Will Trump win again???

[medgator]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

The economic boost was sustained, full employment with 2-4% wage growth.

View attachment 285908

https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/951155/ADP_Yearly_Wage_Growth_Report.jpg?p=publish

The metrics keep changing, I guess Trump was gaslighting us about 4% GDP growth.

Pushing on a string. Meanwhile gdp has been falling and consumers are racking up more debt than ever. I think I've heard this one before....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[deleted171991]

2-4% wage growth? 😆

AKA inflation? Wow, sometimes it's scary how easy it is to fool people.

 

[DrGasPasser]

2-4% wage growth? 😆

AKA inflation? Wow, sometimes it's scary how easy it is to fool people.

Wage growth is currently at 4% and climbing. It’s been going up ever sense roughly Q1 2018. Inflation has been holding steady at 1.7%.

At a 10-year high, wage growth for American workers likely to keep accelerating

It’s been a long time coming, but American workers are finally reaping the rewards of one the longest economic expansions ever. And they may get rewarded still.

www.marketwatch.com

 

[deleted171991]

Wage grow is currently at 4% and climbing. It’s been going up ever sense roughly Q1 2018. Inflation has been holding steady at 1.7%.

Wages can't keep growing without the inflation growing, too. Now if the GDP grew at 4%, that would be truly something.

 

[Mikkel]

Wages can't keep growing without the inflation growing, too. Now if the GDP grew at 4%, that would be truly something.

Look at the measures of inflation, and you'll see why wage growth does not necessarily mean increase in prices for goods.

 

[DrGasPasser]

Wages can't keep growing without the inflation growing, too. Now if the GDP grew at 4%, that would be truly something.

I don’t expect for wages to keep growing indefinitely and neither should you. However, we need to look at economic growth, hiring, inflation, and wages in the context of the economic cycle. For example, we just left a 10-year period of protracted stagnant wages despite steady economic growth of roughly 2%, rising stock markets, and full unemployment. During this time, a lot of really rich people got really richer. Moreover, 2 years ago many economists were forecasting an economic downturn.

There is an argument to be made that the corporate tax cuts facilitated putting more cash in worker’s pockets for the first time in over a decade. I’d take that win if I were you and stop dreaming about 4% economic growth that hasn’t happened since 9/11. We have roughly $15 TRILLION more in debt and billions more in new spending behavior built up under Bush, Obama, and now Trump. Service on the debt alone will keep us from seeing 4% growth, not to mention the drag caused by all the new spending.

Before you start citing Trump’s claims about 4% growth, remember - I neither believed nor voted for Trump. I simply think that targeted cuts in corporate taxes were the right thing to do 2 years ago. We can revisit that decision in a year or 2 if needed, but we will definitely also need to revisit our spending.

 

[deleted171991]

There is an argument to be made that the corporate tax cuts facilitated putting more cash in worker’s pockets for the first time in over a decade. I’d take that win if I were you and stop dreaming about 4% economic growth that hasn’t happened since 9/11. We have roughly $15 TRILLION more in debt and billions more in new spending behavior built up under Bush, Obama, and now Trump. Service on the debt alone will keep us from seeing 4% growth, not to mention the drag caused by all the new spending.

Corporate tax cuts have NEVER put more money in workers' pockets. NEVER. That's the part of economic history you're missing. It's bull feces. If one wants to give money to the people, one lowers the PERSONAL income taxes, or gives tax credits.

And, at the rate our national debt is increasing, it's almost irrelevant if our income goes up by a few percentage points. This country is getting robbed in the most classical third-world style, and the hoi polloi keeps re-electing the robber barrons.

Before you start citing Trump’s claims about 4% growth, remember - I neither believed nor voted for Trump. I simply think that targeted cuts in corporate taxes were the right thing to do 2 years ago. We can revisit that decision in a year or 2 if needed, but we will definitely also need to revisit our spending.

We were not in a recession. There was ZERO reason to cut corporate taxes except the personal interests of the president and his cronies.

