Did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Pay for Itself in 2018?
Were you surprised that the 2017 tax overhaul, commonly referred as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), did not increase revenues in 2018? Probably not, but several prominent conservatives, including Republicans in the House and Senate, former Reagan economist Art Laffer, and members of the Trump Administration, would be disappointed if they looked at the data. They have repeatedly claimed that TCJA either increased revenues or will pay for itself.
In principle, a tax cut could “pay for itself” if it spurred substantial economic growth. Revenues would rise from the combination of higher wages and hours worked, greater investment returns, and larger corporate profits. Under this scenario, that “dynamic” effect would more than offset the entire “static” revenue loss of the tax cut.
TCJA, however, is not that tax cut. While some TCJA supporters are touting that nominal revenues were higher in fiscal year (FY) 2018 than in FY2017, that comparison does not address the question of TCJA’s effects. Nominal revenues rise because of inflation and economic growth. Adjusted for inflation, total revenues fell from FY2017 to FY2018 (Figure 1). Adjusted for the size of the economy, they fell even more.
Comments
-
@HoustonHusky needs to understand those words right there.Gwad said:https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/did-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-itself-2018
Were you surprised that the 2017 tax overhaul, commonly referred as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), did not increase revenues in 2018? Probably not, but several prominent conservatives, including Republicans in the House and Senate, former Reagan economist Art Laffer, and members of the Trump Administration, would be disappointed if they looked at the data. They have repeatedly claimed that TCJA either increased revenues or will pay for itself.
In principle, a tax cut could “pay for itself” if it spurred substantial economic growth. Revenues would rise from the combination of higher wages and hours worked, greater investment returns, and larger corporate profits. Under this scenario, that “dynamic” effect would more than offset the entire “static” revenue loss of the tax cut.
TCJA, however, is not that tax cut. While some TCJA supporters are touting that nominal revenues were higher in fiscal year (FY) 2018 than in FY2017, that comparison does not address the question of TCJA’s effects. Nominal revenues rise because of inflation and economic growth. Adjusted for inflation, total revenues fell from FY2017 to FY2018 (Figure 1). Adjusted for the size of the economy, they fell even more. -
taxpayers-paid-nearly-100-billion-more-to-irs-under-trump-tax-law-194900782.html
"And after refunds, the IRS collected about $93 billion more from individual American taxpayers than it did in 2017. Interestingly, that number stands close to the tax break amount that corporations received from the TCJA in 2018. Last year, big businesses paid $91 billion less in taxes than they had in 2017, prior to the new law’s passage. "
By the way I don't give a shit if revenues didn't rise fast enough for you
I kept more of my money -
Hey fucktard...go look at your own linked graph. If you "adjust for inflation" using GDP price index...magically revenues were falling from 2015 to 2016, from 2016 to 2017, and are on the same line from 2017 to 2018. I blame Orange Man...his Celebrity Apprentice show didn't generate as much government revenues as it should have before he got into office.2001400ex said:
@HoustonHusky needs to understand those words right there.Gwad said:https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/did-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-itself-2018
Were you surprised that the 2017 tax overhaul, commonly referred as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), did not increase revenues in 2018? Probably not, but several prominent conservatives, including Republicans in the House and Senate, former Reagan economist Art Laffer, and members of the Trump Administration, would be disappointed if they looked at the data. They have repeatedly claimed that TCJA either increased revenues or will pay for itself.
In principle, a tax cut could “pay for itself” if it spurred substantial economic growth. Revenues would rise from the combination of higher wages and hours worked, greater investment returns, and larger corporate profits. Under this scenario, that “dynamic” effect would more than offset the entire “static” revenue loss of the tax cut.
TCJA, however, is not that tax cut. While some TCJA supporters are touting that nominal revenues were higher in fiscal year (FY) 2018 than in FY2017, that comparison does not address the question of TCJA’s effects. Nominal revenues rise because of inflation and economic growth. Adjusted for inflation, total revenues fell from FY2017 to FY2018 (Figure 1). Adjusted for the size of the economy, they fell even more.
I LOVE how magically in HondoFS who believes in actual economics world revenues would have magically ramped up in 2017 to 2018 if we had kept the same government policy/tax structure from 2015 forward, even through they didn't actually ramp up during that actual policy.
HondoFS...it really is amazing how stupid you are at times...
-
The Throbber kept more of other people's money - which is even better.RaceBannon said:taxpayers-paid-nearly-100-billion-more-to-irs-under-trump-tax-law-194900782.html
"And after refunds, the IRS collected about $93 billion more from individual American taxpayers than it did in 2017. Interestingly, that number stands close to the tax break amount that corporations received from the TCJA in 2018. Last year, big businesses paid $91 billion less in taxes than they had in 2017, prior to the new law’s passage. "
By the way I don't give a shit if revenues didn't rise fast enough for you
I kept more of my money
#leverage
-
For anyone interested, the Tax Policy Center is funded by far far left organizations (Ford Foundation, unions, etc) and has had to delete its findings on numerous occasions due to errors that were discovered by 3rd parties. They will give you whatever result you want on a research project if the wallet is fat enough and the results are anti-Republican.
