independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand.

How is increased demand stimulating business investment in Venezuela?
You open up a toilet paper import firm in Caracas yet?

 

[The Derp]

It works every time it is done.
It worked for JFK, it worked for Reagan and it worked for Bush.

First of all, JFK cut the rate from 90% to 70%. You know this, yet you leave it out of the context. Why? Most economists agree that the top rate should be between 50-70%.

Secondly, no it didn't work for Reagan. That's why he passed the largest tax increase in history in 1982 that reversed many, if not most, of the cuts from 1981. You know this, yet you leave it out of the context. Why?

Thirdly, it certainly didn't work for Bush the Dumber, as the below chart shows; his growth was fueled entirely by debt, both household debt and federal debt. And even then, his economic growth was shit. Bush lost 841,000 private sector jobs in the first four years of his tax cuts, and lost net 460,000 private sector jobs overall. Also, federal revenue for 2001-4 was below revenue for 2000.

So you took four steps back to take one step forward. So how many steps does that leave you behind?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It works every time it is done.
It worked for JFK, it worked for Reagan and it worked for Bush.

First of all, JFK cut the rate from 90% to 70%. You know this, yet you leave it out of the context. Why? Most economists agree that the top rate should be between 50-70%.

Secondly, no it didn't work for Reagan. That's why he passed the largest tax increase in history in 1982 that reversed many, if not most, of the cuts from 1981. You know this, yet you leave it out of the context. Why?

Thirdly, it certainly didn't work for Bush the Dumber, as the below chart shows; his growth was fueled entirely by debt, both household debt and federal debt. And even then, his economic growth was shit. Bush lost 841,000 private sector jobs in the first four years of his tax cuts, and lost net 460,000 private sector jobs overall. Also, federal revenue for 2001-4 was below revenue for 2000.

So you took four steps back to take one step forward. So how many steps does that leave you behind?

First of all, JFK cut the rate from 90% to 70%.

Why did he want to do that? Post his reasoning.

Secondly, no it didn't work for Reagan.

It worked wonderfully for Reagan.

That's why he passed the largest tax increase in history in 1982

Which rates were higher in 1983 than in 1982? Post a list of before and after.

 

[Winston]

Educated people understand that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics", Jillian! Profit "trickles" up...it always has...it always will!

What a goddamned fucking idiot. Profit doesn't "trickle up"...who the fuck thinks this way? is your brain so damaged that you cannot process complex thoughts and ideas? If profit "trickled up", that would mean the employees are the ones who control the company, not the owners or shareholders. What a fucking idiot. No wonder Conservatives have never been able to successfully grow an economy without using a credit card and exploding our debt.

The only people who believe in trickle down economic theory are liberals who never took economics in college!

You believe that cutting taxes for the rich is "trickle up" economics? What kind of fucking idiot are you? Or are you just a Russian troll trying to spam the board with propaganda because that's what you're paid to do?

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business! Let me explain how it works in the real world, Sparky! If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit. I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit. If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

So, how is the weather in Ireland. I mean you own a business. Obviously you would choose the lowest corporate tax rate. So how is the weather in Ireland?

 

[The Derp]

It's what makes me right.

You're not right, though, and even the data from those Presidents proves it. JFK/LBJ cut the rate to the top of what economists think it should be today (70%); Reagan passed the largest tax increase in history less than a year after his tax cut, that reversed pretty much all of them; Bush the Dumber had to fuel his economy with debt because the tax cuts didn't deliver on any of the promises made of them; job loss of 841,000 in the first four years of the tax cuts, 460,000 jobs lost after 8 years, revenue below 2000 levels for four straight years.

Nothing you've done or said is right. Nothing.

When the rich get a tax cut, what are their choices when it comes to that extra money they keep?

What their choices are don't matter. It's what they actually did that matters, and we have all the data to look at. See, this is your problem; you live in a world of theory and fantasy, whereas the reality of the world is that people don't behave as you presume they do. What did the wealthy do with their tax cuts during Bush? They saved them, they didn't spend or invest them. The promise from you people was that they would increase their spending, which would have a trickling down effect for all. That's your theory. The reality bears a different tale. So all you can do is argue within the realm of theory and fantasy, but cannot reconcile the actual, real-world results. So everything is a hypothetical, theoretical, posturing game with you.

I thought deficits create growth?

