The GOP Tax Cut and Rising Wages....or not.

[Andrew77]

Actually, they would probably finance it rather than pay for it from cash reserves.

That's not what a tax haven is. A tax haven is a jurisdiction where a corporation lives on paper, while doing its actual work elsewhere. Your company may have moved to OH for the lower taxes, but it's actually doing the work in OH. If, OTOH, your company had merely moved its HQ to OH (or just set up a PO Box there) and left its operations in CA, then it would be more accurately described as a tax haven.

AFAIK, they do some manufacturing in Ireland as well. But the value of Apple products is much less in their manufacturing and much more in the design and other IP, which is done predominantly in the US.

How Apple first landed in Ireland



They also have a lot more supply and/or an easier time adding to the supply. Yes, regulations are a problem in California, but it's zoning regulations related to NIMBYism and folks not wanting high-density buildings popping up in their low-density neighborhoods.



Calm down. I'm not lying. You're just failing to grasp the totality of the numbers.

Are gross, unadjusted revenues up from last year? Yes.

Once you adjust for inflation, are they still up? No.

That means, in real dollars, revenues went down.

To put it in terms of salary and purchasing power, let's saying that you make $10,000/yr, and widgets cost $10/ea, so for a year's worth of work, you can buy 1,000 widgets.

Let's also say that inflation is 10%, and to compensate, your boss gives you a 10% COLA. So, by year 2, you're making $11,000/yr, but each widget costs $11, so you can still only afford 1,000 widgets.

Now, let's say that, going into year 2, you decide to take off early an hour or two every Friday, reducing your work hours (and thus, your overall compensation) by 5%.

Cutting your hours by 5%, but getting a 10% COLA causes your gross pay in year 2 to be $10,450. That's a raise over the $10,000 in year 1, right? Well, no. Because those widgets are now $11/ea, you can now only afford 950 of them vs the 1,000 you could afford earlier. Your gross unadjusted wages went up, but your purchasing power (i.e. the number that really matters) went down.

NYT talks about this more here:
No, Trump’s Tax Cut Isn’t Paying for Itself (at Least Not Yet)

A tax haven is a jurisdiction where a corporation lives on paper, while doing its actual work elsewhere.

According to the definition:
tax ha·ven
/ˈtaks ˌhāvən/
noun
noun: tax haven; plural noun: tax havens

1. a country or independent area where taxes are levied at a low rate.

Actually, they would probably finance it rather than pay for it from cash reserves.

Usually that isn't true, because the cost in interest is much hire, than the cost to raise funds through bonds, or retained earnings. However, in the cases where a company might do that, the answer is still the same, because where do you think a bank gets their money from? The profits of other people, saved at the bank.

They also have a lot more supply and/or an easier time adding to the supply. Yes, regulations are a problem in California, but it's zoning regulations related to NIMBYism and folks not wanting high-density buildings popping up in their low-density neighborhoods.

Yeah, I understand they want to prevent stuff being built in their back yard. But that's a massive part of the problem. Justification for bad policy are endless. Doesn't change that it is bad policy that is driving up costs, not just "demand".

I also think a ton of people underestimate the cost of taxes on housing. Taxes drive up the cost of everything in California, from the cost of labor, to the cost of materials. All of those costs filter down into higher costs of housing.

 

[Andrew77]

In the US, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, study concludes

'Meanwhile, CEO pay has increased from about 20 times the typical worker’s pay to 271 times greater, from 1965 to 2016, according to 2017 a study by the EPI.'

So what? There is nothing wrong with that.

By the way, not only is there nothing wrong with it, but if you have a basic understanding of math, you should expect it.

The number one thing rich people do, is invest in things that make more wealth.

In the 1800s, the idea of having a chain of a thousand stores, was a dream. Today that's normal. So naturally a person that can operate a thousand stores, is going to earn more than a person that could only operate 20 stores in the 1800s.