 

[DrGasPasser]

Corporate tax cuts have NEVER put more money in workers' pockets. NEVER. That's the part of economic history you're missing. It's bull feces. If one wants to give money to the people, one lowers the PERSONAL income taxes, or gives tax credits.

And, at the rate our national debt is increasing, it's almost irrelevant if our income goes up by a few percentage points. This country is getting robbed in the most classical third-world style, and the hoi polloi keeps re-electing the robber barrons.


We were not in a recession. There was ZERO reason to cut corporate taxes except the personal interests of the president and his cronies.

The corporate tax cut passed in 2017 tributes to wage growth (ie money in worker’s pockets) primarily by tightening the labor market and creating competition for labor. To say that corporate tax cuts never translate to money in employees pockets or job growth is something that we will have to disagree.

As for the deficit, you will never close it with taxes alone; spending cuts are required.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Corporate tax cuts have NEVER put more money in workers' pockets. NEVER. That's the part of economic history you're missing. It's bull feces. If one wants to give money to the people, one lowers the PERSONAL income taxes, or gives tax credits.

That's not true. Cutting corporate tax rate directly increases earnings per share of a stock by reducing costs, thus increasing value of the stock, Many (most?) 'workers' at corporations have stock options, so when the value of their companies stock increases, it directly (or indirectly) increasing the money in those workers pockets. Thousands of 'workers' have become rich as a result of stock options in the company they work for...

 

[deleted87051]

That's not true. Cutting corporate tax rate directly increases earnings per share of a stock by reducing costs, thus increasing value of the stock, Many (most?) 'workers' at corporations have stock options, so when the value of their companies stock increases, it directly (or indirectly) increasing the money in those workers pockets. Thousands of 'workers' have become rich as a result of stock options in the company they work for...

About half of households own any stock at all. Most that do own stock don’t own much. Only a small percentage of Americans got rich by owning stocks. The top 1% owns 38% of all stocks, the top 10% owns over 80% of all stocks, and wealthy foreigners own 35% of the US stock market. Cutting corporate tax rates mostly helps the already rich.

What percentage of Americans own stocks?

"Most Americans don’t own stocks."

www.politifact.com

What Percent Of Americans Own Stocks?

Stocks have returned roughly 10% a year since 1926. The question is: What percent of Americans own stocks? According to a 2023 Gallup poll, roughly 61% of Americans own stocks. That's up from 58% in 2022, 56% in 2021, and 55% for 2018-2020 According to the Federal Reserve, of the 10 percent of...

www.financialsamurai.com

 

[agammaglobulin]

And half of americans don't have a job. So no surprise if you don't work you don't own stock...

 

[agammaglobulin]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

data.bls.gov

60% of Americans are employed

 

[agammaglobulin]

What Percent Of Americans Own Stocks?

Stocks have returned roughly 10% a year since 1926. The question is: What percent of Americans own stocks? According to a 2023 Gallup poll, roughly 61% of Americans own stocks. That's up from 58% in 2022, 56% in 2021, and 55% for 2018-2020 According to the Federal Reserve, of the 10 percent of...

www.financialsamurai.com

40% of americans have an average of 130K in stock, per your source. So 40% of americans, by your own data, benefit from a decreased corporate tax rate significantly. 50% have 50K in stock on average, so they are still benefiting but to a lesser degree. Even if they aren't making much money on their stock now, after 20 years of compounding the reduced corporate tax rate will be a substantial difference in return.

 

[deleted87051]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

data.bls.gov

60% of Americans are employed

For some perspective, 22% of Americans are children and 16% of Americans are over 65. Unemployment is at a record low.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Sure. But you said 50% of Americans don't own stock as a defense to why a reduce corporate tax rate doesn't help the average american 'worker'. By you saying the 40% not working are children or elderly, you are supporting my point that most working-age Americans DO own stock and DO benefit from reduced corporate tax rate.

 

[deleted87051]

Sure. But you said 50% of Americans don't own stock as a defense to why a reduce corporate tax rate doesn't help the average american 'worker'. By you saying the 40% not working are children or elderly, you are supporting my point that most working-age Americans DO own stock and DO benefit from reduced corporate tax rate.

