• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO: Individual, corporate income tax revenue down

Just stop. You didn't read what was being discussed, you don't know what you walked into, you've misunderstood the entire conversation, now you're acting like a fool. Bow out gracefully.

i see that you can't read your own posts.
no surprise there. yes you should bow out now.

I have proven that your state/federal healthcare system is flawed and doesn't work.

if you like it so much why don't you go on it instead of telling other people too.
give up your private healthcare insurance that you use and go get on the government
healthcare plan.
 
i see that you can't read your own posts.
no surprise there. yes you should bow out now.

I have proven that your state/federal healthcare system is flawed and doesn't work.

if you like it so much why don't you go on it instead of telling other people too.
give up your private healthcare insurance that you use and go get on the government
healthcare plan.

Just stop. This conversation doesn't have anything to with Medicare-for-all, it doesn't have anything to do with Medicaid-for-all, it doesn't even have anything to do with your weird fetish for Singaporean government price controls.
 
Wages were going up because it's a tight job market, not because of tax-cuts. What was the theory of the case for those who believed, or at least claimed to believe, that a cut in corporate taxes would be passed through into wages? The story, as told by people like Kevin Hassett or the Tax Foundation, was that (a) markets for goods and labor are close to perfectly competitive, and (b) America is part of a global capital market that more or less equalizes after-tax rates of return. The idea, then, was that by reducing the rate of taxes on corporate profits, America would attract inflows of capital from the rest of the world. A rising capital stock would drive pre-tax returns on capital down and, by increasing competition for labor, drive wages up. In the long run, they claimed, all the benefits would go to workers. It wasn't going to happen in the short run.

Meanwhile, Tax cut triggers $437 billion explosion of stock buybacks
 
Wages were going up because it's a tight job market, not because of tax-cuts. What was the theory of the case for those who believed, or at least claimed to believe, that a cut in corporate taxes would be passed through into wages? The story, as told by people like Kevin Hassett or the Tax Foundation, was that (a) markets for goods and labor are close to perfectly competitive, and (b) America is part of a global capital market that more or less equalizes after-tax rates of return. The idea, then, was that by reducing the rate of taxes on corporate profits, America would attract inflows of capital from the rest of the world. A rising capital stock would drive pre-tax returns on capital down and, by increasing competition for labor, drive wages up. In the long run, they claimed, all the benefits would go to workers. It wasn't going to happen in the short run.

Meanwhile, Tax cut triggers $437 billion explosion of stock buybacks

You keep running when challenged as to how that affects you, your family, or the country? One of these days you are going to get tired of looking foolish and running when challenged. Stock buybacks help shareholders and create long term benefits for the company that actually employs people which I know isn't a concept you understand

On every economic issue you are against the private sector and pro big gov't. Why is that? What is your role in the gov't?
 
It really pains me to see any right winger/Republican clinging to the ridiculous fantasy that a cut in tax rates will result in the collection of more revenues than if the rates that had not been cut. Yes, that theoretically can happen at high rates but not at the rates we are seeing now. There are arguments for a tax cut but bumping up federal revenues is certainly not one of them

Then how do you explain Treasury data showing increases in all REVENUE STREAMS other than CORPORATE TAXES? A better question is why is the growth in federal revenue so important to you as a conservative? Seems that people keeping more of what they earn and state/local gov't getting record sales and property tax revenue along with record charitable giving requires less of that so called federal help the left wants to promote.
 
CBO's latest Monthy Budget Review is out and the data for the first quarter of FY2019 are in.

In the first quarter of FY2019, relative to the first quarter of FY2018 (i.e., the last quarter prior to passage and implementation of the tax cuts):



Overall revenues are being propped up right now by tariff revenues and an ACA tax on health insurers.



Meanwhile, in other news, nominal Medicare spending growth over that period was 1.7%. For context, if 10,000 Boomers are aging in daily, enrollment growth alone was likely 6-7%. That's pretty incredible.

