As has been claimed here by several for more than a year
“Skeptical reporting has still been too favorable.
The 2017 tax cut has received pretty bad press, and rightly so. Its proponents made big promises about soaring investment and wages, and also assured everyone that it would pay for itself; none of that has happened.

Yet coverage actually hasn’t been negative enough. The story you mostly read runs something like this: The tax cut has caused corporations to bring some money home, but they’ve used it for stock buybacks rather than to raise wages, and the boost to growth has been modest. That doesn’t sound great, but it’s still better than the reality: No money has, in fact, been brought home, and the tax cut has probably reduced national income. Indeed, at least 90 percent of Americans will end up poorer thanks to that cut.
Let me explain each point in turn.“
But you’ll have to open the link and read the concise point by point explanation.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=newssearch&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-7tq1pM7fAhVlkeAKHRKhAjsQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F01%2F01 %2Fopinion%2Fthe-trump-tax-cut-even-worse-than-youve-heard.html&psig=AOvVaw2tOaw6oYgGxYZL6tDUP-Ej&ust=1546490561312958

almost everybody saw an increase in take-home pay. If your gross pay stayed the same, your net almost certainly increased, especially if you have dependent children.

Your hit piece left that out. That and favorable unemployment trends as well. I wonder why.

Trump cancels pay raises for almost 2 million federal workers
‘In light of our nation’s fiscal situation
But a tax cutting is ok

Seems you missed that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump cancels pay raises for almost 2 million federal workers
‘In light of our nation’s fiscal situation
But a tax cutting is ok

Seems you missed that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Should we raise everyone's taxes so the federal workers can get a pay raise?

Stock buybacks are good for everyone who owns stock. Stock ownership isn't just for the wealthy anymore. Everyone who has an IRA or a 401(k) benefits from that.

I didn't see much talk about everyone's taxes going down, or the 20,000 jobs that Apple pledged, or the massive infrastructure investment Cox is making, or the raises and bonuses that we all heard about.

I think the tax cut gave too much to business, not enough to the middle class. But to imply it didn't help anyone, is just false.

Pete, when you ignore all the benefits that the tax cut provided, and only look at the flaws, I admit it looks like stupid policy. But in an honest world, we evaluate public policy based on the good and the bad that it does - not just the bad. A lot of Americans will see a meaningful increase in take home pay. I did. And I'm not the only one.

Obama's "stimulus" also cost almost a trillion dollars, and I don't know that I know anyone who benefitted a nickel because of it. But maybe it helped get unemployment under control, I don't know.

Almost everyone I know, is seeing a benefit from the GOP tax cuts.

almost everybody saw an increase in take-home pay. If your gross pay stayed the same, your net almost certainly increased, especially if you have dependent children.

Your hit piece left that out. That and favorable unemployment trends as well. I wonder why.
So if I gave you a dollar today and stole it plus interest from you tomorrow, you would be alright with that? Trump's math doesn't work and he doesn't care as long as he can con his base into believing it's a good thing. Simple elegant solutions to complex problems are typically incorrect but espoused by populists like Trump and Sanders.
Here's the rest of the body of the article you think is a hit piece, Unfortunately I can't copy the graphs

"Let me explain each point in turn.

First, when people say that U.S. corporations have “brought money home” they’re referring to dividends overseas subsidiaries have paid to their parent corporations. These did indeed surge briefly in 2018, as the tax law made it advantageous to transfer some assets from the books of those subsidiaries to the home companies; these transactions also showed up as a reduction in the measured stake of the parents in the subsidiaries, i.e., as negative direct investment ( figure 1)
But these transactions are simply rearrangements of companies’ books for tax purposes; they don’t necessarily correspond to anything real. Suppose that Multinational Megacorp USA decides to have its subsidiary, Multinational Mega Ireland, transfer some assets to the home company. This will produce the kind of simultaneous and opposite movement in dividends and direct investment you see in Figure 1. But the company’s overall balance sheet – which always included the assets of MM Ireland – hasn’t changed at all. No real resources have been transferred; MM USA has neither gained nor lost the ability to invest here.
If you want to know whether investable funds are really being transferred to the U.S., you need to look at the overall balance on financial account – or, what should be the same (and is more accurately measured), the inverse of the balance on current account. Figure 2 shows that balance as a share of GDP – and as you can see, basically nothing has happened.


Figure 2CreditBureau of Economic Analysis
So the tax cut induced some accounting maneuvers, but did nothing to promote capital flows to America.

The tax cut did, however, have one important international effect: We’re now paying more money to foreigners.

Bear in mind that the one clear, overwhelming result of the tax cut is a big break for corporations: Federal tax receipts on corporate income have plunged (Figure 3).
The key point to realize is that in today’s globalized corporate system, a lot of any country’s corporate sector, our own very much included, is actually owned by foreigners, either directly because corporations here are foreign subsidiaries, or indirectly because foreigners own American stocks. Indeed, roughly a third of U.S. corporate profits basically flow to foreign nationals – which means that a third of the tax cut flowed abroad, rather than staying at home. This probably outweighs any positive effect on GDP growth. So the tax cut probably made America poorer, not richer.

And it certainly made most Americans poorer. While 2/3 of the corporate tax cut may have gone to U.S. residents, 84 percent of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. Everyone else will see hardly any benefit.

Meanwhile, since the tax cut isn’t paying for itself, it will eventually have to be paid for some other way – either by raising other taxes, or by cutting spending on programs people value. The cost of these hikes or cuts will be much less concentrated on the top 10 percent than the benefit of the original tax cut. So it’s a near-certainty that the vast majority of Americans will be worse off thanks to Trump’s only major legislative success.

As I said, even the mainly negative reporting doesn’t convey how bad a deal this whole thing is turning out to be.

Should we raise everyone's taxes so the federal workers can get a pay raise?

and if they didn’t get raises, their take home pay still likely increased, thanks to the tax cuts. but we should
ignore that, because we don’t like Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if I gave you a dollar today and stole it plus interest from you tomorrow, you would be alright with that? Trump's math doesn't work and he doesn't care as long as he can con his base into believing it's a good thing. Simple elegant solutions to complex problems are typically incorrect but espoused by populists like Trump and Sanders.
Here's the rest of the body of the article you think is a hit piece, Unfortunately I can't copy the graphs

"Let me explain each point in turn.

