Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you feel that means the same number of businesses would be created whether the tax on corporations was 60%, 40% or 20%.

Corporations only pay taxes on profits, not revenues. Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% isn't going to create any businesses because lowering that rate is meaningless for consumers. No one is going to rush out and buy a flat-screen TV because Best Buy's tax rate dropped from 35% to 15%. I think you know this, but are just playing obtuse because...because...you're paid to? You're ordered to? Don't know...don't care.

And that's why coal production skyrocketed under Obama. Mining companies and utilities weren't worried about regulations on CO2.

Coal production didn't decline because of regulations. Coal production declined because, frankly, there is no more coal to safely mine. But more importantly, coal production declined because of the rise of natural gas and renewables. There are currently more people employed in solar energy than oil, coal, and natural gas combined. You're clinging to an industry that's dying. You're like Blockbuster Video, and everyone else is like Netflix.

Great, how does that redistribute wealth to the wealthy?

Since most of the 1% derive their income by way of LLC's and pass-throughs (which this tax cut would include), that's how they redistribute wealth. Book royalties, for example, are typically received via pass-through entities. Under Trump's tax plan, the rate on the royalties from his "Art of the Deal" would go from 35% to 15%. How does that benefit consumers? It doesn't. It just benefits Trump.

Nah, Reid was preventing House bills from hitting the Senate floor until Jan 2015.

Which House bills were those? The 60+ Obamacare repeals? Well, you have total control of DC again...so where's all this legislation that is supposedly so wonderful? I mean, y'all only had 8 years to prepare.

Since most of the 1% derive their income by way of LLC's and pass-throughs (which this tax cut would include), that's how they redistribute wealth. Book royalties, for example, are typically received via pass-through entities. Under Trump's tax plan, the rate on the royalties from his "Art of the Deal" would go from 35% to 15%.

I agree, this tax cut increases after tax income and doesn't redistribute wealth. Thanks!

Well, you have total control of DC again...so where's all this legislation that is supposedly so wonderful?

It's coming!!

 

[The Derp]

They already cut overtime for salary employees. No state or city tax deductions. No medical deductions. Bush gave tax deductions and allowed Corps to bring back money to the US and jobs decreased , the rich just pocket the money. Bush ran us into a recession.

Really, we've been living on borrowed time since 1981. The way the economy was transformed since then has been a "soft recession" where the middle and lower classes see their purchasing power decline while the wealthy increase their savings. We really haven't had true economic growth beyond paper since the start of Reaganomics. Wages for most workers have stagnated, and those workers have gone into debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't have a problem with Warren's hypocrisy.

I'm lost on how he's hypocritical.

He wants government to have more money, gives it tens of billions less than he could.

That isn't the point. And shirking those responsibilities by trying to pass them off on others just further underscores the point that the policies you support are tragically and fatally flawed to their core fundamentals. I am more than happy to get into why they are fatally flawed to their core fundamentals, but whenever I do, you guys go into hysterics and melodrama.

Show me how much his secretary earns and I'll show you the lie.

First of all, a lot (if not all) of Buffet's income comes by way of pass-thru's, LLCs, and other entities of that type because that's how they're taxed. If Buffett were paid a salary as his secretary is, then you could make the comparison. But because of the nature of the origination of his income vs. the origination of his secretary's, you cannot compare the marginal rates. You have to compare the effective rates.

You know the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate, right???????????????????

I'm lost on how he's hypocritical.

He says rich guys like him have to pay more taxes.
He doesn't realize any of his approximately $80 billion in capital gains.
If he did, the government would get about $12 billion from good ol' Warren.

If Buffett were paid a salary as his secretary is, then you could make the comparison.

Tell me his secretary's salary and I'll show you his lie.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've explained to you five times how a scientific experiment works

No, you haven't done that. What you did was make an excuse because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If Ireland can't be used as a "scientific experiment" (WTF?) to prove tax cuts don't create growth, then the inverse is also true, and you cannot credit the low tax rate for the growth either.

Not sure what scientific method you learned in Russia, but that's not how we do things in America.

Cato Institute senior fellows Chris Edwards and Daniel J. Mitchell take that idea a step further in their 2008 book, Global Tax Revolution, where they make the plausible argument that, in today’s world, the taxpayers are mainly the workers. “The burden of corporate taxes in the globalized economy,” they observe, “mainly falls on average workers in the form of lower wages. If U.S. and foreign semiconductor and pharmaceutical companies are not building factories in America because of higher taxes, it is American workers who lose.”

