Superfreak
Verified User
The number you seem to ignore is the tripling of student debt... Why is that happening?
Also, the CBO is notorious for being wrong. They always hammer supply side and sugar coat Keynesian economics.
"Sanders is right: Republican tax cuts cost more than forgiving student debt"
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
The number you seem to ignore is the tripling of student debt... Why is that happening?
Also, the CBO is notorious for being wrong. They always hammer supply side and sugar coat Keynesian economics.
Depends on the change.
But most support not expanding them. Especially extending them to those who have not contributed.
There's your start.
cawacko
Well-known member
Even at the status quo they are unsustainable. That's the problem. We won't address the status quo.
Yes they did exist before Trump but Trump has cemented the polarization making any cooperation on anything impossible. Reagan and O'Niel accomplish some change, it can be done with the right leaders in the correct circumstances
And Ryan's plan was inane, going to vouchers in the end would have cost more. But don't give up on Paul, ultimately, I believe he was so happy with the tax cut because he knew down the road it will add so much to the debt that eventually entitlements will have to be cut, kinda like a time bomb hidden in the sugar
Yes. And for the same reasons. Congress kept giving it out free to buy votes.
Now that elections are about nothing but vote buying its a tough sell to do the right thing.
Trump and the right are taking credit for the slowly improving wages of the lower class caused by many states increasing the minimum wage. Trump and the reds are dead against elevating the min. wage but happy to take credit for it.
Because of for-profit higher education and no free public alternative.
You're confusing the CBO with the GOP.
Becuase there exists not one shred of evidence supply side voodoo economics has achieved anything other than transferring wealth to the top 1%.
NOT. ONE. SHRED.
You couldn't even hit 3% growth last year, after promising at least that.
Only morons easily conned by reality TV show hosts would buy into supply side bullshit.
Getin the ring
Verified User
my taxes were 2400.oo lower this year, which I used to purchase new furniture, furniture that was manufactured in North Carolina.
if you have any more stupid comments or questions, I'll be here for you
you friggin fruitcake
Getin the ring
Verified User
why is it a liberal will start a thread trying to compare me being able to keep more of my money to you taking more of my money and paying for someone elses education with it
and tell us again why your side is losing so much lately
and tell us again why your side is losing so much lately
Because there's no way you can confirm or verify that you benefited from the tax cut without revealing personal information about yourself.
Information you can safely assume I will use against you later on.
If a tax cut "lets you keep more of what you earn", how come household debt skyrockets after every tax cut and personal savings decreases?
Because you have no fiscal or economic argument to make in favor of shitty voodoo economics, you seek to make the debate an emotional one.
But more of the middle class has moved into higher brackets--that is why the middle class is "shrinking."
The brackets are adjusted for inflation. It is not due to tax cuts but increased income.
The middle class declined by 11% and 7% of that was due to moving into higher brackets [IRS]. Of course, that is determined by how we measure middle class. Data that divide the population into quintiles will always maintain the same number of people in each one.
Right, but the increase in income for those folks is much, much less than that for those above them, and is consistent with income growth below them (stagnant).
Wouldn't some have also moved into the lower bracket too? If the period of time you're looking at is over the last two decades, we went through 2 Conservative recessions which would have definitely affected income.
Yes, of course...because, math.
A better way to look at it would be by income, rather than percentile. So in 2000, $57K/yr put you in what percentile vs. $57K in 2019?
You are using calendar year. Government budgets use fiscal year. If you use fiscal year you will find 2018 revenue was higher.
"In 2018, the government’s revenues amounted to $3.3 trillion—$14 billion (or less than 1 percent) more than in 2017." [CBO]
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54647
The Russia Tax Cut didn't start on the Fiscal Year, it started on 1/1/18.
Sure, but we are talking about gains from middle class Americans. We know upper income earners are increasing their wealth, but so is middle America. Those with more will always increase more because of---math. 5% gain on $5 million is more than 5% gain on $100,000.
If you look at the IRS mobility studies, some people move to higher brackets, some to lower brackets, and some stay the same. The good thing is that over a 10year period half of those in the lowest bracket have moved upward. Only 25% of those in the highest income remained at that level.
The income thing would need to adjust for inflation. $57,000 in 2000 is different than 2019.