Anyone surprised by this?
The CBO also says Trump’s budget won’t do what Trump says it will….
All told, CBO said Trump’s budget would produce deficits of $9.5 trillion over the coming decade instead of the $7.2 trillion promised by the White House.
CBO took a more cautious approach to estimating tax revenues and economic growth. It rejected Trump administration claims that last year’s $2 trillion-plus tax cut measure will pay for itself by boosting the economy.
Either way, deficits are likely to go even higher. Congress has passed legislation — signed by Trump — that rejected many of the proposed spending cuts in Trump’s budget.
CBO estimated that Trump’s budget, if passed by Congress, would cut spending by $3.5 trillion over the coming decade.
Even though Republicans control both Congress and the White House, they’ve shown no signs of addressing the budget deficit this year.
“The CBO confirmed today that the Trump budget would make drastic cuts to programs that millions of Americans rely on, while the Republican tax breaks for millionaires and corporations send our deficit soaring,” said top House Budget Committee Democrat John Yarmuth of Kentucky…..
The Trump/GOP tax cuts, as pointed out here by the CBO, just add’s to the financial burden on America…..
The Trump budget proposal, which Congress mostly ignored, and the Republicans own, just adds to the financial burden on America ….
And Yup….
Per Republican doctrine….
The Rich get RICHER….
And they do so by taking money form the middle class and the poor….
“they do so by taking money form the middle class and the poor”
There was not any increase in taxes or reductions in spending for the poor or the middle class – as you implied. It was purely borrowing money with the expectation that when Democrats retake Congress, they will do what is right to balance the budget, but then the GOP can blame the Dems for either increasing taxes or cutting spending.
Here’s my point
The MAJOR revenue that the IRS ACTUALLY collects IS from Americans that make 100,000
I believe….
Rich people pay less per dollar than poor or middle class ones do…
The tax cut has them paying even less and the percentage goes up for those making MORE money
Again
Most large companies pay NO taxes
Now you say borrow?
That’s NOT. Actual income
So?
Us middle and poor people NOW will paying MORE of the ACTUAL MONEY …
Deficents aren’t money….
Debt in the future is NOT a nickel
WE who got a few dollies off our paychecks
TEMPORARLY ARE paying THE ACTUAL FREIGHT
the rich and corporate tax cuts are PERMENSY
IN MY MIND?
The tax cut don’t help worth a dime
The budget makes it worst
They will balance the budget Z?
Are u kidding me?
Republicans don’t balance budgets
They take from
The middle class and poor
Case in point?
Tax cut and cuts in availability of services to middle class and poor are their aims
Net gain?
None….
Tax cut savings flow to company stockholders, trickle to hourly workers
After U.S. corporations got a big tax cut in December, a flurry of announcements touting bonuses and pay raises for hourly employees raised hopes that the cash windfall would keep flowing down to American workers.
But the sharing of wealth hasn’t been as generous as hoped.
The early payouts, such as one-time awards of $1,000 given to certain workers at AT&T, Comcast and Walmart, and $2,500 in stock awards for Apple employees, were praised by the Trump administration and Republican members of Congress. They trumpeted the awards as examples of how the $1.5 trillion tax cut would result in bigger paychecks for middle-class employees.
But the number of companies letting workers know they are getting a bonus, raise or other form of financial compensation has slowed to a trickle. Most of the extra cash from tax savings is going into the pockets of stock shareholders through dividend increases and companies buying back their own stock in hopes of boosting its price….
More…
Hey James. Please ask a loved one that you know will give you an honest opinion for their opinion of your 12:47 above. You have to re-read what you write. Otherwise few people will take you seriously. We all are rooting for you to step up your game.
I had to clean up some bad spelling in the 12:47….
It’s always abattle between me and what the phone spelling guesses are…..
But the basic I stand by….
The tax cut has bben felt by few if any….
My wife’s take home went up by a few dollars…Same with mine….
Polling back’s my view up…
Few Americans NOW feel the cut…
I posted the fact that the rich guys and corprations DO feel the cuts to tunes of millions and billions….
I know you know this stuff better than I…
But on the straight political level the cut was simply a windfall for the rich , who WE the middle class and poor carry…
Another Trump failure….But gift for rich GOPer’s….
Except for a couple months of sanguine optimism early this year, the Republican tax cuts for the rich have pretty consistently been a bust with voters. But new polling shows that as the year wears on, public perception of the GOP tax law continues to tank. Vox writes:
According to a Monmouth University poll released this week, just 34 percent of Americans said they approve of the Republican tax reform package, compared to 41 percent who disapprove. That’s down from April, when 40 percent of Americans said they approved of the law and 44 percent did not. In January, respondents were evenly split, with 44 percent saying they approved and another 44 percent voicing disapproval of the plan.
