Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money

[jaeger19]

Have you been so throughly indoctrinated that you are unable to recognize me as a moderate with both liberal and conservative politics? Or do your talking points only work against liberals so you use what you have? Either way, I feel I’ve been fairly successful at demonstrating the faults and shifting poles of your narrative. I though have remained steady in my allegiance to the Constitution. I pray that tensions in our current political environment ease, for I fear one day it may lead to taking up arms. And believe me, you don’t want to be on the business end of my rifle. Good day friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually neither. When he gets stumped.. he then accuses anyone that has defeated his ideology as a liberal.

Often when his views are actually more liberal.

 

[Port & Starboard]

[h=1]Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money[/h]
Call me not-surprised. The advocates of tax-cuts said that miracles will happen if we passed this. Well, the miracles didn't happen.

Just goes to show how biased & dishonest you are with everything you post on here.

You are such a great team player.

Cherry picking instead of looking at the pro's and con's seriously.

I can cut and paste a hundred positive articles relating to the tax cuts.

Trump tax cuts and the middle class: Here are the facts | Fox Business

Access to this page has been denied.

I can post some negative articles as well.

 

[Conservative]

Actually neither. When he gets stumped.. he then accuses anyone that has defeated his ideology as a liberal.

Often when his views are actually more liberal.

Stumped? LOL, please stop acting like a liberal and realize the true role of the Federal gov't and who is actually paying FIT and stop with the class envy and entitlement mentality

 

[Media_Truth]

Just goes to show how biased & dishonest you are with everything you post on here.

You are such a great team player.

Cherry picking instead of looking at the pro's and con's seriously.

I can cut and paste a hundred positive articles relating to the tax cuts.

Trump tax cuts and the middle class: Here are the facts | Fox Business

Access to this page has been denied.

I can post some negative articles as well.

Let's analyze the Corporate Tax Cuts. Who primarily gained from them ---> billionaires!

 

[Conservative]

Let's analyze the Corporate Tax Cuts. Who primarily gained from them ---> billionaires!

View attachment 67259265

Since the top pays most of the Federal Income Taxes and the bottom pays little if any who would those tax cuts benefit? How do you give a FIT cut to people who don't pay FIT? You cannot seem to see how foolish your argument is as it is the same tired old left wing talking points over and over again. Please learn the taxes you pay and their purpose.

 

[MTAtech]

Since the top pays most of the Federal Income Taxes and the bottom pays little if any who would those tax cuts benefit? How do you give a FIT cut to people who don't pay FIT? You cannot seem to see how foolish your argument is as it is the same tired old left wing talking points over and over again. Please learn the taxes you pay and their purpose.

Somehow Obama was able to cut taxes in a way that benefited the middle-class and not the top 1% or more.

It's really just an excuse when faced with facts that show indisputably that the benefits of the tax-cuts overwhelmingly went to the elite that it can't possibly be done any other way -- especially when your President said:

“The deal is so bad for rich people, I had to throw in the estate tax just to give them something.”

Of course, after the bill was signed into law, he said at Mar-a-Lago, where the club’s membership is $200,000, “You all just got a lot richer.”

 

[Conservative]

Somehow Obama was able to cut taxes in a way that benefited the middle-class and not the top 1% or more.

It's really just an excuse when faced with facts that show indisputably that the benefits of the tax-cuts overwhelmingly went to the elite that it can't possibly be done any other way -- especially when your President said:

“The deal is so bad for rich people, I had to throw in the estate tax just to give them something.”

Of course, after the bill was signed into law, he said at Mar-a-Lago, where the club’s membership is $200,000, “You all just got a lot richer.”

Really? What taxes did Obama cut, FICA that funds SS and Medicare? Rebates?? Rebates aren't TAX CUTS!

Such hatred you have for this country and such a lack of understanding that you cannot give a FIT cut to people who DON'T pay FIT.

Yep, those evil rich people keeping more of what they earn!!! How dare them as you are ENTITLED to their earnings!

 

[MTAtech]

Really? What taxes did Obama cut, FICA that funds SS and Medicare? Rebates?? Rebates aren't TAX CUTS!

Such hatred you have for this country and such a lack of understanding that you cannot give a FIT cut to people who DON'T pay FIT.

Yep, those evil rich people keeping more of what they earn!!! How dare them as you are ENTITLED to their earnings!

In 2010, President Barack Obama tried to revise the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, he had to settle for a compromise with Republicans in Congress. Obama wanted to extend the rates for lower incomes and repeal them for the wealthy. Republicans wanted to extend them for everybody.

