Trump

[WuDrWu]

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.

You're just so wrong here. And it's not just that government jobs pay more than the private sector, it's the long term problem of ridiculous entitlement-like benefits, low productivity due to massive time off including every conceivable holiday, personal leave, vacations etc etc. We're not talking about competing for the top 50 minds working in the infectious diseases department, it's the millions upon millions of entry level employees that have become a high level welfare class. Why try when you can do as little as possible, get paid the same or more, get more time off, better benefits, more pension and retire earlier? Don't you see the problem, or do you just not care, because it's your way of being fair and redistributing?

[ShockCrazy]

See you don't get what I'm saying. On the very low end jobs does government probably pay too much? Yes. For technical and skilled positions absolutely not. Go look at the reqs one that made me laugh, a server specialist in DC 68K-122K. Given the qualifications and DC the starting salary for a private sector job on the low end would be 90K high end 150k. We don't need to hire the best and brightest, but I would like a qualified and efficient workforce. And as the saying goes you get what you pay for. People complain about the inefficiency of government and waste, but that comes from under qualified personnel, because the qualified ones wouldn't take that job.

[wufan]

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.

Why don’t we get to count April? Where should the April data be counted. Are we going to go back and add it to 2017? Maybe we should give it to the last guy that set the tax rate? Please let me know what revenue I get to count and don’t so I understand. If we pretend that we didn’t earn any money in Q1, then we are in rough shape! I have to agree now. Let’s cut that out.

So I will start again. The Trump tax cuts, which reduced the average tax rate for individuals, has increased the individual income tax revenue thus far in 2018. I just don’t know how I should slice this? Let’s not count a month! Dang it that doesn’t seem correct. Let’s just do it the normal way and start at the beginning and continue to the last data point.

The data says says it has increased. Help me understand how I screwed this up?

On quoting you...your original post was on the same page. I quoted the entire post to start my post to, you know, give context. Then you wrote two sentences. The first sentence said, [tax rate is up 4% because April which doesn’t count]. The second sentence, which I quoted exactly, said, [that means decrease].

How mich effing context is required for that to make sense?

[ShockCrazy]

Why don’t we get to count April? Where should the April data be counted. Are we going to go back and add it to 2017? Maybe we should give it to the last guy that set the tax rate? Please let me know what revenue I get to count and don’t so I understand. If we pretend that we didn’t earn any money in Q1, then we are in rough shape! I have to agree now. Let’s cut that out.

So I will start again. The Trump tax cuts, which reduced the average tax rate for individuals, has increased the individual income tax revenue thus far in 2018. I just don’t know how I should slice this? Let’s not count a month! Dang it that doesn’t seem correct. Let’s just do it the normal way and start at the beginning and continue to the last data point.

The data says says it has increased. Help me understand how I screwed this up?

On quoting you...your original post was on the same page. I quoted the entire post to start my post to, you know, give context. Then you wrote two sentences. The first sentence said, [tax rate is up 4% because April which doesn’t count]. The second sentence, which I quoted exactly, said, [that means decrease].

How mich effing context is required for that to make sense?

You are attributing a gain to the tax cut, that is false. Let's break this down simply, April has context because the final date to file taxes is April 15th in case you didn't know.. You want to ignore it to pretend the tax cut has had a positive effect. April every year has the HIGHEST receipts STRICTLY because people are filing returns for the previous year. Therefore the INCREASE in revenue in APRIL is based off the PREVIOUS year's tax rate. Why is this so hard to understand. Every other month which has operated solely under the influence of the tax cut has seen a decline. January was still entirely using 2017 withholding rate, and at least for me personally my first paycheck of February was as well, it wasn't until the second paycheck in February did the tax cut reflect in my withholding, You willfully being ignorant. Answer this basic questions why are we seeing lower receipts the past 3 months if the tax cut is increasing revenue?

