-
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.
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
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/
It's Official: Trump Tax Cuts Are Boosting Growth And Mostly Paying For Themselves
- 4/10/2018
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/
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
