Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut

[LV426]

States have to have balanced budgets and must cut programs if revenue declines.

OR they can raise revenues.

So...Kansas decided to cut programs, and the net effect of that was tuition increases that forced students and their families to borrow more.

So tax cuts caused more debt.

The federal government just borrows more and does not cut social programs when tax cuts occurs.

What social programs do you want to cut? Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you still end up with a deficit larger than the lowest one Obama had.

So you're still running deficits and still creating debt even if you cut all discretionary spending.

So the problem is clearly on the revenue side, not the spending side.

You even said yesterday that tax cuts create debt!

The last two budgets have included large spending increases.

Nonsense.

The most recent budget is only $60B more than what it was the prior year.

That is a 2% increase, yet the deficit increased 17% last year, and 25% the year before.

That $60B number is interesting because it is also the amount by which tax revenue declined in 2018 vs. 2017.

I pointed that out the last time you used that same example, but you refuse to acknowledge facts that don't fit your preconceived ideological beliefs.

1. No you didn't.

2. Pointing out that Kansas has a BBA doesn't add anything to the fact that they cut education spending because of the deficit caused by the tax cuts, which forced more debt on consumers.

 

[LV426]

In Kansas. Learn the difference between federal and state governments.

What difference does it make?

Your philosophy about cutting taxes lets people keep more of what they earn only applies to the federal government and not an individual state? How so?

 

[LV426]

Or, it might be because tax cuts are usually imposed as a stimulus when the economy is down.

Ah, so a goalpost shift.

Why did Obama cut payroll taxes and did that increase debt and decrease savings?

Obama cut payroll taxes because Conservatives refused to do any stimulus that involved government spending.

And Obama's payroll tax cut was temporary, your Russia Tax Cut is permanent for the wealthy and corporations.

 

[Flash]

This sounds like bullshit.

Cite your source.

You just don't like it because it does not attack the wealthy like you are programmed to do with a kneejerk reaction.

The New York Times

“This group is key because the top 5 percent of income earners accounts for about one-third of spending, and the top 20 percent accounts for close to 60 percent of spending,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “That was key to why we suffered such a bad recession — their spending fell very sharply.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/sales-of-luxury-goods-are-recovering-strongly.html?_r=0

 

[Flash]

What difference does it make?

Your philosophy about cutting taxes lets people keep more of what they earn only applies to the federal government and not an individual state? How so?

No, your made-up explanation that increases in debt and decreases in spending are caused by tax cuts because they are accompanied by spending cuts to social programs only applies to the federal government because they just borrow more and do not cut programs like many states are forced to do because their constitutions require balanced budgets.

 

[Flash]

Ah, so a goalpost shift.

Obama cut payroll taxes because Conservatives refused to do any stimulus that involved government spending.

And Obama's payroll tax cut was temporary, your Russia Tax Cut is permanent for the wealthy and corporations.

There was no shift. That quote was from the original post. You just read everything as absolutes.


Congress passed a $700+ billion stimulus that involved government spending. A lot of that went to consulting firms hired to tell them how to spend the money. Don't you remember the "shovel ready jobs" that never existed?

Why did Russia want a tax cut? It wasn't "my" tax cut--I opposed it without offsetting spending cuts (for the 20th time).

I assume you opposed Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts since they increase debt and decrease savings?

 

[LV426]

You just don't like it because it does not attack the wealthy like you are programmed to do with a kneejerk reaction.

Because you're moving the goalposts on "wealthy" to include anyone in the top 20 percentile.

BTW - top 20 percentile starts at $80K.

That's not even the top tax bracket.

It's not even the second highest tax bracket.

It's actually the third lowest tax bracket.

This is what I mean when I say you argue in bad faith.

 

[LV426]

No, your made-up explanation that increases in debt and decreases in spending are caused by tax cuts because they are accompanied by spending cuts to social programs only applies to the federal government because they just borrow more and do not cut programs like many states are forced to do because their constitutions require balanced budgets.

You haven't explained the distinction between a state "letting you keep more of what you earned" and the federal government "letting you keep more of what you earned".

Your philosophy is simply "letting people keep more of what they earned"...so why does it matter if it's a state or the feds?

spending cuts to social programs only applies to the federal government

So now what you're doing is adding in a whole bunch of qualifiers to fix your argument post-hoc. But the same question remains; cutting taxes always results in more deficit and debt. That's what the data shows, Flash. So fundamentally, if you're going into debt, you're not keeping more of what you earn, are you?

At the end of the day, if you are going into debt after "keeping more of what you earned", you aren't actually keeping more of what you earned at all.