 

[The Derp]

I agree, this tax cut increases after tax income and doesn't redistribute wealth. Thanks!

It increases his after-tax income, not yours. His income gain does not benefit you one iota.

t's coming!!

Well, if it's anything like the Obamacare "replacement" plan, we can expect it to go down in flames, be universally hated, make no strategic sense, and does nothing to help anyone other than those who authored it.

 

[Penelope]

They already cut overtime for salary employees. No state or city tax deductions. No medical deductions. Bush gave tax deductions and allowed Corps to bring back money to the US and jobs decreased , the rich just pocket the money. Bush ran us into a recession.

Really, we've been living on borrowed time since 1981. The way the economy was transformed since then has been a "soft recession" where the middle and lower classes see their purchasing power decline while the wealthy increase their savings. We really haven't had true economic growth beyond paper since the start of Reaganomics. Wages for most workers have stagnated, and those workers have gone into debt.

I am just talking this past 98 days but yes you are right. Many got rich during the dot com boom, and many lost their homes during Bush, but yes the class divide started with Reagan and now its on steroids.

 

[The Derp]

He says rich guys like him have to pay more taxes.
He doesn't realize any of his approximately $80 billion in capital gains.
If he did, the government would get about $12 billion from good ol' Warren..

First of all, he doesn't say that. What he says is that his effective rate is lower than his secretary's. Now the share of the tax burden he pays may be higher, but keep in mind that's only because y'all cut taxes over and over and over to the point where you can't cut them for the poor and middle class anymore without it looking like a scrap thrown their way so the wealthy can get an even larger tax cut. But, back to the point which was the hypocrisy. So what you regurgitated there isn't an example of hypocrisy. BTW - Buffet is always calling for a higher tax rate on the wealthy.

Tell me his secretary's salary and I'll show you his lie.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this just an act? It doesn't matter what his secretary's salary is...the point is that while his secretary gets a salary, he gets pass-thru income. So it's like comparing apples to a box of kittens.

 

[The Derp]

Cato Institute senior fellows Chris Edwards and Daniel J. Mitchell take that idea a step further in their 2008 book, Global Tax Revolution, where they make the plausible argument that, in today’s world, the taxpayers are mainly the workers. “The burden of corporate taxes in the globalized economy,” they observe, “mainly falls on average workers in the form of lower wages. If U.S. and foreign semiconductor and pharmaceutical companies are not building factories in America because of higher taxes, it is American workers who lose.”

Corporate taxes are not the reason for low wages...labor costs are. American workers cannot compete with Chinese workers when the American makes $18/hr for the same job someone in China gets $18/day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, now we see you don't know what median means.

No, what we see is that you don't know how to read a chart. Maybe it needs to be in Russian or Cyrillic for you to understand?

No, what we see is that you don't know how to read a chart.

So if the median wage is currently $950 a week and everybody making $960 or more gets a 100% raise, what happens to the median wage? What happens to the average wage?

Maybe it needs to be in Russian or Cyrillic

You never did tell me, is everyone who points out your idiocy a Russian, or are they just a subset of those who point out your idiocy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I had a business profit last year of $1 million, I have about $650,000 left over to invest.Drop the rate to 15% and I have $850,000 to invest..

I notice how you generically use the word "invest". I think you do that on purpose so you can then wiggle the parameters around to shape your argument later. So I'm not going to let you get away with it. By "invest" you mean, what? Expanding your business? OK, but why would you expand your business depending on the tax rate if your revenue isn't increasing because there's no increased demand? What you have failed to articulate is how a tax cut for the corporation translates to increased consumer spending by individuals. And I'll save you the time trying to explain it; THERE IS NO TRANSLATION. The cut to the corporate tax rate does not, has not, and will never translate to increased consumer spending. The only way consumer spending can be increased and still remain sustainable is to raise wages. That's it. That's the only way.

Your supply-side economic theory hasn't worked in 37 years and it will never work because it is fundamentally flawed to its core for that very reason I mentioned above.

Pretty sure no one claimed they would. So what?

You are claiming that whether you realize it or not. All you're doing is just talking around and rebranding supply-side, voodoo economics. The same core fundamental flaws to your ideology exist regardless of how you parse or phrase it. So when you say "I can invest more" what you're really saying is that if you get a tax cut, you claim it will lead you to expand your business regardless of demand. That disconnect there is the proverbial thread in the sweater that you pull at and the whole fucken' thing unravels. You don't expand your business just because you feel like it, you expand your business because there is demand you want or need to meet. A tax cut for your profits do nothing to increase the demand to justify the investment.

