Current Events > Majority of Americans not seeing change in paychecks from GOP tax cuts

(+) Yeah! (+)

oh for sure ZH is about the last place i'd go to look for info, i just know better than to take the easy path when refuting

the author made it easy enough to unveil his own bias, and the narrative that the campaign was telling professional pollsters how to run their own polls is entirely unsupported since the emails appear to be to internal campaign pollers

why the campaign would want to bias their own polls i don't know. i'd need to read the entire project atlas pdf to determine that
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

How many of the people sampled pay much if anything in federal income taxes in the first place? Note also that a sizable portion of the sample did see an increase in their income due to the tax cuts. The news wrapped that up in biased rhetoric like "just 32%" but that doesn't mean 32% is a trivial number.

probably about half.

fwiw, the left's agenda was not that 'no one except the rich would see cuts' so much as 'no one except the rich would see cuts of note' which i think we can agree drives a fair portion of this, since whatever cut anyone gets is being divided by 12-52 since it's spread over all their paychecks.

I think that's a very simplistic argument that doesn't do reality justice. "Cuts of note" is subjective. Note that the left was repeatedly saying nobody besides the ultra rich would get tax cuts in general. I wish I saved those posts, would've been hilarious to post them now. In any case, 32% of people (potentially more given the portion that gave no response) is a large subset of the population to me. Large enough to be worth it.

Especially when you consider things like:

1) Most of the people claiming no increase in income likely don't pay much if anything in federal income tax to begin with.

2) The people who did see a cut can invest that free money and let it compound over the next 3-7 years and grow with the market to make it an even bigger pile of free cash.
---

ZH is more of a blog than a news channel AFAIK
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I think that's a very simplistic argument that doesn't do reality justice. "Cuts of note" is subjective. Note that the left was repeatedly saying nobody besides the ultra rich would get tax cuts in general. I wish I saved those posts, would've been hilarious to post them now. In any case, 32% of people (potentially more given the portion that gave no response) is a large subset of the population to me. Large enough to be worth it.

i get you. if half the population pays no federal income taxes, then the implication is 64% of the population that does pay federal income taxes got a cut that was at least large enough to be visible to them. possibly more of them might've gotten small salary increases. statistically anyone not in a state with a high income tax rate and/or high real estate value is likely to at least see some increase.

i wouldn't assume any bias in the nonrespondants; it's best to assume nothing about them and treat respondants as representative as the sample size is sufficiently large as-is.

now, whether they needed it is another question entirely, as is the question of how the money could've otherwise been spent.

personally i'd have favored it being spent on the infrastructure plan we know will not happen.
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

I would agree with you except that he was using a s*** source to attack another well regarded source. He's not even attempting an honest argument there.

he never is, but i never argue with him because i want to convince him.
---

Darkman124 posted...

i get you. if half the population pays no federal income taxes, then the implication is 64% of the population that does pay federal income taxes got a cut that was at least large enough to be visible to them.

Exactly. And why the fuck didn't anyone mention that shit until I posted it? It's the key fact that completely changes TC's bullshit narrative.

Darkman124 posted...

now, whether they needed it is another question entirely, as is the question of how the money could've otherwise been spent.

That's a slippery slope though. I don't like to frame it in just terms of whether or not someone "needs" it. Considering that most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (arguably due to squandering their income on exorbitant car payments, Starbucks, and iphones) it seems like it'll be welcome.

Darkman124 posted...

personally i'd have favored it being spent on the infrastructure plan we know will not happen.

I'd have liked that more than the tax cut tbqh, would've employed a lot of people and helped modernize the country. But in lieu of that I won't say no to the $3,000 more per year that's going into my pocket rather than the government's pocket.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

considering the left was adamant that nobody besides the ultra rich would see tax cuts.

I think the democratic caucus made some noise about this, but broadly speaking the left of center advocacy groups were not arguing that no one would see tax cuts, we were arguing that the vast majority would go to the ultra rich, which is still true

ofc it is difficult to create a broad based tax cut that doesn't favor the rich for obvious reasons
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's a slippery slope though. I don't like to frame it in just terms of whether or not someone "needs" it. Considering that most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (arguably due to squandering their income on exorbitant car payments, Starbucks, and iphones) it seems like it'll be welcome.

most of those americans already don't pay federal income taxes, though.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I'd have liked that more than the tax cut tbqh, would've employed a lot of people and helped modernize the country. But in lieu of that I won't say no to the $3,000 more per year that's going into my pocket rather than the government's pocket.

morally i'd like to, but i have a hard time saying no to what the tax cut did for my investment accounts.
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

considering the left was adamant that nobody besides the ultra rich would see tax cuts.