 

[LV426]

No, your made-up explanation that increases in debt and decreases in spending are caused by tax cuts because they are accompanied by spending cuts to social programs only applies to the federal government because they just borrow more and do not cut programs like many states are forced to do because their constitutions require balanced budgets.

Then explain why every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years, personal savings declines and household debt increases.

If you kept more of what you earned, both those things should go in the opposite direction, right?

 

[LV426]

There was no shift. That quote was from the original post. You just read everything as absolutes.

Dude...YOU SHIFTED THE GOALPOST.

Congress passed a $700+ billion stimulus that involved government spending

How much of that $700B was actual government spending? Only $135B. Everything else was aid to the states and tax cuts.

A lot of that went to consulting firms hired to tell them how to spend the money.

No it didn't.

A plurality of it were tax cuts, followed by state aid, followed by direct federal spending.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Why did Russia want a tax cut? It wasn't "my" tax cut--I opposed it without offsetting spending cuts (for the 20th time).

Spending cuts have nothing to do with the effectiveness of tax cuts.

I assume you opposed Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts since they increase debt and decrease savings?

Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone except the rich.

Those are deficit neutral.

The Russia Tax Cut you support is not deficit neutral because it's weighted at the top and among corporations.

 

[Flash]

Because you're moving the goalposts on "wealthy" to include anyone in the top 20 percentile.

I did not move any goalpost because I simply said the "wealthy" are responsible for 60% of spending. I did not attempt to define who is included.

I notice you are again diverting from the topic of who accounts for the most consumer spending. The article also says the top 5% accounts for one-third of consumer spending. Are they "the wealthy."

When facts prove you are wrong you shift to another argument or revert to trivial differences. If I had said the top 5% account for one-third of consumer spending you would also have said "bullshit" and asked for a source. Then, when I provided it, you would have found something else to dispute.

I notice you still have not admitted consumer spending and disposable income has been increasing even after the tax cut--because that shoots down your claim that tax cuts do not give taxpayers more money to spend.

 

[LV426]

I did not move any goalpost because I simply said the "wealthy" are responsible for 60% of spending. I did not attempt to define who is included.

Exactly. You didn't define it so you could shift the goalposts later on.

Total bad faith move.

I wouldn't consider someone making $80K "wealthy"...certainly wouldn't group someone making $80K with Lebron James, would you?????

BTw - average median household income in the country is $71K.

So I guess the average median household income is "wealthy"-adjacent?

 

[Flash]

The Russia Tax Cut you support is not deficit neutral because it's weighted at the top and among corporations.

Tax cuts have to go to those at the top--that is who pays most federal income taxes. The bottom 40% pay -106% in federal income taxes--you can't cut them.

Where do you think corporations get the money to pay their taxes?

Why does Russia want a tax cut for the U. S.?

 

[LV426]

I notice you are again diverting from the topic of who accounts for the most consumer spending. The article also says the top 5% accounts for one-third of consumer spending. Are they "the wealthy."

Yes, top 5% would be wealthy.

And while they account for 1/3 of consumer spending, what is their share of the income gains?

If it's more than 1/3, then what does that mean?

Have you done this homework? Of course not. You just post things to try to elicit an emotional reaction out of people while planting soft goalposts that you shift and move.

 

[LV426]

When facts prove you are wrong you shift to another argument or revert to trivial differences. If I had said the top 5% account for one-third of consumer spending you would also have said "bullshit" and asked for a source. Then, when I provided it, you would have found something else to dispute.

So you shifted your definition of wealthy from the top 20% to the top 5%.

So that's a goalpost shift.

So, OK...so if the top 5% account for 33% of consumer spending, what % of income are they also taking?

If the share of income is higher than the amount they're spending as consumers, what does that mean?

This is why critical thinking skills are so important.

 

[Flash]

Exactly. You didn't define it so you could shift the goalposts later on.

Total bad faith move.

I wouldn't consider someone making $80K "wealthy"...certainly wouldn't group someone making $80K with Lebron James, would you?????

BTw - average median household income in the country is $71K.

So I guess the average median household income is "wealthy"-adjacent?

You don't think those in the top 5% are wealthy or you don't think one-third of consumer spending is significant? You avoid the main point that the wealthy are responsible for a lot of consumer spending.

 

[LV426]

I notice you still have not admitted consumer spending and disposable income has been increasing even after the tax cut--because that shoots down your claim that tax cuts do not give taxpayers more money to spend.

Well, no, you are the one who posted numbers in a vacuum without proper context.

