You're trying to sway those who can't handle observing more than a single variable at a time.

Look, he said "all else being equal", so that totes makes it fact if never reality. Much like Communism really.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You're trying to sway those who can't handle observing more than a single variable at a time.

Look, he said "all else being equal", so that totes makes it fact if never reality. Much like Communism really.

That, and not being able to recognize tax "revenues" (confiscation is a much more fitting term, since it's taking from those who actually earned it by those who did not) are at record levels screams that the income side of the balance sheet is certainly not the problem.

Spending is clearly the elephant in the room that everyone in the room has become comfortable with.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Look, he said "all else being equal", so that totes makes it fact if never reality. Much like Communism really.

That, and not being able to recognize tax "revenues" (confiscation is a much more fitting term, since it's taking from those who actually earned it by those who did not) are at record levels screams that the income side of the balance sheet is certainly not the problem.

Spending is clearly the elephant in the room that everyone in the room has become comfortable with.

Revenues for January-June 2018 are up 0.2% compared to the same period in 2017.
That's not accounting for inflation, which is about 3% currently.
And it is including the payments in April, which for both years were the highest. 
People who paid federal taxes in April 2018 and only in April 2018 (which is most people) were paying based on *2017* rates. 
To get that noise out of the data, it is probably best to look at only May and June of each year.  Most people who paid in May or June of 2018 were paying based on the lower 2018 rates.  Revenues are down 8% for those two months, again not accounting for inflation, when compared to May and June of 2017.
Don't believe me? See for yourself: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreport...urrent.htm
Tax cuts decrease revenue.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That, and not being able to recognize tax "revenues" (confiscation is a much more fitting term, since it's taking from those who actually earned it by those who did not) are at record levels screams that the income side of the balance sheet is certainly not the problem.

Spending is clearly the elephant in the room that everyone in the room has become comfortable with.

Revenues for January-June 2018 are up 0.2% compared to the same period in 2017.
That's not accounting for inflation, which is about 3% currently.
And it is including the payments in April, which for both years were the highest. 
People who paid federal taxes in April 2018 and only in April 2018 (which is most people) were paying based on *2017* rates. 
To get that noise out of the data, it is probably best to look at only May and June of each year.  Most people who paid in May or June of 2018 were paying based on the lower 2018 rates.  Revenues are down 8% for those two months, again not accounting for inflation, when compared to May and June of 2017.
Don't believe me?  See for yourself: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreport...urrent.htm
Tax cuts decrease revenue.

Riiiiiight....I'd like to know how to get onto this "only pay taxes in April" plan and not have an withholdings from my employer throughout the year.

Also let's conveniently ignore federal withholding taxes in Q1 2018 when bonuses and other such compensation are typically paid, you know, the stuff taxed at the highest rate federally  

---

Revenues for January-June 2018 are up 0.2% compared to the same period in 2017.
That's not accounting for inflation, which is about 3% currently.
And it is including the payments in April, which for both years were the highest. 
People who paid federal taxes in April 2018 and only in April 2018 (which is most people) were paying based on *2017* rates. 
To get that noise out of the data, it is probably best to look at only May and June of each year.  Most people who paid in May or June of 2018 were paying based on the lower 2018 rates.  Revenues are down 8% for those two months, again not accounting for inflation, when compared to May and June of 2017.
Don't believe me?  See for yourself: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreport...urrent.htm
Tax cuts decrease revenue.

Riiiiiight....I'd like to know how to get onto this "only pay taxes in April" plan and not have an withholdings from my employer throughout the year.

Also let's conveniently ignore federal withholding taxes in Q1 2018 when bonuses and other such compensation are typically paid, you know, the stuff taxed at the highest rate federally  

Oh you want to just look at Q1 2018 versus Q1 2017?  Let's do it!
Receipts are down 0.7% year over year, looking at just Q1.
You were saying?
These tax cuts will decrease revenue.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Facts mean absolutely nothing to those who draw conclusions first and scramble to back fill "evidence" later.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...hemselves/

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Look, he said "all else being equal", so that totes makes it fact if never reality. Much like Communism really.

