The Trump Economy

[bbb]

51 minutes ago, row_33 said:

28,000

 

And every expert was screaming Black Tuesday in late October would cause a cratering below 20,000

 

 

 

 

Twitter thought we were in a recession.  

[row_33]

42 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

Twitter thought we were in a recession.  

I got the oaken barrels out of storage to have to wear and live  in when everyone was thrown   into the street

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by row_33

[ALF]

How FedEx managed to cut its tax bill to $0

 

In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing thanks to the Trump administration’s tax cut — for which the company had lobbied hard.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fedex-managed-cut-tax-bill-204017803.html

 

I wonder why the budget deficit is huge 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

I wonder why the budget deficit is huge 

 

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt servicing.

[ALF]

44 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt servicing.

 

So you want those expenses  cut by a high amount ?

 

I would have no limit on income cutoff for SS and would raise medicare tax 

 

This means that, regardless of how much income you earn, you'll pay no more $8,240 in Social Security taxes. This is an increase from 2018, when the limit was set at $128,400. Keep in mind that this income limit applies only to the old-age, survivors and disability (OASDI) tax of 6.2%.Aug 6, 2019

 

Of course eliminate the Trump tax cut 

Edited November 17, 2019 by ALF

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

 

So you want those expenses  cut by a high amount ?

 

Mandatory spending is 70% of federal expenditures, and the remaining discretionary expenditures are half the total tax revenue the US government brings in.  You asked why the budget deficit is huge.  I answered.  Period. 

 

That you then asked a ridiculous leading question that inferred something I never stated or implied says more about you than it does about me.  A better question would be: now that you know the answer, what's your solution?

[ALF]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Mandatory spending is 70% of federal expenditures, and the remaining discretionary expenditures are half the total tax revenue the US government brings in.  You asked why the budget deficit is huge.  I answered.  Period. 

 

That you then asked a ridiculous leading question that inferred something I never stated or implied says more about you than it does about me.  A better question would be: now that you know the answer, what's your solution?

 

 

Read my edit

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

 

 

Read my edit

 

No.  Why?  Am I supposed to pretend you didn't post what you posted?

[ALF]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No.  Why?  Am I supposed to pretend you didn't post what you posted?

 

What ?  seriously 

[ALF]

43 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No.  Why?  Am I supposed to pretend you didn't post what you posted?

 

So you agree with the Trump Economic policy ?

 

I would have no limit on income cutoff for SS and would raise medicare tax 

 

This means that, regardless of how much income you earn, you'll pay no more $8,240 in Social Security taxes. This is an increase from 2018, when the limit was set at $128,400. Keep in mind that this income limit applies only to the old-age, survivors and disability (OASDI) tax of 6.2%.Aug 6, 2019

Edited November 18, 2019 by ALF

[ALF]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

No.  Why?  Am I supposed to pretend you didn't post what you posted?

 

So what are your economic solutions ? 

 

 SS,  Medicare ,  and Medicaid to start with

Edited November 18, 2019 by ALF

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[TPS]

19 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt servicing.

For 2018, Revenue is also 1% (of GDP) lower than the historical (CBO data goes back to 1965) average; on the other hand, spending is = to the historical average.

And interest payments (as a share of GDP) are still < than the historical average.

 

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, TPS said:

For 2018, Revenue is also 1% (of GDP) lower than the historical (CBO data goes back to 1965) average; on the other hand, spending is = to the historical average.

And interest payments (as a share of GDP) are still < than the historical average.

 

So, if I read you correctly we are taking in about 200b less than what we normally would based on our GDP? If our growth is 2-3% wouldn't that mean that we are bringing in more in actual dollars? If we were able to hold the line on spending in actual dollars then we would be actually reducing the deficit, right? That to me represents a spending problem.

[TPS]

36 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, if I read you correctly we are taking in about 200b less than what we normally would based on our GDP? If our growth is 2-3% wouldn't that mean that we are bringing in more in actual dollars? If we were able to hold the line on spending in actual dollars then we would be actually reducing the deficit, right? That to me represents a spending problem.

