OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[1bad65]

AT&T will give 200,000 US employees $1,000 bonus once Trump signs tax cuts into law

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/at...rticle/2644052

Other companies are following suit:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/12/20/gop-tax-bill-at-t-boeing-among-corporations-rewarding-employees.html

[devildg]

Tax cut = tax avoidance. this bill does not promote economic growth. The GOP themselves admitted it by not providing one shred of evidence it would. This is because this bill simply cuts taxes on corporations, while not reducing spending. The bill does not pay for itself. It was done to reward republican donors and legislators (who cut themselves some sweet deals)

In essence it does nothing but kick our problems down the road for the next generation to deal with. Already been proven trickle down doesnt work, as shown by Reagan, Bush and Bush.

The goal of corporations is to serve its shareholders, and this bill merely gives them more leeway in shady accounting techniques.

I'm sure the monkeys here are happy to be getting a few more bananas however.

[1bad65]

Tax cut = tax avoidance. this bill does not promote economic growth. The GOP themselves admitted it by not providing one shred of evidence it would. This is because this bill simply cuts taxes on corporations, while not reducing spending. The bill does not pay for itself. It was done to reward republican donors and legislators (who cut themselves some sweet deals)

The evidence is the previous tax cuts. Clinton's CG tax cuts and Reagan's IT cuts are the best examples.

Both saw increased GDP, increased tax revenue, and job creation.

In essence it does nothing but kick our problems down the road for the next generation to deal with. Already been proven trickle down doesnt work, as shown by Reagan, Bush and Bush.

There is no such term as "trickle down" in the field of Economics. You'll not find the term in any college level Economics textbook, for example.

It's a term created by politicians to fool the stupid.

As we see, it has fooled you.

The goal of corporations is to serve its shareholders, and this bill merely gives them more leeway in shady accounting techniques.

Two links were provided you showing corporations are passing some of their tax savings on to workers' salaries and bonuses.

Please keep up with the conversation before piping in.

I'm sure the monkeys here are happy to be getting a few more bananas however.

The average taxpayers will be saving around $2000 annually. That's hardly "bananas".

Maybe you should do some actual independent research and not just mindlessly parrot the talking points the people who called you "stupid" tell you.

[Bobby Deez]

Other companies are following suit:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...employees.html

Nice.. Don Jeezy gettin it done.

[Pigeons]

Great day. Tax cuts plus ACA mandate repealed. Now onto illegal immigration.

[GhostofDempsey]

When Reagan's very similar tax bill was passed in 1986, there were key democrats that actually voted for it; John Kerry, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, etc., and the economy thrived. Not one democrat voted for Trump's tax bill, which speaks to the divisiveness of the country today. They would rather play partisan politics than see this country thrive under a republican.

[Hype job]

The evidence is the previous tax cuts. Clinton's CG tax cuts and Reagan's IT cuts are the best examples.

Both saw increased GDP, increased tax revenue, and job creation.

The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the
1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

[1bad65]

The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf

Then what caused the economy to coincedentally skyrocket after the Reagan tax cuts?

And why did we see the same economic growth after the Clinton tax cuts as well?

[Hype job]

Then what caused the economy to coincedentally skyrocket after the tax cuts?

And why did we see the same economic growth after the Clinton tax cuts as well?

Clinton also introduced tax increases on the top earners in the 90s, the 90s real GDP growth was higher than the 80s.

G.W Bush slashed taxes in the 2000s and real GDP growth was inferior to the 90s and 70s where the top income tax rate was much higher.

Obama raised taxes, and last year the real household income of the American middle class returned to near pre-recession levels.

[1bad65]

Clinton also introduced tax increases on the top earners in the 90s, the 90s real GDP growth was higher than the 80s.

I was hoping you'd point that out.

Yes, Clinton both raised and cut taxes.

The tax cuts resulted in higher GDP growth, and even lower deficits, than the tax increases did.

Explain that, please....

Obama raised taxes, and last year the real household income of the American middle class returned to near pre-recession levels.

First, sourse that.

Second, if it took 8 years to get back to where it started (and remember it fell during those 8 years), that's really nothing to brag about.

You also failed to answer the first question I asked about the cause of the Reagan boom. Please get to that.