Understanding the Liberal Propaganda About the Trump Tax Cuts

[Moonglow]

She had just taken her xanax for the day...

well at least with the tax cuts,,Maxine can afford to buy another 12 wigs and the glues

She should try nails..Don't really have to worry about penetrating a brain...

what does she use now? super glue?

i really feel sorry for all of the gorillas who were killed to make this glue

It's ok, they came from the projects..

 

[JakeStarkey]

If they are so great why are they on time limits but corporations are not?

That is simple, they add too much to the deficit to make them permanent.

You're simple alright...tax cuts mean more disposable income which is spent on goods and services which create more jobs and taxpayers. Are you here to get your GED?

If that proposition were true, then you would be right, Horn, but you are wrong, because nothing of the sort has happened.

If the Trump GDP continues to grow no more than the Obama GDP in its last two years, the deficit will only grow at the expense of the middle class.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If they are so great why are they on time limits but corporations are not?

Are you joking? So you somehow missed the news that Senate Democrats blocked Republican attempts to make the personal income tax cuts permanent? You need to ask your fellow Democrats in the Senate why they would not allow the personal income tax cuts to be made permanent.

I have no fellow democrats in an legislature, I stopped hanging out with those types when my Granddad died..

Now why has the GOP not used its nuclear options to make the tax cuts permanent but damn sure did the corporations? If this was the democrats fault why not blame Oblama also, but not our glorious leader Strumpet..

Ah...so you're using the old "your side sucks because they won't stop my side from doing the wrong thing" argument?
You don't blame "your " side for doing wrong, but rather blame the other side for not stopping them.

you do realize how incredibly dumb this argument is?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

well at least with the tax cuts,,Maxine can afford to buy another 12 wigs and the glues

She should try nails..Don't really have to worry about penetrating a brain...

what does she use now? super glue?

i really feel sorry for all of the gorillas who were killed to make this glue

It's ok, they came from the projects..

i wonder what product they make from the hairs

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iamwhatiseem mischaracterizes what Moonglow is saying.

The fact is, Iamwhatiseem, that all sides need to stick facts and objective evidence, and your side really sucks at it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Is the tax cut revenue reducing or increasing the deficit, mike.

It's far too early to tell; however, if history is any indication, the Trump tax cuts will lead to an increase in federal revenue and therefore will not be the cause of an increase in the deficit. Federal revenue has increased after every single major tax cut since the early 1900s. (When deficits have gone up after tax cuts, it has been because the government went on a spending spree and cancelled out the revenue boost.)

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth
Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts

Perhaps a better question to ask is, Are the Trump tax cuts putting more money back into middle-income workers' pockets? The answer is undeniably yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But it will not reduce it if the tax cut bill and budget bill in the long does not does not cut spending.

IOW, whatever short term benefit in the bill for citizens will elapse in time (though not for the corps), and the deficit grows.

Sounds like the bill is another burden on the back of the taxpayer.

Hint: if you grow government with out growing enough tax revenue, which legislation since last year does, the GOP has become a Big Government Progressive Party.

 

[mikegriffith1]

But it will not reduce it if the tax cut bill and budget bill in the long does not does not cut spending.

IOW, whatever short term benefit in the bill for citizens will elapse in time (though not for the corps), and the deficit grows.

Sounds like the bill is another burden on the back of the taxpayer.

Hint: if you grow government with out growing enough tax revenue, which legislation since last year does, the GOP has become a Big Government Progressive Party.

Huh? I said that if history is any indication, the Trump tax cuts will lead to an *increase* in federal revenue. So we will end up with *more* revenue because of the tax cuts than we would have otherwise received. If the deficit goes up because the government does not cut spending or because the revenue hike does not quite equal the already-slated spending hikes, how on earth will that be the fault of the tax cuts? The deficit would be *worse* without the tax cuts, if the tax cuts generate an increase in revenue, as all other major tax cuts since the early 1900s have done.

 

[edthecynic]

Federal revenue has increased after every single major tax cut since the early 1900s.

That's a LIE!

 

[imawhosure]

Federal revenue has increased after every single major tax cut since the early 1900s.

That's a LIE!