I said half of American households don’t own any stock, not half of all Americans.

 

[deleted87051]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

“The Federal Reserve reported the median value of stock ownership by income group for 2016:

• Bottom 20% own $5,800.
• 20th-40th percentile own $10,000.
• 40th to 60th percentile own $15,500.
• 60th to 80th percentile own $31,700.
• 80th to 89th percentile own $82,000.
• Top 10% own $365,000.[56]”

 

[agammaglobulin]

Are we talking about corporate tax rates or are we talking about wealth inequality? Not sure anymore...

 

[agammaglobulin]

On another aspect of corporate tax rate effect on 'working' americans- if a companies EPS (earnings per share) drops, often there is pressure to reduce costs if revenue can not be increased. Frequently this is by finding cheaper labor or reducing your labor pool. When a company is generating higher EPS, that in turn, generates more jobs or at least prevents downsizing and people losing jobs. For example look at GE.

 

[BoolaHI]

Buahahahhah, DC US District Court judge rejects Trumps ridiculous conspiracy defense to his tax returns. Before you Trumpettes get your undies in a wad, the judge is a tried and true conservative and actually nominated by Trump.

Judge tosses Trump suit over New York tax returns, rejects conspiracy claim

Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that his court was not the proper jurisdiction to hear the case.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[DrGasPasser]

I said half of American households don’t own any stock, not half of all Americans.

From you own source, the top 50% of households have at least $130K in stock. The bottom 50% of households have on average roughly $50K in stock. For perspective, the median household income is roughly $63K and the net worth is roughly $95K.

What Percent Of Americans Own Stocks?

Stocks have returned roughly 10% a year since 1926. The question is: What percent of Americans own stocks? According to a 2023 Gallup poll, roughly 61% of Americans own stocks. That's up from 58% in 2022, 56% in 2021, and 55% for 2018-2020 According to the Federal Reserve, of the 10 percent of...

www.financialsamurai.com

“As of 2019, the top 10 percent of Americans owned an average of $969,000 in stocks. The next 40 percent owned $132,000 on average. For the bottom half of families, it was just under $54,000.”

 

[deleted87051]

From you own source, the top 50% of households have at least $130K in stock. The bottom 50% of households have on average roughly $50K in stock. For perspective, the median household income is roughly $63K and the net worth is roughly $95K.

What Percent Of Americans Own Stocks?

Stocks have returned roughly 10% a year since 1926. The question is: What percent of Americans own stocks? According to a 2023 Gallup poll, roughly 61% of Americans own stocks. That's up from 58% in 2022, 56% in 2021, and 55% for 2018-2020 According to the Federal Reserve, of the 10 percent of...

www.financialsamurai.com

“As of 2019, the top 10 percent of Americans owned an average of $969,000 in stocks. The next 40 percent owned $132,000 on average. For the bottom half of families, it was just under $54,000.”

That is an average for the top 50% skewed upward by the very wealthy. The median is much lower. Believe it or not, many of the people you and I work with every day have zero or close to zero savings.

“The Federal Reserve reported the median value of stock ownership by income group for 2016:

• Bottom 20% own $5,800.
• 20th-40th percentile own $10,000.
• 40th to 60th percentile own $15,500.
• 60th to 80th percentile own $31,700.
• 80th to 89th percentile own $82,000.
• Top 10% own $365,000.[56]”

 

[deleted87051]

Are we talking about corporate tax rates or are we talking about wealth inequality? Not sure anymore...

Corporate tax breaks disproportionately benefit the wealthy so the topics are inextricably linked.

 

[anbuitachi]

but why does that even matter. thats why i somewhat support andrew yang. i agree with him that these numbers like GDP growth are very poor indicators of actual life improvements/wellbeing of the country.

our infrastructures are failing. mass shootings increasing. mental health worsening. the income gap has only gotten larger. poor people despite wage increases from the tax cut are still having trouble or even having more trouble year after year to afford housing, which is for many people the largest expense. it doesn't matter if milk prices are growing at 1.7% per year if rent and housing are growing at higher rates. even for me rent is 25 % of my take home and i live in a studio.

we have the greediest companies in the world. they'd do anything for money, even at expense of citizens

 

[DrGasPasser]

That is an average for the top 50% skewed by the very wealthy. The median is much lower. Believe it or not, many of the people you and I work with every day have zero or close to zero savings.

