Virginians Overtaxed as Youngkin Urges Budget Deal

by Shaun Kenney

With state revenue projections north of $5 billion, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) renewed his call for a budget deal with Senate Democrats as negotiators with the Virginia General Assembly met for the first time since June.

“Virginians remain overtaxed. Last year we provided $4 billion of tax relief for individuals, families, and veterans. What this year’s preliminary numbers tell us is that even after that historic tax package, the Commonwealth ended fiscal year 2023 with $5.1 billion in excess resources, far more than forecasted,” said Gov. Youngkin.

“There is plenty of money in the system to fund our shared priorities of education, behavioral health, and law enforcement while returning more of Virginians hard-earned dollars back to their wallets. Just as we did last year, I am calling on the General Assembly to reject the partisan, business-as-usual approach in Richmond, and agree on a deal that lowers the cost of living and cost of doing business in Virginia while investing in our shared priorities. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. It’s not about the Senate or the House. It’s about delivering for Virginians.”

Already, Virginia is returning some $1 billion to small businesses, with Secretary of Finance Steve Cummings confirming Friday that the state expects to return “something more than a billion” dollars to taxpayers who had taken advantage of a new tax benefit for pass-through entities, such as limited liabilities and other unincorporated businesses, that allows them to avoid a $10,000 cap on federal income tax deductions for state and local taxes.

Meanwhile, Virginia’s unemployment numbers are looking better and better, as proximity to Washington D.C. has eased the blow of the COVID-19 pandemic and the state economy continues to gain ground despite federal inflation pressures.

Senate Democrats continue to announce their “blue brick wall” in opposition to any form of tax relief spearheaded by Virginia Republicans.

Other notes on the state of the Virginia economy include:

* Sales tax collections increased 3.9 percent as compared to the annual forecast of a 1.3 percent decline;
* Payroll withholding grew 4.0 percent, exceeding the forecast of a 0.1 percent decline;
* Corporate income tax collections grew 2.6 percent compared to the official estimate of a 12.2 percent decline.

A complete accounting of all final revenue sources will be available after final year-end close and will be released on August 23rd when the Governor speaks at the Joint Money Committee Meeting.

Shaun Kenney is the editor of The Republican Standard, former chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Fluvanna County, and a former executive director of the Republican Party of Virginia. Republished with permission.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

66 responses to “Virginians Overtaxed as Youngkin Urges Budget Deal”

  1. WayneS Avatar

    Who made the growth forecasts and “official estimates” which Virginia exceeded in FY2023?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Yes! We should hire them again.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I am not sure. These may be the estimates made by the Northam administration in the fall of 2021, because the estimates submitted by Youngkin in the fall of 2022 have not been officially adopted by the General Assembly (contained in the budget bill). The 2021 estimates were obviously off because folks did not anticipate the economy recovering as quickly as it did.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “The 2021 estimates were obviously off because folks did not anticipate the economy recovering as quickly as it did.”

        The economy hasn’t recovered, it’s been artificially propped up by irresponsible Federal monetary polices that have given way to record inflation.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          We have not had “record inflation”. Even in our lifetimes, inflation has been higher than in the last two years–1979 (11.3%), 1980 (13.5%), and 1981 (10.3 percent). During the summer of 1980, it was running at a 14.5% rate.

          https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-inflation

          https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-

          1. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
            Virginia Gentleman

            Oh .. those pesky facts again. Darn it Dick. You are ruining a good story.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            He compared apples and oranges and didn’t address my comment, but that’s par for the course.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Remember Dick that after the late ’70s inflation we changed the way inflation is calculated (liars, damned liars and statisticians).

            Raw comparison of today’s reported inflation rates with those of the late ’70s and early ’80s is apples to oranges and invalid.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Point in my comment where I said “record inflation” compared to 1980. Now if you’d be so kind to address what I actually said, vs your standard strawman that would be swell.

            In case you were unaware, it would require $4.47 to equal the buying power of $1 in 1979.

            Oh and as add to Lefty’s comment, here are the facts you’re obfuscating, I can only presume because you should know better.

            https://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209

          5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            The latest Virginia unemployment rate is 2.7 percent, compared to 12.0 percent in April 2020. The current rate is the lowest since at least 2003. That seems like a pretty good recovery to me.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Dick Hall-Sizemore 11 minutes ago
            The latest Virginia unemployment rate is 2.7 percent, compared to 12.0 percent in April 2020. The current rate is the lowest since at least 2003. That seems like a pretty good recovery to me.”