First, when people say that U.S. corporations have “brought money home” they’re referring to dividends overseas subsidiaries have paid to their parent corporations. These did indeed surge briefly in 2018, as the tax law made it advantageous to transfer some assets from the books of those subsidiaries to the home companies; these transactions also showed up as a reduction in the measured stake of the parents in the subsidiaries, i.e., as negative direct investment ( figure 1)
But these transactions are simply rearrangements of companies’ books for tax purposes; they don’t necessarily correspond to anything real. Suppose that Multinational Megacorp USA decides to have its subsidiary, Multinational Mega Ireland, transfer some assets to the home company. This will produce the kind of simultaneous and opposite movement in dividends and direct investment you see in Figure 1. But the company’s overall balance sheet – which always included the assets of MM Ireland – hasn’t changed at all. No real resources have been transferred; MM USA has neither gained nor lost the ability to invest here.
If you want to know whether investable funds are really being transferred to the U.S., you need to look at the overall balance on financial account – or, what should be the same (and is more accurately measured), the inverse of the balance on current account. Figure 2 shows that balance as a share of GDP – and as you can see, basically nothing has happened.


Figure 2CreditBureau of Economic Analysis
So the tax cut induced some accounting maneuvers, but did nothing to promote capital flows to America.

The tax cut did, however, have one important international effect: We’re now paying more money to foreigners.

Bear in mind that the one clear, overwhelming result of the tax cut is a big break for corporations: Federal tax receipts on corporate income have plunged (Figure 3).
The key point to realize is that in today’s globalized corporate system, a lot of any country’s corporate sector, our own very much included, is actually owned by foreigners, either directly because corporations here are foreign subsidiaries, or indirectly because foreigners own American stocks. Indeed, roughly a third of U.S. corporate profits basically flow to foreign nationals – which means that a third of the tax cut flowed abroad, rather than staying at home. This probably outweighs any positive effect on GDP growth. So the tax cut probably made America poorer, not richer.

And it certainly made most Americans poorer. While 2/3 of the corporate tax cut may have gone to U.S. residents, 84 percent of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. Everyone else will see hardly any benefit.

Meanwhile, since the tax cut isn’t paying for itself, it will eventually have to be paid for some other way – either by raising other taxes, or by cutting spending on programs people value. The cost of these hikes or cuts will be much less concentrated on the top 10 percent than the benefit of the original tax cut. So it’s a near-certainty that the vast majority of Americans will be worse off thanks to Trump’s only major legislative success.

As I said, even the mainly negative reporting doesn’t convey how bad a deal this whole thing is turning out to be.

so now you’re saying that policies which provide economic benefit today but which must be paid for by borrowing with interest, are bad. there is logic to that, i mean that. i bet you never expressed that concern from 2009-2016.

again, can we have a consistent set of standards,applied equally to all presidents? is that too much to ask?

both sides are guilty of this hypocrisy. it gets us nowhere, and it’s intellectually lazy.

your article says that overseas money brought home, doesn’t necessarily correspond to anything real.

Bullsh*t.

Apple brought home $250 billion, and paid 38 billion in federal income tax on that. thirty eight billion dollars isn’t real?

the article is a political hit piece. unless you feel that 38 billion is nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if I gave you a dollar today and stole it plus interest from you tomorrow, you would be alright with that? Trump's math doesn't work and he doesn't care as long as he can con his base into believing it's a good thing. Simple elegant solutions to complex problems are typically incorrect but espoused by populists like Trump and Sanders.
Here's the rest of the body of the article you think is a hit piece, Unfortunately I can't copy the graphs

"Let me explain each point in turn.

First, when people say that U.S. corporations have “brought money home” they’re referring to dividends overseas subsidiaries have paid to their parent corporations. These did indeed surge briefly in 2018, as the tax law made it advantageous to transfer some assets from the books of those subsidiaries to the home companies; these transactions also showed up as a reduction in the measured stake of the parents in the subsidiaries, i.e., as negative direct investment ( figure 1)
But these transactions are simply rearrangements of companies’ books for tax purposes; they don’t necessarily correspond to anything real. Suppose that Multinational Megacorp USA decides to have its subsidiary, Multinational Mega Ireland, transfer some assets to the home company. This will produce the kind of simultaneous and opposite movement in dividends and direct investment you see in Figure 1. But the company’s overall balance sheet – which always included the assets of MM Ireland – hasn’t changed at all. No real resources have been transferred; MM USA has neither gained nor lost the ability to invest here.
If you want to know whether investable funds are really being transferred to the U.S., you need to look at the overall balance on financial account – or, what should be the same (and is more accurately measured), the inverse of the balance on current account. Figure 2 shows that balance as a share of GDP – and as you can see, basically nothing has happened.


Figure 2CreditBureau of Economic Analysis
So the tax cut induced some accounting maneuvers, but did nothing to promote capital flows to America.

The tax cut did, however, have one important international effect: We’re now paying more money to foreigners.

Bear in mind that the one clear, overwhelming result of the tax cut is a big break for corporations: Federal tax receipts on corporate income have plunged (Figure 3).
The key point to realize is that in today’s globalized corporate system, a lot of any country’s corporate sector, our own very much included, is actually owned by foreigners, either directly because corporations here are foreign subsidiaries, or indirectly because foreigners own American stocks. Indeed, roughly a third of U.S. corporate profits basically flow to foreign nationals – which means that a third of the tax cut flowed abroad, rather than staying at home. This probably outweighs any positive effect on GDP growth. So the tax cut probably made America poorer, not richer.

And it certainly made most Americans poorer. While 2/3 of the corporate tax cut may have gone to U.S. residents, 84 percent of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. Everyone else will see hardly any benefit.

Meanwhile, since the tax cut isn’t paying for itself, it will eventually have to be paid for some other way – either by raising other taxes, or by cutting spending on programs people value. The cost of these hikes or cuts will be much less concentrated on the top 10 percent than the benefit of the original tax cut. So it’s a near-certainty that the vast majority of Americans will be worse off thanks to Trump’s only major legislative success.

As I said, even the mainly negative reporting doesn’t convey how bad a deal this whole thing is turning out to be.

"Meanwhile, since the tax cut isn’t paying for itself, it will eventually have to be paid for some other way – either by raising other taxes, or by cutting spending on programs people value"

Or by cutting waste. Why isn't that a possibility, Pete?

"And it certainly made most Americans poorer. While 2/3 of the corporate tax cut may have gone to U.S. residents, 84 percent of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. Everyone else will see hardly any benefit."

Again, demonstrably false bullsh*t. My taxes went down by $200 a month.

The article is desperately trying to paint the cut, as something that benefitted the wealthy, and did nothing for everyone else. It's not true, it's not close to being true.

CBS (not a conservative outlet) looked at 3 families in 3 different parts of the country. Here is the impact of the tax cut.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-tax-bill-will-affect-three-american-families/

so now you’re saying that policies which provide economic benefit today but which must be paid for by borrowing with interest, are bad. there is logic to that, i mean that. i bet you never expressed that concern from 2009-2016.

again, can we have a consistent set of standards,applied equally to all presidents? is that too much to ask?

both sides are guilty of this hypocrisy. it gets us nowhere, and it’s intellectually lazy.

your article says that overseas money brought home, doesn’t necessarily correspond to anything real.

