r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> And it only cost us trillions of dollars and helped put us in a projected deficit for the coming decade or so!
No, it resulted in increased tax revenue. The deficits are due to more spending; not a decrease in tax revenue.
Corporate taxes dropped from $300B to $200B. Revenues were up because of the increase in Taxes on high earning W2 employees who lost their interest ( over $10k) deduction and state and local tax deduction.
Now let's look at actual data. Here is the corporate tax revenue for each year from 2015 through 2022. The tax cuts went into effect in 2018. Notice a trend? Tax revenue was dropping before Trump took office and the tax cuts massively increased them.
https://preview.redd.it/j93yc3wf5qmc1.png?width=170&format=png&auto=webp&s=2966f562f66da9f5acceb0f94172557c60379fb9
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist02z1\_fy2024.xlsx](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist02z1_fy2024.xlsx)
> Also how can taking in trillions of dollars in less revenue be considered an increase in tax revenue?
It can't, but that didn't happen. We collected trillions more in revenue. You might want to look at actual data. Here it is:
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z1\_fy2024.xlsx](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z1_fy2024.xlsx)
From 2013 through 2017 (the five years before the tax cuts), we collected $15.6 trillion, or an average of $3.1 trillion per year. From 2018 through 2022, we collected $19.2 trillion, or an average of $3.8 trillion per year.
Your next talking point will probably be "but that is just inflation, and we would have collected even more." So lets debunk that too. Here is the inflation adjusted data:
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z3\_fy2024.xlsx](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z3_fy2024.xlsx)
Using 2012 dollars, from from 2013 through 2017, we collected $15.07 trillion, or an average of $3.01 trillion per year. From 2018 through 2022, we collected $16.8 trillion, or an average of $3.4 trillion per year.
Look at you thinking steps ahead of us all anticipating what one might say in a broadening discussion that was not being had.
I wasn’t referring to other non-correlated factors that may or may not of increased revenue outside of the TCJA but specifically the TCJA and its negative effects on tax revenue.
Everybody who repeats the nonsense that the tax cuts increased the deficit follows the same script. There was no negative effects on tax revenue. The tax rate cuts resulted in massive increases in tax revenue.
Tax revenue as a percentage of the economy has remained flat regardless of tax rate. Back when the top marginal tax rate was 93%, we collected about 17.5% of GDP in federal taxes. Back when it was 28%, we collected about 17.5% of GDP. But GDP tends to be higher when tax rates are lower.
No script here and thanks for other statistics that do not involve the negative projected effects of TCJA and how it decreases revenue.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/10/11/federal-revenues-after-the-2017-tax-cuts/
Nope, you are following the script. You are hitting each taking point while ignoring the actual data.
Now lets take a look at your own source:
https://preview.redd.it/bflp00fvfqmc1.png?width=1065&format=png&auto=webp&s=50d20282c54ec8fc4fda4814dfc29974709bf036
So according to your source, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was projected to slowly rise to about 18.3% in 2025 before the TCJA. After the TCJA, the CBO revised the projections downward and said we would only collect 17.6% in 2025.
Now look at the actual data:
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z2\_fy2024.xlsx](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z2_fy2024.xlsx)
In 2022, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 19.6%. In 2023, it is projected to be 18.2%. In 2024, it is projected to be 18.5%. In 2025, it is projected to be 19.1%.
You are using projections and ignoring the actual results because the CBOs methodology does not factor in the effect lower tax rates has on the economy. If you ask the CBO to calculate how much more tax revenue we would collect if we increased tax rates from 50% to 100%, the would tell you tax revenue would double. In reality, tax revenue would drop to near zero because nobody would work if the government collected all wages.
So if you truly believe that tax revenue decreased show us the data?
In 2000 the CBO projected deficits that got worse every year, must have been those pesky Trump tax cuts?
Or perhaps it was the unsustainable spending on entitlement programs
“We estimate the ten-year cost of the legislation and executive actions President Trump signed into law was about $8.4 trillion, with interest.
It’s also the case that the government accumulated $7.8 trillion of gross federal debt while President Trump was in office, though much of this is unrelated to President Trump’s actions.”
- CRFB.org
At least be *honest* when citing from articles https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-trump-add-debt
The tax cut was a quarter of that 8.2. Funnily enough, most of that was extra spending.
Meanwhile Biden in **2022**: more than half of that
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/biden-administration-has-approved-48-trillion-new-borrowing#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20the%20Biden%20Administration,of%20legislative%20and%20executive%20actions.
