Well, guess what? Just 47 weeks after Trump put his flamboyant signature on the bill, it’s all happening.
Unemployment is at an historic low. Employment is at an all-time high. Wagers are growing after years of stagnation.
And now from all that increased economic activity, the federal government has just reported historic record tax revenues in October, the first month of the new fiscal year, of $252,692,000,000.
That’s more than $11.4 billion above revenue for October of last year, which was the previous record tax revenue for an October.
And it did this by collecting more than $3 billion less in personal income taxes, thanks to the tax cuts.
The new revenues were the result of increased business taxes because of increased business. Here’s how much different it was:
Corporation income tax receipts to the U.S. Treasury this year in October were a whopping $8,000,000,000. This compares to the previous October’s $3.8 billion.
And, yes, as a few of us have been saying SPENDING IS STILL THE PROBLEM
US Treasury report for October 2018 shows tax revenues hitting record high.
And, yes, as a few of us have been saying SPENDING IS STILL THE PROBLEM
Clinton is long gone, as is the economy that drove that. IMHO, the more of GDP that stays in the economy rather than going to government - the better; it will be more productive and beneficial in private hands.FWIW: with a higher tax environment under Bill Clinton revenue as a % of GDP hit close to 20%. That's the more important number since, every single year, excepting economic downturns, the government will collect more revenue than the preceding year.
LOL, by reality you mean "MrWonka's weird words". Sorry, I'll stick to the words of economists and financial experts .Whenever you're ready to join reality we'll welcome you back.pe
Not exactly true.MrWonka said:. Tax Revenues are almost always higher.
Sorry, again, no. The boom in employment, wage growth, business expansion (capital expenditures also hit records), etc. wouldn't have happened without lowered tax rates.MrWonka said:So long as the population grows and the GDP grows they should always be higher. The question is are they as high as they would have been without the Tax Cut, and the obvious answer to that is no.
No, we have a deficit because we spend more than we take in, even when we take in RECORD amounts.MrWonka said:Tax Revenues did not increase at the same rate they would have which is why we have a deficit. Quit wasting our time on this lie. Nobody that understands basic math is actually falling for it.
Pure bull****. All you did is regurgitate months-old LW crap that has been discredited completely. IF Clinton had been elected we'd still be limping along at Obama's sub 2% growth and the only revenues increasing would be "donations" to the Clinton Foundation.MrWonka said:If Hillary Clinton was President we'd have the same strong economy, the same economic growth, the same low unemployment rates, but we'd be doing it while generating a surplus. In fact, without this stupid trade war, we might actually have an even stronger economy.
CBO also predicted we'd have a systemic budget surplus during the Obama administration. CBO is far better reporting historical data than predicting future events.As predicted, conservatives again show they don't understand simple math
A few months before they passed, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the government would take in $3.53 trillion in revenues for the fiscal year. On Monday, the Treasury reported that revenue was actually $3.33 trillion for the year — $200 billion short, even though economic growth has outpaced the budget office’s forecasts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/business/trump-tax-cuts-revenue.html
That's not how a deficit works.Whenever you're ready to join reality we'll welcome you back. Tax Revenues are almost always higher. So long as the population grows and the GDP grows they should always be higher. The question is are they as high as they would have been without the Tax Cut, and the obvious answer to that is no. Tax Revenues did not increase at the same rate they would have which is why we have a deficit. Quit wasting our time on this lie. Nobody that understands basic math is actually falling for it.
If Hillary Clinton was President we'd have the same strong economy, the same economic growth, the same low unemployment rates, but we'd be doing it while generating a surplus. In fact, without this stupid trade war, we might actually have an even stronger economy.
Are you saying cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% actually increased corporate tax revenues to the federal government?US Treasury report for October 2018 shows tax revenues hitting record high.
And, yes, as a few of us have been saying SPENDING IS STILL THE PROBLEM
US Treasury report for October 2018 shows tax revenues hitting record high.
And, yes, as a few of us have been saying SPENDING IS STILL THE PROBLEM
I wish you would. They'll tell you the same thing I just did.I'll stick to the words of economists and financial experts.
Absolutely true. Baring a recession, a massive tax cut or the population decreasing it will be true.Not exactly true.