Meanwhile, the minimum income for the typical worker, is still Zero.

The income floor..... zero.... has not changed in thousands of years of human history.
The income ceiling has increased, as it always has been increasing for thousands of years of human history.

So naturally the gap between the richest and poorest, is wider than ever.

The real question is, which economic system results in the best standard of living for the most people. Fact is, the lowest class of people in our country, live a better standard of living, than 6 billion people across this planet.

 

[iluvatar5150]

They also have a lot more supply and/or an easier time adding to the supply. Yes, regulations are a problem in California, but it's zoning regulations related to NIMBYism and folks not wanting high-density buildings popping up in their low-density neighborhoods.

Yeah, I understand they want to prevent stuff being built in their back yard. But that's a massive part of the problem. Justification for bad policy are endless. Doesn't change that it is bad policy that is driving up costs, not just "demand".

I also think a ton of people underestimate the cost of taxes on housing. Taxes drive up the cost of everything in California, from the cost of labor, to the cost of materials. All of those costs filter down into higher costs of housing.

FWIW, I'm not arguing that CA's housing prices aren't the result of bad policies - they absolutely are. What I'm arguing about is which policies are the culprits. As much as everybody likes to laud California as this liberal feel-good bohemian mecca, once money starts getting involved (as it does for people who've invested in homes), everybody starts looking out for #1, no matter how much patchouli you bathe in. In this case, everybody wants their sprawling, low-rise neighborhoods to stay sprawling, low-rise neighborhoods and all those poor people be *darned*.

Regarding taxes, if anything, high property taxes would apply downward pressure on home prices, because they would raise the total cost of ownership. The same thing applies to interest rates - low interest rates have been a factor in the rise of home prices. Now that interest rates are going back up, we should start to see a slow down in the appreciation of home values (something I'm not really looking forward to, because although I'm a liberal homeowner, I'm a greedy capitalist first).

 

[Andrew77]

FWIW, I'm not arguing that CA's housing prices aren't the result of bad policies - they absolutely are. What I'm arguing about is which policies are the culprits. As much as everybody likes to laud California as this liberal feel-good bohemian mecca, once money starts getting involved (as it does for people who've invested in homes), everybody starts looking out for #1, no matter how much patchouli you bathe in. In this case, everybody wants their sprawling, low-rise neighborhoods to stay sprawling, low-rise neighborhoods and all those poor people be *darned*.

Regarding taxes, if anything, high property taxes would apply downward pressure on home prices, because they would raise the total cost of ownership. The same thing applies to interest rates - low interest rates have been a factor in the rise of home prices. Now that interest rates are going back up, we should start to see a slow down in the appreciation of home values (something I'm not really looking forward to, because although I'm a liberal homeowner, I'm a greedy capitalist first).

Well arguing 'which policies' are the culprits is a bit strange, since naturally all policies cause an increase in price.

Regulation, almost by definition, increases costs because by their nature they make it more difficult to conduct business. By making it more difficult to do business, you naturally decrease supply, and thus increase price.

This is why ObamaCare drastically increased the cost of health care. By every single measure possible, health care became more expensive after they increased regulations on it.

So if you could, which policies do you think didn't increase housing costs, and which did?

As for taxes....

The taxes I was referring to, were of course all the other taxes that affect the cost of production of new housing. By drastically increasing the cost to build new housing, less new housing is built, and as demand increases beyond supply the price drastically goes up.

But specifically on property taxes, there is an odd sort of inversion effect that counteracts against the price suppression that would, as you pointed out, normally occur.

As property taxes increase, you end up pricing the lower end renters and buyers, out of the market. As a result, fewer units that cater to that end of the market are built. Because of this, the number of housing built in total, is reduced.

And as stated before, supply is reduced, and demand increase... you end up with higher prices, despite higher taxes.

