(11-24-2017 04:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:In a new poll from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, 38 economists from schools including Yale, MIT and the University of California-Berkeley weighed in on contentious points about the GOP tax plans.

On one question, the economists were asked whether enacting "a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate" would lead to a "substantially higher" rate of economic growth a decade from now than it would otherwise.

Only two percent — or, 1 out of 38 economists — agreed. 36 percent were uncertain, 33 percent disagreed, and another 19 percent strongly disagreed. (The remainder did not answer.)

That one economist who agreed also didn't do so without reservations: while a lower corporate tax rate would likely grow the economy, he wrote, he also said it was "another matter" whether the plan is "fair" in how it spreads the benefits of tax cuts. A recent analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, for example, shows the senate proposal disproportionately benefiting some of the richest Americans.

Economists were much more certain about what the tax bills would do to the debt. They were asked whether a tax bill like those in the House and Senate right now would leave the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio (a common measure of how large the national debt is) "substantially higher" in a decade than otherwise.

On this, fully 43 percent agreed that it would leave the debt level higher, and another 45 percent strongly agreed. Only 1 economist was uncertain. None disagreed.

But there's a catch here, yet again with the one economist who stood alone. That economist, Stanford's Liran Einav, told the Washington Post that he "didn't read the question properly" and in fact agreed with his peers.

Poll: Economists Unanimous That Debt Would Balloon Under GOP Tax Plan

"fair" is a subjective term.

From left-wing universities I can assume what they might mean by "fair".

Question: How many of those 38 correctly predicted the 2008 crash?

(11-24-2017 07:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The tax cuts from Reagan to now Trump have left many people behind while the wealthy have grown.

Coorelation does not mean causation..

Quote:My parents made less than $10,000 a year in the 1980s, and the economy sucks. They both worked their butts off at minimum wage.

I'm calling bull**** here.. Later on, in a different post, you say "When your dad gets paid monthly working for the school district as a head custodian". You're telling me the *HEAD* custodian of your school district was making $3.10 an hour? really.

I don't believe it. I believe you got caught here trying to craft two completely different narratives.

(11-24-2017 04:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:In a new poll from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, 38 economists from schools including Yale, MIT and the University of California-Berkeley weighed in on contentious points about the GOP tax plans.

On one question, the economists were asked whether enacting "a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate" would lead to a "substantially higher" rate of economic growth a decade from now than it would otherwise.

Only two percent — or, 1 out of 38 economists — agreed. 36 percent were uncertain, 33 percent disagreed, and another 19 percent strongly disagreed. (The remainder did not answer.)

That one economist who agreed also didn't do so without reservations: while a lower corporate tax rate would likely grow the economy, he wrote, he also said it was "another matter" whether the plan is "fair" in how it spreads the benefits of tax cuts. A recent analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, for example, shows the senate proposal disproportionately benefiting some of the richest Americans.

Economists were much more certain about what the tax bills would do to the debt. They were asked whether a tax bill like those in the House and Senate right now would leave the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio (a common measure of how large the national debt is) "substantially higher" in a decade than otherwise.

On this, fully 43 percent agreed that it would leave the debt level higher, and another 45 percent strongly agreed. Only 1 economist was uncertain. None disagreed.

But there's a catch here, yet again with the one economist who stood alone. That economist, Stanford's Liran Einav, told the Washington Post that he "didn't read the question properly" and in fact agreed with his peers.

Poll: Economists Unanimous That Debt Would Balloon Under GOP Tax Plan

May I suggest a more accurate thread title--

38 Liberal Universities Rail Against Republican Tax Plan--Call For Tax Hikes and hope Rich People Die.

or even more direct....

38 liberal University Economists make ignorant assumptions about economics in a vacuum so that other liberals can claim that 'smart people' are against conservatives... and when this is pointed out, those other liberals can hide

This tax reform might put a few more dollars in your pocket at the beginning but by the time the middle class figures out it got hosed again, it will be too late.

It was the same when Bush Jr. did it.

(11-27-2017 04:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  This tax reform might put a few more dollars in your pocket at the beginning but by the time the middle class figures out it got hosed again, it will be too late.

It was the same when Bush Jr. did it.

Your opinion is noted, but it isn't supported by the answer given by these 38 economists.

THAT is what makes polls like this a complete waste of time.

