What's next after this 2 trillion dollar pork bill, how about 3 trillion more?

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,271
Reaction score
2,161
Points
893
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
The bipartisan CBO, and the data, highlight you are incorrect: Trump's Tax Cut 'Scam' Created 1.3 Million New Jobs, New CBO Data Show


Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story.

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%


In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected
Try to understand that this recession was one fart from collapsing into a depression. Deepest recession in history. A slow recovery was just fine and would have increased in speed as jobs increased and money flowed into the economy.
There are unintended consequences when one can't see the big picture and just wants his pocket and ego stroked.
Yes, it got much deeper and last much longer due to the fact Obama, had a Dem Congress, that had been in office for two years prior to him taking office, and he and that Dem Congress created legislation that drove up UE to double digits. He didn't benefit from having a GOP Congress when he took office. I admit that.

Yes, and in fact it did increase in speed, because jobs increased and money flowed into the economy....due to the tax cuts when Trump took office. Glad we are finally in total agreement here
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
70,430
Reaction score
18,307
Points
2,290
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
It likely would have slowed down or stopped if Trump didn't do anything. I've been on this planet for 60 years now, and not one of those years do I ever remember a time in this country where we had a million more jobs than Americans who could possibly work them. While I have no crystal ball, I could never see that happen with Hussein's policies. It was the slowest growth since WWII because he was so anti-business.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,271
Reaction score
2,161
Points
893
All we, as a people can do is look to the experts...the CBO is what Congress depends on....and as the article highlights, their predictions were echoed by other economists.
So in 2018, the economy was $400 billion bigger.

But the deficit was $360 billion bigger.
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,417
Reaction score
8,036
Points
465
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,271
Reaction score
2,161
Points
893
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
No, that's not what that means....it's just Govt spending wasn't cut enough....not of a lack of trying by Trump and the GOP.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,417
Reaction score
8,036
Points
465
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
No, that's not what that means....it's just Govt spending wasn't cut enough....not of a lack of trying by Trump and the GOP.
Cut government spending and the GDP growth you’re bragging about would be cut too.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,271
Reaction score
2,161
Points
893
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
No, that's not what that means....it's just Govt spending wasn't cut enough....not of a lack of trying by Trump and the GOP.
Cut government spending and the GDP growth you’re bragging about would be cut too.
Very little...very little....most of the GDP growth, as the CBO highlighted, was by employment growth, as the article shows.

the deficit in 2018 was somethink like 70 billion less then actually projected, yet GDP rose, and UE dropped.

the deficit would have been a lot worse, had the tax cuts not been there to spur economic growth
 

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
18,980
Reaction score
9,961
Points
1,265
The Dems are already saying that they want to make the $1400 permanent income.
But, they are not saying how much taxes will have to be raise to pay for it.
It would cause massive inflation destroy people's savings.
Destruction is what the Dems do best.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,417
Reaction score
8,036
Points
465
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
No, that's not what that means....it's just Govt spending wasn't cut enough....not of a lack of trying by Trump and the GOP.
Cut government spending and the GDP growth you’re bragging about would be cut too.
Very little...very little....most of the GDP growth, as the CBO highlighted, was by employment growth, as the article shows.

the deficit in 2018 was somethink like 70 billion less then actually projected, yet GDP rose, and UE dropped.

the deficit would have been a lot worse, had the tax cuts not been there to spur economic growth
A dollar cut in government spending is a dollar less of GDP.

The deficit in 2018 was $292 billion MORE than projected by the CBP in Jan 2017.

The deficit was worse. The “stimulation” was no where near enough to cover the loss of revenue.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,271
Reaction score
2,161
Points
893
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
No, that's not what that means....it's just Govt spending wasn't cut enough....not of a lack of trying by Trump and the GOP.
Cut government spending and the GDP growth you’re bragging about would be cut too.
Very little...very little....most of the GDP growth, as the CBO highlighted, was by employment growth, as the article shows.

the deficit in 2018 was somethink like 70 billion less then actually projected, yet GDP rose, and UE dropped.

the deficit would have been a lot worse, had the tax cuts not been there to spur economic growth
A dollar cut in government spending is a dollar less of GDP.

The deficit in 2018 was $292 billion MORE than projected by the CBP in Jan 2017.