In smaller localities, this effect is diminished, because they can simply buy/rent a place close to where they want to be. But in large areas, like San Diego or Las Angeles, there isn't a place near enough to rent from, that isn't in the high tax zone. This is why some people commute 2 hours into LA.

How this works is pretty simple. Say you are a developer, and have a plot of land that you wish to build apartments on. You could build low-end apartments, that are relatively small, but provide 50 units.

The problem is, with the property tax so high, you would have to charge a large amount of money to the residents. That would price your apartments out of the low end market.

So you need to charge a higher rent, in order to pay the taxes. But then you have a new problem. The residence that are willing to pay a much higher price, are not going to pay that high price, for a tiny apartment.

Instead you need to build larger apartments, which of course means fewer of them. You end up with 30 large apartments, instead of 50 smaller ones. Thus, you end up less supply of housing.... which means higher prices.

It does seem counter intuitive that property taxes would drive up prices, and any other situation where people have viable alternatives there are close by, you would be right. But if you have massive taxes over a large area, it actually ends up driving up prices, because it reduces supply.

I don't know how much I buy the concept that interest rates have a dramatic effect on housing prices.

Now obviously they have an effect. No question. But people seem to think it has a large effect, and I don't see evidence of that in history.

For example, from the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, the prime rate was barely 3%, to 4%. Yet during that time, housing prices remained fairly flat.

Then you look at the 1970s, and you had interest rates of 10% and higher, and yet housing prices were booming.

Same in the 1980s, we have a housing price boom, and interest rates were very high.

So I'm not seeing that lower interest rates drives up housing values, or that high interest rates pushed down housing values. I just don't see much evidence that really supports that idea.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It was the reductions in the personal tax rates that were outrageous, simply a gift to the rich,

How is it a gift? Aren't they simply keeping their own money?

 

[mark46]

Some here are true libertarians and believe that the there is no Social Compact and that none of the money "belongs" to the government for the services that they provide to us and to others in society. We must understand that this a small minority view in the US and in other developed countries.

As a society, we can and do argue with regard to what percentages should be required in taxes to support our governments, and which level of government should provide what services. But there is no question that a certain percentage is required to have a civil society, and to keep our tradition of the government providing considerable services to support and defend the life, liberty, and happiness of our citizens, residents and guests (consider roads and airports).

For me, the society is not providing its side of the Contract. Perhaps taxes are too low. we need to provide for our defense, and have a more modern military infrastructure, enough R&D, and enough training and supplies. Health care should be a right. Clean air and water should be rights. A safe workplace should be a right. A good education should be a right (and this requires paying enough to get good teachers); education is now terrible. A living wage for those that work should be a right. We should have a 21st century infrastructure that is at least comparable to that of other developed countries.

I am not arguing with regard to which level of government should provide these services. Society can certainly decide that local and state governments should do much more and, at very least, make more decisions. As I said when I started this post, there are libertarians who disagree with me, and want to have the government to be as small as possible and provide as few services as possible. We would pay for our libraries, roads (through toll) and our health care. Those less fortunate would be helped by charities not government.

I understand this view. I just strongly disagree. In the US, our taxes are too low to provide adequate services. And as an aside, we should include all taxes when counting what individuals percentage folks pay in taxes; we should include income, payroll, sales, property taxes, and government "fees". We would then understand that the working poor pay the highest rates. Personally, I would include the cost of "basic" health care as a tax. It is only in the US that individuals are responsible for these costs.
=======
One BOTTOM LINE is that we had a tax rate on individuals that was relatively low and perhaps not even high enough to provide adequate services (consider the monies needed on infrastructure). The debt was increase every year. It is technically OK for the government to have debt at a reasonable percentage of GNP. However, the government should NOT choose to reduce revenues by a trillion dollars and cause debt numbers and debt percentages to increase. We are likely to have enough growth to pay for almost all of the corporate tax rate decreases, although we should have closed loopholes that benefit hedge funds and real estate. HOWEVER, the reductions in the personal income rates were a decision to NOT pay for government services, to reduce government services and to borrow more.

