Corportate Tax Breaks Explained for Marixt Idiots

[MisterBeale]

I have provided links to both Republican tax reformists and libertarian tax reformists to prove my point that cutting tax expenditures is a Republican/conservative/libertarian principle.

You have to be a very special kind of willfully blind tard indeed to keep insisting tax expenditures are not theft and still claim to be a libertarian or conservative in the face of the truth.

You know, I usually disagree with you, vehemently.

. . . and, on principle, I think taxes are immoral, just overall. Decisions of free actors and the free market should steer society, not governments.

The IRS and the FED were not legitimately passed, and I read through your other thread, and you have made a grievous fallacy with the assumption that government needs to keep the same amount of funding. One of the worst disasters of the brilliant Clinton/Gore era reforms of the bureaucracy was to make standard budget increases into the bureaucracy to keep pace with inflation, this has been a disaster for the nation.

With that said, I understand what you are getting at, and the conservatives are just not listening or really reading to what you are getting at just because of previous positions you have taken. The Trump administration is being foolish. Either that, or they are being controlled by the banking and big business interests. This administration rightly believes that American interests are being screwed by foreign competitors, they want to put up protections for American producers and American Jobs, and, this is the most simple and elegant way to do it. This would also be the most simple and elegant way to encourage folks to "buy American," while at the same time forcing the rest of the world to push up their wages, benefits, and consumer concern for the environment to meet the standards we enjoy in this nation.

This is truly one area where the left and right could come together and forge a compromise. Folks that believe in fair trade products could join with those that want people to buy American to MAGA. Unfortunately, the banking cartel and corporatists are pulling the strings and they want this nation to be plunged into unnecessary wars and have the wealth gap increase like it has under every president, regardless of party, for the past 38 years.

Twenty years with Republicans in charge, eighteen with Democrats in charge, yet still, the middle class and lower class wages are stagnant, and CEO corporate wages skyrocket. So yeah, who is really in charge? Probably the bankers and CEOs.
Worker Wages Flat, But Since 1978 CEO Pay Has Soared by 'Outrageous' 937%

 

[g5000]

The reduced revenues caused by every tax deduction, credit, and exemption has to be replaced by raising tax rates on EVERYONE. They are robbery, pure and simple. Theft. They steal from the pockets of every taxpayer.

They cost us all money. Just like welfare does. They are just as much a government gift as food stamps.

No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would EVER defend them.

That's incorrect.
You want to open a business and hire 100 workers. City A is going to take 60% of your earnings as a tax. City B is only going to tax you 20%. So you start your business in city B and hire 100 employees from city B. Who in turn eat their meals in restaurants in city B, who have had to hire more workers to meet the extra demand. Then off to the gas station to fill up in city B. Got milk? Off to city B's markets to get some. Want a beer? City B's bars are open for business. Or maybe you want to go bowling, in city B..........
Piss on city A. Which is what businesses have been saying to the usA and our insane taxes for years now. We need to reverse that. Our middle class work force demands it.

That has nothing to do with tax expenditures, unless City B is giving a special tax break to your company that it does not give to ALL companies in City B.

If your company is paying lower taxes than every other company in City B, then you are stealing from every other corporation in City B.

Simple fact.

 

[g5000]

The IRS and the FED were not legitimately passed, and I read through your other thread, and you have made a grievous fallacy with the assumption that government needs to keep the same amount of funding.

No, I did not make that mistake. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if you cut spending or increase spending or if spending stays the same, tax expenditures are still a major contributor to higher tax rates. I was merely stating if we eliminated tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates for everyone, even BEFORE we cut any other kind of spending.

I am for cutting all kinds of spending. Tax expenditures are by far the biggest and most corrupt spending, and so most of my concentration is on this particular waste and theft.

With that said, I understand what you are getting at, and the conservatives are just not listening or really reading to what you are getting at just because of previous positions you have taken.

