Liberal Media Goes Completely Silent After New Report Proves Trump’s Tax Cuts Were Massive Success

I provided supporting evidence. Here it is again...

 

Current tax receipts don't mean much because it depends on withholding and other continuing sources of revenue. It is the total at the end of the year which counts. Personally I liked the extra nearly $2000 a year I was saving on taxes. If you any of you on the left hated the lowered tax rate, you were perfectly free to go ahead donate it back to the government.

 

I asked a question. Whose taxes would you rather pay, Buffet's or his secretary's?

 

Whose taxes would you rather pay, Buffet's or his secretary's?

 

How can people react to a report that is the subjkect of the OP? I would really like to see the report in question because without it I can't make any type of decision and don't see how anyone else can.

 

I didn't see much that supports your case. Revenue increased despite tax cuts. Does that really prove that people were more productive because of the tax cuts? Or would they have just done exactly the same thing either way, and more revenue would have resulted without the tax cuts? I mean, how would you know?

I get that if profit can't be made, the work won't be done for profit, or it will be done elsewhere, but that's kind of an all-or-nothing tipping point.

 

I would rather pay his secretary’s amount and his tax rate percentage

I would hate to have to pay his taxes which were 13.9% of 21.7 million which is actually down from the 17.4% he payed in 2012.

His secretary (Bosanek) pays 35.8% on a little over 200k per year

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes

Feel free to go back and answer my question you skipped over if you can find a way to manage.

 

Simplistic thinking. And, I get it, you don't have a citation for the simulations that you were talking about.

Look, I don't disagree that tax cuts without spending cuts stimulate the economy in the short term and, thus, somewhat buffer the effect on revenue they cause. However, from past experience (Reagan, GWB, and now Trump), we have seen that the economic boost is short lived, paid for by increases in the deficit, and eventually leads to a crash, at which point the deficit REALLY goes through the roof. Now, why anyone wants to encourage such boom bust cycles is beyond me. I would rather go for steady growth, even if somewhat slower than during the boom, if it can avoid the busts, or makes them less frequent.

 

I found that when something is indeterminate based on the process, then results are the next best determination. In this case, revenue went up and continued to go up until Covid interfered. If you can show something which says that the tax cut did not work, then please present it.

 

I never said the tax cuts didn't work. Anyone can stimulate the economy on the national credit card. That doesn't take skill at all.

Now, here is my data, all before covid, in 2019:

Government deficit: $0.98 trillion
GDP growth: 2.3%
Total US GDP: $21.4 trillion
2.3% of $21.4 trillion = $0.49 trillion

So, we "bought" $0.49 billion in GDP growth by going $0.98 trillion into debt. Does this sound like a good deal to you? It does not to me. In essence, without the government $1 trillion stimulus, GDP growth would have been -2.3%.

Conclusion: No, the tax cuts did not work. They made the government deficit go from $0.6 trillion before them, to basically $1 trillion after them. What did it buy? Lower GDP growth than in 2016 under Obama (2.9%). So, $400 billion additional debt for a whole lot of nothing. However, it is good that conservatives have people like you deceived into thinking that the economy was actually great under Trump before covid. No, it wasn't, it was all bought by debt and then some.

Now, I wait for your data to rebut, and I am still waiting for the "simulations" that show that we are on the descending branch of the Laffer curve.

 

Good one

 

Revenue went up, but spending went up even more. That is the problem with Washington. They spend more money because it is not their money and it buys votes.

The economy was so much better under Trump that there is not even a valid comparison.

 

It was a simple question. Sounds to me like you are admitting that Buffet paid far more taxes than his secretary did. Isn't that how you want it?

 

You're wrong about health care. (And yes, the Democrats controlled the power of the purse, much like Republicans do now. I wish both parties held their feet to the fire when they control said spending. Instead, because of the so-called debt ceiling limit, attempts to negotiate have been futile and so neither party made any meaningful change.)


https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/01/why-are-americans-paying-more-for-healthcare

Logistical costs are amplifying the problem. The damn administrative issues, and the paperwork. And yes the sheer overload of the public sector services.

What Liberals for some reason, do not understand is that these public services were never meant to provide for this many people. Let me give you a separate example: The school lunch program. I bet you that program could go further if we could cut the poverty rate in half. Why? The less people on the program, the more the dollar could provide to a starving child.

And no, not by 'cutting them off the program', but by making it so that people are self-sufficient and therefore, don't need the program. The government should aspire for putting people in a position to succeed. Instead, the liberal response to our economic challenges is to simply keep people from failing.

The same with health care. I support a double-tier heath care program(Singapore, #3 ranked in the world has such a system.). Private health care allows those who want said health care, and their doctor, etc to keep it. And those on the public programs can remain as well. With the two camps more or less divided, the financial burden is also divided and now the public sector can manage a lower percentage of debt.

Shocker!

If the government enables the people to succeed, the people will help the government succeed. If the government takes on less responsibility, it will need less and can do more with less.