I mean really, dude, this is Econ 101.

Sure as hell did. Link?

Here ya go, comrade. Here's ABC as well. Why do you think they do mountaintop removal for coal mining now? Why not just dig more holes in the ground? THINK, dude. THINK.

Thank goodness Obama failed to crush fracking with his "green" regulations.

Obama didn't need to do it because the market did it for him. Fracking is now unprofitable not because of regulations, but because the price of natural gas has declined so much that the revenues from that natural gas don't even cover the expenses of extraction. Right now, natural gas costs about $2/McF, which is the lowest it's been in nearly 20 years. But has that translated to booming success in shale markets? Nope. The land the shale is under may be worth a bit, but the shale gas itself is not. In fact, since 2013, 213 oil and natural gas companies have gone bankrupt, listing more than $85B in debt.

Yes, the low-productivity of the solar energy industry is something to be proud of.

Low productivity? Huh? Low-productivity would be the sludge they get from Alberta that costs more to refine and extract than it's worth. Why do you think TransCanada wants to build KXL? They already have a pipeline that carries Alberta sludge into the US. So much that it's oversupplied, leading to price discounting. If KXL is built, the Alberta sludge that went to US PADD II refineries in Illinois is diverted to the Gulf Coast where it can be sold globally for a higher price. So if you want energy prices, food prices, and textile prices to rise, support KXL and be a dumbass.

Or I'm like Exxon and you're like Solyndra.

Well, you would be like Exxon in that you deliberately lie and mislead people from the harm you're causing to the planet. So in a sense, your own comparison is valid. BTW - Solyndra went under and lost what - $700M? Well, since 2013 there have been 213 oil and natural gas companies that went under and lost...wait for it...wait for it...$85 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS.

So which is more? $700M or $85B?

I know you're a Conservative, but even you know how to read numbers, right?

I notice how you generically use the word "invest".

You have a word I should use instead? Please share. We are talking about business taxes after all.

OK, but why would you expand your business depending on the tax rate if your revenue isn't increasing

Well golly, I can buy new equipment to increase my business, can't I?
I could hire some more employees with that extra after tax profit, eh?
I can reduce my cost per unit with the increased possible production, right?

So why wasn't my revenue increasing?

What you have failed to articulate is how a tax cut for the corporation translates to increased consumer spending by individuals.

Gee willikers, I just hired more people to use my newly purchased equipment.
The equipment maker hired more as well. I also just bought a spiffy new car for
my wife.....dammit, now the automakers had to hire more people. Bastards!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They already cut overtime for salary employees. No state or city tax deductions. No medical deductions. Bush gave tax deductions and allowed Corps to bring back money to the US and jobs decreased , the rich just pocket the money. Bush ran us into a recession.

Really, we've been living on borrowed time since 1981. The way the economy was transformed since then has been a "soft recession" where the middle and lower classes see their purchasing power decline while the wealthy increase their savings. We really haven't had true economic growth beyond paper since the start of Reaganomics. Wages for most workers have stagnated, and those workers have gone into debt.

I am just talking this past 98 days but yes you are right. Many got rich during the dot com boom, and many lost their homes during Bush, but yes the class divide started with Reagan and now its on steroids.

so do we steal from the rich or help the poor earn their own income without stealing it at liberal gunpoint from the rich?

When Willie Sutton was asked why do you steal from banks he said" because thats where the money is". Liberals are no more sophisticated than Willie Sutton. The only dispute among liberals is whether to print money or steal it!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I had a business profit last year of $1 million, I have about $650,000 left over to invest.Drop the rate to 15% and I have $850,000 to invest..

I notice how you generically use the word "invest". I think you do that on purpose so you can then wiggle the parameters around to shape your argument later. So I'm not going to let you get away with it. By "invest" you mean, what? Expanding your business? OK, but why would you expand your business depending on the tax rate if your revenue isn't increasing because there's no increased demand? What you have failed to articulate is how a tax cut for the corporation translates to increased consumer spending by individuals. And I'll save you the time trying to explain it; THERE IS NO TRANSLATION. The cut to the corporate tax rate does not, has not, and will never translate to increased consumer spending. The only way consumer spending can be increased and still remain sustainable is to raise wages. That's it. That's the only way.