How is it a gift? Aren't they simply keeping their own money?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Some here are true libertarians and believe that the there is no Social Compact and that none of the money "belongs" to the government for the services that they provide to us and to others in society. We must understand that this a small minority view in the US and in other developed countries.

I'm not sure who these true libertarians are that you speak of. You own what you earn even though some of that is necessarily used for government functions. But I don't think this changes the fact that you own the stuff that you earn.

But there is no question that a certain percentage is required to have a civil society, and to keep our tradition of the government providing considerable services to support and defend the life, liberty, and happiness of our citizens, residents and guests (consider roads and airports).

Agreed, but this doesn't change the fact that you own your own life, liberty and property. A tax cut isn't the gov't giving you something, it's really you just keeping more of your property and giving the gov't less of your property.

For me, the society is not providing its side of the Contract.

And a Contract implies that you own your stuff. So it seems you agree with my point. My point was really just a philosophical point. I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't pay taxes (I think we should - I'm not an anarchist or "True Libertarian" in that sense). What I am saying is that you own the product of your life and property. Yes, some of the will fund government functions out of, I believe, necessity. But until it's transferred, it's yours.

 

[Andrew77]

Some here are true libertarians and believe that the there is no Social Compact and that none of the money "belongs" to the government for the services that they provide to us and to others in society. We must understand that this a small minority view in the US and in other developed countries.

As a society, we can and do argue with regard to what percentages should be required in taxes to support our governments, and which level of government should provide what services. But there is no question that a certain percentage is required to have a civil society, and to keep our tradition of the government providing considerable services to support and defend the life, liberty, and happiness of our citizens, residents and guests (consider roads and airports).

For me, the society is not providing its side of the Contract. Perhaps taxes are too low. we need to provide for our defense, and have a more modern military infrastructure, enough R&D, and enough training and supplies. Health care should be a right. Clean air and water should be rights. A safe workplace should be a right. A good education should be a right (and this requires paying enough to get good teachers); education is now terrible. A living wage for those that work should be a right. We should have a 21st century infrastructure that is at least comparable to that of other developed countries.

I am not arguing with regard to which level of government should provide these services. Society can certainly decide that local and state governments should do much more and, at very least, make more decisions. As I said when I started this post, there are libertarians who disagree with me, and want to have the government to be as small as possible and provide as few services as possible. We would pay for our libraries, roads (through toll) and our health care. Those less fortunate would be helped by charities not government.

I understand this view. I just strongly disagree. In the US, our taxes are too low to provide adequate services. And as an aside, we should include all taxes when counting what individuals percentage folks pay in taxes; we should include income, payroll, sales, property taxes, and government "fees". We would then understand that the working poor pay the highest rates. Personally, I would include the cost of "basic" health care as a tax. It is only in the US that individuals are responsible for these costs.
=======
One BOTTOM LINE is that we had a tax rate on individuals that was relatively low and perhaps not even high enough to provide adequate services (consider the monies needed on infrastructure). The debt was increase every year. It is technically OK for the government to have debt at a reasonable percentage of GNP. However, the government should NOT choose to reduce revenues by a trillion dollars and cause debt numbers and debt percentages to increase. We are likely to have enough growth to pay for almost all of the corporate tax rate decreases, although we should have closed loopholes that benefit hedge funds and real estate. HOWEVER, the reductions in the personal income rates were a decision to NOT pay for government services, to reduce government services and to borrow more.

But there is no question that a certain percentage is required to have a civil society, and to keep our tradition of the government providing considerable services to support and defend the life, liberty, and happiness of our citizens, residents and guests (consider roads and airports).

1. It is pursuit of happiness. It is not the job of government to make you happy. It is the job of government to keep you free, and unharmed by criminals, so you can pursue your happiness. The difference being, if having food makes you happy, it is not governments job to provide you food, but rather governments job to protect your property so that the food you work for, and earn with your labor is not stolen from you.