The fact that Mike is correct, and it has been proven in multiple threads through links, means there is absolutely no reason to go down that road again. Unless you have new data, it is up to you to prove Mike false; which you can't, because he is correct, like it or not!

 

[JakeStarkey]

But it will not reduce it if the tax cut bill and budget bill in the long does not does not cut spending.

IOW, whatever short term benefit in the bill for citizens will elapse in time (though not for the corps), and the deficit grows.

Sounds like the bill is another burden on the back of the taxpayer.

Hint: if you grow government with out growing enough tax revenue, which legislation since last year does, the GOP has become a Big Government Progressive Party.

Huh? I said that if history is any indication, the Trump tax cuts will lead to an *increase* in federal revenue. So we will end up with *more* revenue because of the tax cuts than we would have otherwise received. If the deficit goes up because the government does not cut spending or because the revenue hike does not quite equal the already-slated spending hikes, how on earth will that be the fault of the tax cuts? The deficit would be *worse* without the tax cuts, if the tax cuts generate an increase in revenue, as all other major tax cuts since the early 1900s have done.

But the Trump legislation including the tax bill will increase the American deficit.

The GOP is a statist Big Government Progressive party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Federal revenue has increased after every single major tax cut since the early 1900s.

That's a LIE!

The fact that Mike is correct, and it has been proven in multiple threads through links, means there is absolutely no reason to go down that road again. Unless you have new data, it is up to you to prove Mike false; which you can't, because he is correct, like it or not!

Yet the GDP does not grow meaning the deficit will grow. The tax revenue will not offset it.

And the American people are showing no confidence in the GOP congress any more than Trump.

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Democrats (D) Republicans (R) Spread
RCP Average 4/8 - 4/24 -- 45.3 38.5 Democrats +6.8
Harvard-Harris 4/22 - 4/24 1549 RV 43 34 Democrats +9
Economist/YouGov 4/22 - 4/24 1270 RV 43 38 Democrats +5
Quinnipiac 4/20 - 4/24 1193 RV 48 40 Democrats +8
Reuters/Ipsos 4/20 - 4/24 1248 RV 45 34 Democrats +11
NPR/PBS/Marist 4/10 - 4/13 827 RV 44 39 Democrats +5
ABC News/Wash Post 4/8 - 4/11 865 RV 47 43 Democrats +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/8 - 4/11 900 A 47 40 Democrats +7
Rasmussen Reports 4/8 - 4/9 1000 LV 45 40 Democrats +5

 

[imawhosure]

Federal revenue has increased after every single major tax cut since the early 1900s.

That's a LIE!

The fact that Mike is correct, and it has been proven in multiple threads through links, means there is absolutely no reason to go down that road again. Unless you have new data, it is up to you to prove Mike false; which you can't, because he is correct, like it or not!

Yet the GDP does not grow meaning the deficit will grow. The tax revenue will not offset it.

And the American people are showing no confidence in the GOP congress any more than Trump.

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Democrats (D) Republicans (R) Spread
RCP Average 4/8 - 4/24 -- 45.3 38.5 Democrats +6.8
Harvard-Harris 4/22 - 4/24 1549 RV 43 34 Democrats +9
Economist/YouGov 4/22 - 4/24 1270 RV 43 38 Democrats +5
Quinnipiac 4/20 - 4/24 1193 RV 48 40 Democrats +8
Reuters/Ipsos 4/20 - 4/24 1248 RV 45 34 Democrats +11
NPR/PBS/Marist 4/10 - 4/13 827 RV 44 39 Democrats +5
ABC News/Wash Post 4/8 - 4/11 865 RV 47 43 Democrats +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/8 - 4/11 900 A 47 40 Democrats +7
Rasmussen Reports 4/8 - 4/9 1000 LV 45 40 Democrats +5

We will worry about it in September if it stays the same.

Still, what that has to do with tax cuts, is beyond me. I only commented that Mike was correct in what he said, not anything about what polls say today, lol...........but good deflection.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mike has been proven wrong time and again, while the others are confused.

Until the parties cap spending, no matter how many tax breaks, which overwhelmling help the large corporations at the expense of the middle class, the deficit will only increase.

The GOP is a Big Government Progressive Party.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mike has been proven wrong time and again, while the others are confused.

