independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'll be sure to win if you only raise rates high enough.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them. There are more arguments for raising taxes on the rich than there are for cutting them. I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them.

Yes, idiots support lots of stupid things.

We should probably punish corporations by raising their rates as well.
The best way to get them to stop hoarding cash overseas is to tax more, eh comrade?

I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?
Would raising corporate tax rates decrease economic activity?

Why?

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income. The reality is that the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines. Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

The classic example, a poker table. If the "rake" on the table is low one would be more conservative with their bets, while if the "rake" on the table is high one would bet more aggressively. Remember, corporations are more concerned with the return OF their money than the return ON their money. When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

LOL! And increasing tax rates actually causes economic activity to increase? LOL!

When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

When tax rates are high they get less of their money back if the investment does pay off.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY. So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash. Or, perhaps the critical question, which company has more money to "invest" in RENT SEEKING activities.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis. What is important is the marginal tax rate. The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss. Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment. That is what the Monte Carlo stimulation measures. Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. They make the money first, then they worry about the taxes. Or as I like to say, nobody has ever refused to cash in a winning lottery ticket because of the taxes that would come due. Amazing how most Republican supporters lack even a basic understanding of how businesses work. And yes, most economists, except those from George Mason university, do not support supply side economics, especially in current market conditions.

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY.

A company can't invest next year with retained earnings from this year? Are you sure?

So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash.

Excellent point. Which of the companies in my example has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis.

Really?

What is important is the marginal tax rate.

Well, which marginal rate is better, 35% or 20%?

The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss.

The lower the rate the less the company is on the hook for a gain.

Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment.

I remember thinking that was a silly claim.

Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate.

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Govt collects taxes from the public to pay off debt.

NO IT DOESN'T. Government collects revenues to fund government and entitlements.

, that same debt that is accrued through our tacit approval from who we elect. You're just shuffling chairs on the titanic.

You don't know what the holy fuck you're talking about.

So are you just "rearranging the deck chairs" when you refinance your home? Or are you reducing the amount of interest you pay when you refinance?

Fucking idiots. No wonder Conservatives have never, ever been able to balance a budget on their own.

You're so delusional and brainwashed. Its beyond amazing how ignorant you are.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Derp only tried to run that up the flag pole when he figured out that he was 100% wrong about there being a Clinton "surplus", Todd! It was a rather pathetic attempt to shift the narrative to something he wouldn't look completely idiotic in.

Sigh...there was definitely a budget surplus during Clinton and it definitely went to pay down the Public Debt. If there wasn't, and Clinton was simply borrowing from SS to pay down debt, why didn't he just exhaust the SS Trust Fund all in one shot? Because in 1998, the SS Trust Fund was at about $1T and total Public Debt was at about $3.5T. So then if what you're saying is true, why didn't Clinton use all of the SS Trust to pay down as much of the debt as he could? Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

Derp's not bright at all.

 

[Winston]

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them. There are more arguments for raising taxes on the rich than there are for cutting them. I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them.

Yes, idiots support lots of stupid things.

We should probably punish corporations by raising their rates as well.
The best way to get them to stop hoarding cash overseas is to tax more, eh comrade?

I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?
Would raising corporate tax rates decrease economic activity?

Why?

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income. The reality is that the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines. Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

The classic example, a poker table. If the "rake" on the table is low one would be more conservative with their bets, while if the "rake" on the table is high one would bet more aggressively. Remember, corporations are more concerned with the return OF their money than the return ON their money. When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

LOL! And increasing tax rates actually causes economic activity to increase? LOL!

When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

When tax rates are high they get less of their money back if the investment does pay off.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY. So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash. Or, perhaps the critical question, which company has more money to "invest" in RENT SEEKING activities.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis. What is important is the marginal tax rate. The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss. Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment. That is what the Monte Carlo stimulation measures. Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. They make the money first, then they worry about the taxes. Or as I like to say, nobody has ever refused to cash in a winning lottery ticket because of the taxes that would come due. Amazing how most Republican supporters lack even a basic understanding of how businesses work. And yes, most economists, except those from George Mason university, do not support supply side economics, especially in current market conditions.

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY.

A company can't invest next year with retained earnings from this year? Are you sure?

So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash.

Excellent point. Which of the companies in my example has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis.

Really?

What is important is the marginal tax rate.

Well, which marginal rate is better, 35% or 20%?

The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss.

The lower the rate the less the company is on the hook for a gain.

Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment.

I remember thinking that was a silly claim.

Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate.

