Do you think that is right, to take your money, and give no compensation?

No. Of course not. You would be infuriated by that, and you know it. (and rightly so)

Social Security has a maximum benefit. Why would I pay into something, more money, knowing I wasn't going to get more back?

Well I wouldn't. Is that not the definition of immoral to take people's money, supposedly for retirement, and then give them nothing in return? Of course.

So.... unless you want to be an evil dictator, you have to give those people that you are taking more of their money for social security, more benefits at retirement.

If you do that, then the problem has not improved.

And by the way.... the moment that you do that... the moment that you jack up the cost of Social Security without giving comparative benefit..... if you can elect a politician who will do that to someone else..... someone else will elect a politician who will do that to you.

It's like screwing a man who is already married. If he can cheat with you, then he can cheat on you.

If you find some politicians to screw someone else over.... it's just a matter of time before someone elects people who will screw you over.

Don't go that way. Bad idea.

Social security is also an insurance policy should you become disabled.

 

[Timmy]

Not all of us on the “Left” are coming from a bad place. Take care

Then it would be nice if more of you on the left would stop repeating your fellow liberals' lies about the Trump tax cuts. For example, it would be nice it you guys would stop repeating the lie that the tax cuts were "a giveaway to billionaires," "really only helped the rich," etc., etc. That is demonstrably, abjectly false. I have yet to see a single liberal admit that the Trump tax cuts gave the biggest rate cuts, by far, to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, and that the second bracket, where most middle-income earners fall, got the largest cut, a whopping 20% reduction.

The tax cuts also imposed a sizable added tax on the rich by way of the $10K cap on SALT deductions.

That is not false . Big biz made out like bandits.

 

[Slade3200]

Not all of us on the “Left” are coming from a bad place. Take care

Then it would be nice if more of you on the left would stop repeating your fellow liberals' lies about the Trump tax cuts. For example, it would be nice it you guys would stop repeating the lie that the tax cuts were "a giveaway to billionaires," "really only helped the rich," etc., etc. That is demonstrably, abjectly false. I have yet to see a single liberal admit that the Trump tax cuts gave the biggest rate cuts, by far, to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, and that the second bracket, where most middle-income earners fall, got the largest cut, a whopping 20% reduction.

The tax cuts also imposed a sizable added tax on the rich by way of the $10K cap on SALT deductions.

I’ve never called the tax plan a giveaway to billionaires. It sounds like you’re repeating some Sanders hyperbole. I’m fine with the tax cuts. Would have liked to see some spending cuts to balance out the deficit but as far as the cuts are concerned it was a break even for me so I’m not jumping for joy but I’m also not complaining. I am a self employed Californian so some of the deduction changes canceled out my savings. But all in all I like a low tax and low spending government

 

[mikegriffith1]

Not all of us on the “Left” are coming from a bad place. Take care

Then it would be nice if more of you on the left would stop repeating your fellow liberals' lies about the Trump tax cuts. For example, it would be nice it you guys would stop repeating the lie that the tax cuts were "a giveaway to billionaires," "really only helped the rich," etc., etc. That is demonstrably, abjectly false. I have yet to see a single liberal admit that the Trump tax cuts gave the biggest rate cuts, by far, to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, and that the second bracket, where most middle-income earners fall, got the largest cut, a whopping 20% reduction.

The tax cuts also imposed a sizable added tax on the rich by way of the $10K cap on SALT deductions.

I’ve never called the tax plan a giveaway to billionaires. It sounds like you’re repeating some Sanders hyperbole. I’m fine with the tax cuts. Would have liked to see some spending cuts to balance out the deficit but as far as the cuts are concerned it was a break even for me so I’m not jumping for joy but I’m also not complaining. I am a self employed Californian so some of the deduction changes canceled out my savings. But all in all I like a low tax and low spending government

Are you new to this forum? Liberals here have repeated the lies about the tax cuts innumerable times. I'm glad to know you reject them.

We did not need to cut spending to balance out the tax cuts. Every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by an *increase* in federal revenue compared to the previous years' revenue. Under the Trump tax cuts, federal revenue went *up* in FY 2018, and so far in the current fiscal year, FY 2019, federal revenue is up from last year's revenue at this point.

