Tax Revenues Jump 13% To Record High In April — When Will Dems Admit They Were Wrong?

[bripat9643]

Obama forced banks to go under by making them grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.

That was what Obama inherited you ******* maroon. My God you are the simplest of the simple.

You don't get it. When Obama was a "community organizer," he sued banks under the CRA to force them to grant mortages to dirtbags who couldn't pay them. Those non-performing mortgages caused those banks to go under.

Holyfuckingshit!

I swear, you really are the dumbest ******* moron on the planet. <smh>

Dumbest ******* moron... those mortgages did not cause any banks to go under. Not one. It even close.

Great, another person that has no fricken clue as to how the recession occurred.

Faux believes he's smart. Isn't that a hoot?

hmmmmm . . . dumbass. I didn't say Obama was the sole cause of these banks going under. He and thousands like him are responsible. The bottom line is that bad mortgages that banks were forced to grant because of regulator abuse caused them to go under. Obama was one of the people responsible.

You proved nothing other than the fact that you love sucking Obama's dick.

 

[bripat9643]

That was what Obama inherited you ******* maroon. My God you are the simplest of the simple.

You don't get it. When Obama was a "community organizer," he sued banks under the CRA to force them to grant mortages to dirtbags who couldn't pay them. Those non-performing mortgages caused those banks to go under.

Holyfuckingshit!

I swear, you really are the dumbest ******* moron on the planet. <smh>

Dumbest ******* moron... those mortgages did not cause any banks to go under. Not one. It even close.

Great, another person that has no fricken clue as to how the recession occurred.

Faux believes he's smart. Isn't that a hoot?

Great, either you can quote me saying that or expose yourself again as a liar as well as the dumbest ******* moron on the planet....

Yeah, right, because I accused you of stating that explicitly. You're such a sleazy douchebag.

 

[Faun]

That was what Obama inherited you ******* maroon. My God you are the simplest of the simple.

You don't get it. When Obama was a "community organizer," he sued banks under the CRA to force them to grant mortages to dirtbags who couldn't pay them. Those non-performing mortgages caused those banks to go under.

Holyfuckingshit!

I swear, you really are the dumbest ******* moron on the planet. <smh>

Dumbest ******* moron... those mortgages did not cause any banks to go under. Not one. It even close.

Great, another person that has no fricken clue as to how the recession occurred.

Faux believes he's smart. Isn't that a hoot?

hmmmmm . . . dumbass. I didn't say Obama was the sole cause of these banks going under. He and thousands like him are responsible. The bottom line is that bad mortgages that banks were forced to grant because of regulator abuse caused them to go under. Obama was one of the people responsible.

You proved nothing other than the fact that you love sucking Obama's dick.

******* moron, you said, ”Obama forced banks to go under by making them grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.”

No bank closed over 186 mortgages in modern times. A city of banks don’t feel 186 mortgages spread out over years. Now compare 186 with millions. <smh>

But the best part, you haven’t proved any one of those 186 morgages were foreclosed on. Not one.

 

[Faun]

You don't get it. When Obama was a "community organizer," he sued banks under the CRA to force them to grant mortages to dirtbags who couldn't pay them. Those non-performing mortgages caused those banks to go under.

Holyfuckingshit!

I swear, you really are the dumbest ******* moron on the planet. <smh>

Dumbest ******* moron... those mortgages did not cause any banks to go under. Not one. It even close.

Great, another person that has no fricken clue as to how the recession occurred.

Faux believes he's smart. Isn't that a hoot?

Great, either you can quote me saying that or expose yourself again as a liar as well as the dumbest ******* moron on the planet....

Yeah, right, because I accused you of stating that explicitly. You're such a sleazy douchebag.

LOLOLOL

WTF?? You’re excuse is you weren’t lying, you were hallucinating???

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Some snowflakes in this forum are claiming government revenues are down since the tax cut. Then why does the CBO say they are up 13%?

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April​

The federal government collected far more taxes this April than it did a year ago, despite the "budget busting" Trump tax cuts. So, we'll ask again: Are the tax cuts paying for themselves?

According to the latest monthly report from the Congressional Budget Office, revenues in April totaled $515 billion — a 13% increase over last April and an all-time high for the month.

For the current 2018 fiscal year, which started last October, revenues are $83 billion higher than they were the year before — an increase of 4.3%. That's a faster rate of growth than occurred during President Obama's last years in office. (See nearby chart.)

