bbb Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 On 11/16/2019 at 4:15 AM, row_33 said: 28,000 And every expert was screaming Black Tuesday in late October would cause a cratering below 20,000 Expand Twitter thought we were in a recession.
row_33 Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 (edited) On 11/16/2019 at 5:07 AM, bbb said: Twitter thought we were in a recession. Expand I got the oaken barrels out of storage to have to wear and live in when everyone was thrown into the street Edited November 16, 2019 by row_33 1
ALF Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 How FedEx managed to cut its tax bill to $0 In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing thanks to the Trump administration’s tax cut — for which the company had lobbied hard. https://news.yahoo.com/fedex-managed-cut-tax-bill-204017803.html I wonder why the budget deficit is huge
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 10:10 PM, ALF said: I wonder why the budget deficit is huge Expand Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt servicing. 2
ALF Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 (edited) On 11/17/2019 at 10:14 PM, DC Tom said: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt servicing. Expand So you want those expenses cut by a high amount ? I would have no limit on income cutoff for SS and would raise medicare tax This means that, regardless of how much income you earn, you'll pay no more $8,240 in Social Security taxes. This is an increase from 2018, when the limit was set at $128,400. Keep in mind that this income limit applies only to the old-age, survivors and disability (OASDI) tax of 6.2%.Aug 6, 2019 Of course eliminate the Trump tax cut Edited November 17, 2019 by ALF
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 10:19 PM, ALF said: So you want those expenses cut by a high amount ? Expand Mandatory spending is 70% of federal expenditures, and the remaining discretionary expenditures are half the total tax revenue the US government brings in. You asked why the budget deficit is huge. I answered. Period. That you then asked a ridiculous leading question that inferred something I never stated or implied says more about you than it does about me. A better question would be: now that you know the answer, what's your solution? 1
ALF Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 10:23 PM, DC Tom said: Mandatory spending is 70% of federal expenditures, and the remaining discretionary expenditures are half the total tax revenue the US government brings in. You asked why the budget deficit is huge. I answered. Period. That you then asked a ridiculous leading question that inferred something I never stated or implied says more about you than it does about me. A better question would be: now that you know the answer, what's your solution? Expand Read my edit
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 10:25 PM, ALF said: Read my edit Expand No. Why? Am I supposed to pretend you didn't post what you posted? 1
ALF Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 11:36 PM, DC Tom said: No. Why? Am I supposed to pretend you didn't post what you posted? Expand What ? seriously
ALF Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 (edited) On 11/17/2019 at 11:36 PM, DC Tom said: No. Why? Am I supposed to pretend you didn't post what you posted? Expand So you agree with the Trump Economic policy ? I would have no limit on income cutoff for SS and would raise medicare tax This means that, regardless of how much income you earn, you'll pay no more $8,240 in Social Security taxes. This is an increase from 2018, when the limit was set at $128,400. Keep in mind that this income limit applies only to the old-age, survivors and disability (OASDI) tax of 6.2%.Aug 6, 2019 Edited November 18, 2019 by ALF
ALF Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 (edited) On 11/17/2019 at 11:36 PM, DC Tom said: No. Why? Am I supposed to pretend you didn't post what you posted? Expand So what are your economic solutions ? SS, Medicare , and Medicaid to start with Edited November 18, 2019 by ALF
TPS Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 10:14 PM, DC Tom said: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt servicing. Expand For 2018, Revenue is also 1% (of GDP) lower than the historical (CBO data goes back to 1965) average; on the other hand, spending is = to the historical average. And interest payments (as a share of GDP) are still < than the historical average.
3rdnlng Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 6:20 PM, TPS said: For 2018, Revenue is also 1% (of GDP) lower than the historical (CBO data goes back to 1965) average; on the other hand, spending is = to the historical average. And interest payments (as a share of GDP) are still < than the historical average. Expand So, if I read you correctly we are taking in about 200b less than what we normally would based on our GDP? If our growth is 2-3% wouldn't that mean that we are bringing in more in actual dollars? If we were able to hold the line on spending in actual dollars then we would be actually reducing the deficit, right? That to me represents a spending problem.
