Economic, taxes, and tariffs discussion

[nots]

LOL, what? Tell most Americans taking a $1,000 annual hit to their pocketbook in support of a deranged madman is in their best interests, when most are living paycheck to paycheck and can't make ends meet. Jeez, most Trumpies don't have two nickels to scratch together, but hey, let's pay an extra $1,000 of money they don't have so that trade is fair with India! Bwahahaha. Most Americans didn't even know there was a trade issue (and there isn't) at all before Dopey strolled along. And what happened to the savings for Americans because of the tax cut? You were crowing about that, and now say a $1,000 hit is OK? Brainwashed guppies.


And speaking about Trade World War I, it came out today that Dopey was thinking about putting tariffs on Australia, just because why not, mate!

And furthermore, economists now believe that thanks to Dopey's Trade World War, there's now a 60% chance of a recession in 2020. Morgan Stanley issued a report today that they expect a recession to hit within the next 8-12 months.

Good job, Dopey!

My $1900 tax cut was ‘crumbs’, but now an increase of $1000 is going to send me to the poor house.

[revo]

My $1900 tax cut was ‘crumbs’, but now an increase of $1000 is going to send me to the poor house.

Kudos to you!

[Bernie Brewer]

My $1900 tax cut was ‘crumbs’, but now an increase of $1000 is going to send me to the poor house.

Very true. Only someone so locked into some liberal talking points and constant negative spin could be dismissive of this... Um, never mind.

[revo]

Very true. Only someone so locked into some liberal talking points and constant negative spin could be dismissive of this... Um, never mind.

So we all should just take nots' personal example as the norm instead of say, the opinion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? Interesting theory, Bernie, one that only a conservative locked into conservative talking points and dismissive of fa....uhh, never mind.

[onejayhawk]

Unfortunately, Congress doesn't have authority over them as they have ceded this power over the course of a century. I don't think they ever believed a madman would be in the White House!

Polonius: [Aside] Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.

Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 193–206

LOL, what? Tell most Americans taking a $1,000 annual hit to their pocketbook in support of a deranged madman is in their best interests, when most are living paycheck to paycheck and can't make ends meet. Jeez, most Trumpies don't have two nickels to scratch together, but hey, let's pay an extra $1,000 of money they don't have so that trade is fair with India! Bwahahaha. Most Americans didn't even know there was a trade issue (and there isn't) at all before Dopey strolled along. And what happened to the savings for Americans because of the tax cut? You were crowing about that, and now say a $1,000 hit is OK? Brainwashed guppies.


And speaking about Trade World War I, it came out today that Dopey was thinking about putting tariffs on Australia, just because why not, mate!

And furthermore, economists now believe that thanks to Dopey's Trade World War, there's now a 60% chance of a recession in 2020. Morgan Stanley issued a report today that they expect a recession to hit within the next 8-12 months.

Good job, Dopey!

It's a good deal less than they got back with tax reform. That averaged out at $1500 per household in the middle class, so literally good deal.

Morgan Stanley's report is expected because of the yield curve. However, if there is a recession, it does not look to be a typical excess inventory, aka balance sheet driven recession. Increased exports do not seem to be slowing except to China and now Mexico.

J

[Bernie Brewer]

So we all should just take nots' personal example as the norm instead of say, the opinion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? Interesting theory, Bernie, one that only a conservative locked into conservative talking points and dismissive of fa....uhh, never mind.

I guess we read this differently. I understood what he meant you didn’t. Nancy Pelosi and Dick Shumer and every democratic elected official told the country over and over that the tax cut was only for the rich. In fact the vast majority of the country received a cut. The Dems lied and did anyone here call them out on blatant lying like you would when Trump lies? I must’ve missed that post. Saying a good tax cut was peanuts and then saying the costs of tariffs at half that amount are devastating is the epitome of hypocrisy but that’s right the left are hypocritical. I forget so easily.

[revo]

I guess we read this differently. I understood what he meant you didn’t. Nancy Pelosi and Dick Shumer and every democratic elected official told the country over and over that the tax cut was only for the rich. In fact the vast majority of the country received a cut. The Dems lied and did anyone here call them out on blatant lying like you would when Trump lies? I must’ve missed that post. Saying a good tax cut was peanuts and then saying the costs of tariffs at half that amount are devastating is the epitome of hypocrisy but that’s right the left are hypocritical. I forget so easily.

It was mentioned in the other thread, but Pelosi was not referring to $1900 as a typical tax cut. It was $1000, and that was a typical one-time bonus handed out to some lucky workers as a result of the tax cut.

Since you keep pounding away at this so-called hypocrisy, can you show proof that the typical tax refund due to the tax cut was double that of the potential hit from tariffs?

