(11-02-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Most of the early on spending under Obama was needed to get us out of the recession and the train wreck left by Bush. After that, the Republicans were in control of the purse strings for the rest as the Dems never had a filibuster proof majority for more than a few months.
Interesting you note this. Seems the economy under Bush was fairly normal until 2006. Something happened to the purse strings in 2006, but I cant quite remember.
I'm no economist but it appears this plan doesn't cut taxes for the wealthy, instead it appears to raise them slightly - "The plan sets a 25 percent tax rate starting at $90,000 for married couples, with a 35 percent rate beginning to bite at $260,000 — which means many upper-income families whose top rate is 33 percent would face higher taxes. Individuals making $500,000 and couples earning $1 million would face the current Clinton-era top rate of 39.6 percent. And your study appears to be based on across the board tax cuts - "One thing that tax cuts do unequivocally do--at least tax cuts for the highest earners--is increase economic inequality." I may well be wrong so correct me if so.
(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...
You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?
If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?
Lowering the burden on consumers, even modestly like this plan apparently does, will spur economic activity even further than the 3%+ growth glide path were on now.
An expanding economy, not anemic 1 +-% garbage like we endured the last 8 yrs, will also raise wages.
Increased Economic activity, higher wages, further growth in the markets all generate increased tax receipts.
More money in our pockets, more money flowing to treasury, more money for 401ks, public pensions and a whole host of other things.
It’s a WIN all the way around.
Just so much winning. I may need a nap.
Proof please?
Of what?
If you make more in income, don’t you pay more in taxes? Income and otherwise?
(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...
You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?
If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?
Yeah, we remember. We remember your side basically mocked and ridiculed us for daring to bring it up. Why the sudden 180 on this?
I'm not explaining any position I hold here. I'm listing your sides. No 180.
The bolded was a rhetorical question. I'm well aware why you and your side suddenly care about the deficit.
Well being in Minnesota that "not able to deduct state taxes" is going to sting a bit, but the 600 addition per kid in the child tax credit will offset most of the pain.
(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...
Well there is a shaq load of new revenue in the form of not being able to deduct mortgages on mansions and not being able to deduct state taxes...
But yea tommy, shout out those DNC talking points.
Do you even watch or listen to the same garbage you link to?
“Loopholes” aka, following the tax code put forth by congress.
“Tax dodging co.s”, aka following the tax code.
“Only concerned with boosting stock prices” aka, uhhh yea. Called watching out for your capitalization and those willing to risk their own monies in investing in your business and management.
Pure left wing propaganda, anti capitalist pablum.
1) The presentation relies on a mischaracterization of AT&T. The tax rate quoted is incorrect by significant amount. Go to the SEC EDGAR database website (Google it) and look at AT&T's financials for the indicated years, and you'll see just how far off they are. And no, I'm not going to do your work for you.
2) The presentation talks about "rich" individuals, but the examples are for corporations. US corporations have not gotten a tax rate decrease in decades, while almost every other country has reduced corporate taxes massively in that time frame. So guess what? Those corporations create jobs overseas where they pay lower taxes on their profits.
3) If you look at investment and job creation worldwide, you'll see the growth occurred overseas. They make the money overseas, pay lower taxes, and loan the profits back to the parent to do the buybacks. If domestic corporate taxes were lower, you would see more jobs created here and fewer overseas.
One thing that tax cuts do unequivocally do--at least tax cuts for the highest earners--is increase economic inequality."
If this is true please explain how it is that many countries with lower tax rates for the highest incomes--some substantially lower--end up with substantially less income and wealth inequality. There is an explanation. What is it?
(11-02-2017 12:13 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote: Well being in Minnesota that "not able to deduct state taxes" is going to sting a bit, but the 600 addition per kid in the child tax credit will offset most of the pain.
Isn’t that only in excess of a certain $$$#?
As in after the first 10 grand or something, then no more?
1) The presentation relies on a mischaracterization of AT&T. The tax rate quoted is incorrect by significant amount. Go to the SEC EDGAR database website (Google it) and look at AT&T's financials for the indicated years, and you'll see just how far off they are. And no, I'm not going to do your work for you.
2) The presentation talks about "rich" individuals, but the examples are for corporations. US corporations have not gotten a tax rate decrease in decades, while almost every other country has reduced corporate taxes massively in that time frame. So guess what? Those corporations create jobs overseas where they pay lower taxes on their profits.
3) The real problem here is that this is written from a Keynesian perspective, which considers consumption but not investment. Keynes himself understood that you had to consider both sides, but his followers don't seem to get the investment piece. "Trickle down" is a Keynesian failure to understand supply-side economics. Income and wealth do not "trickle down." But investment creates opportunity for more people to achieve income and wealth. But if your economic theory does not understand investment, you have a hard time understanding reality.