Obama relented in December 2010, agreeing to a two-year extension of all rates. That timetable ran out as the nation neared the fiscal cliff. On Jan. 1, 2013, Congress passed and Obama signed a law permanently extending the Bush-era rates on incomes below $450,000 for families and $400,000 for individuals.

That income threshold is higher than Obama wanted -- he sought limits of $250,000 and $200,000 respectively -- but the effect is the same for middle- and lower-income Americans: their lower tax rates are permanent.

 

[Conservative]

In 2010, President Barack Obama tried to revise the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, he had to settle for a compromise with Republicans in Congress. Obama wanted to extend the rates for lower incomes and repeal them for the wealthy. Republicans wanted to extend them for everybody.

Obama relented in December 2010, agreeing to a two-year extension of all rates. That timetable ran out as the nation neared the fiscal cliff. On Jan. 1, 2013, Congress passed and Obama signed a law permanently extending the Bush-era rates on incomes below $450,000 for families and $400,000 for individuals.

That income threshold is higher than Obama wanted -- he sought limits of $250,000 and $200,000 respectively -- but the effect is the same for middle- and lower-income Americans: their lower tax rates are permanent.

So in your world taxing the rich solves all the economic and social problems in this country? How much NET revenue is going to be generated by raising taxes on the rich? Any negative consequences in your world? When was the last time that the U.S. Gov't cut social benefits because of federal tax revenue reductions which by the way haven't happened.

What Obama wanted and what he got was the loss of the House in 10-12 and the Congress in 14 showing that the American public disagreed with you and him

 

[MTAtech]

So in your world taxing the rich solves all the economic and social problems in this country? How much NET revenue is going to be generated by raising taxes on the rich? Any negative consequences in your world? When was the last time that the U.S. Gov't cut social benefits because of federal tax revenue reductions which by the way haven't happened.

What Obama wanted and what he got was the loss of the House in 10-12 and the Congress in 14 showing that the American public disagreed with you and him

You forgot that Obama was re-elected in 2012.

Most of America believes that the rich should pay higher taxes. Will that solve everything? No. But let's look at the pattern: Republicans complain about deficits when Democrats are in office. When Republicans are in office, they suddenly don't care about deficits and slash taxes on their donors. Then, after they slash taxes on the richest Americans, they use deficits as an excuse to slash spending on people -- such as Medicare and Medicaid. Fortunately, the Democrats won the House and can block McConnell's evil attack on Americans.

Given what is clear in full-sight, no middle class American should vote for Republicans.

 

[Conservative]

You forgot that Obama was re-elected in 2012.

Most of America believes that the rich should pay higher taxes. Will that solve everything? No. But let's look at the pattern: Republicans complain about deficits when Democrats are in office. When Republicans are in office, they suddenly don't care about deficits and slash taxes on their donors. Then, after they slash taxes on the richest Americans, they use deficits as an excuse to slash spending on people -- such as Medicare and Medicaid. Fortunately, the Democrats won the House and can block McConnell's evil attack on Americans.

Given what is clear in full-sight, no middle class American should vote for Republicans.

No, I didn't forget nor did I forget how the media destroyed Romney, Trump doesn't give a damn and will be re-elected in a landslide, Obama got 4 million fewer votes in 2012

Imagine that, most people? How do you think those 44% of income earners paying ZERO in Federal Income tax answered that poll question. Most people including you have a problem understanding the deficit. Did FIT fund the items FIT was supposed to fund??????? Let's see you answer a direct question?

 

[Media_Truth]

Somehow Obama was able to cut taxes in a way that benefited the middle-class and not the top 1% or more.

It's really just an excuse when faced with facts that show indisputably that the benefits of the tax-cuts overwhelmingly went to the elite that it can't possibly be done any other way -- especially when your President said:

“The deal is so bad for rich people, I had to throw in the estate tax just to give them something.”

Of course, after the bill was signed into law, he said at Mar-a-Lago, where the club’s membership is $200,000, “You all just got a lot richer.”

Trump really said that? Not surprising. What a douche-bag.

 

[Media_Truth]

Since the top pays most of the Federal Income Taxes and the bottom pays little if any who would those tax cuts benefit? How do you give a FIT cut to people who don't pay FIT? You cannot seem to see how foolish your argument is as it is the same tired old left wing talking points over and over again. Please learn the taxes you pay and their purpose.

If you look at that graphic, those groups in the second, third, and fourth groups pay plenty of income taxes. When you factor in the fact that they are the majority of the population in the US; it just demonstrates how Trump and his merry band of Republicans put the screws to them.