“The Federal Reserve reported the median value of stock ownership by income group for 2016:

• Bottom 20% own $5,800.
• 20th-40th percentile own $10,000.
• 40th to 60th percentile own $15,500.
• 60th to 80th percentile own $31,700.
• 80th to 89th percentile own $82,000.
• Top 10% own $365,000.[56]”

It’s not not skewed by very wealthy people and you are using old data from 2016. I pulled out the top 10% for that purpose. The 50th to 90th percentiles were what I cited from 2019 data. That is families making $63-120k and they are in no way super rich. They have, on average, over $130K in stocks.

 

[DrGasPasser]

Are we talking about corporate tax rates or are we talking about wealth inequality? Not sure anymore...

It’s called Internet Arguing 101. Someone makes an false claim. You refuse it with facts. Their supporters claim that your facts don’t effect enough people to matter.

 

[BoolaHI]

Apathy versus increased enthusiasm in the critical Midwest; long story short, not looking great for Rs.

And don’t shoot the the messenger, this is from the uber conservative National Review—Republicans Suffer from Rust Belt Enthusiasm Gap | National Review

 

[deleted50478]

It’s not not skewed by very wealthy people and you are using old data from 2016. I pulled top 10% were pulled out for that purpose. The 50th to 90th percentiles were what I cited from 2019 data. That is families making $63-120k and they are in no way super rich. They have, on average, over $130K in stocks.

“A whopping 84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households. And that includes everyone’s stakes in pension plans, 401(k)’s and individual retirement accounts, as well as trust funds, mutual funds and college savings programs like 529 plans.”

Redirect Notice

 

[pgg]

Apathy versus increased enthusiasm in the critical Midwest; long story short, not looking great for Rs.

And don’t shoot the the messenger, this is from the uber conservative National Review—Republicans Suffer from Rust Belt Enthusiasm Gap | National Review

We're a year from the election. The primaries haven't even started yet. We don't know who the Democratic nominee will be. We don't even know if President Trump will actually be the Republican nominee again - there's a nonzero chance he gets impeached, or simply decides to walk off into the sunset to play golf and leaves the GOP hanging. (Tell me that would shock you. 🙂)

Enthusiasm reports are made-up bull**** for the 24 hour news cycle.

 

[deleted87051]

From you own source, the top 50% of households have at least $130K in stock. The bottom 50% of households have on average roughly $50K in stock. For perspective, the median household income is roughly $63K and the net worth is roughly $95K.

What Percent Of Americans Own Stocks?

Stocks have returned roughly 10% a year since 1926. The question is: What percent of Americans own stocks? According to a 2023 Gallup poll, roughly 61% of Americans own stocks. That's up from 58% in 2022, 56% in 2021, and 55% for 2018-2020 According to the Federal Reserve, of the 10 percent of...

www.financialsamurai.com

“As of 2019, the top 10 percent of Americans owned an average of $969,000 in stocks. The next 40 percent owned $132,000 on average. For the bottom half of families, it was just under $54,000.”

My mistake. You are correctly reading that data. Still more than half of Americans don’t materially participate in the stock market.

 

[DrGasPasser]

My mistake. You are correctly reading that data. Still more than half of Americans don’t materially participate in the stock market.

No worries. I appreciate the dialogue.

 

[DrGasPasser]

“A whopping 84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households. And that includes everyone’s stakes in pension plans, 401(k)’s and individual retirement accounts, as well as trust funds, mutual funds and college savings programs like 529 plans.”

Redirect Notice

Yes, and not all of the top 10% is all that rich. Combined household incomes of > $130K puts you in the top 10% of households. Individuals making north of $100K are approaching that threshold on and individual basis.