(11-27-2017 05:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  This tax reform might put a few more dollars in your pocket at the beginning but by the time the middle class figures out it got hosed again, it will be too late.

It was the same when Bush Jr. did it.

Your opinion is noted, but it isn't supported by the answer given by these 38 economists.

THAT is what makes polls like this a complete waste of time.

hence, why the majority of the sane with a fat wallet can only laugh.....

#ourturn

Quote:Plenty of right-leaning wonks will make the case for cutting corporate taxes and reforming how they’re collected. But it’s harder to find those who think the way this bill goes about it, or finances it, makes much sense.

“The best thing in the bill is lowering the corporate tax rate,” says Alan Viard, a tax expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “The worst thing is the increase in the deficit. I would’ve preferred a revenue-neutral tax reform.”

“How tax cuts are paid for is very significant,” says Viard. “I co-authored a paper on tax policy lessons from the 2000s, and we looked at the long-run growth effects of deficit-financed tax cuts. In general, we found deficit-financed tax cuts were not a very good idea for growth. To be reliably pro-growth, the best thing you could do is make it revenue neutral.”

Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, agrees. “If there’s some plan to address deficits, it’s very different than if there’s not,” he says. Right now, there’s not.

5 big problems the Senate Republican tax bill creates

(11-28-2017 01:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Plenty of right-leaning wonks will make the case for cutting corporate taxes and reforming how they’re collected. But it’s harder to find those who think the way this bill goes about it, or finances it, makes much sense.

“The best thing in the bill is lowering the corporate tax rate,” says Alan Viard, a tax expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “The worst thing is the increase in the deficit. I would’ve preferred a revenue-neutral tax reform.”

“How tax cuts are paid for is very significant,” says Viard. “I co-authored a paper on tax policy lessons from the 2000s, and we looked at the long-run growth effects of deficit-financed tax cuts. In general, we found deficit-financed tax cuts were not a very good idea for growth. To be reliably pro-growth, the best thing you could do is make it revenue neutral.”

Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, agrees. “If there’s some plan to address deficits, it’s very different than if there’s not,” he says. Right now, there’s not.

5 big problems the Senate Republican tax bill creates

5 big foolish mistakes that left-leaning analysts of tax policies KEEP getting wrong and why the wealth gap actually gets WIDER under Democrats than Republicans

1) There is no such thing as a 'deficit financed tax cut'. Any time you hear that phrase, you're listening to someone with an agenda. In a worst case scenario, a tax cut BY DEFINITION is merely revenue that isn't collected. This may not seem important, but it is integral to understanding the issues and addressing them. You address deficits by INCREASING tax revenues or by DECREASING spending.

tax CUTS do and almost always have encouraged those activities being given a break and discouraged those not being given a break

2) Despite claiming what a huge tax break this is for the wealthy, they note that the beneficiaries of the repeal of the individual mandate are the young and healthy. These people are almost all 'middle class' and were screwed by the ACA despite these same projections ignoring it.

3) and what should be #1, but I am trying to follow the 5 in the list above... is the tax cut for pass-through entities complaint... a) If our rate is lower, there is no incentive to shelter income overseas. It's not as if those places who are 'ripe' for investment don't have taxes... and b, they CONTINUE to misunderstand how the wealthy think of 'income' vs 'taxes'. The wealthy don't NEED their money, so they can keep it tied up forever and they have been routinely doing just that. Cutting taxes, especially with a time limit on it (more on this in 4) spurs the movement of money and the taxation of it... albeit at a lower rate.

We'd rather get 10% of trillions than 25% of nothing. This analysis assumes a zero-sum game.

4) This is why the individual rate cuts expire but the corporate tax cuts do not. You have to move money out of the individual accounts before they expire... but the fact is that the wealthy have ALREADY done this. It's the ALMOST wealthy who have not, because they generally can't. The fixed costs of such things are so high that only those sheltering millions can do this. This is a break for the ALMOST wealthy, aka upper middle class... not the wealthy.

and if they are popular and work, why SHOULDN'T they be continued? If a democrat gets elected, you let the individual tax cut expire and keep the expanded child and standard deduction. LOTS of Republicans benefit from these two things... probably as many as Democrats

5) the old tried and true inequality argument.... that tax cuts OBVIOUSLY go to tax payers... and the more of the tax burden you pay, the more you benefit from cuts. It also ignores what i spoke of in 3 or as some have said, growing the size of the pie as opposed to simply rearranging the slices.

