- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
WSJ editorial board: income tax receipts up 8% from last year
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:53 pm
WSJ editorial board: Tax Revenues are higher, we do NOT HAVE A REVENUE problem
LINK
LINK
quote:
Perhaps you’ve read that the federal budget deficit is rising again, and that’s true. But what you probably haven’t heard is that the main reason is spending, not falling revenue from tax cuts.
The Congressional Budget Office released its budget summary for July this week, and the deficit for the first 10 months of fiscal 2018 reached $682 billion, up $116 billion from a year earlier. Federal spending increased by $143 billion for all the usual reasons—especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
But revenues were higher as well—up $26 billion. Corporate income taxes were down substantially as expected in the wake of the tax reform that cut the corporate rate and added 100% expensing. But individual income taxes increased by $104 billion, or 7.9%, despite the cut in individual tax rates. How could that be? CBO says one reason is that withholding from paychecks increased by $32 billion, which “largely reflects increases in wages and salaries.” In other words, a faster-growing economy employed more people who made more money.
Individual tax receipts were down a bit in July but that was more than offset by record revenue in April, the biggest month for tax receipts. Meanwhile, don’t believe everything you read about tax reform and deficits. Higher spending is the real problem.
This post was edited on 8/13/18 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Pour one out for all those poor, dead souls
This post was edited on 8/13/18 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
If Trump and Congress don't put most their focus on reducing spending after the midterms, it will be very disappointing.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
In other words, a faster-growing economy employed more people who made more money.
I refuse to believe this. Trump is Hitler.
or
It’s Obamas economy.
This post was edited on 8/13/18 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:56 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
And that 8% increase is probably almost all from the top 1%
But they still arent taxed enough amirite?
But they still arent taxed enough amirite?
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:57 pm to BobBoucher
Cut taxes till revenue stops climbing, leave it at the optimum point. Then quit spending so god damn much
This post was edited on 8/13/18 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:57 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Maybe fiscal responsibility should be a driving factor in our local, state, and federal elections and we should hold Dems and GOP alike accountable for managing the taxpayers money?
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:57 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Tax Revenues are higher, we do NOT HAVE A REVENUE problem
Yeah, defiantly a spending problem.
But why are revenues up?
quote:
“largely reflects increases in wages and salaries.” In other words, a faster-growing economy employed more people who made more money.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
But how?
I was told that tax cuts would make government poor and millions would die!
I was told that tax cuts would make government poor and millions would die!
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:00 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Oh, wait, wait. I've got this one.
I saw this last week and learned that this is a misleading statistic that hides the real problem.
You see, tax receipts AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP are actually down a little bit.
So, clearly, we have to slow down the economy so that this metric will look better.
See how smart I is?
I saw this last week and learned that this is a misleading statistic that hides the real problem.
You see, tax receipts AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP are actually down a little bit.
So, clearly, we have to slow down the economy so that this metric will look better.
See how smart I is?
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Higher spending is the real problem.
And always has been.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
income tax receipts up 8% from last year
what if April receipts, primarily from tax year 2017, drove the real increase entirely?what if all components reflecting tax year 2018 activity were nominally flat or low, and in real terms slightly negative?
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:31 pm to 90proofprofessional
Then it is still a spending problem. Tax revenue probably won't show an increase for the next 4-5 years. But tax revenue isn't in a bubble, so hte time frame argument, which is valid, is only valid to a certain point.
Been that way for almost every tax cut ever. It's not going to be different this time.
The problem is academics that cherry pick time frames, and not factoring in economic events that happen during their cherry picked time frames.
Been that way for almost every tax cut ever. It's not going to be different this time.
The problem is academics that cherry pick time frames, and not factoring in economic events that happen during their cherry picked time frames.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:37 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Then it is still a spending problem.
i would never argue we don't have one
quote:
Tax revenue probably won't show an increase for the next 4-5 years.
thank you
quote:
he problem is academics that cherry pick time frames, and not factoring in economic events that happen during their cherry picked time frames
is the wsj editorial board cherry picking here in your view?
This post was edited on 8/13/18 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:37 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Is Social Security in better shape or worse?
Is Medicare in better shape or worse?
That’s a true indicator of the country.
Is Medicare in better shape or worse?
That’s a true indicator of the country.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:40 pm to Iowa Golfer
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:41 pm to Iowa Golfer
op specifically limited this to income tax receipts, so why not just go to THE source for receipts/outlays
LINK
LINK
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:46 pm to GRTiger
quote:
If Trump and Congress don't put most their focus on reducing spending after the midterms, it will be very disappointing
Prepare to be disappointed.
For all their talk, republicans want to actually cut spending about as much as the democrats.
They use spending cut rhetoric to get votes but then do jack shite once elected.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:46 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Not a good source, but people here seem to worship it, so let's see what they say:
LINK
The fricking government response to 9/11.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 1:47 pm to Iowa Golfer
Better source:
LINK
But poeple play with these charts since you can create your own parameters.
Also, this would likely include transfers.
But what do I know? I just like to chart every tax cut for 5 years minimum going forward. And I tend to account for minor little events like recessions, etc.
The argument is ridiculous when we see that after every tax cut, revenue (eventually) does indeed increase. Which it likely would have anyway.
With FRED you can chart what revenue would have been in absence of the tax cut, versus what it is. Another place experts don't tell the full story. Because you'd need to back out increased economic activity from the pre tax cut revenue, and there is really no way to do this.
Unless your some sort of economist or academic, and only want to present one point, taken in a bubble.
One example being those that like to cite Kansas. Which is pretty disingenuous to the point of being dishonest.
LINK
But poeple play with these charts since you can create your own parameters.
Also, this would likely include transfers.
But what do I know? I just like to chart every tax cut for 5 years minimum going forward. And I tend to account for minor little events like recessions, etc.
The argument is ridiculous when we see that after every tax cut, revenue (eventually) does indeed increase. Which it likely would have anyway.
With FRED you can chart what revenue would have been in absence of the tax cut, versus what it is. Another place experts don't tell the full story. Because you'd need to back out increased economic activity from the pre tax cut revenue, and there is really no way to do this.
Unless your some sort of economist or academic, and only want to present one point, taken in a bubble.
One example being those that like to cite Kansas. Which is pretty disingenuous to the point of being dishonest.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News