SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Sunday, Dec. 22, will mark the two-year anniversary of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the signature legislative achievement of the Trump Administration. While President Trump and Republicans still proclaim the law a success, data from independent and authoritative sources overwhelmingly shows that the many promises that helped convince lawmakers to speed enactment of the tax overhaul have failed to come true.
A new report by Americans for Tax Fairness, Chartbook: Trump-GOP Tax Cuts Failing Workers and the Economy, details eight key promises made by Trump and the GOP to help get the tax cuts enacted into law. (The law took effect Jan. 1, 2018.) The report uses the latest economic data that shows their rosy scenarios have wilted in the glaring light of actual facts.
And a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) shows 91 profitable Fortune 500 corporations--including Amazon, Chevron, Halliburton and IBM--paid no federal income taxes in 2018 the year following the tax law's passage. Moreover, 379 profitable corporations paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 11.3% on their 2018 income, slightly more than half the 21% corporate tax rate--which already had been slashed down from 35% in 2017.
Taken together, the two reports paint a devastating picture of the true impacts of the costly $1.9 trillion Republican tax plan, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. The ATF report catalogs the many predictions about who would benefit most from the tax cuts (including a $4,000 family pay-raise guarantee), how much they would cost and how much the economy would grow, and how each of those promises have proven false. The ITEP report shows that while the tax law cut the corporate rate by 40% - from 35% to 21% - financial data from 379 profitable corporations show they paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 11.3%, the lowest in decades.
"In 2017, we were told repeatedly that the giant, unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would increase jobs, pay for themselves, give every family a big raise and would really hurt rich people like Donald Trump," said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. "Two years later, the evidence is in, and all their promises look like a Macy's parade balloon the day after Thanksgiving."
The links below go to the Chartbook, which includes the original sources.
1. PROMISE: IT WILL BE A MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT.
REALITY: The tax cuts are mostly going to corporations and their wealthy owners.
2. PROMISE: WEALTHY PEOPLE - LIKE DONALD TRUMP - WON'T BENEFIT FROM THE TAX CUTS.
REALITY: President Trump and his family will benefit personally by millions of dollars from at least five features of the law: lower top income tax rates; the deep corporate tax cuts; a weakened estate tax; a tax break mostly benefitting wealthy business owners like Trump (see below); and real-estate loopholes the law opened. [Americans for Tax Fairness]
3. PROMISE: Working families will quickly get a $4,000 to $9,000 raise.
REALITY:
4. PROMISE: Small businesses will receive a big tax cut.
REALITY: Almost half the benefits of this supposed "small" business tax cut are going to the tiny sliver of businesses with over $1 million in annual income. Less than a quarter is going to firms with an income of $200,000 or less. [Joint Committee on Taxation/Bloomberg News]
5. PROMISE: The economy will grow by 4%, 5%, or 6%.
REALITY: Economic growth (GDP) since the tax law was enacted has been in line with the Obama years. Annual growth hasn't hit 3% under Trump, and growth during the first three quarters of 2019 is averaging 2.4%. [Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)] The Federal Reserve predicts growth of 2.2% for the full year.
6. PROMISE: Tax cuts will pay for themselves.
REALITY: The total cost of the tax cuts is estimated at $1.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which will be added to the national debt. Conservatives claimed the law's lower tax rates would raise a lot more revenue through greater economic activity. But largely due to the tax cuts (especially for corporations), the deficit has exploded, reaching nearly $1 trillion in 2019, up more than 70% from the $585 billion during Obama's last year in office. [U.S. Office of Management and Budget]
7. PROMISE: The pace of job growth will quicken.
REALITY: Monthly job growth has averaged 202,000 in the two years since the tax cuts were enacted. Job growth in the last two years of the Obama Administration averaged 210,000 a month. [BLS]
8. PROMISE: Business investment will boom.
REALITY:
For these and other reasons, more voters continue to oppose the Trump-GOP tax cuts than support them. ATF maintains a comprehensive set of public opinion polls about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which also includes data on support for progressive tax reform proposals. Other key findings include:
ATF also maintains a major compilation of media reports and studies that have analyzed the effects of the Trump-GOP tax cuts since enactment.
In addition, Americans for Tax Fairness previously released a report, Fair Taxes Now: Revenue Options for A Fair Tax System, a comprehensive menu of 40 progressive tax reform options that includes recommendations for amending or repealing the Trump-GOP tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations (p. 5). The recommendations could raise $1.7-$2.7 trillion, demand the most from those with the most to give, and steer a better economic course for our country than the failed policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) is a diverse campaign of more than 420 national, state and local endorsing organizations united in support of a fair tax system that works for all Americans. It has come together based on the belief that the country needs comprehensive, progressive tax reform that results in greater revenue to meet our growing needs. This requires big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, not to live by their own set of rules.