Spending creates growth. Deficits don't. Deficits result in spending cuts because of underhanded, insidious people like you that have an ideological opposition to social spending, but because proposing an outright repeal of that spending is politically, morally, and ethically unpopular, you instead deliberately wreck the budget with tax cuts, forcing deficits, then you posture about those deficits and pretend that they're so terrible and horrible because they add to the debt (which you or Oldstyle -I forget which troglodyte- just admitted earlier in this very thread that the debt would never be fully paid off. Which means the urgency behind your screeching to pay off the debt is bullshit, which means the urgency behind your screeching to reduce the deficit is bullshit, which means the urgency behind cutting spending is bullshit, which means all this is just a stunt by you people to practice fiscal terrorism by wrecking the budget, drumming up fear, then using that fear to advance an unpopular, ideological agenda.

Thing is, you're not even clever about this.

Didn't Krugman push for even larger deficits with that reasoning?

He pushed for deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy and make up for the gap that came from the private sector contracting its spending. Direct spending, not tax cuts, because tax cuts don't produce anything tangible of value. Whereas spending on infrastructure produces infrastructure. Spending on education produces more educated people who then innovate. Spending on health care keeps people alive and healthy so they can contribute to the economy. Spending on a tax cut produces nothing, not even increased economic activity above the baseline, as we've seen the last 37 years.

If the government cut funds to your college by $1 million and cut taxes for the people in your area by $1 million, what is the net effect on the consumer economy?

A loss of $2M because the money those students would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy instead has to be spent to make up for the funding gap to essential services that came as a result of the tax cuts. In no world have tax cuts ever paid for themselves.

He won because he was a non-threatening black guy who read a good teleprompter and the people blamed Republicans for the economy. And McCain was an old joke.

No, he won because your policies were and are shit. That's why he also won in 2012. Because your policies are shit. They're just repeated hack jobs of the shitty hack jobs Bush the Dumber did. Only now, the pretending is even more extreme because we just lived through a tax cut nightmare 15 years ago, and the folks of Kansas just lived through a tax cut nightmare the last 4 years, until they wised up and repealed trickle down this past spring.

 

[The Derp]

Why did he want to do that? Post his reasoning.

Because we no longer needed a 90% rate because we weren't in WWII. But he didn't call for a tax rate below 70%. Why?

It worked wonderfully for Reagan.

LOL! It worked so well that Reagan had to reverse most of those tax cuts the next years in, among other bills, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

Which rates were higher in 1983 than in 1982? Post a list of before and after.

LOL! Are you serious? You know what happened in the 1982 tax increase, so why are you playing dumb now? This is why it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

Here are the many, many tax reversals Reagan did because his 1981 tax cut didn't deliver on the promises made of it:

• repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
• tightened safe harbor leasing rules
• required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
• instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
• tightened completed contract accounting rules
• increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

Don't forget that Reagan also raised the gasoline excise tax in 1982, separate from the above.

In 1984, he raised taxes again because his policies still didn't work:

• repealed scheduled 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap)
• reduced benefits from income averaging
• reduced tax benefits for property leased by tax exempt entities
• temporarily extended telephone excise tax (through 1987)
• increased depreciation lives for real property from 15 years to 18 years

So just because he didn't raise the marginal rates doesn't mean he still didn't raise taxes. I know what you're trying to do...you're trying to pretend that income taxes is all we are talking about. Of course, that's not true and you're only doing that because you know, when applied to the broader context, your argument crumbles when subject to the slightest scrutiny.

 

[The Derp]

How is increased demand stimulating business investment in Venezuela?
You open up a toilet paper import firm in Caracas yet?

We're not talking about Venezuela, we're talking about the US. So let's stay on topic. Venezuela has nothing to do with your flawed belief system that cutting taxes for business means those businesses will expand. That's your argument, which is ridiculous because businesses only expand where there is demand for what they produce. No one expands "just because" as you would have us believe.

 

[Oldstyle]

Educated people understand that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics", Jillian! Profit "trickles" up...it always has...it always will!

What a goddamned fucking idiot. Profit doesn't "trickle up"...who the fuck thinks this way? is your brain so damaged that you cannot process complex thoughts and ideas? If profit "trickled up", that would mean the employees are the ones who control the company, not the owners or shareholders. What a fucking idiot. No wonder Conservatives have never been able to successfully grow an economy without using a credit card and exploding our debt.

The only people who believe in trickle down economic theory are liberals who never took economics in college!

