First Paycheck Since the New Tax Rates Were Enacted

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bill Clinton promised the middle class a tax cut....he lied.
He raised taxes on the middle class instead.

Reagan cut taxes on the middle class.
Bush cut taxes on the middle class.
Trump cut taxes on the middle class.

Face it.......Dems suck.

Clinton also got to balanced budget and presided over arguably the strongest economic growth in modern history.

Real Median income topped out in 1998-2000

You and mostly loser Republican Presidents can't touch Clinton on economy.

Just ask Trump:

Clinton also got to balanced budget

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.
And Newt kinda kept Bubba from spending as he'd have liked.

and presided over arguably the strongest economic growth in modern history.

And he had arguably zero to do with the Internet.

His tax increases in 1993 balanced the budget.

Cool story, bro.

Except the budget wasn't balanced in 1993.

And the tax hike didn't last for only one year. I'm not even surprised you didn't know that.

And the tax hike didn't last for only one year.

And the tax hike didn't create the Internet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clinton also got to balanced budget and presided over arguably the strongest economic growth in modern history.

Real Median income topped out in 1998-2000

You and mostly loser Republican Presidents can't touch Clinton on economy.

Just ask Trump:

Clinton also got to balanced budget

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.
And Newt kinda kept Bubba from spending as he'd have liked.

and presided over arguably the strongest economic growth in modern history.

And he had arguably zero to do with the Internet.

His tax increases in 1993 balanced the budget.

Cool story, bro.

Except the budget wasn't balanced in 1993.

And the tax hike didn't last for only one year. I'm not even surprised you didn't know that.

And the tax hike didn't last for only one year.

And the tax hike didn't create the Internet.

According to the GOP, Clinton's tax hike would kill investment and bring on a recession.

How did that prediction work out?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is wrong with you? Seriously, what would make one post such pathetic, dishonest bullshit every other post?

Obama is responsible for the debt his policies caused. If you say Obama is not responsible for tax-cuts then you can't blame him for deficits resulting SPECIFICALLY from those tax cuts.

They only way you don't get this simple concept is if you DON'T WANT TO get it.

Obama is responsible for the debt his policies caused.

Yup. He didn't raise taxes in 2009, so his policy is responsible for the tax rates in 2009.
He extended the Bush rates in 2010, so he is responsible for the rates in 2010.

If those rates are the cause of any of our debt, that's his debt.

Glad we're on the same page.

GREAT! You just called yourself on your own bullshit.

When you were insinuating that Obama didn't reduce people's taxes, you lied.

When you were insinuating that Obama didn't reduce people's taxes

Show me. What were the rates before Obama? What did he reduce them to?

I know you're bad at math, but show me some real numbers for once.

Your whining doesn't count.

Moron, by extending Bush's tax cuts he prevented the rates from going up for all brackets except the top one. It doesn't matter what they were, because either way you are directly acknowledging he is responsible for lower rate than what would have been otherwise.

You are trying to argue that the $100 more in the pay check Obama caused increases deficits but somehow doesn't count as a $100 tax-cut.

by extending Bush's tax cuts he prevented the rates from going up

We can't blame Bush for Obama's actions in that case.

That's a relief. According to liberals, Obama had zero responsibility for anything that added to the debt
for his entire 8 years in office.

In 2014 the top tax rate cut expired, and the deficit has fallen ever since.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clinton also got to balanced budget

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.
And Newt kinda kept Bubba from spending as he'd have liked.

and presided over arguably the strongest economic growth in modern history.

And he had arguably zero to do with the Internet.

His tax increases in 1993 balanced the budget.

Cool story, bro.

Except the budget wasn't balanced in 1993.

And the tax hike didn't last for only one year. I'm not even surprised you didn't know that.

And the tax hike didn't last for only one year.

And the tax hike didn't create the Internet.

According to the GOP, Clinton's tax hike would kill investment and bring on a recession.

How did that prediction work out?

According to the GOP, Clinton's tax hike would kill investment and bring on a recession.

Bush's tax hike probably did that, how'd that work out for his re-election?

In fact, how did Clinton's tax hike work out for the Dems in 1994?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, that's where being an owner of a business sucks, at least in the measurement context described in the OP. One's "paychecks" have no such withholdings, so seeing the impact requires more effort than looking at a pay stub. C'est la vie....

