Trump: No cuts to 401(k)s

[IMMensaMind 462]

There is angst anytime there is change. Let me do the math for you.

 

Trump wants to "cut" taxes, but is not decreasing spending and is looking to actually increase spending in some areas like the military. Since we already spend more than we bring in, then the deficit goes up and/or the tax cuts don't happen. Hence, angst.

No, you misunderstand. I am looking for legitimate evidence to justify angst.

 

Not useless worry.

 

For instance: the last three times a President notably cut taxes, the amount of revenue collected INCREASED.

 

Do you have something which supports a different notion than that?

 

IGotWorms didn't. Do you?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No, you misunderstand. I am looking for legitimate evidence to justify angst.

 

Not useless worry.

 

For instance: the last three times a President notably cut taxes, the amount of revenue collected INCREASED.

 

Do you have something which supports a different notion than that?

 

IGotWorms didn't. Do you?

 

Start here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/?utm_term=.c74c2c429b27

 

I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.

 

The best growth in recent memory came after President Bill Clinton raised taxes in the ’90s.

 

By Bruce Bartlett

September 28

Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform — Why We Need It and What It Will Take."

[Baker Boy 1,704]

Oh, so prices will go down then? Sure, they will.

 

Not every corporation is a public company.

 

Some will, some wages will go up, some businesses will expand creating new jobs, etc. I can see you are uninformed on business and Capitalism but that is why you are a Socialist.

 

.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Some will, some wages will go up, businesses will expand creating new jobs, etc. I can see you are uninformed on business and Capitalism but that is why you are a Socialist.

 

Ha. Already throwing your gun. Shame.

[Baker Boy 1,704]

Ha. Already throwing your gun. Shame.

 

To think the 1% is going to keep this for themselves is obtuse, you make money by growing your business and everyone profits

[IGotWorms 4,060]

How is that a cut for the rich? Are they all going to give themselves raises? Corporate taxes are paid by the consumer. Stocks will go up but over 50% of the country is in the market so this benefits the working man.

Theres one born every minute

[IMMensaMind 462]

Start here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/?utm_term=.c74c2c429b27

 

That's not what I asked for. Linking me to some clown who no one has ever heard of - who claims that he 'created a myth' when facts trump myth is utterly useless. It's a form of circular reasoning. What you literally did was say "ok, here's another guy who agrees with me, and I'm posting it because I'm hoping you don't call me on the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority".

 

But let's move past it. Let's get you on record.

 

What happened to revenue collections post Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Higher? Lower? Higher than the rate of inflation?

 

Are you going to try to post - like I predicted would happen when I challenged Worms to produce actual numbers - a chart which tracks revenue collections to growth of GDP?

 

How about you post raw numbers, like I did? Here are two more charts on it, neither of which I used before:

 

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Reagan%20tax%20cuts%20and%20revenue.jpg

 

http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Reagan-tax-revenue-4.2012.gif

 

Please. Provide me your explanation of the massive increase to the US Treasury as a result of Reagan's massive cut from 70% top marginal rate to 28%.

 

By your reasoning, revenues should have cratered. Why didn't they?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Theres one born every minute

There sure is.

 

They're the ones who run away the minute their asked to back up their bullsht. Invitation to do so is still open to you.

 

Tell me how revenues dropped to the US Treasury after Reagan's Tax cut, Worms.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

That's not what I asked for. Linking me to some clown who no one has ever heard of - who claims that he 'created a myth' when facts trump myth is utterly useless. It's a form of circular reasoning. What you literally did was say "ok, here's another guy who agrees with me, and I'm posting it because I'm hoping you don't call me on the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority".

 

But let's move past it. Let's get you on record.

 

What happened to revenue collections post Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Higher? Lower? Higher than the rate of inflation?

 

Are you going to try to post - like I predicted would happen when I challenged Worms to produce actual numbers - a chart which tracks revenue collections to growth of GDP?

 

How about you post raw numbers, like I did? Here are two more charts on it, neither of which I used before:

 

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Reagan%20tax%20cuts%20and%20revenue.jpg

 

http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Reagan-tax-revenue-4.2012.gif

 

Please. Provide me your explanation of the massive increase to the US Treasury as a result of Reagan's massive cut from 70% top marginal rate to 28%.

