• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

Self-proclaimed great businessman. Nobody else say that.

Except maybe bkf/swisschalet. He posted several times that Trump was "brilliant", and in fact vastly smarter than almost anyone on this board (except for bkf himself, of course).
 
“The White House also projected that corporate profits would grow 13 percent over a decade, while employee compensation would surge 68 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that hourly wages have grown just 2.7 percent in the past year, though once inflation was taken into account the number fell to zero.”

Nice work Pubs. They took the Obama economy and made sure it didn’t trickle down.
 
“The White House also projected that corporate profits would grow 13 percent over a decade, while employee compensation would surge 68 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that hourly wages have grown just 2.7 percent in the past year, though once inflation was taken into account the number fell to zero.”

Nice work Pubs. They took the Obama economy and made sure it didn’t trickle down.

In how many of the Obama years was that number positive? I think the answer is one.
 
More Americans will be writing a check to the IRS in April because their employers are not withholding enough from their paychecks following the new tax law, the Government Accountability Office says in a new report.

Based on simulations run by the Treasury Department, the GAO says taxes for 30 million Americans — 21 percent of taxpayers — are being underwithheld by their employers, meaning they are getting a larger check this year, but will owe at tax time in April. According to the simulations, 73 percent of taxpayers will be overwithheld and receive a refund from the Internal Revenue Service.

When the simulation was run as if there had been no change in the tax law, 18 percent of taxpayers, or about 27 million, would have experienced underwithholding and 76 percent would have been overwithheld. In both scenarios, just 6 percent of taxpayers would have the correct amount of withholding.

Who should be concerned? According to the GAO, a hypothetical taxpayer who is married with two children, earning $180,000 annually, $20,000 of which comes from non-wage income and who itemizes deductions.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/6344...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180801
 
We really need to hold elections right after tax season.
 
or sorry, you took palma seriously

and it pure trumpian fashion, he will not read the link and call it fake.

next grab his mountain dew and cheetos...watch Nascar or WWE.
 
and it pure trumpian fashion, he will not read the link and call it fake.

next grab his mountain dew and cheetos...watch Nascar or WWE.

Not fake, just a #rube analysis. Averages include the top 1%. We all know they've been gaining. Look at it from the median perspective. 2016 was the first year it's been higher than it was in 1999. Thanks, Obama.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
 
You Know Who the Tax Cuts Helped? Rich People

The most notable outcome of the tax law is one that few Republicans talked about: Companies are buying back their own stock — a lot of it. Stock buybacks are expected to reach a record $1 trillion this year. After Congress reduced the top federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, businesses are flush with cash. Lawmakers also let companies repatriate foreign earnings that they have been amassing at a rate of 15.5 percent for cash and 8 percent for other assets.

With so much of firms’ focus on buying back stock, a key Republican prediction — that tax cuts would encourage spending on equipment and factories — has not come to fruition. There has been a modest increase in investment this year compared to recent quarters. Companies in the S&P 500 had spent around $147 billion through the end of March. A recent modest uptick began in early 2017, long before the tax cut.
 
The Laffer curve and supply-side economics inspired Reaganomics and the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981. Supply-side advocates of tax cuts claimed that lower tax rates would generate more tax revenue because the United States government's marginal income tax rates prior to the legislation were on the right-hand side of the curve. This assertion was derided by George H. W. Bush as "voodoo economics" while running against Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1980.[38] During the Reagan presidency, the top marginal rate of tax in the United States fell from 70% to 31%.

David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director during his first administration and one of the early proponents of supply-side economics, was concerned that the administration did not pay enough attention to cutting government spending. He maintained that the Laffer curve was not to be taken literally—at least not in the economic environment of the 1980s United States. In The Triumph of Politics, he writes: "[T]he whole California gang had taken [the Laffer curve] literally (and primitively). The way they talked, they seemed to expect that once the supply-side tax cut was in effect, additional revenue would start to fall, manna-like, from the heavens. Since January, I had been explaining that there is no literal Laffer curve."[39] Stockman also said that "Laffer wasn't wrong, he just didn't go far enough" (in paying attention to government spending).[40]

Some have criticized elements of Reaganomics on the basis of equity. For example, economist John Kenneth Galbraith believed that the Reagan administration actively used the Laffer curve "to lower taxes on the affluent".[41] Some critics point out that tax revenues almost always rise every year, and during Reagan's two terms increases in tax revenue were more shallow than increases during presidencies where top marginal tax rates were higher.[42] Critics also point out that since the Reagan tax cuts, income has not significantly increased for the rest of the population. This assertion is supported by studies that show the income of the top 1% nearly doubling during the Reagan years, while income for other income levels increased only marginally; income actually decreased for the bottom quintile.[43]

During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[44] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[45]
 
Hey guys, the more we cut taxes on the wealthy, the more trickle you will see. Just wait a little longer! (Almost 40 years later) That trickle is coming! Just let us cut some more taxes!
 
Well, a lot of the people who immediately have benefited from that economic concept have prostate problems which cause slow trickling down.
 
Just found out that campus parking permits can no longer be paid with pre-tax payroll deduction due to the tax bill. That's costing me $20 or so.
 
Back
Top