 

[Slade3200]

Not all of us on the “Left” are coming from a bad place. Take care

Then it would be nice if more of you on the left would stop repeating your fellow liberals' lies about the Trump tax cuts. For example, it would be nice it you guys would stop repeating the lie that the tax cuts were "a giveaway to billionaires," "really only helped the rich," etc., etc. That is demonstrably, abjectly false. I have yet to see a single liberal admit that the Trump tax cuts gave the biggest rate cuts, by far, to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, and that the second bracket, where most middle-income earners fall, got the largest cut, a whopping 20% reduction.

The tax cuts also imposed a sizable added tax on the rich by way of the $10K cap on SALT deductions.

I’ve never called the tax plan a giveaway to billionaires. It sounds like you’re repeating some Sanders hyperbole. I’m fine with the tax cuts. Would have liked to see some spending cuts to balance out the deficit but as far as the cuts are concerned it was a break even for me so I’m not jumping for joy but I’m also not complaining. I am a self employed Californian so some of the deduction changes canceled out my savings. But all in all I like a low tax and low spending government

Are you new to this forum? Liberals here have repeated the lies about the tax cuts innumerable times. I'm glad to know you reject them.

We did not need to cut spending to balance out the tax cuts. Every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by an *increase* in federal revenue compared to the previous years' revenue. Under the Trump tax cuts, federal revenue went *up* in FY 2018, and so far in the current fiscal year, FY 2019, federal revenue is up from last year's revenue at this point.

Well you can focus on the wingnuts or you can focus on the moderates, that’s your call, but I’m a liberal and these are my views... also I disagree that spending cuts aren’t needed. Way too much waste in gov and if the “conservative” leadership isn’t going to cut spending then who is?

 

[mikegriffith1]

That is not false. Big biz made out like bandits.

Sigh. . . . Let's ignore the fact that the Trump tax cuts merely cut our insanely high corporate income tax rate down to the range of the rate in Europe and Asia, and let's ignore the huge one-time tax that the Trump tax cuts imposed on American corporate money parked overseas. Let's assume that our big companies "made out like bandits" with the tax cuts. Okay, what exactly would be so terrible about that?

You know the "middle-class jobs" that you guys always say you want--the jobs with $60K-$150K salaries for mid-level workers, the jobs that come with health insurance and 401Ks and sick leave and vacation days? Well, who do you think provides the vast majority of those jobs in the private sector? Who do you think provides the majority of those jobs even if we count state and federal jobs? I'll tell you who provides the majority of those jobs: big companies.

When the Trump tax cuts reduced the tax burden on our big companies, do you think that made it more likely or less likely that their employees would keep their jobs? Do you think that made it more likely or less likely that their employees would get raises, bonuses, and improved benefits? Do you think that it made it more likely or less likely that those companies would hire more workers, open new branches, invest more money in R&D, reduce shareholder control by buying back company stock, upgrade their systems, etc., etc.?

I'm just curious if any of these real-world considerations occurred to you while you were lashing out at "big biz."

 

[Timmy]

That is not false. Big biz made out like bandits.

Sigh. . . . Let's ignore the fact that the Trump tax cuts merely cut our insanely high corporate income tax rate down to the range of the rate in Europe and Asia, and let's ignore the huge one-time tax that the Trump tax cuts imposed on American corporate money parked overseas. Let's assume that our big companies "made out like bandits" with the tax cuts. Okay, what exactly would be so terrible about that?

You know the "middle-class jobs" that you guys always say you want--the jobs with $60K-$150K salaries for mid-level workers, the jobs that come with health insurance and 401Ks and sick leave and vacation days? Well, who do you think provides the vast majority of those jobs in the private sector? Who do you think provides the majority of those jobs even if we count state and federal jobs? I'll tell you who provides the majority of those jobs: big companies.