Right. From 44 percent approval to 40 percent to 34 percent—jeez, at that rate, it will fall roughly 8 more points by November. If you don’t see a whole lot of positive GOP ads about all of their big Congressional coups over the coming months, you’ll know why….
Daily Kos….
I only got a C in Macroeconomics at community college 50 years ago, but I do remember the Marginal Propensity to Consume which is much higher the lower you go on the income scale. (“Marginal” essentially means what you do with each extra dollar more or extra dollar less, as opposed to how you dispose of your whole income.)
Those living paycheque to paycheque are more likely to buy extra groceries, pay that overdue utility bill, buy clothes for school and work, or splurge on a show, trip, lottery ticket or eating out than those living more comfortably higher up the scale, who may have a lesser immediate need or want for consumer goods & services and a correspondingly higher Marginal Propensity to Save (= invest).
If your macroeconomic aim is to stimulate or restimulate a sluggish economy by increasing overall demand (and thus jobs), then you distribute fiscal and monetary measures (e.g., tax cuts, lower interest rates, or government spending on goods, services and welfare benefits) where they will have the greatest immediate impact, i.e. towards those with lower wealth and income.
If your aim (as in so-called Stop-Go government policy) is to slow down an over-inflated economy where demand is outstripping the capacity that either exists or is likely to exist soon, then you raise interest rates, raise taxes on the poorer or lower-income sectors, and reduce or control government spending.
That is what the Republicans and free-market capitalists hope will happen once inflation rates and prices become so high that some “cooling off” is needed. To them, this would not just be regrettable necessity but a positive good, restructuring what they consider to be unsound government programmes and Starving the Beast to the size that Grover Norquist hoped would allow him to take the Beast upstairs and strangle It in the bathtub.
¶ The more complex side of this, which once I knew better than I do now, is why tax benefits to corporations and the more-affluent are not being re-invested (as one would expect with a higher Marginal Propensity to Save) in domestic production capacity and thus (via trickle-down) more jobs and wages.
Those with more sophistication can tell me more, but I understand at least two possible reasons:
(1) With globalisation, it’s just not as profitable to invest in U.S. factories paying U.S,. wages as it is to invest in foreign facilities with cheaper labour. In theory, this would still increase demand, but on an international scale which is often diverted from the U.S. because of higher U.S. prices and because of various anti-competitive (mercantilist) measures by trading partners such as China.
(2) More generally, it has been guessed (although by its nature hardly proven) that the payoff from investing in production is just not attractive enough, so extra dollars get reinvested in real estate, scarce artifacts like gold and fine art that create few extra jobs, or executive compensation and shareholder dividends (through splits and buybacks) — what Wall Street pirates euphemistically and inaccurately call “enhancing shareholder value”.
Again…
A thoughtfull look at a issue DSD…..
Of course some of the corporate money/profit goes overseas to avoid taxes that middle and lower class Americans pay….
It is a good opportunity to reiterate that the tax cut was done at the absolutely worst possible time for the economy.
I don’t think they cared about anything except giving Trump a ‘win’
Dave, I thought you generally did a good job at explaining the situation.
A couple of reasons why businesses have not been re-investing their increased profits attributed to the tax cut:
1) the interest rate is still very low. So if businesses had something worthwhile to invest in, they would have already done it.
2) The unemployment rate is very low and still falling. So what good is it to invest in a new manufacturing plant if you can’t Hire enough labor to staff it?
You’re right, Zreebs; Republicans just want any excuse to cut taxes at any point in the boom-bust cycle, whether such tax-cuts make any sense at all in any respectable economic model — Keynesian, neo-classical, monetarist or Marxist. (Few who know even a little bit about economics consider Supply Side to be a respectable model, rather than a semi-plausible possible explanation of what could happen during a tiny slice of a boom-bust cycle.)
They’ve transferred the regional disparities (e.g. in Appalachia and the Rust Belt) and stagnation in wages to a picture of the whole national economy needing a broad-based stimulus such as was needed after 1929-31 or 2007-09. With interest rates still (as you point out) very low and unemployment low by the 4% standard set around 1970, though not particularly low by the historically-accepted 2% benchmark for frictional unemployment that allows some movement of labour and jobs, there’s no need for extra across-the-board stimulus at this time (rather than say 2008-09). However, there seem to be enough drags on the economy already (e.g. from trade competition) that there also seems to be little economic need for “cooling-off” measures such as spending cuts or higher taxes. Depending on your political and social philosophy, there might well be other reasons for such measures on policy grounds (e.g. reducing income inequality to preserve social peace, or diverting spending from supposèdly-inefficient government to more-efficient private businesses driven by market discipline), but there’s no particular economic argument for them at this time.