Government’s pockets thinning, I thought tax cuts increased revenue

So is less greater than more. No one seems to be able to answer that simple question.

Last year’s number > than last year’s number - 75billion.

I’m clearly no mathematician but im pretty sure I have that right.

...I’m clearly no mathematician but im pretty sure I have that right. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Clearly you are not. Mathematicians use an equal sign (=) in their equations. There is no maxim that says revenue must always goes up, though it sure seems to, which is a fundamental problem.

So is it life imitating politics or politics imitating life?!? Personal credit debt is going exceedingly up for the populous and so is the Federal debt. The personal, aka peons, foot the bill for both and to be fair, both are borrowing $$ to survive.

One other little thing, teensy even, so small you might not have even been aware of it. Seems superfluous to even mention it... The entire economy was shut down and strangled for over 2 years. Any existing fiscal formula does not even remotely take into account stupidity of that magnitude.

> is the greater than symbol. I guess you’re no mathematician either.

Now as to your second paragraph. Could the reopening of the economy contribute to the increase in revenues in prior years (since Tiny believed those indicative positives from tax breaks) rather than tax breaks. This also leads to the possibility that now, since we’re past some of the effects of Covid (but not all) we’ll see the real effect of the tax breaks being a continued reduction in tax revenues.

if you say so

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...mericans-most/


President Biden and congressional Democrats’ Build Back Better (BBB) Act is now in the hands of the Senate. That legislative body’s 50-50 partisan split will undoubtedly make the bill’s passage difficult.


In order for BBB to become law, Democratic Senate leadership will need to convince moderates such as Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that the legislation’s $2.4 trillion price tag can be offset by expanding the IRS and its enforcement efforts while imposing substantial tax reform measures.


Congressional Democrats have argued that one of the best ways to pay for the legislation is to raise taxes on wealthy households, which, according to many on the left, have benefited disproportionately and unfairly from the 2017 tax reform law passed by Republicans and signed by former President Trump. The latest data, however, proves that this claim is pure mythology.


Income data published by the IRS clearly show that on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent, as so many Democrats have argued.


A careful analysis of the IRS tax data, one that includes the effects of tax credits and other reforms to the tax code, shows that filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $15,000 to $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available.


Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent.


By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.)


That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more.


What’s more, IRS data shows earners in higher income brackets contributed a bigger slice of the total income tax revenue pie following the passage of the tax reform law than they had in the previous year.


In fact, every income bracket with filers earning $200,000 or more increased its tax burden in 2018 compared to 2017, and every income bracket with a top limit lower than $200,000 paid a smaller proportion of the total personal tax revenue collected.


That means that Republicans’ tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive — the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years.


The IRS data further shows that the tax reform law — which included a variety of business tax cuts, including a large reduction in the corporate income tax rate — spurred economic mobility.


Every income bracket with a top level lower than $25,000 experienced a reduction in its number of filers, and every income bracket above $25,000 increased in size, with the biggest gains occurring in the brackets with a floor of at least $100,000.


The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity.


It would be a grave mistake for Democrats to eliminate key parts of this important legislation.


Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute and the co-author, with Glenn Beck, of the forthcoming book “The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of 21st Century Fascism.” Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Excellent find Waco Kid, the article by Justin Haskins. I knew just from looking at the changes in the tax tables after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that the TCJA made our tax system more progressive -- see Tables 1 and 2, here:

https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-...ails-analysis/

But Democrats could argue the tax tables alone don't take into account the effects of the Qualified Business Income deduction and some other changes to the tax code implemented by the TCJA.

Well, Haskins figured out a nifty way around this problem. He simply compared the percentage change in average federal income taxes paid by filers in various income groups before (2017) and after (2018) the TCJA. You can see the results in the last column in Table 1, on page 3, here:

https://heartland.org/wp-content/upl...cy%20Paper.pdf

The results are striking. Repeating some of what you quoted, tax returns showing income in the range of $1 to $20,000 saw income taxes reduced by 27% to 88%. Those filers making from $20,000 to $100,000 paid 15% to 21% less tax. Taxpayers in the $100,000 to $500,000 brackets paid 11% to 13% less. And those making in excess of $500,000 paid only 3% to 9% less.