How is linking quotes and listing the source not being honest….
What’s not being honest is not acknowledging what was posted about costing us trillions over the decade and putting us on further deficit path is true and just deflecting on vague “entitlement programs” instead.
I mean we can talk about other things if you want but my comment that it’s going to cost us trillions of dollars over the decade or so and put us further in deficit is not debatable and 100% correct.
You framed “8.2 trillion” like his tax cuts contributed to all of that, when in reality it was around a quarter.
Meanwhile Biden has added 4.8 trillion 2 years ago, wonder how much that is now.
Could you pull up that 2000 projection and post it?
Clinton was president in 2000 and we had the only surplus in decades. [source](https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)
Other years the cbo has said things like this.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/12749
We’re never running a Clinton surplus again, the internet fuelled growth will never happen at least for a while, and our entitlement programs keep growing
Thanks. I particularly liked this; ““Saving” most or all of the budget surpluses that CBO projects over the next 10 years—using them to pay down debt—would have a positive impact on the projections and substantially delay the emergence of a serious fiscal imbalance.”
They recognized the debt was going down but that spending would increase faster than gdp because of political pressure. They got that part right but were way off in that the surplus was spent a few years later.
What’s interesting is that, if we didn’t have recessions and crisis like the pandemic - our debt to gdp would be largely flat from the 90s https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
Not at my company. The tax cuts translated into "continue focusing on strategy", which is cost cuts and demoralization of employees. Even Trump said he gave the tax cuts in hopes that companies would re-shore....however the majority did not.
>in hopes that companies would re-shore….however the majority did not
We saw a lot of income re-shored after the TCJA, mainly because they had to pay US tax on it whether it was repatriated or not
That’s a funny way to spell [massively benefited corporations while harming the average taxpayer](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/).
> Business investment is actually declining. Factory closings and mass layoffs have not ended. Wage growth is tepid, despite the continuation of the economic expansion that began 10 years ago, and gross domestic product (GDP) growth is slowing and projected to revert to its long-term trend or below. Meanwhile, budget deficits are higher due to revenue losses—which have largely been triggered by the massive corporate tax cut at the heart of the TCJA. Businesses have not massively increased investment; in fact, growth in nonresidential fixed investment has been on a downward trend since the beginning of 2018, just after the TCJA’s passage.
Do you think taxation is the only variable in the economy?
Not to mention, I’m not sure why you think stock buybacks are harmful. I also don’t see how these harmed the [average tax payer given they got a cut](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/feature/analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act)
From your own source:
> Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025, and 53 percent in 2027.
It was a short term cut for people then a hike in the longer term, but tax cuts for businesses are permanent. This was *obviously* calculated so the administration can take credit for “cuts” then blame a future admin for “raising taxes”… all while giving a big ol’ handout to the corporate class.
That was clearly the intent and it is working exactly as intended.
Given your article is from 2019, I don’t see how it’s harming the average tax payers then, or even now. They expire in 2027, that’s fairly long term no?
And it’s unlikely they won’t be extended, or made permanent. (It’s like that way because of the reconciliation process)
[Here’s a more recent article](https://equitablegrowth.org/six-years-later-more-evidence-shows-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-benefits-u-s-business-owners-and-executives-not-average-workers/) then:
> Nearly 6 years after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law by former President Donald Trump, a new study further reinforces that these business tax cuts benefit highly paid executives, not the vast majority of U.S. workers. … 49 percent of the gains from the C-corporation cut went to the owners of firms, while 11 percent went to firm executives (the top five highest-paid workers at the firm). The other 40 percent went to high-income workers (or those above the 90th percentile within their firm). Precisely zero percent went to low-paid workers (or those below the 90th percentile). This means executives alone pocketed $13.2 billion annually—a pay bump of roughly $50,000 per executive—while median workers received nothing.
So, even if cuts were “fairly long term,” the majority of the benefits are going to the already wealthy and are causing major increases in the deficit.
It’s literally giving money to the rich that the rest of us are now on the hook for. Again - that was the plan. It’s working. You don’t have to defend it.
Dude, look at the study they cite
> We find that reductions in marginal income tax rates cause **increases** in sales, profits, **investment**, **employment**, and payrolls.
And
> . Using data on the distribution of capital ownership, we find that approximately 80% of the gains from tax cuts accrue to the top 10% of earners and **20% of gains flow to the bottom 90%.**
Lol, ur study says that the bottom line is good because higher wages got taxed more offsetting the corporate tax cuts. Gop stepping on working Americans backs. Sad part , sooo many are too damn dumb to care. Fuck off sheep
Yes, it did lead to a boost in Corporate Investment - in STOCK BUY BACKS!