You believe that cutting taxes for the rich is "trickle up" economics? What kind of fucking idiot are you? Or are you just a Russian troll trying to spam the board with propaganda because that's what you're paid to do?

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business! Let me explain how it works in the real world, Sparky! If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit. I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit. If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

So, how is the weather in Ireland. I mean you own a business. Obviously you would choose the lowest corporate tax rate. So how is the weather in Ireland?

I'm retired and living in Florida and Costa Rica. If I still owned businesses I would do so in the locale that allowed me to make and RETAIN the most profit from that business! Doing so is what's given me the means to retire comfortably. If that locale was Ireland...that's where I'd invest. Why would anyone kill themselves working nonstop just to give most of what they make to government? Only an idiot would do so! It's quite obvious that Derp has never owned a business so he doesn't have to worry about profits or taxes on the rich because he'll never have any of the former and never become one of the latter!

 

[The Derp]

I'm retired and living in Florida and Costa Rica.

No one fucking believes you.

If I still owned businesses I would do so in the locale that allowed me to make and RETAIN the most profit from that business! Doing so is what's given me the means to retire comfortably. If that locale was Ireland...that's where I'd invest. Why would anyone kill themselves working nonstop just to give most of what they make to government? Only an idiot would do so! It's quite obvious that Derp has never owned a business so he doesn't have to worry about profits or taxes on the rich because he'll never have any of the former and never become one of the latter!

What's obvious is you're only saying you owned a business to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have on the facts.

 

[Winston]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

Stop right there. Yes, the higher the tax rate the more businesses are encouraged to invest IN their business. Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

Look, this whole argument was settled over thirty years ago. It was settled after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, hence the massive tax increase of 1983. All those "experts" attempting to perpetuate the false dream of "trickle down" know they are spewing nothing but propaganda. It is all about getting those tax cuts so that they can get more pie without making more pie. To be perfectly honest, the argument was settled over a hundred years ago back when it was called the horse and sparrow theory. You know, feed the horse enough oats some will come out on the street for the sparrows to eat.

I know this because I worked for Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Now I was just a lowly numbers cruncher, Econometrics was my forte. I was working for Andrew Benavie. See, when other kids went to band camp I went to Economics camp. I started my studies when I was 14. By the time I got to college I was well versed in the old school economic theory, from Xenophon to Adam Smith. This new Chicago School theory seemed to be a little sketchy. But I did what I was told, I crunched the numbers, and then I confidently pronounced it would not work.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down. The savings generate rents that suck the demand out of the economy. Classic, basic, Keynesian economics. I could not see a growth in demand that would stimulate the necessary investment. All I saw was an increase in the Marginal Propensity to Save and when you plug that increase into the Chicago school model the result is a contraction of GDP and a decline in tax revenue.

So Reagan, under the advice of his economic advisers, quickly reversed course and increased taxes not once, not twice, but three times. And, like a cat chasing it's tail, be borrowed, and he borrowed, and he borrowed some more in order to compensate for the lack of consumer demand and push out some growth in GDP.

Now the zealots tried. They talked about Say's Law, as if supply magically created it's own demand. And they claimed Keynes was dead. And then the Koch brothers started donating to Economics departments, they pretty much own the one at George Mason, and as a stipulation of their contributions, those universities started to require the reading of Ayn Rand's terribly written screed, Atlas Shrugged. Torture for anyone that enjoys fine literature. Now we have an entire generation of business and economics graduates that are absolutely clueless as to how the economy actually works. But make no mistake about it, those at the top, from the Kochs to Laffer to Rubin, they know trickle down doesn't work. They are con men, one and all, and you my friend, have been conned.

 

[Winston]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed.

Yeah, tax corporations at 99%, if you want them to invest and expand. Fucking moron!

It's called the Laffer curve you dolt. Why not make the tax rate one percent, then the economy will be booming. Fucking moron.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's what makes me right.

You're not right, though, and even the data from those Presidents proves it. JFK/LBJ cut the rate to the top of what economists think it should be today (70%); Reagan passed the largest tax increase in history less than a year after his tax cut, that reversed pretty much all of them; Bush the Dumber had to fuel his economy with debt because the tax cuts didn't deliver on any of the promises made of them; job loss of 841,000 in the first four years of the tax cuts, 460,000 jobs lost after 8 years, revenue below 2000 levels for four straight years.

Nothing you've done or said is right. Nothing.

When the rich get a tax cut, what are their choices when it comes to that extra money they keep?

