Your paycheck is now worth 3.1 percent less than last year

#101
#101
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Yes. He lowered taxes. That creates bigger short term deficits but government revenues would go up in the longer view.

We’ll never know as the pandemic blew up the end of his first term and the Left managed to push him out before a second. But IMO the budget would have been balanced before the end of a second term even with the COVID.
Click to expand...
I am not picking on you, I promise. But I see many people who feel or think it's the other party who is fiscally irresponsible. It is both parties. Trump was a spender. He didn't care at all about deficits if we look at what he did and not what he said.

Also, tax rates are not correlated to tax revenues within a few percentage points of fluctuation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill and LouderVol
#102
#102
Velo Vol said:
I guess you forgot how, at the end of his term, Trump was urging the Republicans to outspend the Democrats.

Trump undercuts GOP, calls for bigger COVID-19 relief package
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where Nancy was wanting $2.2 trillion while Trump wanted the R Senate to stick with $1.1T instead of their lowered proposal of $650 billion? I wonder why the headline wasn’t “Trump’s proposal is 50% of Pelosi’s” instead of “Trump Undercuts GOP” by wanting a bigger relief package?
 
#103
#103
McDad said:
I am not picking on you, I promise. But I see many people who feel or think it's the other party who is fiscally irresponsible. It is both parties. Trump was a spender. He didn't care at all about deficits if we look at what he did and not what he said.

Also, tax rates are not correlated to tax revenues within a few percentage points of fluctuation.
Click to expand...

Lowering oppressive tax rates will slash revenues in the immediate budget(s) but over time the revenues will actually be higher plus tax payers get to keep more of their own money to inject into the economy however they choose.
 
#104
#104
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Lowering oppressive tax rates will slash revenues in the immediate budget(s) but over time the revenues will actually be higher plus tax payers get to keep more of their own money to inject into the economy however they choose.
Click to expand...
People think that it’ll be better when we do it. Damn the tons of examples throughout history. We’re smarter than them
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol
#105
#105
Velo Vol said:
Previous inflation storm.

s-l1600.jpg
Click to expand...
Now that's good eatin' right there.
 
#106
#106
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The near zero interest rates are another anomaly. The dot gov should be selling as much of the long term obligations as the bond markets can handle… IF there could be some restraint on the spending. Which is a concept that those in office are rarely able to grasp.
Click to expand...
And who exactly who is purchasing 30 year debt at near 0%? I give you 3 guesses, but the first two are "F" and "E"...
 
#109
#109
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Did you miss the part where Nancy was wanting $2.2 trillion while Trump wanted the R Senate to stick with $1.1T instead of their lowered proposal of $650 billion? I wonder why the headline wasn’t “Trump’s proposal is 50% of Pelosi’s” instead of “Trump Undercuts GOP” by wanting a bigger relief package?
Click to expand...
The idea that Trump would magically balance the budget if given enough time is 100% wishcasting on your part. The deficit grew every year he was in office, in four years he never supported any meaningful spending cuts (defense or entitlements), and the CBO projected no decrease in the deficit in the 2020s. (this is from 2019):

1622605294065.png
 
#112
#112
Rasputin_Vol said:
They aren't anywhere near that dumb.

Serious question. Who is buying 30 year treasuries right now?
Click to expand...

I was speaking more to the Trump time frame. They might be paying a hundred basis points or two or three now. I don’t follow bond markets although I know that the LIBOR is around 10 basis points.

Institutions and countries that did not want to pay to have their US government bond holdings have negative interest charged to them as the buyers.
 
#113
#113
Velo Vol said:
The idea that Trump would magically balance the budget if given enough time is 100% wishcasting on your part. The deficit grew every year he was in office, in four years he never supported any meaningful spending cuts (defense or entitlements), and the CBO projected no decrease in the deficit in the 2020s. (this is from 2019):

View attachment 371464
Click to expand...

As I already said. Trump’s lowering of taxes is a near term budget hit. The benefits take a few years as resulting investments aren’t instant. Like during a second term. Repairing the military after the previous admin neglected to maintain it was a hit. COVID crushed the growth in the economy that was primed to take off.