No, I have not.

Until the parties cap spending, no matter how many tax breaks, which overwhelmling help the large corporations at the expense of the middle class

Sigh. . . . As anyone can prove by looking at the tax tables, the middle class got the biggest rate cuts by far, while the rich got the smallest rate cuts and saw their SALT deductions capped at $10K.

And the corporate income tax cut merely brought our insanely high rate down to the top edge of the average corporate income tax rate in Europe. We cut our rate to 21%. The average corporate tax rate in Asia and Europe ranges between 18% and 21%.

Do, pray tell, explain how cutting our corporate income tax rate down to the top of the European-Asian range in any way hurts the middle class, especially given the fact that millions of middle-class workers work for big companies.

the deficit will only increase.

It's just hopeless trying to reason with you, isn't it? If the Trump tax cuts do what every other major tax cut has done since the early 1900s and lead to an *increase* in revenue, how will the tax cuts in any way cause an increase in the deficit? The deficit would be worse if we did not get the revenue hike that has always followed major tax cuts.

Here is what happened to federal revenue following the Bush tax cuts:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Here is how federal revenue fared after Reagan’s tax cuts:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

The GOP is a Big Government Progressive Party.

Then how would you describe the Democratic Party, which wanted to spend even more money?

 

[edthecynic]

Federal revenue has increased after every single major tax cut since the early 1900s.

That's a LIE!

The fact that Mike is correct, and it has been proven in multiple threads through links, means there is absolutely no reason to go down that road again. Unless you have new data, it is up to you to prove Mike false; which you can't, because he is correct, like it or not!

IOW, Mike is lying but I won't admit it.

The way Mike lied is Reagan's tax cuts began in 1981, not 1983 which is when Mike dishonestly began his numbers. Revenue DECREASED in 1981 AND 1982 drastically, so much so that Reagan RAISED taxes for 1983, the largest peacetime tax increase in history, and only after that massive Reagan tax INCREASE did revenue increase.
Therefore Mike is a premeditated liar, but you knew that already!

 

[JakeStarkey]

As anyone knows, Mike has often been in error because of his dogmatic commitment to his thesis of near libertarian economics theory being screwed on to selected evidence.

Ed reveals one of Mike's shenanigans in the post immediately above.

Sigh, as everyone knows, the tax savings are not much and are terminal in the near future.

A consumer society requires consumers empowered to engage and drive the economic market.

We need true middle-class tax reform and an end to kissing corporate economic ass.

 

[mikegriffith1]

IOW, Mike is lying but I won't admit it.

This is unreal. You have used these same misleading arguments before about the Reagan tax cuts, and I have answered them before. I even included a link in the OP that answers the arguments. Yet, you have trotted them out once again. Here we go:

The way Mike lied is Reagan's tax cuts began in 1981, not 1983 which is when Mike dishonestly began his numbers. Revenue DECREASED in 1981 AND 1982 drastically, so much so that Reagan RAISED taxes for 1983, the largest peacetime tax increase in history, and only after that massive Reagan tax INCREASE did revenue increase.
Therefore Mike is a premeditated liar, but you knew that already!

No, this just proves that you are premeditated liar. You, once again, conveniently omitted the fact that a huge recession started in July 1981, barely six months after Reagan took office and before the first phase of his tax cuts had even been implemented, and that the recession ended in November 1982. To further respond to your nonsense, I'll just quote from my article on the Bush and Reagan tax cuts, which I linked in my OP, and which you obviously did not bother to read:

To this day, in spite of the clear economic record, liberals continue to lie about and distort Reagan’s record on tax cuts and tax increases. They endlessly point out that Reagan raised taxes in 1982 and 1984, but they ignore the fact that his tax hikes were far smaller than his tax cuts and that he agreed to those tax hikes because Congress promised to enact spending reductions. Congress broke its word and never did cut spending. Liberals also often ignore the fact that Reagan’s tax hikes involved business income and loopholes, not personal income tax rates, and that he cut personal income taxes again in 1986.