That, and not being able to recognize tax "revenues" (confiscation is a much more fitting term, since it's taking from those who actually earned it by those who did not) are at record levels screams that the income side of the balance sheet is certainly not the problem.

Spending is clearly the elephant in the room that everyone in the room has become comfortable with.

Don't think you will find that info on the balance sheet.

---

Facts mean absolutely nothing to those who draw conclusions first and scramble to back fill "evidence" later.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...hemselves/

The numbers quoted in the article are totally different from the numbers that I got directly from the government website.  Honest mistake over there at investor's business daily, I'm sure!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Facts mean absolutely nothing to those who draw conclusions first and scramble to back fill "evidence" later.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...hemselves/

The numbers quoted in the article are totally different from the numbers that I got directly from the government website.  Honest mistake over there at investor's business daily, I'm sure!

If you like to be wrong, you're doing a fine job of it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-fe...1525976157

You can keep spinning like a ballerina, but it's abundantly clear when you objectively look at the numbers...

Runaway spending is going to plunge us into a financial death spiral if left unchecked.

There is no revenue issue whatsoever.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

The numbers quoted in the article are totally different from the numbers that I got directly from the government website.  Honest mistake over there at investor's business daily, I'm sure!

If you like to be wrong, you're doing a fine job of it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-fe...1525976157

You can keep spinning like a ballerina, but it's abundantly clear when you objectively look at the numbers...

Runaway spending is going to plunge us into a financial death spiral if left unchecked.

There is no revenue issue whatsoever.

That article is just looking at April 2018 versus April 2017.  And it does get the numbers right.  But looking at just April obscures the effects of the tax cuts, which only apply to the 2018 tax year.  The bump in receipts in any April has to do with people who withheld too little in the previous year catching up.  It has to do with the rates in the previous year.  Looking at the first two quarters of 2018, or just the first quarter of 2018, or all of 2018 to date except April, gives a clearer picture. 
I don't mind being wrong, I'll admit it readily if proven so. 
Will you?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Riiiiiight....I'd like to know how to get onto this "only pay taxes in April" plan and not have an withholdings from my employer throughout the year.

Also let's conveniently ignore federal withholding taxes in Q1 2018 when bonuses and other such compensation are typically paid, you know, the stuff taxed at the highest rate federally  

Oh you want to just look at Q1 2018 versus Q1 2017?  Let's do it!
Receipts are down 0.7% year over year, looking at just Q1.
You were saying?
These tax cuts will decrease revenue.

What does that figure equate to in $?  Are those figures in millions?

---

If you like to be wrong, you're doing a fine job of it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-fe...1525976157

You can keep spinning like a ballerina, but it's abundantly clear when you objectively look at the numbers...

Runaway spending is going to plunge us into a financial death spiral if left unchecked.

There is no revenue issue whatsoever.

That article is just looking at April 2018 versus April 2017.  And it does get the numbers right.  But looking at just April obscures the effects of the tax cuts, which only apply to the 2018 tax year.  The bump in receipts in any April has to do with people who withheld too little in the previous year catching up.  It has to do with the rates in the previous year.  Looking at the first two quarters of 2018, or just the first quarter of 2018, or all of 2018 to date except April, gives a clearer picture. 
I don't mind being wrong, I'll admit it readily if proven so. 
Will you?

I always own my mistakes.  Will you admit that the biggest problem our federal government faces is unsustainable spending and not revenue?

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

That article is just looking at April 2018 versus April 2017.  And it does get the numbers right.  But looking at just April obscures the effects of the tax cuts, which only apply to the 2018 tax year.  The bump in receipts in any April has to do with people who withheld too little in the previous year catching up.  It has to do with the rates in the previous year.  Looking at the first two quarters of 2018, or just the first quarter of 2018, or all of 2018 to date except April, gives a clearer picture. 
I don't mind being wrong, I'll admit it readily if proven so. 
Will you?

I always own my mistakes.  Will you admit that the biggest problem our federal government faces is unsustainable spending and not revenue?

