Trump

[MoValley John]

Wrong. If these numbers were posted during Obama's term, there conservative media would not be saying what he is urging to pass off, the conservative media would ignore the economy and double down on Benghazi Fast and Furious and other scandals. The conservative media would in fact attack, not not over the economy. We're do have history to draw from. During the Clinton economic expansion, the conservative media didn't speak of it being not as gray as it appeared, bit instead, doubled down on Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater and others.

Nothing would be different if Obama had a strong economy, conservative media would move on to three FBI, Fast and Furious and other Obama shortcomings.

[ShockCrazy]

So we're pretending the economy was some terrible mess under Obama? Most of this long economic expansion came under Obama. Not to say it was perfect nor entirely his doing, as I've said the lack of wage growth is deeply concerning, but may be a reflection of a changing world with automation and software efficiency creating the growth(regardless we need to figure that out).

As I've said time and time again attributing economic success to any one president is foolhardy. Much less one who hasn't been in office 2 years. The economy is a complex entity with lots of knobs and dials. Also this sunny day attitude, that the economy is gonna grow forever uninterrupted especially with a tax break is going to bite lots of people in the ass. There WILL be a recession, and it's even highly likely it will be during this presidential term, is it going to be solely Trumps fault? No, but I can say a tax break at the top of the hill is a terrible idea. We've done nothing at all to reduce the deficit or debt during this growth cycle, that's a huge mistake. Where the right and left both get it wrong is viewing taxes as this static thing that needs to be high if your liberal or low if conservative, taxes are way to help or control the economy, it's a dial to lower in a recession to spur growth and turn up in a growing economy to pay back debts.

[wufan]

So we're pretending the economy was some terrible mess under Obama? Most of this long economic expansion came under Obama. Not to say it was perfect nor entirely his doing, as I've said the lack of wage growth is deeply concerning, but may be a reflection of a changing world with automation and software efficiency creating the growth(regardless we need to figure that out).

As I've said time and time again attributing economic success to any one president is foolhardy. Much less one who hasn't been in office 2 years. The economy is a complex entity with lots of knobs and dials. Also this sunny day attitude, that the economy is gonna grow forever uninterrupted especially with a tax break is going to bite lots of people in the ass. There WILL be a recession, and it's even highly likely it will be during this presidential term, is it going to be solely Trumps fault? No, but I can say a tax break at the top of the hill is a terrible idea. We've done nothing at all to reduce the deficit or debt during this growth cycle, that's a huge mistake. Where the right and left both get it wrong is viewing taxes as this static thing that needs to be high if your liberal or low if conservative, taxes are way to help or control the economy, it's a dial to lower in a recession to spur growth and turn up in a growing economy to pay back debts.

I do agree that taxes should be tweaked from time to time, but not as a thermostat to control the economy, but rather to respond to it as markets shift.

I dont know that anyone was saying anything about Obama other than as perhaps a benchmark. What I have been saying is that an income tax cut has increased the overall income tax receipts. That has occurred because more people have entered the job market. People that were not previously looking for a job have now found themselves employed.

[wufan]

Statista was all I could find that was projecting individual income tax for more than a year. The only source that gave a chart. The CBO states that it would be up ~ 3.3% YoY in 2018 for the fiscal year and then went on to GDP. I don’t like that as a stat either, but again all I could find. The site does say that revenue will decrease, but I was trying to specifically look at individual income tax. That’s all I got. I think there are some interesting discussions to be had, but the major news outlets are cutting the numbers in an unfair way (right and left), so I was trying to find a data set that could be agreed upon. I’m striking out.

[jdshock]

We don't actually have to look for anything else in the CBO document. On the first page, in the income section, it says receipts will increase in the 20s when the income tax cuts expire. That's all we have to know. The cbo agrees that the cuts reduce receipts by definition because receipts will increase when the cuts expire.

[wufan]

I don’t think that’s accurate. It has it increasing dlightly vs GDP prior to the cuts expiring. When they expire, it grants a huge increase in revenue.

[ShockCrazy]

I do agree that taxes should be tweaked from time to time, but not as a thermostat to control the economy, but rather to respond to it as markets shift.

I dont know that anyone was saying anything about Obama other than as perhaps a benchmark. What I have been saying is that an income tax cut has increased the overall income tax receipts. That has occurred because more people have entered the job market. People that were not previously looking for a job have now found themselves employed.

Income is slightly higher, but that's ENTIRELY driven by April(which would have been driven by last year's returns) and January(before withholdings were adjusted, the bill wasn't fleshed out until late December), every other single month has seen a decrease in returns compared to the same month the previous year. So there's little evidence it has anything to do with people going back to work, if that were the case we would expect to see much more consistent returns each month. I know people like looking one simple number to summarize things, but details matter, and when you look at the detail here it paints a very different picture.