Derek Thompson of the Atlantic is correct, but can't see the forest for the trees. Post-Tax corporate profits have hovered at record high levels EVER SINCE OBAMA WAS ELECTED!!!!

If nothing else demonstrates that Democrats (even if you think their intentions are good) have NO concept of how the wealthy think and how to get money from them, THIS should be it.

You don't get money from the wealthy by a tax rate that is punitive on activity. You get money from them by a rate that encourages it. If you punish activity, it will seek to avoid it. Of course the golden ticket for the wealthy is activity (meaning investment, which means jobs where the money goes) in places that don't punish them... so they STILL make money.... and obviously record amounts of it... JUST NOT HERE.


That's obviously the readers digest version. I'm not saying the plan is anywhere NEAR perfect... but it's one that can pass given how STUPID the average American and especially the average Democrat (or evil) is about how the wealthy think. the RIGHT plan would involve things like VAT, which despite now years of attempts to push forward (solely from the right)... we STILL aren't ready to accept such obvious truths

Seriously, he even SAYS that post-tax corporate profits have been at record highs for 7 years!! and ignores who held the Bully Pulpit and much of the ability to tax during that time.

(11-27-2017 05:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  This tax reform might put a few more dollars in your pocket at the beginning but by the time the middle class figures out it got hosed again, it will be too late.

It was the same when Bush Jr. did it.

Your opinion is noted, but it isn't supported by the answer given by these 38 economists.

THAT is what makes polls like this a complete waste of time.

I don't care what those 38 economists say. I'm must speaking from years and years of watching how Conservative tax reform works.

They always give the biggest tax cuts to the rich and claim it will trickle down to the poor. It never does.

And then when the recession hits and the big boys need a bail out because the economy is failing, we all have to bite the bullet.

How's this for a visual? The difference in work ethic between the right and the alt-left, ladies and gentlemen.

So, which is it? Are crazy nancy and cuck schumer still in bed or are they out in the streets, flipping over and lighting trash cans on fire?

(11-28-2017 04:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  This tax reform might put a few more dollars in your pocket at the beginning but by the time the middle class figures out it got hosed again, it will be too late.

It was the same when Bush Jr. did it.

Your opinion is noted, but it isn't supported by the answer given by these 38 economists.

THAT is what makes polls like this a complete waste of time.

I don't care what those 38 economists say. I'm must speaking from years and years of watching how Conservative tax reform works.

They always give the biggest tax cuts to the rich and claim it will trickle down to the poor. It never does.

And then when the recession hits and the big boys need a bail out because the economy is failing, we all have to bite the bullet.

then why did the wealth gap actually shrink under Reagan and expand under Obama?

Why did it actually do pretty well, but not as well as under Reagan after Clinton cut the capital gains rate (something the working class NEVER use) to 20%?

Why have (according to Tom's own link) corporate profits been at near records under Obama?

SOME of them won't trickle down.... especially if they don't encourage activity HERE like Obama's stimulus and Jr's last $600 didn't.

The recession didn't 'hit'... it was the natural result of Barney Frank's likely well intended goal of home ownership for all combined with Clinton's goal of not expanding the Federal Government and Bush's goal of 'dancing with who brung ya' and hoping that he could ride it out.

Quote:then why did the wealth gap actually shrink under Reagan and expand under Obama?

Perhaps because we were forced to bail out Wall Street. Isn't that what I said?

Quote:Why did it actually do pretty well, but not as well as under Reagan after Clinton cut the capital gains rate (something the working class NEVER use) to 20%?

Maybe because tax reform always comes with a some immediate effects that diminish over time like the current one will likely do. Isn't that how they always do it. Give them something up front so that they don't notice how we are going to **** them from behind?


Why have (according to Tom's own link) corporate profits been at near records under Obama?

Again, the bailouts?

SOME of them won't trickle down.... especially if they don't encourage activity HERE like Obama's stimulus and Jr's last $600 didn't.

The recession didn't 'hit'... it was the natural result of Barney Frank's likely well intended goal of home ownership for all combined with Clinton's goal of not expanding the Federal Government and Bush's goal of 'dancing with who brung ya' and hoping that he could ride it out.
[/quote]

I think you mean Newt Gingrich. It was his idea to get the feds in on the sub prime lending.