 

[Conservative]

If you look at that graphic, those groups in the second, third, and fourth groups pay plenty of income taxes. When you factor in the fact that they are the majority of the population in the US; it just demonstrates how Trump and his merry band of Republicans put the screws to them.

No they don't they pay FICA taxes, they pay sales Taxes, they pay Excise taxes they DON'T PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ACCORDING TO TAX LAWS. Unbelievable at how poorly informed you are regarding the taxes you pay and their purpose. Please call the IRS and tell them they are wrong in reporting 44% paying ZERO in FIT!

 

[BahamaBob]

If you look at that graphic, those groups in the second, third, and fourth groups pay plenty of income taxes. When you factor in the fact that they are the majority of the population in the US; it just demonstrates how Trump and his merry band of Republicans put the screws to them.

Total nonsense. Here are some pesky facts for you.

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.

 

[Ahlevah]

Typical leftist logic: Letting people keep more of their own money is "giving them money." :doh

 

[NWRatCon]

Total nonsense. Here are some pesky facts for you.

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.

What you deliberately fail to mention, (from the same, uncited article)(Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Tax in 2016 -Bloomberg) is this:

The average tax rates paid for the very wealthiest has fallen in recent years from a peak of 24.1 percent in 2013 to 22.9 on 2016 and was a full four percentage points below the 26.9 percent that the top one percent paid on average. To put these numbers in perspective, the top 0.001 percent of taxpayers consists of 1,409 returns, the top 1 percent equals 1.4 million returns and the top 50 percent is half of the total 140.9 million returns.

In 2016, the bottom 50 percent of income tax filers earned about 11.6 percent of total U.S. income. The top one percent received 19.7 percent of overall income while the 1,409 people among the top 0.001 percent had an aggregate income of $205 billion or 2 percent of the U.S. total.

So, the top 1% earned more than the bottom 50%, or, actually 70% more than the entire bottom half of the population. (I'm crying a river here.) As a percentage of income, they should be paying more than they are, but they get tax breaks not available to wage earners, so they pay, collectively, a lower tax rate than the average worker. Put another way, the top quintile receives about 40% of the income, but pays only 25% of the tax bill. WHO PAYS TAXES? For the uber-rich, it skews even more. How about a little fiscal honesty here? Not all taxes are income taxes.

 

[Conservative]

What you deliberately fail to mention, (from the same, uncited article)(Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Tax in 2016 -Bloomberg) is this:

So, the top 1% earned more than the bottom 50%, or, actually 70% more than the entire bottom half of the population. (I'm crying a river here.) As a percentage of income, they should be paying more than they are, but they get tax breaks not available to wage earners, so they pay, collectively, a lower tax rate than the average worker. Put another way, the top quintile receives about 40% of the income, but pays only 25% of the tax bill. WHO PAYS TAXES? For the uber-rich, it skews even more. How about a little fiscal honesty here? Not all taxes are income taxes.

Why are the taxes you pay and their purpose so hard for you to understand? How do you give a FEDERAL INCOME TAX CUT to people who don't pay ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES? Do you honestly believe that allowing the rich to keep more of what they earn widens the wage gap? Taxes have nothing to do with wages nor does it change the fact that the gov't allowing people to keep more of what they earn doesn't cost the gov't a dime!!

 

[NWRatCon]

Now you've posed a dilemma for me, my friend. Should I waste my time? Can I control my derision?
Should I?

Why are the taxes you pay and their purpose so hard for you to understand? How do you give a FEDERAL INCOME TAX CUT to people who don't pay ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES? Do you honestly believe that allowing the rich to keep more of what they earn widens the wage gap? Taxes have nothing to do with wages nor does it change the fact that the gov't allowing people to keep more of what they earn doesn't cost the gov't a dime!!

Wow. Just, wow!
The richness of that excrement is extraordinary! I admit though, that it is difficult to discern whether you are being deliberately obtuse, are that incredibly unsophisticated, or just so indoctrinated that you can't recognize just how idiotic those statements are. Let's test that out, shall we?

"Why are the taxes you pay and their purpose so hard for you to understand?" Oh, good lord. Do I start with the basic, or delve right into the details of taxation infrastructure (income, excise, VAT, sales, capital gains, gifts and estates)? Clearly I better start simple: Taxes are the revenues that pay for government services. At its basic level (which I hope you can follow), a government establishes a tax base to pay for deemed necessary services. (Which leads to this tautology: reduce taxes, reduce services.) To maximize available revenues, one must go where the taxes will be most effective - i.e., them's that's got. Poor people pay less income taxes because they are indexed to income. "Rich people" have more disposable income/assets, so can better support government services, with less untoward effects to themselves. Here's a picture to help:
(Keeping up here?) Moreover, they have had more opportunity to avail themselves of government resources for their benefit. Get more, pay more. Simple, no? Oh, I think I've lost you...