When the Trump tax cuts reduced the tax burden on our big companies, do you think that made it more likely or less likely that their employees would keep their jobs? Do you think that made it more likely or less likely that their employees would get raises, bonuses, and improved benefits? Do you think that it made it more likely or less likely that those companies would hire more workers, open new branches, invest more money in R&D, reduce shareholder control by buying back company stock, upgrade their systems, etc., etc.?

I'm just curious if any of these real-world considerations occurred to you while you were lashing out at "big biz."

Let’s be ignore the fact companies weren’t paying those rates to begin with .

 

[mikegriffith1]

That is not false. Big biz made out like bandits.

Sigh. . . . Let's ignore the fact that the Trump tax cuts merely cut our insanely high corporate income tax rate down to the range of the rate in Europe and Asia, and let's ignore the huge one-time tax that the Trump tax cuts imposed on American corporate money parked overseas. Let's assume that our big companies "made out like bandits" with the tax cuts. Okay, what exactly would be so terrible about that?

You know the "middle-class jobs" that you guys always say you want--the jobs with $60K-$150K salaries for mid-level workers, the jobs that come with health insurance and 401Ks and sick leave and vacation days? Well, who do you think provides the vast majority of those jobs in the private sector? Who do you think provides the majority of those jobs even if we count state and federal jobs? I'll tell you who provides the majority of those jobs: big companies.

When the Trump tax cuts reduced the tax burden on our big companies, do you think that made it more likely or less likely that their employees would keep their jobs? Do you think that made it more likely or less likely that their employees would get raises, bonuses, and improved benefits? Do you think that it made it more likely or less likely that those companies would hire more workers, open new branches, invest more money in R&D, reduce shareholder control by buying back company stock, upgrade their systems, etc., etc.?

I'm just curious if any of these real-world considerations occurred to you while you were lashing out at "big biz."

Let’s be ignore the fact companies weren’t paying those rates to begin with .

If that's true (it's not, as a blanket statement), then what difference does it make that their corporate income tax rate got cut from 35% to 21%? Are you aware that the new rate, unlike the old one, is *not* graduated?

And do you have any clue about the tens of billions that big companies pay in state taxes and local property taxes? Do you understand that big companies are forced to pay half of your payroll tax (Social Security tax) for you--that if they were not doing that, your payroll tax would be twice what it is? Do you understand that big companies must pay unemployment compensation premiums to the state?

And I notice you declined to answer any of the questions I posed in my reply.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Still waiting for the irresponsible tax cuts that supposedly pay for themselves to come to fruition.

Sigh. . . . The Treasury Department has reported that individual income tax collections for fiscal year 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion--that's up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high.

Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily

And, so far, federal revenue for fiscal year 2019 is up from last year's revenue.

Monthly Budget Review for March 2019 | Congressional Budget Office

Just on a point of logic and policy, why should tax cuts have to pay for themselves? Whose money is it anyway? If a majority of Americans elect representatives who vote to make the government take less of our money, why should such legislation have to pay for itself? And what about how tax cuts "pay for themselves" in the budgets of American families who see their take-home pay rise by $50 to $500 per month?

What is "irresponsible" about letting people keep more of their own money? Is it "irresponsible" for the Democrats to keep forcing the Republicans to agree to more and more spending and to keep jacking up the deficit and the debt?

Democrats forced the poor wittle wepublicans? Lol you are funny bud. Republicans had the house and senate, passed a gigantic tax cut and increased spending. That's why the deficit and debt are increasing. No getting around it. Face reality bud, republicans are the irresponsible big spenders.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats lie about everything. They lie just to lie.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Still waiting for the irresponsible tax cuts that supposedly pay for themselves to come to fruition.

Sigh. . . . The Treasury Department has reported that individual income tax collections for fiscal year 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion--that's up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high.

Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily

And, so far, federal revenue for fiscal year 2019 is up from last year's revenue.

Monthly Budget Review for March 2019 | Congressional Budget Office

Just on a point of logic and policy, why should tax cuts have to pay for themselves? Whose money is it anyway? If a majority of Americans elect representatives who vote to make the government take less of our money, why should such legislation have to pay for itself? And what about how tax cuts "pay for themselves" in the budgets of American families who see their take-home pay rise by $50 to $500 per month?