            That is a woefully uneducated statement. Virginia shutdown for all but essential employees in March of 2020 thereby spiking the unemployment rate , since that time the pandemic measures have been reversed and people have went back to work. So 2.7% doesn’t reflect a recovery by any means, it’s a return to previous employment.

            Oh and the lowest rate for VA was July 2019 it was 2.5 (BLS), but don’t let facts get in the way of the narrative you’re trying to spin. Also, 2003 was 4.4% and 2007 was 3.1%, so where ever you’re pulling these figures is not rooted in this world.

            https://www.vec.virginia.gov/latest-release

  2. WayneS Avatar

    Who made the growth forecasts and “official estimates” which Virginia exceeded in FY2023?

  3. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Uh oh, liberals ….

    It seems like Gov Youngkin’s popularity has risen to pretty high levels:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4116219-youngkin-approval-rating-at-record-high-amid-2024-speculation/

    One wonders how much longer that “blue brick wall” defined by ultra-partisan Louise Lucas will be there. After all, the election is 105 days away.

  4. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
    Virginia Gentleman

    It is amazing what a great leader in the White House will do for a State like Virginia. It is time for Biden to start getting more credit for our booming economy.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Then, in 2025 when the Trump billionaire brackets end and the fire hose of money to the 0.1% ends…

      1. Please explain what their fair share is and how to compute it. Fair share has been a mainstay of liberal policies since FDR, but so far I haven’t met anyone who can explain how to compute it.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I dunno. 75% seems reasonable.

          1. That’s what I thought. Like most liberal policies, there is no real thought involved, just greed and whatever makes you feel good about yourselves. Thanks for giving an honest answer.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            As soon a you identify which of the four fundamental forces affects the economy then I give you an exact answer.

          3. Despite your admitted lack of knowledge, you make policy and attack anyone who disagrees with you. Joe Biden proclaims that they are not paying their fair share. Yet there is no way you or he can know whether or not they are paying since you don’t know how to know. It’s just as likely that you are overtaxing them and hurting the country. Why should anyone respect the intelligence of those who can’t answer simple question about old, established policies?

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            No one attack you Tom, or “your admitted lack of knowledge”, but until you can define the driving “forces” behind a game where people buy such things as NFTs, nobody will be able to answer you.

            We are all NPCs on this bus, Tom. Relax, enjoy the ride.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            No one attacked you Tom with “your admitted lack of knowledge”, but until you can define the driving “forces” behind a game where people buy such things as NFTs, nobody will be able to answer you.

            We are all NPCs on this bus, Tom. Relax, enjoy the ride.

          6. Nancy, you wrote: Then, in 2025 when the Trump billionaire brackets end and the fire hose of money to the 0.1% ends…

            This is clearly the left’s argument that the rich are not paying their fair share. My response is: prove it. Define a fair share and how it is computed, so we can all discuss it and learn from your wisdom. You made the claim, back it up. If I need to tell you the ‘driving forces’ before you can answer, then you also needed to know them before you made the claim. In that case, explain why you made a claim you can’t substantiate.

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s a game, Tom. There are no rules, which is why about 15% of the nation’s wealth is held by 120,000 households. 120,000. Fewer households than a small city. You could invite them all to a concert in the park.

            They can afford it.

            40% of the country’s wealth is held by 1.2 million households. They can afford it too.

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s a game, Tom, like Monopoly except there are no fixed rules but the objective is to keep it going forever. About 15% of the nation’s wealth is held by 120,000 households. 120,000. Fewer households than a small city. You could invite them all to a concert in the park.

            They can afford it.

            40% of the country’s wealth is held by 1.2 million households. They can afford it too.

            And if you don’t change the rules, the game will end badly for you with a 99% probability.

          9. Just so I understand, if it’s a game, what’s the left’s goal, and what are the limits on actions taken?

            If it’s a game, it’s a hateful one that ruins peoples lives, and the players who characterize others as evil and immoral are narcissistic and hateful.

            If the left has been playing this as a game since FDR, they truly are immoral. It makes one wonder what else is a game to you.

          10. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            To keep the game going. The end sucks.

            Before FDR, the end was a large number of people worked until dead or incapacitated, and when they stopped working, they and theirs lost all they had until dying in debt.

          11. The game sucks worse, because it allows people without integrity to control others and win.

          12. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            So, the masses have no integrity and the rich do? Or, is it the other way around? Or, do you mean politicians?

            It’s pretty simple. FDR a made sweeping change. He changed the endgame. Before FDR, our great grandfathers, and all theirs before them, died in their children’s homes, supported by their children, or they died in poorhouses.