So, when Warren or Sanders say they are going to raise taxes on the wealthy, you can be damn sure that will include households making more than $100K.

 

[DrGasPasser]

We're a year from the election. The primaries haven't even started yet. We don't know who the Democratic nominee will be. We don't even know if President Trump will actually be the Republican nominee again - there's a nonzero chance he gets impeached, or simply decides to walk off into the sunset to play golf and leaves the GOP hanging. (Tell me that would shock you. 🙂)

Enthusiasm reports are made-up bull**** for the 24 hour news cycle.

Actually, I was kinda hoping for a stroke. Not a particularly debilitating one. But a MCA perforator that takes out Broca’s and the ability to Tweet.


That was a joke. I don’t wish ill health on anyone...really.

 

[BoolaHI]

We're a year from the election. The primaries haven't even started yet. We don't know who the Democratic nominee will be. We don't even know if President Trump will actually be the Republican nominee again - there's a nonzero chance he gets impeached, or simply decides to walk off into the sunset to play golf and leaves the GOP hanging. (Tell me that would shock you. 🙂)

Enthusiasm reports are made-up bull**** for the 24 hour news cycle.

Like I said - don’t shoot the messenger, just reporting what’s out there ...

 

[deleted87051]

Yes, and not all of the top 10% is all that rich. Combined household incomes of > $130K puts you in the top 10% of households. Individuals making north of $100K are approaching that threshold on and individual basis.

So, when Warren or Sanders say they are going to raise taxes on the wealthy, you can be damn sure that will include households making more than $100K.

It would be interesting to see that top 10% broken down. And that still leaves a pittance for the remaining 90%.

 

[BoolaHI]

Actually, I was kinda hoping for a stroke. Not a particularly debilitating one. But a MCA perforator that takes out Broca’s and the ability to Tweet.


That was a joke. I don’t wish ill health on anyone...really.

If overweight Scalia can make it to his late 70s and five-time heart attack Cheney is still living -well it speaks volumes to medical care if you have money.

 

[DrGasPasser]

It would be interesting to see that top 10% broken down. And that still leaves a pittance for the remaining 90%.

Earner: 10% $118K, 5% $300K, 1% $500K, 0.1% $2.5M

Households look very similar above 5%.

 

[deleted87051]

Earner: 10% $118K, 5% $300K, 1% $500K, 0.1% $2.5M

Households look very similar above 5%.

It would be interesting to see where their assets stand. Like a typical family with a 150k income vs. a 500k income. In many places $150k is enough for food and a roof over your head. I imagine there’s a big jump in terms of stock market wealth at 200k or so.

 

[anbuitachi]

It would be interesting to see where their assets stand. Like a typical family with a 150k income vs. a 500k income. In many places $150k is enough for food and a roof over your head. I imagine there’s a big jump in terms of stock market wealth at 200k or so.

Also they should study take home $ and net worth. Most of us here knows how misleading annual salary can be. You can be a 40 year old attending making 300k with massive loans, putting you in top 5%, while have way less asset than someone making 150k. Also i bet a lot of the top .1% making 2.5M pay lower taxes that the 5% people.

 

[deleted87051]

If overweight Scalia can make it to his late 70s and five-time heart attack Cheney is still living -well it speaks volumes to medical care if you have money.

Don’t forget RBG. As one of my cardiology attendings liked to say, “She shouldn’t be buying any LP records.”

 

[deleted171991]

That's not true. Cutting corporate tax rate directly increases earnings per share of a stock by reducing costs, thus increasing value of the stock, Many (most?) 'workers' at corporations have stock options, so when the value of their companies stock increases, it directly (or indirectly) increasing the money in those workers pockets. Thousands of 'workers' have become rich as a result of stock options in the company they work for...

The average worker does not own stocks, let's not mention stock options, which usually require 5 years of vesting. Even where they exist, most stock options are not in the hands of the little people, but of executives.

 

[deleted171991]

The corporate tax cut passed in 2017 tributes to wage growth (ie money in worker’s pockets) primarily by tightening the labor market and creating competition for labor. To say that corporate tax cuts never translate to money in employees pockets or job growth is something that we will have to disagree.

