Americans Got Screwed: After Trump's Tax Cuts, Companies Eliminated More Jobs Than They Created

[metis]

Oh I’ve done my homework. Our current economic success is attributable to Trump, not Obama. I’ll credit Obama for keeping us from thhome abyss, but Trump has made a HUGE difference.

Obviously, you have not studied economics nor kept objective track of the nine straight years of the highest sustained growth since WWII that both Obama and Trump have contributed to. Nor do you seem to understand the consequences of running a massive deficit at a time of near full employment and what that means in the long run. Many conservatives had left the party, or at least Trumpism, for that and also for moral reasons.

Anyhow, I gotta cut this short.

 

[Milton Platt]

[Source]

You can find the original story here (but it might be behind a paywall for some people):

Trump’s Tax Cut Was Supposed to Change Corporate Behavior. Here’s What Happened.


Basically, Trump and Republicans promised you more jobs and pay raises if you supported Trump's tax cut. Even several large corporations got into the act and said they'd use the money to hire more people and give raises to their employees.

But what really happened?

Corporations have laid off more people than they've hired, and -- on average -- given at best only tiny raises to their employees.

Instead of doing what they promised to do, the corporations have used the tax cuts mainly to make their senior executives and shareholders richer.

Moreover, the tax cuts for the middle class were made to expire in a few years while the tax cuts for the corporations and uber-rich were made permanent.

And now, Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders are saying they must make cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps to pay for Trump's tax cut. Those are services the rich don't need --- so why not cut them rather than cut multi-billion dollar subsidies to corporations? That's how the Republicans are reasoning.

Questions? Comments?

Haven’t looked at the article, but just curious....how can the jobless rate go down (which it has) if more people are being laid off than hired?

 

[Milton Platt]

I too am skeptical about Trump's inflating the deficit & national debt.
But to call the tax changes "tax cuts" is problematic.
For one thing, it includes increases in the form of curbing personal deductions.
For another, fed tax revenue is up....
Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily
He could be truly called a "tax & spend" politician, eh.

More of a shift of the tax burden among groups, maybe?

Isn’t this just Reagan era trickle-down theory again?

 

[Revoltingest]

More of a shift of the tax burden among groups, maybe?
Isn’t this just Reagan era trickle-down theory again?

The limitation of some deductions shifts the burden to wealthier taxpayers,
who have higher property taxes & mortgage interest payments.

And here's another view (one I cannot verify, but clearly the
situation is more complex than the left would have us believe)....
Income Tax Revenues Are Up 9% As Trump's Pro-Growth Tax Cuts Kick In

• They called the tax cuts a giveaway to the rich. But the rich will end up paying a bigger share of income taxes because of the Trump tax plan.
• They said workers wouldn't benefit, but millions got bonuses, raises, and improved benefits because of the corporate tax cuts. And real median household income is now at all-time highs.
• Democrats also said that tax cuts would do nothing about the $2.9 trillion in profits that corporations had parked overseas.

In fact, corporations are bringing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits back as a direct result of changes in the corporate tax laws — 12% of the nearly $3 trillion held overseas came back to the U.S. in just the first three months of 2018. That will mean more economic growth and additional corporate revenues.

 

[Milton Platt]

The limitation of some deductions shifts the burden to wealthier taxpayers,
who have higher property taxes & mortgage interest payments.

And here's another view (one I cannot verify, but clearly the
situation is more complex than the left would have us believe)....
Income Tax Revenues Are Up 9% As Trump's Pro-Growth Tax Cuts Kick In

• They called the tax cuts a giveaway to the rich. But the rich will end up paying a bigger share of income taxes because of the Trump tax plan.
• They said workers wouldn't benefit, but millions got bonuses, raises, and improved benefits because of the corporate tax cuts. And real median household income is now at all-time highs.
• Democrats also said that tax cuts would do nothing about the $2.9 trillion in profits that corporations had parked overseas.

In fact, corporations are bringing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits back as a direct result of changes in the corporate tax laws — 12% of the nearly $3 trillion held overseas came back to the U.S. in just the first three months of 2018. That will mean more economic growth and additional corporate revenues.

So are the tax increases for the rich equal to the tax cuts elswhere?

Are tax revenues up enough to cover the cost of the tax cuts? IDK, maybe.

How is median household income doing against the real cost of goods and services? Again, IDK, but doubt it is outpacing it over the long term.

I like the fact that corporate money is returning state-side. But it will only be a plus if invested in a way that benifits the economy. Returning it to workers as bonuses is a one-shot deal, wage increases are nice, but if a corporation has a target profit margin to maintain, they will have to eventually find that money someplace else, and I would guess it would often mean an increase in the cost of goods sold.