Bullsh*t.

Apple brought home $250 billion, and paid 38 billion in federal income tax on that. thirty eight billion dollars isn’t real?

the article is a political hit piece. unless you feel that 38 billion is nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Corporate income taxes paid went down by HALF, how much any individual corporation paid is immaterial in funding the government.

"Meanwhile, since the tax cut isn’t paying for itself, it will eventually have to be paid for some other way – either by raising other taxes, or by cutting spending on programs people value"

Or by cutting waste. Why isn't that a possibility, Pete?

"And it certainly made most Americans poorer. While 2/3 of the corporate tax cut may have gone to U.S. residents, 84 percent of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. Everyone else will see hardly any benefit."

Again, demonstrably false bullsh*t. My taxes went down by $200 a month.

The article is desperately trying to paint the cut, as something that benefitted the wealthy, and did nothing for everyone else. It's not true, it's not close to being true.

CBS (not a conservative outlet) looked at 3 families in 3 different parts of the country. Here is the impact of the tax cut.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-tax-bill-will-affect-three-american-families/
Based on prior history our government does not cut waste.
Unless you think the current funding situation will continue indefinitely it will never happen.

Your taxes withheld or owed went down?
Have you done your taxes yet?

Corporate income taxes paid went down by HALF, how much any individual corporation paid is immaterial in funding the government.

Well the corporate tax rate didn't get cut in half, so something else is at play there which may or may not have anything to do with the tax cut.

I have news for you...when corporations have more after tax income, that doesn't only benefit the wealthy. I have spent my career so far in a cubicle, I am a worker bee not an executive. And I have worked for some huge companies (Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford). And I know for sure, that the more money the company has at the end of the year, the better my raise and bonus will be. They share profits with the workers, they have to, or the good workers will all leave.

Corporate America isn't the plantation you seem to think it is.

Based on prior history our government does not cut waste.
Unless you think the current funding situation will continue indefinitely it will never happen.

Your taxes withheld or owed went down?
Have you done your taxes yet?

"Based on prior history our government does not cut waste."

Then perhaps we need to demand it from our elected officials, or else vote for people who will cut waste.

"Your taxes withheld or owed went down?"

On Feb 1, when my company adopted the new tax rates, my withholding went down $200 a month. Every cent of that was because of the tax cut.

I then spoke to a CPA. I usually break even at the end of the year, sometimes I owe as much as $500, or get back as much as $500, I like to keep it as neutral as possible. I wanted to make sure I wasn't going to owe that much more at the end of the year. CPA says my reduced withholdings will not impact my return in a real way, even with the new limitation of deducting state and local taxes at 10k. If not for that, I would have seen an even bigger bump from the tax cuts.

The tax rate in my income bracket decreased. On top of that, I have 3 dependent children, and there were big increases to child tax credits. I benefitted from those two shifts, as did everyone else like me.

Pete, I do feel the cuts gave too much to business, not enough to regular folks. But you cannot accurately say that regular folks are not benefitting. Almost everyone will see an increase in take home pay, that's just fact.

And if you think that companies, by and large, will not share the windfall of the lower corporate tax rates, I don't agree. I can't prove it. But in my experience, the companies I have worked for have always shared some portion of profits, with cubicle dwellers like me. They have to, or we will all go someplace else that does.

Well the corporate tax rate didn't get cut in half, so something else is at play there which may or may not have anything to do with the tax cut.

I have news for you...when corporations have more after tax income, that doesn't only benefit the wealthy. I have spent my career so far in a cubicle, I am a worker bee not an executive. And I have worked for some huge companies (Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford). And I know for sure, that the more money the company has at the end of the year, the better my raise and bonus will be. They share profits with the workers, they have to, or the good workers will all leave.

Corporate America isn't the plantation you seem to think it is.
There is a difference between tax rate and effective tax rate.
Wharton did a study and the effective rate was 20% and now is expected to be 9%
That's more than half.
"You never can answer the question" Is how I believe you typically put it with some identity politics thrown in.
Your taxes withheld or owed went down?
Have you done your taxes yet or are you surmising?

There is a difference between tax rate and effective tax rate.
Wharton did a study and the effective rate was 20% and now is expected to be 9%
That's more than half.
"You never can answer the question" Is how I believe you typically put it with some identity politics thrown in.
Your taxes withheld or owed went down?
Have you done your taxes yet or are you surmising?

"There is a difference between tax rate and effective tax rate."

agreed.

"Wharton did a study and the effective rate was 20% and now is expected to be 9%
That's more than half."

Yes it is. That Wharton said it, doesn't mean that's what's going to happen. I'm not an accountant, but I'm not sure how the effective tax rate would go down by larger percentage than the flat rate, not across the board.

If a company's net rate was 20% (when the gross rate was 35%), that means they have quite a bit of income not subject to the federal income tax (for example, maybe they have money invested in T-bills, on which interest earned is tax free). If that stays the same going forward, that income is still tax free, so would not decrease the effective tax rate. Not sure why, on average, companies would see a 55% decrease in effective tax rate, when the gross rate decreased by 40%, but I'm no CPA.

"Your taxes withheld or owed went down?
Have you done your taxes yet or are you surmising"

I thought I answered that is detail.

My taxes withheld went down, and my CPA says that my end-of-year taxes owed, will go down by the same amount. So the $200 a month bump I saw, will be ours to keep.

We qualify for that tax decrease, because of a decrease in tax rates as well as an increase in child tax credits.

Does that not answer your question? I think it answers it precisely as you asked.

I have not done my taxes yet (who has their W-2 already?). I asked a CPA what the end-of-year impact would be, of my decreased withholdings. I'll tell you for certain in March.

I am not assuming anything about taxes withheld, those went down by $200 a month. The payroll department wouldn't do that, if it meant I'd owe that much more at the end of the year. I didn't change my W-4.

Should we raise everyone's taxes so the federal workers can get a pay raise?

Not really the point is it

But let’s give corporate America huge tax breaks removing money from the budget.. then screw the workers. Saying sorry we can’t afford your raise .... we’re broke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not really the point is it

But let’s give corporate America huge tax breaks removing money from the budget.. then screw the workers. Saying sorry we can’t afford your raise .... we’re broke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there's currently too much being taken from individuals and corporations, then it's just to give it back to them.

and if they didn’t get raises, their take home pay still likely increased, thanks to the tax cuts. but we should
ignore that, because we don’t like Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Wow that’s some crazy thinking they should be thankful for the tax cut in place of a raise that affects their retirement down the road??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there's currently too much being taken from individuals and corporations, then it's just to give it back to them.