What their choices are don't matter. It's what they actually did that matters, and we have all the data to look at. See, this is your problem; you live in a world of theory and fantasy, whereas the reality of the world is that people don't behave as you presume they do. What did the wealthy do with their tax cuts during Bush? They saved them, they didn't spend or invest them. The promise from you people was that they would increase their spending, which would have a trickling down effect for all. That's your theory. The reality bears a different tale. So all you can do is argue within the realm of theory and fantasy, but cannot reconcile the actual, real-world results. So everything is a hypothetical, theoretical, posturing game with you.

I thought deficits create growth?

Spending creates growth. Deficits don't. Deficits result in spending cuts because of underhanded, insidious people like you that have an ideological opposition to social spending, but because proposing an outright repeal of that spending is politically, morally, and ethically unpopular, you instead deliberately wreck the budget with tax cuts, forcing deficits, then you posture about those deficits and pretend that they're so terrible and horrible because they add to the debt (which you or Oldstyle -I forget which troglodyte- just admitted earlier in this very thread that the debt would never be fully paid off. Which means the urgency behind your screeching to pay off the debt is bullshit, which means the urgency behind your screeching to reduce the deficit is bullshit, which means the urgency behind cutting spending is bullshit, which means all this is just a stunt by you people to practice fiscal terrorism by wrecking the budget, drumming up fear, then using that fear to advance an unpopular, ideological agenda.

Thing is, you're not even clever about this.

Didn't Krugman push for even larger deficits with that reasoning?

He pushed for deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy and make up for the gap that came from the private sector contracting its spending. Direct spending, not tax cuts, because tax cuts don't produce anything tangible of value. Whereas spending on infrastructure produces infrastructure. Spending on education produces more educated people who then innovate. Spending on health care keeps people alive and healthy so they can contribute to the economy. Spending on a tax cut produces nothing, not even increased economic activity above the baseline, as we've seen the last 37 years.

If the government cut funds to your college by $1 million and cut taxes for the people in your area by $1 million, what is the net effect on the consumer economy?

A loss of $2M because the money those students would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy instead has to be spent to make up for the funding gap to essential services that came as a result of the tax cuts. In no world have tax cuts ever paid for themselves.

He won because he was a non-threatening black guy who read a good teleprompter and the people blamed Republicans for the economy. And McCain was an old joke.

No, he won because your policies were and are shit. That's why he also won in 2012. Because your policies are shit. They're just repeated hack jobs of the shitty hack jobs Bush the Dumber did. Only now, the pretending is even more extreme because we just lived through a tax cut nightmare 15 years ago, and the folks of Kansas just lived through a tax cut nightmare the last 4 years, until they wised up and repealed trickle down this past spring.

The fact that you think the wealthy "save" additional money coming from tax cuts and wouldn't invest that money shows me how little you know about the wealthy, Derp! Wealthy people put their capital to work for them. The only time they aren't investing it is when someone like you gets the bright idea to tax profits at 70% thus taking away the incentive to risk capital.

 

[Oldstyle]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

Stop right there. Yes, the higher the tax rate the more businesses are encouraged to invest IN their business. Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

Look, this whole argument was settled over thirty years ago. It was settled after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, hence the massive tax increase of 1983. All those "experts" attempting to perpetuate the false dream of "trickle down" know they are spewing nothing but propaganda. It is all about getting those tax cuts so that they can get more pie without making more pie. To be perfectly honest, the argument was settled over a hundred years ago back when it was called the horse and sparrow theory. You know, feed the horse enough oats some will come out on the street for the sparrows to eat.

I know this because I worked for Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Now I was just a lowly numbers cruncher, Econometrics was my forte. I was working for Andrew Benavie. See, when other kids went to band camp I went to Economics camp. I started my studies when I was 14. By the time I got to college I was well versed in the old school economic theory, from Xenophon to Adam Smith. This new Chicago School theory seemed to be a little sketchy. But I did what I was told, I crunched the numbers, and then I confidently pronounced it would not work.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down. The savings generate rents that suck the demand out of the economy. Classic, basic, Keynesian economics. I could not see a growth in demand that would stimulate the necessary investment. All I saw was an increase in the Marginal Propensity to Save and when you plug that increase into the Chicago school model the result is a contraction of GDP and a decline in tax revenue.

So Reagan, under the advice of his economic advisers, quickly reversed course and increased taxes not once, not twice, but three times. And, like a cat chasing it's tail, be borrowed, and he borrowed, and he borrowed some more in order to compensate for the lack of consumer demand and push out some growth in GDP.