I think that Trump not facing re-election would have cut programs left and right. Every time he consolidated anything making it more efficient the MSM would holler about how reckless he was. I think that he wouldn’t have held back while cutting waste.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#114
#114
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Did you miss the part where Nancy was wanting $2.2 trillion while Trump wanted the R Senate to stick with $1.1T instead of their lowered proposal of $650 billion? I wonder why the headline wasn’t “Trump’s proposal is 50% of Pelosi’s” instead of “Trump Undercuts GOP” by wanting a bigger relief package?
Click to expand...
Because the title is drawing attention to Trump wanting to spend more than the republicans.

Period.

That alone is worth noting, and relevant to the discussion at hand. And that is completely separate from him wanting to spend less than Nancy.

If anything your argument compares him to the socialists, instead of the not-so-fiscally responsible Republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#115
#115
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Lowering oppressive tax rates will slash revenues in the immediate budget(s) but over time the revenues will actually be higher plus tax payers get to keep more of their own money to inject into the economy however they choose.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem. Government knows far better how to spend your money than you do. C'mon man!
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#117
#117
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Lowering oppressive tax rates will slash revenues in the immediate budget(s) but over time the revenues will actually be higher plus tax payers get to keep more of their own money to inject into the economy however they choose.
Click to expand...

You may find the following info interesting. I do. Note the total revenues to the government and the year going back to 1971 (the year I was born and as a reference preceding the analysis). I included the President and information about and increase (+) or a decrease (-) in rates. If no change to rates but other tax policies enacted, i tried to note whether the policy was generally seen as raising (+) or lowering (-) taxes. Green font are years under a decreased tax policy. Red font are years under an increased tax policy. Asterisks note years where revenues dropped compared to the previous year. I offer this as evidence that tax rates and revenues are not correlated.
Fiscal Year Revenue
FY 2021$3.86 (estimated)
FY 2020$3.71 trillion (estimated)
FY 2019$3.46 trillion (actual)
FY 2018$3.33 trillion
FY 2017$3.32 trillion - (Trump)
FY 2016$3.27 trillion
FY 2015$3.25 trillion
FY 2014$3.02 trillion
FY 2013$2.77 trillion
FY 2012$2.45 trillion + (Obama)
FY 2011$2.30 trillion
FY 2010$2.16 trillion + (Obama)
FY 2009$2.10 trillion ************
FY 2008$2.52 trillion ***********
FY 2007$2.57 trillion
FY 2006$2.41 trillion
FY 2005$2.15 trillion
FY 2004$1.88 trillion
FY 2003$1.78 trillion - (Bush2) ********
FY 2002$1.85 trillion **********
FY 2001$1.99 trillion - (Bush2) *********
FY 2000$2.03 trillion
FY 1999$1.82 trillion
FY 1998$1.72 trillion
FY 1997$1.58 trillion - (Clinton)
FY 1996$1.45 trillion
FY 1995$1.35 trillion
FY 1994$1.26 trillion
FY 1993$1.15 trillion + (Clinton)
FY 1992$1.09 trillion
FY 1991$1.05 trillion
FY 1990$1.03 trillion + (Bush1)
FY 1989$991 billion
FY1988$909 billion
FY 1987$854 billion
FY 1986$769 billion - (Reagan)
FY 1985$734 billion
FY 1984$666 billion
FY 1983$601 billion **********
FY 1982$618 billion
FY 1981$599 billion - (Reagan)
FY 1980$517 billion
FY 1979$463 billion
FY 1978$399 billion
FY 1977$356 billion
FY 1976$298 billion
FY 1975$279 billion
FY 1974$263 billion
FY 1973$231 billion
FY 1972$207 billion
FY 1971$187 billion
 