Oh, sheesh. Just hogwash. If you own a business, your tax rate just got cut from 35% to 21%; you have far less regulations to worry about; and if you own an IRA, you're probably seeing a nice jump in your money.

My first paycheck under the Trump tax cuts will be this Friday. A friend of mine at work who makes about how much I make said that her first Trump-tax-cut biweekly paycheck gave her an extra $120 in net pay, which means she's getting an extra $240 per month in net pay. "Crumbs"?!

 

[NightFox]

I got my withholding reduced by 34 bucks a month. I'm shopping for a yacht.

If Only we could find a tax loophole, large enough to drive one point five trillion, through.

We already have one ....

Fiat reserve currency and near zero real rates for federal gub'mint debt.

Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it won't last forever.

we still need to fund infrastructure.

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

 

[KissMy]

Clinton also got to balanced budget

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.
And Newt kinda kept Bubba from spending as he'd have liked.

and presided over arguably the strongest economic growth in modern history.

And he had arguably zero to do with the Internet.

His tax increases in 1993 balanced the budget.

Cool story, bro.

Except the budget wasn't balanced in 1993.

And the tax hike didn't last for only one year. I'm not even surprised you didn't know that.

And the tax hike didn't last for only one year.

And the tax hike didn't create the Internet.

According to the GOP, Clinton's tax hike would kill investment and bring on a recession.

How did that prediction work out?

Job Killing Recessions are caused by Republicans distorting resources into unsustainable bubbles. Taxes & Democrats prevent recessions. Only Repubtards cause JOB KILLING RECESSIONS!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, that's where being an owner of a business sucks, at least in the measurement context described in the OP. One's "paychecks" have no such withholdings, so seeing the impact requires more effort than looking at a pay stub. C'est la vie....

Oh, sheesh. Just hogwash. If you own a business, your tax rate just got cut from 35% to 21%; you have far less regulations to worry about; and if you own an IRA, you're probably seeing a nice jump in your money.

My first paycheck under the Trump tax cuts will be this Friday. A friend of mine at work who makes about how much I make said that her first Trump-tax-cut biweekly paycheck gave her an extra $120 in net pay, which means she's getting an extra $240 per month in net pay. "Crumbs"?!

It's crumbs relative to what the Rich will get.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, that's where being an owner of a business sucks, at least in the measurement context described in the OP. One's "paychecks" have no such withholdings, so seeing the impact requires more effort than looking at a pay stub. C'est la vie....

Oh, sheesh. Just hogwash. If you own a business, your tax rate just got cut from 35% to 21%; you have far less regulations to worry about; and if you own an IRA, you're probably seeing a nice jump in your money.

My first paycheck under the Trump tax cuts will be this Friday. A friend of mine at work who makes about how much I make said that her first Trump-tax-cut biweekly paycheck gave her an extra $120 in net pay, which means she's getting an extra $240 per month in net pay. "Crumbs"?!

Oh, sheesh. Just hogwash. If you own a business, your tax rate just got cut from 35% to 21%

That, quite simply, is factually incorrect. Only corporations were given a tax cut from 35% to 21%. The owners of corporations did not get that generous a cut, and neither did any other individual.

A friend of mine at work who makes about how much I make said that her first Trump-tax-cut biweekly paycheck gave her an extra $120 in net pay, which means she's getting an extra $240 per month in net pay. "Crumbs"?!

Why are you asking me about "crumbs?" That's not a term I've used or implied.

 

[danielpalos]

I got my withholding reduced by 34 bucks a month. I'm shopping for a yacht.

If Only we could find a tax loophole, large enough to drive one point five trillion, through.

We already have one ....

Fiat reserve currency and near zero real rates for federal gub'mint debt.

Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it won't last forever.

we still need to fund infrastructure.

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know the GOP could have given everyone a $1000 per year cut in their income taxes, regardless of how much they make.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I got my withholding reduced by 34 bucks a month. I'm shopping for a yacht.

If Only we could find a tax loophole, large enough to drive one point five trillion, through.

We already have one ....

Fiat reserve currency and near zero real rates for federal gub'mint debt.

Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it won't last forever.

we still need to fund infrastructure.

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

Fund infrastructure with what? More borrowing?

 

[danielpalos]

If Only we could find a tax loophole, large enough to drive one point five trillion, through.

We already have one ....

Fiat reserve currency and near zero real rates for federal gub'mint debt.

Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it won't last forever.

we still need to fund infrastructure.

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

Fund infrastructure with what? More borrowing?

more taxes on everybody.