I actually do agree that spending levels are not sustainable and that they are a bigger problem simply because more political will is required to change them.
I was never saying that spending levels weren't a problem.
I was only saying that we can discuss Trump's tax cuts without bringing up spending.  It is possible to talk about one thing at a time. 
Often when people don't want to yield a point, they change the subject. 
My point is:

• these tax cuts will reduce federal receipts
  
• since these tax cuts were passed with no spending cuts to go along with them, they will also increase the deficit.
  

Every time I bring up that point, someone says, "but what about spending". 
That's trying to change the topic. It doesn't matter if the new topic is more important than the old topic.  Change is change.
I'll let you change the topic, if you yield my point first.

You can see a textbook example of this rhetoric, we'll call it courtesy, in my first post in this thread.
I yielded the point that Ocasio-Cortez is bad at math.  Only then did I change the topic to Republicans also being bad at math.
So I'm not asking for any more courtesy than I've already shown you.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I always own my mistakes.  Will you admit that the biggest problem our federal government faces is unsustainable spending and not revenue?

I actually do agree that spending levels are not sustainable and that they are a bigger problem simply because more political will is required to change them.
I was never saying that spending levels weren't a problem.
I was only saying that we can discuss Trump's tax cuts without bringing up spending.  It is possible to talk about one thing at a time. 
Often when people don't want to yield a point, they change the subject. 
My point is:

• these tax cuts will reduce federal receipts
  
• since these tax cuts were passed with no spending cuts to go along with them, they will also increase the deficit.
  

Every time I bring up that point, someone says, "but what about spending". 
That's trying to change the topic. It doesn't matter if the new topic is more important than the old topic.  Change is change.
I'll let you change the topic, if you yield my point first.

You can see a textbook example of this rhetoric, we'll call it courtesy, in my first post in this thread.
I yielded the point that Ocasio-Cortez is bad at math.  Only then did I change the topic to Republicans also being bad at math.
So I'm not asking for any more courtesy than I've already shown you.

These tax cuts are fueling economic growth that will increase tax revenue. This isn't rocket surgery no matter how you try to compartmentalize it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I actually do agree that spending levels are not sustainable and that they are a bigger problem simply because more political will is required to change them.
I was never saying that spending levels weren't a problem.
I was only saying that we can discuss Trump's tax cuts without bringing up spending.  It is possible to talk about one thing at a time. 
Often when people don't want to yield a point, they change the subject. 
My point is:

• these tax cuts will reduce federal receipts
  
• since these tax cuts were passed with no spending cuts to go along with them, they will also increase the deficit.
  

Every time I bring up that point, someone says, "but what about spending". 
That's trying to change the topic. It doesn't matter if the new topic is more important than the old topic.  Change is change.
I'll let you change the topic, if you yield my point first.

You can see a textbook example of this rhetoric, we'll call it courtesy, in my first post in this thread.
I yielded the point that Ocasio-Cortez is bad at math.  Only then did I change the topic to Republicans also being bad at math.
So I'm not asking for any more courtesy than I've already shown you.

These tax cuts are fueling economic growth that will increase tax revenue. This isn't rocket surgery no matter how you try to compartmentalize it.

That's plausible, but, the data do not show this.  No matter how you slice it federal revenue is shrinking once you account for inflation.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

These tax cuts are fueling economic growth that will increase tax revenue. This isn't rocket surgery no matter how you try to compartmentalize it.

That's plausible, but, the data do not show this.  No matter how you slice it federal revenue is shrinking once you account for inflation.

Who needs the nutmeg now brother.

Also ur characterization of the April #s are wrong. The reason for month over previous years month comparisons is because the general economic and filing variables are constant. EVERY April taxes have to get filed and people write checks.

---

These tax cuts are fueling economic growth that will increase tax revenue. This isn't rocket surgery no matter how you try to compartmentalize it.

That's plausible, but, the data do not show this.  No matter how you slice it federal revenue is shrinking once you account for inflation.

