(03-16-2021 04:03 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 09:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:10 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  Because giving all our money to rich people and corporations has worked out sooooooo well over the past 35 years.
We cut the s#!t out of corp taxes, provided massive reductions to taxes on capital, and allowed corps to write their own loopholes into the tax code and guess what? These very same corps sent jobs tens of millions of high paying jobs overseas.

Because other countries cut those taxes more.

Quote:We cut the s#!t out of rich people's taxes and they "trickled down" exactly $el zippo.00 to the rest of us.

Again, because other countries cut their taxes more, too, so they moved their investments overseas and the middle classes grew rapidly there.

"Trickle down" is a fundamental misunderstanding of supply-side economics, held by Keynesians, because they don't understand the supply side and see everything as consumption. "Trickle down" says that consumption by rich people will "trickle down." That's not what supply side economics say at all. Investment by rich people creates jobs. And investment has to come from people who have money to invest.

Quote:And I'm sure repealing the remainder of the estate tax on the 1% will solve all our financial problems because generational wealth has proven to be such an incredible economic stimulus.
Gimme a break.

It has in the rest of the world, where the growth of the middle class has been fairly astronomical in the last half century.

Numbers, your post is so far above this guys head its not even funny. It demonstrates one of the differences between Rs and D's, but more it represents the difference between a 'rich person's' mentality and a 'poor person's' mentality.... and is part of WHY rich are rich and poor are poor. It's not the only reason by any measure and may not even be a primary reason, but its a reason.

When 'uninformed' people hear 'trickle-down' economics, they 'think' about their own lives and taxes, where someone can take a job with a 'guaranteed' but low return of $30,000 for his labors... he risks almost nothing but opportunity... Pay $2,000 into the IRS and get $10,000 back out. This is a 'lottery win' that most of these people think is what 'trickle down' is supposed to do.
Somehow, they're supposed to get some sort of 'windfall'. THAT'S how they see taxes, tax breaks and 'trickle down'... as some sort of windfall 'from the government'. With a few exceptions, that's not remotely how these 'loopholes' work.

First, the investor doesn't get a guaranteed low return... and if it fails, he can lose his investment. If you eliminate this 'loophole', they don't take those risks... and if they don't take those risks, THE OTHER GUY DOESN"T HAVE A JOB! THAT is the trickle down. The government tries to encourage specific investment in things that produce jobs... especially those it favors... see solar or EV tax credits... and this either reduces the risk to the investor (making a 'poor' investment competitive) OR it increases the return to the investor for the same risk. Either way, businesses that wouldn't otherwise have been invested in, get investment.... and people who wouldn't otherwise have been hired or gotten raises, get hired or get raises. If the investor doesn't make money, he doesn't pay taxes. That makes sense. If he does make money, he pays taxes. That makes sense. If he doesn't invest in this 'preferred' investment or in the US, then he doesn't create jobs in the US or accomplish the goals of the government... but that doesn't mean that he didn't invest. So the government may get less (or sometimes nothing... see every city when it reduces taxes to encourage a company to move there) but it gets less unemployment and other advantages.... and MAYBE it gets some taxes... 'Poor' people ***** that the government created this investment for the wealthy... and ignore the jobs that were created. SOMETIMES it is simply done because we need to keep up with foreign opportunities presented to these investors.

What's really funny is that the left (on this issue) thinks that US investors should simply 'invest in the US'... either by choice or by edict/taxes... but somehow 'America First' is a racial slur.

If 'Made in the USA' isn't worth a premium (because it is racist/nationalist) then why should an investor do that?? And if its not 'Made in the USA', is that investment and are those manufacturing jobs in the USA? So you've got a 90% tax rate on NOTHING, which is less than a 'reduced' tax rate on SOMETHING.

So many lazy generalizations. "THE LEFT!" "JOB CREATORS!" A fake strawman argument. Mixing of macro and micro economics. All you're missing is "ANTIFA!" It was pretty clear I was calling out the fallacy of supply side economic theory in response to this board's unhinged hysteria over upcoming tax increases. Y'all are so conditioned in the way you view challenges to the status quo on this board that this appears to have gone over your head.