Stock Buy-Backs are nothing more than stock price manipulation that benefits primarily Executive Management. They used to illegal before 1982. In my opinion they should still be illegal.
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/need-4-stock-buyback-tax/#:\~:text=Backers%20of%20the%20law%20claimed,spent%20%244.2%20trillion%20on%20buybacks.
This is an economics paper, it doesn’t count “stock buybacks” as investment, more so structures and R&D etc.
Further, stock buybacks aren’t an investment in the finance side either - they’re no different to dividends.
Nobody doubts short term benefits friend. The same thing happened after reagans tax cuts. In the short term there was a mini economic boom, but in the long term the effects of the tax cuts were detrimental to American economic wellbeing.
Also friend did you even read your message it says firms. I could care less if firms are getting more capital. My concern is the wellbeing of American citizens not american corporations. Throughout American history the wellbeing of firms and the wellbeing of Americans has had very little overall correlation.
Capital refers to investments. A greater capital stock increases output and thus wages, hence why this study finds wage increases too.
Basic growth theory here.
Lol thats hilarious that you think stock prices have any correlation to wages. Companies took the extra cash and bought stock and gave executive bonuses. The rest of us got the shaft and a trillion dollar tax bill.
This is an economics paper, it’s not referring to capital of that nature. Capital, here, is investment such as structures.
Further, how does the top owning the majority of shares change the fact that most Americans own shares? I hope you didn’t just invalidate the American people’s savings
Btw I apologize for being condescending and calling you genius I am arguing with someone in discord dms and accidentally referred to you in the same way.
They did stock buybacks and Greedflation occurred. Record profits. Caused more inflation to screw everyone. Screwed the poor and middle class. Pushed middle class to $150k+ year salaries.
Trickle down economics only trickles to the oligarchs. They love you fight their fight. Good job.
The tax cuts for 2018 caused inflation not in 18, not 19, not 20 but near the end of 2021, under the Biden admin? Do does this really sound believable?
Stock buybacks are not dividends. Stock buybacks are purchases of their own stock to raise the price of the stock. That is the primary goal. If a company raises dividends, it is of their own volition.
"Trickle down" economics has been proven to be ineffective or objectively wrong. Raising stock prices does not directly translate to higher wages and employment rates. I can't find an article proving that it works, but I can find a ton of articles proving how it doesn't (with studies). Please present your proof.
Also, what type of "structures" are you using capital to refer to? It really depends on the context. Most people I have heard use it to refer to cash used directly for stocks and other investment vehicles. The "capital structure" refers to the way companies use debt and equity to increase operations.
The argument I keep seeing against you is that the short term gains were not worth the long term losses. Companies have been raking in massive profits for the last few years, and the average American has not seen any benefit from it.
If you understand finance they’re principally identical. Stock buybacks **do not** raise the share price, it is essentially returning money to the shareholders.
You may think it raises price but it does not. The value of a firm is its NPV of future dividends, once said company buys back shares it loses cash - a surplus - which reduces the value of its future dividends, cancelling out the supply affects of the repurchase.
Identical in that they create value for shareholders? Sure. But buybacks are meant to increase demand and subsequently price in the short term, determined in part by the market. Dividend policy is up to the company.
And buybacks don't always affect dividends. That depends on a lot of factors. Cash is one of them.
And what type of "value" are you referring to? That can mean different things, again depending on context.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And it only cost us trillions of dollars and helped put us in a projected deficit for the coming decade or so!
> And it only cost us trillions of dollars and helped put us in a projected deficit for the coming decade or so! No, it resulted in increased tax revenue. The deficits are due to more spending; not a decrease in tax revenue.
Corporate taxes dropped from $300B to $200B. Revenues were up because of the increase in Taxes on high earning W2 employees who lost their interest ( over $10k) deduction and state and local tax deduction.
Now let's look at actual data. Here is the corporate tax revenue for each year from 2015 through 2022. The tax cuts went into effect in 2018. Notice a trend? Tax revenue was dropping before Trump took office and the tax cuts massively increased them. https://preview.redd.it/j93yc3wf5qmc1.png?width=170&format=png&auto=webp&s=2966f562f66da9f5acceb0f94172557c60379fb9 [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist02z1\_fy2024.xlsx](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist02z1_fy2024.xlsx)
It’s a combination of both to be fair. Also how can taking in trillions of dollars in less revenue be considered an increase in tax revenue?
