TRUMPONOMICS: Tax Revenues Up Big After GOP Tax Cut

MAGA is made in such ways.

Deregulation, the Free Market, and tax cuts.

Imagine if the US had stayed with this policy all along.

The problem, is lefties are gonna lefty.

 

50% of 10,000,000 is FAR LESS THAN 25% of 100,000,000...basic math.

Federal Tax Revenues Hit Record Highs — Are Trump's Tax Cuts Paying For Themselves?



Tax Cuts: The latest monthly Treasury report on taxes and spending shows that gross tax receipts in February were $1.4 billion higher than the year before. Weren't the Republican tax cuts supposed to explode the deficit?
According to the report, the government took in $238.2 billion in taxes in February. The year before, tax revenues were $236.8 billion.

For fiscal year 2018, which started last October, taxes are up $50.5 billion compared with the same months last year, and are at a record high level for this five-month span.

The report does show that net receipts were lower in February compared with last year, but the main reason is that individual income tax refunds jumped $13.3 billion, while corporate tax refunds went up $4 billion, neither of which is the result of the tax cuts that took effect in January.

Even so, net receipts are up by $29.6 billion for the current fiscal year — a 2.4% increase — compared with the same period last year. That's also a record high. (See nearby chart.)



https://www.investors.com/politics/...hs-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paying-for-themselves/

 

Federal Tax Revenues Hit Record Highs — Are Trump's Tax Cuts Paying For Themselves?



Tax Cuts: The latest monthly Treasury report on taxes and spending shows that gross tax receipts in February were $1.4 billion higher than the year before. Weren't the Republican tax cuts supposed to explode the deficit?
According to the report, the government took in $238.2 billion in taxes in February. The year before, tax revenues were $236.8 billion.

For fiscal year 2018, which started last October, taxes are up $50.5 billion compared with the same months last year, and are at a record high level for this five-month span.

The report does show that net receipts were lower in February compared with last year, but the main reason is that individual income tax refunds jumped $13.3 billion, while corporate tax refunds went up $4 billion, neither of which is the result of the tax cuts that took effect in January.

Even so, net receipts are up by $29.6 billion for the current fiscal year — a 2.4% increase — compared with the same period last year. That's also a record high. (See nearby chart.)



https://www.investors.com/politics/...hs-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paying-for-themselves/

 

You clearly do not know what the definition of GDP is!

So going by your knowledge in economics, you expect Trump to achieve steady upswing of ever increasing GDP. Do i need to point out to you that the GDP for the last quarter was lower than the previous quarter?

 

From your link - "The report does show that net receipts were lower in February compared with last year,"

 

I have taken the advice of Mark Twain with this person.

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.'"

 

Did you even read the OP?

"For fiscal year 2018, which started last October, taxes are up $50.5 billion compared with the same months last year, and are at a record high level for this five-month span."

 

Sluggish growth like that can't provide good jobs for Americans. Evidence is all the college graduate millennials that couldn't find work while Obama was president and lived with Mom eight long years

 

So you first think I don't know what GDP is, and then you acknowledge that I do?

This thread should be pinned as a testament to why the left doesn't understand economics. No wonder you guys so easily fall for such scams as Bernie-nomics and UBI.

 

Sorry, Al Gore puts Social security and Medicare in the lockbox, so those taxes don't pay for the tax cuts - as a matter of fact under the current system they are bad news because they aren't fully funded.
So you should be looking at these numbers.
PS. To do it correctly you should also adjust for inflation. Maybe this is how we got in this pickle.

 

That's funny I read this part:
"In the first quarter after the Republican-passed, Donald Trump-signed reform bill — which will save taxpayers and corporations $1.5 trillion in taxes over ten years — tax revenues actually increased by $18 billion (5.2%) over the previous year, resulting in the government running a $51-billion surplus.

 

Your point is?

 

The point is:
The quarter after the tax cut does not begin in October, it begins in January.
And since the tax cuts didn't start until February you can't say anything about January.
You should also index the taxes for inflation.

 

Where are they getting this data from? I can't find any link inside the article or anything else reporting an increase in tax revenues this quarter.

The article also is claiming 5%+ GDP growth which is wrong. GDP growth was down this quarter at 2.3%. This error makes me question the validity of the tax revenue statement.

 

Grok already did
"net receipts are up by $29.6 billion for the current fiscal year — a 2.4% increase — compared with the same period last year. That's also a record high. (See nearby chart.)"

 

They fell and even went into surplus under Republican policy.

 

If you cant support your positions and refute mine Ill will take as a concession.

 

Prove it.
Did we collect more capital gains tax revenue at the Clinton 29% rate, the Gingrich/Kasich 20% rate or the Bush 15% rate? Did tax revenues overall grow faster at the Clinton rates, the Gingrich/Kaisch rates or Bush rates?

 

Cherry picking is fun but in context....

"Even so, net receipts are up by $29.6 billion for the current fiscal year — a 2.4% increase — compared with the same period last year. That's also a record high."

 

You can rail against mathematical fact all you want, but you only look silly when you do so.

Cutting revenue rates will by definition and mathematical fact produce less revenue than had you not cut revenue rates.

 

You know perfectly well I’ve supported everything I’ve posted, and directly refuted your repeated bullshit.

 

Ok. Taking 30% of 1,000,000 is 300,000. Cutting the rate to 20%, reduces the amount to 200,000. Basic math.

Had we not cut rates, we would have collected more. Basic math.

 

Prove it happened. That we collect less revenue at the lower rates. I know economics is a challenge for you but try, the numbers are out there.

Prove that has happened and for one to believe economics is just static math shows a marked lack of knowledge about economics and markets and taxation.

 

No you haven't. You have said in this thread Bush is responsible for all the deficits during his administration, as you have in several threads. Support your claim Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget which ended in a $1,400B deficit. A deficit you included in your debt numbers you attribute to him. Prove that tax revenues fell after the Republican tax rate cuts were full implemented.

 

This is economics not math. Learn the difference.

Now respond to my questions to you

Did we collect more capital gains tax revenue at the Clinton 29% rate, the Gingrich/Kasich 20% rate or the Bush 15% rate? Did tax revenues overall grow faster at the Clinton rates, the Gingrich/Kaisch rates or Bush rates?