Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Didnt Help

[Farmer77]

Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money

Quote

The biggest effect of the Trump tax cuts is obvious: People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money, and the federal budget will have less. But the advocates of the tax cuts insisted it wasn’t about letting the makers keep their hard-earned money rather than handing it over to the takers. It was about incentivizing business to repatriate funds and ramp up its investments, thereby increasing growth and wages.

The Congressional Research Service, a kind of in-house think tank for Congress, has a new paper analyzing the effects of the Trump tax cuts. It finds that none of those secondary effects have materialized. Growth has not increased above the pre-tax-cut trend. Neither have wages. After a brief and much smaller than expected bump, repatriated corporate cash from abroad has leveled off.

It’s of course possible that the growth in wages would take longer than the year or so that has passed since the tax cut to show up. If the Trump tax cut had encouraged new business investment, it might take years for the new investment to bear fruit. But the study looks directly at business investment and finds … nothing:

 

[+and-then]

  Keep talkin.... eventually, maybe someone will believe your inane hatred.  The rest of us will just trust our lyin' eyes 

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, and then said:

  Keep talkin.... eventually, maybe someone will believe your inane hatred.  The rest of us will just trust our lyin' eyes 

Try reading amigo. This is the result of a bipartisan congressional study. In other words these are official facts.

[Myles]

Unfortunately with the massive hatred of Trump, studies must be taken with a huge grain of salt.  

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

Unfortunately with the massive hatred of Trump, studies must be taken with a huge grain of salt.  

So nothing is true until Trump says so?

I mean in general I agree all studies and information should be taken with a grain of salt until understood but to use the fact that Trump is disliked as a reason to refute a bipartisan study makes me ask the question, where does it end?  Are we as a society just stuck dealing with having 30% of us not believe anything unless it comes directly from Trump or Hannity's mouth? Man can you think of a scenario where that ends well for America?

[Myles]

10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

So nothing is true until Trump says so?

I mean in general I agree all studies and information should be taken with a grain of salt until understood but to use the fact that Trump is disliked as a reason to refute a bipartisan study makes me ask the question, where does it end?  Are we as a society just stuck dealing with having 30% of us not believe anything unless it comes directly from Trump or Hannity's mouth? Man can you think of a scenario where that ends well for America?

I didn't say that.   Why would you imply I did?    Most people, even Trump supporters don't believe much of what he says.   However anti-Trumpers like yourself believe everything negative put out there.   Even if it is a study by anti-Trumpers.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

I didn't say that.   Why would you imply I did?    Most people, even Trump supporters don't believe much of what he says.   However anti-Trumpers like yourself believe everything negative put out there.   Even if it is a study by anti-Trumpers.

Unless you read the study and came to the conclusion it wasnt trustworthy thats exactly what you did.  You dismissed the info out of hand because someone was mean to Trump.

Did you read the study? Or even the link I posted?  This isnt from anti trumpers or democrats its from the US government so I cant imagine you would have made that post if you had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service

Quote

 

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as Congress's think tank,^[3] is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works primarily and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

Its staff of approximately 600 employees includes lawyers, economists, reference librarians, and social, natural, and physical scientists.^[4] In fiscal year 2016, CRS was appropriated a budget of roughly $106.9 million by Congress.^[1]

Despite numerous attempts to override a policy of "dissemination is limited to Members of Congress," from 1952 until 2018 "publication" was restricted; now "CRS makes non-confidential reports available on its website."^[5]

CRS is joined by two major congressional support agencies. The Congressional Budget Office provides Congress with budget-related information, reports on fiscal, budgetary, and programmatic issues, and analyses of budget policy options, costs, and effects. The Government Accountability Office assists Congress in reviewing and monitoring the activities of government by conducting independent audits, investigations, and evaluations of federal programs. Collectively, the three agencies employ more than 4,000 people.

 

[Piney]

26 minutes ago, Myles said:

 Most people, even Trump supporters don't believe much of what he says. 

 

[Myles]

23 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Unless you read the study and came to the conclusion it wasnt trustworthy thats exactly what you did.  You dismissed the info out of hand because someone was mean to Trump.

Did you read the study? Or even the link I posted?  This isnt from anti trumpers or democrats its from the US government so I cant imagine you would have made that post if you had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service

 

I followed your link, and it was a pretty opinionated anti-Trump site as I expected.   

I'm just saying that I am not going to fully believe any study done that I cannot verify.   The TDS is making many skew info.

