What do you think the underlying reason is for the unethical attack on Trump was?

[eohrnberger]

Not by any definition I know of "debunked" it hasn't. Trump's first three years were no better, in fact marginally worse, than Obama's last three.

2014: 2.53%
2015: 3.08%
2016: 1.71%
________________Obama ave. 2.44%
2017: 2.03%
2018: 3.00%
2019: 2.16%
________________Trump ave. 2.40%

Perhaps I should have been more specific. It was 'Trump tax cuts for the rich' which has already been debunked.

 

[Tigerace117]

There was definitely a lot of astroturfed propaganda from the get-go devoid of any intellectual substance which just preyed on primitive and simplistic emotions such as "fear of racism" and whatnot, or the exaggerated attention given to his social "faux pas" (which rationally are minutia compared to the bigger issues).

The "outsider" angle might be worth looking into, though I'm sure the reasons vary somewhat.

Rationally speaking Trump was so laughably unqualified to be president that he never should have been allowed within a hundred miles of the job.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Perhaps I should have been more specific. It was 'Trump tax cuts for the rich' which has already been debunked.

Well OK. I'm aware that everyone got a tax cut, so "tax cuts (only) for the rich" would be wrong. That doesn't make "tax cuts mainly for the poor and middle class" right though.

It's complicated. The lowest rate of tax actually went up (from 10% to 12%) however all those people were better off due to a serious increase in the standard deduction. I completely approve the latter: it does nothing for the rich who itemize, but helps everyone else. Likewise, the lowered threshold for 35% taxes is pretty much a wash, since the new threshold is actually higher than where 33% used to cut in (2% being fairly trivial at the low end of that range.)

There are two ways of looking at taxes: the "victims" view from the taxpayer, or the "purposes" view from government. In the former, whoever pays the most tax now, should get the biggest cut in dollar terms. In the purposes view, however, taxation is a necessary evil and the rich should pay more only because they can without hardship. Needless to say, I'm of the purposes view not the victimhood view, so a tax cut that returns the most dollars (65.3%) to the top one-fifth of taxpayers, is neither fair nor justified. Any change should make the system more progressive (rich pay more) and neutrality is not enough.

It's only made worse for me, that of the tax cuts which Republicans chose to expire within ten years (to make Reconciliation fit the rules, which it didn't even) it's the poor people's tax cuts not the rich people's tax cuts they chose.

Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Property field_abstract

www.taxpolicycenter.org

I heed the warning not to copy their graph, but you can look at it for yourself. It's Figure 1.

In numbers:
the bottom fifth of income earners get 0.4% higher after-tax income
the next fifth of income earners get 1.2%
the next fifth (middle quintile) get 1.6%
the next fifth (second highest) get 1.9%
the top quintile (highest fifth) get 2.9% higher after-tax income.

That's a regressive change.

Worst of all, lowering the corporate rate significantly, clearly benefits the rich more than anyone else. Even middle class have most of their capital tied up in a home, rather than in shares. A better approach would have been to collaborate with Europe and sanction Ireland as the most obvious leader in a world-wide race to the bottom in corporate taxes. No-one is bothered by the prospect of corporations moving to Uzbekistan, so it's really only a few developed nations which need to be targetted. The corporatization of America, and conglomeration, are problems way beyond the scale of who can afford a new car this year, or even interest rates they have to pay to buy a house. It's a global problem! I see the 2017 tax cuts as a massive gift to corporations (who unlike small business owners or households, have no good use for profits) and all the household tax changes as an artificial sweetener.

 

[eohrnberger]

Well OK. I'm aware that everyone got a tax cut, so "tax cuts (only) for the rich" would be wrong. That doesn't make "tax cuts mainly for the poor and middle class" right though.

Hmm. A differing opinion derived from IRS data analysis, apparently.

. . . .​

Congressional Democrats have argued that one of the best ways to pay for the legislation is to raise taxes on wealthy households, which, according to many on the left, have benefited disproportionately and unfairly from the 2017 tax reform law passed by Republicans and signed by former President Trump. The latest data, however, proves that this claim is pure mythology.​

​

Income data published by the IRS clearly show that on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans' tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent, as so many Democrats have argued.​

​

A careful analysis of the IRS tax data, one that includes the effects of tax credits and other reforms to the tax code, shows that filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $15,000 to $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year Republicans' Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available.​

​

Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent.​

​

By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.)​

​

That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more.​

​

What's more, IRS data shows earners in higher income brackets contributed a bigger slice of the total income tax revenue pie following the passage of the tax reform law than they had in the previous year.​

​

In fact, every income bracket with filers earning $200,000 or more increased its tax burden in 2018 compared to 2017, and every income bracket with a top limit lower than $200,000 paid a smaller proportion of the total personal tax revenue collected.​

​

That means that Republicans' tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive - the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years.​

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most​

Opinion by Justin Haskins, Opinion Contributor - Dec 4, 2021​

MSN

Also:

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups.

thehill.com

New Analysis Shows Republican Tax Cuts Actually Did Cut Middle-Class Taxes, Despite Democrats’ Rhetoric | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Looks like we have differing opinions from various 'experts', I'm guessing it's their interpretation of the IRS data.

(snipped due to posting size constraints)

 

[Ug make hammer]

Hmm. A differing opinion derived from IRS data analysis, apparently.

<snip unattributed quote>​

​

That means that Republicans' tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive - the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years.​

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most​

Opinion by Justin Haskins, Opinion Contributor - Dec 4, 2021​

MSN

Also:

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups.

thehill.com

New Analysis Shows Republican Tax Cuts Actually Did Cut Middle-Class Taxes, Despite Democrats’ Rhetoric | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Looks like we have differing opinions from various 'experts', I'm guessing it's their interpretation of the IRS data.

I've seen all that before. The Hill article links to Heartland.org (is in fact written by the director of Heartland) which does not show working. It's just "we've seen the IRS figures, trust us" and sorry, but I don't. Heartland

The daily wire article is also a rewrite of the same Heartland article.

They know their version of the truth will never get read on a right-wing mouthpiece like Heartland, so they take advantage of the actual balance allowed on sites like the hill and dailywire. But neither you nor I should fall for that.

And even if the lowest income group had their tax reduced from $30 to $6 (or whatever) it doesn't overcome my main objection, which was the drastic reduction in corporate profits tax. Suppose we took both to extremes, abolishing income tax entirely and corporate profits tax too. All that would remain would be the regressive tax on jobs which is the social security tax. Of course no-one is going to cut that! Elderly voters would lose their social security within their own lifetimes, they would vote hard against it.

My point is that even a progressive reduction in income tax is not progressive for taxes overall, considering the others are regressive. Or when considering regressive changes like that to corporate tax.