And you didn't even post the numbers from 2018 alongside 2016 and 2017 which were still under Obama's tax rates.

This was you, wasn't it, who posted this:

Consumer Spending (percent change)
2016: 2.4%
2017: 4.8%

How can you say tax cuts continued the increase in consumer spending when the tax cut didn't even start until 2018?

You do that all the time; you post things outside of context so we have no frame of reference if what you're posting is "good", "bad" or somewhere in the middle.

Sloppy, sloppy work.

Then you post this shit, again, unsourced and without any context for comparison so what am I supposed to take away from this? And those personal consumption expenditure numbers seem awfully low...one of them is even negative! And where's January? Why are you leaving information out and not even providing the links?

Your activity on this thread is the best example of bad faith anyone could hope to find.

Disposable Income (increase from previous month)
Feb/2019: .05
Mar/2019: 0.4
Apr/2019: 0.4
May/2019: .03
Jun/2019: 0.4 ($69.7 billion for June)

Personal Consumption Expenditure
Feb: -0.1
Mar: 1.0
Apr: 0.6
May: 0.5
Jun: 0.3 ($41 billion for June)

 

[LV426]

Tax cuts have to go to those at the top--that is who pays most federal income taxes.

But wait - they are the ones taking most of the income gains, though.

The bottom 40% pay -106% in federal income taxes--you can't cut them.

Because you already did. You've already cut their taxes. You're the ones who did that, remember?

So you cut taxes, which increases the tax burden on the wealthy, and then you complain that people don't pay enough in taxes, so your solution is to...cut taxes?

What a dumbass.

Where do you think corporations get the money to pay their taxes?

Many corporations don't pay taxes...like Apple and Netflix and Exxon.

Why does Russia want a tax cut for the U. S.?

For one, to walk away with more money from their operations in places like Kentucky, where Conservatives like you are welcoming them in with open arms.

They also wanted the tax cut to destabilize our budget, increase our deficit, and provide peacocks like you with the justification you need to further attack the social institutions in this country to which you are fundamentally opposed.

 

[LV426]

You don't think those in the top 5% are wealthy

Hold on, Flash. You said that the top 20% was wealthy. That's what you were arguing. If you're moving that to the top 5% now, fine, we can talk about them.

I'm not entirely sure if the top 5% is "wealthy" because it starts at income in the $230K range, but goes all the way up to Lebron James and his $35M a year. This is why I support adding in another bracket, probably in the $1M range, and setting the rate at that bracket at 70%. In fact, that's what Sanders, Warren, AOC, and other Dems have proposed.

you don't think one-third of consumer spending is significant?

It depends on how much income that top 5% is taking from the pie as a whole. And raising taxes on the wealthy is going to result in them spending less, how? What do you mean? Fewer foreign-made boats? Fewer car elevators? What consumer spending are we talking about?

Starting to realize "consumer spending" is another goalpost you're shifting to mean...what?

You avoid the main point that the wealthy are responsible for a lot of consumer spending.

And there's no evidence that raising their taxes will result in them spending any less, since wealthy people existed and consumed in this country during periods where the top tax rate was 70-90%.

Was there no consumer spending from 1947-1980 because the wealthy had higher taxes?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

I don't accept your belief that this waste does not matter because it adds to the GDP. Keeping taxes lower and letting American workers choose how to spend that money also adds to the GDP but in a way that helps them.

But in a way which still results in a lower GDP.

We don't collect enough revenue because we spend too much. Look at the history of spending and revenues and you can see that spending increased faster than revenues

I look fondly at the time in history when the deficit was completely eliminated and we had a surplus. And at that moment, your argument was rendered moot.

When so much of that spending is unnecessary and unproductive we could make big cuts without hurting anybody that needs it.

Except everybody who would get laid off as a result of those cuts. All their spending would be subtracted from the GDP, and so would the revenue generated from them paying income tax.

Government funding often rewards more spending and punishes saving--doing nothing to make the country great.

All of those functions provide some part of what makes America great. We study, we learn, we regulate, we manage our society to make American lives better. It would be absurd to expect each measure to benefit each American, but the overall effect is positive.

I certainly agree about Trump, his spending is irresponsible but illustrates what I have been saying. Those spending increases helped him get members of Congress to support those spending bills. Give them some money for their district or state and they will support anything.

Then end earmarks.

If a member wants some project for their district the others don't question that project because they don't want their projects questioned. The surest way to get a new weapons system passed is to have parts of it made in 435 different congressional districts.

Agreed so let's find a way to address that problem besides causing a recession with an approach that is like trying to kill mosquitoes in the glass shop with a sledge hammer.