(202) 506-3264"This school has been hit five times since the war began. It is home to around 12,000 displaced people, mainly women and children. No one is safe in Gaza. No one is spared."
The United Nations relief agency for Palestine said Wednesday that six of its workers are among the at least 18 people killed in a pair of Israeli airstrikes targeting a U.N. school in the Gaza Strip where thousands of forcibly displaced Palestinians were sheltering.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said the Israeli strikes on one of its schools, located in Nuseirat in central Gaza, resulted in "the highest death toll among our staff in a single incident" since Israeli forces began bombarding the strip following last October's Hamas-led attack on Israel.
"Among those killed was the manager of the UNRWA shelter and other team members providing assistance to displaced people," the agency said. "Sincere condolences to their families and loved ones. This school has been hit five times since the war began. It is home to around 12,000 displaced people, mainly women and children."
Victims of the strikes included women and children.
Earlier on Wednesday the United Nations said the school had been "previously deconflicted with the Israeli forces."
"No one is safe in Gaza. No one is spared," UNRWA stressed. "Schools and other civilian infrastructure must be protected at all times, they are not a target."
Responding to the attacks, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said on social media that "these dramatic violations of international humanitarian law need to stop now."
Israel is currently on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice, a U.N. body. International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan is also seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders—at least one of whom, Ismail Haniyeh, has been assassinated.
Over the past 341 days, Israel's assault on Gaza has left more than 145,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, according to Palestinian and international officials. Nearly all of Gaza's 2.3 million people have been forcibly displaced, while Israel's "complete siege" of Gaza has starved and sickened millions of Palestinians, dozens of whom have died of malnutrition, dehydration, and lack of medical care.
UNRWA says around 200 of its staff members have been killed in more than 450 Israeli attacks on agency facilities since October. More than 500 Palestinians have been killed while seeking shelter under the U.N. flag.
Responding to Israeli claims—reportedly extracted from Palestinian prisoners in an interrogation regime rife with torture and abuse—that a dozen of the more than 13,000 UNRWA workers in Gaza were involved in the October 7 attack, numerous nations including the United States cut off funding to the agency. Almost all of them have restored funding as Israeli lies have been debunked.
Bucking this trend, U.S. President Joe Biden in March signed a bill prohibiting American funding for UNRWA.
"Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose," said Nathan Clark.
A day after the Trump campaign saw fit to spread baseless lies about Haitian immigrants in the city of Springfield, Ohio, a grieving father with a deep connection to the bigoted viral stories was forced to speak out.
Springfield resident Nathan Clark spoke at the City Commission meeting that was held shortly before former President Donald Trump faced Vice President Kamala Harris in Tuesday's debate.
Clark was there to speak on behalf of his son, Aiden, who was tragically killed in August 2023 when a man who had moved to Springfield after immigrating to the U.S. from Haiti accidentally drove into the school bus the boy was riding, sending it into a ditch.
On Monday, without notifying the family in advance or receiving their permission, the Trump campaign posted a photo of Aiden and blamed Harris for his death.
"Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose," Clark said Tuesday, adding that politicians who have spoken about his son while attacking immigrants are "morally bankrupt."
"They have spoken my son's name and used his death for political gain," he said.
The child's death was also mentioned by Vance on Monday in a lengthy post on the social media platform X, in which he repeated unverified rumors about Haitian immigrants in Springfield abducting residents' pets and eating them.
"It's possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false," said the senator, before adding that "a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here," and explicitly blaming immigrants for rising rates of communicable diseases like tuberculosis and HIV—claims that health authorities have said are false.
On Tuesday, Clark took Vance to task—along with Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), and Trump—for using his son's name for political gain in their attacks on migrants.
The spiraling rumors, he said, had left him wishing that a "60-year-old white man" had caused his son's death.
"If that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate spewing people would leave us alone," said Clark. "The last thing that we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces. Even that's not good enough for them. They take it one step further. They make it seem as though our wonderful Aiden appreciates your hate, that we should follow their hate. And look what you've done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop."
Soon after Clark spoke out, Trump once again spread the lie about migrants eating pets in Springfield—which authorities in the city have said are false—at the presidential debate.
Clark suggested that he can't stop Republican politicians who "vomit all the hate they want" about immigration and "untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members."
"However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio," he said.
