A New Congressional Study Finds Little Economic Benefit From The 2017 Tax Cuts

Zippyjuan

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
49,008
Tariff war helped wipe out potential gains. Most reductions went to corporations who did not invest in new productivity but used it to buy shares back or give dividends to share holders. Average worker saw little change in their taxes.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/29/18642928/trump-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-analysis

A new Congressional Research Service report shows the 2017 Republican tax law had a very muted impact on overall economic growth. Rather, the main consequence was that real tax rates for corporations fell by nearly half while individual income taxes barely budged.

The law, which was the GOP’s proudest legislative accomplishment during the party’s two years of total control of Washington, has somehow been all but forgotten. Ignored by its squeamish supporters unsure how to sell a gigantic corporate tax cut to normal people and mostly left to rot by Democrats who see more value in hitting the GOP over health care or other issues, it’s remarkably anonymous major legislation from a self-promoter like Donald Trump.

But maybe that shouldn’t surprise us. If there was any remaining doubt that the Republican tax law was a lopsided giveaway to the corporate sector while offering negligible benefits for American workers, these findings should quell it. Here is the key sentence from CRS:

From 2017 to 2018, the estimated average corporate tax rate fell from 23.4% to 12.1% and individual income taxes as a percentage of personal income fell slightly from 9.6% to 9.2%.

Otherwise, GDP growth was level with pre-tax cut projections. Wage growth was marginal and slower than GDP. And while companies did use their windfall from the tax cut, as Vox’s Emily Stewart has been covering, “relatively little was directed to paying worker bonuses,” according to CRS.

It’s difficult to overstate just how weak the tax law’s influence was. Investments in US businesses did not seem to respond at all to the law’s provisions.

“Although investment grew significantly, the growth patterns for different types of assets do not appear to be consistent with the direction and size of the supply-side incentive effects one would expect from the tax changes,” the CRS researchers said. “This potential outcome may raise questions about how much longer-run growth will result from the tax revision.”

It is more an indictment of the staid nature of the American tax code than a credit to Republicans that the 2017 law still is the most significant rewrite of the tax statute in a generation. It appears the GOP squandered — or exploited — that opportunity to write a plan that primarily put more money in corporate coffers.

Why the GOP tax law will be a disaster for income inequality
The tax law’s most enduring feature is a $1 trillion permanent corporate tax cut. It also slashed tax rates for people making more than $1 million and for pass-through companies disproportionately used by the wealthy, and it rolled back the estate tax on wealthy heirs and heiresses.

While the tax law also nearly doubled the standard deduction and expanded the child tax credit, which should help many lower-income families, independent analyses have consistently found that the bill would cut taxes more for people with higher incomes than for people lower on the economic ladder.

That trendline didn’t improve as Republicans tinkered with their tax plan. Ernie Tedeschi, a former Treasury economist under President Obama, ran the numbers and found that the final tax plan Republicans passed was actually even more tilted toward people making six figures or more than its predecessors.

Screen_Shot_2017_12_19_at_10.32.23_AM.png

More at link.
 
Tariff war helped wipe out potential gains. Most reductions went to corporations who did not invest in new productivity but used it to buy shares back or give dividends to share holders. Average worker saw little change in their taxes.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/29/18642928/trump-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-analysis



More at link.

Whoever wrote that sure has something against cutting corporate taxes.

I think you're right about the tariffs eroding the gains the tax cuts could have potentially given us. But the article doesn't even make that point. All it does is take good things and try to paint them as bad.
 
Whoever wrote that sure has something against cutting corporate taxes.

I think you're right about the tariffs eroding the gains the tax cuts could have potentially given us. But the article doesn't even make that point. All it does is take good things and try to paint them as bad.

Ya, they basically said, "hey look, they cut corporate taxes by x%, but salaries only went up by y% so it wasn't very beneficial to workers"

This is despite the fact that the workers got an income tax reduction on top of that, and now corporations will be able to lower their prices and/or invest more of their profits back into their business. They said that corporate investment didn't go up a ton, but they were not counting the investment of profits back into the business, only outsider investment. Maybe they need less outside investment now that they can use profits to invest back into the business with no interest rates?
 