Trump helping the little guy. Wait he thinks all federal employees are democrats .. now it makes sense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump helping the little guy. Wait he thinks all federal employees are democrats .. now it makes sense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Trump helping the little guy"

Unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, and those with high school diplomas, is down. And he gave "the little guy" a tax cut.

Wow that’s some crazy thinking they should be thankful for the tax cut in place of a raise that affects their retirement down the road??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were you this concerned in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when Obama cancelled the government pay raises? just trying to establish some consistency in logic

also of note is that Obama didn't increase the Locality adjustment in 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,and 2015, which also affects retirement.

"There is a difference between tax rate and effective tax rate."

agreed.

"Wharton did a study and the effective rate was 20% and now is expected to be 9%
That's more than half."

Yes it is. That Wharton said it, doesn't mean that's what's going to happen. I'm not an accountant, but I'm not sure how the effective tax rate would go down by larger percentage than the flat rate, not across the board.

If a company's net rate was 20% (when the gross rate was 35%), that means they have quite a bit of income not subject to the federal income tax (for example, maybe they have money invested in T-bills, on which interest earned is tax free). If that stays the same going forward, that income is still tax free, so would not decrease the effective tax rate. Not sure why, on average, companies would see a 55% decrease in effective tax rate, when the gross rate decreased by 40%, but I'm no CPA.

"Your taxes withheld or owed went down?
Have you done your taxes yet or are you surmising"

I thought I answered that is detail.

My taxes withheld went down, and my CPA says that my end-of-year taxes owed, will go down by the same amount. So the $200 a month bump I saw, will be ours to keep.

We qualify for that tax decrease, because of a decrease in tax rates as well as an increase in child tax credits.

Does that not answer your question? I think it answers it precisely as you asked.

I have not done my taxes yet (who has their W-2 already?). I asked a CPA what the end-of-year impact would be, of my decreased withholdings. I'll tell you for certain in March.

I am not assuming anything about taxes withheld, those went down by $200 a month. The payroll department wouldn't do that, if it meant I'd owe that much more at the end of the year. I didn't change my W-4.
I doubt that Wharton figured out what all corporate taxes were, they did a model based on typical numbers and came up with a projection.
Not perfect but they came up with more than 50% reduction which matches the decrease in taxes paid to date.

I was probably asking when you were answering
So you're surmising that your withholding is correct based on some free advice from a CPA and you'll find out in March.

Wow that’s some crazy thinking they should be thankful for the tax cut in place of a raise that affects their retirement down the road??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, is it that much better to get a $100 raise, than it is to get a $100 tax cut? At the end of the day, if you have $100 more to spend, do you care which column in the balance sheet it came from? If so, could you please explain why? Because I couldn't give a rat's azz.

Were you this concerned in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when Obama cancelled the government pay raises? just trying to establish some consistency in logic

also of note is that Obama didn't increase the Locality adjustment in 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,and 2015, which also affects retirement.

Now you are guilty of whataboutism!!

And no, it wasn't objectionable then.

WDMSO, is it that much better to get a $100 raise, than it is to get a $100 tax cut? At the end of the day, if you have $100 more to spend, do you care which column in the balance sheet it came from? If so, could you please explain why? Because I couldn't give a rat's azz.

Actually, a tax cut will net you more than an equal pay raise. Part of the pay raise will be reduced by income taxes.

I doubt that Wharton figured out what all corporate taxes were, they did a model based on typical numbers and came up with a projection.
Not perfect but they came up with more than 50% reduction which matches the decrease in taxes paid to date.

I was probably asking when you were answering
So you're surmising that your withholding is correct based on some free advice from a CPA and you'll find out in March.

I'm surmising based on (1) my payroll department told me this would be the case, and because that's how payroll departments handle changes in tax rates, and (2) MY CPA, not some random CPA, did an estimate of my 2018 taxes, using the new rates and what I could tell him about my income for this year, and my refund was actually $200 larger than the refund I got last year, on top of my withholding being $200 a month less. He actually put the numbers into a tax spreadsheet, he didn't just guess out of thin air.

I won't know for sure, I can't know for sure, until I do my taxes. I am certain that my refund won't be $2400 less than last year, due to my withholding $2400 less. That's not how it works.

Actually, a tax cut will net you more than an equal pay raise. Part of the pay raise will be reduced by income taxes.

Oh shut up with that logic.

Raises are better, especially if they are a result of liberal policies.

Not really the point is it

But let’s give corporate America huge tax breaks removing money from the budget.. then screw the workers. Saying sorry we can’t afford your raise .... we’re broke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

I didn't even see that Paul Krugman wrote this, I should have guessed! Krugman previously said that the US economy would never recover from a Trump presidency, meanwhile the economy is rolling along better than it was 2 years ago by just about any conceivable measure. the guy has exactly ZERO credibility, he's not a scientist, he's a liberal advocate. Everything he says and writes, shows a clear liberal bias.

Were you this concerned in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when Obama cancelled the government pay raises? just trying to establish some consistency in logic
Not true...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

WDMSO, detbuch asks a tremendous question. If wages are not going up in the private sector, then even if tax rates were unchanged, that means tax revenue collected stays the same, so by what logic should public sector workers than get raises?

You have fun answering that one.

Not true...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, I just make this chit up as i go along :rolleyes:

https://www.generalschedule.org/raise

https://www.generalschedule.org/localities

Yeah, I just make this chit up as i go along :rolleyes:

https://www.generalschedule.org/raise

https://www.generalschedule.org/localities
Obama froze pay in the recession but tried to lift it coming out which was blocked by House Republicans. I don’t think you’re making things up just not well informed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama froze pay in the recession but tried to lift it coming out which was blocked by House Republicans. I don’t think you’re making things up just not well informed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30freeze.html

"President Obama on Monday announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers"

and the 3rd year he offered a robust 0.5% (ooooohhhh), pay raise (after initially freezing it) and, you are correct, that was blocked by the house.

first 2 years, all on Obama.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30freeze.html

"President Obama on Monday announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers"

and the 3rd year he offered a robust 0.5% (ooooohhhh) pay raise (after initially freezing it) and, you are correct, that was blocked by the house.

first 2 years, all on Obama.
Coming out of a massive recession. Duh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were you this concerned in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when Obama cancelled the government pay raises? just trying to establish some consistency in logic

also of note is that Obama didn't increase the Locality adjustment in 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,and 2015, which also affects retirement.

another one who is cursed by the inability see things in context


It would be the first pay freeze for civilian federal workers since 2011 to 2013, when President Barack Obama instituted a three-year pay freeze as the nation recovered from the recession.

Coming out of a massive recession. Duh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

soooooooo, that would make it "True" then?

WDMSO, detbuch asks a tremendous question. If wages are not going up in the private sector, then even if tax rates were unchanged, that means tax revenue collected stays the same, so by what logic should public sector workers than get raises?