Ah, yes! It's coming to me now. Where have I seen this before. $1 trillion+ deficit and revenues dropping? Sears, KMart, WTGrant, Hostess, ToysRus, and fill in the blanks to suit yourself. Not to worry, we are led by a past Master of bankruptcy, ergo, it must be profitable. I'd better start spending that forthcoming wealth, or not? The less than honorable Dr. Justin O. Peewillie says it's all about confidence so concerns about negative impacts on our economic future are unwarranted and you should stay the course, at least until he has converted his assets to a more tangible type. The touchy, feely type and in his case precious metals and whorehouses. Just basic necessities, don't ya' know?
/
 
Last edited:
You keep running when challenged as to how that affects you, your family, or the country? One of these days you are going to get tired of looking foolish and running when challenged. Stock buybacks help shareholders and create long term benefits for the company that actually employs people which I know isn't a concept you understand

On every economic issue you are against the private sector and pro big gov't. Why is that? What is your role in the gov't?
Man. You must be senile. You repeatedly ask the same questions and repeatedly get the same answers -- and then ask the same question again.
 
Man. You must be senile. You repeatedly ask the same questions and repeatedly get the same answers -- and then ask the same question again.
Then you shouldn't have a problem giving me the post number where you actually answered the question

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Corporates buyback their own stock at the time. This would have happened with or without a tax reduction. When Corporations have more excess cash, the only thing you can do is buyback stock...

This is especially true if you want to maintain your capital structure. You're bitching about a non-issue.

Hedge, I was going to explain to you that if the buybacks were going to happen with or without a tax cut, as you said, it means that corporations had excess cash, as you said. which means they didn't need a tax cut. But then I read this.
The purpose of fiscal stimulus is to increase deficits.

which only proves that you have no grasp or knowledge of economics. So I decided not to.
 
Hedge, I was going to explain to you that if the buybacks were going to happen with or without a tax cut, as you said, it means that corporations had excess cash, as you said. which means they didn't need a tax cut. But then I read this.


which only proves that you have no grasp or knowledge of economics. So I decided not to.

Have to keep fueling the federal bureaucratic beast, right, Vern? Corporations that actually hire people are certainly a problem for you. The one who has zero knowledge of economics is you as you prove over and over again. Corporate taxes are paid by consumers and drives up prices, stock buybacks benefit shareholders and increases company value preparing them for the next Democratic Administration and punishment for their success
 
No, sorry that is a lie, corporate taxes are down but so what??? they paid out more in bonuses, pay increases, and benefit enhancements reducing taxable income Treasury data shows FIT revenue is up. I suggest a review of the treasury data not CBO and by the way we are talking the entire fiscal year not just one month.

Again I will ask you the same question, SO WHAT if FIT Revenue(which it isn't) is down, people with more spendable income need less of that govt. help and the increases in Sales Tax revenue gives states more revenue to provide for the social services

The CBO is literally quoting treasury data...
 
The CBO is literally quoting treasury data...

CBO makes projections and then revises their projections on treasury data and those projections aren't based upon treasury data they are based upon the information they get from Congress
 
CBO makes projections and then revises their projections on treasury data and those projections aren't based upon treasury data they are based upon the information they get from Congress
Open the link from the OP. If you actually read it, you will find the following:

"Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Department of the Treasury. Based on the Monthly Treasury
Statement for November 2018 and the Daily Treasury Statements for December 2018."

We're done with this silly argument of yours.
 
CBO makes projections and then revises their projections on treasury data and those projections aren't based upon treasury data they are based upon the information they get from Congress

The Monthly Budget Reviews are not projections.
 
The Monthly Budget Reviews are not projections.
What does that have to do with my post? Monthly budget reviews don't generate yearly deficits and will fluctuate up and down but you have a serious problem simply because it's Trump

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Open the link from the OP. If you actually read it, you will find the following:

"Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Department of the Treasury. Based on the Monthly Treasury
Statement for November 2018 and the Daily Treasury Statements for December 2018."

