Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[bendog]

I apologize for calling you a conservative and thus hurting your fragile feelings, I hope you will make full recovery one day.

...now about the substance, and the facts being discussed.

Thanks for your concern, gay boy, but I didn't say anything about my feelings. I was addressing your obsessive love of money.

I want the money I earned. Liberals want ALL the money. Then you call us greedy ...

What I want is for us to establish facts, what you seem to want is some personal flame fest bullshit. My guess on that bizzare posturing is that you know that I know the facts and you don't, so you deflect to something else as a way to respond to me with SOMETHING.

The facts are:

- I don't want your or anyone else's money I didn't earn
- You want my and everyone else's money you didn't earn

I see...and WTF does that have to do with taxation? How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?

You don't know what taxation has to do with wealth redistribution?



"How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?"

When you cut taxes, the wealthy invest more and create more jobs which helps everyone else.

Also, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, yet every cut has involved their getting far less than that as a percent of tax cuts.

Funny how again, all you care about is the money and how it affects you. You're clearly not in the top 1%. So again you want to make sure that people not named antontoo are paying as much of it as possible.

It's all about the money for you

Well, it helps the stock market but it ain't doing shit for jobs.

But trump is like a box of chocolates. The problem is every piece is to McConnell's liking.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

Actually he doesn't. Can you say deficit spending?

Oh, I already pointed that out. Trump WANTS to borrow more money.

Are you now suddenly opposed to deficit spending?

Budget deficit nearly doubles during Obama years

The White House predicted Friday that the federal government’s budget deficit for the current fiscal year will hit $600 billion, an increase of $162 billion over last year’s and a final sour note on President Obama’s watch.

I am not opposed to it absolutely. I think there are times when the US government should and needs to run a deficit. If it is used to build infrastructure that will be around for decades and likely add to growth, then it can be justified.

Here's my longheld position:

Post 15

How do Tax Cuts hurt the economy?

I don't necessarily disagree with your view, save one very salient point. You are assuming that all other things will stay constant. Nancy Pelosi said we get $1.79 of economic activity for every $1 of food stamps. Essentially she is saying if people have more money in their pocket it will stimulate growth, more growth leads to more income, more income leads to more money to be taxed. Remember, whether you agree or not with the Reagan tax cuts, the total amount taxes collected went up.

Clearly if you tax someone 100% they will loose incentive to earn anything. Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? The basic idea is that there is a optimum tax rate which optimizes tax revenues.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.) And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation). Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

Actually he doesn't. Can you say deficit spending?

Oh, I already pointed that out. Trump WANTS to borrow more money.

Are you now suddenly opposed to deficit spending?

Budget deficit nearly doubles during Obama years

The White House predicted Friday that the federal government’s budget deficit for the current fiscal year will hit $600 billion, an increase of $162 billion over last year’s and a final sour note on President Obama’s watch.

I am not opposed to it absolutely. I think there are times when the US government should and needs to run a deficit. If it is used to build infrastructure that will be around for decades and likely add to growth, then it can be justified.

Show me when I was for it.

Ahh, you speak out against it now, so show me when you spoke out against it while BO was doing it.

Look at the date on the fucking post I fucking linked to.

 

[nat4900]

How do you give huge tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes?

Of course, I am NOT talking about "those people who don't pay taxes".....What I AM talking about is that huge segment labeled the middle class....If you go back to the original analysis, you'd see that the percentile of tax breaks pales to that upper income earners' percentile.

 

[JoeNormal]

Since our economy has become largely a financialized shell game, there is very little real growth. And we'll really be screwed if the dollar falls out of favor with the rest of the world.

And you're ready to pronounce that before he takes his list of ideas and proposes an actual plan balancing what he'd like to do with his priorities and negotiations to get his party to support it so it has a chance to pass?

You people are just too black and white to have meaningful discussions with

If he plans on lowering taxes largely for the only people whose incomes are growing, it doesn't matter what else is in his plan. Our economy has become a shell game and real growth is an illusion.