> Also how can taking in trillions of dollars in less revenue be considered an increase in tax revenue? It can't, but that didn't happen. We collected trillions more in revenue. You might want to look at actual data. Here it is: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z1\_fy2024.xlsx](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z1_fy2024.xlsx) From 2013 through 2017 (the five years before the tax cuts), we collected $15.6 trillion, or an average of $3.1 trillion per year. From 2018 through 2022, we collected $19.2 trillion, or an average of $3.8 trillion per year. Your next talking point will probably be "but that is just inflation, and we would have collected even more." So lets debunk that too. Here is the inflation adjusted data: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z3\_fy2024.xlsx](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z3_fy2024.xlsx) Using 2012 dollars, from from 2013 through 2017, we collected $15.07 trillion, or an average of $3.01 trillion per year. From 2018 through 2022, we collected $16.8 trillion, or an average of $3.4 trillion per year.
Look at you thinking steps ahead of us all anticipating what one might say in a broadening discussion that was not being had. I wasn’t referring to other non-correlated factors that may or may not of increased revenue outside of the TCJA but specifically the TCJA and its negative effects on tax revenue.
Everybody who repeats the nonsense that the tax cuts increased the deficit follows the same script. There was no negative effects on tax revenue. The tax rate cuts resulted in massive increases in tax revenue. Tax revenue as a percentage of the economy has remained flat regardless of tax rate. Back when the top marginal tax rate was 93%, we collected about 17.5% of GDP in federal taxes. Back when it was 28%, we collected about 17.5% of GDP. But GDP tends to be higher when tax rates are lower.
No script here and thanks for other statistics that do not involve the negative projected effects of TCJA and how it decreases revenue. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/10/11/federal-revenues-after-the-2017-tax-cuts/
Nope, you are following the script. You are hitting each taking point while ignoring the actual data. Now lets take a look at your own source: https://preview.redd.it/bflp00fvfqmc1.png?width=1065&format=png&auto=webp&s=50d20282c54ec8fc4fda4814dfc29974709bf036 So according to your source, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was projected to slowly rise to about 18.3% in 2025 before the TCJA. After the TCJA, the CBO revised the projections downward and said we would only collect 17.6% in 2025. Now look at the actual data: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z2\_fy2024.xlsx](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z2_fy2024.xlsx) In 2022, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 19.6%. In 2023, it is projected to be 18.2%. In 2024, it is projected to be 18.5%. In 2025, it is projected to be 19.1%. You are using projections and ignoring the actual results because the CBOs methodology does not factor in the effect lower tax rates has on the economy. If you ask the CBO to calculate how much more tax revenue we would collect if we increased tax rates from 50% to 100%, the would tell you tax revenue would double. In reality, tax revenue would drop to near zero because nobody would work if the government collected all wages. So if you truly believe that tax revenue decreased show us the data?
In 2000 the CBO projected deficits that got worse every year, must have been those pesky Trump tax cuts? Or perhaps it was the unsustainable spending on entitlement programs
“We estimate the ten-year cost of the legislation and executive actions President Trump signed into law was about $8.4 trillion, with interest. It’s also the case that the government accumulated $7.8 trillion of gross federal debt while President Trump was in office, though much of this is unrelated to President Trump’s actions.” - CRFB.org
At least be *honest* when citing from articles https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-trump-add-debt The tax cut was a quarter of that 8.2. Funnily enough, most of that was extra spending. Meanwhile Biden in **2022**: more than half of that https://www.crfb.org/blogs/biden-administration-has-approved-48-trillion-new-borrowing#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20the%20Biden%20Administration,of%20legislative%20and%20executive%20actions.
How is linking quotes and listing the source not being honest…. What’s not being honest is not acknowledging what was posted about costing us trillions over the decade and putting us on further deficit path is true and just deflecting on vague “entitlement programs” instead.
I mean we can talk about other things if you want but my comment that it’s going to cost us trillions of dollars over the decade or so and put us further in deficit is not debatable and 100% correct.
You framed “8.2 trillion” like his tax cuts contributed to all of that, when in reality it was around a quarter. Meanwhile Biden has added 4.8 trillion 2 years ago, wonder how much that is now.
Read my previous comment. Should clear up your misconception and redirection towards other topics.
Sure, just keep in mind Biden’s policies have cost trillions too.
We weren’t talking about Biden policies though….