Your supply-side economic theory hasn't worked in 37 years and it will never work because it is fundamentally flawed to its core for that very reason I mentioned above.

Pretty sure no one claimed they would. So what?

You are claiming that whether you realize it or not. All you're doing is just talking around and rebranding supply-side, voodoo economics. The same core fundamental flaws to your ideology exist regardless of how you parse or phrase it. So when you say "I can invest more" what you're really saying is that if you get a tax cut, you claim it will lead you to expand your business regardless of demand. That disconnect there is the proverbial thread in the sweater that you pull at and the whole fucken' thing unravels. You don't expand your business just because you feel like it, you expand your business because there is demand you want or need to meet. A tax cut for your profits do nothing to increase the demand to justify the investment.

I mean really, dude, this is Econ 101.

Sure as hell did. Link?

Here ya go, comrade. Here's ABC as well. Why do you think they do mountaintop removal for coal mining now? Why not just dig more holes in the ground? THINK, dude. THINK.

Thank goodness Obama failed to crush fracking with his "green" regulations.

Obama didn't need to do it because the market did it for him. Fracking is now unprofitable not because of regulations, but because the price of natural gas has declined so much that the revenues from that natural gas don't even cover the expenses of extraction. Right now, natural gas costs about $2/McF, which is the lowest it's been in nearly 20 years. But has that translated to booming success in shale markets? Nope. The land the shale is under may be worth a bit, but the shale gas itself is not. In fact, since 2013, 213 oil and natural gas companies have gone bankrupt, listing more than $85B in debt.

Yes, the low-productivity of the solar energy industry is something to be proud of.

Low productivity? Huh? Low-productivity would be the sludge they get from Alberta that costs more to refine and extract than it's worth. Why do you think TransCanada wants to build KXL? They already have a pipeline that carries Alberta sludge into the US. So much that it's oversupplied, leading to price discounting. If KXL is built, the Alberta sludge that went to US PADD II refineries in Illinois is diverted to the Gulf Coast where it can be sold globally for a higher price. So if you want energy prices, food prices, and textile prices to rise, support KXL and be a dumbass.

Or I'm like Exxon and you're like Solyndra.

Well, you would be like Exxon in that you deliberately lie and mislead people from the harm you're causing to the planet. So in a sense, your own comparison is valid. BTW - Solyndra went under and lost what - $700M? Well, since 2013 there have been 213 oil and natural gas companies that went under and lost...wait for it...wait for it...$85 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS.

So which is more? $700M or $85B?

I know you're a Conservative, but even you know how to read numbers, right?

The cut to the corporate tax rate does not, has not, and will never translate to increased consumer spending

LOL!

The only way consumer spending can be increased and still remain sustainable is to raise wages.

I wonder where wages come from? Durr....

Your supply-side economic theory hasn't worked in 37 years

Which is why the economy after Obama raised taxes was so much better than the economy after Reagan cut them in 1983 or Bush cut them in 2003. Durr...

You don't expand your business just because you feel like it,

Correct, I expand it, or start it, because I see the possibility of higher after tax returns.

A tax cut for your profits do nothing to increase the demand to justify the investment.

Why does demand have to increase before? Why can't it increase after?

I mean really, dude, this is Econ 101.

How many times did you fail Econ 101, before you just gave up?

Why do you think they do mountaintop removal for coal mining now?

Safer, cheaper.....durr.

Obama didn't need to do it because the market did it for him.

The market crushed fracking?

Damn, you're a moron.

Fracking is now unprofitable not because of regulations, but because the price of natural gas has declined so much

Why would fracking be unprofitable? Did the supply increase because of fracking? LOL!

Low productivity? Huh?

Yes. All that employment needed for a tiny fraction of energy production.
You're not very good at economics.

Well, you would be like Exxon

Right, $12.6 billion in profits, 71,100 employees, $12 billion in dividends paid, over $218 billion in revenues.

BTW - Solyndra went under and lost what - $700M?

I know, instead of a useful, profitable business, they actually lost money and defaulted on taxpayer loans.
Good job!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what?

So that means full-time, hourly wage workers have not seen a wage increase. And most workers in this country are full-time, hourly wage workers. 57%, actually.

They already cut overtime for salary employees.

No state or city tax deductions. No medical deductions. Bush gave tax deductions and allowed Corps to bring back money to the US and jobs decreased , the rich just pocket the money. Bush ran us into a recession.