We're done with this silly argument of yours.
You obviously don't understand that the fiscal year the United States runs from October to September so monthly reports are basically meaningless and are going to fluctuate up and down the entire year. What matters are the numbers at the end of September 2019. Now if you truly cared about the deficit you would support the 2019 budget proposed by Trump but the reality is you hate Trump so badly that you are blinded by that hatred

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
You obviously don't understand that the fiscal year the United States runs from October to September so monthly reports are basically meaningless and are going to fluctuate up and down the entire year. What matters are the numbers at the end of September 2019. Now if you truly cared about the deficit you would support the 2019 budget proposed by Trump but the reality is you hate Trump so badly that you are blinded by that hatred

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I do understand how the fiscal year works. That doesn't make monthly reports meaningless. If periodic reports were meaningless, there wouldn't be so much fuss about quarterly earnings reports for companies. After all, it's just the full year that matters, right? Please.

As for Trump's 2019 Budget, it has a nearly $1 Trillion deficit. That is nearly unheard of in times of economic growth. Did you even review Trump's budget?
 
I do understand how the fiscal year works. That doesn't make monthly reports meaningless. If periodic reports were meaningless, there wouldn't be so much fuss about quarterly earnings reports for companies. After all, it's just the full year that matters, right? Please.

As for Trump's 2019 Budget, it has a nearly $1 Trillion deficit. That is nearly unheard of in times of economic growth. Did you even review Trump's budget?

Yes, it pretty much does and there IS NO TRUMP BUDGET approved and if you bothered to go to Sect. 8.8 you would see discretionary spending PLUS 32 billion dollars more than offset by Revenue growth but you are way too quick to blame the President for a process you don't understand
 
Yes, it pretty much does and there IS NO TRUMP BUDGET approved and if you bothered to go to Sect. 8.8 you would see discretionary spending PLUS 32 billion dollars more than offset by Revenue growth but you are way too quick to blame the President for a process you don't understand
I didn't say Trump's budget was approved. You brought up Trump's budget as something a person concerned about deficits should support for approval. I am simply pointing out that Trump's budget itself states it has a nearly $1 trillion dollar deficit for 2019. So no, people concerned about deficits should not support it.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say Trump's budget was approved. You brought up Trump's budget as something a person concerned about deficits should support for approval. I am simply pointing out that Trump's budget itself states it has a nearly $1 trillion dollar deficit for 2019. So no, people concerned about deficits should not support it.
Please learn the line items in the budget and understand we need entitlement reform

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Please learn the line items in the budget and understand we need entitlement reform

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Trump's budget itself proposed for FY 2019 includes a nearly $1 trillion dollar deficit. So no, people concerned about deficits should not support it. You probably thought Trump's budget was balanced because of his rhetoric, but it isn't. Sorry, you're just wrong.
 
Trump's budget itself proposed for FY 2019 includes a nearly $1 trillion dollar deficit. So no, people concerned about deficits should not support it. You probably thought Trump's budget was balanced because of his rhetoric, but it isn't. Sorry, you're just wrong.
What part of the budget does he control

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
CBO's latest Monthy Budget Review is out and the data for the first quarter of FY2019 are in.

In the first quarter of FY2019, relative to the first quarter of FY2018 (i.e., the last quarter prior to passage and implementation of the tax cuts):



Overall revenues are being propped up right now by tariff revenues and an ACA tax on health insurers.



Meanwhile, in other news, nominal Medicare spending growth over that period was 1.7%. For context, if 10,000 Boomers are aging in daily, enrollment growth alone was likely 6-7%. That's pretty incredible.

Gee, I'll bet this graph continues it's upward trend since 2016. Business as usual - REPUBLICANS = HIGHER DEFICITS!

US_federaldeficit.png

And I'll reply to Conservative's reply in advance - Obama was the victim of the worst presidential pass-on since the Great Depression. That's why his first two years had high deficits - after that, the deficit went down rapidly almost every year.
 
Are you suggesting Trump had no input into his own budget proposal?

He certainly does, give him his budget then hold him accountable. Failure to give the President a budget and then blame him for the deficits is nothing but radical liberalism as if the liberals really do care about the deficit. We had a Gov't shutdown because of no budget and blame against Trump with no budget, you don't see a problem with that ?
 
Back
Top Bottom