Yes, you do want the money, don't you? If you don't get more of that, nothing else matters. Greed, Democrats shouldn't be the blue party, you should be the green party

I would prefer for my country to be solvent and to have decent infrastructure and a safety net.

Right, a socialist who wants the country to be solvent. When did you ever want that before?

And you're going to get this solvency by ignoring the field of economics. Great plan

You and your ilk are the only ones who call me a socialist. As for economics, it's sad you've fallen for the smoke and mirrors approach to running an economy. It used to be that productivity meant creating something that was actually useful. It's probably a self defence mechanism for you in that you find it difficult to accept that you don't actually contribute anything.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

How do you give huge tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes?

Of course, I am NOT talking about "those people who don't pay taxes".....What I AM talking about is that huge segment labeled the middle class....If you go back to the original analysis, you'd see that the percentile of tax breaks pales to that upper income earners' percentile.

The issue is not that the rich don't pay their fair share, the issue is income inequality gap. Taxing the shit out of the rich does nothing to increase the income of the bottom 50%.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

Actually he doesn't. Can you say deficit spending?

Oh, I already pointed that out. Trump WANTS to borrow more money.

Are you now suddenly opposed to deficit spending?

Budget deficit nearly doubles during Obama years

The White House predicted Friday that the federal government’s budget deficit for the current fiscal year will hit $600 billion, an increase of $162 billion over last year’s and a final sour note on President Obama’s watch.

I am not opposed to it absolutely. I think there are times when the US government should and needs to run a deficit. If it is used to build infrastructure that will be around for decades and likely add to growth, then it can be justified.

Here's my longheld position:

Post 15

How do Tax Cuts hurt the economy?

I don't necessarily disagree with your view, save one very salient point. You are assuming that all other things will stay constant. Nancy Pelosi said we get $1.79 of economic activity for every $1 of food stamps. Essentially she is saying if people have more money in their pocket it will stimulate growth, more growth leads to more income, more income leads to more money to be taxed. Remember, whether you agree or not with the Reagan tax cuts, the total amount taxes collected went up.

Clearly if you tax someone 100% they will loose incentive to earn anything. Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? The basic idea is that there is a optimum tax rate which optimizes tax revenues.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.) And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation). Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Tax revenues went up under Reagan because we came out of a 16 month long recession. Deficits also went up under Reagan which means that borrowed money was being pumped into the economy, thus serving as a stimulus,
without the taxpayers having to pay for it.

Even Reagan and his people knew they fucked up in 1981 with their huge tax cuts; they passed the biggest tax increase in history in 1982.

And the raised the payroll tax in 1983.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do you give huge tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes?

Of course, I am NOT talking about "those people who don't pay taxes".....What I AM talking about is that huge segment labeled the middle class....If you go back to the original analysis, you'd see that the percentile of tax breaks pales to that upper income earners' percentile.

The issue is not that the rich don't pay their fair share, the issue is income inequality gap. Taxing the shit out of the rich does nothing to increase the income of the bottom 50%.

It certainly does increase income for the poorer, if you calculate the value of their income based benefits,

Medicaid for example.

 

[kaz]

Thanks for your concern, gay boy, but I didn't say anything about my feelings. I was addressing your obsessive love of money.

I want the money I earned. Liberals want ALL the money. Then you call us greedy ...

What I want is for us to establish facts, what you seem to want is some personal flame fest bullshit. My guess on that bizzare posturing is that you know that I know the facts and you don't, so you deflect to something else as a way to respond to me with SOMETHING.

The facts are:

- I don't want your or anyone else's money I didn't earn
- You want my and everyone else's money you didn't earn

I see...and WTF does that have to do with taxation? How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?

You don't know what taxation has to do with wealth redistribution?



"How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?"

When you cut taxes, the wealthy invest more and create more jobs which helps everyone else.

Also, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, yet every cut has involved their getting far less than that as a percent of tax cuts.