"In order to live like Aiden, you need to accept everyone, choose to shine, make the difference, lead the way and be the inspiration," Clark continued. "Did you know that he researched different cultures to better appreciate and understand people that he interacted with? Did you know that one of the worst feelings in the world is to not be able to protect your child? Even worse, we can't even protect his memory when he's gone."
"Please stop the hate," he said. "I said to Aiden that I would try to make a difference in his honor. This is it. Live like Aiden."
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Jeremy Corbyn said. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
Progressive critics and lawmakers are expressing outrage after the U.K. Parliament on Tuesday voted to cut a winter fuel allowance for millions of Britons, calling the move by the ruling Labour Party, which took power in July, a continuation of the Conservative Party's austerity policies.
The measure turns the allowance, which provides £200 to £300 ($262 to $293) per year to senior citizens for heating bills, into a means-tested program in which only the poorest will qualify. It's expected to reduce the number of people receiving the winter payment from 11.4 million last year to 1.5 million this year. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it a "tough choice" that was necessary because of the poor state of the British treasury.
A vote to overturn the cut lost 348 to 228 on Tuesday after Labour successfully whipped enough its members of Parliament into supporting the cut. Fifty two Labour MPs abstained, at least 20 of whom had expressed opposition to the plan, and one voted in opposition.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who now represents voters as an independent, condemned Starmer's move.
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Corbyn wrote on social media. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
"Did he get permission from the Tories to reuse their trademark slogans?" he asked of Starmer in an a Tuesday op-ed in Tribune.
Under the headline, "Austerity Is Labour's Choice," Corybn railed against Starmer and his allies for falling back on the kind of neoliberalism that has dominated the U.K. for decades. He wrote:
It is astonishing to hear government ministers try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. The government knows that there is a range of choices available to them. They could introduce wealth taxes to raise upwards of £10 billion. They could stop wasting public money on private contracts. They could launch a fundamental redistribution of power by bringing water and energy into full public ownership. Instead, they have opted to take resources away from people who were promised things would change. There is plenty of money, it’s just in the wrong hands.
The winter fuel payment was introduced as an unconditional cash transfer in 1997 under then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Some economists have argued that U.K. pensioners are in better position today than than were then, and thus the payment no longer makes sense; others have noted that in real terms, the payment is far lower than it used to be, due to inflation, and thus had become a relatively insignificant benefit anyway.
However, progressives have called the cuts, which were first proposed after Labour took office and weren't mentioned during the election campaign, far too drastic, given the roughly 10 million people they'll effect. Meanwhile, Corbyn and others have argued that Labour's move marks a loss for universalism and could auger more cuts to come:
A universal system of welfare reduces the stigma attached to those who rely on it, and removes barriers for those who find it difficult to apply (both are reasons why the take-up of means-tested payments is so low). What next for means testing? The state pension? The NHS [National Health Service]?
Some commentators have objected to rich pensioners receiving benefits such as the fuel allowance. Progressives have responded that the money should simply be clawed back through higher tax rates on the wealthy.
"In my view the government should be looking to raise revenues from the wealthiest in society, not working class pensioners," Jon Trickett, the only Labour MP to vote to nix to the cut, said in a statement issued on social media.
Universal programs make it easier to reach all those who need help, progressives argue. The new winter fuel payment will be set up so that only those who receive a Pension Credit or other similar government benefit will be eligible for it. But only 63% of pensioners who qualify for the credit actually receive it, government statistics show. The government has announced a campaign to try to increase uptake of the credit.
Trickett said that he feared it would lead more senior citizens to fall into poverty during what he predicted would be an "extremely difficult" winter for his constituents in West Yorkshire. "After years of obscene profiteering by energy companies, they are hiking bills yet again," he wrote.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the cut would save the treasury £1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) this year. She argues that the Conservatives, who held power from 2010 until July, initially as part of a coalition, left the national finances in a dire state and Labour must fill a £22 billion ($28.7 billion) budgetary "black hole."
Labour hasn't released an official impact assessment of the winter payment measure. Reeves, like Starmer, has said she didn't want to make the cut, but two weeks ago a video clip of her proposing to cut the allowance as an opposition MP in 2014.
Rachel Reeves has repeatedly said she didn't want to cut the universal winter fuel allowance for pensioners but it was a tough decision forced on her because of the financial black hole left by the last govt
Here's Reeves 10 years ago: pic.twitter.com/1BAIL4racv
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) August 28, 2024
Reeves and Starmer have long tried to establish their fiscal prudence and distance themselves from purportedly free-spending progressives in their party. A progressive commentator on Novara Mediacalled their winter allowance cut an "incredible political fumble."