What is "irresponsible" about letting people keep more of their own money? Is it "irresponsible" for the Democrats to keep forcing the Republicans to agree to more and more spending and to keep jacking up the deficit and the debt?

Democrats forced the poor wittle wepublicans? Lol you are funny bud. Republicans had the house and senate, passed a gigantic tax cut and increased spending. That's why the deficit and debt are increasing. No getting around it. Face reality bud, republicans are the irresponsible big spenders.

This is either supreme ignorance or deliberate falsehood. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything the Democrats oppose, because the Senate has the filibuster, and Republicans did not have--and still do not have--60 votes in the Senate. Senate Democrats have used the filibuster to block every Republican effort to cut spending (or at least to vastly curb increases in spending). This is a matter of record that you can look up in the Congressional Record.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Still waiting for the irresponsible tax cuts that supposedly pay for themselves to come to fruition.

Sigh. . . . The Treasury Department has reported that individual income tax collections for fiscal year 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion--that's up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high.

Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily

And, so far, federal revenue for fiscal year 2019 is up from last year's revenue.

Monthly Budget Review for March 2019 | Congressional Budget Office

Just on a point of logic and policy, why should tax cuts have to pay for themselves? Whose money is it anyway? If a majority of Americans elect representatives who vote to make the government take less of our money, why should such legislation have to pay for itself? And what about how tax cuts "pay for themselves" in the budgets of American families who see their take-home pay rise by $50 to $500 per month?

What is "irresponsible" about letting people keep more of their own money? Is it "irresponsible" for the Democrats to keep forcing the Republicans to agree to more and more spending and to keep jacking up the deficit and the debt?

Democrats forced the poor wittle wepublicans? Lol you are funny bud. Republicans had the house and senate, passed a gigantic tax cut and increased spending. That's why the deficit and debt are increasing. No getting around it. Face reality bud, republicans are the irresponsible big spenders.

This is either supreme ignorance or deliberate falsehood. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything the Democrats oppose, because the Senate has the filibuster, and Republicans did not have--and still do not have--60 votes in the Senate. Senate Democrats have used the filibuster to block every Republican effort to cut spending (or at least to vastly curb increases in spending). This is a matter of record that you can look up in the Congressional Record.

Sorry bud. The fiscal irresponsibility is all on republicans
Republican Tax Bill Passes Senate in 51-48 Vote

 

[mikegriffith1]

Still waiting for the irresponsible tax cuts that supposedly pay for themselves to come to fruition.

Sigh. . . . The Treasury Department has reported that individual income tax collections for fiscal year 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion--that's up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high.

Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily

And, so far, federal revenue for fiscal year 2019 is up from last year's revenue.

Monthly Budget Review for March 2019 | Congressional Budget Office

Just on a point of logic and policy, why should tax cuts have to pay for themselves? Whose money is it anyway? If a majority of Americans elect representatives who vote to make the government take less of our money, why should such legislation have to pay for itself? And what about how tax cuts "pay for themselves" in the budgets of American families who see their take-home pay rise by $50 to $500 per month?

What is "irresponsible" about letting people keep more of their own money? Is it "irresponsible" for the Democrats to keep forcing the Republicans to agree to more and more spending and to keep jacking up the deficit and the debt?

Democrats forced the poor wittle wepublicans? Lol you are funny bud. Republicans had the house and senate, passed a gigantic tax cut and increased spending. That's why the deficit and debt are increasing. No getting around it. Face reality bud, republicans are the irresponsible big spenders.

This is either supreme ignorance or deliberate falsehood. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything the Democrats oppose, because the Senate has the filibuster, and Republicans did not have--and still do not have--60 votes in the Senate. Senate Democrats have used the filibuster to block every Republican effort to cut spending (or at least to vastly curb increases in spending). This is a matter of record that you can look up in the Congressional Record.

Sorry bud. The fiscal irresponsibility is all on republicans
Republican Tax Bill Passes Senate in 51-48 Vote

Huh??? I'm talking about spending, not tax cuts. The tax cuts are a big part of the reason that the economy is doing so well.