TPS Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 6:49 PM, 3rdnlng said: So, if I read you correctly we are taking in about 200b less than what we normally would based on our GDP? If our growth is 2-3% wouldn't that mean that we are bringing in more in actual dollars? If we were able to hold the line on spending in actual dollars then we would be actually reducing the deficit, right? That to me represents a spending problem. Expand My point is both sides of the equation are behind the higher deficits. The fact that revenues are 1% < the norm, adds $200 billion to the deficit as you said. While spending is the main driver, lower revenues as a consequence of lower tax rates contributed as well. Looking at the actual $ values, the calendar year 2018 deficit increased by $115 billion over 2017 (Revenues increased by $15 billion and spending increased by $130 billion). Relative to GDP, revenues were 17.2% in 2107 and 16.5% in 2018, so that decrease of 0.7% was equivalent to about $140 billion in lower revenues, all else constant. I'd guess that without the tax cuts, the 2018 deficit probably would've been pretty close to the 2017 value--tax revenues would've been about equal to the spending increase. Going back to 2012, the average increase in revenues was close to $150 bil/year.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 (edited) Do cash payments to Trumps farmers increase the deficit or is Trump not lying when he says tariffs pay for it? On 11/17/2019 at 11:46 PM, ALF said: What ? seriously Expand Tom is an idiot Edited November 18, 2019 by Tiberius
3rdnlng Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 7:43 PM, TPS said: My point is both sides of the equation are behind the higher deficits. The fact that revenues are 1% < the norm, adds $200 billion to the deficit as you said. While spending is the main driver, lower revenues as a consequence of lower tax rates contributed as well. Looking at the actual $ values, the calendar year 2018 deficit increased by $115 billion over 2017 (Revenues increased by $15 billion and spending increased by $130 billion). Relative to GDP, revenues were 17.2% in 2107 and 16.5% in 2018, so that decrease of 0.7% was equivalent to about $140 billion in lower revenues, all else constant. I'd guess that without the tax cuts, the 2018 deficit probably would've been pretty close to the 2017 value--tax revenues would've been about equal to the spending increase. Going back to 2012, the average increase in revenues was close to $150 bil/year. Expand I've got this nagging feeling that we are comparing apples and oranges here. If the GDP doubled in 2020 would it be fair to still use percentages vs actual dollars?
TPS Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 8:15 PM, 3rdnlng said: I've got this nagging feeling that we are comparing apples and oranges here. If the GDP doubled in 2020 would it be fair to still use percentages vs actual dollars? Expand The fact that you use a % of GDP means you are considering its growth--if growth rises fast enough, the $ revenues will be so much higher that the % will also be higher. I know you are making the Supply-side argument that tax cuts cause faster growth, so revenues will actually rise. Had no change in tax rates been made, revenues would rise in $ terms as GDP increased (by say 2%) because the % tax share would not have decreased (it would be close to the 17.2% of 2017). GDP did increase a little faster (2.9%), but the actual $ revenues only went up by $15 billion in 2018 when revenue increases were averaging almost $150 bil/year going back to 2012. Supply-siders usually say, see we cut taxes and revenues did go up -- $15 billion. However, had we not cut taxes, revenues would've increased by a greater amount, closer to $140 billion...
keepthefaith Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 10:54 PM, TPS said: The fact that you use a % of GDP means you are considering its growth--if growth rises fast enough, the $ revenues will be so much higher that the % will also be higher. I know you are making the Supply-side argument that tax cuts cause faster growth, so revenues will actually rise. Had no change in tax rates been made, revenues would rise in $ terms as GDP increased (by say 2%) because the % tax share would not have decreased (it would be close to the 17.2% of 2017). GDP did increase a little faster (2.9%), but the actual $ revenues only went up by $15 billion in 2018 when revenue increases were averaging almost $150 bil/year going back to 2012. Supply-siders usually say, see we cut taxes and revenues did go up -- $15 billion. However, had we not cut taxes, revenues would've increased by a greater amount, closer to $140 billion... Expand Either way the spending side needs attention.
TPS Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 11:04 PM, keepthefaith said: Either way the spending side needs attention. Expand Yes. My initial response was related to the suggestion that the increase in deficits (under trump) were only related to rising expenditures.
Recommended Posts