 

By your reasoning, revenues should have cratered. Why didn't they?

This is exactly why Ive been ignoring this fool. Its just a trap to more disinformation, spin and flat out stupidity.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

That's not what I asked for. Linking me to some clown who no one has ever heard of - who claims that he 'created a myth' when facts trump myth is utterly useless. It's a form of circular reasoning. What you literally did was say "ok, here's another guy who agrees with me, and I'm posting it because I'm hoping you don't call me on the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority".

 

But let's move past it. Let's get you on record.

 

What happened to revenue collections post Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Higher? Lower? Higher than the rate of inflation?

 

Are you going to try to post - like I predicted would happen when I challenged Worms to produce actual numbers - a chart which tracks revenue collections to growth of GDP?

 

How about you post raw numbers, like I did? Here are two more charts on it, neither of which I used before:

 

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Reagan%20tax%20cuts%20and%20revenue.jpg

 

http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Reagan-tax-revenue-4.2012.gif

 

Please. Provide me your explanation of the massive increase to the US Treasury as a result of Reagan's massive cut from 70% top marginal rate to 28%.

 

By your reasoning, revenues should have cratered. Why didn't they?

 

Didn't read the article did you.

 

The Reagan tax cut did have a positive effect on the economy, but the prosperity of the ’80s is overrated in the Republican mind. In fact, aggregate real gross domestic product growth was higher in the ’70s — 37.2 percent vs. 35.9 percent.

Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan’s defense buildup and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government’s purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.

 

Third, there was the simple bounce-back from the recession of 1981-82. Recoveries in the postwar era tended to be V-shaped — they were as sharp as the downturns they followed. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery.

Finally, I’m not sure how many Republicans even know anymore that Reagan raised taxes several times after 1981. His last budget showed that as of 1988, the aggregate, cumulative revenue loss from the 1981 tax cut was $264 billion and legislated tax increases brought about half of that back.

 

Today, Republicans extol the virtues of lowering marginal tax rates, citing as their model the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate to just 28 percent from 50 percent, and the corporate tax rate to 34 percent from 46 percent. What follows, they say, would be an economic boon. Indeed, textbook tax theory says that lowering marginal tax rates while holding revenue constant unambiguously raises growth.

 

But there is no evidence showing a boost in growth from the 1986 act. The economy remained on the same track, with huge stock market crashes — 1987’s “Black Monday,” 1989’s Friday the 13th “mini-crash” and a recession beginning in 1990. Real wages fell.

 

Strenuous efforts by economists to find any growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find much. The most thorough analysis, by economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, found only a shifting of income due to tax reform, no growth effects: “The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little,” they concluded.

The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s.

 

Despite huge tax cuts almost annually during the George W. Bush administration that cost the Treasury trillions in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office, growth collapsed in the first decade of the 2000s. Real GDP rose just 19.5 percent, well below its ’90s rate.

 

We saw another test of the Republican tax myth in 2013, after President Barack Obama allowed some of the Bush tax cuts to expire, raising the top income tax rate to its current 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The economy grew nicely afterward and the stock market has boomed — up around 10,000 points over the past five years.

 

Now, Republicans propose cutting the top individual rate to 35 percent, despite lacking evidence that this lower rate led to growth during the Bush years, and a drop in the corporate tax rate to just 20 percent from 35 percent. Unlike 1986, however, this $1.5 trillion cut over the next decade will only be paid for partially by closing tax loopholes.

Republicans’ various claims are irreconcilable. One is that the rich will not benefit even though it is practically impossible for them not to — those paying the most taxes already will necessarily benefit the most from a large tax cut. And there aren’t enough tax deductions, exclusions and credits benefiting the rich that could be abolished to offset a cut in the top rate.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Didn't read the article did you.

 

It appears that the one who didn't read it was you. I even predicted that you'd lean on GDP. You did.

 

Revenues increased. The contention by progs is that tax cuts crater revenues.

 

Why has that never happened?

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

I'm sorry you have bought the bullsht you've been fed comrade.

 

Now go make your boss a sammich.