Individual taxes, the CBO report says, are up 11.5% so far this fiscal year, and payroll taxes are up 2.8%. Both are signs of a healthy labor market, which is creating more jobs, higher wages and, as a result, more tax revenues. Those gains, the CBO says, more than offset the 22% decline in corporate income taxes.

In other words, in a fiscal year that's seven months old (four of which were after the tax cuts went into effect), federal revenues are higher than ever.

Or, to put it another way, it looks like those of us who predicted the pro-growth tax cuts would at least partially pay for themselves through increased economic growth were correct.

The CBO admitted as much earlier this year, when it sharply increased its forecast for economic growth this year and next, largely because of Trump's tax cuts. That, in turn, will generate $1 trillion more in revenues than expected.​

Fuckng moron... most of the revenue collected in April was from last years taxes — before Trump’s tax cut went into effect.

The revenue collected in April was paid in April. You really don't know how withholding works, do you?

You probably do not know this since you do not make enough money, but a good number of us do not have enough withheld to satisfy our tax burden and then in April have to send the Govt more money. That is why April is always the largest month for revenue each year.

Perhaps one day you will move past being a fry cook at Wendy's and you will make enough to know what we are talking about.

Why don't you shove a nine-iron up you ass ? My guess is that you'll like it.

 

[edward37]

Some snowflakes in this forum are claiming government revenues are down since the tax cut. Then why does the CBO say they are up 13%?

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April​

The federal government collected far more taxes this April than it did a year ago, despite the "budget busting" Trump tax cuts. So, we'll ask again: Are the tax cuts paying for themselves?

According to the latest monthly report from the Congressional Budget Office, revenues in April totaled $515 billion — a 13% increase over last April and an all-time high for the month.

For the current 2018 fiscal year, which started last October, revenues are $83 billion higher than they were the year before — an increase of 4.3%. That's a faster rate of growth than occurred during President Obama's last years in office. (See nearby chart.)

Individual taxes, the CBO report says, are up 11.5% so far this fiscal year, and payroll taxes are up 2.8%. Both are signs of a healthy labor market, which is creating more jobs, higher wages and, as a result, more tax revenues. Those gains, the CBO says, more than offset the 22% decline in corporate income taxes.

In other words, in a fiscal year that's seven months old (four of which were after the tax cuts went into effect), federal revenues are higher than ever.

Or, to put it another way, it looks like those of us who predicted the pro-growth tax cuts would at least partially pay for themselves through increased economic growth were correct.

The CBO admitted as much earlier this year, when it sharply increased its forecast for economic growth this year and next, largely because of Trump's tax cuts. That, in turn, will generate $1 trillion more in revenues than expected.​

Fuckng moron... most of the revenue collected in April was from last years taxes — before Trump’s tax cut went into effect.

The revenue collected in April was paid in April. You really don't know how withholding works, do you?

You probably do not know this since you do not make enough money, but a good number of us do not have enough withheld to satisfy our tax burden and then in April have to send the Govt more money. That is why April is always the largest month for revenue each year.

Perhaps one day you will move past being a fry cook at Wendy's and you will make enough to know what we are talking about.

Why don't you shove a nine-iron up you ass ? My guess is that you'll like it.

sounds like you tried it before

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Some snowflakes in this forum are claiming government revenues are down since the tax cut. Then why does the CBO say they are up 13%?

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April​

The federal government collected far more taxes this April than it did a year ago, despite the "budget busting" Trump tax cuts. So, we'll ask again: Are the tax cuts paying for themselves?

According to the latest monthly report from the Congressional Budget Office, revenues in April totaled $515 billion — a 13% increase over last April and an all-time high for the month.

For the current 2018 fiscal year, which started last October, revenues are $83 billion higher than they were the year before — an increase of 4.3%. That's a faster rate of growth than occurred during President Obama's last years in office. (See nearby chart.)

Individual taxes, the CBO report says, are up 11.5% so far this fiscal year, and payroll taxes are up 2.8%. Both are signs of a healthy labor market, which is creating more jobs, higher wages and, as a result, more tax revenues. Those gains, the CBO says, more than offset the 22% decline in corporate income taxes.

In other words, in a fiscal year that's seven months old (four of which were after the tax cuts went into effect), federal revenues are higher than ever.