The deficit was worse. The “stimulation” was no where near enough to cover the loss of revenue.
Not sure where you got that formal

There wasn't a lose in revenue....revenue increased.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,417
Reaction score
8,036
Points
465
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
No, that's not what that means....it's just Govt spending wasn't cut enough....not of a lack of trying by Trump and the GOP.
Cut government spending and the GDP growth you’re bragging about would be cut too.
Very little...very little....most of the GDP growth, as the CBO highlighted, was by employment growth, as the article shows.

the deficit in 2018 was somethink like 70 billion less then actually projected, yet GDP rose, and UE dropped.

the deficit would have been a lot worse, had the tax cuts not been there to spur economic growth
A dollar cut in government spending is a dollar less of GDP.

The deficit in 2018 was $292 billion MORE than projected by the CBP in Jan 2017.

The deficit was worse. The “stimulation” was no where near enough to cover the loss of revenue.
Not sure where you got that formal

There wasn't a lose in revenue....revenue increased.
Revenue almost always increases. It would have increased far more had we not cut taxes.

In 2018, revenues were down by $275 billion compared to projections from the CBO.

The formula for GDP isn’t complicated. Government spending is a part of it.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,271
Reaction score
2,161
Points
893
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
No, that's not what that means....it's just Govt spending wasn't cut enough....not of a lack of trying by Trump and the GOP.
Cut government spending and the GDP growth you’re bragging about would be cut too.
Very little...very little....most of the GDP growth, as the CBO highlighted, was by employment growth, as the article shows.

the deficit in 2018 was somethink like 70 billion less then actually projected, yet GDP rose, and UE dropped.

the deficit would have been a lot worse, had the tax cuts not been there to spur economic growth
A dollar cut in government spending is a dollar less of GDP.

The deficit in 2018 was $292 billion MORE than projected by the CBP in Jan 2017.

The deficit was worse. The “stimulation” was no where near enough to cover the loss of revenue.
Not sure where you got that formal

There wasn't a lose in revenue....revenue increased.
Revenue almost always increases. It would have increased far more had we not cut taxes.

In 2018, revenues were down by $275 billion compared to projections from the CBO.

The formula for GDP isn’t complicated. Government spending is a part of it.
What are you basing that on?

The CBO made their projections after the tax cut, which was signed in 2017. They certainly thought there would be a bigger boom, that's for sure.

I didn't say it wasn't, but it wouldn't of made that much of a difference overall. The deficit as a percentage of GDP was small.

Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%

In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected

 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,417
Reaction score
8,036
Points
465
But every little different in deficit spending as it relates to GDP, since GDP increased. Trump had to spend a little more to end Obama's wars
It means that Trump netted $40 billion in increased economic activity.

Barely a rounding error.
No, that's not what that means....it's just Govt spending wasn't cut enough....not of a lack of trying by Trump and the GOP.
Cut government spending and the GDP growth you’re bragging about would be cut too.
Very little...very little....most of the GDP growth, as the CBO highlighted, was by employment growth, as the article shows.

the deficit in 2018 was somethink like 70 billion less then actually projected, yet GDP rose, and UE dropped.

the deficit would have been a lot worse, had the tax cuts not been there to spur economic growth
A dollar cut in government spending is a dollar less of GDP.

The deficit in 2018 was $292 billion MORE than projected by the CBP in Jan 2017.

The deficit was worse. The “stimulation” was no where near enough to cover the loss of revenue.
Not sure where you got that formal

There wasn't a lose in revenue....revenue increased.
Revenue almost always increases. It would have increased far more had we not cut taxes.

In 2018, revenues were down by $275 billion compared to projections from the CBO.

The formula for GDP isn’t complicated. Government spending is a part of it.
What are you basing that on?

The CBO made their projections after the tax cut, which was signed in 2017. They certainly thought there would be a bigger boom, that's for sure.

I didn't say it wasn't, but it wouldn't of made that much of a difference overall. The deficit as a percentage of GDP was small.

Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%

In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected

I’m going off the same projections that the article you posted is going off of. That’s the CBO analysis in January 2017 before the tax cuts were introduced.

Here’s the lesson. Larger federal deficits boost GDP growth. We’ve know this for a long time. It wasn’t some stroke of genius. It wasn’t some miracle.