[wiffleball 4,793]

You know, there's a lot of good information out there for those trolls who actually want to learn something rather than just get attention on a message board.

 

The numbers that have jumped out so far are that there are about 11,000 people with Estates over 5 million dollars that will benefit from the repeal of the estate tax. Also that the majority of the overall benefit will go to those earning more than $730,000 a year.

 

However, the actual verbiage hasn't been written yet nor run through committees so take some of this with a grain of salt.

 

And if that fails, just call anything you disagree with or that fails to support your particular point fake news. Seems to be all the rage these days.

 

The one thing people on both sides of the aisle seem to Universally agree with is that the idea that somehow all of this is going to pay for itself is an absolute f****** fairy tale.

 

So, that's a start at least.

[wiffleball 4,793]

and Jesus, do we have to have this conversation yet again? You can lower the nominal raid all you want. The real issue in corporate America is effective rate. &, given the plethora of dodges loopholes accelerated depreciation etcetera there are scores and scores and scores of companies in fact hundreds of companies who don't pay anywhere near the nominal rate and in fact scores and scores don't pay any FIT whatsoever.

 

But, it makes for a great headline for the uneducated to read, assuming they can read, that Trump lowered the top corporate tax rate by X percent!

[IMMensaMind 462]

You know, there's a lot of good information out there for those trolls who actually want to learn something rather than just get attention on a message board.

The numbers that have jumped out so far are that there are about 11,000 people with Estates over 5 million dollars that will benefit from the repeal of the estate tax. Also that the majority of the overall benefit will go to those earning more than $730,000 a year.

However, the actual verbiage hasn't been written yet nor run through committees so take some of this with a grain of salt.

And if that fails, just call anything you disagree with or that fails to support your particular point fake news. Seems to be all the rage these days.

The one thing people on both sides of the aisle seem to Universally agree with is that the idea that somehow all of this is going to pay for itself is an absolute f****** fairy tale.

So, that's a start at least.

There is no such thing as 'paying' for tax cuts.

 

That's the parsing of a spending addicted Government. Taxes are taken from producers. The more money kept in the pocket of citizens, the better the citizens do. Outside of the Constitutionally mandated expenditures of roads and highways, and military, and scant other costs, the Federal Government needs to minimize its sucking from American pockets.

 

Because it's better for America.

 

This was the same crap spouted by those aligned against Reagan's cuts, and what they predicted would happen could not have been more hilariously wrong. Without a lying tax and spend Congress, leftists wouldn't even have a deficit to hang their objections on.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Now youre freaking Mao Zedong if you want tax cuts offset by spending cuts!

[IMMensaMind 462]

Now youre freaking Mao Zedong if you want tax cuts offset by spending cuts!

 

There is nothing to offset. I want spending cuts because it will reduce the deficit even more than increasing revenues will.

[wiffleball 4,793]

Now youre freaking Mao Zedong if you want tax cuts offset by spending cuts!

How quickly do you think one could go out and find a tweet or quote by Trump talking about reducing the deficit?

 

Thrill beauty of this guy. No matter what he says or writes today, you can almost guarantee to go back and find him saying just the opposite a year ago.

 

" you know, frankly I'm not going to have time to go golfing all the time like Obama..."

[wiffleball 4,793]

And here we go. Wasn't even a year ago. The national deficit in my first month in office went down by 12 billion dollars!

 

D Trump

[Baker Boy 1,704]

Theres one born every minute

It is Econ 101 and you dont get it. Most most Socialists dont.

 

When you are the party of the poor it is best to keep the voting base poor.

[Mike Honcho 5,332]

This should clear a lot up, straight from President Trump during his interview with Fox Business Channel's Maria Bartiromo:

 

BARTIROMO: If the top earners pay 80 percent of the taxes, why are you so afraid to cut taxes on the top earners?

 

TRUMP: I think this, look, you know, I am very happy with the way I’ve done part of this in my civilian life, all right.

 

BARTIROMO: Of course. This is not about

—

TRUMP: Other people — well, it’s about me representing rich people.

 

BARTIROMO: Okay.