We just provided a massive tax break to corporations. Businesses used that tax windfall to buy back over $trillion worth of stock which simply inflated the stock prices of said businesses thereby generating crazy stupid amounts of capital gains for the 1% (of which they'll pay less than 15% in personal taxes because they've gamed the system). According to the supply side economic geniuses on this board, this tax cut should result in the Garden of Eden of workers paradises. Yet plants are still being closed, jobs are still being shipped overseas, and wages are still stagnant. This latest supply side tax cut brought us el zippo investment, el zippo new high paying jobs, el zippo wage growth, and el zippo "trickling down" to the working class. Just as it's been for the past 35+ years. Thank you Tax Reform Act of 1986 <sarcasm>.

And the rich are getting richer in large part because they've gamed the system.

Were you drunk or stoned for all of 2019 and into '20 before the chinese virus exploded?

Wow.

(03-16-2021 04:03 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 09:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:10 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  Because giving all our money to rich people and corporations has worked out sooooooo well over the past 35 years.
We cut the s#!t out of corp taxes, provided massive reductions to taxes on capital, and allowed corps to write their own loopholes into the tax code and guess what? These very same corps sent jobs tens of millions of high paying jobs overseas.

Because other countries cut those taxes more.

Quote:We cut the s#!t out of rich people's taxes and they "trickled down" exactly $el zippo.00 to the rest of us.

Again, because other countries cut their taxes more, too, so they moved their investments overseas and the middle classes grew rapidly there.

"Trickle down" is a fundamental misunderstanding of supply-side economics, held by Keynesians, because they don't understand the supply side and see everything as consumption. "Trickle down" says that consumption by rich people will "trickle down." That's not what supply side economics say at all. Investment by rich people creates jobs. And investment has to come from people who have money to invest.

Quote:And I'm sure repealing the remainder of the estate tax on the 1% will solve all our financial problems because generational wealth has proven to be such an incredible economic stimulus.
Gimme a break.

It has in the rest of the world, where the growth of the middle class has been fairly astronomical in the last half century.

Numbers, your post is so far above this guys head its not even funny. It demonstrates one of the differences between Rs and D's, but more it represents the difference between a 'rich person's' mentality and a 'poor person's' mentality.... and is part of WHY rich are rich and poor are poor. It's not the only reason by any measure and may not even be a primary reason, but its a reason.

When 'uninformed' people hear 'trickle-down' economics, they 'think' about their own lives and taxes, where someone can take a job with a 'guaranteed' but low return of $30,000 for his labors... he risks almost nothing but opportunity... Pay $2,000 into the IRS and get $10,000 back out. This is a 'lottery win' that most of these people think is what 'trickle down' is supposed to do.
Somehow, they're supposed to get some sort of 'windfall'. THAT'S how they see taxes, tax breaks and 'trickle down'... as some sort of windfall 'from the government'. With a few exceptions, that's not remotely how these 'loopholes' work.

First, the investor doesn't get a guaranteed low return... and if it fails, he can lose his investment. If you eliminate this 'loophole', they don't take those risks... and if they don't take those risks, THE OTHER GUY DOESN"T HAVE A JOB! THAT is the trickle down. The government tries to encourage specific investment in things that produce jobs... especially those it favors... see solar or EV tax credits... and this either reduces the risk to the investor (making a 'poor' investment competitive) OR it increases the return to the investor for the same risk. Either way, businesses that wouldn't otherwise have been invested in, get investment.... and people who wouldn't otherwise have been hired or gotten raises, get hired or get raises. If the investor doesn't make money, he doesn't pay taxes. That makes sense. If he does make money, he pays taxes. That makes sense. If he doesn't invest in this 'preferred' investment or in the US, then he doesn't create jobs in the US or accomplish the goals of the government... but that doesn't mean that he didn't invest. So the government may get less (or sometimes nothing... see every city when it reduces taxes to encourage a company to move there) but it gets less unemployment and other advantages.... and MAYBE it gets some taxes... 'Poor' people ***** that the government created this investment for the wealthy... and ignore the jobs that were created. SOMETIMES it is simply done because we need to keep up with foreign opportunities presented to these investors.

What's really funny is that the left (on this issue) thinks that US investors should simply 'invest in the US'... either by choice or by edict/taxes... but somehow 'America First' is a racial slur.