That should be enough to shut up TS Mokies and Blackman, about claims like "The gop tax cuts increase revenue for the wealthy and corporations that own the gop. And...of course fucked the working people." But of course, it won't. They've swallowed the "Democrat Good, Republican Bad" BS fed to them by Democratic Party politicians and pundits hook, line and sinker, and there's no going back.

> is the greater than symbol. I guess you’re no mathematician either. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor?

It must certainly seem clear enough to most of us that we don't have enough information here to divine whether or not WYID is a mathematician. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. Note that he only spoke of the "equal sign" in a previous post, leaving the "greater than" symbol unmentioned. Shouldn't you then rather obviously conclude that his commentary has been nondeterminative with regards to any reasoned judgment as to whether or not he is a mathematician?

Silly me. I thought you guys were taught to avoid simply making stuff up or crafting an argument that assumes facts not in evidence. Or have you ingeniously developed a pioneering new legal theory?

Excellent find Waco Kid, the article by Justin Haskins... Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, it is! The article points up a number of key issues very nicely.

Disingenuous uber-progressives like Robert Reich and Bernie Sanders, when engaging in tax or economic policy discussions, can hardly make it through a couple of words or keystrokes without alluding to "tax cuts for the rich," even if the bulk of the benefits went to the non-rich. That's been true for more than 40 years, going all the way back to the Reagan-era tax cuts of the 1980s. In fact, as we've discussed here before, taxes on the wealthy were not cut at all during the 1980s. In fact, they were raised!

All you have to do is compare the tax brackets pre- and post-TCJA and you will see that the lower bracket statutory rates were cut by a far larger percentage than the top bracket (which was reduced from 39.6% to 37%.) The capital gains tax was not cut at all.

Also, another thing we've discussed in the past is the need to at least reduce the corporate tax rate to a level that doesn't incentivize offshoring and inversions by rendering American firms less competitive relative to their foreign competitors.

And people often forget that a very large portion of the corporate income tax is actually borne by consumers and workers, not owners of capital. A great number of studies of the corporate tax incidence over the last 40-50 years have demonstrated this conclusively.

Snick

TC if WY is a mathematician, he is a very shitty one. I suspect regardless of any other evidence, he ain’t one at all. Which is actually better than being a shorty one in my book.

TC if WY is a mathematician, he is a very shitty one. I suspect regardless of any other evidence, he ain’t one at all. Which is actually better than being a shorty one in my book. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Quit trying to change the subject Blackman. The topic of this thread is your Stockholm Syndrome. Why do you want to pay higher taxes? Why do you believe government revenues are down 30%? Why do you falsely maintain that we believe lower tax rates usually result in higher government revenues? Why do you ignore Levianon's point, that spending is out of control? Stockholm Syndrome, that's why.

Disingenuous uber-progressives like Robert Reich and Bernie Sanders, when engaging in tax or economic policy discussions, can hardly make it through a couple of words or keystrokes without alluding to "tax cuts for the rich," even if the bulk of the benefits went to the non-rich. That's been true for more than 40 years, going all the way back to the Reagan-era tax cuts of the 1980s. In fact, as we've discussed here before, taxes on the wealthy were not cut at all during the 1980s. In fact, they were raised!

All you have to do is compare the tax brackets pre- and post-TCJA and you will see that the lower bracket statutory rates were cut by a far larger percentage than the top bracket (which was reduced from 39.6% to 37%.) The capital gains tax was not cut at all.

Also, another thing we've discussed in the past is the need to at least reduce the corporate tax rate to a level that doesn't incentivize offshoring and inversions by rendering American firms less competitive relative to their foreign competitors.

And people often forget that a very large portion of the corporate income tax is actually borne by consumers and workers, not owners of capital. A great number of studies of the corporate tax incidence over the last 40-50 years have demonstrated this conclusively. Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Good post. How many times do we have to go over this with our esteemed Progressive posters? Deprogramming is a frustrating business!

Robert Reich and Bernie Sanders back in the day probably took lessons from the Symbionese Liberation Army. You'll remember the SLA kidnapped Patty Hearst and then brainwashed her. Now Reich, Sanders, et al are doing the same thing on a much larger scale. And poor Blackman and TS Mokies have bought into their schtick, hook, line and sinker!

