Earnings have been ‘unambiguously positive,’ and it’s going to get even better, says JPMorgan

Bullseye said:

it always about Trump to you people; a moral compass & character mean nothing for you folks. Works both ways.

Click to expand...

Looks like you brought up Trump, not cuban smoke.

Bullseye said:

it always about Trump to you people; a moral compass & character mean nothing for you folks. Works both ways.

Click to expand...

If America cared about morals and compasses, we would never have been a country.

Accept it. Great people do bad things on the way to being great. Others do nothing with their lives other than bitch about them, yet they continue to cash their checks.

MTAtech said:

The tax-cuts aren't free money. The lion's share went to the top 1% and corporations. Workers dis get some. The deficits that it creates causes interest rates to rise, which increase mortgage and car rates, which is a hidden tax. Moreover, the GOP is already eyeing cutting Medicare and Social Sec to save money.

Click to expand...

I wish there was a remedial math class somewhere on line to refer people who make your kind of argument. News flash: taxes are money the government confiscates from the people who earned it and to whom it belongs. Tax cuts only mean that the government will take less money as a percentage of what people earn and who lawfully own the money. It sure as hell isn't 'free money.'

Now then, if you are paying $100,000 in taxes, for sure a 10% cut in the taxes you are required to pay will mean $10,000 more money in your pocket, while the person paying $1,000 in taxes will have $100 more in his pocket. If that is what you mean by the lion's share then yeah, those who pay the most in taxes will get the most relief in taxes.

The fact is the top 1% earn 13% of the income and pay 19% of the taxes.

50% of Americans pay very little or no taxes so a lowered income tax doesn't mean much to them at all except they will likely have more opportunity to become tax payers.

So yeah, those paying the most get the largest dollar amount of benefits.

Now is it fair that 50% of Americans pay little or no income taxes but get to vote on the people who decide who pays the lion's share of the taxes? Can you make a coherent argument for that. I happen to be in that bottom 50% at this juncture of my life, and I can't come up with a coherent argument to justify that.

AlbqOwl said:

I wish there was a remedial math class somewhere on line to refer people who make your kind of argument. News flash: taxes are money the government confiscates from the people who earned it and to whom it belongs. Tax cuts only mean that the government will take less money as a percentage of what people earn and who lawfully own the money. It sure as hell isn't 'free money.'

Now then, if you are paying $100,000 in taxes, for sure a 10% cut in the taxes you are required to pay will mean $10,000 more money in your pocket, while the person paying $1,000 in taxes will have $100 more in his pocket. If that is what you mean by the lion's share then yeah, those who pay the most in taxes will get the most relief in taxes.

The fact is the top 1% earn 13% of the income and pay 19% of the taxes.

50% of Americans pay very little or no taxes so a lowered income tax doesn't mean much to them at all except they will likely have more opportunity to become tax payers.

So yeah, those paying the most get the largest dollar amount of benefits.

Now is it fair that 50% of Americans pay little or no income taxes but get to vote on the people who decide who pays the lion's share of the taxes? Can you make a coherent argument for that. I happen to be in that bottom 50% at this juncture of my life, and I can't come up with a coherent argument to justify that.

Click to expand...

So? That doesn't mean that the GOP tax law didn't disproportionately favored wealthy.

chuckiechan said:

Jesus F. Christ. Take the win. Retirement funds most of us own are doing better. What in the F is wrong with that?

It's a good thing for the economy. I presume you are a part of it unless you are picking cans out of the trash at the Dollar Store.

Christ. Spare me.

Click to expand...

I'm a part of the economy that gets to enjoy an average of 2.8% annual raises, while the folks at the top have seen an average increase of OVER 100% since 2008.

MTAtech said:

So? That doesn't mean that the GOP tax law didn't disproportionately favored wealthy.

Click to expand...

A chart after the individual mandate of the current legislation runs out as your evidence? You've got to be kidding me. The GOP put a limit on the legislation for individuals to give us time to see what the overall effect would be. All it takes is a simple vote of Congress to reverse it early or to extend it or to just let it sunset if the effects don't justify keeping the current tax policy in effect. And we have seven years to evaluate it to see if it delivers as advertised.

As for business, a tax reform that could sunset itself is useless to them when it takes years and a lot of money to start up, relocate, expand a company. They won't risk the venture capital to do that unless they have some assurance that the government won't make it unprofitable on a given date. But then it is business that provides jobs, income, benefits, retirement opportunity, etc. etc. etc. for the huge lion's share of Americans.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans see government policy that helps us do for ourselves is the best policy. Most Democrats push the nonsense that if the government doesn't provide what the people get, then the people are being screwed.

Meanwhile...
Bust the budget then vote to balance it: GOP's shameless bid to shred safety net

Americans expect their representatives in Congress to look after the interests of all Americans, not just the privileged few. But after handing out a massive tax break to the very wealthiest — who coincidentally bankroll their campaigns — Republicans in Congress are about to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would cause massive cuts to programs that Americans rely upon.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

So? That doesn't mean that the GOP tax law didn't disproportionately favored wealthy.

Click to expand...

Your just mouthing a progressive mantra. It was thoroughly explained AlbqOwl - you save the same portion, e.g. 10% of the tax you paid. What's "disproportionate is the percent of income paid as taxes by higher earners.

MTAtech said:

Click to expand...

WTF is "Observed After-tax income"? Observed by who?

MTAtech said:

Meanwhile...
Bust the budget then vote to balance it: GOP's shameless bid to shred safety net

Click to expand...

Jabberwocky of the finest degree.

KevinKohler said:

I'm a part of the economy that gets to enjoy an average of 2.8% annual raises, while the folks at the top have seen an average increase of OVER 100% since 2008.

Click to expand...

Why are you getting 2.8% annual raises?

I guess you want the top to get less in the theory you will get more? Who is promising you that?

Where is my "Eat the Rich" bumper sticker when I need it!

I've read almost every Donald Trump book since "The Art of the Deal". The man is an incredible brand builder and negotiator. One of the best in American history. He's simply bringing his common sense philosophy to the White House. BOOM! Look at this economy roar!

chuckiechan said:

Why are you getting 2.8% annual raises?

I guess you want the top to get less in the theory you will get more? Who is promising you that?

Where is my "Eat the Rich" bumper sticker when I need it!

Click to expand...

Its a metaphor. Median wage in this country has stagnated since a little before 2008. Meanwhile, executive increases have skyrocketed. That's not a sustainable model, regardless of your support for it because...401Ks, lol.

chuckiechan said:

So it looks like the tax cuts are working.

Click to expand...

Banks make money by lending money. Interest rates are increasing, especially on the short end. So yes, in an interest rate environment trajecting upward in an environment of sustained employment growth, earnings should be positive going forward.

Mycroft said:

Well hell, you can take the high, moral road...all the way to the poor house. The rest of us are looking for a better future.

Click to expand...

Economic convergence is happening. When a country has 1.3 billion people (with the majority in relative poverty) and pours trillions into infrastructure, well..., they are going to overtake us as the global leader in aggregate output.

Protectionism will not negate this trajectory