If 'Made in the USA' isn't worth a premium (because it is racist/nationalist) then why should an investor do that?? And if its not 'Made in the USA', is that investment and are those manufacturing jobs in the USA? So you've got a 90% tax rate on NOTHING, which is less than a 'reduced' tax rate on SOMETHING.

So many lazy generalizations. "THE LEFT!" "JOB CREATORS!" A fake strawman argument. Mixing of macro and micro economics. All you're missing is "ANTIFA!" It was pretty clear I was calling out the fallacy of supply side economic theory in response to this board's unhinged hysteria over upcoming tax increases. Y'all are so conditioned in the way you view challenges to the status quo on this board that this appears to have gone over your head.

We just provided a massive tax break to corporations. Businesses used that tax windfall to buy back over $trillion worth of stock which simply inflated the stock prices of said businesses thereby generating crazy stupid amounts of capital gains for the 1% (of which they'll pay less than 15% in personal taxes because they've gamed the system). According to the supply side economic geniuses on this board, this tax cut should result in the Garden of Eden of workers paradises. Yet plants are still being closed, jobs are still being shipped overseas, and wages are still stagnant. This latest supply side tax cut brought us el zippo investment, el zippo new high paying jobs, el zippo wage growth, and el zippo "trickling down" to the working class. Just as it's been for the past 35+ years. Thank you Tax Reform Act of 1986 <sarcasm>.

And the rich are getting richer in large part because they've gamed the system.

Gamed the system? Well... Who put that system in place? What we need are things neither gang of rich politicians will do like install term limits, a consumption tax and Bismarck health care. We need real change..not more of the same BS swinging back and forth depending on which gang is in power. Anyone think for a moment that the system still won't be gamed by those with resources to game it? FFS. Until real change occurs the middle class will still get blindfolded and raped by these politicians. To paraphrase Spooner..."Being able to elect ones masters ever four years or so makes you no less a slave to them." Its high time we have some turnover in Washington. The career politician should die of extinction.

(03-16-2021 04:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 04:03 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 09:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:10 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  Because giving all our money to rich people and corporations has worked out sooooooo well over the past 35 years.
We cut the s#!t out of corp taxes, provided massive reductions to taxes on capital, and allowed corps to write their own loopholes into the tax code and guess what? These very same corps sent jobs tens of millions of high paying jobs overseas.

Because other countries cut those taxes more.

Quote:We cut the s#!t out of rich people's taxes and they "trickled down" exactly $el zippo.00 to the rest of us.

Again, because other countries cut their taxes more, too, so they moved their investments overseas and the middle classes grew rapidly there.

"Trickle down" is a fundamental misunderstanding of supply-side economics, held by Keynesians, because they don't understand the supply side and see everything as consumption. "Trickle down" says that consumption by rich people will "trickle down." That's not what supply side economics say at all. Investment by rich people creates jobs. And investment has to come from people who have money to invest.

Quote:And I'm sure repealing the remainder of the estate tax on the 1% will solve all our financial problems because generational wealth has proven to be such an incredible economic stimulus.
Gimme a break.

It has in the rest of the world, where the growth of the middle class has been fairly astronomical in the last half century.

Numbers, your post is so far above this guys head its not even funny. It demonstrates one of the differences between Rs and D's, but more it represents the difference between a 'rich person's' mentality and a 'poor person's' mentality.... and is part of WHY rich are rich and poor are poor. It's not the only reason by any measure and may not even be a primary reason, but its a reason.

When 'uninformed' people hear 'trickle-down' economics, they 'think' about their own lives and taxes, where someone can take a job with a 'guaranteed' but low return of $30,000 for his labors... he risks almost nothing but opportunity... Pay $2,000 into the IRS and get $10,000 back out. This is a 'lottery win' that most of these people think is what 'trickle down' is supposed to do.
Somehow, they're supposed to get some sort of 'windfall'. THAT'S how they see taxes, tax breaks and 'trickle down'... as some sort of windfall 'from the government'. With a few exceptions, that's not remotely how these 'loopholes' work.