You have fun answering that one.

because they dont work for private companies... Wow that was hard

Coming out of a massive recession. Duh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but liberals always say the best way to grow the economy, is to increase pay for workers. so why did the democrats, who controlled everything for the first two obama years, choose not to help the economy by raising wages for federal workers.

and first you told TDF thatbit
never happened, then when he proved it, you claimed it was correct economic policy to freeze. you’re all over the place here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because they dont work for private companies... Wow that was hard

you didn’t understand the question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but liberals always say the best way to grow the economy, is to increase pay for workers. so why did the democrats, who controlled everything for the first two obama years, choose not to help the economy by raising wages for federal workers.

and first you told TDF thatbit
never happened, then when he proved it, you claimed it was correct economic policy to freeze. you’re all over the place here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No he said Obama’s did it those years which isn’t true. Situations are quite different but I know you don’t really get the details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2 million civilian workers. The Federal Government is the nation's single largest employer. this includes the military

The public sector employs 20.2 million people in the US, approximately 14.5 percent of the workforce.

Seeing the private sector and republicans have screwed 85.5 % of the american worker now they are after the other 14.5 because they have to much to funny

No he said Obama’s did it those years which isn’t true. Situations are quite different but I know you don’t really get the details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for the second time, why didn’t the democrats put their
money where their mouth is, and give federal workers a raise, which if linerals are correct, would have helped the economy recover from the recession?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2 million civilian workers. The Federal Government is the nation's single largest employer. this includes the military

The public sector employs 20.2 million people in the US, approximately 14.5 percent of the workforce.

Seeing the private sector and republicans have screwed 85.5 % of the american worker now they are after the other 14.5 because they have to much to funny

oh, everybody in the private sector is screwed? but of course. i’d
much rather be a public worker, especially here in CT, where public pensions ( after decades of pure liberalism) are funded at approximately 0%. the liberals are really looking out for the public workers!!!

nobody gets screwed worse than state workers. the union lies to them to get their dues, democrat
politicians lie to them to get their votes. i wouldn’t trust my financial
security to these people
for a day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you didn’t understand the question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no clearly you dont understand that somehow Trumps tax cut is a good thing but raises are a bad thing but you insist only one impacts the US budget aka raises

if the economy is booming as you constantly remind us how is a 2.5% raise hurting the budget????


“House and Senate Republicans have made a joint offer that includes the 1.9 percent pay raise

but Trump is against it? why is that ?? anger payback or he cares about the budget?

oh, everybody in the private sector is screwed? but of course. i’d
much rather be a public worker, especially here in CT, where public pensions ( after decades of pure liberalism) are funded at approximately 0%. the liberals are really looking out for the public workers!!!

nobody gets screwed worse than state workers. the union lies to them to get their dues, democrat
politicians lie to them to get their votes. i wouldn’t trust my financial
security to these people
for a day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just a general statement but republicans have been after union workers for decades and they only account for 10% of the us work force ... dont understand so much attention against so few

if the economy is booming as you constantly remind us how is a 2.5% raise hurting the budget????


So you're admitting that the economy is booming?

just a general statement but republicans have been after union workers for decades and they only account for 10% of the us work force ... dont understand so much attention against so few

republicansnate after corruption and waste, and ground zero for that, is unions and democrats. look at what unions and democrats did to CT, and try to make me wrong. you can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow that was hard

Government workers are employees of the people of this country. They serve the people, not the other way around. The average private sector citizen makes much less in total wage and benefits than the average public employee. Perhaps you see merit in a system wherein the servant makes more than the master . . . and which accuses the master of being a greedy, fascist pig.

Most private companies are not huge corporations. If you are suggesting that all small to medium size businesses should provide their employees the same wage and benefit packages as well as the job security that average government workers are given, can you please explain how they can afford to do so?

They can't endlessly borrow from their employees in order to pay them. But the federal government not only does that, it borrows from the people that employ it. And the financial debt it owes to the people of this country should more than bankrupt it. It should go to prison for the massive fraud, the embezzlement, it has perpetrated on the people who employ it. But the Ponzi scheme it foists on us is secure because rather than serving us, it rules us.

Yeah, it's not hard for you to say "because they dont work for private companies..." But they do work for a big crook who pays them with an endless supply of stolen money.

for the second time, why didn’t the democrats put their
money where their mouth is, and give federal workers a raise, which if linerals are correct, would have helped the economy recover from the recession?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I’m giggling again Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m giggling again Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we’re all
laughing, glad you are too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Government workers are employees of the people of this country. They serve the people, not the other way around. The average private sector citizen makes much less in total wage and benefits than the average public employee. Perhaps you see merit in a system wherein the servant makes more than the master . . . and which accuses the master of being a greedy, fascist pig.

Most private companies are not huge corporations. If you are suggesting that all small to medium size businesses should provide their employees the same wage and benefit packages as well as the job security that average government workers are given, can you please explain how they can afford to do so?

They can't endlessly borrow from their employees in order to pay them. But the federal government not only does that, it borrows from the people that employ it. And the financial debt it owes to the people of this country should more than bankrupt it. It should go to prison for the massive fraud, the embezzlement, it has perpetrated on the people who employ it. But the Ponzi scheme it foists on us is secure because rather than serving us, it rules us.

Yeah, it's not hard for you to say "because they dont work for private companies..." But they do work for a big crook who pays them with an endless supply of stolen money.

Good summary
And accurate as well



I usually giggle when Spence denies he is a liberal and says he is a centrist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As has been claimed here by several for more than a year
“Skeptical reporting has still been too favorable.
The 2017 tax cut has received pretty bad press, and rightly so. Its proponents made big promises about soaring investment and wages, and also assured everyone that it would pay for itself; none of that has happened.

Yet coverage actually hasn’t been negative enough. The story you mostly read runs something like this: The tax cut has caused corporations to bring some money home, but they’ve used it for stock buybacks rather than to raise wages, and the boost to growth has been modest. That doesn’t sound great, but it’s still better than the reality: No money has, in fact, been brought home, and the tax cut has probably reduced national income. Indeed, at least 90 percent of Americans will end up poorer thanks to that cut.
Let me explain each point in turn.“
But you’ll have to open the link and read the concise point by point explanation.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=newssearch&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-7tq1pM7fAhVlkeAKHRKhAjsQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F01%2F01 %2Fopinion%2Fthe-trump-tax-cut-even-worse-than-youve-heard.html&psig=AOvVaw2tOaw6oYgGxYZL6tDUP-Ej&ust=1546490561312958

As Jim noted, Krugman doesn't discuss things that run counter to what he is trying to say here. Instead, he focusses on international corporate investment and its influence on federal government revenues, and he reverts to his usual sweeping, generalized theories within theories which forces him to inject weasel words such as "probably" and "don't necessarily correspond to anything real" which give a shadowy image of plausibility to his assertions.