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country. And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS, not to put it back in. And that is a problem in the current environment. But, now that you mentioned the choice of tax rates. Take a doctor. He went to school for many years in order to practice medicine. He makes money. The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them.

Yes, idiots support lots of stupid things.

We should probably punish corporations by raising their rates as well.
The best way to get them to stop hoarding cash overseas is to tax more, eh comrade?

I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?
Would raising corporate tax rates decrease economic activity?

Why?

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income. The reality is that the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines. Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

The classic example, a poker table. If the "rake" on the table is low one would be more conservative with their bets, while if the "rake" on the table is high one would bet more aggressively. Remember, corporations are more concerned with the return OF their money than the return ON their money. When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

LOL! And increasing tax rates actually causes economic activity to increase? LOL!

When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

When tax rates are high they get less of their money back if the investment does pay off.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY. So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash. Or, perhaps the critical question, which company has more money to "invest" in RENT SEEKING activities.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis. What is important is the marginal tax rate. The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss. Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment. That is what the Monte Carlo stimulation measures. Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. They make the money first, then they worry about the taxes. Or as I like to say, nobody has ever refused to cash in a winning lottery ticket because of the taxes that would come due. Amazing how most Republican supporters lack even a basic understanding of how businesses work. And yes, most economists, except those from George Mason university, do not support supply side economics, especially in current market conditions.

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY.

A company can't invest next year with retained earnings from this year? Are you sure?

So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash.

Excellent point. Which of the companies in my example has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis.

Really?

What is important is the marginal tax rate.

Well, which marginal rate is better, 35% or 20%?

The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss.

The lower the rate the less the company is on the hook for a gain.

Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment.

I remember thinking that was a silly claim.

Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate.

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country. And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS, not to put it back in. And that is a problem in the current environment. But, now that you mentioned the choice of tax rates. Take a doctor. He went to school for many years in order to practice medicine. He makes money. The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country.

Really? Nothing a company can do to take advantage of lower rates elsewhere?

And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

Excellent ideas.....if you want to make our corporations even less competitive.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

Excellent! And which of those 2 in my example has more to invest next year?

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS,

So if I start a new business, I shouldn't ever be allowed to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS?
Could that reduce the incentive to start a new business?

The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

Only the traders benefit? It sounds like the doctor benefits as well. Right?

 

[Norman]

The economists are paid by democrat university funds.

So funding for universities is purely a "Democratic" thing? Do you not think universities should be funded? This also doesn't explain how they "flourish" if taxes on the wealthy are raised. Does it mean that higher taxes on the wealthy leads to increased funding for public colleges and universities?

They support the policies, because otherwise they would get fired from their positions, positions which amount to parroting democrat policies.

Rogoff and Reinhart, who took money from Conservatives to produce a false study called "Growth in the Time of Debt" are both Harvard professors. So wouldn't the inverse of what you're saying actually be true? That the ones who take money from Conservatives to produce conclusions that align with their ideology be the ones seeking "to flourish" from tax rates? After all, it was the wealthy who bankrolled that study, which produced the conclusion that tax cuts and austerity are the answer to economic contraction; an entirely false conclusion.

You're saying that if the professors didn't come to these conclusions they would be "fired". By whom? Who would fire them?

The tax rate or economy they couldn't give less of a damn about. They want their free shit as every democrat.

So economists who work at public universities (but not private ones?) want "free shit"? What "shit" is it they want for free?

Whew, you are really slow. Perhaps if you didn't go through all the crap that no one said, you would be faster.

The democrats are paying the economists to have them shill for them. It's not very difficult to follow. Independent... about as independent as the average far left regressive, ROFL!

 

[Winston]

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income. The reality is that the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines. Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

The classic example, a poker table. If the "rake" on the table is low one would be more conservative with their bets, while if the "rake" on the table is high one would bet more aggressively. Remember, corporations are more concerned with the return OF their money than the return ON their money. When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

LOL! And increasing tax rates actually causes economic activity to increase? LOL!

When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

When tax rates are high they get less of their money back if the investment does pay off.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY. So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash. Or, perhaps the critical question, which company has more money to "invest" in RENT SEEKING activities.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis. What is important is the marginal tax rate. The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss. Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment. That is what the Monte Carlo stimulation measures. Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. They make the money first, then they worry about the taxes. Or as I like to say, nobody has ever refused to cash in a winning lottery ticket because of the taxes that would come due. Amazing how most Republican supporters lack even a basic understanding of how businesses work. And yes, most economists, except those from George Mason university, do not support supply side economics, especially in current market conditions.

