Republican Tax Cuts For The Rich And The Debt Crisis

Are you sure that is the question you should be asking because you can find the answer in a dictionary.

 

Egads. You can't help spinning what others say.

 

Yeah, and all he had was a pandemic. Biden is almost halfway to matching Trump, BTW.

 

Got it, yo can't define it.

Bottom 50% of US get's 10.2% of the income pie in 2020, down from 18% in 1980, pre Reaganomics

FYI, Welfare has a 5 year lifetime limit, even shorter (2 years) in most red states

 

Diaper Donnie's tax cuts cost the treasury a whole lot

 

No, actually the didn't. Revenues went up every year after they were passed - even into Biden's reign (of terror).

 

Your answer does not fit the question you asked. Your answer does describe the bottom rung as I mentioned.

 

Correct!
While she was speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi lied when she called the 2017 Trump tax cuts a $2 trillion GOP tax scam.

 

Yes your game of pretending people at the bottom are welfare "queens" noted

 

Over the last 80 years or so revenues go up in nominal dollars every year, economists look at it as a share of GDP, no serious economist things Diaper Donnie's tax cuts brought in more revenues, are "super charged" the US economy

If left alone, without the Diaper Donnie tax cuts, the US would be in almost a $1 trillion less debt

 

I said he should have brought back enough forces to have an effective withdrawal. You seem unable to find fault with the Orange Oaf.

 

Moving the goal posts?

 

That was CBO, JCT, Treasury, etc scoring ofit

POLITICO analysis: At $2.3 trillion cost, Trump tax cuts


Q.How did the TCJA affect the federal budget outlook?

A.The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes substantially from 2018 through 2025. The resulting deficits will add $1 to $2 trillion to the federal debt, according to official estimates. The debt increase will be larger if some of TCJA’s temporary tax cuts are extended.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook


05.16.23
Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $3.5 Trillion to the Deficit, According to CBO
New report finds Republicans’ giveaways to the wealthy and large corporations are significantly more costly than previously estimated

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chair...d-35-trillion-to-the-deficit-according-to-cbo

 

You called them queens. I merely pointed out your mistake in thinking minimum wage earners were at the bottom rung.

 

I'm not talking "Nominal years" I'm talking from 2017 when Trump's law was passed until the present. Apparently you don't know many economists.

 

Yes, and...?

 

That was CBO, JCT, Treasury, etc scoring ofit

US lost more tax revenue than any other developed country in 2018 due to Trump tax cuts, new report says

• U.S. tax revenue as a proportion of GDP drops the most of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2018, according to a new report.
• Thanks to Trump’s tax cuts, the U.S. tax-to-GDP ratio falls 2.5% from 2017 to 2018, the OECD finds.
• The 2017 tax cuts dramatically alter the U.S. tax landscape for the first time in decades, though the promised surge in economic growth and investment does not result.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/us-tax-revenue-dropped-sharply-due-to-trump-tax-cuts-report.html

 

Funny since the data I'm citing CAME from the CBO not Politico projection in 2018.

 

I'm still going with CBO numbers rather than four year old CNBC blather.

 

Weird how far you righties go to give cover to billionaires

WHY DOES CBO, TREASURY, JCT, ETC SAY EXTENDING DIAPER DONNIE'S TAX CUTS WOULD COST $3.5+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE IF EXTENDED THEN?


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not “Credible,” Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves.

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: “I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves.”

Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: “As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves.”

Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: “As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves.”

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: “It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much.”

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: “No Serious Research Evidence” Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

University of Chicago Booth School of Business released results from a poll of 42 renowned economists. When asked to evaluate the claim that Trump’s tax cuts will pay for themselves through economic growth, 84 percent disagreed (five of the economists didn’t weigh in). When I contacted the two economists whose opinions differed, they said that their answers were an error, and that they actually disagreed with the claim.

So it turns out that 100 percent of the economists who participated in the survey doubt Trump can create enough economic growth with his tax cuts. They described the idea as “implausible” and “a deficit stimulus.” Several comments were, by economist standards, acerbic.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/4/15536394/american-economists-trump-tax-plan

 

I got NUMBERS, you can copy and paste quotes all you want. Does change numbers. The "pay for themselves paradigm" is a red herring. It' long been discredited as a data point; mostly because it assumes the increased revenue would have happened anyway - which suggests that tax policy has no effect on the economy. Spending is the enemy of lower deficits, not lower tax rates.

 

FEDERAL BUDGET AND ECONOMY
Q.
How did the TCJA affect the federal budget outlook?

A.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes substantially from 2018 through 2025. The resulting deficits will add $1 to $2 trillion to the federal debt, according to official estimates. The debt increase will be larger if some of TCJA’s temporary tax cuts are extended.

At the start of 2017, congressional Republicans often spoke about revenue-neutral tax reform. The revenue losses from tax cuts would be offset by rolling back tax breaks or introducing other taxes, most notably a destination-based cash flow tax—sometimes called the border-adjusted tax. The destination-based cash flow tax attracted intense opposition from business groups, especially retailers, and was eventually dropped. Lawmakers then pivoted to a combination tax cut and reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was the result.

ESTIMATING TCJA’S BUDGET IMPACT

During legislative debate, the most-cited estimate was that the TCJA would increase deficits by about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. This figure comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) conventional score. JCT projected that the law would reduce revenues by $1.65 trillion from 2018 to 2027. That deficit increase would be partly offset, CBO and JCT projected, by $194 billion in reduced spending, primarily on health insurance.

In a subsequent update, CBO estimated the conventional budget effect at almost $1.9 trillion over the same period. That increase reflected an updated view of certain features of the law as well as new economic projections.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook

May 18, 2023

CBO revises the cost of extending various TCJA tax provisions. In its latest analysis released this week, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the total cost of extending the individual income tax portions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to $3.5 trillion over ten years, from 2024 through 2033.

 

What were you saying about governments not attacking their employees?

 

Numbers, numbers, numbers. You're citing opinions, predictions, estimates, and guesses.

 

Got it, you decide to bury your head in the sand when any thinking person knows static dollars, the revenues grow every year thanks to population growth and inflation, which is why economists measure tax revenues via GDP


While well-designed tax cuts may grow the economy (often not as much as tax reform), there is no case in which they could grow the economy enough to be self-financing. At best, tax cuts can finance a fraction of their costs through faster growth – and maybe not even that.

In this paper, we show:

• There is no theoretical basis to suggest tax cuts could be self-financing. To do that, the economy would need to grow by $5 to $6 for every $1 of tax cuts.
• There is broad consensus among economic models that future tax cuts won’t pay for themselves. Some models find tax cuts would be partially self-financing, while others find the economic feedback would actually increase the deficit effect of tax cuts.
• Past tax cuts in 1981 and the early 2000s have led to widening budget deficits and lower revenue, not the reverse as some claim.

https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves