https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/
Go Figure: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs Under Trump Tax Cuts
Critics of the Trump tax cuts said they would blow a hole in the deficit. Yet individual income taxes climbed 6% in the just-ended fiscal year 2018, as the economy grew faster and created more jobs than expected.
The Treasury Department reported this week that individual income tax collections for FY 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion. Thatâs up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high. And thatâs despite the fact that individual income tax rates got a significant cut this year as part of President Donald Trumpâs tax reform plan.
Income Taxes After Trump Tax Cuts
True, the first three months of the fiscal year were before the tax cuts kicked in. But if you limit the accounting to this calendar year, individual income tax revenues are up by 5% through September.
Other major sources of revenue climbed as well, as the overall economy revived. FICA tax collections rose by more than 3%. Excise taxes jumped 13%.
The only category that was down? Corporate income taxes, which dropped by 31%.
Overall, federal revenues came in slightly higher in FY 2018 â up 0.5%.
Spending, on the other hand, was $127 billion higher in fiscal 2018. As a result, deficits for 2018 climbed $113 billion.
Letâs compare these results with Obamaâs last full fiscal year in office, 2016.
Individual income tax revenues went up by a mere 0.3%, Treasury data show. Fiscal 2016 also saw a 13% drop in corporate income taxes. FICA tax collections climbed by less than 1%. Excise tax collections dropped almost 3%.
Overall revenues increased by 0.5% â about the same as this year. The deficit? It climbed by $148 billion.
So, in other words, the government did better on revenues and deficits in the year after Trumpâs tax cuts went into effect than it did in Obamaâs last year in office.
Trump Tax Cuts To Blame For Deficit?
To this, critics say, yes, but revenues would have climbed faster had it not been for the tax cuts, because the economy was booming in 2018, unlike in 2016.
Not necessarily.
Yes, the economy was booming in fiscal 2018. But it probably wouldnât have been booming without the tax cuts. Had Trump not succeeded in getting his pro-growth tax cuts across the finish line, itâs possible weâd have seen a year like Obamaâs last one. A sluggish economy, barely increasing federal revenues, and a large increase in deficits.
Does that mean Trumpâs tax cuts are fully âpaying for themselvesâ? We wouldnât make that argument. But the faster economic growth is clearly offsetting at least some of their costs â which is precisely what backers said would happen.
What is unmistakable from the data, however, is that the Trump tax cuts are not entirely, or even mostly, responsible for the increase in the deficit. Blame for that rests squarely with spendthrifts in Congress â on both sides of the aisle â who refuse to bring federal spending under control.
So, the question is: Would it have been better to have kept taxes high, and sacrificed economic, job and wage gains weâve been enjoying, so that the government could have collected a little bit more in taxes?
So that article says overall revenue didnât climb any faster under Trump than it did under Obama, while the deficit continued to significantly increase. Plus it gives Trump personal credit for the tax bill while blaming Congress for spending bills, which pretty much telegraphs the authorâs bias.
You mean the thing that Trump offered her a million dollars for? Trump, the bastion of truth, upholding facts, science, and birtherism?
It may have been a traumatic event in her parents life, but why go out of your way to have a DNA test, have videos of it made, and put it all out ih the news?
That statement is notably ignorant. Hereâs what appears to be your missing piece:
Iâm going to get one of those little [DNA testing] kits, and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims sheâs of Indian heritage ⌠and we will say, âI will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity, if you take the test and it shows youâre an Indian.â And weâll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no, but we will hold it for the debates.
-Trump
Sheâs getting dunked on is because sheâs acting like one of those insufferable white people who finds out they have a little tiny bit of non-white heritage and all the sudden theyâre an âallyâ to minorities without having lifted a finger to do anything to make the lives of said minorities any better.
Haha, yeah, we just discussed how this was a traumatic event in the lives of her parents but yeah letâs just ignore that and then commit to whatever partisan attacks our clearly untainted news stream shows us!
I would suggest that the flack is from people who donât like her and may not actually be paying any attention. Her response to the specific challenge was to accept that challenge. Her response to even the criticism yesterday was pretty straight-forward and unassuming.
Quit listening to partisan hacks.
edit:
without having lifted a finger to do anything to make the lives of said minorities any better
You should also look into who Trumpâs million dollars is supposed to go to. I donât think anybody believes heâll do it, but she did neatly call his bluff.
Sure, IBD is a biased source. Just like WP.
If you read between the lines of both, you just might figure out a little bit of that thing thatâs so elusive nowadays- truth.
âTruthâ isnât the relevant concept here, just reasonable or unreasonable interpretation of facts. And the author ditched the pretense of reason with the Trump as the wellspring of good/Congress as the wellspring of bad routine.
Pretense of reason?
And you think that the WP article had one?
I mean playing gotcha with the side you donât like, and using the gotcha to disqualify everything they say is fine and all. In fact itâs kinda the spirit of the age. But thereâs a saying about stones and glass houses and all that.
I am not defending a WP article, honestly I didnât know you were referring to a specific one. Thought you were referring to WP generally, given that it certainly does have an editorial bias.
But issue with that specific article is that the author undermined any confidence in their analysis of fact once they chose to indulge in blunt misrepresentation favoring an opinion they hold. Less charitably that gets called propaganda.
Ok. I have a bit of time, so instead of skirting at the edges, Iâm just going to bite on the substance.
To Republicans the key talking is the fact that Trumpâs tax cuts DIDNâT lower revenue. So all the stuff that people said before about the tax cuts increasing the deficit? Didnât happen.
What did increase the deficit was the increase in spending, but that really should be irrelevant to the discussion at hand because the major bone of contention over the past year wasnât spending- it was the wisdom of the tax cuts. IBD loses points by trying to handwave away the rise in spending in a rather inartful way (which you pointed out), but it is right that spending shouldnât suddenly be the issue now when the debate has always been about the specific effects that cutting taxes would have on the deficit.
Democrats respond by arguing that IF Trump hadnât cut taxes, the booming economy wouldâve closed the deficit further.
Whether you buy this argument or not hinges entirely on your political persuasion.
If youâre liberal leaning, it makes perfect sense because you would never acknowledge that the booming economy happened precisely because the tax cuts increased Americaâs competitiveness. If youâre conservative leaning, the opposite is true.
But to me, all that is moot. The very fact that the tax cuts didnt shrink revenues is already a victory for Trump. Most of yâall wonât acknowledge it, of course, but itâs a point that can be taken to the bank and repeated everytime the Trump tax cuts are brought up.
The tax cuts didnât increase the deficit. An increase in spending did.
You and Liz are both fools if you really think Trump would pony up that money. Youâre excusing what is essentially our political discourse turning into Twitter; leaders that canât deal with trolls so they play right into their hands. At one point I thought Warren might be a good candidate for prez, but now Iâm not so sure.
And how is it ânotably ignorantâ to look at a situation for what it is and question why someone would turn a supposedly traumatic event into a PR opportunity? Iâm a liberal Preppy, and with all due respect, stop BEING a partisan hack and excusing things just because your team is doing them.
Itâs a mentality though. Compare the spending of presidentâs like Carter or Obama, who grew up with little and knew what it was like to not have a lot, to guys like GWB and Trump who have never known that. Trump was GIVEN a sum of money as a young man that most people will never come close to making in a lifetime and that definitely plays into his mindset as far as spending is concerned. Heâll never question where the money is coming from because heâs never had to before and likely never will.
The only meaningful question on that very specific topic would be whether or not revenue is down relative to what it would have been this year had the tax bill not passed. And thatâs impossible for either side to actually answer.
Meanwhile Iâm out here thinking that the whole picture of the governmentâs fiscal health is more important than who is correct on some now essentially academic point. Hopefully I am not alone in that.
As noted in my edit, I donât think he will. Itâs just her particular attempt to deal with his latest birtherism. I donât think there is a great way to deal with it: she did it her way. Letâs see how that goes. If you have better suggestions, given that âtaking the high roadâ seems to fail, maybe let her know. The notion that all responses to public personal attacks are untenable must be a delicious one for Republicans.
into a PR opportunity?