Ya, they basically said, "hey look, they cut corporate taxes by x%, but salaries only went up by y% so it wasn't very beneficial to workers"

This is despite the fact that the workers got an income tax reduction on top of that, and now corporations will be able to lower their prices and/or invest more of their profits back into their business. They said that corporate investment didn't go up a ton, but they were not counting the investment of profits back into the business, only outsider investment. Maybe they need less outside investment now that they can use profits to invest back into the business with no interest rates?

According to the chart, a person who was making the median $59k a year got about $20 a month more from the tax cuts. What did you do with your $5 a week?

Companies did get more profits, but they did not pass it along much in the way of higher wages to workers or invest it into expanding their business. It did not "juice" the economy.
 
Last edited:
According to the chart, a person who was making the median $59k a year got about $20 a month more from the tax cuts. What did you do with your $5 a week?

At the end of the year I'll be able to buy 450 rds. of .223 and some PMAGs. Thanks President Trump!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
According to the chart, a person who was making the median $59k a year got about $20 a month more from the tax cuts. What did you do with your $5 a week?

Companies did get more profits, but they did not pass it along much in the way of higher wages to workers or invest it into expanding their business. It did not "juice" the economy.

Ya, the chart is bullshit, I saved a couple grand on taxes.
 
According to the chart, a person who was making the median $59k a year got about $20 a month more from the tax cuts. What did you do with your $5 a week?

Companies did get more profits, but they did not pass it along much in the way of higher wages to workers or invest it into expanding their business. It did not "juice" the economy.

Are you assuming that the only thing corporations could do with their tax savings that's good for the economy is increase worker's salaries?
 
Are you assuming that the only thing corporations could do with their tax savings that's good for the economy is increase worker's salaries?

If the goal is to boost the economy, then you want people spending more money. Buying stocks does not create jobs. Giving the CEO or board a few hundred thousand won't create jobs. If you give workers more money, they they can buy more stuff. A company will not increase production unless they believe they can sell more goods and that comes from people buying more things from them. Henry Ford knew if he paid his workers more money, they would be able to buy more of his cars. (The other place that the cuts could have gone is lowering prices but unless they face stiff competition, they are reluctant to do that).
 
If the goal is to boost the economy, then you want people spending more money. Buying stocks does not create jobs. Giving the CEO or board a few hundred thousand won't create jobs. If you give workers more money, they they can buy more stuff. A company will not increase production unless they believe they can sell more goods and that comes from people buying more things from them. Henry Ford knew if he paid his workers more money, they would be able to buy more of his cars. (The other place that the cuts could have gone is lowering prices but unless they face stiff competition, they are reluctant to do that).

There are lots of ways for corporations to invest their money besides the options you've mentioned. And even the ones you mention are better for the economy than you claim.
 
There are lots of ways for corporations to invest their money besides the options you've mentioned. And even the ones you mention are better for the economy than you claim.

Yes, there are other things they could do with the money, but they won't add more jobs and grow the economy nearly as much. As I said, they won't expand production unless they see an increased demand for their products. What do you think would do the best to improve jobs?
 
Yes, there are other things they could do with the money, but they won't add more jobs and grow the economy nearly as much.

Nearly as much as what? Paying workers more?

Says who?

It seems to me that the way to spend money that will be maximally good for the economy is whatever way people (including corporations) spend it when they spend it however they want. If some government policy artificially incentivized corporations to cut their CEO salaries and pay their bottom-level workers more than what they would otherwise do, then it would necessarily be worse for the economy. Otherwise people would have already spent their money that way in the first place without the government incentivizing it.

And the health of the economy can't be measured by number of jobs. If it could then we could grow the economy by hiring people to dig and then fill back in holes, or to destroy things, kill people, and get themselves killed in a war.
 
I am sure that tax cuts weren't beneficial to Marxist politicians and I am glad.

Taxation = Theft
 
So you oppose his tariffs which are also taxes?

That's a nice meme. Not really driven by fact. Importers will negotiate with the foreign companies for reduced prices, meaning the manufacturer has to eat profits. Or they will buy from another country. Nice try Zip. The world is more complicated than memes.
 
Back
Top