[wufan]

You are attributing a gain to the tax cut, that is false. Let's break this down simply, April has context because the final date to file taxes is April 15th in case you didn't know.. You want to ignore it to pretend the tax cut has had a positive effect. April every year has the HIGHEST receipts STRICTLY because people are filing returns for the previous year. Therefore the INCREASE in revenue in APRIL is based off the PREVIOUS year's tax rate. Why is this so hard to understand. Every other month which has operated solely under the influence of the tax cut has seen a decline. January was still entirely using 2017 withholding rate, and at least for me personally my first paycheck of February was as well, it wasn't until the second paycheck in February did the tax cut reflect in my withholding, You willfully being ignorant. Answer this basic questions why are we seeing lower receipts the past 3 months if the tax cut is increasing revenue?

Thank you for the clarification. How much money did we lose when we only count the second half of February, the part of March where people weren’t filing, the second half of April, May, June, and July? I can’t seem to find those numbers.

[ShockCrazy]

Thank you for the clarification. How much money did we lose when we only count the second half of February, the part of March where people weren’t filing, the second half of April, May, June, and July? I can’t seem to find those numbers.

Is this a serious question?

[wufan]

Is this a serious question?

We can’t even agree an an effing data set to discuss the pros and cons! What the hell do you want me to say? My original statement was true, but you don’t like the data set. I don’t have the data you want to see.

[ShockCrazy]

We can’t even agree an an effing data set to discuss the pros and cons! What the hell do you want me to say? My original statement was true, but you don’t like the data set. I don’t have the data you want to see.

I have previously posted the links. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...backissues.htm You have to look at the monthly data and scroll down to individual receipts. And actually I have been able to find the impact of tax filings go down to witholdings, for April 2018 99,447 and April 2017 93,762. Then for March: 2018 132,319 and 2017 139,562. So a slight up in April, down more in March for a net of -1,558. There's no way to take the noise out of January though. So the tax cuts have been negative.

[jdshock]

wufan - there are several issues here:

1. More recent and contextualized data shows tax receipts are down. You're trying to combat this point. But shockcrazy is right that April receipts are really their own ball game.

2. Even if they weren't down, our tax receipts increase year over year anyway almost every year. You would want receipts to exceed this built in growth. You haven't addrressed this issue.

3. Even if they were up, some models do discuss short term benefits. No serious models suggest this is paying for itself, though.

Again, there are plenty of reasons to support tax cuts, but these cuts won't increase revenue.

[ShockCrazy]

I present to you 2001-2003 the Bush tax cuts that would somehow widen the base. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA

[WuDrWu]

Umm, seriously? Maybe we've stumbled onto your comprehension problem.....you're not old enough to remember what happened on September 11, 2001 are you? That might have had a bit of an effect on tax revenues. But hey, what do I know.

[jdshock]

WuDrWu, definitely not my argument. I'm just saying no real economists are suggesting these cuts will do that.

[wufan]

I have previously posted the links. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...backissues.htm You have to look at the monthly data and scroll down to individual receipts. And actually I have been able to find the impact of tax filings go down to witholdings, for April 2018 99,447 and April 2017 93,762. Then for March: 2018 132,319 and 2017 139,562. So a slight up in April, down more in March for a net of -1,558. There's no way to take the noise out of January though. So the tax cuts have been negative.

Thank you. I had also previously posted the same link, but I missed the “withheld” column. Help me out. What do those numbers mean? Total individual income receipts in March 2017 was 88 billion. The withheld amount was 139 billion. Is the withheld amount of money the gov gets from returns? Is it factored into the monthly individual income tax? They look like separate and unrelated line items to me, but maybe I’m misunderstanding.

[ShockCrazy]

Thank you. I had also previously posted the same link, but I missed the “withheld” column. Help me out. What do those numbers mean? Total individual income receipts in March 2017 was 88 billion. The withheld amount was 139 billion. Is the withheld amount of money the gov gets from returns? Is it factored into the monthly individual income tax? They look like separate and unrelated line items to me, but maybe I’m misunderstanding.