That is correct. The pseudocons assume I am a leftist. That is because they are so far off the conservative reservation they don't know a real conservative/libertarian when he is kicking them in the nuts.

This topic will only reinforce in JGalt's mind I am a marxist, which is the exact opposite of the truth. You see the dilemma. Every time I provide the conservative/libertarian viewpoint, these idiots immediately feel they must refute me.

This can only happen because pseudocons have no idea what real conservatism is. Their masters have been deliberately taking them off the reservation and dumbing them down.

 

[The Irish Ram]

City B's tax rate for all is lower than city A's which is the incentive for companies to do business in city B.
Ireland's tax rate is lower than ours. Businesses prefer doing business in Ireland as oppose to the United States. How does a country entice business? Same way Ireland did.

Here. You choose the best place to make and keep your money:
USA corporate tax rate: 38.9%
Ireland corporate tax rate: 12.5%

It is just plain old common sense. Companies produce jobs, jobs produce paychecks. America needs to get back to work again.

 

[g5000]

City B's tax rate for all is lower than city A's which is the incentive for companies to do business in city B.
Ireland's tax rate is lower than ours. Businesses prefer doing business in Ireland as oppose to the United States. How does a country entice business? Same way Ireland did.

Here. You choose the best place to make and keep your money:
USA corporate tax rate: 38.9%
Ireland corporate tax rate: 12.5%

It is just plain old common sense. Companies produce jobs, jobs produce paychecks. America needs to get back to work again.

I've already covered this. See post 5.

Tax expenditures are the very reason our corporate tax rate is so high. When conservatives like Representative Nunes tried to do something about it, he was defeated by his fellow Representatives who are bought and paid for by corporations who bribed them to keep the playing field unlevel. Thus, US corporate tax rates remain high. Because of the tax expenditures JGalt is defending.

Read post 5, for chrissakes.

And see this topic: Lowering Corporate Tax Rates The Coward’s Way

 

[MisterBeale]

The IRS and the FED were not legitimately passed, and I read through your other thread, and you have made a grievous fallacy with the assumption that government needs to keep the same amount of funding.

No, I did not make that mistake. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if you cut spending or increase spending or if spending stays the same, tax expenditures are still a major contributor to higher tax rates. I was merely stating if we eliminated tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates for everyone, even BEFORE we cut any other kind of spending.

I am for cutting all kinds of spending. Tax expenditures are by far the biggest and most corrupt spending, and so most of my concentration is on this particular waste and theft.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your reasoning, and it sounds reasonable. If person A weren't getting a tax break, than all of the rest of society would not need to have their taxes so high.

But others don't see it that way. Others see it from a different POV. They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

It is all a matter of perspective. Yours is not necessarily the only correct viewpoint.

The best way to come to consensus is to understand all POV, and to respect them, acknowledge them, and to see that there is some legitimacy in them.
Some Thoughts on Supply-side Economics

Some believe tax breaks on the lower and middle classes will not grow the economy, create jobs, and thus create a future tax base.

 

[g5000]

They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

Tax breaks do not grow the economy. That is the flaw in your thinking.

In fact, the biggest individual tax deduction not only causes higher tax rates, it also increases the price of housing. It steals from every taxpayer, and redistributes wealth from their pockets into the pockets of mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors.

That is why I say no self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government distortion of the markets. No self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government behavioral controls.

 

[Timmy]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

Here are the giant flaws in this analogy.

Mr. Sam is obviously Uncle Sam, the government.

Uncle Sam's job is to maintain the harbor. This is what the fees (taxes) from the ship owners go toward.

One of the ship owners decides to do Uncle Sam's job. Fix the docks. This is where the analogy collapses. Corporations don't do food stamps.

Corporations get tax breaks for painting their boats or for the depreciation of their boats. THAT is how tax expenditures ACTUALLY work.

And so when Mr. Hat paints his boat with a new coat of paint and gets a cut in fees, every other boat owner will have to pay HIGHER fees to make up the loss of revenue to Uncle Sam from Mr. Hat.