Quit trying to change the subject Blackman. The topic of this thread is your Stockholm Syndrome. Why do you want to pay higher taxes? Why do you believe government revenues are down 30%? Why do you falsely maintain that we believe lower tax rates usually result in higher government revenues? Why do you ignore Levianon's point, that spending is out of control? Stockholm Syndrome, that's why. Originally Posted by Tiny

I’d love to pay less taxes. I suspect that all but a few people in this form pay what I pay. Now that said, I also don’t believe I should be paying a significant percentage less than my secretary or paralegal which is exactly what happens. In fact I’d be fine with a flat tax with a high deduction, maybe like 36K or the poverty line maybe, which would mean most poor people wouldn’t have to pay tax and the rest of us would bear the cost (as a percentage) equally.

I admitted that it’s 3 not 30 but it remains LESS which none of you have been able to bring yourselves to admit.

You have stated 1,737,748 times that every time their has been higher tax revenues it’s because there has been tax cuts which lead to more revenue, which I disagree with.

I never said we need less spending. In fact I would welcome less spending. But what that got to do with how much revenue is being brought in based on taxes? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t. It’s a separate rant actually. Both things can be true. Less money coming in. More money going out. Both are a problem.

Tiny, you’re usually better than this. Be better Tiny. You have it in you.

I’d love to pay less taxes. I suspect that all but a few people in this form pay what I pay. Now that said, I also don’t believe I should be paying a significant percentage less than my secretary or paralegal which is exactly what happens. In fact I’d be fine with a flat tax with a high deduction, maybe like 36K or the poverty line maybe, which would mean most poor people wouldn’t have to pay tax and the rest of us would bear the cost (as a percentage) equally.

I admitted that it’s 3 not 30 but it remains LESS which none of you have been able to bring yourselves to admit.

You have stated 1,737,748 times that every time their has been higher tax revenues it’s because there has been tax cuts which lead to more revenue, which I disagree with.

I never said we need less spending. In fact I would welcome less spending. But what that got to do with how much revenue is being brought in based on taxes? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t. It’s a separate rant actually. Both things can be true. Less money coming in. More money going out. Both are a problem.

Tiny, you’re usually better than this. Be better Tiny. You have it in you. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The bold text above - I'm making progress! We agree 100% on those points.

While I'm not familiar with sales and state income tax rates in Louisiana, I do not believe your secretary and paralegal pay at higher rates than you do. We have the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

I have never posted that "every time their (sic) has been higher tax revenues it’s because there has (sic) been tax cuts which lead to more revenue." I have posted that the revenue maximizing tax rate (federal + state) is less than 43.4% for capital gains, 75% for ordinary income, and 39% for corporate income. How much less I don't know.

The bold text above - I'm making progress! We agree 100% on those points. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes indeed... if Blackman really means what he posted, it looks like you're actually making progress with a so-called progressive on the subject of replacing our steeply progressive federal income tax system with a simple flat tax!

Keep up the good work, Tiny!

The bold text above - I'm making progress! We agree 100% on those points.

While I'm not familiar with sales and state income tax rates in Louisiana, I do not believe your secretary and paralegal pay at higher rates than you do. We have the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

I have never posted that "every time their (sic) has been higher tax revenues it’s because there has (sic) been tax cuts which lead to more revenue." I have posted that the revenue maximizing tax rate (federal + state) is less than 43.4% for capital gains, 75% for ordinary income, and 39% for corporate income. How much less I don't know. Originally Posted by Tiny

Don’t take too much credit. I’m sure I posted the same here about 5 or so years ago when Hedonist kept telling me what my progressive liberal beliefs were (he soon found how wrong he was)

Keep up the good work, Tiny! Originally Posted by lustylad

One soul at a time Lusty Lad

Don’t take too much credit. I’m sure I posted the same here about 5 or so years ago when Hedonist kept telling me what my progressive liberal beliefs were (he soon found how wrong he was) Originally Posted by 1blackman1

It’s fine if Hedonist gets credit for the conversion. What’s important is that you get right with Milton Friedman and the other Saints of Classical Liberalism.