Within his narrow, limited focus he somehow manages to refer to a "national" income, which is presumably the rest of us, and that 90% of Americans will end up poorer because of the tax cuts. I didn't find in his point by point analysis how the tax cuts made me poorer. So far, I am getting more money, not less.

Now, if he is referring to inflation, which I didn't find a reference to in his article, he may have a point. But inflation generally reflects markets improving too rapidly (which may be why he didn't mention it), which can be induced by lowering taxes. So, yes, lower taxes can lead to market expansion, which means the tax cuts are working, maybe too well. But the Fed tries to control that by raising interest rates to slow down market transactions, which creates a market slowdown and gives the false appearance that tax cut policy is not working.

Another inflationary cause is the previous administration's massive money pumping that wasn't used as intended because it basically couldn't find a demand for it in a stagnant market, but is now flooding an expanding market with more money than needed, thus lowering that money's purchasing value. So there is an added layer of inflation that is not a result of the tax cuts.

So he manufactures a global centric argument about money not returning to America because of the tax cuts, but actually flowing to foreign investors who profit because of lower taxes, which, supposedly, in effect, somehow means that the tax cuts are not only not working but they are making 90% of us poorer. But, as I said, he doesn't specifically say how that is so regarding us as individual tax payers. But he implies that is so because the tax cuts also benefit foreign investors. Nor does he mention how the foreign investors contribute to the market in the first place.

But his whole thesis rests solely on his narrow focus on what he claims is money not returning to America, but merely benefitting large corporations, one third of which are owned directly or through investment by foreigners. He disregards the multi-faceted purpose of the tax cuts, the least of which is not to "bring back money" to the U.S., but to bring back and/or create more jobs, including those produced by foreign entrepreneurs moving here. As well, the freeing up of money already here to create more jobs. And, as I can personally attest, to keep some of the people's money in their pocket rather than in the government's. But all of that, to his chagrin, means government wealth shrinks and so will some programs that some "people value" (He didn't say "some", I made the clarification to be more precise.)

He, in the final analysis, worries more about the loss of government income than in individuals gains in money and jobs. But in the end, our federal government never loses money. It refuses to. Even if it has to bleed us to get it.

No he said Obama’s did it those years which isn’t true. Situations are quite different but I know you don’t really get the details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn't????

Let's try this again, don't forget to read slow and enunciate.


https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30freeze.html

"President Obama on Monday announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers"

and the 3rd year he offered a robust 0.5% (ooooohhhh), pay raise (after initially freezing it) and, you are correct, that was blocked by the house.

first 2 years, all on Obama.

Don't forget the link, if you click on it magical things will happen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

another one who is cursed by the inability see things in context


It would be the first pay freeze for civilian federal workers since 2011 to 2013, when President Barack Obama instituted a three-year pay freeze as the nation recovered from the recession.

You and spence need to get your stories straight, he says it never happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You and spence need to get your stories straight, he says it never happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are arguing with an idiot,and guess what happens next...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are arguing with an idiot,and guess what happens next...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know, down the rabbit hole I go
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

republicansnate after corruption and waste, and ground zero for that, is unions and democrats. look at what unions and democrats did to CT, and try to make me wrong. you can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Who controls both branches of government in the 20 states with the lowest household income?
Try and make that a shining star for Republicans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who controls both branches of government in the 20 states with the lowest household income?
Try and make that a shining star for Republicans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See, I don't think state government drives the average income of its citizenry, I think citizens determine that for themselves.

How about state debt, which clearly is a function of who is running the state? the highest debt is IL and CT.

CT also has very high incomes. That has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism, an everything to do with our proximity to Manhattan.

Man.

See, I don't think state government drives the average income of its citizenry, I think citizens determine that for themselves.

How about state debt, which clearly is a function of who is running the state? the highest debt is IL and CT.

CT also has very high incomes. That has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism, an everything to do with our proximity to Manhattan.

Man.
So high taxes are Driven by state governments but state governments have no effect on income levels but the states adjoining them do have some effect

Education, availability of services and Transportation don’t make a difference in how well a state performs for its citizens
That attitude is what keeps the bottom 20 where they are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So high taxes are Driven by state governments but state governments have no effect on income levels but the states adjoining them do have some effect

Education, availability of services and Transportation don’t make a difference in how well a state performs for its citizens
That attitude is what keeps the bottom 20 where they are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if those 20 states raised their taxes they would rise from whatever bottom you are trying to make relevant? They don't have schools and transportation and available services in those states? Are the average citizens in those states suffering from a low quality of life? Is the cost of living as high in those states as it is in the high taxed states? Is the income inequality as prevalent in those 20 states as it is in the high tax states?

There are many, many, factors and statistics that go into the quality of life in a given state. Until you can gather the totality of all those factors and statistics, and also determine the overall personal preferences and values of the citizens, pointing out one factor in which a state is at the so-called "bottom" has very little, if any, value.

Actually, a tax cut will net you more than an equal pay raise. Part of the pay raise will be reduced by income taxes.

not sure how your retirement works mine is based on. base pay last 3 years tax break does nothing to increase my retirement pay compared to a pay raise ... and not all states tax pension to start with

Government workers are employees of the people of this country. They serve the people, not the other way around. The average private sector citizen makes much less in total wage and benefits than the average public employee. Perhaps you see merit in a system wherein the servant makes more than the master . . . and which accuses the master of being a greedy, fascist pig.

Most private companies are not huge corporations. If you are suggesting that all small to medium size businesses should provide their employees the same wage and benefit packages as well as the job security that average government workers are given, can you please explain how they can afford to do so?

They can't endlessly borrow from their employees in order to pay them. But the federal government not only does that, it borrows from the people that employ it. And the financial debt it owes to the people of this country should more than bankrupt it. It should go to prison for the massive fraud, the embezzlement, it has perpetrated on the people who employ it. But the Ponzi scheme it foists on us is secure because rather than serving us, it rules us.

Yeah, it's not hard for you to say "because they dont work for private companies..." But they do work for a big crook who pays them with an endless supply of stolen money.

again your anti anything Government arguments are endless

You and spence need to get your stories straight, he says it never happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and I said you fail to see context (nothing about it didn't happen)
.... once again your having a hard time about the details

fyi for those who forget history

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/news/economy/big-companies-wages/index.html


Shocking the decline of the private sector pay is because of private companies

but lets blame public sector unions

and I said you fail to see context (nothing about it didn't happen)
.... once again your having a hard time about the details

I'm pretty sure you are the one having the problem with the details. I think I'm the only one that actually supplied, you know, details.