Funny how again, all you care about is the money and how it affects you. You're clearly not in the top 1%. So again you want to make sure that people not named antontoo are paying as much of it as possible.

It's all about the money for you

Well, it helps the stock market but it ain't doing shit for jobs.

But trump is like a box of chocolates. The problem is every piece is to McConnell's liking.

Bull shit. Tax cuts clearly create jobs. Though you have to stick with it. The problem is we create them one year then erode them year after year and the benefits don't take hold

 

[kaz]

And you're ready to pronounce that before he takes his list of ideas and proposes an actual plan balancing what he'd like to do with his priorities and negotiations to get his party to support it so it has a chance to pass?

You people are just too black and white to have meaningful discussions with

If he plans on lowering taxes largely for the only people whose incomes are growing, it doesn't matter what else is in his plan. Our economy has become a shell game and real growth is an illusion.

Yes, you do want the money, don't you? If you don't get more of that, nothing else matters. Greed, Democrats shouldn't be the blue party, you should be the green party

I would prefer for my country to be solvent and to have decent infrastructure and a safety net.

Right, a socialist who wants the country to be solvent. When did you ever want that before?

And you're going to get this solvency by ignoring the field of economics. Great plan

You and your ilk are the only ones who call me a socialist. As for economics, it's sad you've fallen for the smoke and mirrors approach to running an economy. It used to be that productivity meant creating something that was actually useful. It's probably a self defence mechanism for you in that you find it difficult to accept that you don't actually contribute anything.

My ilk being business and economics people. Everything you advocate is socialist

 

[AntonToo]

"How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?"

When you cut taxes, the wealthy invest more and create more jobs which helps everyone else.

Kaz that sounds wonderful, except you are neglecting the very real DOWNSIDES tax cuts ACTUALLY do have.

When people pay less taxes, government collects less taxes and as a result our national budget deficit increases. You can argue that ultimate revenue reduction will be somewhat offset by economic activity this debt would effectively buy, but that would only account for small fraction of upfront revenue reductions.

We are currently at 20Trillion dollar national debt and are on a path to long term insolvency, Trumps tax-cuts only make fiscal situation worse, 5-10Trillion dollars worse within 10 years no matter how rosy of dynamic effects we'll make allowance for.

The way you are talking about this is standard fare right wing free economic lunch bs, where people pay less taxes, government collects same (or even more if you are really bat-sht crazy) revenues. Everyone wins and the reason why that myth sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

 

[kaz]

"How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?"

When you cut taxes, the wealthy invest more and create more jobs which helps everyone else.

Also, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, yet every cut has involved their getting far less than that as a percent of tax cuts.

Funny how again, all you care about is the money and how it affects you. You're clearly not in the top 1%. So again you want to make sure that people not named antontoo are paying as much of it as possible.

It's all about the money for you

Kaz that sounds wonderful, except you are neglecting the very real DOWNSIDES tax cuts ACTUALLY do have.

When people pay less taxes, government collects less taxes and as a result our national budget deficit increases. You can argue that ultimate revenue reduction will be somewhat offset, but that would only account for small fraction of upfront revenue reductions.

We currently at 20Trillion dollar national debt and are on a path to long term insolvency, Trumps tax-cuts only make fiscal situation worse, 5-10Trillion dollars worse within 10 years no matter how rosy of dynamic effects we'll make allowance for.

The way you are talking about this is standard fare right wing free lunch economic theories, where people pay less taxes, government collects same (or even more if you are really bat-sht crazy) revenues. Everyone wins and the reason why that myth sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

What can I say? You're just wrong and don't know what you are talking about. Tax cuts cause higher deficits in the first 2-3 years, then over time the revenue from the economic expansion dwarfs it.

I do this for a living, you post on message boards

I learned this in economics and understand the math behind it (I was also a math major) and you're parroting liberal politicians.