Furthermore, the Republicans were only able to pass the tax cut bill in the Senate because they invoked the budget-reconciliation rule, which allows them to block any filibuster. That was the only way they could pass the bill, because the Dems were going to filibuster it. So, they invoked reconciliation. The problem is that you can't invoke reconciliation for every bill the minority opposes--it's just not done.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Still waiting for the irresponsible tax cuts that supposedly pay for themselves to come to fruition.

Sigh. . . . The Treasury Department has reported that individual income tax collections for fiscal year 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion--that's up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high.

Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily

And, so far, federal revenue for fiscal year 2019 is up from last year's revenue.

Monthly Budget Review for March 2019 | Congressional Budget Office

Just on a point of logic and policy, why should tax cuts have to pay for themselves? Whose money is it anyway? If a majority of Americans elect representatives who vote to make the government take less of our money, why should such legislation have to pay for itself? And what about how tax cuts "pay for themselves" in the budgets of American families who see their take-home pay rise by $50 to $500 per month?

What is "irresponsible" about letting people keep more of their own money? Is it "irresponsible" for the Democrats to keep forcing the Republicans to agree to more and more spending and to keep jacking up the deficit and the debt?

Democrats forced the poor wittle wepublicans? Lol you are funny bud. Republicans had the house and senate, passed a gigantic tax cut and increased spending. That's why the deficit and debt are increasing. No getting around it. Face reality bud, republicans are the irresponsible big spenders.

This is either supreme ignorance or deliberate falsehood. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything the Democrats oppose, because the Senate has the filibuster, and Republicans did not have--and still do not have--60 votes in the Senate. Senate Democrats have used the filibuster to block every Republican effort to cut spending (or at least to vastly curb increases in spending). This is a matter of record that you can look up in the Congressional Record.

Sorry bud. The fiscal irresponsibility is all on republicans
Republican Tax Bill Passes Senate in 51-48 Vote

Huh??? I'm talking about spending, not tax cuts.

Furthermore, the Republicans were only able to pass the tax cut bill in the Senate because they invoked the budget-reconciliation rule, which allows them to block any filibuster. That was the only way they could pass the bill, because the Dems were going to filibuster it. So, they invoked reconciliation. The problem is that you can't invoke reconciliation for every bill the minority opposes--it's just not done.

Republicans had the house and senate, blaming dems for the republicans massive irresponsibility, raising spending while cutting revenue is comical. Next you will tell me you are a prince that just needs some money up front and I will be rewarded.

 

[Deno]

Most liberals continue to claim that the Trump tax cuts were "mainly for millionaires and billionaires," "a giveaway to the uber-rich," etc., etc. But anyone can look at the tax tables and see with their own eyes that the top bracket a much smaller rate cut than did the middle-income brackets. The second and third brackets got a cut of 3 percentage points each, which equaled a 20% rate cut for the second bracket and 12% rate cut for the third bracket. The fourth bracket got a cut of 4 percentage points, or 14%. The top bracket--the one for people who earn $600K and above--got a cut of 2.6 percentage points, or just 6.6%. Don't believe me? Here are the 2017 and 2018 tax tables, which anyone can Google:

2017
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 10%
$18,650+ 15%
$75,900+ 25%
$153,100+ 28%
$233,350+ 33%
$416,700+ 35%
$470,700+ 39.6%

2018 (under Trump’s tax cuts)
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 10%
$19,050+ 12%
$77,400+ 22%
$165,000+ 24%
$315,000+ 32%
$400,000+ 35%
$600,000+ 37%

What's more, notice that the fifth bracket got a cut of only 1 percentage point, and that the sixth bracket got no cut at all.

Also, keep in mind that the rich got hit particularly hard by the tax cut bill's $10K cap on state and local taxes (SALT). Someone who owns a house worth, say, $2.0 million, will pay $26K just in property taxes, based on the nationwide median average of 1.3% for property taxes. Someone with an income of, say, $2 million per year will pay $100,000 in state income taxes, and that's assuming a low state income tax rate of 5%. So a rich person who makes $2 million per year and owns a house worth $2 million lost $116,000 in tax breaks because of the Trump tax cuts.