 

[NightFox]

I got my withholding reduced by 34 bucks a month. I'm shopping for a yacht.

If Only we could find a tax loophole, large enough to drive one point five trillion, through.

We already have one ....

Fiat reserve currency and near zero real rates for federal gub'mint debt.

Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it won't last forever.

we still need to fund infrastructure.

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

First off, everybody that pays income taxes got a rate cut not just "the rich" and those rate cuts (especially for business) were long overdue, the federal government extracts far too much from the productive economy to justify even the reduced rates it's charging now; secondly if you can borrow at near zero real rates to fund capex that yields a net positive return in terms of increasing the non-inflationary output potential of the economy then it's not silly, it's good business.

The question is, can the morons in the federal government get past all the partisan special interest nonsense and graft in order to deploy that capex effectively? recent history suggestions that they won't but we won't know until we see the results.

 

[danielpalos]

If Only we could find a tax loophole, large enough to drive one point five trillion, through.

We already have one ....

Fiat reserve currency and near zero real rates for federal gub'mint debt.

Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it won't last forever.

we still need to fund infrastructure.

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

First off, everybody that pays income taxes got a rate cut not just "the rich" and those rate cuts (especially for business) were long overdue, the federal government extracts far too much from the productive economy to justify even the reduced rates it's charging now; secondly if you can borrow at near zero real rates to fund capex that yields a net positive return in terms of increasing the non-inflationary output potential of the economy then it's not silly, it's good business.

The question is, can the morons in the federal government get past all the partisan special interest nonsense and graft in order to deploy that capex effectively? recent history suggestions that they won't but we won't know until we see the results.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

 

[NightFox]

We already have one ....

Fiat reserve currency and near zero real rates for federal gub'mint debt.

Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it won't last forever.

we still need to fund infrastructure.

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

First off, everybody that pays income taxes got a rate cut not just "the rich" and those rate cuts (especially for business) were long overdue, the federal government extracts far too much from the productive economy to justify even the reduced rates it's charging now; secondly if you can borrow at near zero real rates to fund capex that yields a net positive return in terms of increasing the non-inflationary output potential of the economy then it's not silly, it's good business.

The question is, can the morons in the federal government get past all the partisan special interest nonsense and graft in order to deploy that capex effectively? recent history suggestions that they won't but we won't know until we see the results.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

Thank you for your completely irrelevant, hyperbolic response; get back to me when your vocabulary and comprehension have developed sufficiently to understand generally accepted principles of finance and economics at which point we'll at least have the prospect of carrying on a meaningful conversation.

... in the meantime you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

"Thank you for your visit" -- Saladin, Kingdom of Heaven

 

[danielpalos]

we still need to fund infrastructure.

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

First off, everybody that pays income taxes got a rate cut not just "the rich" and those rate cuts (especially for business) were long overdue, the federal government extracts far too much from the productive economy to justify even the reduced rates it's charging now; secondly if you can borrow at near zero real rates to fund capex that yields a net positive return in terms of increasing the non-inflationary output potential of the economy then it's not silly, it's good business.

The question is, can the morons in the federal government get past all the partisan special interest nonsense and graft in order to deploy that capex effectively? recent history suggestions that they won't but we won't know until we see the results.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

Thank you for your completely irrelevant, hyperbolic response; get back to me when your vocabulary and comprehension have developed sufficiently to understand generally accepted principles of finance and economics at which point we'll at least have the prospect of carrying on a meaningful conversation.

... in the meantime you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

"Thank you for your visit" -- Saladin, Kingdom of Heaven

What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

 

[NightFox]

Not sure what that has to do with the realities of the monetary system that I pointed out; however at least "infrastructure" is in theory capital investment which (should) increase the output potential of the economy, of course in practice gub'mint waste and inefficiency most often reduces the effectiveness of such investments, so we'll have to see how it works out with respect to net ROI.

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

First off, everybody that pays income taxes got a rate cut not just "the rich" and those rate cuts (especially for business) were long overdue, the federal government extracts far too much from the productive economy to justify even the reduced rates it's charging now; secondly if you can borrow at near zero real rates to fund capex that yields a net positive return in terms of increasing the non-inflationary output potential of the economy then it's not silly, it's good business.

