Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, they were holding back after 8 years of Obama attacks and expected attacks from Hillary, not that she was gonna last 4 years.......

That's also a load of horseshit because corporate profits reached record levels during Obama.

So once again, we have an instance of your rhetoric running in direct contradiction to reality.

That's also a load of horseshit because corporate profits reached record levels during Obama.

You didn't build that, eh comrade?
How many thousands of pages did he add to the Code of Federal Regulations?

 

[Papageorgio]

Companies will ether save the cash, make acquisitions which will lead to fewer jobs or use it for stock buybacks. None of these activities help the middle class.

The rich get the lion's share of the benefits from higher stock prices.

The middle class doesn't benefit from higher stock prices?

My investments do better with the higher stock prices and I’m not rich.

Better capital management can do the same, and you provide input to the economy.

That wasn’t the question. The answer is the middle DOES benefit from higher stock prices. Do you have proof it doesn’t?

We have higher stock prices without lower taxes.

Adding to the debt is merely income redistribution.

Again, that has nothing to do with anything I posted. Thanks for trying.

 

[The Derp]

You didn't build that, eh comrade?

Hold on a second. You argue that to unleash growth in the private sector, corporate profit taxes must be cut...however, corporate profits are already at record levels, so it's not the tax rate that's preventing expansion and reinvestment. It's something else...

How many thousands of pages did he add to the Code of Federal Regulations?

Again with the ambiguous "regulations". Well, not too many since corporate profits reached record levels throughout Obama's term. Which means all those codes and regulations didn't have the effect you're pretending.

So once again, you're holding two conflicting positions. Either the regulations were terrible for business, or they weren't. Record corporate profits would seem to indicate the regulations and codes weren't terrible for business.

 

[danielpalos]

The middle class doesn't benefit from higher stock prices?

My investments do better with the higher stock prices and I’m not rich.

Better capital management can do the same, and you provide input to the economy.

That wasn’t the question. The answer is the middle DOES benefit from higher stock prices. Do you have proof it doesn’t?

We have higher stock prices without lower taxes.

Adding to the debt is merely income redistribution.

Again, that has nothing to do with anything I posted. Thanks for trying.

Don't complain about income redistribution for the poor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't argue that rising stocks help the middle class? Link?

You argued Obama's recovery didn't help the middle class. So either it did by way of the stock market, or it didn't. You're trying to have it both ways.

Well, it was the slowest recovery since WWII. Despite adding $9.3 trillion to the debt.

It was also the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. But Obama recovered from it, except he didn't, except he did, but he didn't, except that he did...it's hard to pin your actual position down because you jump between two conflicting opinions.

You argued Obama's recovery didn't help the middle class.

Besides the rising stock market, the middle class did seem to suffer an abnormally slow jobs and wage recovery from the recession.

It was also the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. But Obama recovered from it

I know, but typically a deep recession sees a v-shaped recovery. Obama had more like an L-shaped recovery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't build that, eh comrade?

Hold on a second. You argue that to unleash growth in the private sector, corporate profit taxes must be cut...however, corporate profits are already at record levels, so it's not the tax rate that's preventing expansion and reinvestment. It's something else...

How many thousands of pages did he add to the Code of Federal Regulations?

Again with the ambiguous "regulations". Well, not too many since corporate profits reached record levels throughout Obama's term. Which means all those codes and regulations didn't have the effect you're pretending.

So once again, you're holding two conflicting positions. Either the regulations were terrible for business, or they weren't. Record corporate profits would seem to indicate the regulations and codes weren't terrible for business.

You argue that to unleash growth in the private sector, corporate profit taxes must be cut..

Cut the shit out of those rates........

however, corporate profits are already at record levels,

After 8.5 years of recovery, we'd better be at record profit levels.
Even Obama's regulatory frenzy couldn't kill corporations.

Well, not too many since corporate profits reached record levels

Not too many? Great. How many?

Which means all those codes and regulations didn't have the effect you're pretending.

I'm pretending that idiotic regulations impact GDP, jobs and wages? LOL!

Either the regulations were terrible for business, or they weren't.

Lack of a V-shaped recovery, weak wage growth, slow job growth......maybe it was the regulations?

 

[Boss]

So it's your contention that taxpayers who earn high incomes would rather send their tax refunds offshore where they can't possibly benefit from it financially here, just to spite the rest of us?

The rich aren't increasing their consumption after getting a tax cut. So the idea that cutting taxes will generate increased revenue is a fallacy.

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.

[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

 

[Papageorgio]

My investments do better with the higher stock prices and I’m not rich.

Better capital management can do the same, and you provide input to the economy.

That wasn’t the question. The answer is the middle DOES benefit from higher stock prices. Do you have proof it doesn’t?

We have higher stock prices without lower taxes.

Adding to the debt is merely income redistribution.

Again, that has nothing to do with anything I posted. Thanks for trying.

Don't complain about income redistribution for the poor.

What does that have to do with anything I posted? Are you just trolling or are you wanting to have a meaningful dialogue?

 

[danielpalos]

So it's your contention that taxpayers who earn high incomes would rather send their tax refunds offshore where they can't possibly benefit from it financially here, just to spite the rest of us?

The rich aren't increasing their consumption after getting a tax cut. So the idea that cutting taxes will generate increased revenue is a fallacy.

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.

[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

Why do we have Any debt with so much revenue?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So it's your contention that taxpayers who earn high incomes would rather send their tax refunds offshore where they can't possibly benefit from it financially here, just to spite the rest of us?