Or, to put it another way, it looks like those of us who predicted the pro-growth tax cuts would at least partially pay for themselves through increased economic growth were correct.

The CBO admitted as much earlier this year, when it sharply increased its forecast for economic growth this year and next, largely because of Trump's tax cuts. That, in turn, will generate $1 trillion more in revenues than expected.​

Fuckng moron... most of the revenue collected in April was from last years taxes — before Trump’s tax cut went into effect.

The revenue collected in April was paid in April. You really don't know how withholding works, do you?

You probably do not know this since you do not make enough money, but a good number of us do not have enough withheld to satisfy our tax burden and then in April have to send the Govt more money. That is why April is always the largest month for revenue each year.

Perhaps one day you will move past being a fry cook at Wendy's and you will make enough to know what we are talking about.

Why don't you shove a nine-iron up you ass ? My guess is that you'll like it.

sounds like you tried it before

My guess is that you'd like to suck on his putter.

 

[basquebromance]

only 45 of the Top 500 richest companies gave bonuses after Trump's tax cuts

 

[bripat9643]

Holyfuckingshit!

I swear, you really are the dumbest ******* moron on the planet. <smh>

Dumbest ******* moron... those mortgages did not cause any banks to go under. Not one. It even close.

Great, another person that has no fricken clue as to how the recession occurred.

Faux believes he's smart. Isn't that a hoot?

Great, either you can quote me saying that or expose yourself again as a liar as well as the dumbest ******* moron on the planet....

Yeah, right, because I accused you of stating that explicitly. You're such a sleazy douchebag.

LOLOLOL

WTF?? You’re excuse is you weren’t lying, you were hallucinating???

What "excuse?" I simply described your character.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Some snowflakes in this forum are claiming government revenues are down since the tax cut. Then why does the CBO say they are up 13%?

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April​

The federal government collected far more taxes this April than it did a year ago, despite the "budget busting" Trump tax cuts. So, we'll ask again: Are the tax cuts paying for themselves?

According to the latest monthly report from the Congressional Budget Office, revenues in April totaled $515 billion — a 13% increase over last April and an all-time high for the month.

For the current 2018 fiscal year, which started last October, revenues are $83 billion higher than they were the year before — an increase of 4.3%. That's a faster rate of growth than occurred during President Obama's last years in office. (See nearby chart.)

Individual taxes, the CBO report says, are up 11.5% so far this fiscal year, and payroll taxes are up 2.8%. Both are signs of a healthy labor market, which is creating more jobs, higher wages and, as a result, more tax revenues. Those gains, the CBO says, more than offset the 22% decline in corporate income taxes.

In other words, in a fiscal year that's seven months old (four of which were after the tax cuts went into effect), federal revenues are higher than ever.

Or, to put it another way, it looks like those of us who predicted the pro-growth tax cuts would at least partially pay for themselves through increased economic growth were correct.

The CBO admitted as much earlier this year, when it sharply increased its forecast for economic growth this year and next, largely because of Trump's tax cuts. That, in turn, will generate $1 trillion more in revenues than expected.​

Fuckng moron... most of the revenue collected in April was from last years taxes — before Trump’s tax cut went into effect.

The revenue collected in April was paid in April. You really don't know how withholding works, do you?

You probably do not know this since you do not make enough money, but a good number of us do not have enough withheld to satisfy our tax burden and then in April have to send the Govt more money. That is why April is always the largest month for revenue each year.

Perhaps one day you will move past being a fry cook at Wendy's and you will make enough to know what we are talking about.

Why don't you shove a nine-iron up you ass ? My guess is that you'll like it.

My my, how angry people get when their ignorance is called out and put on display.

 

[Faun]

Great, another person that has no fricken clue as to how the recession occurred.

Faux believes he's smart. Isn't that a hoot?

Great, either you can quote me saying that or expose yourself again as a liar as well as the dumbest ******* moron on the planet....

Yeah, right, because I accused you of stating that explicitly. You're such a sleazy douchebag.

LOLOLOL

WTF?? You’re excuse is you weren’t lying, you were hallucinating???

What "excuse?" I simply described your character.

Which you admitted is based on your own hallucinations and not on anything I said.

 

[Andylusion]

As soon as you admit that cutting tax rates, can and routinely does result in increased tax revenue, from an increase in the economy.