            After FDR, our grandfathers died in their homes and our grandmothers died in their children’s homes.

            After LBJ, our parents died in their own homes, and our earnings were used to support ourselves and our children only.

            We, too, will die in our own homes unless the new life extending measures puts us in nursing homes that most cannot afford on their own. The price of science, I suppose.

            But the change over a 50-year period spread the dependency of previous generations on the whole of the next generation.

          13. You can declaim your moral superiority all you want to, but I’m not convinced.
            You wrote: But the change over a 50-year period spread the dependency of previous generations on the whole of the next generationss. OK, if it is allocated over the whole, how do you determine what each group within that generation owes? What is their fair share? Rich, poor, middle… what does each owe? And not just money, what do they owe in effort preparing themselves to succeed, in avoiding bad behaviors… in all the things that make them good citizens and not unnecessary burdens on society? You talk about their rewards, but never list the penalties for their failure. If they drop out, do drugs, don’t work or won’t work, what would you deny them from the public purse when they create their own misery? Anything?

            It’s interesting that the justification you give is a program that was earned by those who worked for it, but you are silent about the unearned giveaways. Does our game end with everyone equally poor, like the Soviet Union managed to achieve (except those at the very top).

          14. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Progressively. I find it more than funny that those who benefit the most grumble the most about the poor rich people.

          15. As an American, I find it disturbing that the progressives resort to class warfare and character assassination when asked questions they cannot answer. Democracy to them is the tyranny by their majority.

          16. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s only class warfare because you call it that.

            “From each according to his ability. To each each according to his need” is a great idea in a limited resource economy. It optimizes the time before collapse. Good in a life raft.

            We have an economy driven entirely on mass consumption. The more the masses consume, the better. This means consuming beyond need. Government cheese giveaways, bad. Assuring everyone can buy cheese, good.

            For example, a living minimum wage means the lactose intolerant are still consuming something.

          17. Is there an answer in there to what a fair share is and how to compute it?

        2. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          The marginal tax rate under FDR and Eisenhower was for many years over 90%, and reached as high as 94%. JFK lowered it to 70%.

          Nancy’s 75% is well within the range of real historical “fair share” marginal rates.

          The 1950s, with the exception of 1950 when the marginal rate was 84.36%, had marginal rates over 90%. Those were prosperous times for the country. It’s hard to argue those rates were more than a “fair share” or that they harmed the economy.

          I would argue that tax rates and spending limits that bring the national debt below 100% of GDP, it is currently about 123%, are all our “fair shares”, and are clearly in the nation’s best interest. Biden’s budgets project national debt of $50T by 2035, still well above 100% of forecast GDP and increasing. That is not sustainable.

          Our national debt history is sobering. In the first approximately 2 centuries, 1786-1982, total national debt was $1T. Reagan close to tripled it. Poppy Bush added $Trillions more. Clinton’s last 2 budgets were surpluses and the national debt was forecast to be paid off by 2018. Debt was about $5.6T when Bill left office.

          Duhbya never saw an issue that tax cuts could not fix. The economy is good, cut taxes. The economy is bad, cut taxes. Go to war, cut taxes. Declare peace, cu… never mind, that wasn’t on the agenda. The national debt almost doubled under Duhbya to about $10T and we were off to the races. That put us on a path to the $32T and rising debt where we are today.

          Chart of marginal tax rates:
          https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/tax-rates-davos/622220/

          Chart of national debt and debt to GDP ratios:
          https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            BTW, there’s two extremes to retiring the debt, austerity or crushing taxation. Neither will work.

            As a humorous aside, the spousal unit decided to make coconut curry chicken tonight so she could try out her new “OXO Good Grips super nonstick frying pan”.

            I heard a strange combination of screaming and laughing, and found her trying to spoon the food out of the pan. The pan was soooo slick that the chicken just kept sliding around the pan.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Actually neither of those extremes needs apply. Retiring the debt is the balance between the percentage of GDP in revenues versus the percentage of GDP in expenditures.

            Currently taxes are about 19% of GDP, around 1% above historic averages. Spending is around 22% of GDP, well above average.

            If the percentage of expenditures comes down a couple of points and the revenues come up a point or so it is doable without trauma. Either alone will not get us there.

            On the course we’re on in several years servicing the debt begins to crowd out other spending. That will not be a good time.

            The current happy talk out of the White House about the greatest deficit reduction in history and the triumph of Bidenomics is blather. We are planting a debt service IED in the road ahead if reality does not set in.