Is the fact that Trump wanted to freeze the pay increases because of a need to reign in Government spending less noble than Obama doing it because of the recession? Is that the context that maybe you are missing? Or is the context just a hatred for the man that drives your every thought?

fyi for those who forget history

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/news/economy/big-companies-wages/index.html


Shocking the decline of the private sector pay is because of private companies

but lets blame public sector unions

Public sector unions have nothing to do with private sector salaries.

Public sector unions have a lot to do with state taxes and debt. The marriage of public unions and democrats is working out awesome in CT and IL.

Is the fact that Trump wanted to freeze the pay increases because of a need to reign in Government spending less noble than Obama doing it because of the recession?

YES. BECAUSE SHUT UP.

fyi for those who forget history

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/news/economy/big-companies-wages/index.html


Shocking the decline of the private sector pay is because of private companies

but lets blame public sector unions

The FIRST SENTENCE of your article says it was a big deal that last year, Walmart raised minimum wage and announced bonuses. But you and all the other liberals constantly said it was meaningless. So who is forgetting history?

Let's settle this once and for all. Were all those bonuses and wage hikes that stemmed from the tax cut, meaningful or not? Because you guys keep flip-flopping on that question, depending on which Maoist point you're trying to make at the time.

As for low wages at Walmart and other huge retailers...WDMSO, do you like low prices and getting good deals? If I had a department store and paid everyone a minimum of $50,000 a year, which forced me to charge $7.50 for a gallon of milk, would you shop at my store? Or would you go to Walmart?

You can't have low prices with razor thin profit margins, combined with across-the-board lucrative pay for all positions. That's not reality.

Public sector unions don't need to care about mathematical or marketplace reality, because they take what they need through force of law, I cannot decide not to pay my taxes. Private sector companies have it much, much harder. They have to make people CHOOSE to fork over their money, they have to make people want to do it. In order to make people want to give you their money, you have to have competitive prices. Your expenses cannot exceed your revenue.

That's what you fail to grasp. Public sector unions can confiscate whatever they want from the citizenry, we don't have the choice not to pay taxes. In the private sector, companies must (1) incentivize customers to voluntarily hand over their money, AND (2) expenses cannot exceed revenue. SO expenses need to be contained, or the company goes out of business. In the public sector, when expenses exceed revenue, you just raise taxes.

Big, big difference. I have worked in the public sector (I was a teacher for a very brief time), and now I'm in the private sector. Have you ever had a meaningful job in the private sector? Ever?

not sure how your retirement works mine is based on. base pay last 3 years tax break does nothing to increase my retirement pay compared to a pay raise ... and not all states tax pension to start with

You literally have no idea what you are saying.

The Trump tax cut deals with FEDERAL income tax rates, not state income tax rates. If you were drawing on your pension, the federal tax cut would almost certainly have given you a bump in your take-home portion of your pension.

A federal tax cut will not increase your gross pension payment, because that is determined based on your contract. A federal tax cut will increase your net pension payment, and net is what matters.

If your gross pension is, say, $40,000 a year, and your federal tax rate decreases, then you have more money from each pension check How can you deny this?

My net pay increased by $200 a month after the tax cuts took effect, and my gross pay did not change. The increase was because of reduced federal withholding.

You are being completely irrational.

I think WDMSO is saying that his pension payments are calculated on a percentage of his base pay from his last 3 years of employment. So he's correct in saying that a raise has more of an effect on his pension, over the years, than a tax break does.

I think WDMSO is saying that his pension payments are calculated on a percentage of his base pay from his last 3 years of employment. So he's correct in saying that a raise has more of an effect on his pension, over the years, than a tax break does.
butba raise if $1 has less benefit than a tax cut of $1. bevause the raise is then taxed.

but you’re probably correct in what he meant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

butba raise if $1 has less benefit than a tax cut of $1. bevause the raise is then taxed.

but you’re probably correct in what he meant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess if the tax cut is a static percent for many years, but pay raises are an annually applied percentage, and pay increases not given for a certain year(s) end up lowering your overall pay over, say, a ten year span as they are not compounded over the years.

I'm not an accountant, but I did stay at a holiday Inn Express last night :hee:

So if those 20 states raised their taxes they would rise from whatever bottom you are trying to make relevant? They don't have schools and transportation and available services in those states? Are the average citizens in those states suffering from a low quality of life? Is the cost of living as high in those states as it is in the high taxed states? Is the income inequality as prevalent in those 20 states as it is in the high tax states?

There are many, many, factors and statistics that go into the quality of life in a given state. Until you can gather the totality of all those factors and statistics, and also determine the overall personal preferences and values of the citizens, pointing out one factor in which a state is at the so-called "bottom" has very little, if any, value.
Just what would you suggest for this complicated algorithm that would define livability?

not sure how your retirement works mine is based on. base pay last 3 years tax break does nothing to increase my retirement pay compared to a pay raise ... and not all states tax pension to start with

The only raises I've had in my Detroit pension were based on cost of living adjustments. In Michigan, pensions acquired after a certain date, don't remember which, are taxed. The Federal government taxes my Social Security. Public sector pay raises (which represent most pensions), as far as I know, are taxable at the federal, state and municipal levels.

again your anti anything Government arguments are endless

I don't have any anti-government arguments. I have specifically said, many times, that government has a role. It is only when government overreaches, beyond its prescribed and necessary role in our country that I am against it.

But you have this endless inability to understand that simple concept. For you, any criticism of government, valid or not, is this ignorant, all encompassing, meme: "anti-government."

Just what would you suggest for this complicated algorithm that would define livability?

I suggested a few, but there are as many algorithms as there are people. Searching for a universal definition of livability doesn't interest me. What I consider livable would be too simple, too basic, in most ways, for many others.

In general, in political conversations, bringing up a particular statistic usually involves promoting or siding with some agenda.

As has been claimed here by several for more than a year
“Skeptical reporting has still been too favorable.
The 2017 tax cut has received pretty bad press, and rightly so. Its proponents made big promises about soaring investment and wages, and also assured everyone that it would pay for itself; none of that has happened.

Yet coverage actually hasn’t been negative enough. The story you mostly read runs something like this: The tax cut has caused corporations to bring some money home, but they’ve used it for stock buybacks rather than to raise wages, and the boost to growth has been modest. That doesn’t sound great, but it’s still better than the reality: No money has, in fact, been brought home, and the tax cut has probably reduced national income. Indeed, at least 90 percent of Americans will end up poorer thanks to that cut.
Let me explain each point in turn.“
But you’ll have to open the link and read the concise point by point explanation.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=newssearch&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-7tq1pM7fAhVlkeAKHRKhAjsQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F01%2F01 %2Fopinion%2Fthe-trump-tax-cut-even-worse-than-youve-heard.html&psig=AOvVaw2tOaw6oYgGxYZL6tDUP-Ej&ust=1546490561312958

Jan.4 AP headline:
US employers added 312,000 jobs in December

Full article:
https://www.twincities.com/2019/01/04/us-employers-added-a-stellar-312000-jobs-in-december/

Who knows how it will all shake out for the rest of "Trump's" economy. But to keep knocking his tax cut and tariff war and economic and regulatory policies as foolish, dumb, failures is obviously premature. And saying that the job and wage successes are merely an Obama carryover after two years is a stretch beyond reason. If I remember correctly wdmso claimed something to the effect that it would take two years before we could attribute success (or failure) to Trump's policies.