First, the investor doesn't get a guaranteed low return... and if it fails, he can lose his investment. If you eliminate this 'loophole', they don't take those risks... and if they don't take those risks, THE OTHER GUY DOESN"T HAVE A JOB! THAT is the trickle down. The government tries to encourage specific investment in things that produce jobs... especially those it favors... see solar or EV tax credits... and this either reduces the risk to the investor (making a 'poor' investment competitive) OR it increases the return to the investor for the same risk. Either way, businesses that wouldn't otherwise have been invested in, get investment.... and people who wouldn't otherwise have been hired or gotten raises, get hired or get raises. If the investor doesn't make money, he doesn't pay taxes. That makes sense. If he does make money, he pays taxes. That makes sense. If he doesn't invest in this 'preferred' investment or in the US, then he doesn't create jobs in the US or accomplish the goals of the government... but that doesn't mean that he didn't invest. So the government may get less (or sometimes nothing... see every city when it reduces taxes to encourage a company to move there) but it gets less unemployment and other advantages.... and MAYBE it gets some taxes... 'Poor' people ***** that the government created this investment for the wealthy... and ignore the jobs that were created. SOMETIMES it is simply done because we need to keep up with foreign opportunities presented to these investors.

What's really funny is that the left (on this issue) thinks that US investors should simply 'invest in the US'... either by choice or by edict/taxes... but somehow 'America First' is a racial slur.

If 'Made in the USA' isn't worth a premium (because it is racist/nationalist) then why should an investor do that?? And if its not 'Made in the USA', is that investment and are those manufacturing jobs in the USA? So you've got a 90% tax rate on NOTHING, which is less than a 'reduced' tax rate on SOMETHING.

So many lazy generalizations. "THE LEFT!" "JOB CREATORS!" A fake strawman argument. Mixing of macro and micro economics. All you're missing is "ANTIFA!" It was pretty clear I was calling out the fallacy of supply side economic theory in response to this board's unhinged hysteria over upcoming tax increases. Y'all are so conditioned in the way you view challenges to the status quo on this board that this appears to have gone over your head.

We just provided a massive tax break to corporations. Businesses used that tax windfall to buy back over $trillion worth of stock which simply inflated the stock prices of said businesses thereby generating crazy stupid amounts of capital gains for the 1% (of which they'll pay less than 15% in personal taxes because they've gamed the system). According to the supply side economic geniuses on this board, this tax cut should result in the Garden of Eden of workers paradises. Yet plants are still being closed, jobs are still being shipped overseas, and wages are still stagnant. This latest supply side tax cut brought us el zippo investment, el zippo new high paying jobs, el zippo wage growth, and el zippo "trickling down" to the working class. Just as it's been for the past 35+ years. Thank you Tax Reform Act of 1986 <sarcasm>.

And the rich are getting richer in large part because they've gamed the system.

Gamed the system? Well... Who put that system in place? What we need are things neither gang of rich politicians will do like install term limits, a consumption tax and Bismarck health care. We need real change..not more of the same BS swinging back and forth depending on which gang is in power. Anyone think for a moment that the system still won't be gamed by those with resources to game it? FFS. Until real change occurs the middle class will still get blindfolded and raped by these politicians. To paraphrase Spooner..."Being able to elect ones masters ever four years or so makes you no less a slave to them." Its high time we have some turnover in Washington. The career politician should die of extinction.

did you just state, "term limits" have value....

#cheeky

(03-16-2021 04:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 04:03 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 09:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:10 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  Because giving all our money to rich people and corporations has worked out sooooooo well over the past 35 years.
We cut the s#!t out of corp taxes, provided massive reductions to taxes on capital, and allowed corps to write their own loopholes into the tax code and guess what? These very same corps sent jobs tens of millions of high paying jobs overseas.

Because other countries cut those taxes more.

Quote:We cut the s#!t out of rich people's taxes and they "trickled down" exactly $el zippo.00 to the rest of us.

Again, because other countries cut their taxes more, too, so they moved their investments overseas and the middle classes grew rapidly there.

"Trickle down" is a fundamental misunderstanding of supply-side economics, held by Keynesians, because they don't understand the supply side and see everything as consumption. "Trickle down" says that consumption by rich people will "trickle down." That's not what supply side economics say at all. Investment by rich people creates jobs. And investment has to come from people who have money to invest.