My point is both sides of the equation are behind the higher deficits.  The fact that revenues are 1% < the norm, adds $200 billion to the deficit as you said.

While spending is the main driver, lower revenues as a consequence of lower tax rates contributed as well.  

 

Looking at the actual $ values, the calendar year 2018 deficit increased by $115 billion over 2017 (Revenues increased by $15 billion and spending increased by $130 billion). Relative to GDP, revenues were 17.2% in 2107 and 16.5% in 2018, so that decrease of 0.7% was equivalent to about $140 billion in lower revenues, all else constant. 

I'd guess that without the tax cuts, the 2018 deficit probably would've been pretty close to the 2017 value--tax revenues would've been about equal to the spending increase. 

Going back to 2012, the average increase in revenues was close to $150 bil/year.

[Tiberius]

Do cash payments to Trumps farmers increase the deficit or is Trump not lying when he says tariffs pay for it? 

20 hours ago, ALF said:

 

What ?  seriously 

Tom is an idiot 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Tiberius

[3rdnlng]

28 minutes ago, TPS said:

My point is both sides of the equation are behind the higher deficits.  The fact that revenues are 1% < the norm, adds $200 billion to the deficit as you said.

While spending is the main driver, lower revenues as a consequence of lower tax rates contributed as well.  

 

Looking at the actual $ values, the calendar year 2018 deficit increased by $115 billion over 2017 (Revenues increased by $15 billion and spending increased by $130 billion). Relative to GDP, revenues were 17.2% in 2107 and 16.5% in 2018, so that decrease of 0.7% was equivalent to about $140 billion in lower revenues, all else constant. 

I'd guess that without the tax cuts, the 2018 deficit probably would've been pretty close to the 2017 value--tax revenues would've been about equal to the spending increase. 

Going back to 2012, the average increase in revenues was close to $150 bil/year.

I've got this nagging feeling that we are comparing apples and oranges here. If the GDP doubled in 2020 would it be fair to still use percentages vs actual dollars?

[TPS]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I've got this nagging feeling that we are comparing apples and oranges here. If the GDP doubled in 2020 would it be fair to still use percentages vs actual dollars?

The fact that you use a % of GDP means you are considering its growth--if growth rises fast enough, the $ revenues will be so much higher that the % will also be higher.  

 

I know you are making the Supply-side argument that tax cuts cause faster growth, so revenues will actually rise.  Had no change in tax rates been made, revenues would rise in $ terms as GDP increased (by say 2%) because the % tax share would not have decreased (it would be close to the 17.2% of 2017).  GDP did increase a little faster (2.9%), but the actual $ revenues only went up by $15 billion in 2018 when revenue increases were averaging almost $150 bil/year going back to 2012. 

 

Supply-siders usually say, see we cut taxes and revenues did go up -- $15 billion.  However, had we not cut taxes, revenues would've increased by a greater amount, closer to $140 billion... 

[keepthefaith]

9 minutes ago, TPS said:

The fact that you use a % of GDP means you are considering its growth--if growth rises fast enough, the $ revenues will be so much higher that the % will also be higher.  

 

I know you are making the Supply-side argument that tax cuts cause faster growth, so revenues will actually rise.  Had no change in tax rates been made, revenues would rise in $ terms as GDP increased (by say 2%) because the % tax share would not have decreased (it would be close to the 17.2% of 2017).  GDP did increase a little faster (2.9%), but the actual $ revenues only went up by $15 billion in 2018 when revenue increases were averaging almost $150 bil/year going back to 2012. 

 

Supply-siders usually say, see we cut taxes and revenues did go up -- $15 billion.  However, had we not cut taxes, revenues would've increased by a greater amount, closer to $140 billion... 

 

Either way the spending side needs attention. 

[TPS]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Either way the spending side needs attention. 

Yes. My initial response was related to the suggestion that the increase in deficits (under trump) were only related to rising expenditures.