As for the deficit, you will never close it with taxes alone; spending cuts are required.

The amount of extra money in employees' pockets is nothing compared to the increase in corporate profits, which are usually not reinvested, but withdrawn as dividends, hence money in the pockets of the owners; this time was same as always before. All at an enormous cost to the treasury. Reminds me of the huge tax incentives states give for "job creation". This is crony capitalism 101, wealth redistribution the anti-Warren way.

 

[DrGasPasser]

The amount of extra money in employees' pockets is nothing compared to the increase in corporate profits, which are usually not reinvested, but withdrawn as dividends, hence money in the pockets of the owners; this time was same as always before. All at an enormous cost to the treasury. Reminds me of the huge tax incentives states give for "job creation". This is crony capitalism 101, wealth redistribution the anti-Warren way.

Let’s do this with math. Here are receipts to the Treasury from personal income (left column) and corporate taxes (right column) in millions of dollars by year from :

Add across the row and you will have total personal and corporate tax revenues for a given year. Now, do that simple math show me where there was any cost to the Treasury.

Here is a hint, you can’t; it’s mathematically impossible. The best argument that you can make is that the tax cuts will cost us when the economy takes a turn and I’ll agree with that statement (which is why I favor modest spending cuts).

While corporate tax receipts decreased by 30% (roughly $100B), that was offset by a 6% increase in personnel tax revenue (which is about 5X corporate revenue) and total tax revenues increased by about 1% despite a cut in personal tax rates.

So again, tell me in plain numbers how the corporate tax cut cost our treasury?

 

[pgg]

If overweight Scalia can make it to his late 70s and five-time heart attack Cheney is still living -well it speaks volumes to medical care if you have money.

RBG too. Justice Thomas has some risk factors, too - a lot of people on the right think he should retire so that Trump can replace him with a younger person.

2020 is going to be a hell of a ride.

 

[deleted87051]

Let’s do this with math. Here are receipts to the Treasury from personal income (left column) and corporate taxes (right column) in millions of dollars by year from :

View attachment 285939

Add across the row and you will have total personal and corporate tax revenues for a given year. Now, do that simple math show me where there was any cost to the Treasury.

Here is a hint, you can’t; it’s mathematically impossible. The best agreement that you can make is that the tax cuts will cost us when the economy takes a turn and I’ll agree with that statement (which is why I favor modest spending cuts).

While corporate tax receipts decreased by 30% (roughly $100B), that was offset by a 6% increase in personnel tax revenue (which is about 5X corporate revenue) and total tax revenues increased by about 1% despite a cut in personal tax rates.

So again, tell me in plain numbers how the corporate tax cut cost our treasury?

You answered your own question in your 3rd paragraph. That uncollected $100B could have gone toward deficit reduction.

 

[deleted171991]

Let’s do this with math. Here are receipts to the Treasury from personal income (left column) and corporate taxes (right column) in millions of dollars by year from :

View attachment 285939

Add across the row and you will have total personal and corporate tax revenues for a given year. Now, do that simple math show me where there was any cost to the Treasury.

Here is a hint, you can’t; it’s mathematically impossible. The best agreement that you can make is that the tax cuts will cost us when the economy takes a turn and I’ll agree with that statement (which is why I favor modest spending cuts).

While corporate tax receipts decreased by 30% (roughly $100B), that was offset by a 6% increase in personnel tax revenue (which is about 5X corporate revenue) and total tax revenues increased by about 1% despite a cut in personal tax rates.

So again, tell me in plain numbers how the corporate tax cut cost our treasury?

The cost to the Treasury is the lack of year-to-year increase in total tax revenue, which had been going on since the end of the recession. One saves money in the good years so one has extra money to spend in the bad years. The economy is cyclical. So the fact that total tax revenues did not increase over the last year means a loss of income, given where we are in the cycle. It would be OK in the middle of the winter, but we are in the summer (or beginning of fall).