My question is whether it was necessary in 2018. I don’t think it was.

Deficit as a percentage of GDP was larger than GDP growth. That creates a long term problem.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,252
Reaction score
6,976
Points
290
The deficit in 2018 was $292 billion MORE than projected by the CBP in Jan 2017.

The deficit was worse. The “stimulation” was no where near enough to cover the loss of revenue.
That's how it always goes and with every tax cut we hear "Yea well look at the increase in revenue".

The rub of course is that unless we are in a Recession , revenue ALWAYS grows.

So what happens next after we pass the 1.9 trillion?

We deal with covid and the economy recovers...THAT is what's next
 

themirrorthief

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
972
Reaction score
874
Points
873
You're just pissed that wealthy people aren't being given money.

Stimulus actions include constructiuon which creates jobs.

You people are dumber than shit.
You can't stimulate an economy of 340 million people by targeting the construction industry alone, and all their union members. Talk about dumber than shit.
You stupid fuck. the 1.9 trillion is not all going to construction.

Road & bridge construction boost jobs in the steel, aggregate and cement industries. Those families spewd money boosting the entire economy.
when the government rips the people off with new taxes...of course its all going to good cause, the politicians bank accounts mostly
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,252
Reaction score
6,976
Points
290
You're just pissed that wealthy people aren't being given money.

Stimulus actions include constructiuon which creates jobs.

You people are dumber than shit.
You can't stimulate an economy of 340 million people by targeting the construction industry alone, and all their union members. Talk about dumber than shit.
You stupid fuck. the 1.9 trillion is not all going to construction.

Road & bridge construction boost jobs in the steel, aggregate and cement industries. Those families spewd money boosting the entire economy.
when the government rips the people off with new taxes...of course its all going to good cause, the politicians bank accounts mostly
Shut the fuck up.

Jesus. The economy is in shambles AND YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT?
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
4,129
Reaction score
1,483
Points
210
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
It likely would have slowed down or stopped if Trump didn't do anything. I've been on this planet for 60 years now, and not one of those years do I ever remember a time in this country where we had a million more jobs than Americans who could possibly work them. While I have no crystal ball, I could never see that happen with Hussein's policies. It was the slowest growth since WWII because he was so anti-business.
Wrong again. The jobs market was increasing as the economy was improving when the blob took office and would only have continued to grow in an improving economy. Maybe you haven't seen so many job openings, but I have.
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
4,129
Reaction score
1,483
Points
210
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
The bipartisan CBO, and the data, highlight you are incorrect: Trump's Tax Cut 'Scam' Created 1.3 Million New Jobs, New CBO Data Show


Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story.

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%


In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected
Try to understand that this recession was one fart from collapsing into a depression. Deepest recession in history. A slow recovery was just fine and would have increased in speed as jobs increased and money flowed into the economy.
There are unintended consequences when one can't see the big picture and just wants his pocket and ego stroked.
Yes, it got much deeper and last much longer due to the fact Obama, had a Dem Congress, that had been in office for two years prior to him taking office, and he and that Dem Congress created legislation that drove up UE to double digits. He didn't benefit from having a GOP Congress when he took office. I admit that.

Yes, and in fact it did increase in speed, because jobs increased and money flowed into the economy....due to the tax cuts when Trump took office. Glad we are finally in total agreement here
Jobs were already increasing and money was flowing into the economy before Trump gave the super-wealthy that huge tax reduction. Yes, it did increase in speed and so what? This was the deepest recession in history and slow but steady recovery was doing the job. The tax cuts for the wealthy increased the national debt by 2 trillion dollars and the wealthy used their windfall to invest in the stock market, and not in the economy. Tax cuts, low-interest rates, and regulation slashing should be done to goose a sagging economy and not be wasted because we won't have them when the economy recesses.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,271
Reaction score
2,161
Points
893
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
The bipartisan CBO, and the data, highlight you are incorrect: Trump's Tax Cut 'Scam' Created 1.3 Million New Jobs, New CBO Data Show


Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story.

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%


In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected
Try to understand that this recession was one fart from collapsing into a depression. Deepest recession in history. A slow recovery was just fine and would have increased in speed as jobs increased and money flowed into the economy.
There are unintended consequences when one can't see the big picture and just wants his pocket and ego stroked.
Yes, it got much deeper and last much longer due to the fact Obama, had a Dem Congress, that had been in office for two years prior to him taking office, and he and that Dem Congress created legislation that drove up UE to double digits. He didn't benefit from having a GOP Congress when he took office. I admit that.

