Republicans were supposed to run on their tax cuts. Instead, they’re running away from them.

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,952
2,205
743
Where else but Stillwater
#21
Tax cuts for everyone, or tax hike for everyone ---- everyone... even the poor. Everybody should pay tax. Period. I don't care if it's just one dollar. Everyone pays.

(and no "earned income credit" to give refunds to those who do not pay --- if you didn't pay tax, then no "refund")
LOL, get real, not dream on! Does Trump or any Republican in Congress want to impose federal income taxes on the 47%, who don't pay any of those taxes? HELL, NO! After their income tax cuts, I wonder if the 47% figure is even higher.
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,952
2,205
743
Where else but Stillwater
#22
Tell me you just did NOT SAY that "predictions" equal facts..... No pal, you need to look at FACTS, not predictions. This is from 6 months ago...

It's Official: Trump Tax Cuts Are Boosting Growth And Mostly Paying For Themselves
  • 4/10/2018
Taxes: When the Congressional Budget Office released its updated budget forecast, everyone focused on the deficit number. But buried in the report was the CBO's tacit admission that it vastly overestimated the cost of the Trump tax cuts, because it didn't account for the strong economic growth they would generate.

Among the many details in the report, the one reporters focused on was the CBO's forecast that the federal deficit would top $1 trillion in 2020, two years earlier than the CBO had previously said.
And, naturally, most news accounts blamed the tax cuts. "U.S. budget deficit to balloon on Republican tax cuts" is how Reuters put it in a headline.

But there's more to the story that the media overlooked.

First, the CBO revised its economic forecast sharply upward this year and next.

Last June, the CBO said GDP growth for 2018 would be just 2%. Now it figures growth will be 3.3% — a significant upward revision. It also boosted its forecast for 2019 from a meager 1.5% to a respectable 2.4%.

"Underlying economic conditions have improved in some unexpected ways since June," the CBO says. Unexpected to the CBO, perhaps, but not to those of us who understood that Trump's tax cuts and deregulatory efforts would boosts growth.

In any case, the CBO now expects GDP to be $6.1 trillion bigger by 2027 than it did before the tax cuts.
The CBO report also makes clear that this faster-growing economy will offset most of the costs of the Trump tax cuts.

In a table buried in the appendix of the CBO report, it shows that, before accounting for economic growth, the tax cuts Trump signed into law late last year would cut federal revenues by $1.69 trillion from 2018-2027.

But it goes on to say that higher rate of GDP growth will produce $1.1 trillion in new revenues. In other words, 65% of the tax cuts are paid for by extra economic growth.



That faster growth will also reduce federal entitlement spending keyed to the economy — unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare and the like — by $150 billion, the CBO says.

If you subtract that from the cost of the tax cuts, the net cost drops to $440 billion.

This is what we and other backers of the tax cuts had insisted all along. Not that tax cuts would entirely pay for themselves. But that the economic growth they generate would offset much of the costs.

Looks like we were right.

Spending Is the Real Culprit
https://www.investors.com/politics/...cuts-revenues-deficits-paying-for-themselves/
Good lord, how lame of you. Growth would only offset much of the costs of tax cuts, not all of it.. Then take a look at CBO’s updated projections as of August. Real gross domestic product (GDP) grows by 3.1%, not 3.3%, in 2018 and by 2.4% in 2019 before slowing in the following years. So Trump is not going to be able to do much better overall, so far, than Obama. GDP got as high as 5.1% in a quarter while Obama was president. You loving Trump and his tax cuts could work out to be premature. But then you can surely blame it on the Democrats, like Trump surely will, should things turn sour by mid 2020. Bush's 43's tax cuts certainly did not turn out well and helps explain why we got Obama as president in 2008.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2007
3,615
3,144
1,743
#25
The article talks about 70% of the tax cut goes to the top 20% of earners...yeah, the top 20% pays approx. 80% of all income taxes. When you're in the group that pays 0% - 3% of all income taxes the cut you receive will be small to nothing. Why does this shock anyone?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001
It's now reported that the top 20% pay 87% of federal taxes. Plus we had the highest corporate tax rate in the world. It makes sense that the upper class would receive the largest benefit from an across the board tax cut because they pay the majority of federal taxes.

It's simple logic unless you're from the far left and you're brainwashed to believe that wealth redistribution in a socialistic society is a good thing.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#27
LOL, get real, not dream on! Does Trump or any Republican in Congress want to impose federal income taxes on the 47%, who don't pay any of those taxes? HELL, NO! After their income tax cuts, I wonder if the 47% figure is even higher.
and... "why" hell no?

