I see Baron has a post referencing the 3.5 T spending plan, but as usual it's filled with cult talk. For those who actually look deeper than the cable new/host programming spoon fed info, let's hear some feedback.
The 1.5 T infrastructure bill is more bi-partisan so I'll leave that alone. The commonality of these two bills is they both are signature bills of the president in office. Trying to take off my partisan hat personally the TCJA had a small benefit to most of us. When I say most of us, I mean non-fllthy rich people. But overall it didn't hit it's mark on the economy and did more impact to the government spending. If you want to argue this point do the research (Brookings has a good write up). The overwhelming pro is the TCJA moderately put some more $ in the middle class pocket and a lot in the filthy rich. Businesses didn't reinvest those tax savings like it was supposed to and it had no affect on the GDP and worst of all it wasn't paid for. Again research before you argue back.
The 3.5T bill is a big ass spending bill! There is no way around that. The right has stigmatized it as a social/communist/entitlement bill. That is the easiest way to poo poo something that cost a lot, but also comes with new ideas. As a Dem I think it's too much money and can't be brought down, however the plan has a lot of things in it that as involving world need to invest in. Universal Pre-K, tuiton-free community college, banking reform, funding for forest fires, veterans spending, etc. Unlike the TCJA, there are paid for (although exactly how much is the question) that attempt to not put this country in more debt.
The question is when do we as a society realize trying to stay in the same place while others are moving ahead not work for us? Are some scared to see that some programs may work and be found out as liars/fear artists? Where are all the smart people when you need them!
(no message)
it, the rich did pay more. The elimination of SALT did exactly what the libs have been begging for, making "the rich" pay more. Middle income average tax rates went down. From the information I've found, tax revenues also went up. My issue with a new spending bill is that it does nothing to address inefficient government spending now. It's just incremental spending. There is no examination of useless agencies, inefficient procedures and redundant departments. The DOE is a perfect example. There is no reason for the DOE to exist when states and local communities can address education at the local level. And don't even get me started all on the dollars leaving our borders for other countries. I'd be comfortable with tax increases when we're smarter with what we're spending. Until I see progress there, I'm always against tax increases.
check out the link...you'd think that by now the Oil industry would have figured out how to fund itself...maybe the Senators and Congressmen from our oil producing states can answer that question.
Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/?sh=529369b24473
(no message)
(no message)
When you factor in what the tax revenue was projected to be the next year with the old rates, the decrease was pretty mammoth.
And the tax cut was the cause of barely any economic growth.
It was a windfall for corporations and people with pass-through entities. The SALT limit even has a loophole for pass-through entities (still ticked it took me a couple of years to find that one).
y government office. US tax revenue increased by more than the nearly zero inflation in the economy prior to Covid. I'll grant you GDP growth was on trend, so not much positive nor negative.
Link: https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
And, again, based on the economic growth it was much lower than it would have been.
ations.
Seems to be a trend.
(no message)
You got me?
backs.
prices, I'm guessing you, like me, had a pretty nice gain in your portfolio during Trump's 4 years.
windfall for big corporate shareholders, and helped increase the debt.
That was “your guy’s” big accomplishment. Zero other legislative success including health care, infrastructure, or immigration.
(no message)
Yes, lower corporate taxes (by far) leads to higher corporate earnings which, in turn, leads to high stock prices and higher C-suite bonuses. But that's not what the sales pitch was for the cut and it certainly doesn't mean it puts money in everyone's pocket since not everyone is invested.
It was sold on economic growth that would "pay for itself, which everyone knew was a lie and it ended up being a lie.
And the tax rates have already begun to increase and by 2025 they will be as high or higher than they were before the Act.
But it's good to know you base so much on stock market performance; you must be pretty happy with Biden.
(no message)
Here is what I found. Unfortunately COVID spending has impacted how to measure the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the TCJA.
Link: https://www.brookings.edu/research/searching-for-supply-side-effects-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
They multiply and you can't get rid of them.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bprgl_4z6gY
(no message)
What do you call them?
And all of this calls for hiring an army of DC bureaucrats.
an investment. However more specific, say free community college I just see that has investing in our future.