The question is, can the morons in the federal government get past all the partisan special interest nonsense and graft in order to deploy that capex effectively? recent history suggestions that they won't but we won't know until we see the results.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

Thank you for your completely irrelevant, hyperbolic response; get back to me when your vocabulary and comprehension have developed sufficiently to understand generally accepted principles of finance and economics at which point we'll at least have the prospect of carrying on a meaningful conversation.

... in the meantime you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

"Thank you for your visit" -- Saladin, Kingdom of Heaven

What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

LOL, Here's a hint: The solution to deficit spending isn't to extort ever increasing amounts of resources from the productive component of the economy in order to transfer it to the unproductive one, that's like trying to cure alcoholism by feeding the drunk more booze.

.. but your original gripe wasn't with spending, your original gripe was regarding capex on infrastructure that has a potential to show a positive net ROI, which unlike the plethora of extra curricular activities that the federal government wastes money on is at least economically and financially justifiable in theory.

Lastly if you want to pay higher income tax rates, then by all means put your money where your mouth is and write a check to the U.S. Treasury, they'll be happy to accept it.

 

[KissMy]

just seems silly to cut taxes for the rich and then fund infrastructure.

First off, everybody that pays income taxes got a rate cut not just "the rich" and those rate cuts (especially for business) were long overdue, the federal government extracts far too much from the productive economy to justify even the reduced rates it's charging now; secondly if you can borrow at near zero real rates to fund capex that yields a net positive return in terms of increasing the non-inflationary output potential of the economy then it's not silly, it's good business.

The question is, can the morons in the federal government get past all the partisan special interest nonsense and graft in order to deploy that capex effectively? recent history suggestions that they won't but we won't know until we see the results.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

Thank you for your completely irrelevant, hyperbolic response; get back to me when your vocabulary and comprehension have developed sufficiently to understand generally accepted principles of finance and economics at which point we'll at least have the prospect of carrying on a meaningful conversation.

... in the meantime you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

"Thank you for your visit" -- Saladin, Kingdom of Heaven

What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

LOL, Here's a hint: The solution to deficit spending isn't to extort ever increasing amounts of resources from the productive component of the economy in order to transfer it to the unproductive one, that's like trying to cure alcoholism by feeding the drunk more booze.

.. but your original gripe wasn't with spending, your original gripe was regarding capex on infrastructure that has a potential to show a positive net ROI, which unlike the plethora of extra curricular activities that the federal government wastes money on is at least economically and financially justifiable in theory.

Lastly if you want to pay higher income tax rates, then by all means put your money where your mouth is and write a check to the U.S. Treasury, they'll be happy to accept it.

You lying criminals are too weak to cut spending. You want more spending so you can steal more money from workers. You are spineless slime that print more money to tax workers & inflate your asset prices instead of paying your bills.

 

[NightFox]

First off, everybody that pays income taxes got a rate cut not just "the rich" and those rate cuts (especially for business) were long overdue, the federal government extracts far too much from the productive economy to justify even the reduced rates it's charging now; secondly if you can borrow at near zero real rates to fund capex that yields a net positive return in terms of increasing the non-inflationary output potential of the economy then it's not silly, it's good business.

The question is, can the morons in the federal government get past all the partisan special interest nonsense and graft in order to deploy that capex effectively? recent history suggestions that they won't but we won't know until we see the results.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

Thank you for your completely irrelevant, hyperbolic response; get back to me when your vocabulary and comprehension have developed sufficiently to understand generally accepted principles of finance and economics at which point we'll at least have the prospect of carrying on a meaningful conversation.

... in the meantime you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

"Thank you for your visit" -- Saladin, Kingdom of Heaven

What do you mean by tax cuts were, "overdue" when we have massive debt and deficit spending?

LOL, Here's a hint: The solution to deficit spending isn't to extort ever increasing amounts of resources from the productive component of the economy in order to transfer it to the unproductive one, that's like trying to cure alcoholism by feeding the drunk more booze.

.. but your original gripe wasn't with spending, your original gripe was regarding capex on infrastructure that has a potential to show a positive net ROI, which unlike the plethora of extra curricular activities that the federal government wastes money on is at least economically and financially justifiable in theory.

Lastly if you want to pay higher income tax rates, then by all means put your money where your mouth is and write a check to the U.S. Treasury, they'll be happy to accept it.

You lying criminals are too weak to cut spending. You want more spending so you can steal more money from workers. You are spineless slime.

Uh-huh, thank you for your contribution to /dev/null.

... and in other news some lazy, SOB left the asylum gate open facilitating yet another inmate escape.