[Judge Jude]

geesh, we just talked about this a couple of weeks ago. from Factcheck.org:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/05/vi...m-on-tax-cuts/

"although polls show that most people think the Trump-backed tax law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, didn’t result in a tax cut for them, the reality is that for most people, it did.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that about 65 percent of households paid less in federal income tax in 2018 under the TCJA than they would have paid under the old tax laws, while about 6 percent paid more. Among those who got a tax cut, it averaged about $2,200. The business-backed Tax Foundation estimates 80 percent of those filing federal income taxes saw some sort of a cut in 2018 as a result of the TCJA,while about 8 percent saw a tax increase.

"It’s true that corporations got a big tax cut, and that those with higher incomes reaped greater benefits. A higher percentage of high-income taxpayers got a tax cut, and that tax cut was, on average, greater than the tax cuts for those with lower incomes (both in dollar amounts and as a percentage of after-tax income). But still, as we said, most people got some kind of tax cut in 2018 as a result of the law."

...............

also from factcheck.org:

"Some also confused a smaller tax refund this tax season with a tax increase. But as we explained in February, the size of one’s tax refund is separate and apart from a person’s tax liability. In response to the new tax law, employers began withholding less, meaning that some people may have been getting more in their paychecks throughout the year, but less of a refund after filing tax returns.

In a press release on April 11, H&R Block reported that through March 31, 2019, the size of its clients’ tax refunds was up 1.4 percent under the first year of the new tax law, while overall tax liability was down nearly 25 percent.

“This gap in outcomes has contributed to a confusing tax experience for anyone seeking to understand how the largest change to the tax code in 30 years, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), impacts them,” the tax preparation firm wrote. “That’s because while the average tax filer is better off, they’ve received a small amount of that benefit in their tax refund, which many people think of as their ‘bottom line.’ This creates an illusion about the real impact of tax reform.”

..............

In their April 14 story, “Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut,” New York Times reporters Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley blamed the public misconception on Democratic messaging.

“To a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on the tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained — and misleading — effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase,” they wrote.

[revo]

From The Hill, May 26:
"The non-partisan Tax Policy Center found that the Trump tax law would save families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year $870, meaning the higher China tariffs would come close to wiping out gains for these households."

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/445492-trump-tariffs-threaten-to-drown-gains-from-tax-cuts

As median household income is $61k, that means that a loss from tariffs of $1,000 exceeded the average tax cut by $130.

[Bernie Brewer]

From The Hill, May 26:
"The non-partisan Tax Policy Center found that the Trump tax law would save families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year $870, meaning the higher China tariffs would come close to wiping out gains for these households."

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/445492-trump-tariffs-threaten-to-drown-gains-from-tax-cuts

As median household income is $61k, that means that a loss from tariffs of $1,000 exceeded the average tax cut by $130.

So you’re saying the tariff will have a net $130 impact on a median income household. Got it.

[Bernie Brewer]

It was mentioned in the other thread, but Pelosi was not referring to $1900 as a typical tax cut. It was $1000, and that was a typical one-time bonus handed out to some lucky workers as a result of the tax cut.

Since you keep pounding away at this so-called hypocrisy, can you show proof that the typical tax refund due to the tax cut was double that of the potential hit from tariffs?

I’m a hypocrite but see post 593, and you’re parsing my usage word Double, which I used in context of nots example, but touché. You got me again, not that your first point was close to correct, but you beat me at the minutia. Way to go... good for you. Yeah team.

Thanks, JJ, I was going to post an article from NYT but a quick google search tells anyone interested in this the real story, not the bulls shit spin.

[Teenwolf]

I’m a hypocrite but see post 593, and you’re parsing my usage word Double, which I used in context of nots example, but touché. You got me again, not that your first point was close to correct, but you beat me at the minutia. Way to go... good for you. Yeah team.

Thanks, JJ, I was going to post an article from NYT but a quick google search tells anyone interested in this the real story, not the bulls shit spin.

This is from the snippets JJ posted, and it matches what Revo posted.

"It’s true that corporations got a big tax cut, and that those with higher incomes reaped greater benefits. A higher percentage of high-income taxpayers got a tax cut, and that tax cut was, on average, greater than the tax cuts for those with lower incomes (both in dollar amounts and as a percentage of after-tax income). But still, as we said, most people got some kind of tax cut in 2018 as a result of the law."

This seems to be supported in the figure Revo provided regarding the $50K-$75K range.

[revo]

This is from the snippets JJ posted, and it matches what Revo posted.

"It’s true that corporations got a big tax cut, and that those with higher incomes reaped greater benefits. A higher percentage of high-income taxpayers got a tax cut, and that tax cut was, on average, greater than the tax cuts for those with lower incomes (both in dollar amounts and as a percentage of after-tax income). But still, as we said, most people got some kind of tax cut in 2018 as a result of the law."

This seems to be supported in the figure Revo provided regarding the $50K-$75K range.

Shhhh....Bernie hates when people get snarky, but he loves being snarky himself.

[revo]

So you’re saying the tariff will have a net $130 impact on a median income household. Got it.

Yeah -- for last year only. How about this year? Next year? God forbid another 4 years?

[Bernie Brewer]

Shhhh....Bernie hates when people get snarky, but he loves being snarky himself.

Correct.