Personally, I would like to have seen the government “grow a pair” and tackle the deficit. With that monster out of the way, or at least clearly under control and dropping sharply, we would eventually have the cashflow to improve education, infrastructure, health care delivery, etc. the trouble being that the politicians only think as far ahead as the next election cycle, and the deficit is a long term strategy. It’s kind of like planting a pecan orchard. You bust your *** to plant it, then you have to irrigate, fertilize, and prune it for 20 years before you get the first handful of nuts.

 

[Revoltingest]

So are the tax increases for the rich equal to the tax cuts elswhere?

I don't know, & don't claim that.

Are tax revenues up enough to cover the cost of the tax cuts? IDK, maybe.

That question appears to be self answering.
But there's also a question about long term effects.
I've no answer for that either.

How is median household income doing against the real cost of goods and services? Again, IDK, but doubt it is outpacing it over the long term.

I like the fact that corporate money is returning state-side. But it will only be a plus if invested in a way that benifits the economy. Returning it to workers as bonuses is a one-shot deal, wage increases are nice, but if a corporation has a target profit margin to maintain, they will have to eventually find that money someplace else, and I would guess it would often mean an increase in the cost of goods sold.

Personally, I would like to have seen the government “grow a pair” and tackle the deficit. With that monster out of the way, or at least clearly under control and dropping sharply, we would eventually have the cashflow to improve education, infrastructure, health care delivery, etc. the trouble being that the politicians only think as far ahead as the next election cycle, and the deficit is a long term strategy. It’s kind of like planting a pecan orchard. You bust your *** to plant it, then you have to irrigate, fertilize, and prune it for 20 years before you get the first handful of nuts.

Reduce the deficit?
That would be like asking a crowd of junkies to all quit cold turkey.
I think we're doomed to permanent deficit spending.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't know, & don't claim that.

That question appears to be self answering.
But there's also a question about long term effects.
I've no answer for that either.

Reduce the deficit?
That would be like asking a crowd of junkies to all quit cold turkey.
I think we're doomed to permanent deficit spending.

Well, if you don’t know the answers to those questions, and I don’t know the answers, either, how the hell is the world going to carry on?

Right about the deficit. I don’t mind that the government borrows now and again.....but when we get into mind boggling, incomprehensible numbers, my trigger finger starts twitching.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if you don’t know the answers to those questions, and I don’t know the answers, either, how the hell is the world going to carry on?

The world carries on anyway.
It doesn't care whether you or I understand it.

 

[Milton Platt]

The world carries on anyway.
It doesn't care whether you or I understand it.

Movie quote is appropriate here:

“If the world is going to hell in a hand basket, I want to hold the handle”.

 

[Valjean]

Right about the deficit. I don’t mind that the government borrows now and again.....but when we get into mind boggling, incomprehensible numbers, my trigger finger starts twitching.

But the borrowing isn't 'now and again,' it's constant. Almost everything is being paid for on credit. The costs of our recent foreign adventures alone are approaching six billion. The cost of post 9/11 wars hit $5.9 trillion, 480,000 lives lost, study says

Still, we're cutting taxes, giving tax breaks to the rich and then proposing to pay for the resulting deficits with cuts to social programs.

 

[Milton Platt]

But the borrowing isn't 'now and again,' it's constant. Almost everything is being paid for on credit. The costs of our recent foreign adventures alone are approaching six billion. The cost of post 9/11 wars hit $5.9 trillion, 480,000 lives lost, study says

Still, we're cutting taxes, giving tax breaks to the rich and then proposing to pay for the resulting deficits with cuts to social programs.

Yes, and it is stealing from future generations to pay for our own excesses

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump's tax increase is in the news....

Did a Tax Increase Tucked Into Trump’s Tax Cut Come Back to Bite Republicans?

Quoted from the linked article.....

President Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cut was supposed to be a big selling point for congressional Republicans in the midterm elections. Instead, it appears to have done more to hurt than help Republicans in high-tax districts across California, New Jersey, Virginia and other states.

House Republicans suffered heavy Election Day losses in districts where large concentrations of taxpayers claim a popular tax break — the state and local tax deduction — which the law capped at $10,000 per household. The new limit resulted in an effective tax increase for high-earning residents of high-tax states who claim more than $10,000 per year in SALT.

Democrats swept four Republican-held districts in Orange County, Calif., where at least 40 percent of taxpayers claim the SALT tax break, defeating a pair of Republican incumbents and winning seats vacated by Representatives Ed Royce and Darrell Issa. Those districts include longtime Republican strongholds, like Newport Beach, and rank among the country’s largest users of the state and local tax break.

Representative Barbara Comstock lost a seat in Northern Virginia, where more than half of taxpayers claim the SALT deduction, by nearly 13 points. Representative Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, a huge champion of the tax bill, lost by about the same margin in a district where 40 percent of taxpayers claim the deduction.