It’s not only plausible but absolute, as a reduction in max tax base (tax cuts) creates a causal effect of increased revenue. Look at this historical chart and you can see the correlation of the two data sets. Outside of climbing out of deep recessions, tax cuts cause growth, thereby revenue. FYI, we are of a few countries to include inflation adjustments within tax tables so your inflation points have little meaning. Not often we let it lag. Also, revenues for 2018 are ahead of pace for early estimates of $3.34 trillion and pushing 2019 estimates over $3.42 trillion. Now, with that said, it is usually customary to increase taxes during a strong economy and decrease during a weak one. Something will need to give for long term sustainability and most likely the first thing we’ll see is increased interest rates.

Attached Files

  232F2A22-5458-4DD3-BC97-8F9D21AFCF34.png (Size: 33.81 KB / Downloads: 157)

---

That's plausible, but, the data do not show this.  No matter how you slice it federal revenue is shrinking once you account for inflation.

It’s not only plausible but absolute, as a reduction in max tax base (tax cuts) creates a causal effect of increased revenue. Look at this historical chart and you can see the correlation of the two data sets. Outside of climbing out of deep recessions, tax cuts cause growth, thereby revenue. FYI, we are of a few countries to include inflation adjustments within tax tables so your inflation points have little meaning. Not often we let it lag. Also, revenues for 2018 are ahead of pace for early estimates of $3.34 trillion and pushing 2019 estimates over $3.42 trillion. Now, with that said, it is usually customary to increase taxes during a strong economy and decrease during a weak one. Something will need to give for long term sustainability and most likely the first thing we’ll see is increased interest rates.

The correlation is not absolute, and even if it was, would not imply causation.

You are correct that our tax brackets update based on inflation, and correct that this is a good thing, but that doesn't change that the fiscal office reports from our treasury department, that I linked to, are given without any inflation adjustment.

The part in bold is exactly right, and exactly why Trump's tax cut is unlikely to have the positive long term effects that others had.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's plausible, but, the data do not show this.  No matter how you slice it federal revenue is shrinking once you account for inflation.

Who needs the nutmeg now brother.

Also ur characterization of the April #s are wrong.  The reason for month over previous years month comparisons is because the general economic and filing variables are constant.  EVERY April taxes have to get filed and people write checks.

Receipts not in April, and especially after April, are mostly automatic withholding.
Automatic withholding is exclusively computed based on current year tax rates 
Receipts in April are mostly tax returns from people who withhled too little.  They are computed based on prior year tax rates.
You can't give Trump's tax cuts credit for the receipts total in April 2018.  You'd have to wait until April 2019 for a fair comparison.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It’s not only plausible but absolute, as a reduction in max tax base (tax cuts) creates a causal effect of increased revenue. Look at this historical chart and you can see the correlation of the two data sets. Outside of climbing out of deep recessions, tax cuts cause growth, thereby revenue. FYI, we are of a few countries to include inflation adjustments within tax tables so your inflation points have little meaning. Not often we let it lag. Also, revenues for 2018 are ahead of pace for early estimates of $3.34 trillion and pushing 2019 estimates over $3.42 trillion. Now, with that said, it is usually customary to increase taxes during a strong economy and decrease during a weak one. Something will need to give for long term sustainability and most likely the first thing we’ll see is increased interest rates.

The correlation is not absolute, and even if it was, would not imply causation.

You are correct that our tax brackets update based on inflation, and correct that this is a good thing, but that doesn't change that the fiscal office reports from our treasury department, that I linked to, are given without any inflation adjustment.

The part in bold is exactly right, and exactly why Trump's tax cut is unlikely to have the positive long term effects that others had.

Well I tried, but you are ignoring history, facts, and basic economic principles. I applaud you for attempting to find the data points but you must understand it to use it as a debate point. No matter how many people point out your errors, you keep struggling on. So be it.

FYI, not sure what you mean by “others” but there hasn’t been much in the way of long term success in the modern economic climate. I sure wouldn’t attempt to grasp at the last two Presidencies as positive fodder. In fact they both tried tax cuts in addition to stimulus packages and corporate bailouts. The outlier in the last seven or so was Clinton thanks in part to tech innovation and even then it cooled mid Bush.

---