Withholding is literally withheld takes from paychecks and would reflect changes from the tax cut. Other reflects other payments would would include payments for tax returns, because those aren't standard(iit would also reflect payments made for adjustments for those who's withholding is significantly less than they would normally pay due to other sources of income in other months). And then the second column has the refunds. That's why the withholding numbers are much more inline with the other months totals, other months have less other payments. Also those numbers are bundled together in the monthly total income tax taken along with the refunds.

[wufan]

Withholding is literally withheld takes from paychecks and would reflect changes from the tax cut. Other reflects other payments would would include payments for tax returns, because those aren't standard(iit would also reflect payments made for adjustments for those who's withholding is significantly less than they would normally pay due to other sources of income in other months). And then the second column has the refunds. That's why the withholding numbers are much more inline with the other months totals, other months have less other payments. Also those numbers are bundled together in the monthly total income tax taken along with the refunds.

So the total of 84 billion for March 2017 is 139 billion plus what to equal 84 billion? I am seriously lost and need some help on this.

[wufan]

We are looking at two different line items on the same tables. I’m looking at receipts. You are looking at withholdings plus other. There is a monsterous difference between these numbers.

[ShockCrazy]

So the total of 84 billion for March 2017 is 139 billion plus what to equal 84 billion? I am seriously lost and need some help on this.

It's stupid how it's lined up. So the green numbers, are withholding, campaign fund(not sure what that's about but it's nominal to the other ones), and then other(which is returns/adjustments, all of which would have been based on the previous tax rate). Those total to the 155,806 number. Then for some reason they don't give refunds it's own line item and next to that total on that line it's there in the red box, which is 71,734(also would have been based on previous rate). So then the 155,806 less the 71,734 in refunds leads to the 84,072 number up on page 5.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Man, you guys are still at it. Give 'Crazy a break will ya. He's fully indoctrinated and likely receiving at least part of his income from government sources. He's got skin in this taxation game. His beliefs don't exasperate me any more than a small child who's struggling to put his sweater on backwards. You've just gotta be patient and start from the beginning.

Remember you are arguing over a tax cut that went into effect a mere 7 months ago. If the government is headed for a small reduction in receipts (yet to be proven), this executive action by Trump will have been a resounding success. And it pretty much makes the conservative's point: lowering taxes stimulates production/employment which increases the overall tax base. If the tax reduction reduced the tax receipts dollar for dollar there would be something to argue about. But the argument would still be moot as we've not had nearly the time to feel the entire effect of capital investment and the subsequent expansive effects on the economy.

P.S. If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

What my favorite Shockernet 'Tards should be putting all their argument effort into is the deficit. The modern day Republicans have shown a propensity to cut taxes but not cut spending nearly enough. Essentially they have become sackless. Anybody can cut taxes. Who doesn't love a tax cut? But to not appropriately balance the budget after cutting said taxes is not only irresponsible, it's criminal.

I do think Trump is trying to shave off everything he can. It's the sackless House of COULDN'T REPEAL that I'm worried about.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

That's part of this argument but some people are arguing this tax cut will increase tax revenue, thereby reducing the deficit.

[shockfan89_]

Spending is, and for the last 50 years, has been the problem. We need to be focused on cutting spending and taxes will be a non-issue. The reasons I love tax cuts and think ALL tax cuts are good is: 1. It's more of my money I get to keep (duh). 2. It is less money for the federal government to waste.

Spending reductions will never happen as long as we have elected officials that can serve more than one term. Paul Ryan proposed some common sense spending cuts in 2016 and was called every name in the book. I don't personally care for Paul Ryan, but after seeing how he was compared to Hitler for having the audacity to say we need to cut spending, I knew spending would never be decreased. Now days when government agencies (federal and state) talk about budget cuts, they don't even mean spending less than last year, 99% of the time they are talking about cutting projected increases.