That is the actual system we have today.

Don't forget the working riff raff. Harbor fees do not pay ALL harbor expenses . The Sam also takes money from working rif raff in order to keep the harbor going . Even though the riff raff do not own boats or use the Marina .

 

[MisterBeale]

City B's tax rate for all is lower than city A's which is the incentive for companies to do business in city B.
Ireland's tax rate is lower than ours. Businesses prefer doing business in Ireland as oppose to the United States. How does a country entice business? Same way Ireland did.

Here. You choose the best place to make and keep your money:
USA corporate tax rate: 38.9%
Ireland corporate tax rate: 12.5%

It is just plain old common sense. Companies produce jobs, jobs produce paychecks. America needs to get back to work again.

I've already covered this. See post 5.

Tax expenditures are the very reason our corporate tax rate is so high. When conservatives like Representative Nunes tried to do something about it, he was defeated by his fellow Representatives who are bought and paid for by corporations who bribed them to keep the playing field unlevel. Thus, US corporate tax rates remain high. Because of the tax expenditures JGalt is defending.

Read post 5, for chrissakes.

And see this topic: Lowering Corporate Tax Rates The Coward’s Way

I've been doing a little research on this, but I have been coming up empty.

A quick guide to the ‘border adjustments’ tax

 

[bendog]

The IRS and the FED were not legitimately passed, and I read through your other thread, and you have made a grievous fallacy with the assumption that government needs to keep the same amount of funding.

No, I did not make that mistake. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if you cut spending or increase spending or if spending stays the same, tax expenditures are still a major contributor to higher tax rates. I was merely stating if we eliminated tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates for everyone, even BEFORE we cut any other kind of spending.

I am for cutting all kinds of spending. Tax expenditures are by far the biggest and most corrupt spending, and so most of my concentration is on this particular waste and theft.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your reasoning, and it sounds reasonable. If person A weren't getting a tax break, than all of the rest of society would not need to have their taxes so high.

But others don't see it that way. Others see it from a different POV. They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

It is all a matter of perspective. Yours is not necessarily the only correct viewpoint.

The best way to come to consensus is to understand all POV, and to respect them, acknowledge them, and to see that there is some legitimacy in them.
Some Thoughts on Supply-side Economics

Some believe tax breaks on the lower and middle classes will not grow the economy, create jobs, and thus create a future tax base.

Not to detract from the intellectual honesty of the link, but it is over 35 years old. The idea was
Having reached a dead-end in attempts to stimulate the economy on the side of "aggregate demand," the macroeconomic manipulators have now discovered there is a new set of economic equations that can be massaged on the "aggregate supply" side as well.

We have full employment and stagnant wages coupled with interest rates that even ten years ago would be unthinkably low with full employment and a DOW over 22K. There's simply no shortage of capital looking for a place to be invested. In fact, a good case can be made that our budget deficits and increasingly concentrated wealth at the top 1% are contributing to a bubble stock market.

The EU was driven by Germany financing debt for other countries to buy their shit. Our economy is driven by debt so we can buy shit from everyone. G5000's point is economically correct that the largest tax expenditure causes us to buy larger houses with ... more debt. This was not the case in 1980.

 

[MisterBeale]

They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

Tax breaks do not grow the economy. That is the flaw in your thinking.

In fact, the biggest individual tax deduction not only causes higher tax rates, it also increases the price of housing. It steals from every taxpayer, and redistributes wealth from their pockets into the pockets of mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors.

That is why I say no self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government distortion of the markets. No self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government behavioral controls.

Ahhh. . .

So, if you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to work? Or, if you are a producer, and you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to produce?

Seriously, that statement, "Tax breaks do not grow the economy." THat is just about the stupidest thing you have ever written. Do not let those that hate you ever know you have written that.

If you ran a business, and you were taxed at 95%, you would not open up another branch or hire any more people. Yet, if your taxes were cut? C'mon, you seriously can't be that obtuse, really?