False. The economic boom started long before the tax cuts. 2014, 2015 and 2016 all showed roughly equivalent growth while reducing the deficit before the tax cuts. In fact, some of the best economic years of the Obama administration came after eliminating Bush's tax cuts.Sorry, again, no. The boom in employment, wage growth, business expansion (capital expenditures also hit records), etc. wouldn't have happened without lowered tax rates.
Spending increases every year. It has to because of inflation. That is known and projected. Spending increased in 2014, 2015 and 2016 as well, however, without Tax Cuts, the deficit shrunk.No, we have a deficit because we spend more than we take in, even when we take in RECORD amounts.
Nope. Still True. As long as you keep telling the same lies I don't have to change my rebuttal. I'm still making you look foolish. Try something different next time.All you did is regurgitate months-old LW crap that has been discredited completely.
CBO also predicted we'd have a systemic budget surplus during the Obama administration. CBO is far better reporting historical data than predicting future events.
Well, you've stirred up Vern. I'll leave it to you to decide if that's a good thing or not. In truth, nobody knows Vern's cycles, so it's difficult to assign blame.
oh humbolt, it never gets old when conservatives whine about me instead of addressing the facts I post.
Oh, Vern. I just wish you'd post some facts sometime and learn how to interpret them without getting insulting to others who appear to have a firmer grasp.
Vern, isn't the NYT talking about the 2018 fiscal year in your link?
Bullseye is talking about one month in the new fiscal year in his link from Hotair.
Not the sober ones.I wish you would. They'll tell you the same thing I just did.
Only in WonkaWorldMrWonka said:Absolutely true. Baring a recession, a massive tax cut or the population decreasing it will be true.
Well according to CBO, the deficits increased in each of those years. And, I'd hardly call sub 3.0% gdp growth a "boom".MrWonka said:False. The economic boom started long before the tax cuts. 2014, 2015 and 2016 all showed roughly equivalent growth while reducing the deficit before the tax cuts. In fact, some of the best economic years of the Obama administration came after eliminating Bush's tax cuts.
LOL, I'd love to have spending increase by ONLY the level of inflation. But it doesn't. Congress is in session and spending, spending, spending.MrWonka said:Spending increases every year. It has to because of inflation. That is known and projected. Spending increased in 2014, 2015 and 2016 as well, however, without Tax Cuts, the deficit shrunk.
Nope, still mantras and basic lunacies.MrWonka said:Nope. Still True. As long as you keep telling the same lies I don't have to change my rebuttal. I'm still making you look foolish. Try something different next time.
Yeah, mea culpa. Probably time to let him just fade away.Well, you've stirred up Vern. I'll leave it to you to decide if that's a good thing or not. In truth, nobody knows Vern's cycles, so it's difficult to assign blame.
I think that's what the link says, yeah.Are you saying cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% actually increased corporate tax revenues to the federal government?
I think that's what the link says, yeah.
Projections are essentially wild-ass-guesses based on sets of assumptions that may or may not be accurate. As I mentioned above, at one point in the early 2000's CBO projected continuing surpluses somewhere during the Obama Presidency.Id be interested to know the adjusted for inflation numbers and compare it to the projected revenues at pre tax cut expected GDP growth rate and compare it to now to see the difference. That's the only way to really compare to see if the tax cuts had an effect one way or the other.
Whenever you're ready to join reality we'll welcome you back. Tax Revenues are almost always higher. So long as the population grows and the GDP grows they should always be higher. The question is are they as high as they would have been without the Tax Cut, and the obvious answer to that is no. Tax Revenues did not increase at the same rate they would have which is why we have a deficit. Quit wasting our time on this lie. Nobody that understands basic math is actually falling for it.
If Hillary Clinton was President we'd have the same strong economy, the same economic growth, the same low unemployment rates, but we'd be doing it while generating a surplus. In fact, without this stupid trade war, we might actually have an even stronger economy.
Are you saying cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% actually increased corporate tax revenues to the federal government?
Oh, Vern. I just wish you'd post some facts sometime and learn how to interpret them without getting insulting to others who appear to have a firmer grasp.
Insulting is all Vern's got. He's learned it from many others on the left. It's rule #1, when you've got nothing, insult.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?