I think the democratic caucus made some noise about this, but broadly speaking the left of center advocacy groups were not arguing that no one would see tax cuts, we were arguing that the vast majority would go to the ultra rich, which is still true

ofc it is difficult to create a broad based tax cut that doesn't favor the rich for obvious reasons

And it's demonstrably not true that the "vast majority" is going to the ultra rich, unless you're going to keep redefining "vast majority" as needed in order to keep up with that narrative.

The left is putting out all kinds of bullshit. Just look at the first post in the topic. Absolutely no mention of how many of the sampled even pay federal income tax to begin with.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

And it's demonstrably not true that the "vast majority" is going to the ultra rich,

yes it is.

the tax cut is written to sunset all aspects that benefit the middle class (while introducing different inflation metrics for the marginal rates that hurt the middle class over time), and none of the corporate cut aspects.
---

Darkman124 posted...

most of those americans already don't pay federal income taxes, though.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html

78% of full-time workers are living paycheck to paycheck. That includes people who are paying federal income taxes.

10% of six-figure earners are living paycheck to paycheck too.

Darkman124 posted...

morally i'd like to, but i have a hard time saying no to what the tax cut did for my investment accounts.

We can dispense with the difficulties around morality lol. You don't have to appease the leftists on CE, they're not gonna seize your McMansion if you don't.
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

And it's demonstrably not true that the "vast majority" is going to the ultra rich,

yes it is.

the tax cut is written to sunset all aspects that benefit the middle class (while introducing different inflation metrics for the marginal rates that hurt the middle class over time), and none of the corporate cut aspects.

So when Democrats come into power they can remove that portion or extend the middle class tax cuts some more. What a great opportunity for Democrats to finally work for the American people!
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

And it's demonstrably not true that the "vast majority" is going to the ultra rich, unless you're going to keep redefining "vast majority" as needed in order to keep up with that narrative.

please, go ahead and demonstrate that then

20% of the total tax benefits go to the top 1%

like I said that is to be expected, but it is also to be expected because you should expect most of the benefits to go to the ultra rich

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The left is putting out all kinds of bullshit. Just look at the first post in the topic. Absolutely no mention of how many of the sampled even pay federal income tax to begin with.

Why does that matter?

Jesus christ, the goal posts move all over the place here.

If you're packaging your tax cut as a tax cut for average americans and the average american doesn't benefit from your tax cut, that is useful information regardless of why they do not benefit from it.
---

78% of full-time workers are living paycheck to paycheck. That includes people who are paying federal income taxes.

some, yeah. if we assume 1:1 scaling here, that'd suggest 56% of those who pay federal income tax are living paycheck to paycheck.

which is...baffling. i'll concede the point on that one.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

We can dispense with the difficulties around morality lol. You don't have to appease the leftists on CE, they're not gonna seize your McMansion if you don't.

don't be an ass.
---

it's like you guys can't decide what your rejoinder should be

-> ask payroll companies, people are too stupid to know if they get tax benefits

-> also if you did ask payroll companies and they told you like 50% of people didn't get a tax cut, that doesn't matter
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

So when Democrats come into power they can remove that portion or extend the middle class tax cuts some more. What a great opportunity for Democrats to finally work for the American people!

i have little doubt that circa 2020 you'll see dems running on a platform of 'trade the corporate cut for permanency of the middle class cut.'

bear market will start well in advance of that though.
---

Balrog0 posted...

please, go ahead and demonstrate that then

20% of the total tax benefits go to the top 1%

like I said that is to be expected, but it is also to be expected because you should expect most of the benefits to go to the ultra rich

That's in net gain. Of course the rich are going to inherit more dollars as a result of the tax cuts. It's basic math. I was referring to the number of people being affected by the tax cuts. Not clear on my part, my bad.

Balrog0 posted...

Why does that matter?

Jesus christ, the goal posts move all over the place here.

If you're packaging your tax cut as a tax cut for average americans and the average american doesn't benefit from your tax cut, that is useful information regardless of why they do not benefit from it.

What? You really don't think it matters to have pointed out that most of the people sampled who said they saw no increase don't even pay much if any federal income tax to begin with? That changes the entire narrative. It's absolutely crucial information.

You have to be paying taxes in order to be eligible for a tax cut FFS. Looks like 32% of the people sampled in this one poll are seeing tax cuts. What kind of income tax are the ones who aren't paying each year?
---

Mine went up about $30
---

Darkman124 posted...

some, yeah. if we assume 1:1 scaling here, that'd suggest 56% of those who pay federal income tax are living paycheck to paycheck.

which is...baffling. i'll concede the point on that one.

It's because of the extremely high (optional) average car payments, Starbucks, iphones, etc. People are shitting away their money. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

The average car payment invested over the average working career would make someone a multi millionaire at retirement.

Darkman124 posted...

don't be an ass.

;( Yeah you're right, sometimes I can't help myself.