I'll give your opinion all the consideration it deserves

 

[JoeNormal]

If he plans on lowering taxes largely for the only people whose incomes are growing, it doesn't matter what else is in his plan. Our economy has become a shell game and real growth is an illusion.

Yes, you do want the money, don't you? If you don't get more of that, nothing else matters. Greed, Democrats shouldn't be the blue party, you should be the green party

I would prefer for my country to be solvent and to have decent infrastructure and a safety net.

Right, a socialist who wants the country to be solvent. When did you ever want that before?

And you're going to get this solvency by ignoring the field of economics. Great plan

You and your ilk are the only ones who call me a socialist. As for economics, it's sad you've fallen for the smoke and mirrors approach to running an economy. It used to be that productivity meant creating something that was actually useful. It's probably a self defence mechanism for you in that you find it difficult to accept that you don't actually contribute anything.

My ilk being business and economics people. Everything you advocate is socialist

Business and economics people? You seem to be ok with the way our economy is based primarily on financialization. You do realize that real economies are based upon the production of actual goods and services that offer value, right? That's not where the big money is in our economy.

 

[JoeNormal]

"How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?"

When you cut taxes, the wealthy invest more and create more jobs which helps everyone else.

Also, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, yet every cut has involved their getting far less than that as a percent of tax cuts.

Funny how again, all you care about is the money and how it affects you. You're clearly not in the top 1%. So again you want to make sure that people not named antontoo are paying as much of it as possible.

It's all about the money for you

Kaz that sounds wonderful, except you are neglecting the very real DOWNSIDES tax cuts ACTUALLY do have.

When people pay less taxes, government collects less taxes and as a result our national budget deficit increases. You can argue that ultimate revenue reduction will be somewhat offset, but that would only account for small fraction of upfront revenue reductions.

We currently at 20Trillion dollar national debt and are on a path to long term insolvency, Trumps tax-cuts only make fiscal situation worse, 5-10Trillion dollars worse within 10 years no matter how rosy of dynamic effects we'll make allowance for.

The way you are talking about this is standard fare right wing free lunch economic theories, where people pay less taxes, government collects same (or even more if you are really bat-sht crazy) revenues. Everyone wins and the reason why that myth sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

What can I say? You're just wrong and don't know what you are talking about. Tax cuts cause higher deficits in the first 2-3 years, then over time the revenue from the economic expansion dwarfs it.

I do this for a living, you post on message boards

I learned this in economics and understand the math behind it (I was also a math major) and you're parroting liberal politicians.

I'll give your opinion all the consideration it deserves

Where is the economic expansion from the Bush tax cuts? Or the economic expansion from Obama's continuation of them?

 

[miketx]

Another elitist liberal. This is the sort of bigoted crap why you are getting your asses handed to you across the country

No, NO, Kaz.........We should abide by the intellect of your fellow morons who...when faced with facts.......tell opponents to "go move there"...
That's an intelligent retort, don't you think?

Anything more intelligent and you could not understand it. By your own support of Clinton, that casts you as either a fool or a criminal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Where is the economic expansion from the Bush tax cuts? Or the economic expansion from Obama's continuation of them?

Why do you think Obama continued the Bush tax cuts? What was his reason?

 

[kaz]

Yes, you do want the money, don't you? If you don't get more of that, nothing else matters. Greed, Democrats shouldn't be the blue party, you should be the green party

I would prefer for my country to be solvent and to have decent infrastructure and a safety net.

Right, a socialist who wants the country to be solvent. When did you ever want that before?

And you're going to get this solvency by ignoring the field of economics. Great plan

You and your ilk are the only ones who call me a socialist. As for economics, it's sad you've fallen for the smoke and mirrors approach to running an economy. It used to be that productivity meant creating something that was actually useful. It's probably a self defence mechanism for you in that you find it difficult to accept that you don't actually contribute anything.