2. The government was able to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, without any income tax for the first 130+ years, and it was a civil society.

For me, the society is not providing its side of the Contract.

That would be because you have a false mentality on what you think you are 'owed' by society. Society doesn't owe you anything.

Health care should be a right.

On what basis do you think, that you are owed the enslaved labor of other people? This is immoral and evil.

One BOTTOM LINE is that we had a tax rate on individuals that was relatively low and perhaps not even high enough to provide adequate services (consider the monies needed on infrastructure).

Yeah, because higher taxes provides all the money to pay for everything right? This is why California has no debt, and has tons of cash reserves. OR are they in danger of default? Why yes they are. California depending on how you look at it, is the most poor of all the states.

This is why Greece has the highest standard of living in Europe, and the most up to date infrastructure, and the best debt to GDP ratio. Oh wait, they almost imploded as a country, and have had a government budget crisis for a decade.

You can say how we just need higher taxes, until the end of time. The fact remains that higher and higher taxes has never resulted in the utopian views you claim. Greece's health care sucks too, and so does California's. Your views have never had long term good results. Short term.. yeah, we get more money in the government.... long term, there is never enough money to fund everything that spoiled brat government beneficiaries want.

 

[The Barbarian]

Remember the GOP promise of rising wages with the December 2017 tax cut given to corporations?

U.S. companies are putting savings from the corporate tax cut to use, but only a fraction of it is flowing to employees’ wallets, new data show.

A new survey of 152 companies by executive-recruitment firm Korn Ferry International revealed 14% were putting part of their tax-cut savings into base salary increases. A poll of 1,500 companies by consulting firm Mercer LLC showed 4% are redirecting tax savings to budgets for bigger paychecks in the coming year. And in a survey of more than 1,000 companies published by human-resources consulting firm Aon PLC, 99% said the tax cuts weren’t prompting them to increase minimum wages.

Tax Cuts Provide Limited Boost to Workers’ Wages

Did anyone, anywhere, actually believe that story? I don't think so.

 

[Andrew77]

Did anyone, anywhere, actually believe that story? I don't think so.

But the story itself says some of the money did go to wage increases. Other stores point out that some of the money that 'didn't go to wage increases' went to profit sharing bonuses, that many companies (including mine) have.

So did the tax cuts raise wages? Yes. Maybe not by trillions of dollars, but unsurprisingly.... yes it did.

 

[The Barbarian]

But the story itself says some of the money did go to wage increases. Other stores point out that some of the money that 'didn't go to wage increases' went to profit sharing bonuses, that many companies (including mine) have.

So did the tax cuts raise wages? Yes. Maybe not by trillions of dollars, but unsurprisingly.... yes it did.

Less than 15%. You know where most of it went? Businesses buying up their own stock to pump share prices.

The "raise wages" story was just to sell the giveaway.

 

[Andrew77]

Less than 15%. You know where most of it went? Businesses buying up their own stock to pump share prices.

The "raise wages" story was just to sell the giveaway.

And yet, you just said less than 15%. Which means a chunk of that money, raised wages.

The claim was tax cut could lead to increased wages, and you just admitted that.

No one said every single penny would be used to raise wages. You are contradicting a claim never made.

And by the way, you complain about it being used to buy up stock. How is that bad? In fact, given that vast majority of all retirement savings across this entire country, is tied up in stocks..... isn't buying stock also a benefit to employees? Yes it is.

I know this for a fact, because I myself own stock, and I have a 401K, that is also invested in stock. Both of my portfolios are doing very nicely. I, with my massive upper-class income of .... $25,000 a year, am benefiting from the stock buy backs.

 

[The Barbarian]

And yet, you just said less than 15%. Which means a chunk of that money, raised wages.

The crumbs, in other words.