Now the zealots tried. They talked about Say's Law, as if supply magically created it's own demand. And they claimed Keynes was dead. And then the Koch brothers started donating to Economics departments, they pretty much own the one at George Mason, and as a stipulation of their contributions, those universities started to require the reading of Ayn Rand's terribly written screed, Atlas Shrugged. Torture for anyone that enjoys fine literature. Now we have an entire generation of business and economics graduates that are absolutely clueless as to how the economy actually works. But make no mistake about it, those at the top, from the Kochs to Laffer to Rubin, they know trickle down doesn't work. They are con men, one and all, and you my friend, have been conned.

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

 

[Winston]

Educated people understand that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics", Jillian! Profit "trickles" up...it always has...it always will!

What a goddamned fucking idiot. Profit doesn't "trickle up"...who the fuck thinks this way? is your brain so damaged that you cannot process complex thoughts and ideas? If profit "trickled up", that would mean the employees are the ones who control the company, not the owners or shareholders. What a fucking idiot. No wonder Conservatives have never been able to successfully grow an economy without using a credit card and exploding our debt.

The only people who believe in trickle down economic theory are liberals who never took economics in college!

You believe that cutting taxes for the rich is "trickle up" economics? What kind of fucking idiot are you? Or are you just a Russian troll trying to spam the board with propaganda because that's what you're paid to do?

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business! Let me explain how it works in the real world, Sparky! If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit. I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit. If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

So, how is the weather in Ireland. I mean you own a business. Obviously you would choose the lowest corporate tax rate. So how is the weather in Ireland?

I'm retired and living in Florida and Costa Rica. If I still owned businesses I would do so in the locale that allowed me to make and RETAIN the most profit from that business! Doing so is what's given me the means to retire comfortably. If that locale was Ireland...that's where I'd invest. Why would anyone kill themselves working nonstop just to give most of what they make to government? Only an idiot would do so! It's quite obvious that Derp has never owned a business so he doesn't have to worry about profits or taxes on the rich because he'll never have any of the former and never become one of the latter!

So let me get this straight. You used to own nightclubs, including in states that have some pretty punitive income taxes. And you owned those clubs at a time when corporate taxes were higher than they are now if you did it as long as you said you did. Tell me, and be honest, what the tax rate was in the area where you opened a club didn't even factor into your decision did it? You opened clubs, it looks like in college and tourist towns, because there was a demand for the product you were peddling. I mean why didn't you open a club somewhere in Switzerland?. Or at least keep your clubs in states that didn't have an income tax. It would take a damn fool to open a club in Wilmington and pay income taxes when tey could open one in Myrtle Beach where there is no income tax.

 

[Winston]

It's what makes me right.

You're not right, though, and even the data from those Presidents proves it. JFK/LBJ cut the rate to the top of what economists think it should be today (70%); Reagan passed the largest tax increase in history less than a year after his tax cut, that reversed pretty much all of them; Bush the Dumber had to fuel his economy with debt because the tax cuts didn't deliver on any of the promises made of them; job loss of 841,000 in the first four years of the tax cuts, 460,000 jobs lost after 8 years, revenue below 2000 levels for four straight years.

Nothing you've done or said is right. Nothing.

When the rich get a tax cut, what are their choices when it comes to that extra money they keep?

What their choices are don't matter. It's what they actually did that matters, and we have all the data to look at. See, this is your problem; you live in a world of theory and fantasy, whereas the reality of the world is that people don't behave as you presume they do. What did the wealthy do with their tax cuts during Bush? They saved them, they didn't spend or invest them. The promise from you people was that they would increase their spending, which would have a trickling down effect for all. That's your theory. The reality bears a different tale. So all you can do is argue within the realm of theory and fantasy, but cannot reconcile the actual, real-world results. So everything is a hypothetical, theoretical, posturing game with you.

I thought deficits create growth?

Spending creates growth. Deficits don't. Deficits result in spending cuts because of underhanded, insidious people like you that have an ideological opposition to social spending, but because proposing an outright repeal of that spending is politically, morally, and ethically unpopular, you instead deliberately wreck the budget with tax cuts, forcing deficits, then you posture about those deficits and pretend that they're so terrible and horrible because they add to the debt (which you or Oldstyle -I forget which troglodyte- just admitted earlier in this very thread that the debt would never be fully paid off. Which means the urgency behind your screeching to pay off the debt is bullshit, which means the urgency behind your screeching to reduce the deficit is bullshit, which means the urgency behind cutting spending is bullshit, which means all this is just a stunt by you people to practice fiscal terrorism by wrecking the budget, drumming up fear, then using that fear to advance an unpopular, ideological agenda.