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY.

A company can't invest next year with retained earnings from this year? Are you sure?

So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash.

Excellent point. Which of the companies in my example has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis.

Really?

What is important is the marginal tax rate.

Well, which marginal rate is better, 35% or 20%?

The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss.

The lower the rate the less the company is on the hook for a gain.

Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment.

I remember thinking that was a silly claim.

Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate.

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country. And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS, not to put it back in. And that is a problem in the current environment. But, now that you mentioned the choice of tax rates. Take a doctor. He went to school for many years in order to practice medicine. He makes money. The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country.

Really? Nothing a company can do to take advantage of lower rates elsewhere?

And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

Excellent ideas.....if you want to make our corporations even less competitive.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

Excellent! And which of those 2 in my example has more to invest next year?

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS,

So if I start a new business, I shouldn't ever be allowed to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS?
Could that reduce the incentive to start a new business?

The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

Only the traders benefit? It sounds like the doctor benefits as well. Right?

If understanding the dynamics behind tax policy is too difficult for you, then let's just look at the historical record. During the 1950's the highest corporate tax rate was north of 50%. Did we have a problem with companies investing? No, we had a huge manufacturing economy, companies invested in their people, and business was booming. How about the 60's? Well the highest tax rate slipped under 50% by two percentage points in 1965, 1966, and 1967 but 1968 and 1969 saw the highest corporate tax rate in our history, 52.8%. And in 1968 GDP growth was 9.84%, 1969 was 7.28%. The highest tax increase in US history was signed in 1982. 1983 saw GDP growth of 11.39%.

 

[Oldstyle]

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

LOL! And increasing tax rates actually causes economic activity to increase? LOL!

When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

When tax rates are high they get less of their money back if the investment does pay off.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY. So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash. Or, perhaps the critical question, which company has more money to "invest" in RENT SEEKING activities.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis. What is important is the marginal tax rate. The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss. Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment. That is what the Monte Carlo stimulation measures. Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. They make the money first, then they worry about the taxes. Or as I like to say, nobody has ever refused to cash in a winning lottery ticket because of the taxes that would come due. Amazing how most Republican supporters lack even a basic understanding of how businesses work. And yes, most economists, except those from George Mason university, do not support supply side economics, especially in current market conditions.

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY.

A company can't invest next year with retained earnings from this year? Are you sure?

So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash.

Excellent point. Which of the companies in my example has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis.

Really?

What is important is the marginal tax rate.

Well, which marginal rate is better, 35% or 20%?

The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss.

The lower the rate the less the company is on the hook for a gain.

Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment.

I remember thinking that was a silly claim.

Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate.

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country. And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS, not to put it back in. And that is a problem in the current environment. But, now that you mentioned the choice of tax rates. Take a doctor. He went to school for many years in order to practice medicine. He makes money. The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country.

Really? Nothing a company can do to take advantage of lower rates elsewhere?

And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

Excellent ideas.....if you want to make our corporations even less competitive.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

Excellent! And which of those 2 in my example has more to invest next year?

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS,

So if I start a new business, I shouldn't ever be allowed to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS?
Could that reduce the incentive to start a new business?

The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

Only the traders benefit? It sounds like the doctor benefits as well. Right?

If understanding the dynamics behind tax policy is too difficult for you, then let's just look at the historical record. During the 1950's the highest corporate tax rate was north of 50%. Did we have a problem with companies investing? No, we had a huge manufacturing economy, companies invested in their people, and business was booming. How about the 60's? Well the highest tax rate slipped under 50% by two percentage points in 1965, 1966, and 1967 but 1968 and 1969 saw the highest corporate tax rate in our history, 52.8%. And in 1968 GDP growth was 9.84%, 1969 was 7.28%. The highest tax increase in US history was signed in 1982. 1983 saw GDP growth of 11.39%.

With all due respect, Winston...you're advocating policy that worked during the economic boom following WWII when the US was the only major power not having to rebuild much of it's industrial base as if THAT were the case now! The reason we had a huge manufacturing economy was that we were the suppliers to a rebuilding world not because we had a corporate tax rate north of 50%! We're now working in a global economy competing against China, India and Brazil for manufacturing and to be quite blunt...they've been kicking our asses for quite some time because it's simply far cheaper to base a plant in one of those countries than it is in the US.

The reason that highest tax rate started slipping in the 60's was because we were then having to compete with emerging economic powers like Germany and Japan and we needed a lower tax rate in order to do so.

