MAGA! FY2016 and FY2019 cumulative receipts are AT PAR, however.....

.....that doesn't mean Trumps tax cuts are paying for themselves, and here's why;

First, the numbers, BEFORE and AFTER Trump's tax cuts;

1. FY2016 July cumulative receipts; $2.679 trillion, in today's dollar; $2.863 trillion
2. FY2019 July cumulative receipts; $2.860 trillion

Sources; Monthly Treasury Statement, current and previous issues//U.S. Inflation Calculator

Republican rationale; "Well obviously, Trump's tax cuts are paying for themselves"

Huuuuuummmm, not really, and here's why;

1. FY2016 July cumulative deficit; $514 billion, in today's dollar; $549 billion
2. FY2019 July cumulative deficit; $867 billion

Additional deficit spending; $353 billion

Questions;

1. What's the economic multiplier of said additional deficit spending?

Answer; NO ONE KNOWS

2. In 2019, how much goods and services said additional deficit purchased, thus, increased one component of GDP "Government Spending", and growth generally increases employment/revenues?

Answer; NO ONE KNOWS

3. Last, how much revenues Trump's 2017/2018/2019 additional deficit spending have generated?

Answer; NO ONE KNOWS

In other words, if NO ONE KNOWS the answer to the above mentioned questions, then, we will never know if Trump's tax cuts are paying for themselves.

HOWEVER, if we were to assume that every dollar spent above $543 billion generated 10 cents in revenues, then clearly, Trump's tax cuts HAVE YET paid for themselves.

By the way, one indisputable fact; Corporate income taxes are DOWN significantly;

1. FY2016 July cumulative corporate income taxes/BEFORE the tax cuts; $232 billion, in today's dollar; $248 billion.

2. FY2019 July cumulative corporate income taxes; $171 billion

Source; Monthly treasury statement, current and previous issues

 

The problem with your analysis is that spending is disconnected from revenue. You demonstrate that revenue went up in spite of the tax cuts. Well...what else can you really go by? We've had run away spending that has nothing to do with the tax receipts collected.

Therefore, it seems safe to say that the tax cuts had either a neutral or positive effect on tax revenue.

 

Anyone who has a basic understanding of economics knew tax receipts were gonna skyrocket after the tax cuts

 

Quote: "We've had run away spending that has nothing to do with the tax receipts collected"

I disagree.

Question 2; In 2019, how much goods and services said additional deficit purchased, thus, increased one component of GDP "Government Spending", and growth generally increases employment/revenues?

Thus, there is a correlation between "government spending" and "tax receipts"

 

Tax cuts do spur growth, and growth increases employment/revenues, and for anyone's info, government purchases of goods and services also spur growth;

Components of GDP explained;

3. Government spending

Government spending was $3.18 trillion in 2018. That's 17% of total GDP. It's less than the 19% it contributed in 2006. In other words, the government was spending more when the economy was booming before the recession.


The federal government spent $1 .23 trillion in 2018. More than 60% was military spending.

State and local government contributions were 10%. Although this spending rose a bit since 2017, other sectors of the economy grew faster

https://www.thebalance.com/components-of-gdp-explanation-formula-and-chart-3306015

----------------------------------

AND AGAIN;

Question 2; In 2019, how much goods and services said additional deficit purchased, thus, increased one component of GDP "Government Spending", and growth generally increases employment/revenues?

Answer; NO ONE KNOWS

 

Quote: Therefore, it seems safe to say that the tax cuts had either a neutral or positive effect on tax revenue

I disagree

My belief is Trump's tax cuts were too steep, thus, negatively affected revenues.

 

I think you're arguing that government spending is also stimulative so...what? I'm not sure I'm following. Are you arguing that since deficit spending stimulated the economy, the increase in tax revenue is due to deficit spending?

 

How so? You just posted numbers that said tax revenues increased.

 

Yes, revenues have increased, currently at 16% of GDP, however, that's a low percentage compared to Reagan's/Clinton's/Bush's +17% of GDP/"strong economies", and today, 1% of GDP equates to approx. $200 billion, and here's the main reason why Trump's cumulative revenues as a percent of GDP isn't over 17%;

BECAUSE HIS TAX CUTS WERE TOO STEEP!

 

Quote: Are you arguing that since deficit spending stimulated the economy, the increase in tax revenue is due to deficit spending?

NOT SOLELY DUE TO DEFICIT SPENDING.....My belief is both tax cuts and increasing the deficit significantly above $543 billion have spurred growth/employment/revenues.

 

Bush had tax cuts too, and revenues were up to 30% of GDP in 2004. I think there is something wrong with your theory.