"Do you honestly believe that allowing the rich to keep more of what they earn widens the wage gap?" Of course I do! How can it not? It's as plain as the nose on your face (that you seem so desperately to be trying to look down. Unfortunately, you're looking the wrong way.) I did notice the subtle (unintended?) mixing of apples and oranges in the query, though: i.e., rich people have "earnings" but peons have "wages" - It's not a wage gap, it's an income gap. Simple, basic math demonstrates it. Income Inequality in the United States: "In the United States, the income gap between the rich and everyone else has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for more than 30 years."

Most of the "gap" is the result of wealth accumulation, and tax preference, not productive "earnings" (that's why they're called "passive" investments). The more that accumulation is allowed, the less incentive to produce and (here's where wages do come in) the less incentive to correct wage differentials. After all, investors bet on short term market gains which are produced by CEOs (that are, correspondingly, grossly overcompensated) and manipulation of the books, rather than efficiency of production. Wages actually compete with that process, so keeping them down improves investor relations! Thus, "Productivity has increased at a relatively consistent rate since 1948. But the wages of American workers have not, since the 1970s, kept up with this rising productivity. Worker hourly compensation has flat-lined since the mid-1970s, increasing just 23 percent from 1979 to 2017, while worker productivity has increased 138 percent over the same time period." Where did all that productivity go?

In 2018, publicly held U.S. corporations were required to report the ratio between their CEO’s compensation and the firm’s median worker pay. Thirty-three firms reported pay gaps larger than 1,000 to 1, including Walmart, McDonald’s, and many other highly profitable corporations.

Oh....

Income disparities have become so pronounced that America’s top 10 percent now average more than nine times as much income as the bottom 90 percent. Americans in the top 1 percent tower stunningly higher. They average over 39 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. But that gap pales in comparison to the divide between the nation’s top 0.1 percent and everyone else. Americans at this lofty level are taking in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.

 

[Conservative]

Now you've posed a dilemma for me, my friend. Should I waste my time? Can I control my derision?
Should I?

Wow. Just, wow!
The richness of that excrement is extraordinary! I admit though, that it is difficult to discern whether you are being deliberately obtuse, are that incredibly unsophisticated, or just so indoctrinated that you can't recognize just how idiotic those statements are. Let's test that out, shall we?

"Why are the taxes you pay and their purpose so hard for you to understand?" Oh, good lord. Do I start with the basic, or delve right into the details of taxation infrastructure (income, excise, VAT, sales, capital gains, gifts and estates)? Clearly I better start simple: Taxes are the revenues that pay for government services. At its basic level (which I hope you can follow), a government establishes a tax base to pay for deemed necessary services. (Which leads to this tautology: reduce taxes, reduce services.) To maximize available revenues, one must go where the taxes will be most effective - i.e., them's that's got. Poor people pay less income taxes because they are indexed to income. "Rich people" have more disposable income/assets, so can better support government services, with less untoward effects to themselves. Here's a picture to help: View attachment 67259442
(Keeping up here?) Moreover, they have had more opportunity to avail themselves of government resources for their benefit. Get more, pay more. Simple, no? Oh, I think I've lost you...

"Do you honestly believe that allowing the rich to keep more of what they earn widens the wage gap?" Of course I do! How can it not? It's as plain as the nose on your face (that you seem so desperately to be trying to look down. Unfortunately, you're looking the wrong way.) I did notice the subtle (unintended?) mixing of apples and oranges in the query, though: i.e., rich people have "earnings" but peons have "wages" - It's not a wage gap, it's an income gap. Simple, basic math demonstrates it. Income Inequality in the United States: "In the United States, the income gap between the rich and everyone else has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for more than 30 years."

Most of the "gap" is the result of wealth accumulation, and tax preference, not productive "earnings" (that's why they're called "passive" investments). The more that accumulation is allowed, the less incentive to produce and (here's where wages do come in) the less incentive to correct wage differentials. After all, investors bet on short term market gains which are produced by CEOs (that are, correspondingly, grossly overcompensated) and manipulation of the books, rather than efficiency of production. Wages actually compete with that process, so keeping them down improves investor relations! Thus, "Productivity has increased at a relatively consistent rate since 1948. But the wages of American workers have not, since the 1970s, kept up with this rising productivity. Worker hourly compensation has flat-lined since the mid-1970s, increasing just 23 percent from 1979 to 2017, while worker productivity has increased 138 percent over the same time period." Where did all that productivity go? Oh....