Finally, if any liberals cite the cut in the corporate income tax rate as justification for their false description of the Trump tax cuts as "mainly helping millionaires and billionaires," I would point out two important facts that debunk this nonsense:

One, the corporate income tax rate was cut to 21%, which put it in the range of the corporate income tax rates in Europe and Asia, which range between 18% and 21%. So this was an entirely sensible reduction that put our companies in a better position to compete with foreign companies.

Two, as part of the rate cut from 35% to 21%, the Republicans imposed a one-time mandatory tax on American corporate money parked overseas: 8% on illiquid/reinvested assets and 15.5% on cash and cash equivalents, which amounted to a tax of about $2.6 trillion on U.S. business profits held overseas.

Lying and fake racism is all the left has...…….

 

[otto105]

If there were a tax cut of 99% for everyone under some arbitrary level and a cut of 1% for everyone above that level the democrats would still be shrieking about "a gift to the fat cats on the backs on the poor!" and their media lapdogs would carry out their propaganda duties as ordered.

How about the republics actually pass a bill like that first before you go all supposing. But they're incapable of even thinking about that type of tax cut.

 

[Zorro!]

Most liberals continue to claim that the Trump tax cuts were "mainly for millionaires and billionaires," "a giveaway to the uber-rich," etc., etc. But anyone can look at the tax tables and see with their own eyes that the top bracket a much smaller rate cut than did the middle-income brackets. The second and third brackets got a cut of 3 percentage points each, which equaled a 20% rate cut for the second bracket and 12% rate cut for the third bracket. The fourth bracket got a cut of 4 percentage points, or 14%. The top bracket--the one for people who earn $600K and above--got a cut of 2.6 percentage points, or just 6.6%. Don't believe me? Here are the 2017 and 2018 tax tables, which anyone can Google:

2017
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 10%
$18,650+ 15%
$75,900+ 25%
$153,100+ 28%
$233,350+ 33%
$416,700+ 35%
$470,700+ 39.6%

2018 (under Trump’s tax cuts)
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 10%
$19,050+ 12%
$77,400+ 22%
$165,000+ 24%
$315,000+ 32%
$400,000+ 35%
$600,000+ 37%

What's more, notice that the fifth bracket got a cut of only 1 percentage point, and that the sixth bracket got no cut at all.

Also, keep in mind that the rich got hit particularly hard by the tax cut bill's $10K cap on state and local taxes (SALT). Someone who owns a house worth, say, $2.0 million, will pay $26K just in property taxes, based on the nationwide median average of 1.3% for property taxes. Someone with an income of, say, $2 million per year will pay $100,000 in state income taxes, and that's assuming a low state income tax rate of 5%. So a rich person who makes $2 million per year and owns a house worth $2 million lost $116,000 in tax breaks because of the Trump tax cuts.

Finally, if any liberals cite the cut in the corporate income tax rate as justification for their false description of the Trump tax cuts as "mainly helping millionaires and billionaires," I would point out two important facts that debunk this nonsense:

One, the corporate income tax rate was cut to 21%, which put it in the range of the corporate income tax rates in Europe and Asia, which range between 18% and 21%. So this was an entirely sensible reduction that put our companies in a better position to compete with foreign companies.

Two, as part of the rate cut from 35% to 21%, the Republicans imposed a one-time mandatory tax on American corporate money parked overseas: 8% on illiquid/reinvested assets and 15.5% on cash and cash equivalents, which amounted to a tax of about $2.6 trillion on U.S. business profits held overseas.

Lying and fake racism is all the left has...…….

And they HATE that Trump raised taxes on the wealthy by limiting Mortgage Deductions and State and Local Taxes for the Top Crust Folks.

BLUE STATE BLUES: New York judge dismisses blue state suit over SALT tax deductions.

The rest of the country is done subsidizing the coastal elites’ spendthrift governments.

Still Not Tire Of WINNING!