Bush gave tax deductions and allowed Corps to bring back money to the US and jobs decreased ,

You think jobs decreased because corps could bring back more money? LOL!
Walk through the steps behind your theory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree, this tax cut increases after tax income and doesn't redistribute wealth. Thanks!

It increases his after-tax income, not yours. His income gain does not benefit you one iota.

t's coming!!

Well, if it's anything like the Obamacare "replacement" plan, we can expect it to go down in flames, be universally hated, make no strategic sense, and does nothing to help anyone other than those who authored it.

It increases his after-tax income, not yours. His income gain does not benefit you one iota.

I know, the lie about redistributing wealth to the wealthy is more obvious when you put it like that.

we can expect it to go down in flames

Keep telling yourself that.

be universally hated,

People hate it when they get to keep more of their money. Oh, wait, they love it! Never mind.

 

[sakinago]

No that's not math

Yes, it is math. Revenues come from taxes. You cut taxes, you cut revenues. You raise taxes, you raise revenues. That's why every time Conservatives gain control, deficits explode and debt skyrockets. Every. Freaking. Time. The continued pushing of a failed policy, despite all evidence showing said policy is failed, doesn't mean the policy is valid, all it means is that you have too much of an ego to admit you are wrong.

Only two Presidents since 1980 have left office with a deficit lower than the one they inherited; Clinton and Obama...and both raised taxes.

Go all the way back to the start of this thread and look at those charts. They tell quite a story and that story is that tax cuts only spike household debt, hold down wages, and produce no economic gains whatsoever. And all your bullshit links from people paid to push this garbage on the rest of us for the benefit of a wealthy few don't change those factual results.

Calm down, have a discussion. No need to loose your head.

I already addressed your OP. And I stated that you're taking these numbers inside a vacuum, and attributing them falsely as causation. And no, what you're stating as math, is not math, it's incorrect primary thinking. Under all 3 of the greatest tax cuts I mentioned, taxes receipts did in fact increase, by no lower than 40%(I believe). That's a fact, they did not decrease. You're not addressing this, instead you're pointing to deficits as your evidence under conservatives (which JFK was not a conservative). Which you can make stats do the Macarena for you as long as you're placing them in your vacuum. That does not make them true, that makes them a non sequitur, (e.g. saying Jim is happy today, Jim found 20$, Jim is happy because he found 20 dollars...when in fact Jim is really happy because it's his wedding day). You cannot look at deficits inside the vacuum tax cuts like you are, because there are many many other variables, and 2 very big ones your ignoring, and those are spending and GDP growth.

Where your argument breaks down (outside of the fact that tax revenues did in fact increase under the examples I gave), is when you compare deficit outside of GDP growth, very important piece of info. With that ratio taken into consideration, let's look at the last 5 presidents. The difference between Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 are virtually negligible, pretty much the same. There's only a sharp increase noted in that ratio when we insert the last president into the picture, Obama. Even when we're just looking at the deficits by themselves, they still greatly increase with non conservative presidents. So what is your point there? Let's go back to adding GDP into the equation. Reagan averaged around an 8% GDP growth, going as whoppingly high as 12% on a couple of occasions and dropping no lower than 4% on one occasion. And 4% is still higher than any of Obamas 8 years. JFK tax cuts, raised tax revenues once again, as well as shapely increased GDP, job growth, and medium income growth. And the Coolidge numbers are so incredible they are almost hard to believe, but Coolidge used a 2 step approach, first drastically cut spending (cut spending by half...3 years consecutively, which is mind blowing) and then cut taxes. And this was while he just inherited a depression that by every metric SHOULD have been worse than the Great Depression. Instead we got the largest amount of people brought out of poverty ever, and the greatest case of economic growth called the roaring 20s.

Now the other side is spending. Did Reagan spend a whole lot, you're damn right he did. Especially when compared to carter who was very frugal. But he also grew the GDP by 12% some years, and also grew the medium family income rate, higher than anyone after him (outside of Clinton). And let's not forgot the heavy spending was part of Reagan's foreign policy, to accelerate the collapse of the Soviet Union by outspending them, and making them keep up with us.

As for your number that Obamas deficit was lower?? Have no clue where you got that from, that's quite the claim.

 

[Wyatt earp]

contrition workers

?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He says rich guys like him have to pay more taxes.
He doesn't realize any of his approximately $80 billion in capital gains.
If he did, the government would get about $12 billion from good ol' Warren..