Quote:And I'm sure repealing the remainder of the estate tax on the 1% will solve all our financial problems because generational wealth has proven to be such an incredible economic stimulus.
Gimme a break.

It has in the rest of the world, where the growth of the middle class has been fairly astronomical in the last half century.

Numbers, your post is so far above this guys head its not even funny. It demonstrates one of the differences between Rs and D's, but more it represents the difference between a 'rich person's' mentality and a 'poor person's' mentality.... and is part of WHY rich are rich and poor are poor. It's not the only reason by any measure and may not even be a primary reason, but its a reason.

When 'uninformed' people hear 'trickle-down' economics, they 'think' about their own lives and taxes, where someone can take a job with a 'guaranteed' but low return of $30,000 for his labors... he risks almost nothing but opportunity... Pay $2,000 into the IRS and get $10,000 back out. This is a 'lottery win' that most of these people think is what 'trickle down' is supposed to do.
Somehow, they're supposed to get some sort of 'windfall'. THAT'S how they see taxes, tax breaks and 'trickle down'... as some sort of windfall 'from the government'. With a few exceptions, that's not remotely how these 'loopholes' work.

First, the investor doesn't get a guaranteed low return... and if it fails, he can lose his investment. If you eliminate this 'loophole', they don't take those risks... and if they don't take those risks, THE OTHER GUY DOESN"T HAVE A JOB! THAT is the trickle down. The government tries to encourage specific investment in things that produce jobs... especially those it favors... see solar or EV tax credits... and this either reduces the risk to the investor (making a 'poor' investment competitive) OR it increases the return to the investor for the same risk. Either way, businesses that wouldn't otherwise have been invested in, get investment.... and people who wouldn't otherwise have been hired or gotten raises, get hired or get raises. If the investor doesn't make money, he doesn't pay taxes. That makes sense. If he does make money, he pays taxes. That makes sense. If he doesn't invest in this 'preferred' investment or in the US, then he doesn't create jobs in the US or accomplish the goals of the government... but that doesn't mean that he didn't invest. So the government may get less (or sometimes nothing... see every city when it reduces taxes to encourage a company to move there) but it gets less unemployment and other advantages.... and MAYBE it gets some taxes... 'Poor' people ***** that the government created this investment for the wealthy... and ignore the jobs that were created. SOMETIMES it is simply done because we need to keep up with foreign opportunities presented to these investors.

What's really funny is that the left (on this issue) thinks that US investors should simply 'invest in the US'... either by choice or by edict/taxes... but somehow 'America First' is a racial slur.

If 'Made in the USA' isn't worth a premium (because it is racist/nationalist) then why should an investor do that?? And if its not 'Made in the USA', is that investment and are those manufacturing jobs in the USA? So you've got a 90% tax rate on NOTHING, which is less than a 'reduced' tax rate on SOMETHING.

So many lazy generalizations. "THE LEFT!" "JOB CREATORS!" A fake strawman argument. Mixing of macro and micro economics. All you're missing is "ANTIFA!" It was pretty clear I was calling out the fallacy of supply side economic theory in response to this board's unhinged hysteria over upcoming tax increases. Y'all are so conditioned in the way you view challenges to the status quo on this board that this appears to have gone over your head.

We just provided a massive tax break to corporations. Businesses used that tax windfall to buy back over $trillion worth of stock which simply inflated the stock prices of said businesses thereby generating crazy stupid amounts of capital gains for the 1% (of which they'll pay less than 15% in personal taxes because they've gamed the system). According to the supply side economic geniuses on this board, this tax cut should result in the Garden of Eden of workers paradises. Yet plants are still being closed, jobs are still being shipped overseas, and wages are still stagnant. This latest supply side tax cut brought us el zippo investment, el zippo new high paying jobs, el zippo wage growth, and el zippo "trickling down" to the working class. Just as it's been for the past 35+ years. Thank you Tax Reform Act of 1986 <sarcasm>.

And the rich are getting richer in large part because they've gamed the system.

Were you drunk or stoned for all of 2019 and into '20 before the chinese virus exploded?

Wow.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand cue the ad hominem 'cause apparently that's all you got left (pun intended).