Darkman124 posted...

i have little doubt that circa 2020 you'll see dems running on a platform of 'trade the corporate cut for permanency of the middle class cut.'

bear market will start well in advance of that though.

Permanent middle class cuts sound good to me. No middle class American should be losing 30 to 35 percent of their annual income to federal and state taxes, especially considering we're hardly seeing anything from that money.

That amount invested over 10 years would bring financial freedom to most of those Americans.

And I'm not worried about a bear market. In fact I want one so I can buy stuff at a discount at the bottom of the market.
---

Balrog0 posted...

it's like you guys can't decide what your rejoinder should be

-> ask payroll companies, people are too stupid to know if they get tax benefits

-> also if you did ask payroll companies and they told you like 50% of people didn't get a tax cut, that doesn't matter

Uh, obviously we'd ask payroll companies to provide data on the average tax increase for the people who do pay income tax. Probably broken down by income range.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

What? You really don't think it matters to have pointed out that most of the people sampled who said they saw no increase don't even pay much if any federal income tax to begin with? That changes the entire narrative. It's absolutely crucial information.

what does it change?

FLUFFYGERM posted...

You have to be paying taxes in order to be eligible for a tax cut FFS. Looks like 32% of the people sampled in this one poll are seeing tax cuts. What kind of income tax are the ones who aren't paying each year?

I mean, to be totally accurate, every one pays federal taxes and gets them remitted; most people who 'don't pay taxes' don't pay taxes because they receive credits that make their taxable income zero and often negative if the credits are refundable

But you can still help them get more money in their pockets through the federal income tax code.

I'm not saying you shouldn't expect that lots of people won't benefit from a federal income tax cut. I'm saying that people like congressional republicans and possibly you were acting like it would be good for everyone, which isn't true for the very reason that lots of people don't have a federal income tax burden. I don't see how it changes the narrative at all, unless your narrative was a very narrow one about nominal federal income tax rates

like they expanded credits for child care, which is one of the only reasons the 'cuts' are good for really actually going to be noticeable for middle class americans. people are talking about that aspect of a tax cut as still being a tax cut. you could expand credits that help people without kids, too. no reason to focus on rates to the exclusion of everything else in this discussion
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It's because of the extremely high (optional) average car payments, Starbucks, iphones, etc. People are shitting away their money. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

It is pretty impressive how frequently people will waste small quantities of money, not stopping to consider how much it really adds up to over the year or even just a few months.
---

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ComplexExemplaryEastrussiancoursinghounds-mobile.mp4
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

considering the left was adamant that nobody besides the ultra rich would see tax cuts.

I think the democratic caucus made some noise about this, but broadly speaking the left of center advocacy groups were not arguing that no one would see tax cuts, we were arguing that the vast majority would go to the ultra rich, which is still true

ofc it is difficult to create a broad based tax cut that doesn't favor the rich for obvious reasons

Given that the rich also pay the majority of taxes it is not unreasonable for them to get the most benefit.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Given that the rich also pay the majority of taxes it is not unreasonable for them to get the most benefit.

that's fine, just package it as a tax cut that mainly benefits the wealthy and be honest about it then?
---

Darkman124 posted...

The podesta emails you reference, unless I'm mistaken, appear to be for internal democratic party pollsters providing campaign models. I'm not seeing anything of the project directly messing with outside pollsters; the language 'making the most of media polls' seems one that ZH (and you) were eager to run with, but not one that conclusively defines a link.

And it's not an attempt to sway the public by saying "Wow our internal polls have us doing super good!". That's not beneficial to them because they depress their own turnout as much as they would the opposition's. The point was to oversample certain groups of people to identify where to target turnout.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

How many of the people sampled pay much if anything in federal income taxes in the first place?

Is that important when it comes to the public perception of a bill? You can tell Blue Collar Joe/Jill that the reason they didn't see a pay increase was because they ultimately don't pay that much in taxes, but when they go to vote in the Fall, they aren't going to give credit to the GOP for cutting OTHER people's taxes.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Is that important when it comes to the public perception of a bill? You can tell Blue Collar Joe/Jill that the reason they didn't see a pay increase was because they ultimately don't pay that much in taxes, but when they go to vote in the Fall, they aren't going to give credit to the GOP for cutting OTHER people's taxes.

So basically, we're fucked as a nation because of how unbelievably stupid people are.
---

Balrog0 posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Given that the rich also pay the majority of taxes it is not unreasonable for them to get the most benefit.

that's fine, just package it as a tax cut that mainly benefits the wealthy and be honest about it then?

It benefits all though given that tax rates fall across the board.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Is that important when it comes to the public perception of a bill? You can tell Blue Collar Joe/Jill that the reason they didn't see a pay increase was because they ultimately don't pay that much in taxes, but when they go to vote in the Fall, they aren't going to give credit to the GOP for cutting OTHER people's taxes.