You are kidding, right? Any idea what FIT funds? Get back to me when you figure it out because I am tired of telling you

 

[NWRatCon]

You are kidding, right? Any idea what FIT funds? Get back to me when you figure it out because I am tired of telling you

I guess I shouldn't bother with your next lesson, huh? Well, don't let the door hit you where you... keep your wallet.

 

[Conservative]

I guess I shouldn't bother with your next lesson, huh? Well, don't let the door hit you where you... keep your wallet.

Obviously just more of a personal attack on your part, not facts,, no logic, and certainly typical radical liberalism. I know I can never expect a direct answer from you on any issue

 

[NWRatCon]

Obviously just more of a personal attack on your part, not facts,, no logic, and certainly typical radical liberalism. I know I can never expect a direct answer from you on any issue

I admit, my friend, when you post such utter inanity, I find it difficult to respond without derision. It's a personal failing. You know, that thing about not suffering... gladly. I may be relatively new here, but I have become quite familiar with those that provide substance and those that do not. They tend to make themselves known readily and often. (Frequently by posing a lot of superfluous and irrelevant questions to derail the topic.)

When you say things like "not facts,, no logic" - when the post (which I doubt you even bothered to read) is nothing but facts and logic - I EVEN PROVIDED PICTURES, it is clear you have no interest in an honest discussion of the issues. I suspect that the real problem is that I provide in-depth responses to the topic of the thread, whenever possible, but not necessarily directly in response to silly questions. Because that information does not comport with your desired outcome they are deemed "unresponsive". Your evaluation is not a matter of content, but desired result. When a response does not support that, it must be "liberal", and therefore can be dismissed (even if completely responsive). I don't have much desire to pursue anything further with you on the topic (and I suspect not on others, either), as your level of "debate" is ... well, debatable. Be well.

 

[Conservative]

I admit, my friend, when you post such utter inanity, I find it difficult to respond without derision. It's a personal failing. You know, that thing about not suffering... gladly. I may be relatively new here, but I have become quite familiar with those that provide substance and those that do not. They tend to make themselves known readily and often. (Frequently by posing a lot of superfluous and irrelevant questions to derail the topic.)

When you say things like "not facts,, no logic" - when the post (which I doubt you even bothered to read) is nothing but facts and logic - I EVEN PROVIDED PICTURES, it is clear you have no interest in an honest discussion of the issues. I suspect that the real problem is that I provide in-depth responses to the topic of the thread, whenever possible, but not necessarily directly in response to silly questions. Because that information does not comport with your desired outcome they are deemed "unresponsive". Your evaluation is not a matter of content, but desired result. When a response does not support that, it must be "liberal", and therefore can be dismissed (even if completely responsive). I don't have much desire to pursue anything further with you on the topic (and I suspect not on others, either), as your level of "debate" is ... well, debatable. Be well.

You just posted two paragraphs that said absolutely nothing and had zero relationship with the thread topic. Your desire is of no interest to me as facts, logic, and common sense don't resonate with you. Trump tax cuts allowed EVERY taxpayer too keep more of what they earn and the reality remains you cannot give a Federal Income tax cut to people who DON'T pay federal income taxes or zero FIT liability

 

[NWRatCon]

You just posted two paragraphs that said absolutely nothing and had zero relationship with the thread topic. Your desire is of no interest to me as facts, logic, and common sense don't resonate with you. Trump tax cuts allowed EVERY taxpayer too keep more of what they earn and the reality remains you cannot give a Federal Income tax cut to people who DON'T pay federal income taxes or zero FIT liability

Except of course, you provide absolutely no evidence to back up your assertions, which are also, categorically untrue. That is why I find debating with an empty suit so wearing.
Initially, the lowest tax bracket did not change nor did the 33% one (which actually rose to 35%). Second, in 2018, 4.8% of households paid more in taxes than in 2017 (mine happened to be one of those, and I don't even live in New York). Trump's Tax Plan and How It Affects You (The balance). Third, for a good portion of taxpayers, the positive adjustments (which were exceedingly modest to begin with) were swallowed by elimination of deductions and increases in other expenses (like health care increases). "[A]fter refunds, the IRS collected about $93 billion more from individual American taxpayers than it did in 2017. Interestingly, that number stands close to the tax break amount that corporations received from the TCJA in 2018. Last year, big businesses paid $91 billion less in taxes than they had in 2017, prior to the new law’s passage." (Yahoo Finance, via Snopes). So, where did that money come from, if everyone got a tax break (which they didn't)?