(11-28-2017 04:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:then why did the wealth gap actually shrink under Reagan and expand under Obama?

Perhaps because we were forced to bail out Wall Street. Isn't that what I said?

Quote:Why did it actually do pretty well, but not as well as under Reagan after Clinton cut the capital gains rate (something the working class NEVER use) to 20%?

Maybe because tax reform always comes with a some immediate effects that diminish over time like the current one will likely do. Isn't that how they always do it. Give them something up front so that they don't notice how we are going to **** them from behind?


Why have (according to Tom's own link) corporate profits been at near records under Obama?

Again, the bailouts?

SOME of them won't trickle down.... especially if they don't encourage activity HERE like Obama's stimulus and Jr's last $600 didn't.

The recession didn't 'hit'... it was the natural result of Barney Frank's likely well intended goal of home ownership for all combined with Clinton's goal of not expanding the Federal Government and Bush's goal of 'dancing with who brung ya' and hoping that he could ride it out.

I think you mean Newt Gingrich. It was his idea to get the feds in on the sub prime lending.
[/quote]

I remind you that democrats and establishment republicans were for the bailouts, which gave birth to the tea party.

Hence, Trump.

(11-28-2017 04:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:then why did the wealth gap actually shrink under Reagan and expand under Obama?

Perhaps because we were forced to bail out Wall Street. Isn't that what I said?

Okay, let me be more clear....
The wealth gap declined under Reagan and was essentially flat under Bush and Jr.
It widened under Obama and Clinton.

The Wall Street Bail out didn't impact Clinton nor did it 'help' Reagan or Bush... If you're saying Obama would have done well except for the bail-outs, that's sort of a cheap way out isn't it? He probably doesn't get elected without the need to bail them out.

I'm trying to figure out why the Obama signed Bail-Outs with an overwhelming democratically controlled congress helped the wealthy more than the poor (what the widening wealth gap meant) without you guys getting mad at Obama.

Quote:

Quote:Why did it actually do pretty well, but not as well as under Reagan after Clinton cut the capital gains rate (something the working class NEVER use) to 20%?

Maybe because tax reform always comes with a some immediate effects that diminish over time like the current one will likely do. Isn't that how they always do it. Give them something up front so that they don't notice how we are going to **** them from behind?

[/quote]

This is a deflection or you don't understand the question.

Why did the wealth gap do pretty well when Clinton cut the gains rate which of course didn't help anyone but the wealthy?

and why would Clinton have wanted to help the wealthy by ****ing the poor from behind?

If you're saying that ALL politicians help the wealthy at the expense of the poor, well okay.... but that's not what this thread or any posts in it from the left imply.

Quote:

Quote:Why have (according to Tom's own link) corporate profits been at near records under Obama?

Again, the bailouts?

Again, so why aren't we complaining about Obama?

Quote:

Quote:SOME of them won't trickle down.... especially if they don't encourage activity HERE like Obama's stimulus and Jr's last $600 didn't.

The recession didn't 'hit'... it was the natural result of Barney Frank's likely well intended goal of home ownership for all combined with Clinton's goal of not expanding the Federal Government and Bush's goal of 'dancing with who brung ya' and hoping that he could ride it out.

I think you mean Newt Gingrich. It was his idea to get the feds in on the sub prime lending.

Not remotely, or at least not any more than Clinton would have been responsible for it. Gingrich was out of office in 1999. What Franks did was 2005-2007 when these things were taking off and the market collapsed when liquidity dried up. In reality, few mortgages actually failed except those that were forced to fail when they were forced to refinance.

Market's don't take 10 years to react.

What caused the crash of 2008 was the leverage in the mortgage market that was literally tripled under Clinton with Lloyd Bentsen manipulating the markets in a way that we would never allow an insurer to... followed by dramatic reductions in the reserve requirements with FHLMC and FNMA and the regulatory changes 2005-2007 lead by franks that allowed a 'sliver' of credit support between say the 90th and 91st percentile of a tranche to carry the same leverage requirements as credit support from the 1st to 91st percentile.

Said differently... his work meant that rather than a 1,000,000 investment with 20% credit support being worth 775,000 when the market tanked thus needing 25k in bail-out to keep the bank from being insolvent, the investment was worth zero thus needing 800,000 to remain solvent... This didn't happen under Newt in 1999. If it had, the crash would have been in 2000.