Thing is, you're not even clever about this.

Didn't Krugman push for even larger deficits with that reasoning?

He pushed for deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy and make up for the gap that came from the private sector contracting its spending. Direct spending, not tax cuts, because tax cuts don't produce anything tangible of value. Whereas spending on infrastructure produces infrastructure. Spending on education produces more educated people who then innovate. Spending on health care keeps people alive and healthy so they can contribute to the economy. Spending on a tax cut produces nothing, not even increased economic activity above the baseline, as we've seen the last 37 years.

If the government cut funds to your college by $1 million and cut taxes for the people in your area by $1 million, what is the net effect on the consumer economy?

A loss of $2M because the money those students would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy instead has to be spent to make up for the funding gap to essential services that came as a result of the tax cuts. In no world have tax cuts ever paid for themselves.

He won because he was a non-threatening black guy who read a good teleprompter and the people blamed Republicans for the economy. And McCain was an old joke.

No, he won because your policies were and are shit. That's why he also won in 2012. Because your policies are shit. They're just repeated hack jobs of the shitty hack jobs Bush the Dumber did. Only now, the pretending is even more extreme because we just lived through a tax cut nightmare 15 years ago, and the folks of Kansas just lived through a tax cut nightmare the last 4 years, until they wised up and repealed trickle down this past spring.

The fact that you think the wealthy "save" additional money coming from tax cuts and wouldn't invest that money shows me how little you know about the wealthy, Derp! Wealthy people put their capital to work for them. The only time they aren't investing it is when someone like you gets the bright idea to tax profits at 70% thus taking away the incentive to risk capital.

Test question. If you put money in the stock market are you investing or are you saving?

 

[Oldstyle]

Educated people understand that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics", Jillian! Profit "trickles" up...it always has...it always will!

What a goddamned fucking idiot. Profit doesn't "trickle up"...who the fuck thinks this way? is your brain so damaged that you cannot process complex thoughts and ideas? If profit "trickled up", that would mean the employees are the ones who control the company, not the owners or shareholders. What a fucking idiot. No wonder Conservatives have never been able to successfully grow an economy without using a credit card and exploding our debt.

The only people who believe in trickle down economic theory are liberals who never took economics in college!

You believe that cutting taxes for the rich is "trickle up" economics? What kind of fucking idiot are you? Or are you just a Russian troll trying to spam the board with propaganda because that's what you're paid to do?

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business! Let me explain how it works in the real world, Sparky! If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit. I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit. If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

So, how is the weather in Ireland. I mean you own a business. Obviously you would choose the lowest corporate tax rate. So how is the weather in Ireland?

I'm retired and living in Florida and Costa Rica. If I still owned businesses I would do so in the locale that allowed me to make and RETAIN the most profit from that business! Doing so is what's given me the means to retire comfortably. If that locale was Ireland...that's where I'd invest. Why would anyone kill themselves working nonstop just to give most of what they make to government? Only an idiot would do so! It's quite obvious that Derp has never owned a business so he doesn't have to worry about profits or taxes on the rich because he'll never have any of the former and never become one of the latter!

So let me get this straight. You used to own nightclubs, including in states that have some pretty punitive income taxes. And you owned those clubs at a time when corporate taxes were higher than they are now if you did it as long as you said you did. Tell me, and be honest, what the tax rate was in the area where you opened a club didn't even factor into your decision did it? You opened clubs, it looks like in college and tourist towns, because there was a demand for the product you were peddling. I mean why didn't you open a club somewhere in Switzerland?. Or at least keep your clubs in states that didn't have an income tax. It would take a damn fool to open a club in Wilmington and pay income taxes when tey could open one in Myrtle Beach where there is no income tax.

North Carolina has a flat rate of 3%...the lowest in the country. Still think I was a "damn fool" to invest there?

 

[Winston]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

Stop right there. Yes, the higher the tax rate the more businesses are encouraged to invest IN their business. Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

Look, this whole argument was settled over thirty years ago. It was settled after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, hence the massive tax increase of 1983. All those "experts" attempting to perpetuate the false dream of "trickle down" know they are spewing nothing but propaganda. It is all about getting those tax cuts so that they can get more pie without making more pie. To be perfectly honest, the argument was settled over a hundred years ago back when it was called the horse and sparrow theory. You know, feed the horse enough oats some will come out on the street for the sparrows to eat.