First of all, he doesn't say that. What he says is that his effective rate is lower than his secretary's. Now the share of the tax burden he pays may be higher, but keep in mind that's only because y'all cut taxes over and over and over to the point where you can't cut them for the poor and middle class anymore without it looking like a scrap thrown their way so the wealthy can get an even larger tax cut. But, back to the point which was the hypocrisy. So what you regurgitated there isn't an example of hypocrisy. BTW - Buffet is always calling for a higher tax rate on the wealthy.

Tell me his secretary's salary and I'll show you his lie.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this just an act? It doesn't matter what his secretary's salary is...the point is that while his secretary gets a salary, he gets pass-thru income. So it's like comparing apples to a box of kittens.

First of all, he doesn't say that.

He doesn't say rich guys like him have to pay more taxes? You're lying. Or stupid.

What he says is that his effective rate is lower than his secretary's.

Yes, I'm familiar with his lie.

BTW - Buffet is always calling for a higher tax rate on the wealthy.

While he minimizes his payments to the taxman.

It doesn't matter what his secretary's salary is...

I understand, showing you his lie is upsetting to you.

 

[The Derp]

So if the median wage is currently $950 a week and everybody making $960 or more gets a 100% raise, what happens to the median wage? What happens to the average wage?

But they haven't gotten a 100% raise. So all you're doing is spinning your wheels because the reality of what happened was something different than what you're imagining in your hypothetical scenario. Let's not deal in hypotheticals, let's deal in actual facts. And the actual facts show that the median weekly wage (majority of US workers) has not increased since the start of Voodoo economics.

You never did tell me, is everyone who points out your idiocy a Russian, or are they just a subset of those who point out your idiocy?

A) You haven't pointed out anything, so don't give yourself credit you don't deserve.
B) Until we know for sure of the full scope and scale of Russian infiltration of the American political right, we have to work from the assumption that anyone on the internet pushing the right's agenda is doing so because that agenda is really Russia's.

 

[The Derp]

You have a word I should use instead? Please share. We are talking about business taxes after all.

No, you should just clarify what you mean, that's all.

Well golly, I can buy new equipment to increase my business, can't I?
I could hire some more employees with that extra after tax profit, eh?
I can reduce my cost per unit with the increased possible production, right?

Why would you do any of that if there is no increased demand? This is the step #2 that Conservatives never seem to articulate, how cutting taxes for corporations (or the rich) leads to increased demand.

Step 1: Cut taxes
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Growth

It's like an even dumber version of the Underpants Gnomes. You don't expand a business just because, you expand a business if there is demand for what your business produces. So why would you open another store, hire more workers, or buy more equipment if there's no requisite increase for demand? Try going into a bank to get a loan to expand your business with static (or declining) revenue numbers. You won't get the loan. You'll get laughed out of the bank and have to turn to Russian financiers.

So why wasn't my revenue increasing?

Because there's no increase in consumer demand because consumers haven't seen wages rise to increase demand.

Gee willikers, I just hired more people to use my newly purchased equipment.
The equipment maker hired more as well. I also just bought a spiffy new car for
my wife.....dammit, now the automakers had to hire more people. Bastards!!!

Why would you hire anyone if there's no increased demand for your product? You would be hiring people, making equipment purchases, etc. that go to serve a demand that isn't there.

It's just supply-side, voodoo, trickle-down economics by another name. Hasn't worked in 37 years, so there's no reason to believe it will start working now.

 

[The Derp]

He doesn't say rich guys like him have to pay more taxes? You're lying. Or stupid.

"More" in the context of what? The burden? Well that's only the case because of all the tax cuts that reduced the tax burden on the middle and lower class. Was there a compensatory increase in wages as a result of that tax cut? Nope. How about consumer spending? Nope, only in terms of debt and credit. Were the workers saving more? Nope. Were they going into debt? Yes.

The top tax rate on the wealthy has been cut nearly in half; from 70% to 39.5%. So while the wealthy may pay a bigger share, they also pay nearly half as much as they used to.

Yes, I'm familiar with his lie.

How is it a lie? You cannot "believe" this, you can only accept it.

While he minimizes his payments to the taxman.

Because of the current tax structure put in place by Conservatives. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about. You're the ones who changed the tax code to result in this situation, and now you're complaining about the situation your policy caused? There's only one word for that; masturbation.

I understand, showing you his lie is upsetting to you.

Do you understand? His secretary gets a salary, he does not. Hence, why you have to compare their effective rates, and not their marginal rates.