You might want to sit down before I tell you what your propagandists who fed you that stupid meme didn't tell you.

Ready?

Tax revenues have also increased after tax rates were increased.

Go ahead. See for yourself. Look at federal revenues after Clinton hiked tax rates. And then look at federal revenues after Obama hiked tax rates.


I'm sure this knowledge won't stop you from repeating your idiotic half-lie meme, though.

I have no doubt of that whatsoever.


Here is a history of tax rates: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

Notice how tax rates increased under Bill Clinton in 1993. The top marginal rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and stayed that way until 2001.

Now here is a history of federal revenues: Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Notice how tax revenues INCREASED after the tax rates went UP:

• FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion
• FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
• FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
• FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
• FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
• FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
• FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
• FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
• FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.

Just a few years after Clinton's tax increase, federal revenues had DOUBLED!!!

And after the Bush tax cut expired on the top marginal rate during the Obama regime, federal revenues continued to increase:

• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
• FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.

Ain't that a *****?

As I have posted on this forum many times, the 10 years prior to Reagan's tax cuts, revenue increased at an average of 12.41%, the 10 years after it increased only at a 5.68% average per year.

The 10 years prior to the Bush II tax cuts revenue increased at an average rate of 6.1%, the 10 after it was down to 1.87%.

Tax cuts always slow revenue growth.

There is not one example of tax revenue growing faster after a tax cut than before.

I never said it would grow 'faster'.

If I spend $1,000 a year. And then my income is $1,000, and this year it only grows by $100. Slower than any other year.....

How do you end up with debt? You don't. The only way you end up with debt, is if your spending increases faster than your income.

Debt only happens when you increase your spending to more than your income. If you control your spending, it won't matter if your income increases by a little, or a lot, you'll never end up in debt.

In order for a tax cut to result in debt, you have to prove that revenue went DOWN. There is no such example of revenue decreasing after a reasonable tax cut.

We on the right-wing have always said, we want spending to DECREASE. We want spending to be CUT.

Cut the spending. We are spending to much. Entitlements take up almost 2/3rds of the entire budget. It's too much.

And by the way... one of the major reasons we're against higher taxes is because the way the people on the left work, it's never enough. You look at Europe, they all pay double the taxes we pay, and they still demand more.

No matter how high the taxes go, no matter how many trillions the government collects.... it's never enough. You always want more.

So... no. The answer is no. You don't get anymore money. You cut spending. The spoiled brat syndrome needs to end.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As soon as you admit that cutting tax rates, can and routinely does result in increased tax revenue, from an increase in the economy.

You might want to sit down before I tell you what your propagandists who fed you that stupid meme didn't tell you.

Ready?

Tax revenues have also increased after tax rates were increased.

Go ahead. See for yourself. Look at federal revenues after Clinton hiked tax rates. And then look at federal revenues after Obama hiked tax rates.


I'm sure this knowledge won't stop you from repeating your idiotic half-lie meme, though.

I have no doubt of that whatsoever.


Here is a history of tax rates: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

Notice how tax rates increased under Bill Clinton in 1993. The top marginal rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and stayed that way until 2001.

Now here is a history of federal revenues: Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Notice how tax revenues INCREASED after the tax rates went UP:

• FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion
• FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
• FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
• FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
• FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
• FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
• FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
• FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
• FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.

Just a few years after Clinton's tax increase, federal revenues had DOUBLED!!!

And after the Bush tax cut expired on the top marginal rate during the Obama regime, federal revenues continued to increase:

• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
• FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.

Ain't that a *****?

As I have posted on this forum many times, the 10 years prior to Reagan's tax cuts, revenue increased at an average of 12.41%, the 10 years after it increased only at a 5.68% average per year.

The 10 years prior to the Bush II tax cuts revenue increased at an average rate of 6.1%, the 10 after it was down to 1.87%.

Tax cuts always slow revenue growth.

There is not one example of tax revenue growing faster after a tax cut than before.

I never said it would grow 'faster'.

If I spend $1,000 a year. And then my income is $1,000, and this year it only grows by $100. Slower than any other year.....

How do you end up with debt? You don't. The only way you end up with debt, is if your spending increases faster than your income.

Debt only happens when you increase your spending to more than your income. If you control your spending, it won't matter if your income increases by a little, or a lot, you'll never end up in debt.

In order for a tax cut to result in debt, you have to prove that revenue went DOWN. There is no such example of revenue decreasing after a reasonable tax cut.