I know this because I worked for Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Now I was just a lowly numbers cruncher, Econometrics was my forte. I was working for Andrew Benavie. See, when other kids went to band camp I went to Economics camp. I started my studies when I was 14. By the time I got to college I was well versed in the old school economic theory, from Xenophon to Adam Smith. This new Chicago School theory seemed to be a little sketchy. But I did what I was told, I crunched the numbers, and then I confidently pronounced it would not work.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down. The savings generate rents that suck the demand out of the economy. Classic, basic, Keynesian economics. I could not see a growth in demand that would stimulate the necessary investment. All I saw was an increase in the Marginal Propensity to Save and when you plug that increase into the Chicago school model the result is a contraction of GDP and a decline in tax revenue.

So Reagan, under the advice of his economic advisers, quickly reversed course and increased taxes not once, not twice, but three times. And, like a cat chasing it's tail, be borrowed, and he borrowed, and he borrowed some more in order to compensate for the lack of consumer demand and push out some growth in GDP.

Now the zealots tried. They talked about Say's Law, as if supply magically created it's own demand. And they claimed Keynes was dead. And then the Koch brothers started donating to Economics departments, they pretty much own the one at George Mason, and as a stipulation of their contributions, those universities started to require the reading of Ayn Rand's terribly written screed, Atlas Shrugged. Torture for anyone that enjoys fine literature. Now we have an entire generation of business and economics graduates that are absolutely clueless as to how the economy actually works. But make no mistake about it, those at the top, from the Kochs to Laffer to Rubin, they know trickle down doesn't work. They are con men, one and all, and you my friend, have been conned.

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

Oh yeah, Reagan raised taxes. Hell, he is dead and he is still raising them. Every year the income cap on Social Security taxes goes up, Reagan does that. And if it is an increase in rates you are looking for then look no further than both the OASDI and HI components of Social Security. He increased both of those rates. But I will give Reagan credit for one thing. He believed earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rate. He considered taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned income completely MORONIC. So let's fix that little problem, you know, WWRD. What would Ronnie Do.

 

[Oldstyle]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

Stop right there. Yes, the higher the tax rate the more businesses are encouraged to invest IN their business. Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

Look, this whole argument was settled over thirty years ago. It was settled after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, hence the massive tax increase of 1983. All those "experts" attempting to perpetuate the false dream of "trickle down" know they are spewing nothing but propaganda. It is all about getting those tax cuts so that they can get more pie without making more pie. To be perfectly honest, the argument was settled over a hundred years ago back when it was called the horse and sparrow theory. You know, feed the horse enough oats some will come out on the street for the sparrows to eat.

I know this because I worked for Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Now I was just a lowly numbers cruncher, Econometrics was my forte. I was working for Andrew Benavie. See, when other kids went to band camp I went to Economics camp. I started my studies when I was 14. By the time I got to college I was well versed in the old school economic theory, from Xenophon to Adam Smith. This new Chicago School theory seemed to be a little sketchy. But I did what I was told, I crunched the numbers, and then I confidently pronounced it would not work.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down. The savings generate rents that suck the demand out of the economy. Classic, basic, Keynesian economics. I could not see a growth in demand that would stimulate the necessary investment. All I saw was an increase in the Marginal Propensity to Save and when you plug that increase into the Chicago school model the result is a contraction of GDP and a decline in tax revenue.

So Reagan, under the advice of his economic advisers, quickly reversed course and increased taxes not once, not twice, but three times. And, like a cat chasing it's tail, be borrowed, and he borrowed, and he borrowed some more in order to compensate for the lack of consumer demand and push out some growth in GDP.

Now the zealots tried. They talked about Say's Law, as if supply magically created it's own demand. And they claimed Keynes was dead. And then the Koch brothers started donating to Economics departments, they pretty much own the one at George Mason, and as a stipulation of their contributions, those universities started to require the reading of Ayn Rand's terribly written screed, Atlas Shrugged. Torture for anyone that enjoys fine literature. Now we have an entire generation of business and economics graduates that are absolutely clueless as to how the economy actually works. But make no mistake about it, those at the top, from the Kochs to Laffer to Rubin, they know trickle down doesn't work. They are con men, one and all, and you my friend, have been conned.