            Avoiding that, unfortunately, will require working together. Good luck there, as the conversation between you and Tom B illustrates.

            Glad I’m getting old.

            ps, tell her not to worry. It won’t take too long for the more volatile of the non stick chemicals to cook off into your food and the pan will get less stick free.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            More elementary than that. America is a great place with a great economy something akin to, oh say, a 747 nonstop from LA to Auckland. Everyone rides. Everyone gonna get there. But, the folk in 1st class are having a helluva lot more fun. Their ticket should cost more.

          4. Your answer is: this is the way we’ve always done it. Long ago we did more of it. Doing it this was has run up an unsustainable debt. Ergo, we need to continue to do it this way. Sorry, I ain’t buying that.

            The issue is not how much money we need to run the country, it’s how we apportion raising that money among the population. The top 5% make 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes. Please explain in detail why that is not a fair share. Or do you not know?

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            This is an interesting thought, but the larger part is that the .1% are still currently paying the same tax rate as they were at that point in history.

            It’s just the context that they are being looked at, and numbers being changed around.

            On average in the 50’s the top 1% paid an average rate of 42% and in 2014 it was still 36.4%.

            https://taxfoundation.org/income-taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

            The larger problem is that the Government doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

            “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

            WC

          6. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            “Many studies show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers
            goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not
            necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the
            wealthy.”

            Not a surprise and otherwise known as the CPA and tax lawyers full employment act. They’ve decided what a “fair share” is and have worked effectively to maintain it.

            I’ve done a fair amount of tax related work. After Romney disclosed his tax returns I decided to take a look to see what was in them.

            End result was after about 4 hours with the tax return open on one screen and the IRS publications site on the other I quit. There were more arcane schedules and forms than I had ever heard of. The tax lobbyists for the rich have done their work well with Congress and the tax code.

            Irony is Biden bitching about the rich not paying their “fair share” while he voted for all the loopholes for 40 years.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Exactly, I found it enlightening through my light reading that essentially they are paying the same tax rate from the 50’s. It’s just more transparent now ( or whatever you want to call it). Not to mention the more taxes that are accessed now then were in the 50’s.

            I will be forever irritated at taxes as my ancestors PA (Scottish & Irish) were the recipients of Alexander Hamilton’s dirty deed to leaving taxes on whiskey. There by disproportionately impacting the poor who traded that good to pay for the Revolutionary War. Gen. Washington and the other grist mills and distillers weren’t impacted, they had other money. Yet I digress into the history of moonshine, and illustrate why I’ll never laud Hamilton, amongst others things.

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            BTW, GW never saw a spending bill he didn’t like either. Between Reagan and the two Bush** boys, the GOP became the Borrow & Spend party.

            ** to GHW’s credit, he did cut the military by waaay more than did Clinton. Is it Bushes, or Bushs?

          9. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665


            “Is it Bushes, or Bushs?”

            Depends on whether you’re talking shrubbery or simpletons.

          10. Your answer is: this is the way we’ve always done it. Long ago we did more of it. Doing it this was has run up an unsustainable debt. Ergo, we need to continue to do it this way. Sorry, I ain’t buying that.

            The issue is not how much money we need to run the country, it’s how we apportion raising that money among the population. The top 5% make 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes. Please explain in detail why that is not a fair share. Or do you not know?

          11. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Your proposition is false.

            A better formulation is: We had high marginal tax rates and low national debt. We lowered marginal tax rates and national debt exploded. Ergo we need to go back to higher marginal tax rates and lower national debt.

            Even better would be some more revenue through higher marginal rates and a reduced spending stream to put us in surplus and reduce the debt. But that takes cooperation between the parties.

            My illustration was that high marginal tax rates prevailed for decades under both Dem and Repub administrations. That is a convincing argument for what is a fair share which was your original question.

            Now asking that I prove a negative is a fools game, and I’m not playing that crap with you. I answered your original question and you don’t like the answer, oh well.

          12. Except that you conveniently forgot that when we dropped the tax rates (Kennedy) we got a huge increase in spending (Great Society). Gov’t spending as a % of GDP rose. Also, you can’t just compare rates; you need to account for the many deductions that were closed with the rate drop.

          13. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Your argument is a non sequitur, and wrong on material facts. The deficit did not increase hugely with those changes, and Viet Nam was a bigger driver than the great society. LBJ said we could have both guns and butter which provided stimulus, a booming economy with more revenue. But that brought us huge inflation a decade later and 60,000 names on the wall of the Viet Nam memorial.

            Nice try, but no cigar.

