sign me up!
Nope; it’s a rounding error for the rich. It’s simply a GQP tactic to 1)indulge Cheato’s pique against states that didn’t vote for him and 2)divert attention away from the top 1%-of-1% toward the 80th-ish percentile.
And the reduction of corporate income tax was applied equally to corporations owned by the rich as to corporations owned by the poor.
Please. Sharpies.
No, it was a modest tax increase in the only states where state/local taxes are high enough to matter).
In other words, Trump raised taxes on blue-state liberals to pay for tax breaks to his buddies in red states, in a longstanding Republican tradition of funnelling money from productive blue states to freeloading red states. Again.
Hey, I resemble that remark! 
You know, this message board is truly a treasure trove of information. And guess what I found?
A Forbes magazine citation by @running_coach which talks about how the middle class will initially benefit from the 2017 tax cuts… but!
Let me quote RC quoting Forbes from December, 2017:
Link to post/thread: Tax plan passes Senate - #48 by running_coach
Link to Forbes magazine article: Winners And Losers Of The Senate Tax Bill
Let me repeat the key sentence for you TLDR’s:
TY, Running Coach, for your contributions in the fight against ignorance. 
How does this relate to the tax cuts that phase out over several years? Would someone low income who was hypothetically paying less taxes in 2018 be paying lower taxes in 2023, too, or are those set to expire while the corporate tax cuts remain?
Got it in one! The low and middle class tax cuts expire. The upper class tax cuts and the corporate tax cuts are permanent.
86-300K is considered middle class where?
Forbes Magazine. American tax policy. The people cited in the article in the OP.
Look, I’m not getting into a discussion of whether an income which is the 60th percentile or the 76th percentile of American incomes is ‘middle class’. My point is simple: the 2017 tax cut was designed to have a positive impact, early, on the lower and middle classes, with these benefits planned on being phased out as the decade passes, so much so that lines 13 and 14 in the spreadsheet will eventually pay more than if the Trump tax cut had never been enacted in the first place.
However, the tax cuts which benefited the wealthy the most - those do not end.
And this has been known since 2017.
(I would like to note that Trump’s base, at least here in Texas, is just chock full of people making $75k-$500k a year, so the joke is on them.)
Did everyone forget that this is how the Trump tax cuts were designed? This was much discussed back in the day, as I recall.
Not to mention blowing a massive hole in the federal budget.
But by the time the Credit card bill comes, it will be another administration’s problem and you can blame them while demonstrating your own fiscal responsibility by refusing to pay it.
Here are the only numbers that matter to me. I fit into the lower end of the $86K-300K group. Our gross income is in the 80s.
2017 total tax owed: $5446
2018 total tax owed: $6936
That doesn’t look like a tax cut to me.
A couple of other fun numbers. Because of a brief period of unemployment in 2018, our gross income decreased by about $2000. In other words, we made LESS in 2018 than we did in 2017, yet our taxes INCREASED. Even though our gross income dropped a bit, our TAXABLE income increased by $20,000.
These are real numbers from a real middle class couple, both with college degrees and professional jobs.
Trump can shove his “tax cut” up his ass.
If you think about the results of the study, it would seem to imply that the Democrats are correct.
The Democrats say that the wealthy aren’t being taxed at a fair rate. If you give a general cut to the income tax, that will affect those who are paying taxes more than those who are not. E.g. if Bill Gates was paying an effective tax rate of 4% and Jane Smith was paying an appropriate 20% rate, cutting ten percent off both of those numbers takes Bill down to a 3.6% tax rate and Jane down to 18%. She’s had two percentage points removed and he’s had less than half a point.
Under our system of a progressive (growing by bracket) taxation system, those with a higher income should see the greatest improvement from a general tax cut. If we don’t see that then, unless it was a deeply targeted tax law, it’s signaling that lower income people were paying the highest effective tax rate.
