The Trump Tax Cut: Even Worse Than You’ve Heard

[Pete F.]

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&sour...46490561312958

[Jim in CT]

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.

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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...ican-families/

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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...ican-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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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