We on the right-wing have always said, we want spending to DECREASE. We want spending to be CUT.

Cut the spending. We are spending to much. Entitlements take up almost 2/3rds of the entire budget. It's too much.

And by the way... one of the major reasons we're against higher taxes is because the way the people on the left work, it's never enough. You look at Europe, they all pay double the taxes we pay, and they still demand more.

No matter how high the taxes go, no matter how many trillions the government collects.... it's never enough. You always want more.

So... no. The answer is no. You don't get anymore money. You cut spending. The spoiled brat syndrome needs to end.

Yes, you on the right-wing have always said we want spending to decrase, then you vote for people that increase it. I put more stock in your actions than you empty words.

What the tax cut does is result in MORE debt, as the amount coming in goes down the amount being spent does not change.

If I make 1000 a month and I am spending 1200 a month, then I take a pay cut and I am only making 800 a month while my spending stays the same, my debt will grow faster, which is what happens after every tax cut.

By the way, I voted for the only guy on the ballot that actually wanted to decrease spending, so do not tell me I want "more more more" that you and your party, not mine.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Now when will Republicans actually become fiscally responsible and control spending like they've lying been about for years?

Good point, so much work to do, but I like the direction Trump is going in. He's already shedding deadweight in government.

 

[g5000]

No one claimed the tax cuts would entirely pay for themselves. You're advancing a strawman argument. The deficit demonstrates nothing of the sort.

As usual, you're a stupid ying douchebag.

You're entire opening post is built on the premise that Trump's tax cuts pay for themselves. Your sad attempt to backpedal now isn't fooling anyone.


Others who made the same claim:

The Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves



Surprise: Trump's tax cuts will more than pay for themselves

Trump’s team says the tax bill will pay for itself.

“Not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin promised. “I think this tax bill is going to reduce the size of our deficits going forward,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) told reporters in early November.


Need more, dipshit?

 

[buckeye45_73]

As soon as you admit that cutting tax rates, can and routinely does result in increased tax revenue, from an increase in the economy.

You might want to sit down before I tell you what your propagandists who fed you that stupid meme didn't tell you.

Ready?

Tax revenues have also increased after tax rates were increased.

Go ahead. See for yourself. Look at federal revenues after Clinton hiked tax rates. And then look at federal revenues after Obama hiked tax rates.


I'm sure this knowledge won't stop you from repeating your idiotic half-lie meme, though.

I have no doubt of that whatsoever.


Here is a history of tax rates: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

Notice how tax rates increased under Bill Clinton in 1993. The top marginal rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and stayed that way until 2001.

Now here is a history of federal revenues: Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Notice how tax revenues INCREASED after the tax rates went UP:

• FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion
• FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
• FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
• FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
• FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
• FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
• FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
• FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
• FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.

Just a few years after Clinton's tax increase, federal revenues had DOUBLED!!!

And after the Bush tax cut expired on the top marginal rate during the Obama regime, federal revenues continued to increase:

• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
• FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.

Ain't that a *****?

As I have posted on this forum many times, the 10 years prior to Reagan's tax cuts, revenue increased at an average of 12.41%, the 10 years after it increased only at a 5.68% average per year.

The 10 years prior to the Bush II tax cuts revenue increased at an average rate of 6.1%, the 10 after it was down to 1.87%.

Tax cuts always slow revenue growth.

There is not one example of tax revenue growing faster after a tax cut than before.

I never said it would grow 'faster'.

If I spend $1,000 a year. And then my income is $1,000, and this year it only grows by $100. Slower than any other year.....

How do you end up with debt? You don't. The only way you end up with debt, is if your spending increases faster than your income.

Debt only happens when you increase your spending to more than your income. If you control your spending, it won't matter if your income increases by a little, or a lot, you'll never end up in debt.

In order for a tax cut to result in debt, you have to prove that revenue went DOWN. There is no such example of revenue decreasing after a reasonable tax cut.

We on the right-wing have always said, we want spending to DECREASE. We want spending to be CUT.

Cut the spending. We are spending to much. Entitlements take up almost 2/3rds of the entire budget. It's too much.

And by the way... one of the major reasons we're against higher taxes is because the way the people on the left work, it's never enough. You look at Europe, they all pay double the taxes we pay, and they still demand more.