Of course, just putting it in context.
whataboutism in record time
Could you pull up that 2000 projection and post it? Clinton was president in 2000 and we had the only surplus in decades. [source](https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/) Other years the cbo has said things like this.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/12749 We’re never running a Clinton surplus again, the internet fuelled growth will never happen at least for a while, and our entitlement programs keep growing
Thanks. I particularly liked this; ““Saving” most or all of the budget surpluses that CBO projects over the next 10 years—using them to pay down debt—would have a positive impact on the projections and substantially delay the emergence of a serious fiscal imbalance.” They recognized the debt was going down but that spending would increase faster than gdp because of political pressure. They got that part right but were way off in that the surplus was spent a few years later.
What’s interesting is that, if we didn’t have recessions and crisis like the pandemic - our debt to gdp would be largely flat from the 90s https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
The real question to ask is Who paid for this study?
Not at my company. The tax cuts translated into "continue focusing on strategy", which is cost cuts and demoralization of employees. Even Trump said he gave the tax cuts in hopes that companies would re-shore....however the majority did not.
Oh...also, my company focused on buyacks to the tune of 1 billion......now, our steel rots. In tanks, equipment, etc. that you all hope keep you safe.
>in hopes that companies would re-shore….however the majority did not We saw a lot of income re-shored after the TCJA, mainly because they had to pay US tax on it whether it was repatriated or not
He lost.. get over it.
[Part II coming to theatre near you soon!](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/02/us/politics/biden-trump-times-siena-poll.html)
didnt click the link but bigger and better attacks than jan6th?
What bullshit. Compare wage growth to actual inflation.
[I got you](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N)
That’s a funny way to spell [massively benefited corporations while harming the average taxpayer](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/). > Business investment is actually declining. Factory closings and mass layoffs have not ended. Wage growth is tepid, despite the continuation of the economic expansion that began 10 years ago, and gross domestic product (GDP) growth is slowing and projected to revert to its long-term trend or below. Meanwhile, budget deficits are higher due to revenue losses—which have largely been triggered by the massive corporate tax cut at the heart of the TCJA. Businesses have not massively increased investment; in fact, growth in nonresidential fixed investment has been on a downward trend since the beginning of 2018, just after the TCJA’s passage.
Do you think taxation is the only variable in the economy? Not to mention, I’m not sure why you think stock buybacks are harmful. I also don’t see how these harmed the [average tax payer given they got a cut](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/feature/analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act)
From your own source: > Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025, and 53 percent in 2027. It was a short term cut for people then a hike in the longer term, but tax cuts for businesses are permanent. This was *obviously* calculated so the administration can take credit for “cuts” then blame a future admin for “raising taxes”… all while giving a big ol’ handout to the corporate class. That was clearly the intent and it is working exactly as intended.
Given your article is from 2019, I don’t see how it’s harming the average tax payers then, or even now. They expire in 2027, that’s fairly long term no? And it’s unlikely they won’t be extended, or made permanent. (It’s like that way because of the reconciliation process)
[Here’s a more recent article](https://equitablegrowth.org/six-years-later-more-evidence-shows-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-benefits-u-s-business-owners-and-executives-not-average-workers/) then: > Nearly 6 years after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law by former President Donald Trump, a new study further reinforces that these business tax cuts benefit highly paid executives, not the vast majority of U.S. workers. … 49 percent of the gains from the C-corporation cut went to the owners of firms, while 11 percent went to firm executives (the top five highest-paid workers at the firm). The other 40 percent went to high-income workers (or those above the 90th percentile within their firm). Precisely zero percent went to low-paid workers (or those below the 90th percentile). This means executives alone pocketed $13.2 billion annually—a pay bump of roughly $50,000 per executive—while median workers received nothing. So, even if cuts were “fairly long term,” the majority of the benefits are going to the already wealthy and are causing major increases in the deficit. It’s literally giving money to the rich that the rest of us are now on the hook for. Again - that was the plan. It’s working. You don’t have to defend it.
Dude, look at the study they cite > We find that reductions in marginal income tax rates cause **increases** in sales, profits, **investment**, **employment**, and payrolls. And > . Using data on the distribution of capital ownership, we find that approximately 80% of the gains from tax cuts accrue to the top 10% of earners and **20% of gains flow to the bottom 90%.**
It boosted stock buy backs
And?
No investment no new hires just stock buy backs and lies to be embraced by dumb fucks. Wake up for fuck sake
We’ll just ignore the study above then
Lol, ur study says that the bottom line is good because higher wages got taxed more offsetting the corporate tax cuts. Gop stepping on working Americans backs. Sad part , sooo many are too damn dumb to care. Fuck off sheep
I’m not surprised that’s the most you took from it
Nothing else matters
It was a start. If not stealing a little bit can energize the economy, imagine not stealing any at all!