My ilk being business and economics people. Everything you advocate is socialist

Business and economics people? You seem to be ok with the way our economy is based primarily on financialization. You do realize that real economies are based upon the production of actual goods and services that offer value, right? That's not where the big money is in our economy.

That's just inane Marxist babble. You're also begging the question assuming the truth of your propaganda. Ultimately the underlying value drives valuations. In the short run, leverage is one way to challenge current valuations and get them back in line when they are off. It's all about market efficiency

 

[kaz]

"How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?"

When you cut taxes, the wealthy invest more and create more jobs which helps everyone else.

Also, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, yet every cut has involved their getting far less than that as a percent of tax cuts.

Funny how again, all you care about is the money and how it affects you. You're clearly not in the top 1%. So again you want to make sure that people not named antontoo are paying as much of it as possible.

It's all about the money for you

Kaz that sounds wonderful, except you are neglecting the very real DOWNSIDES tax cuts ACTUALLY do have.

When people pay less taxes, government collects less taxes and as a result our national budget deficit increases. You can argue that ultimate revenue reduction will be somewhat offset, but that would only account for small fraction of upfront revenue reductions.

We currently at 20Trillion dollar national debt and are on a path to long term insolvency, Trumps tax-cuts only make fiscal situation worse, 5-10Trillion dollars worse within 10 years no matter how rosy of dynamic effects we'll make allowance for.

The way you are talking about this is standard fare right wing free lunch economic theories, where people pay less taxes, government collects same (or even more if you are really bat-sht crazy) revenues. Everyone wins and the reason why that myth sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

What can I say? You're just wrong and don't know what you are talking about. Tax cuts cause higher deficits in the first 2-3 years, then over time the revenue from the economic expansion dwarfs it.

I do this for a living, you post on message boards

I learned this in economics and understand the math behind it (I was also a math major) and you're parroting liberal politicians.

I'll give your opinion all the consideration it deserves

Where is the economic expansion from the Bush tax cuts? Or the economic expansion from Obama's continuation of them?

First of all, you're committing a single cause fallacy on jobs and economic expansion. They both did a boat load of things that had a shrinking effect, particularly their spending orgies.

And W fucked up the tax cuts by adding tax complexity. The best way for economic expansion is tax simplicity, otherwise you drive people and businesses to seek the inequities created by the complexity. You want them to focus on the market, not the tax codes

 

[nat4900]

Well gnat, you DO lie after all - democrat.

In Hitler's concentration camps the unemployment rate was 0%

A 2% unemployment in a country that has an annual per capita GDP of less than $2,000 points to slavery, not to a thriving economy.

Hey, MORON....I am NOT defending Vietnam's working conditions.....If your other half brain were working, you'd see that I was responding to the WHY jobs in the US will NOT be gained by giving rich companies ADDED tax cuts......If these companies need more workers, they'll go where labor is substantially cheaper.

Find a grown up to explain it to you......

 

[JoeNormal]

I would prefer for my country to be solvent and to have decent infrastructure and a safety net.

Right, a socialist who wants the country to be solvent. When did you ever want that before?

And you're going to get this solvency by ignoring the field of economics. Great plan

You and your ilk are the only ones who call me a socialist. As for economics, it's sad you've fallen for the smoke and mirrors approach to running an economy. It used to be that productivity meant creating something that was actually useful. It's probably a self defence mechanism for you in that you find it difficult to accept that you don't actually contribute anything.

My ilk being business and economics people. Everything you advocate is socialist

Business and economics people? You seem to be ok with the way our economy is based primarily on financialization. You do realize that real economies are based upon the production of actual goods and services that offer value, right? That's not where the big money is in our economy.

That's just inane Marxist babble. You're also begging the question assuming the truth of your propaganda. Ultimately the underlying value drives valuations. In the short run, leverage is one way to challenge current valuations and get them back in line when they are off. It's all about market efficiency

Market efficiency based upon how many jobs can be shipped to third world shit holes? Lazy and unimaginative at best. More like destructive and selfish but that end-stage capitalism for you.