 

[g5000]

City B's tax rate for all is lower than city A's which is the incentive for companies to do business in city B.
Ireland's tax rate is lower than ours. Businesses prefer doing business in Ireland as oppose to the United States. How does a country entice business? Same way Ireland did.

Here. You choose the best place to make and keep your money:
USA corporate tax rate: 38.9%
Ireland corporate tax rate: 12.5%

It is just plain old common sense. Companies produce jobs, jobs produce paychecks. America needs to get back to work again.

I've already covered this. See post 5.

Tax expenditures are the very reason our corporate tax rate is so high. When conservatives like Representative Nunes tried to do something about it, he was defeated by his fellow Representatives who are bought and paid for by corporations who bribed them to keep the playing field unlevel. Thus, US corporate tax rates remain high. Because of the tax expenditures JGalt is defending.

Read post 5, for chrissakes.

And see this topic: Lowering Corporate Tax Rates The Coward’s Way

I've been doing a little research on this, but I have been coming up empty.

A quick guide to the ‘border adjustments’ tax

I linked to that story in my corporate tax topic that I have already linked to twice. See post 4. There are plenty of other links in my topic about the BAT if you need more research material.

The reason Nunes' committee had to create a BAT in their tax plan is because Nunes could not get the bought and paid for assholes on the committee to eliminate all the tax expenditures which need to go away in order to lower the corporate tax rate.

So, the only other way to lower the corporate tax rate was to create a whole new tax!

If this does not obliterate JGalt's idiotic stance, I don't know what does.

 

[MisterBeale]

The IRS and the FED were not legitimately passed, and I read through your other thread, and you have made a grievous fallacy with the assumption that government needs to keep the same amount of funding.

No, I did not make that mistake. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if you cut spending or increase spending or if spending stays the same, tax expenditures are still a major contributor to higher tax rates. I was merely stating if we eliminated tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates for everyone, even BEFORE we cut any other kind of spending.

I am for cutting all kinds of spending. Tax expenditures are by far the biggest and most corrupt spending, and so most of my concentration is on this particular waste and theft.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your reasoning, and it sounds reasonable. If person A weren't getting a tax break, than all of the rest of society would not need to have their taxes so high.

But others don't see it that way. Others see it from a different POV. They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

It is all a matter of perspective. Yours is not necessarily the only correct viewpoint.

The best way to come to consensus is to understand all POV, and to respect them, acknowledge them, and to see that there is some legitimacy in them.
Some Thoughts on Supply-side Economics

Some believe tax breaks on the lower and middle classes will not grow the economy, create jobs, and thus create a future tax base.

Not to detract from the intellectual honesty of the link, but it is over 35 years old. The idea was
Having reached a dead-end in attempts to stimulate the economy on the side of "aggregate demand," the macroeconomic manipulators have now discovered there is a new set of economic equations that can be massaged on the "aggregate supply" side as well.

We have full employment and stagnant wages coupled with interest rates that even ten years ago would be unthinkably low with full employment and a DOW over 22K. There's simply no shortage of capital looking for a place to be invested. In fact, a good case can be made that our budget deficits and increasingly concentrated wealth at the top 1% are contributing to a bubble stock market.

The EU was driven by Germany financing debt for other countries to buy their shit. Our economy is driven by debt so we can buy shit from everyone. G5000's point is economically correct that the largest tax expenditure causes us to buy larger houses with ... more debt. This was not the case in 1980.

We do not have full employment, nowhere even close.

You may look at government unemployment, or employment numbers, I ignore them, to me, they are meaningless statistics used to boost the state's and economists' street cred.

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.


Unthinkably low interest rates are a danger sign, not a good sign. It means the poor and middle class cannot earn anything on their savings and must make riskier and riskier investments to secure a future. This is like putting a gun to your children's head and forcing them to go into a casino.


And that "capital" you are talking about? It is all an illusion. It was created out of thin air.

You have free choice. How much tax breaks a corporation gets have nothing to do with how much debt you take on. Get real.