[Farmer77]

Just now, Myles said:

I followed your link, and it was a pretty opinionated anti-Trump site as I expected.   

I'm just saying that I am not going to fully believe any study done that I cannot verify.   The TDS is making many skew info.

But you can verify the study through the link ... I swear conservatives would hate the media less if they understood how it worked. ....whatever here's the actual study

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45736.html

[ExpandMyMind]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I followed your link, and it was a pretty opinionated anti-Trump site as I expected.   

I'm just saying that I am not going to fully believe any study done that I cannot verify.   The TDS is making many skew info.

Who cares what the news site is like? It has a direct link to the actual report.

Here: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45736.html

Read it for yourself.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

But you can verify the study through the link ... I swear conservatives would hate the media less if they understood how it worked. ....whatever here's the actual study

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45736.html

Great minds think alike.

(And simple minds seldom differ)

[+OverSword]

I'll tell you what some people don't take into consideration.  The result of the tax cut was that the company I work for had enough extra capital that it could buy up some smaller businesses which has the result of making the place I work that much more stable.  Those smaller companies had a greater chance of going under than a larger company and now all of those people work for a company that is large enough that it will not easily go under or require cost cutting measures such as laying off employees.  That's one way of looking at it.

[Gromdor]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I'll tell you what some people don't take into consideration.  The result of the tax cut was that the company I work for had enough extra capital that it could buy up some smaller businesses which has the result of making the place I work that much more stable.  Those smaller companies had a greater chance of going under than a larger company and now all of those people work for a company that is large enough that it will not easily go under or require cost cutting measures such as laying off employees.  That's one way of looking at it.

I'm not really seeing that as a good thing......  Giving large corporations more power to gobble up small fries before they can grow into competition doesn't seem to be a win to me.

[+DieChecker]

On 5/31/2019 at 4:26 AM, Farmer77 said:

Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money

 

Thanks for the link to the link to the study. The actual link you posted basically is an opinion where they hit all the negatives, but none of the positives. 

I read the study abstract and it seems to me to not be very negative, but says based on what Trump claimed, we should have seen more. The numbers are good, and just above what would have been expected without a tax cut. So not that the cuts failed, but that they were not spectacular.... not "YUGE!".

[skliss]

All I know is we are doing far better! My husband has a high paying job that when the economy is down he's the first one they cut and when it's good they are clambering for him. He not only got a new job paying quite a bit, but we are getting calls everyday from people who interviewed him in the past and held on to his resume. He's got an interview Monday that would be his dream job. He wouldn't change jobs so fast but they kept calling and......he really wants it....lol

Despite what your study may say...people go by their pocketbooks and just about everyone I know is doing better. People are more positive...I can see it. More people are working than ever before in this area and it's hard to spin that badly.

Edited June 22, 2019 by skliss
Extra word

[Gromdor]

The biggest issue with the tax cut that is going to bite us in the butt is the fact that it isn't generating the revenue that it was supposed to.  In the Brownback experiment, the tax cuts were supposed to spur business with the increased growth and additional business that was supposed to make up for the shortfall in revenue.  It didn't happen, so Kansas Republicans actually had to raise taxes just to keep solvent.  Trump and this tax break is just a repeat of the same experiment on the national level and it seems to be having the same results. 

A low unemployment rate can be a problem too.  Here in Iowa, our unemployment has been low for near a decade.  We have gas stations that have no gas because there isn't enough truck drivers to deliver it.  (Casey's)  Not to mention the farm related issues with labor shortages.  My company also seems to have lowered it's standards on bigger projects as well.  Turned a blind eye to some of the guys smoking pot daily in the restrooms just because we needed their labor to finish the project on time.

[godnodog]

I would have been surprised positively if it had work, because from what I read it would not work as in the way Trump claim it would, but then again it wasnt supposed do do what it had been publicly said it would do

[RavenHawk]

Under Obama, my raises ranged from 0.9 to 1.1.  Last year my raise doubled to 2.0 and this year, it was 3.1.  Yes next year, it could do anything, but after eight years of disaster with a community hack like Obama, it could very well take a generation to fully recover.  The one thing that @Farmer77's chart shows is that there is fluctuation.  And that would be expected.  It's interesting that the report was put out when the wages dipped a bit.  When it goes back up this report will be forgotten.

[preacherman76]

I would think it’s a bit early to tell the full story of the tax cuts. Many companies are using this income to get out of debt. So we won’t see the positives and the growth till after much the their debt is paid down. 