Month	2017	2018	Change
January	206,377	225,361	+18,984
February	63,279	43,396	-20,333
March	96,951	93,226	-3,725
April	309,041	356,495	+47,454
May	109,916	95,471	-14,445
June	207,917	200,365	-7,552
July	122,486	113,956	-8,530

And here's the sources, this is just the total of individual + corporate income tax receipts(overall treasury receipts are down for the calendar year, 1,996,559 in 2018 vs 1,999,089 in 2017): https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...mt/mts0718.pdf and https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...backissues.htm

[C0|dB|00ded]

LOVE IT!

Government jobs have become a haven for the lazy and unmotivated. Don't walk up to a business owner and tell them about the pension and healthcare lazy government workers enjoy. You'll likely get slapped right in the mouth.

Every American citizen's primary goal should be a private sector job. A gubbament job should be a fallback and looked upon as a career failure by our society. Unfortunately it has become exactly the opposite.

"Oh, you should get one of those GOOD government jobs honey!"

I heard about the salary of a federal courthouse guard (the guy standing next to the metal detector that makes you empty your pockets) and nearly puked. This borderline comatose individual was pulling home $70k... LMFAO!

#MAGA


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

Getting a government job should be akin to serving on a mission. The best and the brightest need not apply. In fact, working for the government should be viewed similarly as joining the military. You're signing up to "serve". When you earn your degree or gain some valuable skills you enter the private sector and get paid market rate.

This ^^ is President C0|d's America.


T


...:cool:

[WstateU]

A guy goes into the Post Office to apply for a job. The interviewer asks him, “Are you allergic to anything?” He replies, “Yes, caffeine. I can’t drink coffee.
”Ok, Have you ever been in the military service?”
“Yes,” he says, “I was in Afghanistan for one tour.”
The interviewer says, “That will give you five extra points toward employment.” Then he asks, “Are you disabled in any way?
The guy says, “Yes. A bomb exploded near me and I lost both my testicles.”
The interviewer grimaces and then says, “Disabled in your country’s service! Well, that qualifies for extra bonus points. Okay. Looking at the regulations you have got enough points for me to hire you right now. Our normal hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. You can start tomorrow at 10:00 am, and plan on starting at 10:00 am every day.
The guy is puzzled and asks, “If the work hours are from 8:00 am to 4:00 PM, why don’t you want me here until 10:00 am?”
“This is a government job,” the interviewer says. “For the first two hours, we just stand around drinking coffee and scratching our balls. No point in you coming in for that.”

[MoValley John]

Government jobs do pay too much. Government employees should make a little less than private sector employees doing the same thing. Not a whole lot less, but 10-15% less. When I was younger, this was accepted. Some how, many people now subscribe to the notion that government employees should be on equal footing.

Government employees make, or I should say, made less because these jobs provided a level of security unmatched in the private sector, along with often times, much greater benefits. Now government employees often earn equal to greater than the private sector, and also retained the increased security and better benefits.

if they only get their 2% this year, I call that a good start.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Good boy MVJ!


T


...:cool:

[shockfan89_]

By the way, why do government employees get paid for a government shutdown when the government restarts? Military and other essential jobs should continue to work, and receive paychecks. Anyone not going to work, shouldn't get paid. Then a government shutdown would be a positive thing. Surely both dems and repubs can agree on this? Maybe?

[ShockCrazy]

Government jobs do pay too much. Government employees should make a little less than private sector employees doing the same thing. Not a whole lot less, but 10-15% less. When I was younger, this was accepted. Some how, many people now subscribe to the notion that government employees should be on equal footing.

Government employees make, or I should say, made less because these jobs provided a level of security unmatched in the private sector, along with often times, much greater benefits. Now government employees often earn equal to greater than the private sector, and also retained the increased security and better benefits.

if they only get their 2% this year, I call that a good start.

See I disagree with this premise. Do we need a better way of removing low performers? Absolutely. But why do we want lesser people working in our government? That's foolish. I want our government to work as efficiently and best it can, and that happens with the highest quality employees.

[WuDrWu]

You made a decent point earlier and then back to your regularly scheduled nonsense.

[jdshock]

Government jobs do pay too much. Government employees should make a little less than private sector employees doing the same thing. Not a whole lot less, but 10-15% less. When I was younger, this was accepted. Some how, many people now subscribe to the notion that government employees should be on equal footing.

Government employees make, or I should say, made less because these jobs provided a level of security unmatched in the private sector, along with often times, much greater benefits. Now government employees often earn equal to greater than the private sector, and also retained the increased security and better benefits.

if they only get their 2% this year, I call that a good start.

Generally agree across the board here. Aside from whether we want our best and brightest working in the government (which, I really don't have a problem with), government employees pay + benefits should be slightly less than private sector work. The added job security + the added sense of duty (or value or sense of service or whatever) should easily make up about a 10% pay cut.

Not to mention the fact that some areas of the government result in some pretty massive back-end private sector bonuses (e.g., former assistant US attorneys are in high demand at huge firms, high-level government employees get speaking gigs, etc.).

[Kung Wu]

I want our government to work as efficiently ... #!#^@#!^# .. #$!&@#$ ...

Syntax Error

[ShockerPrez]

If the skills needed to be a government employee demand they be paid as such, fine.

But my opinion is that they don't. And often, these jobs don't have the accountability, aren't necessary, and are staffed based on favors, not merit.