One of the “tax increases” that liberals include in their list of Reagan tax hikes is his increase in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax). Reagan agreed to this increase as part of a deal with Democrats to ensure that Social Security stayed solvent. It seems rather misleading and unfair to label as a “tax increase” an increase in the amount that citizens must contribute to a fund from which they will later draw. Although raising the payroll tax does mean less money in peoples’ pockets, it also means that they will be able to collect their full promised Social Security benefit when they reach retirement age.

Liberals usually ignore the fact that Reagan’s historic 1981 tax cuts were phased in over a three-year period. The 1982 and 1984 tax-hike bills that Reagan signed did not raise revenue by raising personal income tax rates; rather, they raised revenue by making it harder to evade taxes, by reducing various tax breaks for businesses, and by closing tax loopholes. Reagan’s 1986 tax reform measure cut the top marginal rate down to 28%, but it also reduced tax breaks and tax shelters for the rich.

Again, the bottom line is that under Reagan the overall tax burden on Americans dropped dramatically. Anyone can look at the tax brackets for 1980 and 1988 and see that income tax rates were much lower at the end of Reagan’s presidency than they were when he took office. The next time a liberal tries to tell you that Reagan’s tax hikes “cancelled out much of his tax cuts,” just show them those tax tables.

Reagan also cut the capital gains tax rate for individuals. In 1979, the capital gains tax rate for individuals was 35%. In 1981, Reagan reduced that rate to 20%, and it stayed at that level for five years. In 1986, he agreed to raise the rate to 28%, but that was still far lower than what it had been before he took office. In other words, when Reagan left office in January 1989, the capital gains tax rate for individuals was 20% lower, or 7 percentage points lower, than it had been the year before he was elected.

Incidentally, as a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.​

To get a clear picture of just how massively Reagan cut tax rates, let's compare tax rates in 1986, after most of Reagan's tax cuts had been phased in, and 1988, Reagan's last year in office and after his tax cuts had been fully phased in, with tax rates in 1980 under Jimmy Carter:

1980 (under Jimmy Carter)
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 0%
$3,400.00+ 14%
$5,500.00+ 16%
$7,600.00+ 18%
$11,900.00+ 21%
$16,000.00+ 24%
$20,200.00+ 28%
$24,600.00+ 32%
$29,900.00+ 37%
$35,200.00+ 43%
$45,800.00+ 49%
$60,000.00+ 54%
$85,600.00+ 59%
$109,400.00+ 64%
$162,400.00+ 68%
$215,400.00+ 70%

1986 (under Ronald Reagan)
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 11%
$3,000.00+ 15%
$28,000.00+ 28%
$45,000.00+ 35%
$90,000.00+ 38.5%

1988 (under Ronald Reagan)
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 15%
$30,950.00+ 28%

And yet, look what happened to federal revenue from 1987 to 1989:

1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Finally, Jake Starkey made the laughable claim that the Trump tax cuts are "not much" and will end "in the future." How can any rational, honest person say such demonstrably false things? Ask anyone who makes between $80K and $400K how much their take-home pay has gone up thanks to the Trump tax cuts. I'm in the lower part of the third tax bracket, and my net pay has gone up by $220 per month. That is a whole more than "not much."

What's more, the personal income tax cuts don't expire for another eight years. I've never heard someone describe a time that is eight years away as being in "the near future." By the way, it was the Democrats who refused to make the personal income tax cuts in the Trump tax cuts permanent. Furthermore, we know from long experience that at least the middle-class tax cuts of the Trump tax cuts will almost certainly be renewed. Even Barack Obama did not have the nerve to end the middle-class tax cuts in the Bush tax cuts--he made them all permanent, while modestly raising the rate on the top bracket. Of course, if Republicans control Congress and the White House in eight years, we won't have to worry about any of the tax cuts being discontinued.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mike will not admit our deficit is larger despite plans with tax cuts.

That always happens under GOP presidents from Reagan on.

Make the tax cuts much bigger for the middle class and not so high for business, and watch the economy jump like a rabbit, businesses grow, tax revenue really grow.

 

[busybee01]

The first thing you need to understand about the liberal distortions and falsehoods about the Trump tax cuts is that when liberals talk about the tax cuts, they are hoping that their audience won't know enough math to comprehend the huge difference between gross dollar amounts and percentages. Let us start with a simple example and then talk about real numbers under the Trump tax cuts.