The claim was tax cut could lead to increased wages, and you just admitted that.

No one said every single penny would be used to raise wages.

No one said that the vast majority of the money would go to the rich, either. Well, accountants and so on, did. Trump told us that the cut was going to cost him money. Turns out, he made millions on it. So did all his friends. They were feeling generous, so they gave the rest of us a few dollars. How generous.

Oh, and this is going to jack up the debt by about 2 trillion dollars. When it comes time pay for this lavish tax cut, do you think the rich are going to be paying for it? No, I don't, either.

I know this for a fact, because I myself own stock, and I have a 401K, that is also invested in stock. Both of my portfolios are doing very nicely.

For instance, Trump’s comparison falters if you look at the Dow’s performance between Inauguration Day and Jan. 5 of a president’s second calendar year in office, rather than Election Day.


Starting with Trump’s inauguration, the Dow has risen from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of 26 percent. That’s impressive.


But it’s not as impressive as its performance during the equivalent period under Obama. Under Obama, the Dow increased from 7,949.1 to 10,572 — a rise of 33 percent.
How Trump, Obama compare on the stock market

And I suppose you haven't looked lately...

Oct. 10 2018
Dow falls 832 points in third-worst day by points ever
Dow falls 832 points as techs get hit hard - CNN

Oct. 18 2018
Dow falls more than 300 points as the market’s October struggles persist
Dow falls more than 300 points as the market's October struggles persist

The bubble caused by the huge tax cut for the rich didn't last because the vast majority of the cut went to people who didn't spend it on good and services.

Looks like a recession is on the way.

What is the recession-is-coming crowd focusing on? The consensus expectation is that the economic boost from the corporate tax cuts will fade in coming quarters. The GDP numbers so far don’t show the administration’s promised surge in business investment, the kind that leads to higher, sustainable growth. Instead, as the economy shifts into lower gear, it will be vulnerable to a stumble or unexpected shock — with government, business and consumers debt at nosebleed levels.
Is The Next Recession On Its Way?

The promised benefits didn't happen, precisely because the beneficiaries of this handout had not incentive to raise wages; they mostly just kept the money. And I don't blame them; if we're stupid enough to hand out free cash, why should we blame them for accepting it?

 

[Andrew77]

The crumbs, in other words.

No one said that the vast majority of the money would go to the rich, either. Well, accountants and so on, did. Trump told us that the cut was going to cost him money. Turns out, he made millions on it. So did all his friends. They were feeling generous, so they gave the rest of us a few dollars. How generous.

Oh, and this is going to jack up the debt by about 2 trillion dollars. When it comes time pay for this lavish tax cut, do you think the rich are going to be paying for it? No, I don't, either.



For instance, Trump’s comparison falters if you look at the Dow’s performance between Inauguration Day and Jan. 5 of a president’s second calendar year in office, rather than Election Day.


Starting with Trump’s inauguration, the Dow has risen from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of 26 percent. That’s impressive.


But it’s not as impressive as its performance during the equivalent period under Obama. Under Obama, the Dow increased from 7,949.1 to 10,572 — a rise of 33 percent.
How Trump, Obama compare on the stock market

And I suppose you haven't looked lately...

Oct. 10 2018
Dow falls 832 points in third-worst day by points ever
Dow falls 832 points as techs get hit hard - CNN

Oct. 18 2018
Dow falls more than 300 points as the market’s October struggles persist
Dow falls more than 300 points as the market's October struggles persist

The bubble caused by the huge tax cut for the rich didn't last because the vast majority of the cut went to people who didn't spend it on good and services.

Looks like a recession is on the way.

What is the recession-is-coming crowd focusing on? The consensus expectation is that the economic boost from the corporate tax cuts will fade in coming quarters. The GDP numbers so far don’t show the administration’s promised surge in business investment, the kind that leads to higher, sustainable growth. Instead, as the economy shifts into lower gear, it will be vulnerable to a stumble or unexpected shock — with government, business and consumers debt at nosebleed levels.
Is The Next Recession On Its Way?

