The richest 1% of taxpayers will get an average tax cut of $50,000 in 2020 from the Trump-GOP tax cuts. That’s over 75 times more than the tax cut for the bottom 80% of taxpayers, which will average $645.
The Trump Tax Cut of 2017 primarily benefited Corporations and the Wealthy
Posts
Total:
84
Thankfully, the Congress reissued taxation on the producers of America during a recession. Because Congress loves them a good recession.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Firstly, $645 isn't exactly a fortune, but I've never heard anyone complain about getting an extra $645. So while it benefited the rich, it also benefited the poor. Secondly, as a math nerd, the methodology that website uses is truly appalling. They're comparing absolute dollar amounts to determine the fairness of percentage cuts. That's apples and oranges. If everyone's taxes get cut by 1%, and I make $100,000 and Jeff Bezos makes $1 billion, my taxes will be cut by $1000 and Bezos's taxes by $10 million. It's the exact same percentage, so it's perfectly fair, but comparing absolute amounts makes it appear unfair even though it isn't. Now, there might be a sound argument that the tax cut benefited the rich more than the poor. However, the argument that website presents isn't it. Their argument is a violation of basic mathematics.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Also if you claim flat percentage taxcuts benefit the wealthy more, then you have to admit flat percentage tax increases do the exact opposite, hurt the rich more.
But we don't talk about that.
-->
@Greyparrot
True, but math is hard, and partisan narratives are easy.
Thankfully, the Congress reissued taxation on the producers of America during a recession. Because Congress loves them a good recession.
What recession you jackass? The 3rd quarter had 2.3% GDP growth and
The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the fourth quarter of 2022 is 4.3 percent on November 23, up from 4.2 percent on November 17.
-->
@SirAnonymous
It's the exact same percentage so it's perfectly fair, but comparing absolute amounts makes it appear unfair even though it isn't.
As Robert Kiyasoki wrote in his book, you don’t put percentages in your pocket, you put dollars.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Firstly, $645 isn't exactly a fortune, but I've never heard anyone complain about getting an extra $645.
To exchange $645 for a trillion dollar deficit is foolish for any middle class household. When the government is broke it has two choices. It can either cut services or increase debt. Either choice will hurt the middle class.
The 3rd quarter had 2.3% GDP growth
Hate to bust your bubble, but Ponzi schemes such as government spending money they freshly printed and called it "gdp" isn't actual growth. Every economist knows we are headed for a hard fall.
That's what happens when you wage a war with producers.
It can either cut services or increase debt. Either choice will hurt the middle class.
Government services are mostly self serving. Most people don't work for the government and are actually productive with their time and energy.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
As Robert Kiyasoki wrote in his book, you don’t put percentages in your pocket, you put dollars.
True, but it has nothing to do with my point.
To exchange $645 for a trillion dollar deficit is foolish for any middle class household.
The tax cut was not the cause of the trillion dollar deficit. While it added to the deficit, it was far from the main cause.
When the government is broke it has two choices. It can either cut services or increase debt. Either choice will hurt the middle class.
It can also raise taxes. However, you are correct that all the available choices will hurt the middle class, as well as the lower and upper classes. The only long term solutions are massive tax increases or massive spending cuts, neither of which will happen (at least not on the required scale). So on we go adding trillions of dollars to the debt and pretending that it will never come back to bite us. I don't know how it will end, but it won't be pretty.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Jerome Powell confirmed he is willing to trade a recession for a reduction in inflation.
“Reducing inflation is likely to require a sustained period of below-trend growth,” said Powell in a highly anticipated speech at this year’s Jackson Hole economic policy symposium on Friday.
“While higher interest rates slower growth and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation,” he added. “They will also bring some pain to households and businesses. These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation, but a failure to restore price stability would mean for greater pain.”
-->
@SirAnonymous
True, but math is hard, and partisan narratives are easy.
No, not true. Because the 2017 Tax Law was not anywhere near a flat tax cut.
They cut the tax brackets from 6 to 3 - the top tax bracket got the biggest cut eliminating the 39.6 bracket
They gave enormous tax deductions to pass through income benefiting millionaire and billionaire business owners.
They limited the deduction for state and local taxes to $10,000. A deliberate attack on Blue state taxpayers. In California a basic 1500 sqft ranch home costs over I million dollars and comes with a 10,000 property tax payment. That means all your state income tax is not deductible.
