The Trump Tax Cut: Even Worse Than You’ve Heard

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As has been claimed here by several for more than a year
“Skeptical reporting has still been too favorable.
The 2017 tax cut has received pretty bad press, and rightly so. Its proponents made big promises about soaring investment and wages, and also assured everyone that it would pay for itself; none of that has happened.

Yet coverage actually hasn’t been negative enough. The story you mostly read runs something like this: The tax cut has caused corporations to bring some money home, but they’ve used it for stock buybacks rather than to raise wages, and the boost to growth has been modest. That doesn’t sound great, but it’s still better than the reality: No money has, in fact, been brought home, and the tax cut has probably reduced national income. Indeed, at least 90 percent of Americans will end up poorer thanks to that cut.
Let me explain each point in turn.“
But you’ll have to open the link and read the concise point by point explanation.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...46490561312958

Jan.4 AP headline:
US employers added 312,000 jobs in December

Full article:
https://www.twincities.com/2019/01/0...s-in-december/

Who knows how it will all shake out for the rest of "Trump's" economy. But to keep knocking his tax cut and tariff war and economic and regulatory policies as foolish, dumb, failures is obviously premature. And saying that the job and wage successes are merely an Obama carryover after two years is a stretch beyond reason. If I remember correctly wdmso claimed something to the effect that it would take two years before we could attribute success (or failure) to Trump's policies.

For me, I don't think presidential or political policies in general that try to "do" something are the main reason for US economic success. I believe more that federal government "undoing" overburdening tax and regulatory policies is more effective.

I'm not being "anti-government." I'm for government staying out of the way of what should be our constitutionally based inherent right to a free and open market. One of the federal government's few and important duties is to protect that freedom, not to regulate it.

Should there be any regulation of the market? For sure. But that should not be done by unelected bureaucratic agencies. It should begin with an actually free market's inherent tendency to self regulate. And it should be fortified by the direct and elected will of the people. And that should be "regulated" as constitutional by a Supreme Court guided by interpreting the actual text of the Constitution, not by Judge's personal opinion of what is right and just.

[JohnR]

Interesting: CNN / Yahoo and others reporting that the refunds (cough Federal interest free borrowing of your money for a year) of taxes are about the same or slightly higher.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/irs-n...170638232.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3026996002/

Now, can we go back to the Debt? The actual National Emergency?

[Got Stripers]

You got that right boss, borrow and spend until the credit runs out, then file for bankruptcy; it's the American way. The problem is who bails out the US government? Trump probably has some good financial ties to Russia and Jarad of course can work his Saudi buddies for a bailout package.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You got that right boss, borrow and spend until the credit runs out, then file for bankruptcy; it's the American way. The problem is who bails out the US government? Trump probably has some good financial ties to Russia and Jarad of course can work his Saudi buddies for a bailout package.

How much do you blame on Trump?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

How much do you blame on Trump?

Not all of it, some he blames on Bush.

The debt, as you have said, is critical. But Obama ran up the debt, and I don't know anyone who got anything from it. At least in this case, regular people are benefitting, as opposed to powerful congresspeople whose spouses own the companies that got hugeamounts of federal spending. I mean that's happening here too, but at least many of us got something.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not all of it, some he blames on Bush.

The debt, as you have said, is critical. But Obama ran up the debt, and I don't know anyone who got anything from it. At least in this case, regular people are benefitting, as opposed to powerful congresspeople whose spouses own the companies that got hugeamounts of federal spending. I mean that's happening here too, but at least many of us got something.

2 totally different economies. The Obama debt was bc we were trying to recover from the Bush recession (largest since the great depression). Trump is running up a huge deficit with low unemployment and booming economy.

The Repub. howled and complained about that debt but now are sitting on their hands afraid to say anything.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

2 totally different economies. The Obama debt was bc we were trying to recover from the Bush recession (largest since the great depression). Trump is running up a huge deficit with low unemployment and booming economy.

The Repub. howled and complained about that debt but now are sitting on their hands afraid to say anything.

"The Obama debt was bc we were trying to recover from the Bush recession "

Some of the debt was related to recession recovery, some was also because of the wars he inherited. Some of it was also because pof liberal pet projects like Obamacare (which did some great things but was expensive) and the "stimulus", which cost 750B of borrowed money, and I have no idea where any of it went, where were those shovel ready projects?

By the way, on the "Bush" recession, which party controlled both houses of Congress when it happened?

Kidding. But that recession was not Bush's fault. It was partly the GOPs fault for saying banks could also be investment houses, and partly Clintons fault for signing that (was that the repeal of Glass Segal?). Also the fault of fraud on Wall Street with fishy things like collateralized debt obligations which almost no one understands, that wasn't the fault of either party. And lastly, not something democrats like to point out, large numbers of people being stupid and buying way more house than they could ever afford. Plenty of blame all around...both parties, banks, Wall Street, and us. Not sure what Bush did.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Interesting: CNN / Yahoo and others reporting that the refunds (cough Federal interest free borrowing of your money for a year) of taxes are about the same or slightly higher.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/irs-n...170638232.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3026996002/

Now, can we go back to the Debt? The actual National Emergency?

Another liberal myth debunked, and I wonder if CNN and MSNBC issued a correction.

It really doesn't matter if refunds decrease, if withholdings decreased by a larger amount, you paid less.