So basically, we're fucked as a nation because of how unbelievably stupid people are.

Yes
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Is that important when it comes to the public perception of a bill? You can tell Blue Collar Joe/Jill that the reason they didn't see a pay increase was because they ultimately don't pay that much in taxes, but when they go to vote in the Fall, they aren't going to give credit to the GOP for cutting OTHER people's taxes.

So basically, we're fucked as a nation because of how unbelievably stupid people are.

Pretty sure that was proven by both parties in 2016.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

It benefits all though given that tax rates fall across the board.

okay, but mainly the benefits accrue to the wealthy, vs. other forms of tax reform, even simple tax cuts, like cutting the payroll tax as GWB did

so just be honest about how the benefits are mainly for the wealthy and it's fine
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

So basically, we're f***ed as a nation because of how unbelievably stupid people are.

See:
Balrog0 posted...

that's fine, just package it as a tax cut that mainly benefits the wealthy and be honest about it then?

The GOP sold their base on how great the tax bill was going to be for them. They set up the expectations.

Also, there have always been "unbelievably stupid people" in the public. That doesn't make us ****ed.
---

Anteaterking posted...

The GOP sold their base on how great the tax bill was going to be for them. They set up the expectations.

Also, there have always been "unbelievably stupid people" in the public. That doesn't make us ****ed.

I know

what I'm less sure about is how conservatives (edit: on CE) feel about it

an ideological conservative should be okay with just saying rich people benefit because rich people pay and leaving it at that. if they want they might elaborate on how the tax cuts for corporations will lead to higher wages and more hiring, though that is speculative as only like 4 million americans have seen bonuses or raises due to the tax cut (but that is still an argument to be made that doesn't pretend the bill has an equitable or pro-middle class impact)

it really isn't in line with trump-style populism though
---

Balrog0 posted...

I know

what I'm less sure about is how conservatives feel about it

an ideological conservative should be okay with just saying rich people benefit because rich people pay and leaving it at that. if they want they might elaborate on how the tax cuts for corporations will lead to higher wages and more hiring, though that is speculative as only like 4 million americans have seen bonuses or raises due to the tax cut (but that is still an argument to be made that doesn't pretend the bill has an equitable or pro-middle class impact)

it really isn't in line with trump-style populism though

I was agreeing with you, I was just pointing Proud to your point and adding on to it.
---

I didnt mean to sound combative lol

I was trying to add on to that

I think that many conservatives would be ok with the bill not benefiting especially the poor, but I dunno how trump voters feel about it, basically. mostly the reaction is to pretend that isn't the case
---

Reducing the rates themselves is the simplest way to cut taxes. That said selling the cut by percentage points is the easist and most practical way to communicate it as people's income vary. It would be impractical to personalize the message as a 1% tax reduction might mean $100 or $100000 depending how much the person earns and pays in the first place. Let people know the rate changes and let them do the math themselves to find out the cut in absolute terms.
---

Kineth posted...

More like you need the tax revenue to pay for the government programs so that the national debt doesn't increase and eventually gets us hemorrhaging and owing money to places like China.

But yeah, what the fuck is good about a balanced budget?

This is why we need a balanced budget amendment.

My paychecks actually got lower.

Darkman124 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Has inflation started?
My sources say it's at 10% a year.

tell me more about your sources.

*shrug*
Just my dad tbh. He said he was back into stock investment to try to make up for inflation. He keeps up with these things much more than I do.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

*shrug*
Just my dad tbh. He said he was back into stock investment to try to make up for inflation. He keeps up with these things much more than I do.

In the last thirty years, it's been above 5% once.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Kineth posted...

You people talk of dependence and clearly our education system failed you.

Then again, I think Coosh isn't American either.

Clearly, as I'm well in the 90th percentile of wage earners in the US and my wife and I combined are well over that.

I'm down with lopping off expenses we don't need to balance the budget. I balance my budget why shouldn't the government.

I agree with that, but cutting tax revenue isn't lopping off expenses.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

I balance my budget why shouldn't the government.

If I offered you a loan at 1% interest and you had a savings account that made 2% interest, would you take it, even if you didn't need the loan for anything?
---

Anteaterking posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

*shrug*
Just my dad tbh. He said he was back into stock investment to try to make up for inflation. He keeps up with these things much more than I do.

In the last thirty years, it's been above 5% once.

Yeah he was specifically talking about the direction Trump is trying to drive things.
---

I can always clarify with him what he's looking at if you guys are really that interested. I'm not following it like he is.
---

Might as well.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Might as well.

Apparently I was wrong about the numbers. He said it's going up per the US government projections and as those say, they are moderate projections under the current circumstances. Exact number is ~2%
---