When you look at "history" you have to be careful to look carefully. If you don't you're apt to make policy based on situations that have totally changed from what they used to be.

 

[JBond]

Leave to the derp. Nothing changes. He still hates small independent businesses. Definitely a greedy little sucker.

Small businesses have nothing to do with the top tax rate. Most small businesses don't even net out $100K a year in profits. Congrats for making this about something it's not.

The derp continues to prove he is a moron.

 

[JBond]

Economists are inherently biased. Everyone knows this. Seriously folks get a girp.

The basic premise of the thread is a bit off. But, when you see a general consensus about stuff like the cost of Trump's tax cut ... it's real.

The cost? Elaborate please.

 

[Andylusion]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason.

Yeah, Democrats never do that.

Salisbury News: Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Wins Near-Billion Dollar California ‘High Speed Rail’ Contract

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Yeah, like all those poor benefits, that have left poor black Americans in poverty for now 60 years. Asian immigrants come here, and reach the top of the income class in one generation. Blacks under the benefits of Democrat policies, have yet to reach the middle class for almost 4 generations.

Democrats only make policies that benefit them. Obama used the race card to his advantage. But what were the advantages to blacks? Or the poor? Or the unions? Or anyone other than Democrat politicians?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

LOL! And increasing tax rates actually causes economic activity to increase? LOL!

When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

When tax rates are high they get less of their money back if the investment does pay off.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY. So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash. Or, perhaps the critical question, which company has more money to "invest" in RENT SEEKING activities.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis. What is important is the marginal tax rate. The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss. Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment. That is what the Monte Carlo stimulation measures. Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. They make the money first, then they worry about the taxes. Or as I like to say, nobody has ever refused to cash in a winning lottery ticket because of the taxes that would come due. Amazing how most Republican supporters lack even a basic understanding of how businesses work. And yes, most economists, except those from George Mason university, do not support supply side economics, especially in current market conditions.

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY.

A company can't invest next year with retained earnings from this year? Are you sure?

So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash.

Excellent point. Which of the companies in my example has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis.

Really?

What is important is the marginal tax rate.

Well, which marginal rate is better, 35% or 20%?

The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss.

The lower the rate the less the company is on the hook for a gain.

Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment.

I remember thinking that was a silly claim.

Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate.

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country. And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS, not to put it back in. And that is a problem in the current environment. But, now that you mentioned the choice of tax rates. Take a doctor. He went to school for many years in order to practice medicine. He makes money. The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country.

Really? Nothing a company can do to take advantage of lower rates elsewhere?

And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

Excellent ideas.....if you want to make our corporations even less competitive.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

Excellent! And which of those 2 in my example has more to invest next year?

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS,

So if I start a new business, I shouldn't ever be allowed to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS?
Could that reduce the incentive to start a new business?

The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

Only the traders benefit? It sounds like the doctor benefits as well. Right?

If understanding the dynamics behind tax policy is too difficult for you, then let's just look at the historical record. During the 1950's the highest corporate tax rate was north of 50%. Did we have a problem with companies investing? No, we had a huge manufacturing economy, companies invested in their people, and business was booming. How about the 60's? Well the highest tax rate slipped under 50% by two percentage points in 1965, 1966, and 1967 but 1968 and 1969 saw the highest corporate tax rate in our history, 52.8%. And in 1968 GDP growth was 9.84%, 1969 was 7.28%. The highest tax increase in US history was signed in 1982. 1983 saw GDP growth of 11.39%.

During the 1950's the highest corporate tax rate was north of 50%. Did we have a problem with companies investing?

The fact that most of the world was still rebuilding may have played a part in that as well.

The highest tax increase in US history was signed in 1982.

Really? Which rates rose? By how much?
If you can, give me the before and after rates. Thanks!

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

Excellent! And which of those 2 in my example has more to invest next year?
Seems like you missed this question.

So if I start a new business, I shouldn't ever be allowed to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS?
Could that reduce the incentive to start a new business?

And these two.

 

[The Derp]

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

 

[The Derp]

Obama reduced the deficit? Really? How much did he reduce it before the GOP took over Congress?

Yes, he reduced the deficit. Bush left behind a $1.4T deficit for FY 2009. The deficit for FY 2010 and FY 2011 (the two budget years of the Democratic-controlled Congress) was $1.24T and $1.29T respectively. He would further reduce the deficit to $503B by 2017. Conservatives opposed his continuing resolutions, remember? It's what Cruz tried to shut the government down over in 2013, the CR that had Obamacare funding. And Democrats were the ones who voted for them. Only a small handful of Conservatives did, so they get no credit for it.