Why should not everybody contribute a stake to our country? Everybody.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#28
Good lord, how lame of you. Growth would only offset much of the costs of tax cuts, not all of it.. Then take a look at CBO’s updated projections as of August. Real gross domestic product (GDP) grows by 3.1%, not 3.3%, in 2018 and by 2.4% in 2019 before slowing in the following years. So Trump is not going to be able to do much better overall, so far, than Obama. GDP got as high as 5.1% in a quarter while Obama was president. You loving Trump and his tax cuts could work out to be premature. But then you can surely blame it on the Democrats, like Trump surely will, should things turn sour by mid 2020. Bush's 43's tax cuts certainly did not turn out well and helps explain why we got Obama as president in 2008.
Dude.... how lame of you. You're now arguing against your first post. You said projections were fact. I showed you that those projections "predictions" were not based on facts, and here are the facts, so far - (along with more projections).

If the projections were so far off the first time, what is it that makes you think that they are not understated still?

Stop with the nonsensical circle arguments. It is working, your numbers were off more than global warming "predictions", and yet you still want to argue that you have a leg to stand on.

Come on man, talk sense for once.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,520
3,893
743
49
#29
Good lord, how lame of you. Growth would only offset much of the costs of tax cuts, not all of it.. Then take a look at CBO’s updated projections as of August. Real gross domestic product (GDP) grows by 3.1%, not 3.3%, in 2018 and by 2.4% in 2019 before slowing in the following years. So Trump is not going to be able to do much better overall, so far, than Obama. GDP got as high as 5.1% in a quarter while Obama was president. You loving Trump and his tax cuts could work out to be premature. But then you can surely blame it on the Democrats, like Trump surely will, should things turn sour by mid 2020. Bush's 43's tax cuts certainly did not turn out well and helps explain why we got Obama as president in 2008.
Dude.... how lame of you. You're now arguing against your first post. You said projections were fact. I showed you that those projections "predictions" were not based on facts, and here are the facts, so far - (along with more projections).

If the projections were so far off the first time, what is it that makes you think that they are not understated still?

Stop with the nonsensical circle arguments. It is working, your numbers were off more than global warming "predictions", and yet you still want to argue that you have a leg to stand on.

Come on man, talk sense for once.
Maintaining that high wall of denial has got to be tiring to him. He should lower it once in a while.

Sent from my stang5litre Edition 5.0 using Tapatalk
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,952
2,205
743
Where else but Stillwater
#30
and... "why" hell no?

Why should not everybody contribute a stake to our country? Everybody.
Ask the Republicans in Congress that. But you do understand, don't you, that Republicans in DC only want to cut taxes, not hike them? If you want to cut taxes on the 47% not paying taxes, then they're going to have to think of more deductions to give them so the IRS owes them money. Surely, you don't support that.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,952
2,205
743
Where else but Stillwater
#31
Dude.... how lame of you. You're now arguing against your first post. You said projections were fact. I showed you that those projections "predictions" were not based on facts, and here are the facts, so far - (along with more projections).

If the projections were so far off the first time, what is it that makes you think that they are not understated still?

Stop with the nonsensical circle arguments. It is working, your numbers were off more than global warming "predictions", and yet you still want to argue that you have a leg to stand on.

Come on man, talk sense for once.
LOL, As much as you love Trump and his policies, good luck in him not messing things up with a recession by mid 2020. As a result, you surely don't want Biden, Hillary or Warren as the next president.
 
Last edited:

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,333
5,239
1,743
Katy, TX
#32
Ask the Republicans in Congress that. But you do understand, don't you, that Republicans in DC only want to cut taxes, not hike them? If you want to cut taxes on the 47% not paying taxes, then they're going to have to think of more deductions to give them so the IRS owes them money. Surely, you don't support that.
I guess you support the plan from Kamala Harris to provide every US household with income below $100k a government check of $500/month.

Where do you think that approx $640 billion a year is going to come from?
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#34
Ask the Republicans in Congress that. But you do understand, don't you, that Republicans in DC only want to cut taxes, not hike them? If you want to cut taxes on the 47% not paying taxes, then they're going to have to think of more deductions to give them so the IRS owes them money. Surely, you don't support that.
It's impossible to cut taxes on someone not paying taxes.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#35
LOL, As much as you love Trump and his policies, good luck in him not messing things up with a recession by mid 2020. As a result, you surely don't want Biden, Hillary or Warren as the next president.
The only thing that's going to put us into a recession is monetary policy coming from the Fed. They've been raising interest rates since Trump took office. It's apparent that a recession is their desire.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
26,959
13,814
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#36
The only thing that's going to put us into a recession is monetary policy coming from the Fed. They've been raising interest rates since Trump took office. It's apparent that a recession is their desire.
They have to repair the QE stuff.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
20,038
9,025
1,743
Earth
#39
Ask the Republicans in Congress that. But you do understand, don't you, that Republicans in DC only want to cut taxes, not hike them? If you want to cut taxes on the 47% not paying taxes, then they're going to have to think of more deductions to give them so the IRS owes them money. Surely, you don't support that.
Btw, you know, don't you, that we already do this exactly? It's called the "Earned Income Tax Credit."