If the Trump era tax cut had been that targeted, there wouldn’t really be any mystery and this wouldn’t be news to anyone.
Now that all said, I should also say that I for one am not mystified the when you cut the tax rate, people pay less in taxes.
The meaningful questions to ask would be things like:
-
If you are to thank Trump for this, shouldn’t you be certain that it was his work? My understanding is that the law was officially crafted under the oversight of Paul Ryan and that we would have had that same law, pretty regardless of who sat in the Oval Office, so long as they were a Republican. So, to the extent that you view it was a success, giving that success to Trump seems misplaced.
-
That said, it is certainly true that Trump bought into the greatness of the tax cuts. His argument was that they would spur the GDP to grow at a rate fast enough to pay off the cost of interest on our debt. Did that prove true? If not, then it was a path to success in much the same way that you “succeed” by taking a loan to buy a Lamborghini, while working on the line at McDonald’s, and not realizing any opportunity to earn at a rate nearly good enough to ever pay the thing off. You’ve just screwed yourself. And, personally, I’m not seeing how - in Supply Side economics or otherwise - you’re supposed to goose the GDP by cutting the tax to the low income workers. We were in a boom cycle. You can’t really boost consumption to any meaningful extent, and that’s a very roundabout way to give businesses more money for R&D.
-
If not Supply Side economics then there must be some other motive to do this. What is that? “Starve the Beast” is right out the window. Trump, McConnell, and Ryan boosted government spending - up to and including welfare benefits and the EPA budget.
Top men are working on it.
Who?
Top. Men.
For the most part we are now a nation of people who prefer news and information that is tailored to there points of view and personal needs, Truth is only a perception.
As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Trump see himself as royalty and supports legislation that fit him and his peers. I believe that any personal funds that were spent in his 2 runs for office were recouped with interest from his supporters and lobbyists…There a reasons that people run for office and they nothing to do bettering their Town, County,State or Country!
The reason this was done was to game the CBO scoring system. This is a trick old as dirt. To make a bill look more affordable, you come up with a ten year plan, offer popular tax cuts up front (or popular spending), but have the cuts/spending expire in four or five years, while leaving the funding for it in place for the full ten. This masks just how expensive your plan really is, because you are counting on those cuts/spending to be renewed because it’s really hard to take a benefit away once people have it.
The Democrats are doing exactlly this in ‘build back better’, so they could claim it was ‘free’ and to get the price down to a level Joe Manchin would accept. The CBO saw through it, and scored the bill as adding three trillion to the deficit over ten years once you fully funded the programs the Democrats cut off early.
For example, the very expensive ‘early Pre-K’ and child care subsidies are sunsetted after six years to make their costs look lower. But once families re-organize around cheap child care, there’s no way that’s going to sunset without being reauthorized, and Democrats know it.
On the Republican side, they do that trick with tax cuts. The most expensive cuts sunset early to male the 10-year score better, in the hope that the future congress will blink and re-authorize them but the current administration doesn’t have to own up to the real cost.
That’s why Trump sunsetted the very popular working class tax cuts: on the theory that if he was still President he could renew them to great fanfare, and if the Democrats were in power they wouldn’t raise taxes on the working class without political damage. On the other hand, repealing the SALT deduction raises revenue for the government, so that was made permanent, forcing Democrats to have to ‘cut taxes for the rich’ if they wanted to do anything about it.
This is how politics are played. Both sides always claim the other side is uniquely perfidious when they do it, but it’s very common practice. Bush did it, Obama did it, Trump did it, and now the Democrats are trying to do it.
If you want to apply the same criticism you are giving to Trump, you could say this is a cynical ploy to say you are helping poor families while actually screwing them over when the subsidies sunset, because you don’t care about poor families. But you are willing to make your SALT exemption for the rich permanent, because that’s who you really care about. See how it works?
In reality, it’s not about screwing over the poor - it’s about fooling the voters into supporting something you want or think they need but they won’t accept if you tell it straight.