Job creation? What program of Barry's created jobs? His signature program was the ACA and that cost jobs.

FUCKING WRONG AS USUAL.

Since Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010, we have had 84 consecutive months of job creation - the longest streak ever. So your claims that Obamacare cost jobs is bullshit. You were suckered and conned.

Furthermore, Obama's stimulus created more jobs in its 18 months than Bush did in all of his 8 years. Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs. Obama gained over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs. You all also predicted that if Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012, the sky would fall. Of course, you were wrong about that and 2013 was Obama's best growth year both in terms of GDP and jobs. So strike two. The records speak for themselves.

He was pushing Cap & Trade before the Democrats got thrashed in the 2010 midterms...another policy that would have cost far more jobs! His stimulus? That created so few jobs they had to use "Jobs created or saved" to hide how few were created after spending all that money!

The reasons the Democrats lost in the midterms were because of low turnout and Conservative lies about Medicare. And what have the Conservatives done with all this power they won? Absolutely fucking nothing.

 

[The Derp]

Conservatives have been balancing budgets at the State level for a long time, Derp

No they haven't. That's a lie. Kansas was just in the situation where their tax cuts erased a surplus and created record deficits (sounds familiar), and had to repeal trickle down economics this year because it failed to deliver on the promises made of it and spiked their debt.

The only way red states "balance their budgets" is by raiding the welfare block grant. So Conservatives quite literally use welfare to pay for tax cuts. Which would make you the real welfare queens here. Without that welfare block grant, red states would have to raise their artificially low tax rates, which would drive businesses out of undesirable states.

You're welcome for that welfare, by the way. It's letting you perpetuate the fantasy that tax cuts are good for anything.

...it's why the people overwhelmingly elect Republicans to run their local governments! Show me a State run by Democrats for a long time and I'll show you a bankrupt, corrupt as hell mess!

California is in better shape than every Conservative state there is. Minnesota as well.

 

[Winston]

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY. So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash. Or, perhaps the critical question, which company has more money to "invest" in RENT SEEKING activities.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis. What is important is the marginal tax rate. The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss. Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment. That is what the Monte Carlo stimulation measures. Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. They make the money first, then they worry about the taxes. Or as I like to say, nobody has ever refused to cash in a winning lottery ticket because of the taxes that would come due. Amazing how most Republican supporters lack even a basic understanding of how businesses work. And yes, most economists, except those from George Mason university, do not support supply side economics, especially in current market conditions.

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY.

A company can't invest next year with retained earnings from this year? Are you sure?

So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash.

Excellent point. Which of the companies in my example has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis.

Really?

What is important is the marginal tax rate.

Well, which marginal rate is better, 35% or 20%?

The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss.

The lower the rate the less the company is on the hook for a gain.

Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment.

I remember thinking that was a silly claim.

Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate.

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

I wonder if he's ever had to decide between an investment at a 20% tax rate versus one with a 35% tax rate?
I wonder which one he'd choose, which one you'd choose?

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country. And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS, not to put it back in. And that is a problem in the current environment. But, now that you mentioned the choice of tax rates. Take a doctor. He went to school for many years in order to practice medicine. He makes money. The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

And there is the problem. Corporations don't get to choose their tax rate, outside of moving an entire operation out of the country.

Really? Nothing a company can do to take advantage of lower rates elsewhere?

And that can easily be fixed by adjusting the tax code so that they cannot deduct the cost of foreign taxes and by refusing to allow them to postpone the payment of taxes until profits are repatriated.

Excellent ideas.....if you want to make our corporations even less competitive.

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

Excellent! And which of those 2 in my example has more to invest next year?

The truth of the matter is that lower taxes encourages corporations to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS,

So if I start a new business, I shouldn't ever be allowed to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS?
Could that reduce the incentive to start a new business?

The money he earns doing what he does best, well he pays a higher tax rate on that income than the money he makes doing what he has not been trained to do, invest in the stock market. It is total ignorance and benefits no one but the stock traders.

Only the traders benefit? It sounds like the doctor benefits as well. Right?

If understanding the dynamics behind tax policy is too difficult for you, then let's just look at the historical record. During the 1950's the highest corporate tax rate was north of 50%. Did we have a problem with companies investing? No, we had a huge manufacturing economy, companies invested in their people, and business was booming. How about the 60's? Well the highest tax rate slipped under 50% by two percentage points in 1965, 1966, and 1967 but 1968 and 1969 saw the highest corporate tax rate in our history, 52.8%. And in 1968 GDP growth was 9.84%, 1969 was 7.28%. The highest tax increase in US history was signed in 1982. 1983 saw GDP growth of 11.39%.