Heck companies just getting out of debt is a great thing that won’t show as a positive for some time 

[Phaeton80]

On 31-5-2019 at 1:26 PM, Farmer77 said:

Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money

 

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

Under Obama, my raises ranged from 0.9 to 1.1.  Last year my raise doubled to 2.0 and this year, it was 3.1.  Yes next year, it could do anything, but after eight years of disaster with a community hack like Obama, it could very well take a generation to fully recover.  The one thing that @Farmer77's chart shows is that there is fluctuation.  And that would be expected.  It's interesting that the report was put out when the wages dipped a bit.  When it goes back up this report will be forgotten.

That's terrible.  Inflation last from 2016- 2017 was 2.13% and from 2017-2018 it was 2.44%  2018-2019 was the only year you did okay in with it's 1.99% inflation rate: http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2018?amount=1

And the low rate that we have now is due to the Feds increasing the interest rates to try and keep it down even.  The low unemployment rate doesn't seem to helping your pay at all.  Your employer doesn't seem to think that you are even worth the spending power you were the year before. 

[Tatetopa]

On 5/31/2019 at 12:22 PM, OverSword said:

I'll tell you what some people don't take into consideration.  The result of the tax cut was that the company I work for had enough extra capital that it could buy up some smaller businesses which has the result of making the place I work that much more stable.  Those smaller companies had a greater chance of going under than a larger company and now all of those people work for a company that is large enough that it will not easily go under or require cost cutting measures such as laying off employees.  That's one way of looking at it.

Where does that process lead as it progresses? Big corporations are eaten by bigger corporations until only the biggest is left?    Do we have one very stable global mega-corporation in each field?  To avoid competition from new ideas and products that come from outside the traditional market niche do the mega-corporations merge across fields, eliminating all risks, with ultimate stability, no competition, no innovation, no change,and  guaranteed jobs? Is that not the spitting image of the socialism  some think is the ultimate evil? 

Just a personal opinion mind, but I think America was great when there were millions of independent small craftsmen, merchants, and farmers  competing to be best using inventiveness and innovation to get ahead of competitors.  That is part of the vigor that drove American progress.  In a free society along with the opportunity to succeed goes the opportunity to fail.  I'm not saying that there is no room for large capital pools to build steel mills or railroads or insurance companies, but  maybe one purpose monopoly and anti-trust laws have is to ensure competition, innovation, and progress.

[+OverSword]

5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Where does that process lead as it progresses? Big corporations are eaten by bigger corporations until only the biggest is left?    Do we have one very stable global mega-corporation in each field?  To avoid competition from new ideas and products that come from outside the traditional market niche do the mega-corporations merge across fields, eliminating all risks, with ultimate stability, no competition, no innovation, no change,and  guaranteed jobs? Is that not the spitting image of the socialism  some think is the ultimate evil? 

Just a personal opinion mind, but I think America was great when there were millions of independent small craftsmen, merchants, and farmers  competing to be best using inventiveness and innovation to get ahead of competitors.  That is part of the vigor that drove American progress.  In a free society along with the opportunity to succeed goes the opportunity to fail.  I'm not saying that there is no room for large capital pools to build steel mills or railroads or insurance companies, but  maybe one purpose monopoly and anti-trust laws have is to ensure competition, innovation, and progress.

In a dystopian world that could happen but we have laws against monopolies.

Consider this about your thoughts on healthy competition fueling innovation and such. The ultimate result of competition is a winner. It could be an inevitability.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

In a dystopian world that could happen but we have laws against monopolies.

Consider this about your thoughts on healthy competition fueling innovation and such. The ultimate result of competition is a winner. It could be an inevitability.

Are Facebook, Amazon, and Google to name three not already large enough and powerful enough to be concerning?  I don't think it takes a dystopian world for corporations to be too large.  Facebook wants to spread out into currency.  

Sometimes large corporations get their position by growing and being innovative.  Sometimes they just swallow the growing innovative competitors.  I guess we could talk about banks that were too big to fail  and the poor business practices, stupid  risks and  government bailouts that brought about.

I am not claiming expertise, but maybe markets should always have 3-5 competitors, or there should be a way for upstarts with innovations to get a foothold.  

An established business does not want new and better ideas and competition in its market, it buys them or stomps them out.

It might be better for the health of the economy, the efficiency of the market, and the best interest of consumers to protect start ups from obliteration for a maturing time to make it or break it without overpowering adversaries.