If you look at investment and job creation worldwide, you'll see the growth occurred overseas. They make the money overseas, pay lower taxes, and loan the profits back to the parent to do the buybacks. If domestic corporate taxes were lower, you would see more jobs created here and fewer overseas.
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2017 12:36 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...
You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?
If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?
Lowering the burden on consumers, even modestly like this plan apparently does, will spur economic activity even further than the 3%+ growth glide path were on now.
An expanding economy, not anemic 1 +-% garbage like we endured the last 8 yrs, will also raise wages.
Increased Economic activity, higher wages, further growth in the markets all generate increased tax receipts.
More money in our pockets, more money flowing to treasury, more money for 401ks, public pensions and a whole host of other things.
It’s a WIN all the way around.
Just so much winning. I may need a nap.
Proof please?
Of what?
If you make more in income, don’t you pay more in taxes? Income and otherwise?
I thought you were implying that merely lowering taxes will spur the economy, increase wages, and increase revenue going to the treasury. If so, what proof do you have that tax cuts necessarily do these?
(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...
You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?
If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?
Yeah, we remember. We remember your side basically mocked and ridiculed us for daring to bring it up. Why the sudden 180 on this?
I'm not explaining any position I hold here. I'm listing your sides. No 180.
The bolded was a rhetorical question. I'm well aware why you and your side suddenly care about the deficit.
Again, I didn't say I cared about the deficit nor that I changed my position on it. I'm merely stating that this will most likely increase the deficit which is something the R's are totally against that does. So if in fact, this does that, why will you guys support it?
That being said, I do care about the deficit and always have...but I also know that in certain times you need to be flexible with it for the good of the country. As when Obama took over...the deficit didn't matted that much then because we needed to get the economy going again and it took government spending (as in the auto industry bail out) to accomplish that.
(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...
Well there is a shaq load of new revenue in the form of not being able to deduct mortgages on mansions and not being able to deduct state taxes...
But yea tommy, shout out those DNC talking points.
Dude, kindly STFU. I loathe the DNC and the democrats just as much as you do and couldn't even cite ONE of their talking points anyway. My words are my own. Either address them or cite your proof I lifted them from someone, or just don't post...mmmkay?
1) The presentation relies on a mischaracterization of AT&T. The tax rate quoted is incorrect by significant amount. Go to the SEC EDGAR database website (Google it) and look at AT&T's financials for the indicated years, and you'll see just how far off they are. And no, I'm not going to do your work for you.
2) The presentation talks about "rich" individuals, but the examples are for corporations. US corporations have not gotten a tax rate decrease in decades, while almost every other country has reduced corporate taxes massively in that time frame. So guess what? Those corporations create jobs overseas where they pay lower taxes on their profits.
3) The real problem here is that this is written from a Keynesian perspective, which considers consumption but not investment. Keynes himself understood that you had to consider both sides, but his followers don't seem to get the investment piece. "Trickle down" is a Keynesian failure to understand supply-side economics. Income and wealth do not "trickle down." But investment creates opportunity for more people to achieve income and wealth. But if your economic theory does not understand investment, you have a hard time understanding reality.
If you look at investment and job creation worldwide, you'll see the growth occurred overseas. They make the money overseas, pay lower taxes, and loan the profits back to the parent to do the buybacks. If domestic corporate taxes were lower, you would see more jobs created here and fewer overseas.
I think you're glossing over the biggest problem here. Corporations go over seas mostly because of the reduced amount of wages they have to pay their workers. If they bring jobs back here, they aren't going to be at a slave wage which will make it not as effective for them, right?
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2017 12:51 PM by Redwingtom.)
(11-02-2017 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: I think you're glossing over the biggest problem here. Corporations go over seas mostly because of the reduced amount of wages they have to pay their workers. If they bring jobs back here, they aren't going to be at a slave wage which will make it not as effective for them, right?
No, they don't.
Number one, a lot of those "slave wages" go to workers who don't have much in the way of qualifications and therefore are very limited in what they can do. You can't move a lot of jobs over there, simply because there are a lot of jobs that they can't do.
Number two, labor is actually a relatively small component of cost for many modern processes. Therefore, cheaper wages don't really have much of an impact on the bottom line, so other reasons govern.
Number three, even if you apply your reasoning to jobs that go to Thailand, it does not imply to opening a plant in Germany instead of here. And Germany can't compete with Thai labor costs either, but Germany does pretty well in global trade.
Bottom line: If I'm sewing up Nikes, I'm looking for the cheapest labor. If I'm doing complex electronics, I'm looking for labor that can handle the task. And if sewing up Nikes is our economic future, we are hosed.
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2017 01:00 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