During the 1950's the highest corporate tax rate was north of 50%. Did we have a problem with companies investing?

The fact that most of the world was still rebuilding may have played a part in that as well.

The highest tax increase in US history was signed in 1982.

Really? Which rates rose? By how much?
If you can, give me the before and after rates. Thanks!

And yes, a company can invest retained earnings the next year, and they get to deduct that investment from the next year's taxes.

Excellent! And which of those 2 in my example has more to invest next year?
Seems like you missed this question.

So if I start a new business, I shouldn't ever be allowed to take money OUT OF THE BUSINESS?
Could that reduce the incentive to start a new business?

And these two.

Oh yeah, the old "the world was rebuilding" excuse. Which basically means, regardless of the corporate tax rates, businesses will expand when the opportunity presents itself. So it appears we should be looking at ways to generate opportunities instead of toying with the corporate tax rate.

And to the largest tax increase in American history, it was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. It rescinded many of the original Reagan tax cuts but it mostly involved things like reducing accelerated depreciation and reducing cost basis to recapture part of the investment tax credit. Even conservative commentators have credited the TEFRA to increasing taxes by a full percentage point of GDP.

Now, to the investment question. I don't think you get it. Company A has a profit of one million dollars and faces a tax rate of 90%. Company B has a profit of one million dollars and faces a tax rate of 20%. How much money does each company have to invest? I will give you a hint. They both have the same amount to invest.

Here is the thing.

US GDP Growth Rate by Year

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/site.../content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf

The first table is the GDP growth rate by year. The second table is the highest corporate tax rate by year. If you take an honest look at it you can see that when the corporate tax rate was cut in 1988 it basically cut the legs out from under GDP growth. Most certainly, where we had double digit GDP growth in several years that the corporate tax rate was higher, it has never happened since that decrease in 1988.

 

[Oldstyle]

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

 

[The Derp]

Bush adding $4.9 trillion to $5.7 trillion was less than doubling it.

Wait - now you're saying the debt was $5.7T when Bush the Dumber took office? That's not what you said before. Bush didn't add $4.9T to the debt, he added $5.849T to the debt. His debt increase was 101% from the end of Clinton's FY budget.

Obama adding $9.3 trillion to $10.6 trillion was less than doubling it.

Right. So Bush was a worse offender at growing the debt than Obama. Glad we cleared that up.

Also, what did Bush have to show for his doubling of the debt? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Obama's got an historically-low uninsured rate, 11,000,000 net private sector jobs, a stock market that finished above 20,000 (from the 6,500 he inherited), and cut the employment rate in half by the end of his term, reduced the deficit by 2/3, and wages also grew faster during Obama than Bush the Dumber, particularly for people age 25-39. So that's what Obama has to show for it. Conservatives have nothing to show for their debt load.

Yup. Reagan adding $2 trillion to the debt to win the Cold War was awful!

Wait - so debts are OK, then? What an about face! And Reagan only won the Cold War like that because the USSR bankrupted first. They too ran massive deficits. It's also debatable that Reagan's military spending was what beat the USSR and not perestroika, the famine, and their occupation of Afghanistan.

Bush adding $4.9 trillion was worse, Obama adding $9.3 trillion.....no big deal,

Exactly, because you all have nothing to show for Bush's debt, whereas Obama has plenty to show; job creation, deficit reduction, record low uninsured rate, dramatically lower renewable energy costs, record stock market highs, record corporate profits, and a dead Osama bin Laden. What do you guys have to show for Bush's debt? Nothing other than a poorly-conceived expansion of Medicare that wasn't funded at all (where's that fiscal responsibility?), and that Obama had to fix with the ACA.

I want to know why $4.9 trillion in 2009 was equivalent to $9.3 trillion in 2017?

It's not equivalent. It's far fucking worse because we have nothing to show for Bush's debt other than a ham-fisted expansion of Medicare that Obama had to fix, and millions of wounded soldiers who fought dumb wars we had no business fighting, that we now must take care of for the next 60+ years.

 

[The Derp]

You're so delusional and brainwashed. Its beyond amazing how ignorant you are.

You seem to just be posting things off the top of your head, not giving them the proper thought or due diligence. So these little tantrums of yours, where you proclaim your superiority, are really just an exercise to make yourself feel better.

 

[Winston]

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.