And if they want to be called and bestow upon themselves all the accolades of being a public "servant", then they shant be so caught up with the monetary rewards.

[wufan]

Income is slightly higher, but that's ENTIRELY driven by April(which would have been driven by last year's returns) and January(before withholdings were adjusted, the bill wasn't fleshed out until late December), every other single month has seen a decrease in returns compared to the same month the previous year. So there's little evidence it has anything to do with people going back to work, if that were the case we would expect to see much more consistent returns each month. I know people like looking one simple number to summarize things, but details matter, and when you look at the detail here it paints a very different picture.

Month	2017	2018	Change
January	206,377	225,361	+18,984
February	63,279	43,396	-20,333
March	96,951	93,226	-3,725
April	309,041	356,495	+47,454
May	109,916	95,471	-14,445
June	207,917	200,365	-7,552
July	122,486	113,956	-8,530

And here's the sources, this is just the total of individual + corporate income tax receipts(overall treasury receipts are down for the calendar year, 1,996,559 in 2018 vs 1,999,089 in 2017): https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...mt/mts0718.pdf and https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...backissues.htm

So I was referring to individual income tax. It’s up significantly on the year.

[jdshock]

So you are willing to admit that the corporate taxes are going to add to the deficit and not pay for themselves?

[wufan]

Yep! I think there are significant gains to be had from income tax based on potentially more jobs and potentially higher wages, but that’s philisophical theory and not necessarily what we find. I think it’s important to talk about these items both individually and together to understand the benefit and problems.

[ShockCrazy]

So I was referring to individual income tax. It’s up significantly on the year.

Month	2017	2018	Change
January	197,231	211,879	+14,648
February	61,251	45,388	-15,863
March	84,072	88,160	+4,088
April	249,320	314,327	+65,007
May	103,981	92,539	-11,442
June	150,456	162,349	-11,893
July	113,453	109,660	-3,793

That doesn't change the picture. You can keep moving the goal posts and it's the same. +40,752(all numbers have been in millions) or 4.2% YoY all while still being entirely propped up by the 2017 returns in April at the previous tax rates. Since the new rates have taken effect we are getting less revenue any way you wanna slice it.

[C0|dB|00ded]

See I disagree with this premise. Do we need a better way of removing low performers? Absolutely. But why do we want lesser people working in our government? That's foolish. I want our government to work as efficiently and best it can, and that happens with the highest quality employees.

*sigh*

The country that is the U.S. of A was built on innovation. Innovation comes from the private sector where the best and the brightest should be. In a bastardized system you have the best and the brightest working high paid jobs in a government bureaucracy. That my Libtard friend, is a recipe for becoming Chinese take-out.

Government will never be efficient as it's not regulated by free market participants. Like they used to say about Michael Jordan: "You can't stop him, you can only hope to contain him." That's the same with government. You can't eliminate it completely, you can only hope to keep it as lean as possible allowing the best of your citizenry to remain unfettered by excessive regulation and taxation so they can invent, cure, and transform the future.

Make no mistake about it; the leader of the free world will always be the world leader in innovation.

Governments do not innovate, they suffocate.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

Month	2017	2018	Change
January	197,231	211,879	+14,648
February	61,251	45,388	-15,863
March	84,072	88,160	+4,088
April	249,320	314,327	+65,007
May	103,981	92,539	-11,442
June	150,456	162,349	-11,893
July	113,453	109,660	-3,793

That doesn't change the picture. You can keep moving the goal posts and it's the same. +40,752(all numbers have been in millions) or 4.2% YoY all while still being entirely propped up by the 2017 returns in April at the previous tax rates. Since the new rates have taken effect we are getting less revenue any way you wanna slice it.

Wasn’t moving goal posts...was clarifying. I get that you disagree with the April numbers, but it’s actually and factually up. It is projected to continually increase. How in gods name can a 4.2% increase over 7 months be “less revenue any way you slice it.”

Read that again. “Since the new rates have taken effect we are getting less revenue any way you slice it.”

Actual revenue: + 4.2%. I like to slice it with actual data from the fed. They said....104.2%. Obviously that is....less money I guess?

[wufan]

I also learned today that there are no biological differences between men and women.

[ShockCrazy]

Wasn’t moving goal posts...was clarifying. I get that you disagree with the April numbers, but it’s actually and factually up. It is projected to continually increase. How in gods name can a 4.2% increase over 7 months be “less revenue any way you slice it.”

Read that again. “Since the new rates have taken effect we are getting less revenue any way you slice it.”

Actual revenue: + 4.2%. I like to slice it with actual data from the fed. They said....104.2%. Obviously that is....less money I guess?

We are taking less revenue thanks to the change. April is entirely off the last tax rate. You do also understand since 1970 we average 6.5% each year? And that includes recessions? Why if people returning to the workforce is showing gains do we not see gains in the past 3 months? The tax cut is decreasing revenue. If the month to month data continues as it has we will end up with a net decline for FY18.

Edit: Also I love the media-esque slicing of my quote ignoring context. Quite nice.