 

TRUMP: Representing — being representative of rich people. Very interesting to me Bob Kraft was down. He was very nice. He owns the Patriots. He gave me a Super Bowl ring a month ago. And he —

BARTIROMO: Well, Putin took his —

 

TRUMP: Which was very nice. That’s right. But he left this beautiful ring, and I immediately give it to the White House and they put it some place, and that’s the way it is.

 

BARTIROMO: That’s great.

 

TRUMP: He said to me — he’s a good man. He said to me you have to do us all a favor, give the tax decrease to the middle class, we don’t need it. We don’t need it. We don’t want it. Give it to the middle class. And, I’ve had many people, very wealthy people, tell me the very same thing. I’ve had very few say I want more, I want more.

 

 

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Bob Kraft is a good man

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Is there some way to get MensaMind out of here? Its impossible to have any real discussion with this nut posting 50 ten thousand word screeds in every thread

I try to stay out of these silly slap fights, but he has taken it to another level.

[Jesus Chrysler 29]

I try to stay out of these silly slap fights, but he has taken it to another level.

noooo. He's a victim. He's in 5 separate b1tch fights per day and isn't smart enough to figure out that he's the common denominator

[IMMensaMind 462]

I try to stay out of these silly slap fights, but he has taken it to another level.

 

 

Really. I have.

 

 

I submit you're not paying attention.

[IMMensaMind 462]

noooo. He's a victim. He's in 5 separate b1tch fights per day and isn't smart enough to figure out that he's the common denominator

Because 5 of you start bullsht with me?

 

Are you that retarded an orange roided idiot?

[mmmmm...beer 812]

They just passed it, that it's going up to $18,500 per adult now. Not to shabby if you have two working adults in the home. Takes your immediate tax burden down 37k... if your in that spot where your trying to stay under the $110k to keep receiving the child tax credit that could sure do it.

[wiffleball 4,793]

noooo. He's a victim. He's in 5 separate b1tch fights per day and isn't smart enough to figure out that he's the common denominator

This

[MDC 7,590]

I try to stay out of these silly slap fights, but he has taken it to another level.

Looks like his latest role is Like HT, only utterly humorless / self important and twice as prolific.

 

Menstrual is in the running for worst poster of all time.

[Jesus Chrysler 29]

Looks like his latest role is Like HT, only utterly humorless / self important and twice as prolific.

 

Menstrual is in the running for worst poster of all time.

he's awful. Tries to sound like the smartest guy in the room with his 5000word replies and boring multi-quotes, but has the disposition of a nine year old and gets into 20 fights a day with 5 or 6 different posters. Worst poster I've ever seen on any message board.

[Mr. Hand 482]

has the disposition of a nine year old and gets into 20 fights a day with 5 or 6 different posters. Worst poster I've ever seen on any message board.

Sounds exactly like you, newbie.

[Beyond Chaos 75]

Tax plan passed in the House. Onto the Senate next.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5088211/GOP-muscling-tax-bill-House-hits-senator-roadblock.html

[edjr 6,683]

Seems to me that most people that post here, should be in favor of this?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Seems to me that most people that post here, should be in favor of this?

Why?

 

Were all rich of course, but not filthy rich.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Why?

Were all rich of course, but not filthy rich.

I see no evidence that you're rich. Why don't you provide some?

 

But - beyond that - why does one have to be filthy rich to justify a tax cut? I've been providing society far more than I get back from society for a very long time.

 

Have you?

[supermike80 1,984]

Seems to me that most people that post here, should be in favor of this?

I am. For the most part this doesn't have a strong affect on me

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I see no evidence that you're rich. Why don't you provide some?

 

[mobb_deep 920]

As a modern day Republican, I support anything that gives mega-corporations tax breaks. Especially when it adds to the deficit. MAGA.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,386]

As a modern day Republican, I support anything that gives mega-corporations tax breaks. Especially when it adds to the deficit. MAGA.

 

As a modern day Republican, I support anything that makes the left cry...MAGA

 

where was your outrage when Obama was doubling the deficit?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

 

As a modern day Republican, I support anything that makes the left cry...MAGA

 

where was your outrage when Obama was doubling the deficit?

Obama didnt enact the Bush tax cuts or get us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan