New Tax plan Calculator

[Highmark]

$50,000 Couple filing jointly with 3 kids gets $3000 "refund" and pays NO TAXES.

$100,000 Couple filing jointly with 3 kids pays $4320 or 4.3% EFR   How fucking horrible.    

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-trump-tax-calculator-what-do-you-owe-2017-10-26

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Highmark

[SnowRider]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

$50,000 Couple filing jointly with 3 kids gets $3000 "refund" and pays NO TAXES.

$100,000 Couple filing jointly with 3 kids pays $4320 or 4.3% EFR

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-trump-tax-calculator-what-do-you-owe-2017-10-26

 

With all these refunds and no cuts to spending - who’s paying more and what’s happening to the deficit.....

 

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by SnowRider

[Highmark]

Just now, SnowRider said:

With all these refunds and no cuts to spending - who’s paying more and what’s happening to the deficit.....

 

 

Growth.   First report I seen showed it would only take a .4% (not even 1%) increase in growth to be break even.  

[SnowRider]

Just now, Highmark said:

Growth.   First report I seen showed it would only take a .4% (not even 1%) increase in growth to be break even.  

What happened when W cut taxes....

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

What happened when W cut taxes....

Growth in tax revenue.   Some of the largest in history.  Same happened when Clinton went along with the GOP and drastically reduced CG taxes.  

Don't look at the initial "refunds" look at the tax break of 2003.  

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

 

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Edited November 3, 2017 by Highmark

[Momorider]

Only brain dead DemonCUNTS think a tax cut needs to be paid for  more money in the taxpayer pockets is better for the everyone in the economy, the government needs less revenue not more  

[Momorider]

Just now, Highmark said:

Growth in tax revenue.   Some of the largest in history.  Same happened when Clinton went along with the GOP and drastically reduced CG taxes.  

Don't look at the initial "refunds" look at the tax break of 2003.  

Ronnies tax cuts doubled revenue to the government, too bad he grew government and spent it +  

[Highmark]

16 minutes ago, Momorider said:

Only brain dead DemonCUNTS think a tax cut needs to be paid for  more money in the taxpayer pockets is better for the everyone in the economy, the government needs less revenue not more  

Its one thing to debate who should get the tax cuts but its not debatable what tax cuts do for growth.  

Funny how dem tax cuts create growth but not the GOP even if the same people get them.    

Edited November 3, 2017 by Highmark

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, Momorider said:

Ronnies tax cuts doubled revenue to the government, too bad he grew government and spent it +  

Bush did the same.  

Clinton raised income tax rates yet drastically cut CG rates (investment) and tax revenue grew.   Hmmmm.....

The GOP also stood firm on not allowing govt growth to get terribly out of hand and they almost balanced the budget.

Yes a lot of factors play in that are not completely calculable (dot com boom) but the big picture is clear.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Highmark

[SnowRider]

How did we ever grow as an economy or country without significant debt with top tax brackets approaching 90%..

Skidmark - wipe the Kool aid off your lip and read up   

 

Tax Cuts and Deficits

Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years.  Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending).  Yet the President and some Congressional leaders decline to acknowledge the tax cuts’ role in the nation’s budget problems, falling back instead on the discredited nostrum that tax cuts “pay for themselves.”

Myth 1:  Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”

“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.”  —  President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.”  — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006

Reality:  A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum:  cutting taxes decreases revenues. 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/tax-cuts-myths-and-realities

Edited November 3, 2017 by SnowRider

[Zambroski]

Jesus.  Poor SR.  Just owned with idiotic questions when it's clear he has NO EARTHLY IDEA about economic finance..at all.

Quick...To the Maddow copter!!!!!!

 

[SnowRider]

I like facts👍

 

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record.  In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off.  The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut.  Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly.  (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm) 

 

 

[SnowRider]

And let’s not forget Doe Dumber good friend in KS 

 

 

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

How did we ever grow as an economy or country without significant debt with top tax brackets approaching 90%..

Skidmark - wipe the Kool aid off your lip and read up   

 

Tax Cuts and Deficits

Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years.  Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending).  Yet the President and some Congressional leaders decline to acknowledge the tax cuts’ role in the nation’s budget problems, falling back instead on the discredited nostrum that tax cuts “pay for themselves.”

Myth 1:  Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”

“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.”  —  President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.”  — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006

Reality:  A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum:  cutting taxes decreases revenues. 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/tax-cuts-myths-and-realities

Jesus do you understand nothing about effective tax rates?  The TMR or tax brackets mean nothing.   What people actually pay does.  One also has to look at the rates of the brackets adjusted for inflation.  

 

 

[SnowRider]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Jesus do you understand nothing about effective tax rates?  The TMR or tax brackets mean nothing.   What people actually pay does.  One also has to look at the rates of the brackets adjusted for inflation.  

 

 

And your point has what to do with the delta in revenues related to economic growth and the deficit....

[racer254]

12 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

And your point has what to do with the delta in revenues related to economic growth and the deficit....

Do you ever sit back and think of how you sound?  Politicians really love guys like you....they can just tell you they are going to raise your taxes, give you some nice talking points and you just sit back and pay.....how convenient for them. 

[SnowRider]

3 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Do you ever sit back and think of how you sound?  Politicians really love guys like you....they can just tell you they are going to raise your taxes, give you some nice talking points and you just sit back and pay.....how convenient for them. 

Actually - they love dummies like you and the rest of the Dumpers.....cutting taxes some How leads to utopia where there is unlimited economic growth and no deficits....... makes sense  Facts don’t bsck it up  

[ActionfigureJoe]

35 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

And let’s not forget Doe Dumber good friend in KS 

 

 

So true.  

[Carlos Danger]

Highmark I wonder if you could tell me what the effective tax rate will be for Donna Brazile and if Hillary Clinton will still be the most corrupt politician to ever run for the office of president under the new tax plan?

Edited November 3, 2017 by Carlos Danger

[oleroule]

57 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Jesus.  Poor SR.  Just owned with idiotic questions when it's clear he has NO EARTHLY IDEA about economic finance..at all.

Quick...To the Maddow copter!!!!!!

 

he'll be happy as long as you and i keep funding his light bulbs.

[Mainecat]

33 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Do you ever sit back and think of how you sound?  Politicians really love guys like you....they can just tell you they are going to raise your taxes, give you some nice talking points and you just sit back and pay.....how convenient for them. 

This ones way over your head

[racer254]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

I like facts👍

 

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record.  In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off.  The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut.  Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly.  (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm) 

 

 

Hey, here are the revenue numbers for both the 1990's and the 1980's

Percentage wise, revenues grew more in the 80s than the 90s

1999  1.82 trillion

1990 1.03 trillion

1989 991 billion

1980 517 billion

[Ez ryder]

4 hours ago, SnowRider said:

With all these refunds and no cuts to spending - who’s paying more and what’s happening to the deficit.....

 

 

I still pay 27grand according to the calculator .

btw we are missing you on the how the DNC fucked the voter threads . you should show and dispense some of your wise incite    lmfao  .

[Ez ryder]

4 hours ago, SnowRider said:

What happened when W cut taxes....

he kept spending like a lib .

[Legend]

fucking awesome. 50K pays nothing and gets 3k back.

100k pays 4350

meanwhile people who have the brains and ambition to try to get ahead in life just get a big IRS cock in their ass