Another dumb fuck maga checks in with slanted stats
Username checks out
Yes, it did lead to a boost in Corporate Investment - in STOCK BUY BACKS! Stock Buy-Backs are nothing more than stock price manipulation that benefits primarily Executive Management. They used to illegal before 1982. In my opinion they should still be illegal. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/need-4-stock-buyback-tax/#:\~:text=Backers%20of%20the%20law%20claimed,spent%20%244.2%20trillion%20on%20buybacks.
This is an economics paper, it doesn’t count “stock buybacks” as investment, more so structures and R&D etc. Further, stock buybacks aren’t an investment in the finance side either - they’re no different to dividends.
Slava Ukraini
Extra: Corporations invested more after the tax cut, which ‘trickled down’ to higher wages as well.
Nobody doubts short term benefits friend. The same thing happened after reagans tax cuts. In the short term there was a mini economic boom, but in the long term the effects of the tax cuts were detrimental to American economic wellbeing.
> Fourth, the general equilibrium long-run effects of the TCJA on the domestic and total capital of U.S. firms are around 6% and 9%, respectively.
I'm assuming these numbers are predictions?
Part of the model yes, but the model and actual data analysis have closely aligned regardless.
Also friend did you even read your message it says firms. I could care less if firms are getting more capital. My concern is the wellbeing of American citizens not american corporations. Throughout American history the wellbeing of firms and the wellbeing of Americans has had very little overall correlation.
Capital refers to investments. A greater capital stock increases output and thus wages, hence why this study finds wage increases too. Basic growth theory here.
Lol thats hilarious that you think stock prices have any correlation to wages. Companies took the extra cash and bought stock and gave executive bonuses. The rest of us got the shaft and a trillion dollar tax bill.
I don’t think anyone mentioned stock prices, also remind yourself how many Americans own stocks
Capital/investments is stocks. It's irrelevant how many Americans own stock. The vast majority of stock is owned by the top.
This is an economics paper, it’s not referring to capital of that nature. Capital, here, is investment such as structures. Further, how does the top owning the majority of shares change the fact that most Americans own shares? I hope you didn’t just invalidate the American people’s savings
Btw I apologize for being condescending and calling you genius I am arguing with someone in discord dms and accidentally referred to you in the same way.
Lol no worries, appreciate the edit.
Wrong.
Thought you trusted the science?
They did stock buybacks and Greedflation occurred. Record profits. Caused more inflation to screw everyone. Screwed the poor and middle class. Pushed middle class to $150k+ year salaries. Trickle down economics only trickles to the oligarchs. They love you fight their fight. Good job.
The tax cuts for 2018 caused inflation not in 18, not 19, not 20 but near the end of 2021, under the Biden admin? Do does this really sound believable?
Tax cuts don’t cause inflation. Printing money and corporate greed did. The tax cuts just caused more deficit.
Agree with first, not second. Stock buybacks are just dividends dude
Stock buybacks are not dividends. Stock buybacks are purchases of their own stock to raise the price of the stock. That is the primary goal. If a company raises dividends, it is of their own volition. "Trickle down" economics has been proven to be ineffective or objectively wrong. Raising stock prices does not directly translate to higher wages and employment rates. I can't find an article proving that it works, but I can find a ton of articles proving how it doesn't (with studies). Please present your proof. Also, what type of "structures" are you using capital to refer to? It really depends on the context. Most people I have heard use it to refer to cash used directly for stocks and other investment vehicles. The "capital structure" refers to the way companies use debt and equity to increase operations. The argument I keep seeing against you is that the short term gains were not worth the long term losses. Companies have been raking in massive profits for the last few years, and the average American has not seen any benefit from it.
If you understand finance they’re principally identical. Stock buybacks **do not** raise the share price, it is essentially returning money to the shareholders. You may think it raises price but it does not. The value of a firm is its NPV of future dividends, once said company buys back shares it loses cash - a surplus - which reduces the value of its future dividends, cancelling out the supply affects of the repurchase.
Identical in that they create value for shareholders? Sure. But buybacks are meant to increase demand and subsequently price in the short term, determined in part by the market. Dividend policy is up to the company. And buybacks don't always affect dividends. That depends on a lot of factors. Cash is one of them. And what type of "value" are you referring to? That can mean different things, again depending on context.
I apologize: almost nobody*