LogFAQs > #899656302

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 168: Chemical Attacks are Syria's Business
Corrik 04/14/18 5:04:41 PM #347:	TheRock1525 posted... StealThisSheen posted... Corrik posted... TheRock1525 posted... http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/383045-wage-growth-well-short-of-what-was-promised-from-tax-reform Great job with those tax cuts, guys. There is something wrong with the numbers in that article. No one was projected to get a 4000-9000 dollar raise. Almost every estimate was everyone will see about $2,000 more dollars a year. Which is obvious if you just run your taxes last year with old tax code vs new tax code. Might have to add the hill as a dubious source after that article. Trump's administration said that https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/kevin-hassett-americans-would-get-a-raise-if-us-cuts-corporate-taxes.html The new report from Hassett, out Monday morning, projects that reducing the corporate tax rate to 20 percent will result in a windfall for U.S. workers. He predicted average U.S. household income would increase at least $4,000 a year but could rise as much as $9,000 annually. Last week, Larry Summers, a Treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton and an ex-Obama economic advisor, called an early look at the analysis flawed. "The idea that this is going to produce a $4,000 increase in wages is, I think, an absurdity," Summers said, arguing that "record highs" in corporate profits show that companies don't need an incentive to increase wages. In response to Summers, Hassett said, "It's hard to respond to something where he says it's an absurdity, but he doesn't say why. And I can tell you he doesn't say why because he doesn't know why." I think the larger point, too, is that it's nowhere near any of those fucking numbers. We just added $1 trillion in deficit so average person gets a couple hundred bucks a year. Well... 1. That dude is not Trump. 2. That dude is using major hurdles to get to that number with "average household" and stuff added in. The average household is not defined by him. It sounds like his average household isn't very average to me. 3. This only talks about corporate tax cuts. Not the tax cut to Americans. 4. This article is stupid and the fact the Hill takes that as not stupid and runs with it to make this counter article is equally as stupid. 5. I don't think the corporate tax rate even went to 20%. Think 21. 6. "The paper never says when workers would get this wage boost. At one point, it forecasts this would occur in the medium term while at another it says the wage effects are long run but it never defines either time-frame. Nor does it say how the $4,000 would be distributed among income groups." Just dumb shit all the way around on both sides of that right there. So we have the Hill saying how they didn't meet their analysis for medium to long term annual gains within 3 months. Great article, The Hill! You know your user demographics well! Lol Hassett claims that after companies use initial money to invest in equipment that in medium to long term the average household will see 4000 to 9000 annual raises. Doubtful depending on what his average household is. That is what the hill responded to. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:899656302] in Politics C... [t:76500975]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote>http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/383045-wage-growth-well-short-of-what-was-promised-from-tax-reform Great job with those tax cuts, guys.</quote> There is something wrong with the numbers in that article. No one was projected to get a 4000-9000 dollar raise. Almost every estimate was everyone will see about $2,000 more dollars a year. Which is obvious if you just run your taxes last year with old tax code vs new tax code. Might have to add the hill as a dubious source after that article.</quote> Trump's administration said that https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/kevin-hassett-americans-would-get-a-raise-if-us-cuts-corporate-taxes.html <quote>The new report from Hassett, out Monday morning, projects that reducing the corporate tax rate to 20 percent will result in a windfall for U.S. workers. He predicted average U.S. household income would increase at least $4,000 a year but could rise as much as $9,000 annually. Last week, Larry Summers, a Treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton and an ex-Obama economic advisor, called an early look at the analysis flawed. "The idea that this is going to produce a $4,000 increase in wages is, I think, an absurdity," Summers said, arguing that "record highs" in corporate profits show that companies don't need an incentive to increase wages. In response to Summers, Hassett said, "It's hard to respond to something where he says it's an absurdity, but he doesn't say why. And I can tell you he doesn't say why because he doesn't know why."</quote></quote> I think the larger point, too, is that it's nowhere near any of those fucking numbers. We just added $1 trillion in deficit so average person gets a couple hundred bucks a year.</quote> Well... 1. That dude is not Trump. 2. That dude is using major hurdles to get to that number with "average household" and stuff added in. The average household is not defined by him. It sounds like his average household isn't very average to me. 3. This only talks about corporate tax cuts. Not the tax cut to Americans. 4. This article is stupid and the fact the Hill takes that as not stupid and runs with it to make this counter article is equally as stupid. 5. I don't think the corporate tax rate even went to 20%. Think 21. 6. "The paper never says when workers would get this wage boost. At one point, it forecasts this would occur in the medium term while at another it says the wage effects are long run but it never defines either time-frame. Nor does it say how the $4,000 would be distributed among income groups." Just dumb shit all the way around on both sides of that right there. So we have the Hill saying how they didn't meet their analysis for medium to long term annual gains within 3 months. Great article, The Hill! You know your user demographics well! Lol Hassett claims that after companies use initial money to invest in equipment that in medium to long term the average household will see 4000 to 9000 annual raises. Doubtful depending on what his average household is. That is what the hill responded to. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1