TRUMPONOMICS: Tax Revenues Up Big After GOP Tax Cut

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Josephwalker, Apr 28, 2018.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are confusing him now. He thinks first grade math answers all questions.
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,590
    Likes Received:
    7,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already proven. And you don’t even know the branches of government, so you shoildnt really act like you know economics.



    Already proven. Basic math.
     
  3. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,590
    Likes Received:
    7,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know perfectly well that I have.
     
  4. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,590
    Likes Received:
    7,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Math isn’t s part of economics. You need to learn the basic math, then we can move on to economics so I can school you on that too.



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

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,590
    Likes Received:
    7,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It quite clearly answers how much revenue can be collected. If you cut the rate at which you collect, it is a demonstrable mathematical fact you will collect less.
     
  6. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    12,224
    Likes Received:
    9,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So tax rates are cut and spending is up. And tax revenues are up.

    Did it occur to you that the increased spending might be something of a stimulus that also raises tax revenues? Possibly offsetting the drop in revenues resulting from tax cuts?

    I'm not drawing conclusions here - just pointing out that when a number of variables change and the output (result) also changes, it is very simplistic to link the change in output to the change in a single input variable.
     
    Grokmaster likes this.
  7. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, in context would be the quarter after the tax cuts, but that's okay, we both know the truth.
    But the other thing I would like to point out to you is revenue almost always goes up over time as more people enter the work force and inflation acts on wages. So please don't try and do a bluesguy and tell us that revenues went up between say Carter and Johnson because Carter did such a good job with tax cuts.
     
  8. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    22,899
    Likes Received:
    7,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of dear! Directly from your link "The report does show that net receipts were lower in February compared with last year,"

    Now, when did the tax cut start? February! Delusional seems the apt word to describe the way you see things.

    I think I'll point this out again to you as you seem to have ignored it:
    You're using a web site that is still highlighting a 5.4% GDP in the first quarter! Then it states that the figures refer to a quarter that started in October 2017. Your link is months old!
     
  9. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    22,899
    Likes Received:
    7,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You stated "If year one is zero, and year two is higher, and year three is higher still...that's a steady upswing" So, using your (lack of) knowledge of economics clearly means that Trump has already failed to achieve a steady quarterly GDP upswing. Let me explain it more simply - GDP for last quarter is lower then the last

    You clearly have a lack of knowledge of economics and would be a sucker for pyramid schemes.

    So let me explain to you why a positive GDP is a steady upswing using basic maths and an average GDP of 1.9%.

    Year 1 effective GDP = 100
    Year 2 effective GDP = 101.9
    Year 3 effective GDP = 103.8361
    Year 4 effective GDP = 105.8089
    Year 5 effective GDP = 107.8119
    Year 6 effective GDP = 109.867

    Notice how every year the difference in GDP is increasing year on year? Basic maths that you clearly struggle to understand
     
    AKS likes this.
  10. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    44,395
    Likes Received:
    17,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow you are still on it, but you did reveal something that explains why you don't understand what's going on. Those percentages I used were percentages of the increase in GDP for each year, not the total GDP each year.

    That's why an increase in GDP for 2010 of 2.5% and an increase for 2011 of 1.6% is NOT a steady upswing, it's a decline, even though the total GDP for the economy is larger each year.

    I thought I was being obvious that I was using increases since that is almost always the metric used in discussing GDP from year to year, not total GDP so that explains why you were wrong.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  11. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    22,899
    Likes Received:
    7,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, you wrote this "Those percentages I used were percentages of the increase in GDP for each year, not the total GDP each year."

    LOL.
    You clearly don't even know how the GDP growth rate is calculated.
    I even made it easier for you to understand by not raising each year on year increase to the power of 4
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2018
  12. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because anytime the GDP is above zero the economy is growing. 1.6 is not as much as 2.5, but it is still steadily growing. What's so hard about that?
     
  13. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    44,395
    Likes Received:
    17,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you are saying those figures are incorrect?
     
  14. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    44,395
    Likes Received:
    17,993
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Already covered, but as I'm discovering, no amount of hand holding will educate you.
     
  15. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    22,899
    Likes Received:
    7,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A little test for you. Using the average of 1.9% quarterly GDP growth rate and a GDP of 100 at end of year 1, what should the exact figures for GDP at end of years 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 be? Already given you a clue with the statement regarding power of 4
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2018
  16. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    44,395
    Likes Received:
    17,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That question shows you don't yet understand the issue. Nor do I expect you to.
     
    GreenBayMatters likes this.
  17. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    22,899
    Likes Received:
    7,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already expected you to not know how GDP growth rate is calculated so no surprise that you could not answer it
     
  18. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    44,395
    Likes Received:
    17,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't even tell me what the issue is that we're discussing.
     
  19. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Miss this, did you?

    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.)
     
  20. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    22,899
    Likes Received:
    7,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh I certainly can. Any positive GDP growth rate is an upswing to those who understand basic maths, unlike you who thinks that GDP growth rate has to always be increasing quarter on quarter to achieve an upswing. So using your logic of economics, I'm waiting for you to state that Trump has achieved a downturn due to GDP growth rate being less this past quarter compared to previous quarter
     
  21. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,445
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You aren't kidding. That writeup comes from the editorial of "Investor's Business Daily" a well-known right friendly rag. talk about leaving out some VERY important parts. Not uncommon for IBD.

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    So not only is this a temporary increase in revenue but the deficit increases and the GOP's tax "cut" pulls money out of individual tax payers' pockets and we know that those individuals aren't the top 10%.
     
  22. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    22,899
    Likes Received:
    7,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No i didn't. This thread is attempting to give credit to the tax cuts but, and it is a big but, the tax cuts came into effect in the February tax receipts figures not October 2017 to January 2018. Here is the relevant extract "The [CBO report] says that revenues for the first four months of the current fiscal year — which started last October — were $46 billion higher than the same period the year before."

    The link in the OP is months old
     
  23. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    44,395
    Likes Received:
    17,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An upswing isn't going up one year, down the other, and up another, then down again. You think it is. So there doesn't seem to be an end to this impasse. You think an upswing means up and down, instead of steadily increasing.

    Good luck to you sir.
     
  24. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a downturn, or it would be a negative number...
    Consumer spending accounts for 70% or more of the GDP, and the exploding economy is ample proof....
     
  25. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is why, grok, the middle class should have gotten a much better tax cut. Corporations need customers more than tax cuts.
     
    bx4, ronv and ThorInc like this.

Share This Page