For me, I don't think presidential or political policies in general that try to "do" something are the main reason for US economic success. I believe more that federal government "undoing" overburdening tax and regulatory policies is more effective.

I'm not being "anti-government." I'm for government staying out of the way of what should be our constitutionally based inherent right to a free and open market. One of the federal government's few and important duties is to protect that freedom, not to regulate it.

Should there be any regulation of the market? For sure. But that should not be done by unelected bureaucratic agencies. It should begin with an actually free market's inherent tendency to self regulate. And it should be fortified by the direct and elected will of the people. And that should be "regulated" as constitutional by a Supreme Court guided by interpreting the actual text of the Constitution, not by Judge's personal opinion of what is right and just.

Interesting: CNN / Yahoo and others reporting that the refunds (cough Federal interest free borrowing of your money for a year) of taxes are about the same or slightly higher.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/irs-now-says-people-getting-170638232.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/01/donald-trump-tax-cut-refunds-irs-kamala-harris-column/3026996002/

Now, can we go back to the Debt? The actual National Emergency?

You got that right boss, borrow and spend until the credit runs out, then file for bankruptcy; it's the American way. The problem is who bails out the US government? Trump probably has some good financial ties to Russia and Jarad of course can work his Saudi buddies for a bailout package.

You got that right boss, borrow and spend until the credit runs out, then file for bankruptcy; it's the American way. The problem is who bails out the US government? Trump probably has some good financial ties to Russia and Jarad of course can work his Saudi buddies for a bailout package.


How much do you blame on Trump?

Interesting: CNN / Yahoo and others reporting that the refunds (cough Federal interest free borrowing of your money for a year) of taxes are about the same or slightly higher.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/irs-now-says-people-getting-170638232.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/01/donald-trump-tax-cut-refunds-irs-kamala-harris-column/3026996002/

Now, can we go back to the Debt? The actual National Emergency?

Another liberal myth debunked, and I wonder if CNN and MSNBC issued a correction.

It really doesn't matter if refunds decrease, if withholdings decreased by a larger amount, you paid less.

How much do you blame on Trump?

Not all of it, some he blames on Bush.

The debt, as you have said, is critical. But Obama ran up the debt, and I don't know anyone who got anything from it. At least in this case, regular people are benefitting, as opposed to powerful congresspeople whose spouses own the companies that got hugeamounts of federal spending. I mean that's happening here too, but at least many of us got something.

Doing my taxes now. I'm getting almost twice as much refund than last year, and my monthly take home pay has comfortably increased. And I'm barely, if that, in the lower end of the "middle class," whatever that is.

Not all of it, some he blames on Bush.

The debt, as you have said, is critical. But Obama ran up the debt, and I don't know anyone who got anything from it. At least in this case, regular people are benefitting, as opposed to powerful congresspeople whose spouses own the companies that got hugeamounts of federal spending. I mean that's happening here too, but at least many of us got something.

2 totally different economies. The Obama debt was bc we were trying to recover from the Bush recession (largest since the great depression). Trump is running up a huge deficit with low unemployment and booming economy.

The Repub. howled and complained about that debt but now are sitting on their hands afraid to say anything.

2 totally different economies. The Obama debt was bc we were trying to recover from the Bush recession (largest since the great depression). Trump is running up a huge deficit with low unemployment and booming economy.

The Repub. howled and complained about that debt but now are sitting on their hands afraid to say anything.

"The Obama debt was bc we were trying to recover from the Bush recession "

Some of the debt was related to recession recovery, some was also because of the wars he inherited. Some of it was also because pof liberal pet projects like Obamacare (which did some great things but was expensive) and the "stimulus", which cost 750B of borrowed money, and I have no idea where any of it went, where were those shovel ready projects?

By the way, on the "Bush" recession, which party controlled both houses of Congress when it happened?

Kidding. But that recession was not Bush's fault. It was partly the GOPs fault for saying banks could also be investment houses, and partly Clintons fault for signing that (was that the repeal of Glass Segal?). Also the fault of fraud on Wall Street with fishy things like collateralized debt obligations which almost no one understands, that wasn't the fault of either party. And lastly, not something democrats like to point out, large numbers of people being stupid and buying way more house than they could ever afford. Plenty of blame all around...both parties, banks, Wall Street, and us. Not sure what Bush did.

Doing my taxes now. I'm getting almost twice as much refund than last year, and my monthly take home pay has comfortably increased. And I'm barely, if that, in the lower end of the "middle class," whatever that is.

Liar!!

Lots of blame to go around and Trump and the GOP own their fair share.
They certainly are willing to add to the problem, without much talk about that problem. The fing wall is more of a problem to them and it certainly isn't anywhere near the magnitude of the deficit IMHO; not even in the same ballpark.

I'm retired so I can't comment on income, since I have none, but at a risk level of 3, I still have a long way to go to regain all the money I lost out of my retirement accounts. So the tax cut did zip for me, the stock market dive eat away a lot of my savings and even though I'm gaining some of those losses back; not even close to where I topped out before the correction started.

Lots of blame to go around and Trump and the GOP own their fair share.
They certainly are willing to add to the problem, without much talk about that problem. The fing wall is more of a problem to them and it certainly isn't anywhere near the magnitude of the deficit IMHO; not even in the same ballpark.

I'm retired so I can't comment on income, since I have none, but at a risk level of 3, I still have a long way to go to regain all the money I lost out of my retirement accounts. So the tax cut did zip for me, the stock market dive eat away a lot of my savings and even though I'm gaining some of those losses back; not even close to where I topped out before the correction started.


The S&P500 is less than 5% off it's all-time high. If you lost a lot more than that and you're retired, (1) I am sorry and hope you get it all back and then some, but (2) that's more your advisor's fault and not so much Trumps.

The only thing that I know is that I was doing a lot better in the stock market when I left for the gym than when I got back.

And I learned today that alcohol takes sap off nylon jackets.

The only thing that I know is that I was doing a lot better in the stock market when I left for the gym than when I got back.

that’s true, apparently trump shot his mouth off at the fed, and the mrjet didn’t like it. if only his handlers could
handle him a little bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device