(03-16-2021 06:36 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 04:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 04:03 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 09:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because other countries cut those taxes more.


Again, because other countries cut their taxes more, too, so they moved their investments overseas and the middle classes grew rapidly there.

"Trickle down" is a fundamental misunderstanding of supply-side economics, held by Keynesians, because they don't understand the supply side and see everything as consumption. "Trickle down" says that consumption by rich people will "trickle down." That's not what supply side economics say at all. Investment by rich people creates jobs. And investment has to come from people who have money to invest.


It has in the rest of the world, where the growth of the middle class has been fairly astronomical in the last half century.

Numbers, your post is so far above this guys head its not even funny. It demonstrates one of the differences between Rs and D's, but more it represents the difference between a 'rich person's' mentality and a 'poor person's' mentality.... and is part of WHY rich are rich and poor are poor. It's not the only reason by any measure and may not even be a primary reason, but its a reason.

When 'uninformed' people hear 'trickle-down' economics, they 'think' about their own lives and taxes, where someone can take a job with a 'guaranteed' but low return of $30,000 for his labors... he risks almost nothing but opportunity... Pay $2,000 into the IRS and get $10,000 back out. This is a 'lottery win' that most of these people think is what 'trickle down' is supposed to do.
Somehow, they're supposed to get some sort of 'windfall'. THAT'S how they see taxes, tax breaks and 'trickle down'... as some sort of windfall 'from the government'. With a few exceptions, that's not remotely how these 'loopholes' work.

First, the investor doesn't get a guaranteed low return... and if it fails, he can lose his investment. If you eliminate this 'loophole', they don't take those risks... and if they don't take those risks, THE OTHER GUY DOESN"T HAVE A JOB! THAT is the trickle down. The government tries to encourage specific investment in things that produce jobs... especially those it favors... see solar or EV tax credits... and this either reduces the risk to the investor (making a 'poor' investment competitive) OR it increases the return to the investor for the same risk. Either way, businesses that wouldn't otherwise have been invested in, get investment.... and people who wouldn't otherwise have been hired or gotten raises, get hired or get raises. If the investor doesn't make money, he doesn't pay taxes. That makes sense. If he does make money, he pays taxes. That makes sense. If he doesn't invest in this 'preferred' investment or in the US, then he doesn't create jobs in the US or accomplish the goals of the government... but that doesn't mean that he didn't invest. So the government may get less (or sometimes nothing... see every city when it reduces taxes to encourage a company to move there) but it gets less unemployment and other advantages.... and MAYBE it gets some taxes... 'Poor' people ***** that the government created this investment for the wealthy... and ignore the jobs that were created. SOMETIMES it is simply done because we need to keep up with foreign opportunities presented to these investors.

What's really funny is that the left (on this issue) thinks that US investors should simply 'invest in the US'... either by choice or by edict/taxes... but somehow 'America First' is a racial slur.

If 'Made in the USA' isn't worth a premium (because it is racist/nationalist) then why should an investor do that?? And if its not 'Made in the USA', is that investment and are those manufacturing jobs in the USA? So you've got a 90% tax rate on NOTHING, which is less than a 'reduced' tax rate on SOMETHING.

So many lazy generalizations. "THE LEFT!" "JOB CREATORS!" A fake strawman argument. Mixing of macro and micro economics. All you're missing is "ANTIFA!" It was pretty clear I was calling out the fallacy of supply side economic theory in response to this board's unhinged hysteria over upcoming tax increases. Y'all are so conditioned in the way you view challenges to the status quo on this board that this appears to have gone over your head.

We just provided a massive tax break to corporations. Businesses used that tax windfall to buy back over $trillion worth of stock which simply inflated the stock prices of said businesses thereby generating crazy stupid amounts of capital gains for the 1% (of which they'll pay less than 15% in personal taxes because they've gamed the system). According to the supply side economic geniuses on this board, this tax cut should result in the Garden of Eden of workers paradises. Yet plants are still being closed, jobs are still being shipped overseas, and wages are still stagnant. This latest supply side tax cut brought us el zippo investment, el zippo new high paying jobs, el zippo wage growth, and el zippo "trickling down" to the working class. Just as it's been for the past 35+ years. Thank you Tax Reform Act of 1986 <sarcasm>.