 

The tax receipts caused by government spending will be delayed up to a year because the government does not immediately collect income taxes. The revenues went up at about the same rate they had in previous years.

 

Quote; "revenues were up 30% of GDP in 2004

There is something wrong with said percentage considering the fact 2004 revenues amounted to 13% of GDP

U.S. GDP by year

2003 Real GDP; $13.8 trillion
2004 Real GDP; $14.4 trillion
2005 Real GDP; $14.9 trillion

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

U.S. Federal Tax Revenue by year

2003 $1.72 trillion...….
2004 $1.88 trillion...…..
2005 $2.15 trillion

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

 

Well I can't find the source where I got that figure from so I can't vouch for it.

 

QUESTIONS;

1. Did Clinton's/GOP tax cuts paid for themselves?

Answer; Affirmative!......Lowering long term capital gains tax rates was a windfall to both stock holders and Uncle Sam's Treasury Chest.

2. Did Bush's tax cuts paid for themselves?

Answer; Excluding the fact Bush increased military spending from $432 billion to $763 billion, INCONCLUSIVE!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/

3. Have Trump's tax cuts paid for themselves?

Answer; Excluding the fact Trump increased deficit spending from $543 billion to $867 billion, INCONCLUSIVE!

 

Agree, tax receipts have skyrocketed after the following tax cuts;

Revenue growth rates after the full implementation of Clinton's/Bush's/Trump's tax cuts;

FY1996...….$1.45 trillion
FY1997...….$1.58 trillion.....UP 9%
FY1998...….$1.72 trillion.....UP 9%
FY1999...….$1.82 trillion.....UP 6%

FY2004...…..$1.88 trillion
FY2005...…..$2.15 trillion.....UP 14.5%
FY2006...…..$2.40 trillion.....UP 12%
FY2007...…..$2.57 trillion.....UP 7%

FY2016...…..$3.27 trillion
FY2017...…..$3.32 trillion......UP 1.5%
FY2018...…..$3.33 trillion......UP point three percent (0.3%)
FY2019...…..$3.44 trillion (estimated)…..UP 3.6%

NOTE: FY2016 Custom Duties; $31 billion, FY2019 Custom Duties; $62 billion, up 100%.

NOTE: FY2016 deficit; $585 billion, FY2019 deficit; $1.091 trillion (est.), up 86.5%

Thus, excluding additional custom duties/deficit spending, Trump's revenue growth rates; NEGATIVE!

 

I’ve googled your numbers, thus, the source you couldn’t find is your left frontal lobe.

 

I think the salient question to ask is..........what happens to tax receipts and spending (and thus the deficit) when the inevitable recession comes? A tax cut is the typical stimulative action to take in a downturn. But Don has already done that to much less effect than promised.


Growing Deficits Are Projected to Drive Up Debt
Revenues and outlays are both projected to rise through 2029, but the gap between them is projected to persist, resulting in large deficits and rising debt. According to CBO’s estimates, the deficit now projected for 2019, $896 billion, would grow to $1.3 trillion by 2029. However, outlays for 2029 are affected by shifts in the timing of certain federal payments. Without those shifts, the projected deficit in 2029 would be $1.4 trillion.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55151

 

Wise guy eh?

None the less, it doesn't detract from the fact that your OP is incorrect. Spending is not related to collected revenue. It's a separate, and totally political process.

 

Again, you’re not using a part of your brain....I clearly stated; “There is a correlation between government spending and revenues”, and here’s an example of a positive correlation;

When Trump gave our Servicemen/women a 3% raise, he also raised their social security contributions.

Agree or disagree?

 

That's ridiculous. Social Security has nothing to do with general government revenues, and has nothing to do with tax rates. They had nothing to do with Trump's tax cuts. I see the point you are trying to make, but if you are resorting to say that spending in raising government paychecks results in greater revenues for the separate social security account, than you've lost your argument.

In short: There isn't a correlation between government spending and revenues because government spending (accept in a few accounts like Social Security!) isn't related to revenues collected.

Here's your real argument: Orange Man's tax cuts bad.

 

how the money is spent has no bearing on the fact that the amount of tax revenue went up even though taxes were lower. Some would argue BECAUSE taxes are lower.

 

Quote: Social Security has nothing to do with general government revenues

You are totally bemused!

Monthly Treasury Statement, July 2019

Total cumulative receipts; $2.880 Trillion

SOURCE OF RECEIPTS;

Social insurance and Retirement; $1.043 Trillion

Question; What are the main Federal Social Insurance Programs;

Answer; Old Age, Survivor, Disability, Medicare, unemployment

 

Man you are really trying to divert from your own OP.