The rich aren't increasing their consumption after getting a tax cut. So the idea that cutting taxes will generate increased revenue is a fallacy.

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.

[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

Why do we have Any debt with so much revenue?

Too many moochers......There you are!

 

[danielpalos]

Better capital management can do the same, and you provide input to the economy.

That wasn’t the question. The answer is the middle DOES benefit from higher stock prices. Do you have proof it doesn’t?

We have higher stock prices without lower taxes.

Adding to the debt is merely income redistribution.

Again, that has nothing to do with anything I posted. Thanks for trying.

Don't complain about income redistribution for the poor.

What does that have to do with anything I posted? Are you just trolling or are you wanting to have a meaningful dialogue?

Do you mind if I remind you in any more relevant threads?

 

[danielpalos]

So it's your contention that taxpayers who earn high incomes would rather send their tax refunds offshore where they can't possibly benefit from it financially here, just to spite the rest of us?

The rich aren't increasing their consumption after getting a tax cut. So the idea that cutting taxes will generate increased revenue is a fallacy.

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.

[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

Why do we have Any debt with so much revenue?

Too many moochers......There you are!

Then tax cuts don't work.

Increasing taxes to cover costs always works.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So it's your contention that taxpayers who earn high incomes would rather send their tax refunds offshore where they can't possibly benefit from it financially here, just to spite the rest of us?

The rich aren't increasing their consumption after getting a tax cut. So the idea that cutting taxes will generate increased revenue is a fallacy.

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.

[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

Why do we have Any debt with so much revenue?

Too many moochers......There you are!

Then tax cuts don't work.

Increasing taxes to cover costs always works.

You're right, tax cuts won't reduce spending on moochers.

 

[danielpalos]

The rich aren't increasing their consumption after getting a tax cut. So the idea that cutting taxes will generate increased revenue is a fallacy.

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.

[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

Why do we have Any debt with so much revenue?

Too many moochers......There you are!

Then tax cuts don't work.

Increasing taxes to cover costs always works.

You're right, tax cuts won't reduce spending on moochers.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.

Guess where spending has to be cut.

 

[Papageorgio]

That wasn’t the question. The answer is the middle DOES benefit from higher stock prices. Do you have proof it doesn’t?

We have higher stock prices without lower taxes.

Adding to the debt is merely income redistribution.

Again, that has nothing to do with anything I posted. Thanks for trying.

Don't complain about income redistribution for the poor.

What does that have to do with anything I posted? Are you just trolling or are you wanting to have a meaningful dialogue?

Do you mind if I remind you in any more relevant threads?

Not sure what that means, I am not into cryptic messages, if you have something to say just say it and quit playing silly games. I BTW have never mentioned wealth redistribution. So, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about, so to me you are just a troll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have higher stock prices without lower taxes.

Adding to the debt is merely income redistribution.

Again, that has nothing to do with anything I posted. Thanks for trying.

Don't complain about income redistribution for the poor.

What does that have to do with anything I posted? Are you just trolling or are you wanting to have a meaningful dialogue?

Do you mind if I remind you in any more relevant threads?

Not sure what that means, I am not into cryptic messages, if you have something to say just say it and quit playing silly games. I BTW have never mentioned wealth redistribution. So, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about, so to me you are just a troll.

He hits the weed pretty hard.....and whines about not getting unemployment benefits for weed.
It's true, weed makes him dumb(er).

 

[danielpalos]

Again, that has nothing to do with anything I posted. Thanks for trying.

Don't complain about income redistribution for the poor.

What does that have to do with anything I posted? Are you just trolling or are you wanting to have a meaningful dialogue?

Do you mind if I remind you in any more relevant threads?

Not sure what that means, I am not into cryptic messages, if you have something to say just say it and quit playing silly games. I BTW have never mentioned wealth redistribution. So, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about, so to me you are just a troll.

He hits the weed pretty hard.....and whines about not getting unemployment benefits for weed.
It's true, weed makes him dumb(er).

Nothing but fallacy, right out of the gate.

 

[Papageorgio]

Don't complain about income redistribution for the poor.

What does that have to do with anything I posted? Are you just trolling or are you wanting to have a meaningful dialogue?

Do you mind if I remind you in any more relevant threads?

Not sure what that means, I am not into cryptic messages, if you have something to say just say it and quit playing silly games. I BTW have never mentioned wealth redistribution. So, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about, so to me you are just a troll.

He hits the weed pretty hard.....and whines about not getting unemployment benefits for weed.
It's true, weed makes him dumb(er).

Nothing but fallacy, right out of the gate.

You have yet to tell me what thread you are referring to, you have yet to explain your statements and you have yet explained what wealth redistribution had to do with anything I posted, so as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing but tired cliches' and fallacy. So can you contribute to this thread, have an open dialogue or are you going to continue to troll?

 

[Flash]

The Moon Bats are really confused about his.

Every analysis of either the House plan or the Senate plan that I have seen has my family saving money on income taxes.

That is money that will trickle down to the local productive economy rather than being given to some stupid government bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by greedy special interest groups. You know, greedy special interest groups like the welfare queens and illegals.

I don't think these stupid Moon Bats really understand how trickle down economics works. That comes from getting all their news like this from sources like Comedy Central, Democratunderground and Mother Jones.

 

[The Derp]

Every analysis of either the House plan or the Senate plan that I have seen has my family saving money on income taxes..

What analysis? Post one.