 

[g5000]

They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

Tax breaks do not grow the economy. That is the flaw in your thinking.

In fact, the biggest individual tax deduction not only causes higher tax rates, it also increases the price of housing. It steals from every taxpayer, and redistributes wealth from their pockets into the pockets of mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors.

That is why I say no self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government distortion of the markets. No self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government behavioral controls.

Ahhh. . .

So, if you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to work? Or, if you are a producer, and you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to produce?

Seriously, that statement, "Tax breaks do not grow the economy." THat is just about the stupidest thing you have ever written. Do not let those that hate you ever know you have written that.

If you ran a business, and you were taxed at 95%, you would not open up another branch or hire any more people. Yet, if your taxes were cut? C'mon, you seriously can't be that obtuse, really?

When I say "tax breaks", it was in the context of tax expenditures, not lower tax rates for everyone, idiot. That was made even more clear in the example of the MID I then spoke of.

And you should have known that, so you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

I have said, repeatedly, cutting tax expenditures means lower tax rates for everyone.

That is the right way to stimulate the economy. Tax expenditures are KILLING the economy.

 

[bendog]

The IRS and the FED were not legitimately passed, and I read through your other thread, and you have made a grievous fallacy with the assumption that government needs to keep the same amount of funding.

No, I did not make that mistake. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if you cut spending or increase spending or if spending stays the same, tax expenditures are still a major contributor to higher tax rates. I was merely stating if we eliminated tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates for everyone, even BEFORE we cut any other kind of spending.

I am for cutting all kinds of spending. Tax expenditures are by far the biggest and most corrupt spending, and so most of my concentration is on this particular waste and theft.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your reasoning, and it sounds reasonable. If person A weren't getting a tax break, than all of the rest of society would not need to have their taxes so high.

But others don't see it that way. Others see it from a different POV. They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

It is all a matter of perspective. Yours is not necessarily the only correct viewpoint.

The best way to come to consensus is to understand all POV, and to respect them, acknowledge them, and to see that there is some legitimacy in them.
Some Thoughts on Supply-side Economics
What jobs are unfilled?
Some believe tax breaks on the lower and middle classes will not grow the economy, create jobs, and thus create a future tax base.

Not to detract from the intellectual honesty of the link, but it is over 35 years old. The idea was
Having reached a dead-end in attempts to stimulate the economy on the side of "aggregate demand," the macroeconomic manipulators have now discovered there is a new set of economic equations that can be massaged on the "aggregate supply" side as well.

We have full employment and stagnant wages coupled with interest rates that even ten years ago would be unthinkably low with full employment and a DOW over 22K. There's simply no shortage of capital looking for a place to be invested. In fact, a good case can be made that our budget deficits and increasingly concentrated wealth at the top 1% are contributing to a bubble stock market.

The EU was driven by Germany financing debt for other countries to buy their shit. Our economy is driven by debt so we can buy shit from everyone. G5000's point is economically correct that the largest tax expenditure causes us to buy larger houses with ... more debt. This was not the case in 1980.

We do not have full employment, nowhere even close.

You may look at government unemployment, or employment numbers, I ignore them, to me, they are meaningless statistics used to boost the state's and economists' street cred.

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.


Unthinkably low interest rates are a danger sign, not a good sign. It means the poor and middle class cannot earn anything on their savings and must make riskier and riskier investments to secure a future. This is like putting a gun to your children's head and forcing them to go into a casino.


And that "capital" you are talking about? It is all an illusion. It was created out of thin air.

You have free choice. How much tax breaks a corporation gets have nothing to do with how much debt you take on. Get real.

What jobs are unfilled. What sectors are begging for workers. We have <4% employment with stagnant wages.

 

[g5000]

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.

Ah. This is one of those things which really pisses of the pseudocons and makes them think I am a liberal.

