Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
There would be a hell of a lot more business activity at 1% than at 99%.
/—-/ Fake News. Fa A legitimate poll would post the demographics of the economists. They are hiding something.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. Actual educated economists, however, do not.
This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:
Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:
• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.
• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.
• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.
• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.
• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.
In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points
Which Party Is Better for the Economy?
/—-/ /—-/ Fake News. A legitimate poll would post the demographics of the economists. They are hiding something. Fake news.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. Actual educated economists, however, do not.
This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:
Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:
• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.
• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.
• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.
• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.
• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.
In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points
Which Party Is Better for the Economy?
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?
Net taxes as a percentage of GDP were higher when Reagan left office than when he entered office. About one point, and almost all of it due to his tax increase in 1982 that went in to effect in 1983.
Saving money "holds it out of the economy"? LOL!
Fake News. A legitimate poll would post the demographics of the economists. They are hiding something. Fake news.
Telling you what the laws were for booze in North Carolina isn't spitting out unverifiable personal anecdotes, Derp!
It's actually proof that I'm NOT full of shit
Would you like me to tell you the difference between Happy Hour laws in Massachusetts and Colorado? Would that be a personal anecdote as well?
Cool theory, but try actually quoting what he said.
o he canceled something that hadn't happened yet.
How is it a loss of $2 million? Show your math.
You cut funding by $1M - which forces taxpayers to dip into their own pocket, costing them $1M. You also cut revenue by $1M.
$1M + $1M = $2M
There would be a hell of a lot more business activity at 1% than at 99%.
No one is proposing 99%. The most anyone's proposed as been 70% on income in the top bracket, not 70% of all income.
BTW - Laffer has virtually disappeared after KS repealed his trickle-down tax cuts. No one's side hide nor hair of him.
Saving money "holds it out of the economy"? LOL!
Yes, it does. That's why their savings rate grew by 4%, yet GDP growth was the worst since the 1930's. So the idea that the wealthy getting a tax cut increases GDP is a dumb, incorrect one.
Bush the Dumber and the Conservatives sustained their economy with debt.
Cool theory, but try actually quoting what he said.
Why? The rate was 70%. We know this because it's what the rate was. But he didn't call for continued tax cuts...that's the part you need to prove.
o he canceled something that hadn't happened yet.
You asked what tax increases there were, and I gave you about 10. You then tried to pretend that we were talking about just the marginal income tax rates, but you and I both know we weren't. We both know that Reagan cut marginal income tax rates, yet increased taxation via payroll taxes, excise taxes, and other forms to make up for the gap that occurred thanks to his income tax. In doing all that, he actually shifted more of the overall burden to the poor and middle class, forcing them to spend more out of pocket for essential services as the wealthy pocketed their tax cuts, not investing as we were promised by you turds, and poured it into overseas accounts, spent it overseas, or gambled with it in shady derivatives markets (like what happened during Bush the Dumber when the derivative markets exploded in size over just a period of a couple years).
One thing the wealthy didn't do with their tax cuts? Spend them. Even though you clowns promised they would.
I cut their taxes by $1 million, putting one million back in their pocket.
Yes, and I cut expenses by $1 million.!
Show me any reputable economist who agrees with your claim..
Debt? Based on your confusion concerning savings, you'll have to provide your definition of debt.
I cut their taxes by $1 million, putting one million back in their pocket.
You didn't cut their taxes because their taxes were already cut. Remember? You fucking clowns cut taxes so much that 47% of the people don't even pay them.
Also, let's talk in terms of reality, not your fantasyland and hypothetical world
KS cut taxes in 2013. The result were, predictably, massive deficits and the erasing of a surplus. To close those deficits created by your failed fiscal policy, Topeka cut spending for essential services.
One of those essential services, the public university system, had to make up for the drop in funding from the capitol. So the KS Board of Regents raised the cost of in-state tuition to make up for the funding gap. By raising the in-state tuition, it forced students and their families to borrow more. And because they borrowed more, their debt burden grew, and the more they paid on the loans, the less they spent in the consumer economy.
That was all by design, of course. COnservatives absolutely hate the State providing any services whatsoever. Conservatives know that they can't simply legislate the public university system, or Medicaid, or any of those essential benefits away without facing harsh political backlash. So you shitheads do the next best thing; you argue (falsely) that tax cuts will create growth, knowing that they only create deficits, then you marvel at the size of the deficit your policy created, spread lies about debt needing to be repaid, so you can scare people into accepting cuts to essential services they wouldn't otherwise accept if the fiscal picture wasn't as dire as you made it out to be.
So what you fuckers do is practice fiscal terrorism. You fly a plane (tax cuts) into the towers (budget), then screech about the devastation (deficits) that result from the plane flying into the towers, scaring people into accepting your shitty ideological agenda because you scared them into thinking the debt and deficit are more scary than they actually are. Tell me I'm wrong about any that.
Yes, and I cut expenses by $1 million.!
No you didn't, shithead.
You merely transferred that $1M onto the heads of those for whom that $1M previously provided an essential benefit. You didn't cut expenses at all, you just shifted them. It's a con/shell game you're playing, and you're not even doing it well. That's why Conservatives have never ever ever been able to ever balance a budget. Ever.
For shame.
Show me any reputable economist who agrees with your claim..
How about Moody's, which said exactly what I said?
It was in the link I provided that you (obviously) were too chickenshit to open because you lack ethics and courage.
Debt? Based on your confusion concerning savings, you'll have to provide your definition of debt.
So without MEW's, Bush's economy looks like a big, stinking, heaping turd, doesn't it? In other words, what you see when you look in the mirror every day.
Yes, the rate was cut to 70%.
So provide the quote when he discussed reducing taxes.
Well, he was dead, so yeah.
If you have any rates that went up from 1982 to 1983, post them.
If he mostly stopped additional planned cuts from happening, just say that.
Yeah, that was awful, just terrible!
So what was the rate reduction for income taxes and what was the rate increase for payroll taxes?
I cut a state expense, college funding and shifted that money back into the pocket of the taxpayers.