In other words, Gwad has referenced another Vox level, far left wacko source that publishes lies.. -
Agreed liberals suck tooBendintheriver said:For anyone interested, the Tax Policy Center is funded by far far left organizations (Ford Foundation, unions, etc) and has had to delete its findings on numerous occasions due to errors that were discovered by 3rd parties. They will give you whatever result you want on a research project if the wallet is fat enough and the results are anti-Republican.
In other words, Gwad has referenced another Vox level, far left wacko source that publishes lies.. -
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tax-policy-center/Bendintheriver said:For anyone interested, the Tax Policy Center is funded by far far left organizations (Ford Foundation, unions, etc) and has had to delete its findings on numerous occasions due to errors that were discovered by 3rd parties. They will give you whatever result you want on a research project if the wallet is fat enough and the results are anti-Republican.
In other words, Gwad has referenced another Vox level, far left wacko source that publishes lies..
In review, the Tax Policy Center uses minimal loaded emotional wording in their research and is minimally biased. All research is factually sourced to credible sources of information. The TPC also has a blog that has a left leaning bias in story selection and wording. The blog is also properly sourced and there isn’t evidence of any failed fact checks. Overall, we rate the Tax Policy Center least biased in research and left-center biased as a whole, based on a blog that favors left leaning policy issues. This source is also high in factual reporting. (D. Van Zandt 11/2/2017) -
Liberals be cool and shit. Jackie O was totally bangable back in the day. JFK was a baller.Gwad said:
AgreedBendintheriver said:For anyone interested, the Tax Policy Center is funded by far far left organizations (Ford Foundation, unions, etc) and has had to delete its findings on numerous occasions due to errors that were discovered by 3rd parties. They will give you whatever result you want on a research project if the wallet is fat enough and the results are anti-Republican.
In other words, Gwad has referenced another Vox level, far left wacko source that publishes lies..liberalsProgressives suck too
-
Tax cuts paying for themselves is a democrat talking point to begin with
HTH -
And IKW -
Fixed for you...you were kinda lying in your original comments.GDS said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-partisan-tax-policy-center-1457132750Bendintheriver said:For anyone interested, the Tax Policy Center is funded by far far left organizations (Ford Foundation, unions, etc) and has had to delete its findings on numerous occasions due to errors that were discovered by 3rd parties. They will give you whatever result you want on a research project if the wallet is fat enough and the results are anti-Republican.
In other words, Gwad has referenced another Vox level, far left wacko source that publishes lies..
Its a liberal group funded primarily by and a mouthpiece for 2 Liberal organizations...the Brookings Institute (Qatar mouthpiece on the side) and the Urban Institute -
the projection is strong with this one!HoustonHusky said:
Fixed for you...you were kinda lying in your original comments.GDS said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-partisan-tax-policy-center-1457132750Bendintheriver said:For anyone interested, the Tax Policy Center is funded by far far left organizations (Ford Foundation, unions, etc) and has had to delete its findings on numerous occasions due to errors that were discovered by 3rd parties. They will give you whatever result you want on a research project if the wallet is fat enough and the results are anti-Republican.
In other words, Gwad has referenced another Vox level, far left wacko source that publishes lies..
Its a liberal group funded primarily by and a mouthpiece for 2 Liberal organizations...the Brookings Institute (Qatar mouthpiece on the side) and the Urban Institute -
What a load of shit. d. Van Zandt is a paid for liberal himself. Do you know how hard it had to be for him to admit that this is a liberal organization? That means that it is so far left even this liberal Van Zandt had to admit its liberal bias.GDS said:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tax-policy-center/Bendintheriver said:For anyone interested, the Tax Policy Center is funded by far far left organizations (Ford Foundation, unions, etc) and has had to delete its findings on numerous occasions due to errors that were discovered by 3rd parties. They will give you whatever result you want on a research project if the wallet is fat enough and the results are anti-Republican.
In other words, Gwad has referenced another Vox level, far left wacko source that publishes lies..
In review, the Tax Policy Center uses minimal loaded emotional wording in their research and is minimally biased. All research is factually sourced to credible sources of information. The TPC also has a blog that has a left leaning bias in story selection and wording. The blog is also properly sourced and there isn’t evidence of any failed fact checks. Overall, we rate the Tax Policy Center least biased in research and left-center biased as a whole, based on a blog that favors left leaning policy issues. This source is also high in factual reporting. (D. Van Zandt 11/2/2017)
You have to love a nitwit liberal defending another nitwit liberal who posted a biased and liberal hit job by a far left leaning "think tank" and then posting another liberal opinion piece by a far left liberal saying that the liberal think tank is factual.
Whew!
There is a lot of liberal biased posting, researching, defending and then defending again going on in here. Its as if you libs didn't know there was any other sources but biased liberal ones.