No matter how high the taxes go, no matter how many trillions the government collects.... it's never enough. You always want more.

So... no. The answer is no. You don't get anymore money. You cut spending. The spoiled brat syndrome needs to end.

Yes, you on the right-wing have always said we want spending to decrase, then you vote for people that increase it. I put more stock in your actions than you empty words.

What the tax cut does is result in MORE debt, as the amount coming in goes down the amount being spent does not change.

If I make 1000 a month and I am spending 1200 a month, then I take a pay cut and I am only making 800 a month while my spending stays the same, my debt will grow faster, which is what happens after every tax cut.

By the way, I voted for the only guy on the ballot that actually wanted to decrease spending, so do not tell me I want "more more more" that you and your party, not mine.

Wait you don't think we're pissed about that?
How do you think Trump was elected, because we said **** the politicians.........

 

[edward37]

No one claimed the tax cuts would entirely pay for themselves. You're advancing a strawman argument. The deficit demonstrates nothing of the sort.

As usual, you're a stupid ying douchebag.

The Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves



Surprise: Trump's tax cuts will more than pay for themselves

Trump’s team says the tax bill will pay for itself.

“Not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin promised. “I think this tax bill is going to reduce the size of our deficits going forward,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) told reporters in early November.


Need more, dipshit?

Did you catch bri lying again ? He's trying to beat drumps record

 

[buckeye45_73]

No one claimed the tax cuts would entirely pay for themselves. You're advancing a strawman argument. The deficit demonstrates nothing of the sort.

As usual, you're a stupid ying douchebag.

The Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves



Surprise: Trump's tax cuts will more than pay for themselves

Trump’s team says the tax bill will pay for itself.

“Not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin promised. “I think this tax bill is going to reduce the size of our deficits going forward,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) told reporters in early November.


Need more, dipshit?

Well they are right, but people like you twist it to mean right now...it takes a year or two....then revenues will be higher than pre tax cut levels.......then we just need to reform entitlements and spending.

 

[g5000]

No one claimed the tax cuts would entirely pay for themselves. You're advancing a strawman argument. The deficit demonstrates nothing of the sort.

As usual, you're a stupid ying douchebag.

The Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves



Surprise: Trump's tax cuts will more than pay for themselves

Trump’s team says the tax bill will pay for itself.

“Not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin promised. “I think this tax bill is going to reduce the size of our deficits going forward,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) told reporters in early November.


Need more, dipshit?

Well they are right, but people like you twist it to mean right now...it takes a year or two....then revenues will be higher than pre tax cut levels.......then we just need to reform entitlements and spending.

This topic's OP tried to attribute this past April's increased revenues to the tax cut. Premature ejaculation.

Nice try.

 

[g5000]

As soon as you admit that cutting tax rates, can and routinely does result in increased tax revenue, from an increase in the economy.

You might want to sit down before I tell you what your propagandists who fed you that stupid meme didn't tell you.

Ready?

Tax revenues have also increased after tax rates were increased.

Go ahead. See for yourself. Look at federal revenues after Clinton hiked tax rates. And then look at federal revenues after Obama hiked tax rates.


I'm sure this knowledge won't stop you from repeating your idiotic half-lie meme, though.

I have no doubt of that whatsoever.


Here is a history of tax rates: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

Notice how tax rates increased under Bill Clinton in 1993. The top marginal rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and stayed that way until 2001.

Now here is a history of federal revenues: Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Notice how tax revenues INCREASED after the tax rates went UP:

• FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion
• FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
• FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
• FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
• FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
• FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
• FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
• FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
• FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.

Just a few years after Clinton's tax increase, federal revenues had DOUBLED!!!

And after the Bush tax cut expired on the top marginal rate during the Obama regime, federal revenues continued to increase:

• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
• FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.

Ain't that a *****?

As I have posted on this forum many times, the 10 years prior to Reagan's tax cuts, revenue increased at an average of 12.41%, the 10 years after it increased only at a 5.68% average per year.

The 10 years prior to the Bush II tax cuts revenue increased at an average rate of 6.1%, the 10 after it was down to 1.87%.

Tax cuts always slow revenue growth.

There is not one example of tax revenue growing faster after a tax cut than before.

I never said it would grow 'faster'.

Look at the parroting rubes backpedaling like crazy now!

They will still parrot the same bullshit half-lie meme anyway. I guarantee it.