Yes, and in fact it did increase in speed, because jobs increased and money flowed into the economy....due to the tax cuts when Trump took office. Glad we are finally in total agreement here
Jobs were already increasing and money was flowing into the economy before Trump gave the super-wealthy that huge tax reduction. Yes, it did increase in speed and so what? This was the deepest recession in history and slow but steady recovery was doing the job. The tax cuts for the wealthy increased the national debt by 2 trillion dollars and the wealthy used their windfall to invest in the stock market, and not in the economy. Tax cuts, low-interest rates, and regulation slashing should be done to goose a sagging economy and not be wasted because we won't have them when the economy recesses.
But as you said, slowly....very slowly...with that said, what huge tax reductions are you talking about? I don't recall of any huge tax reductions for the super wealthy...can you please provide the code section?

The only major tax cuts I recall during the Trump admin, was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 17, where the upper brackets, got a 1.5 percent cut, and the middle classes, got anywhere between a 2 percent, to a 4 percent cut

Under previous law Under TCJA
Rate Income bracket Rate Income bracket
10% $0–$9,525 10% $0–$9,525
15% $9,525–$38,700 12% $9,525–$38,700
25% $38,700–$93,700 22% $38,700–$82,500
28% $93,700–$195,450 24% $82,500–$157,500
33% $195,450–$424,950 32% $157,500–$200,000
35% $424,950–$426,700 35% $200,000–$500,000
39.5% $426,700 and up 37% $500,000 and up
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
4,129
Reaction score
1,483
Points
210
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
The bipartisan CBO, and the data, highlight you are incorrect: Trump's Tax Cut 'Scam' Created 1.3 Million New Jobs, New CBO Data Show


Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story.

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%


In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected
Try to understand that this recession was one fart from collapsing into a depression. Deepest recession in history. A slow recovery was just fine and would have increased in speed as jobs increased and money flowed into the economy.
There are unintended consequences when one can't see the big picture and just wants his pocket and ego stroked.
Yes, it got much deeper and last much longer due to the fact Obama, had a Dem Congress, that had been in office for two years prior to him taking office, and he and that Dem Congress created legislation that drove up UE to double digits. He didn't benefit from having a GOP Congress when he took office. I admit that.

Yes, and in fact it did increase in speed, because jobs increased and money flowed into the economy....due to the tax cuts when Trump took office. Glad we are finally in total agreement here
Jobs were already increasing and money was flowing into the economy before Trump gave the super-wealthy that huge tax reduction. Yes, it did increase in speed and so what? This was the deepest recession in history and slow but steady recovery was doing the job. The tax cuts for the wealthy increased the national debt by 2 trillion dollars and the wealthy used their windfall to invest in the stock market, and not in the economy. Tax cuts, low-interest rates, and regulation slashing should be done to goose a sagging economy and not be wasted because we won't have them when the economy recesses.
But as you said, slowly....very slowly...with that said, what huge tax reductions are you talking about? I don't recall of any huge tax reductions for the super wealthy...can you please provide the code section?

The only major tax cuts I recall during the Trump admin, was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 17, where the upper brackets, got a 1.5 percent cut, and the middle classes, got anywhere between a 2 percent, to a 4 percent cut

Under previous law Under TCJA
Rate Income bracket Rate Income bracket
10% $0–$9,525 10% $0–$9,525
15% $9,525–$38,700 12% $9,525–$38,700
25% $38,700–$93,700 22% $38,700–$82,500
28% $93,700–$195,450 24% $82,500–$157,500
33% $195,450–$424,950 32% $157,500–$200,000
35% $424,950–$426,700 35% $200,000–$500,000
39.5% $426,700 and up 37% $500,000 and up
Where were you people when all tax stuff was going down? Didn't Fox News report it? Nah.

6 Ways the Trump Administration Is Rigging an Already Unfair ...



www.americanprogress.org › issues › news › 2020/10/28

Oct 28, 2020 — Taken together, the changes this law made will dramatically reduce tax bills for the very wealthy, leaving the working and middle class with little ...
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top