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

Oh yeah, Reagan raised taxes. Hell, he is dead and he is still raising them. Every year the income cap on Social Security taxes goes up, Reagan does that. And if it is an increase in rates you are looking for then look no further than both the OASDI and HI components of Social Security. He increased both of those rates. But I will give Reagan credit for one thing. He believed earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rate. He considered taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned income completely MORONIC. So let's fix that little problem, you know, WWRD. What would Ronnie Do.

Simple question, Winston...was Ronald Reagan a net tax raiser or did he lower over all taxes?

 

[The Derp]

The fact that you think the wealthy "save" additional money coming from tax cuts and wouldn't invest that money shows me how little you know about the wealthy, Derp!

We just went through this 15 years ago. The wealthy were given a tax cut, and they didn't spend it. They saved it, holding it out of the economy and not producing growth.

So you have theory, and I have reality. Only one of us can be right...is it you, who is arguing solely within theory? Or is it me, who is arguing solely within reality?

The reality bears a different answer than your theory and hypotheses propose. But you ignore the reality and stick to your theory. That's what makes you a zealot.

Wealthy people put their capital to work for them.

No they don't. They didn't during Bush the Dumber. We know because their savings, not spending rate, increased. Indicating they moved the money into savings where it didn't become magically "invested" in the economy. Instead what happened was that those rich people took that tax cut cash and plunged it into the derivatives market that Bush was fueling with his subprime bubble. "investing" in those markets doesn't grow the economy, doesn't grow investment, all it is is gambling. And it was a gamble nearly all of them lost. Of course, they were first at the window with their hands out when bailout time came...

The only time they aren't investing it is when someone like you gets the bright idea to tax profits at 70% thus taking away the incentive to risk capital.

First of you you fucking idiot, if a business invests in expansion, it's doing that before its profits are taxed. So one of your two main talking points has just been knocked down. Secondly, you theorize that's what they do...but it isn't. Lower tax rates result in less risky investments that don't produce greater returns. They don't expand the pie, they just carve out a bigger share of the pie for themselves. No business has ever expanded because the corporate income tax rate goes up or down. Because those in business know that investing and expanding the business happens before profits are taxed.

 

[Winston]

What a goddamned fucking idiot. Profit doesn't "trickle up"...who the fuck thinks this way? is your brain so damaged that you cannot process complex thoughts and ideas? If profit "trickled up", that would mean the employees are the ones who control the company, not the owners or shareholders. What a fucking idiot. No wonder Conservatives have never been able to successfully grow an economy without using a credit card and exploding our debt.


You believe that cutting taxes for the rich is "trickle up" economics? What kind of fucking idiot are you? Or are you just a Russian troll trying to spam the board with propaganda because that's what you're paid to do?

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business! Let me explain how it works in the real world, Sparky! If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit. I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit. If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

So, how is the weather in Ireland. I mean you own a business. Obviously you would choose the lowest corporate tax rate. So how is the weather in Ireland?

I'm retired and living in Florida and Costa Rica. If I still owned businesses I would do so in the locale that allowed me to make and RETAIN the most profit from that business! Doing so is what's given me the means to retire comfortably. If that locale was Ireland...that's where I'd invest. Why would anyone kill themselves working nonstop just to give most of what they make to government? Only an idiot would do so! It's quite obvious that Derp has never owned a business so he doesn't have to worry about profits or taxes on the rich because he'll never have any of the former and never become one of the latter!

So let me get this straight. You used to own nightclubs, including in states that have some pretty punitive income taxes. And you owned those clubs at a time when corporate taxes were higher than they are now if you did it as long as you said you did. Tell me, and be honest, what the tax rate was in the area where you opened a club didn't even factor into your decision did it? You opened clubs, it looks like in college and tourist towns, because there was a demand for the product you were peddling. I mean why didn't you open a club somewhere in Switzerland?. Or at least keep your clubs in states that didn't have an income tax. It would take a damn fool to open a club in Wilmington and pay income taxes when tey could open one in Myrtle Beach where there is no income tax.

North Carolina has a flat rate of 3%...the lowest in the country. Still think I was a "damn fool" to invest there?

Income tax? Pretty sure South Carolina and Tennessee didn't even have an income tax at that time. Tennessee doesn't have one today. Hell, why not Nevada, again NO income tax. Just be honest, taxes didn't play into your decision. At least if you a worth two shits as a business man. It was all about the market.