Whenever one of these tards tried to blame the dropping LFPR on Obama, they would sometimes post a chart of LFPR which started in 2009. This is a very common tactic of their propagandists. They deliberately frame their propaganda in a very narrow window, knowing the parroting tards have no critical thinking skills.

I would then post a chart of LFPR going back much further to show it has been plunging since 2000.

Parroting rubes hate it when I knock the piss cup out of their hands from which they have been drinking.

Obama is not the cause of the dropping LFPR. It precedes him by nearly a decade.

Point of fact is that LFPR leveled out in the last years of Obama Administration. It stopped its downward trend.

 

[Brain357]

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.

Ah. This is one of those things which really pisses of the pseudocons and makes them think I am a liberal.

Whenever one of these tards tried to blame the dropping LFPR on Obama, they would sometimes post a chart of LFPR which started in 2009. This is a very common tactic of their propagandists. They deliberately frame their propaganda in a very narrow window, knowing the parroting tards have no critical thinking skills.

I would then post a chart of LFPR going back much further to show it has been plunging since 2000.

Parroting rubes hate it when I knock the piss cup out of their hands from which they have been drinking.

Obama is not the cause of the dropping LFPR. It precedes him by nearly a decade.

Point of fact is that LFPR leveled out in the last years of Obama Administration. It stopped its downward trend.

Because I do rather well, my wife stopped working and is full time with kids. I don't think that is a bad economic indicator as some claim. In my case it's a sign the economy is doing well.

 

[g5000]

The IRS and the FED were not legitimately passed, and I read through your other thread, and you have made a grievous fallacy with the assumption that government needs to keep the same amount of funding.

No, I did not make that mistake. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if you cut spending or increase spending or if spending stays the same, tax expenditures are still a major contributor to higher tax rates. I was merely stating if we eliminated tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates for everyone, even BEFORE we cut any other kind of spending.

I am for cutting all kinds of spending. Tax expenditures are by far the biggest and most corrupt spending, and so most of my concentration is on this particular waste and theft.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your reasoning, and it sounds reasonable. If person A weren't getting a tax break, than all of the rest of society would not need to have their taxes so high.

But others don't see it that way. Others see it from a different POV. They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

It is all a matter of perspective. Yours is not necessarily the only correct viewpoint.

The best way to come to consensus is to understand all POV, and to respect them, acknowledge them, and to see that there is some legitimacy in them.
Some Thoughts on Supply-side Economics
What jobs are unfilled?
Some believe tax breaks on the lower and middle classes will not grow the economy, create jobs, and thus create a future tax base.

Not to detract from the intellectual honesty of the link, but it is over 35 years old. The idea was
Having reached a dead-end in attempts to stimulate the economy on the side of "aggregate demand," the macroeconomic manipulators have now discovered there is a new set of economic equations that can be massaged on the "aggregate supply" side as well.

We have full employment and stagnant wages coupled with interest rates that even ten years ago would be unthinkably low with full employment and a DOW over 22K. There's simply no shortage of capital looking for a place to be invested. In fact, a good case can be made that our budget deficits and increasingly concentrated wealth at the top 1% are contributing to a bubble stock market.

The EU was driven by Germany financing debt for other countries to buy their shit. Our economy is driven by debt so we can buy shit from everyone. G5000's point is economically correct that the largest tax expenditure causes us to buy larger houses with ... more debt. This was not the case in 1980.

We do not have full employment, nowhere even close.

You may look at government unemployment, or employment numbers, I ignore them, to me, they are meaningless statistics used to boost the state's and economists' street cred.

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.


Unthinkably low interest rates are a danger sign, not a good sign. It means the poor and middle class cannot earn anything on their savings and must make riskier and riskier investments to secure a future. This is like putting a gun to your children's head and forcing them to go into a casino.


And that "capital" you are talking about? It is all an illusion. It was created out of thin air.

You have free choice. How much tax breaks a corporation gets have nothing to do with how much debt you take on. Get real.

What jobs are unfilled. What sectors are begging for workers. We have <4% employment with stagnant wages.