The eliminated personal exemptions - that’s $4400 per person in a family. So if you have just one kid, the doubling of the standard deduction was completely wiped out by the loss of personal exemptions.
They eliminated all work related deductions including the paying of union dues
The biggest tax cut went to C corporations cutting the rate from 35 to 21%
The Tax law was a windfall for corporations and wealthy people. Modest income homes got a small tax cut. Everyone else got squat or a tax increase.
-->
@SirAnonymous
The tax cut was not the cause of the trillion dollar deficit. While it added to the deficit, it was far from the main cause.
Oh, Trump had a trillion dollar deficit long before anyone ever heard the word Covid. So what caused his massive deficit?
-->
@SirAnonymous
It can also raise taxes.
We are talking about the 2017 Tax Law and how it’s cuts for corporations and the wealthy caused the deficit to top 1 trillion.
Your answer to cutting taxes is to raise taxes. The would suggest the 2017 Tax Law was stupid.
Hate to bust your bubble, but Ponzi schemes such as government spending money they freshly printed and called it "gdp" isn't actual growth. Every economist knows we are headed for a hard fall.
A Ponzi scheme is when someone pays an early investor with funds from a later investor. How is government spending a Ponzi scheme exactly?
-->
@SirAnonymous
So on we go adding trillions of dollars to the debt and pretending that it will never come back to bite us. I don't know how it will end, but it won't be pretty.
We had a balanced budget under Clinton. It can be done.
How is government spending a Ponzi scheme exactly?
When it prints the money it spends. There is no value added, no production but what is on paper.
We had a balanced budget under Clinton. It can be done.
So a GOP controlled Congress with a Democrat president. Ok.
We almost had that this year guess we have to wait a while.
When it prints the money it spends. There is no value added, no production but what is on paper.
Ya, Ponzi schemes don’t print money. And before the government prints money, it sells Treasury bills to investors.
So a GOP controlled Congress with a Democrat president.
Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law on August 10, 1993. The law created a 36 percent to 39.6 percent income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners. Businesses were given an income tax rate of 35%. The cap was repealed on Medicare.
Clinton also deregulated the finance industry (both tacit and overt through the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) and was a contributing factor to the Great Recession. That’s what happens when you embrace Republican ideas.
In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation (the final, signed version was known as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993) that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[6]
Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.
You are such a dummy GP. Just clueless
Ya, Ponzi schemes don’t print money.
No, they just add value on paper with nothing to back it up with but good faith.
But what do you expect when you put unaccountable people in charge of everything.
You are such a dummy GP. Just clueless
Just pointing out you praised Clinton's performance with a GOP controlled Congress.
After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[8]The budget package expanded the earned income tax credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in savings for 15 million low-income families.
Just pointing out you praised Clinton's performance with a GOP controlled Congress.
The GOP did not help pass this successful bill. They opposed it. They repealed the tax increases on the wealthy in 2017 and blew up the budget
Just saying, you loved the period with a Democrat president and a GOP Congress. I liked that time as well. Government was forced to behave.
Clinton took office in 1993 with a Democrat House and Senate. The Omnibus Bill they passed over Republican opposition in 1994 set the stage for budget surpluses in FY 1998-2001
Non-defense discretionary spending fell from 3.6% GDP in 1993 to 3.2% GDP by 2000 but In dollar terms, it grew from $248B in 1993 to $343B in 2000; robust economic growth still enabled the ratio to fall relative to GDP.[1]
These surpluses 1998-2001 were attributed to a strong economy generating high tax revenues, tax increases on upper-income taxpayers, spending restraint, and capital gains tax revenue from a stock market boom.[13].
You could give a tiny amount of credit to Republicans for the tiny amount of spending restraint they pushed for, but Republicans are only interested in spending restraint when there is a Democrat in the White House.
Just saying, you loved the period with a Democrat president and a GOP Congress. I liked that time as well. Government was forced to behave.
Republicans have mostly bad ideas. (like ending Glass-Steagle) They are focused on making rich people richer. That’s their priority.
They are focused on making rich people richer. That’s their priority.
Good.
Productive people should be rewarded instead of lazyass socialists. A lesson people will learn after this upcoming massive recession is over.
Good.Productive people should be rewarded instead of lazyass socialists. A lesson people will learn after this upcoming massive recession is over.
all the biggest recessions in this country have been ushered in by Republican Administrations
The Hoover Depression
The Reagan recession
The Great Bush recession
The Trump Covid recession
A guy like you would have no chance without government. You would starve.