#118
#118
McDad said:
You may find the following info interesting. I do. Note the total revenues to the government and the year going back to 1971 (the year I was born and as a reference preceding the analysis). I included the President and information about and increase (+) or a decrease (-) in rates. If no change to rates but other tax policies enacted, i tried to note whether the policy was generally seen as raising (+) or lowering (-) taxes. Green font are years under a decreased tax policy. Red font are years under an increased tax policy. Asterisks note years where revenues dropped compared to the previous year. I offer this as evidence that tax rates and revenues are not correlated.
Fiscal Year Revenue
FY 2021$3.86 (estimated)
FY 2020$3.71 trillion (estimated)
FY 2019$3.46 trillion (actual)
FY 2018$3.33 trillion
FY 2017$3.32 trillion - (Trump)
FY 2016$3.27 trillion
FY 2015$3.25 trillion
FY 2014$3.02 trillion
FY 2013$2.77 trillion
FY 2012$2.45 trillion + (Obama)
FY 2011$2.30 trillion
FY 2010$2.16 trillion + (Obama)
FY 2009$2.10 trillion ************
FY 2008$2.52 trillion ***********
FY 2007$2.57 trillion
FY 2006$2.41 trillion
FY 2005$2.15 trillion
FY 2004$1.88 trillion
FY 2003$1.78 trillion - (Bush2) ********
FY 2002$1.85 trillion **********
FY 2001$1.99 trillion - (Bush2) *********
FY 2000$2.03 trillion
FY 1999$1.82 trillion
FY 1998$1.72 trillion
FY 1997$1.58 trillion - (Clinton)
FY 1996$1.45 trillion
FY 1995$1.35 trillion
FY 1994$1.26 trillion
FY 1993$1.15 trillion + (Clinton)
FY 1992$1.09 trillion
FY 1991$1.05 trillion
FY 1990$1.03 trillion + (Bush1)
FY 1989$991 billion
FY1988$909 billion
FY 1987$854 billion
FY 1986$769 billion - (Reagan)
FY 1985$734 billion
FY 1984$666 billion
FY 1983$601 billion **********
FY 1982$618 billion
FY 1981$599 billion - (Reagan)
FY 1980$517 billion
FY 1979$463 billion
FY 1978$399 billion
FY 1977$356 billion
FY 1976$298 billion
FY 1975$279 billion
FY 1974$263 billion
FY 1973$231 billion
FY 1972$207 billion
FY 1971$187 billion
Click to expand...

It’s kind of a simple look that doesn’t incorporate individual versus corporate rates, capital gains versus ordinary income rates for individuals, other tax advantages that might be added or removed with any new policy, the economy, inflation, interest rates, employment, and many other factors. Plus receipts for mandatory spending should be excluded for a better analysis. The magnitude of the increases and at what level are highly relevant. Reagan had a huge overhaul of the tax code and receipts soared a couple of years out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol
#119
#119
McDad said:
I am not picking on you, I promise. But I see many people who feel or think it's the other party who is fiscally irresponsible. It is both parties. Trump was a spender. He didn't care at all about deficits if we look at what he did and not what he said.

Also, tax rates are not correlated to tax revenues within a few percentage points of fluctuation.
Click to expand...


Since 2019, 80 percent of Chinese citizens pay no income tax due to the extensive deductions they started allowing.

The country receives the bulk of its income through consumption taxes.

The biggest issue this country now has is a welfare mindset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol
#120
#120
Thunder Good-Oil said:
It’s kind of a simple look that doesn’t incorporate individual versus corporate rates, capital gains versus ordinary income rates for individuals, other tax advantages that might be added or removed with any new policy, the economy, inflation, interest rates, employment, and many other factors. Plus receipts for mandatory spending should be excluded for a better analysis. The magnitude of the increases and at what level are highly relevant. Reagan had a huge overhaul of the tax code and receipts soared a couple of years out.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct. Rates and revenues are not correlated.
 
#121
#121
NEO said:
Since 2019, 80 percent of Chinese citizens pay no income tax due to the extensive deductions they started allowing.

The country receives the bulk of its income through consumption taxes.

The biggest issue this country now has is a welfare mindset.
Click to expand...
Who has the welfare mindset? Where do you find it applied?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top