This is not groundbreaking stuff. It's just making sound financial decisions. And macroeconomics requires as much sound decision making as microeconomics.

 

The solution here, again is controlled government spending. 21.4 trillion is massive production. Even Liberal graphs have shown that the working class is working their asses off. The American economy is one of the most productive economies in the world and that's with 1/3rd of our working adults rotating from jobs, at any given cycle. Imagine if we could somehow get even more of them in the working force.

Liberals think the magic elixir is to 'tax the rich', but let's say we were to adopt a Roosevelt-level progressive tax. Just like with the Trump era, you too would have a short bump. But for a different reason: Eventually the well runs dry, between the wealth of the country going down(since more of it's going to the government). Let alone what would happen with offshore havens. And yes, I know the government wants to crack down on those. Then layoffs become a thing as small businesses(less than 500 employees) can't handle the strain.

The reason why Roosevelt's taxes 'worked'(even though the government didn't truly come out of it until the late 50's and 60's) is that it was a much smaller economic pool, than the one we have today. Less mouths to feed obviously, so less of a cost. As the cost of the government has risen, so too has the financial burden on the American People.

Tax cuts without reduced spending is meaningless. But higher taxes without reduced spending is not only meaningless, it's cruel. The US Government works its citizens like slaves, to support its existence.

 

She made 1% of what he did and he paid about half the percentage that she did. So no — that didn’t “how I want it”

What are you not comprehending here?

I also noticed you still glossed over the very simple questions I asked. Too difficult or do they just expose the narrative?

 

By percentage, it doesn't look like a fair deal. But isn't that what a progressive tax bracket is? Not to mention all of the deductibles. Now, if we want deductibles out of the system, that's fine but then the government has to trade that off with proper tax values in relation to other countries(which is what the Trump Administration did.)

You can't take deductibles out of the system AND increase taxes. It then becomes unprofitable to run a business or to invest. Another issue is people thinking there are more Warren Buffets than there actually are. No, there's way more ma and pa stores.

 

Who paid the most federal taxes? He did. Isn't that what you want? You guys are complaining about something you have already accomplished. The rich pay far more taxes than the poor, exactly what you want.

 

So, you don't have data, you don't have simulations, just feelings that the economy was better under Trump. Now, I showed my data. Why don't you try to rebut them? Should be fun. Or, maybe you know that I am correct, you just can't admit it.

 

Funny thing is, it's hard to point to an era, historically or at its time where Democrats can be said to have a good economy. Even Bill Clinton's .com bubble, is acknowledged as a bubble in which contributed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and subprime mortgages down the line.

There isn't a Republican equivalent, unless one considers the military(and I do consider military spending to be outrageous.). That's why I'd love a Biden second term. Instead of a 'Repubican owing to the Biden recovery', let's let Biden hold that bag. If it's so good, Biden should enjoy the fruits of his labor. And equally, should it fall apart Biden deserves the credit for its fall.

But then, Democrats would not have a message for 2028 because for once, they can't blame it on tax cuts for the rich or for Republican policies ruining a 'good thing' by Democrats.

 

A progressive tax system is supposed to increase as income does — not decrease.

The trump administration did no such thing, they lowered taxes but made the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent while they are temporarily for everyone else.

We are discussing individual taxes only, not corporate

Ma and pa stores that are making tens of millions in profits should also be taxed higher

 

Ah, so it is percentages that are causing you issue. I don’t feel like doing an intro to basic math that I had assumed was taught in early childhood but here we are.

Also noticed you still blew past the questions. A person with integrity would say “maybe I should rethink my positions if I cannot answer basic questions without demolishing my narrative”.

 

'Ma and pa stores that are making tens of millions'. This is what I mean! Okay, we need stats right. Okay, lemme go look up some links.

https://www.fundera.com/resources/small-business-revenue-statistics

Liberals really base their economic policy around the .5% of business people in the world. And that's why their economic thesis is wacky. Yes, Warren Buffett could probably by himself, pay more in taxes but the vast majority of these people are going to be CRUSHED by a high taxation policy.

There's not a bunch of Warren Buffets out there, wealth is not being 'secretly hoarded' as such. The ones hogging American Wealth is the big, overbloated American Government. We could cut Government expenditure up by 35%, and that much in revenue to the people would result in a massive wealth explosion.

We could do something about credit card debt/liquidation, freeing up that much more money. My economic policy shifts from feeding the bloated government, to giving the people the relief they deserve. At that, if the federal government is going to have this money, it should use its money more towards management of domestic necessities, roads, etc so that more states could follow Florida and Texas and be State income tax free.

Power to the people, most of whom aren't Warren Buffett.

 

The fact is our country is most financially responsible when there is a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. No other combination works.

 

The basic math shows Buffet pays far, far more taxes than his secretary does. So, you've already got exactly what you want - the rich paying more taxes than the poorer. In fact, about 50% of Americans pay zero federal income taxes.