Also, it proves that the theory that cutting taxes increase the corporate tax base is bull feces (as proven historically many times).

 

[anbuitachi]

Let’s do this with math. Here are receipts to the Treasury from personal income (left column) and corporate taxes (right column) in millions of dollars by year from :

View attachment 285939

Add across the row and you will have total personal and corporate tax revenues for a given year. Now, do that simple math show me where there was any cost to the Treasury.

Here is a hint, you can’t; it’s mathematically impossible. The best argument that you can make is that the tax cuts will cost us when the economy takes a turn and I’ll agree with that statement (which is why I favor modest spending cuts).

While corporate tax receipts decreased by 30% (roughly $100B), that was offset by a 6% increase in personnel tax revenue (which is about 5X corporate revenue) and total tax revenues increased by about 1% despite a cut in personal tax rates.

So again, tell me in plain numbers how the corporate tax cut cost our treasury?

the personal 'tax cuts' are miniscule, so much less than the corporate tax cuts, and its not even permanent. actually for many people in my region, especially home owners, taxes went up, due to the SALT deduction changes

 

[DrGasPasser]

You answered your own question in your 3rd paragraph. That uncollected $100B could have gone toward deficit reduction.

The $100B corporate “loss” was offset by $120B in personal tax revenue gain from the tax cut. Notice that personal revenues were flat in the 2 years leading up to the tax cut. That gain came from both increased jobs and wages that in those 2 years. The corporate tax cut positively impacted that.

Having said that, let’s assume that your static analysis is correct and that the corporate tax cut represents a real revenue loss; personal income tax or capital gains would not have changed. If we make that assumption, the corporate tax cut raised our deficit by about 10%. That’s it - $100B of a $1+ Trillion deficit. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem.

 

[DrGasPasser]

The cost to the Treasury is the lack of year-to-year increase in total tax revenue, which had been going on since the end of the recession. One saves money in the good years so one has extra money to spend in the bad years. The economy is cyclical. So the fact that total tax revenues did not increase over the last year means a loss of income, given where we are in the cycle. It would be OK in the middle of the winter, but we are in the summer (or beginning of fall).

Also, it proves that the theory that cutting taxes increase the corporate tax base is bull feces (as proven historically many times).

Hmm, this is incorrect, again. Total tax revenue did increase each of the last 2 years - both 2017 and 2018. Do the actual math and stop watching Paul Krugman on MSLSD. In fact, we are on pace for 2019 to increase revenues by $100B, just like before the tax cut. Here is the total revenue table in millions of dollars since 2005:

Also, if the best time to cut taxes is in the middle of the Winter, then why didn’t Obama do it in 2008 when it looked like something out Game of Thrones? Instead, he unleashed massive government regulations that stifled growth, increased costs (passed on to consumers), and resulted in an anemic, protracted recovery. After such a deep recession, we should have had a steep recovery since service on our debt was relatively mild. Yet, he gave us $9 trillion in new debt but that could not top 2% growth despite a $1 trillion stimulus package (after a similarly worthless TARP). So, pardon me if I don’t trust these progressive economic theories that aren’t backed by any actual numbers.

 

[vector2]

Hmm, this is incorrect, again. Total tax revenue did increase each of the last 2 years. Do the actual math. In fact, we are on pace for 2019 to increase revenues by $100B, just like before the tax cut. Here is the total revenue table in millions of dollars since 2005:

View attachment 285985

Also, if the best time to cut taxes is in the middle of the Winter, then why didn’t Obama do it in 2008 when it looked like something out Game of Thrones? Instead, he unleashes massive government regulations that stifled growth, increased costs (passed on to consumers), and resulted in an anemic, protracted recovery. After such a deep recession, we should have had a steep recovery since service on our debt was relatively mild. Yet, he gave us $9 trillion in new debt but that could not top 2% growth despite a $1 trillion stimulus package (after a similarly worthless TARP). So, pardon me if I don’t trust these progressive economic theories that aren’t backed by any actual numbers.

Nominal revenue increases are meaningless in the face of a growing yearly deficit and rising interest rate environment.