          14. All this is moot until you can define what their fair share is and how to compute it. Telling me they owe more is just your greed talking until you can quantify the argument beyond – we need money, and they have it.

          15. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Glad you got back to your original question. I showed marginal tax rates over decades of both Dem and Repub rule. That’s the US definition of “fair share”. Please pay attention this time. Computing percentages is not hard math, figure it out yourself.

            Imputing greed to me is an ad hominem attack. We’re done, go impugn someone else.

          16. Your argument is that might makes right. All those different rates were fair, and it just depended on who had the power at the time they were set. By that argument, slavery was right too, because it was voted in.

          17. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Garbage, just like the rest of your arguments.

            High marginal rates were set and maintained for decades across changes of parties in power. They were bi-partisan.

            It is a shame you have so little respect for our system of government and the exercise of governance by our elected representatives.

          18. My question is about legitimacy. None of your replies addresses that question. Your arguments of efficiency, necessity, the power of the vote… none of them confers moral legitimacy.

            The Tyranny of the Majority (TM) destroys democratic governments. I’m trying to determine whether your tax policy is an example of TM. Does your policy protect the minority (the rich) from being abused by the majority? Does it take into account the needs and OBLIGATIONS of BOTH sides – those who pay and those who receive? Can you explain why it’s not just a chance to gang up on the other side to destroy them and satisfy greed?

            Alexis de Toqueville wrote of America: The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

            I will never profit from tax breaks for the rich, but I will suffer from the destruction of America.

            Thus ends my daily dose of garbage.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Keep writing those comments. Only 34% of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of the economy. That’s even lower than his abysmal 41% overall approval rate.

      https://apnews.com/article/biden-poll-economy-survey-jobs-inflation-b3c77cb208f96f9b039cf48cbc4fb67b

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        It’s highly likely you’re speaking to someone who still thinks “inflation” is transitory, thereby illustrating their level of education or brainwashing, you pick.

      2. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        The more important question is, what percentage of Northern Virginians approve of Biden’s handling of the economy?

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    How much of that $5 billion balance is one-time revenue, i.e. resulting from federal grants? It is also a result of underestimates of future revenue. Furthermore, a good chunk of that balance, by law, has to be deposited in the Rainy Day fund and certain water improvement funds. When all that is calculated, the balance will be less than what the governor is touting.

    There are a lot of one-time use for any remainoing balance. For example, it could be used to reduce the bonded indebtedness on capital projects, thereby reducing future debt service costs. More than $300 million in debt has been issued to finance the new General Assembly building, for example. Most financial advisers recommend reducing as much debt as possible.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Am I in a time warp? Are we back to pay as you go with this surplus?

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Have you ever met a bureaucrat or former who was willing to give up taxes they collected, even in surplus.

    2. William O'Keefe Avatar
      William O’Keefe

      Dick, it doesn’t sound like you are in favor to returning much if any of this to the tax payers.
      There may be a case for reducing some of the debt but I doubt that it is as strong as returning it.
      If the excess after making a deposit to the rainy day is not used for a refund and debt reduction, the GA will more than likely simply increase the budget to capture that revenue.
      I would to see the Governor initiate a thorough review of what the government is doing and how effectively it is doing it. Surely, there are savings to be had.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Governors in the past have initiated a thorough review of what the govrnment does and how effective it is. Nothing much has come out of those reviews.

        Youngkin established the Chief Transformation Officer and the Office of Transformation for these purposes. Nothing much has been heard from those efforts.

        The best way to find “fat” and savings is to direct an agency to identify XX percent in budget cuts. That was done repeatedly under Warner and Kaine and, to some extent, McAuliffe. A lot was cut from agency budgets during these processes.

        1. William O'Keefe Avatar
          William O’Keefe

          That’s a start but there is little evidence that a major restructuring and redefinition of roles comes from within. Nothing probably came from past reviews because the Governors initiating them didn’t want to spend political capital and hence didn’t give them a high enough priority

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “Sales tax collections increased 3.9 percent as compared to the annual forecast of a 1.3 percent decline”

    So, if the price of something goes up by 10% because of inflation…

    “Payroll withholding grew 4.0 percent, exceeding the forecast of a 0.1 percent decline”

    If employers provide larger than usual COLAs and pay raises because of low unemployment and inflation…

    And then the big bad beast is brought under control, the effect will be a one time increase over projected.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      You’re right! We forgot to account for the wonders of Bidenomics.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yes, yes. The Trump trickle down wasn’t.

  7. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Time to cut funding for school and colleges by 20%.

Leave a Reply