If a couple who make $30K get a 10% tax cut and a couple who make $90K get a 5% tax cut, you could make these tax cuts seem unfair to the low-income couple if you only considered the gross dollar amounts. Why? Because the $30K couple are saving $3,000 in taxes but the $90K couple are saving $4,500 in taxes, since 10% of $30K is $3,000 and 5% of $90K is $4,500. The low-income couple are getting to keep a much larger share/percentage of their income than the middle-class couple are getting to keep, but the middle-class couple are saving more in gross dollars simply as a function of math because they make much more income than the low-income couple make and because they pay much more in taxes than the low-income couple pay.

Under the Trump tax cuts, a married couple who make $2M have had their top marginal rate (TMR) cut from 39.6% to 37%, a 6.9% decrease, whereas a married couple who make $100K have had their TMR cut from 25% to 22%, a 12% decrease. So the couple making $100K are getting to keep a much larger percentage of their income than the rich couple; they are getting a 12% TMR cut while the rich couple are getting a 6.9% TMR cut.

However, if you only consider gross dollar amounts, you might fool people who don't know basic math into believing that the rich couple are getting the much better deal. The rich couple's TMR taxes have been cut by $36,400, whereas the middle-class couple's TMR taxes have been cut by $688. A 6.9% reduction on the taxes paid on the rich couple's TMR-taxable income of $1,400,000 saves them $36,400 ($554,400 minus $518,000), whereas a 12% cut on the taxes paid on the middle-class couple's TMR-taxable income of $22,600 saves them $688 ($5,650 minus $4,972). The rich couple are saving more dollars in taxes because they were paying a lot more dollars in taxes, but the middle-class husband and wife are getting to keep a much larger percentage of their income than the rich couple are getting to keep.

Furthermore, of course, if you only consider gross dollar amounts in the above case, you can say that about 90% of the savings from the tax cuts are going to the rich couple, since the total savings is $37,088, and $36,400 of that is going to the rich couple, even though the middle-class couple are getting to keep a much larger percentage of their income.

Another thing you need to understand about liberal propaganda about the Trump tax cuts is that liberals are not just talking about the personal income tax cuts, which undeniably gave the biggest rate cuts to the middle class, but they are including, usually without saying so, the corporate income tax cuts that were part of the Trump tax cuts.

When you hear liberals say that 80/82/85/90/95/98% of "the tax cuts" are "going to the rich," they rarely tell you that they're basing part of that claim on the corporate income tax cuts that were included in the Trump tax cuts, even though (1) corporate income taxes are paid from corporate earnings and not from personal income, (2) hundreds of companies have used part of the savings from the corporate income tax cuts to give their employees bonuses and/or better benefits, (3) the companies that have benefited the most from the corporate income tax cuts are companies that provide the kinds of good-paying jobs that liberals always say they want to see increase, (4) the corporate income tax cuts have caused hundreds of billions of dollars of American corporate dollars that were parked overseas to come back to the U.S., and (5) the corporate income tax cuts merely brought our corporate income tax rate down to the top end of the average corporate income tax range in Europe and Asia (18% to 21%--our rate is now 21% and with no graduated levels up to that point).

Analysis of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

You are being redirected...

You are being redirected...

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts

You are partially right and partially wrong. You are right about the individual tax rates however you fail to tell the whole truth. The fact is that a number of tax loopholes are in the tax bill that will benefit the rich. The first is the carried interest deduction. Trump was right when he called it a tax break for Wall Street. It should have been repealed. The pass-through rate is another opportunity for the rich to lower their taxes. In addition the new pass-through rate for real-estate
trusts is another sop to the rich. Trump will get a big tax-break as well as Paul Ryan who inserted the provision at the last minute. These loopholes need to be closed.

As to the corporate tax cuts it makes sense to lower tax rates in return for fewer deductions. However Paul Ryan said they could only get the corporate tax rate down to 25% based on the corporate tax breaks they had gotten rid off. To get it down to 21% they had to divert money from individuals to pay for the corporate tax cuts. The mandate was dumped to divert around $400 million to business tax cuts. Stock buybacks and dividends do overwhelmingly benefit the rich.