And the rich are getting richer in large part because they've gamed the system.

Gamed the system? Well... Who put that system in place? What we need are things neither gang of rich politicians will do like install term limits, a consumption tax and Bismarck health care. We need real change..not more of the same BS swinging back and forth depending on which gang is in power. Anyone think for a moment that the system still won't be gamed by those with resources to game it? FFS. Until real change occurs the middle class will still get blindfolded and raped by these politicians. To paraphrase Spooner..."Being able to elect ones masters ever four years or so makes you no less a slave to them." Its high time we have some turnover in Washington. The career politician should die of extinction.

did you just state, "term limits" have value....

#cheeky

Wow. I don't disagree with either of these two replies.

(03-16-2021 04:13 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:10 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  Because giving all our money to rich people and corporations has worked out sooooooo well over the past 35 years.

We cut the s#!t out of corp taxes, provided massive reductions to taxes on capital, and allowed corps to write their own loopholes into the tax code and guess what? These very same corps sent jobs tens of millions of high paying jobs overseas.

We cut the s#!t out of rich people's taxes and they "trickled down" exactly $el zippo.00 to the rest of us.

And I'm sure repealing the remainder of the estate tax on the 1% will solve all our financial problems because generational wealth has proven to be such an incredible economic stimulus.

Gimme a break.

Why are you looking for someone else to give you money?

Why not try to go out there and earn your own wealth?

Do you think the government has a right or entitlement to the fruits of ones life's labors over his/her beneficiaries?

Wow. Spell it out for us here, comrade.

Bump - because I'd like to hear the answers to these questions.

(03-17-2021 06:18 AM)#1Lurker Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 06:36 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 04:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 04:03 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 09:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Numbers, your post is so far above this guys head its not even funny. It demonstrates one of the differences between Rs and D's, but more it represents the difference between a 'rich person's' mentality and a 'poor person's' mentality.... and is part of WHY rich are rich and poor are poor. It's not the only reason by any measure and may not even be a primary reason, but its a reason.

When 'uninformed' people hear 'trickle-down' economics, they 'think' about their own lives and taxes, where someone can take a job with a 'guaranteed' but low return of $30,000 for his labors... he risks almost nothing but opportunity... Pay $2,000 into the IRS and get $10,000 back out. This is a 'lottery win' that most of these people think is what 'trickle down' is supposed to do.
Somehow, they're supposed to get some sort of 'windfall'. THAT'S how they see taxes, tax breaks and 'trickle down'... as some sort of windfall 'from the government'. With a few exceptions, that's not remotely how these 'loopholes' work.

First, the investor doesn't get a guaranteed low return... and if it fails, he can lose his investment. If you eliminate this 'loophole', they don't take those risks... and if they don't take those risks, THE OTHER GUY DOESN"T HAVE A JOB! THAT is the trickle down. The government tries to encourage specific investment in things that produce jobs... especially those it favors... see solar or EV tax credits... and this either reduces the risk to the investor (making a 'poor' investment competitive) OR it increases the return to the investor for the same risk. Either way, businesses that wouldn't otherwise have been invested in, get investment.... and people who wouldn't otherwise have been hired or gotten raises, get hired or get raises. If the investor doesn't make money, he doesn't pay taxes. That makes sense. If he does make money, he pays taxes. That makes sense. If he doesn't invest in this 'preferred' investment or in the US, then he doesn't create jobs in the US or accomplish the goals of the government... but that doesn't mean that he didn't invest. So the government may get less (or sometimes nothing... see every city when it reduces taxes to encourage a company to move there) but it gets less unemployment and other advantages.... and MAYBE it gets some taxes... 'Poor' people ***** that the government created this investment for the wealthy... and ignore the jobs that were created. SOMETIMES it is simply done because we need to keep up with foreign opportunities presented to these investors.

What's really funny is that the left (on this issue) thinks that US investors should simply 'invest in the US'... either by choice or by edict/taxes... but somehow 'America First' is a racial slur.

If 'Made in the USA' isn't worth a premium (because it is racist/nationalist) then why should an investor do that?? And if its not 'Made in the USA', is that investment and are those manufacturing jobs in the USA? So you've got a 90% tax rate on NOTHING, which is less than a 'reduced' tax rate on SOMETHING.

