Tax cuts for the middle class

[rjs330]

Well the results are in. The Republican Tax cuts helped theiddle class and lower class the most. Despite the claims of democrats. Too many Democrats and liberals criticized the tax cuts as cuts for the rich and raised taxes ir had no effect in the middle class. A study conducted has shown that the middle class received a significant tax decrease and moat of the upper class actually saw an increase.

Once again the Democrats had no idea what they were talking about or they were avidly lying.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/republicans-tax-cut-middle-class-analysis

 

[Pommer]

Well the results are in. The Republican Tax cuts helped theiddle class and lower class the most. Despite the claims of democrats. Too many Democrats and liberals criticized the tax cuts as cuts for the rich and raised taxes ir had no effect in the middle class. A study conducted has shown that the middle class received a significant tax decrease and moat of the upper class actually saw an increase.

Once again the Democrats had no idea what they were talking about or they were avidly lying.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/republicans-tax-cut-middle-class-analysis

And in 2025 when the tax-cuts expire for the middle-class?
Will they also expire for the 1%?
(No)

 

[Sketcher]

And in 2025 when the tax-cuts expire for the middle-class?
Will they also expire for the 1%?
(No)

When Obama wanted to end the Bush tax cuts, there was pressure on him to keep them for the lower and middle classes. I suspect the same will happen then.

 

[rjs330]

And in 2025 when the tax-cuts expire for the middle-class?
Will they also expire for the 1%?
(No)

What will Congress do in 2025? I have no idea.

 

[Nithavela]

And in 2025 when the tax-cuts expire for the middle-class?
Will they also expire for the 1%?
(No)

Are you sure that is important. I've been told that the end of the world is just around the corner.

 

[SilverBear]

an analysis From teh Hearland institute...a conservative group that is known for rejecting science and since it's foundation in 1984 has been best known for its work trying to debunk the evidence that cigarette smoking is bad for you. Well, I'm convinced

 

[Nithavela]

an analysis From teh Hearland institute...a conservative group that is known for rejecting science and since it's foundation in 1984 has been best known for its work trying to debunk the evidence that cigarette smoking is bad for you. Well, I'm convinced

Why do you think this specific analysis is wrong?

Just so we're clear: I think anything this think tank publishes should be immediately distrusted, judging by their history. I'd just like some specifics for this case.

 

[NxNW]

Too many Democrats and liberals criticized the tax cuts as cuts for the rich and raised taxes ir had no effect in the middle class. A study conducted has shown that the middle class received a significant tax decrease

From the article:
"For example, after accounting for all tax deductions and credits, filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $40,000 to $50,000 received an average tax cut of 18.2 percent," the Heartland Institute said.

So people in the 15% bracket dropped to -3%, and those in the 25% bracket dropped to 7%?

I am skeptical.

 

[rjs330]

Are you sure that is important. I've been told that the end of the world is just around the corner.

Well by 2030 anyway unless we totally alter the way we live right now.

 

[rjs330]

an analysis From teh Hearland institute...a conservative group that is known for rejecting science and since it's foundation in 1984 has been best known for its work trying to debunk the evidence that cigarette smoking is bad for you. Well, I'm convinced

Okay, the question would then be, show us where they are wrong. If you are not fonginc d the datat is right. Where is it wrong?

I get skepticism. We are skeptical all the time over things. Skepticism is healthy. But pure skepticism isn't healthy if you don't have any facts as to the support. We are skeptical of the main stream news media quite often. But that doesn't automatically mean everything they put out is wrong. We can say hmmm... I'm not so sure about that. And then look for the facts to see if they are right. But we shouldn't just blow it off completely just cause.

If you have something that shows this is incorrect then share it with us.

 

[NxNW]

If you have something that shows this is incorrect then share it with us.

In the passage I quoted, taxpayers would be in the 15% or 25% bracket. If their rates drop by 18%, that means the former had new rates of -3% (meaning the IRS was paying them) and the latter had new rates of 7%. I'm pretty sure nobody has a rate of -3%.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

In the passage I quoted, taxpayers would be in the 15% or 25% bracket. If their rates drop by 18%, that means the former had new rates of -3% (meaning the IRS was paying them) and the latter had new rates of 7%. I'm pretty sure nobody has a rate of -3%.

I'm not defending or agreeing with the OP, but I think you're thinking of this incorrectly. I think it's referring to a reduction of 18.5 percent in how much they paid (when you include deductions after applying the base rate), not a reduction in their tax bracket. so, instead of paying 15% they paid... [carry the one...] 12.3% (or 82% of the 15%). I mean, that doesn't fully make sense either, but...

 

[NxNW]

I'm not defending or agreeing with the OP, but I think you're thinking of this incorrectly. I think it's referring to a reduction of 18.5 percent in how much they paid (when you include deductions after applying the base rate), not a reduction in their tax bracket. so, instead of paying 15% they paid... [carry the one...] 12.3% (or 82% of the 15%). I mean, that doesn't fully make sense either, but...

I was waiting for someone to actually say that. When you start taking percentages of percentages, the numbers are distorted and meaningless, which again demonstrates the lack of accuracy in the original article.

Taxes are measured as a percentage of income. If you pay two pennies of tax on a million dollars of income, and then the next year you pay one penny, it's not accurate to say your tax rate dropped 50%. No, your tax rate decreased by 0.000001%, from 0.000002% to 0.000001%.

Whoever wrote the article understands this, but they're hoping their readers won't.

 

[rjs330]

I understood it to mean they simply paid a percentage less than they paid previously. It didn't say everyone did have a rate reduction.

For example, if I paid $1000 in taxes in a previous year I paid 18% less after the tax cuts. If I paid $100 then it would be 18% less after the tax cuts.

I think that's all it means. In this instance it appears that the middle class did receive a tax cut despite the misinformation the Democrats have been spewing. And the rich actually paid a bit more.

 

[NxNW]

In this instance it appears that the middle class did receive a tax cut despite the misinformation the Democrats have been spewing. And the rich actually paid a bit more.

Except there is nothing in the article to suggest that either statement is true.