Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Revenue in 2019 will be down less than 1.4% from the 2015 peak.
Revenue has been going up every year for decades, with very few exceptions, and the tax cuts had a negative impact to it. It is obvious it contributes to the debt, especially if spending is also going up.
It is just another example of GOP talking about balanced budgets when they are the minority, and as soon as they are in power, they do the exact opposite.
Revenue in 2019 will be down less than 1.4% from the 2015 peak.
Meanwhile, spending is up more than 14% from 2015.
How can any serious person conclude that taxes need to be raised.
The problem is spending, and the last I heard all the Democrat candidates running for president want to provide illegals with health insurance.
Bingo. It's a spending problem. Too many freebie means-tested benefits. Cut back on that.
As goes California's means-tested public assistance benefits spending disaster, so goes that of the US. California is ahead on the trend of providing ever more gov-provided services and benefits, and it's destroying the state.
Quote:
California's self-inflicted fiscal wounds... This year, California will spend more than 80% of its budget on welfare, education, health care, pensions and interest.
Some Californians want to add even more government, pushing for a single-payer health care plan for the state — even though the state's budget analyst eight years ago estimated the cost would be an added $40 billion a year, even after imposing a steep health care tax on Californians and pooling what the state now spends on health care.
...Given the California budget's ravenous appetite for revenues, some kind of tax reform to broaden the tax base will be the only workable solution, say analysts.
Broaden the Tax Base... Like I said, implement a 20%-25% VAT (sales tax) like European countries have and eliminate the earned income credit. If you want a more in depth look at how and why European countries tax regressively instead of progressively as we do here in the US, read Growing Public by Peter H Lindert, PhD. Lindert documents how the European social democracies were only able to develop the extensive redistributive social programs they currently have because they used efficient consumption taxes that didn't lower economic growth as much as progressive income taxes and taxes on capital income. Funding extensive social programs requires a tax system that can collect a lot of revenue without hurting economic growth, and only regressive taxation accomplishes that.
As goes California's means-tested public assistance benefits spending disaster, so goes that of the US. California is ahead on the trend of providing ever more gov-provided services and benefits, and it's destroying the state.
Is it destroying the State?
Their GDP vs Debt ratio is in the middle of the pack compared to other States, better off than Texas.
Their GDP vs Debt ratio is in the middle of the pack compared to other States, better off than Texas.
Whenever righties don't have a reasonable answer to something it's automatically
California
Detroit
Clinton
Obama
and maybe one or two other single word answers. It's depressing...especially since CA. is the Engine of the US economy (with help from the PNW, Boston and NYC).
Wish that all the lunatic Hollywood 'Impeach Trump' idiots would clean up their own back yard and show us actual solutions instead of ceaselessly screeching their impotent demands to overturn the result of the 2016 presidential election.
FY 2019 - Tax Cuts go into effect - $3.44 trillion, estimated. (3.3% increase in federal tax revenue vs. 2.5% annualized GDP growth)
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion.
It's not a tax revenue problem, it's a Fed Gov overspending problem. Programs in which those who receive benefits don't contribute to the cost of the programs need to be cut. We're spending too much money on those while not requiring any meaningful contribution whatsoever from those who benefit. I suggest a 20%-25% VAT (sales tax) like European countries have.
Tax revenue goes up every year so that's not a convincing argument, the point is that we would have had more revenue without the tax cuts. A 3.3% increase is nothing to celebrate, we had a 7.6% increase from 2014 to 2015 and we didn't need a trillion in tax cuts to achieve that number.
Corporate revenue was much lower, individual revenue was up slightly but overall the cuts put a large hole in revenue and also the deficit. Yes spending went up so why are we rewarding bad spending habits with a tax cut, that makes no sense. We have a deficit this year of close to a trillion, where are those spending cuts coming from to balance that hole.
I didn't hear one single spending cut proposed with the 2017 tax cut and I fully expect them to increase spending again in next months budget. So what was the point of a tax cut.
Tax revenue goes up every year so that's not a convincing argument,
I didn't hear one single spending cut proposed with the 2017 tax cut and I fully expect them to increase spending again in next months budget. So what was the point of a tax cut.
The point is Populism and the buying of votes. Period.
The point is Populism and the buying of votes. Period.
Well the middle class needed to receive something to sell this. The middle class tax cuts will expire in a few years but not the corporate cuts, I haven't heard much on the claim to extend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.