Normally when we have full employment, wages rise, not stagnate.

4% is considered full employment. But since we do not see wages rising, then something is broken. I am convinced it is because of the Fed's massive interference in the economy since the Great Recession. Way too many QEs.

 

[Brain357]

No, I did not make that mistake. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if you cut spending or increase spending or if spending stays the same, tax expenditures are still a major contributor to higher tax rates. I was merely stating if we eliminated tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates for everyone, even BEFORE we cut any other kind of spending.

I am for cutting all kinds of spending. Tax expenditures are by far the biggest and most corrupt spending, and so most of my concentration is on this particular waste and theft.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your reasoning, and it sounds reasonable. If person A weren't getting a tax break, than all of the rest of society would not need to have their taxes so high.

But others don't see it that way. Others see it from a different POV. They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

It is all a matter of perspective. Yours is not necessarily the only correct viewpoint.

The best way to come to consensus is to understand all POV, and to respect them, acknowledge them, and to see that there is some legitimacy in them.
Some Thoughts on Supply-side Economics
What jobs are unfilled?
Some believe tax breaks on the lower and middle classes will not grow the economy, create jobs, and thus create a future tax base.

Not to detract from the intellectual honesty of the link, but it is over 35 years old. The idea was
Having reached a dead-end in attempts to stimulate the economy on the side of "aggregate demand," the macroeconomic manipulators have now discovered there is a new set of economic equations that can be massaged on the "aggregate supply" side as well.

We have full employment and stagnant wages coupled with interest rates that even ten years ago would be unthinkably low with full employment and a DOW over 22K. There's simply no shortage of capital looking for a place to be invested. In fact, a good case can be made that our budget deficits and increasingly concentrated wealth at the top 1% are contributing to a bubble stock market.

The EU was driven by Germany financing debt for other countries to buy their shit. Our economy is driven by debt so we can buy shit from everyone. G5000's point is economically correct that the largest tax expenditure causes us to buy larger houses with ... more debt. This was not the case in 1980.

We do not have full employment, nowhere even close.

You may look at government unemployment, or employment numbers, I ignore them, to me, they are meaningless statistics used to boost the state's and economists' street cred.

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.


Unthinkably low interest rates are a danger sign, not a good sign. It means the poor and middle class cannot earn anything on their savings and must make riskier and riskier investments to secure a future. This is like putting a gun to your children's head and forcing them to go into a casino.


And that "capital" you are talking about? It is all an illusion. It was created out of thin air.

You have free choice. How much tax breaks a corporation gets have nothing to do with how much debt you take on. Get real.

What jobs are unfilled. What sectors are begging for workers. We have <4% employment with stagnant wages.

Normally when we have full employment, wages rise, not stagnate.

4% is considered full employment. But since we do not see wages rising, then something is broken. I am convinced it is because of the Fed's massive interference in the economy since the Great Recession. Way too many QEs.

The cause is the million dollar question. I don't think the answer is immigration...

 

[g5000]

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.

Ah. This is one of those things which really pisses of the pseudocons and makes them think I am a liberal.

Whenever one of these tards tried to blame the dropping LFPR on Obama, they would sometimes post a chart of LFPR which started in 2009. This is a very common tactic of their propagandists. They deliberately frame their propaganda in a very narrow window, knowing the parroting tards have no critical thinking skills.

I would then post a chart of LFPR going back much further to show it has been plunging since 2000.

Parroting rubes hate it when I knock the piss cup out of their hands from which they have been drinking.

Obama is not the cause of the dropping LFPR. It precedes him by nearly a decade.

Point of fact is that LFPR leveled out in the last years of Obama Administration. It stopped its downward trend.

Because I do rather well, my wife stopped working and is full time with kids. I don't think that is a bad economic indicator as some claim. In my case it's a sign the economy is doing well.

While you might be doing well, wages for average Americans have been stagnant for a long time. Most families still need two incomes to survive. The high number of welfare recipients suggests the LFPR need to be much higher.