/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>22398763
>ou have to compare the difference in income, not just the nominal change from one year to next.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54647

>In 2018, the government’s revenues amounted to $3.3 trillion—$14 billion (or less than 1 percent) more than in 2017. As a percentage of GDP, revenues fell from 17.2 percent in 2017 to 16.4 percent in 2018, dropping below the average (17.4 percent) for the past 50 years.

Post tax-cuts, federal revenue INCREASED by ~0.5 percent, or $14 billion

>Net spending by the government was $4.1 trillion in 2018—$127 billion (or 3.2 percent) more than in 2017. Outlays amounted to 20.3 percent of GDP in 2018, compared with 20.7 percent in 2017, and were equal to the 50-year average. If not for the shift in the timing of certain payments, outlays in 2018 would have equaled 20.5 percent of GDP.

The Congressional budget bill exploded spending by $127 billion.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-11/55824-CBO-MBR-FY19.pdf

>In 2019, the government’s revenues amounted to $3.5 trillion—$133 billion (or 4 percent) more than in
2018.

Wait a minute, federal revenues increased AGAIN after these budget-busting tax cuts! That's odd! But where are these deficits coming fr-

>Net spending by the government was $4.4 trillion in 2019—$339 billion (or 8 percent) more than in 2018.

> I'm also talking about the long term impact over a decade+, not just one year.

Those were a hilarious projection that projected flat economic growth for a decade, which literally everyone agreed was bullshit -- the tax cuts would have at least SOME pro-growth effect. In real life, the economy took off like a rocket, and the tax cuts paid for themselves, right up until COVID wrecked every economy in the world.

I say this with love, but you need to know what you're talking about if you want to talk policy here. Reading some headline on some left-wing blog that is lying to you is not knowing what you're talking about.