The promised benefits didn't happen, precisely because the beneficiaries of this handout had not incentive to raise wages; they mostly just kept the money. And I don't blame them; if we're stupid enough to hand out free cash, why should we blame them for accepting it?

First off, no one handed out "free money". You show me where the US government wrote checks to corporations or CEOs. You can't, so you lied, and you need to stop.

Second, we just read where some of the money was used to raise wages. So you are wrong. We did see benefits as promised.

Your argument appears to be based on greed. "It benefited the rich more than the rest of us", is not a good argument. Saying that workers should not get a pay rise, because you can't stand it that the rich got a pay raise too, is an argument based on greed and envy.

I don't buy that argument.

I don't care if Warren Buffet doubles his net worth, if I'm better off. Fact is... I'm better off. Nothing you say, changes the fact, that I'm better off. I'm doing better this year, than in any other year in the last 25.

Saying that somehow I'd be better off without even crumbs, as long as someone else doesn't get a slice.... is not just evil and immoral... it is flat out idiotic.

"Better if you starve to death, as long as some rich guy can't afford another yacht!"

Never mind the fact that rich people buying yachts, itself creates jobs.

But that is dumb. That is a stupid argument. If you are actually happy that poor people are poorer, as long as a rich guy doesn't have more money.... I would ask you to reconsider your ideology.

As for comparing Obama to Trump on the DOW, I'm always amazed at these selective arguments. If you had compared Obama to Trump during the first year, Trump would have won easily. Obama came after a crash of the stock market, from bad pro-sub-prime lending policies that he himself pushed.

I would have expected there to be a bigger gain in the stock market under Obama, if for no other reason, than the market was artificially low from a crash.
That fact it recovered so poorly, shows how bad his policies were.

As for Trump, the reason the stock market is having jitters right now is because of this idiotic protectionism he keeps pushing. Trump needs to cut that crap out.

Regardless, my portfolio is doing well. Certainly the tax cuts have worked.

 

[The Barbarian]

First off, no one handed out "free money".

That's what tax cuts for special interest groups are.

You can't, so you lied, and you need to stop.

You'd probably be more effective if you tried to put a decent argument together, instead of tossing accusations.

Your argument appears to be based on greed.

The tax cut was base on greed. The wealthy wanted almost all of the money for themselves, and since they have a compliant president and Congress, they got it.

"Better if you starve to death, as long as some rich guy can't afford another yacht!"

If you make up stories and insist others told them, isn't that a pretty good admission that you don't have an argument?

As for comparing Obama to Trump on the DOW, I'm always amazed at these selective arguments.

Well, we really can't do that, yet. As you learned, the first year or so, a president is really riding on whatever his predecessor did.

If you had compared Obama to Trump during the first year, Trump would have won easily.

Good example. That would be measuring Obama by Bush's policies.

Obama came after a crash of the stock market, from bad pro-sub-prime lending policies that he himself pushed.

Nope. In fact, as you learned, he criticized Bush for letting it happen. And he cracked down on fraudulent loan practices. BTW, the Trump administration...

President Donald Trump on Thursday signed into law a bill that rolls back banking regulations passed in response to the 2008 financial crisis, declaring it a "big deal for our country."

The measure, which passed the House this week, leaves the central structure of the post-financial-crisis rules in place, but it makes the most significant changes to weaken the Dodd-Frank banking regulations since they were passed in 2010. It exempts some small and regional banks from the most stringent regulations and also loosens rules aimed at protecting the biggest banks from sudden collapse.
Trump signs law rolling back post-financial crisis banking rules

You're blaming Obama for doing what your guy actually did. And as you see, Obama moved to end that kind of dangerous financial dishonesty. Trump made it legal again. Do you even think before you write about things?