So many lazy generalizations. "THE LEFT!" "JOB CREATORS!" A fake strawman argument. Mixing of macro and micro economics. All you're missing is "ANTIFA!" It was pretty clear I was calling out the fallacy of supply side economic theory in response to this board's unhinged hysteria over upcoming tax increases. Y'all are so conditioned in the way you view challenges to the status quo on this board that this appears to have gone over your head.

We just provided a massive tax break to corporations. Businesses used that tax windfall to buy back over $trillion worth of stock which simply inflated the stock prices of said businesses thereby generating crazy stupid amounts of capital gains for the 1% (of which they'll pay less than 15% in personal taxes because they've gamed the system). According to the supply side economic geniuses on this board, this tax cut should result in the Garden of Eden of workers paradises. Yet plants are still being closed, jobs are still being shipped overseas, and wages are still stagnant. This latest supply side tax cut brought us el zippo investment, el zippo new high paying jobs, el zippo wage growth, and el zippo "trickling down" to the working class. Just as it's been for the past 35+ years. Thank you Tax Reform Act of 1986 <sarcasm>.

And the rich are getting richer in large part because they've gamed the system.

Gamed the system? Well... Who put that system in place? What we need are things neither gang of rich politicians will do like install term limits, a consumption tax and Bismarck health care. We need real change..not more of the same BS swinging back and forth depending on which gang is in power. Anyone think for a moment that the system still won't be gamed by those with resources to game it? FFS. Until real change occurs the middle class will still get blindfolded and raped by these politicians. To paraphrase Spooner..."Being able to elect ones masters ever four years or so makes you no less a slave to them." Its high time we have some turnover in Washington. The career politician should die of extinction.

did you just state, "term limits" have value....

#cheeky

Wow. I don't disagree with either of these two replies.

lol....yeah, I'm a 'wower' that never sees a reflection...

@irony

you have 'a clue, upstairs'...

(03-17-2021 08:01 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2021 04:13 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 06:10 PM)#1Lurker Wrote:  Because giving all our money to rich people and corporations has worked out sooooooo well over the past 35 years.

We cut the s#!t out of corp taxes, provided massive reductions to taxes on capital, and allowed corps to write their own loopholes into the tax code and guess what? These very same corps sent jobs tens of millions of high paying jobs overseas.

We cut the s#!t out of rich people's taxes and they "trickled down" exactly $el zippo.00 to the rest of us.

And I'm sure repealing the remainder of the estate tax on the 1% will solve all our financial problems because generational wealth has proven to be such an incredible economic stimulus.

Gimme a break.

Why are you looking for someone else to give you money?

Why not try to go out there and earn your own wealth?

Do you think the government has a right or entitlement to the fruits of ones life's labors over his/her beneficiaries?

Wow. Spell it out for us here, comrade.

Bump - because I'd like to hear the answers to these questions.

Why are you looking for someone else to give you money?
I'm not. Those are your words and they in no way represent anything I've stated.

Why not try to go out there and earn your own wealth?
I have done so personally. And I agree with you that everyone should.

Do you think the government has a right or entitlement to the fruits of ones life's labors over his/her beneficiaries?
No, they don't. But with that said, the Walton family feels entitled to use their generational wealth to game the system into having the federal treasury (my tax dollars) subsidize health care, food assistance, and housing for their employees (USAToday calculated $6.2B in 2014). I think these welfare queens should have to pay us back. Same with the Wall Streeters who blew up the financial system in '08 and are personally passing along a few hundred million each after feeling entitled to a free bail out from the federal treasury (my tax dollars). And this is after they felt entitled to bank hundreds of millions by setting up the rules to legally game the housing market. I think these welfare queens should have to pay us back. I can go on (and on, and on, and on, and on...) but by now I'm hopeful you get my point. OK, one more. United Airlines used their latest tax cut not to invest in assets or people, but to buy back $12.5B of their stock (per Bloomberg) then had the gall to come hat-in-hand to you and me a year later asking for a COVID bailout. I think these welfare queens should have to pay us back.

There are a whole lot of people who owe me a whole lot of money and I'm more than OK with the Federal Government acting as my collection agent.