The fuck is she supposed to do with it? Letâs get angtsy because she didnât respond exactly the right way. The fact that anybodyâs panties are in a bunch over this is kinda pathetic.
stop BEING a partisan hack and excusing things just because your team is doing them.
The problem with that comment is that I have profound personal reasons for disliking the Democratic party. If you need to close your mind by claiming that, you go on with your bad self. Tainât true, tho. My interests typically align with Democratic goals. Kinda ends there: Iâve been fortunate and unfortunate to deal with a lot of interesting people over time.
This is a politician dealing with a shitty birtherism attack: she dealt with it in her own way, calling his charity bluff. I donât think anybody think he was being honest, but ⌠getting distracted because she didnât respond âthe right wayâ is just sad.
âThe fuck is she supposed to do with it?â I donât know, maybe not be disingenuous about it by claiming to be Indian, claiming it was to blame for some traumatic events in her life and then turn around and do a 3 camera shoot to get good PR+Sympathy? Sheâs showing herself to be cut from the Clinton mold and that makes me think less of her. I think if it werent for the while video shoot at the doctorâs office, and turning it into a commercial, Iâd have been okay with it. But the fact that this seems like the first shot in her presidential campaign on the back of something like this is what puts me off.
Besides, Trump known troll and shit talker and sheâs just rewarding his bad behavior by responding to him because thereâs no way you can win that battle. The man doesnât get embarrassed, doesnât care about integrity, and has no code of ethics to worry about. And thatâs the thing with trolls: the more you respond, however you do, the more you give them what they want.
I donât like the Democratic party either and Iâm sure you and I have a lot in common ideologically, but it always seems like youâre willing to sweep bad left wing behavior under the rug while pinging the right for doing some of the same things.
BAHAHAHA
No.
It is entitled ignorance.
Anyone who would attain to the position of POTUS, ought to have the capacity for perspective, and the education to realize and appreciate his privilege, if born to such.
Conversely, a born poor POTUS has that perspective already, but still needs the mental capacity for perspective in all other matters.
Asking the poor to appreciate the difficulties of the rich to empathize with them, is laughable, in the best of circumstances and intentions.
claiming to be Indian, claiming it was to blame for some traumatic events in her life
Both âclaimsâ you mention seem to be true based upon all known evidence. Amending that to âstatingâ seems more accurate, but idc at this point.
To preempt any qualms about the first concern: she already addressed tribal identity and etc. That was never the point.
I think thatâs because others hold the left and the right to different standards. Consider Franken vs Moore. Consider Warren vs Trump. The standard is so incredibly warped that you have people chugging down propaganda yelling about partiality in media. The standard is so incredibly warped that when somebody defends themselves against a racist, itâs that she didnât defend herself properly. Go figure out what that means to you. Iâm not going to judge her on this: she swung back as was her right.
Weâre all too quick to cannibalize on the librul side, even for shit that just doesnât matter as is the case here. The right wing just laughs all the way to the bank while people get caught up in the stupidest least important matters.
Iâm not seeing whatâs funny about someone going back to work.
She lied about being Indian. She supplied the evidence herself. And instead of owning up to it she doubled down and destroyed her reputation. Just stop.
If Warren were on the other team the Dems would be screaming âCultural Appropriation!â Instead, they are bending over backwards to defend her. The actual Indian tribes have all denounced her.
Filling all holes to pay Trumps legal fees BUAHAHAHAHAHA!
The article you linked doesnât contain any of this information you mentioned. She supplied evidence of Native American heritage as she was challenged to. Now itâs not enough. Surprise birtherism. Nobody could have expected intellectual dishonesty here. Nobody.
âShe destroyed her reputationâ with people who didnât want to like her? I am shocked shocked to hear that she might have destroyed her reputation with you. That sounds like an honest point. Iâm sure you were giving her the time of day until just right now.
Whatever. You hate her, we get it. Enjoy the cult, make sure to drink the Kool-Aid slowly juuuuust in case.