ONCE again, tax revenue was UP, the tax cuts are NOT increasing the deficit. SPENDING IS. Your charts STILL don't prove what you think they do. I've explained that in detail to you several times. FY 2018 revenues hit an all time HIGH.
Except OUR revenue was UP, not down after reducing rates. That means they created MORE economic activity, not less as in your contrived example. A more realistic scenario would be our revenues increased to $85,000. But if our expenses were still $100,000 we'd still have a deficit. A smart business person would see that an work on ways to reduce expenses, not roll his prices back.
You got anything constructive to add to the conversation?
Higher is higher - just as I said. Now your just flailing around looking for a straw to grasp on to.
LOL, so all you got is partisan buffoonery. A 17% drop from 4.2% to 3.5% ain't too shabby.digitusmedius said:
Repeat: "frequent contributor to the American Thinker." IOW, no kind of liberal.
Red:
Was it an all time high or not? No weaselly words, just this or no.
And your point would be?digitusmedius said:
Not sure what the point of this wall of stuff is. So you cranked through a few averages. A lot of historical manipulation to what ends? My statement stands, this is the highest ever revenue despite having to absorb a significant DROP in corporate income that revenue.
Since we're taxing about INCOME tax and not WEALTH tax your point is superfluous. You don't pay income tax on your possessions. Not me with the ideology here. You're tossing out all the wealth inequality and rich don't pay enough tax mantras of the LW.
Not even breaking a sweat.
Why does no one, and not just rightwingers like you, know how to use that word? In the first place, you seem to be suggesting that my comment was meant ironically and it was not. But it wouldn't have qualified grammatically as irony in the second place:
But I will give you this much. You did achieve a humorous effect even if it was unintentional.
tax is collected through out the FY. Not sure what kind of reconciliation you're looking for. About eight months were under the new rates.
Trump's tax cuts took effect in 2018, FY 2018 included periods from calendar 2017 and calendar 2018; however, tax revenue is collected on a tax year (calendar year) basis, not a fiscal year basis...and you provided no reconciliation to account for the timing difference...yet you had the gall to write:
I understood what you were saying, it just had little to do with last years revenues - averages from the past were interesting, but not much more. Simple point was that despite only being in effect for 8-9 months personal income tax revenues rose enough to push total revenues to a new high, EVEN with a major decline in corporate review. Payroll taxes were up about one percent, too. So personal income and Payroll tax - both tied to wages both rose. Sounds like Trump's tax bill did just as advertised - raised wages and increased employment.Xelor said:
