RE: LOL. Tax Reform

RE: LOL. Tax Reform (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/26/2017 10:35:54 AM)
yes adding to the deficit to give tax breaks to the rich, such a smart idea so special.

WhoreMods -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/26/2017 10:37:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yes adding to the deficit to give tax breaks to the rich, such a smart idea so special. It's never failed to eliminate the deficit, revitalise the business economy by encouraging investment, and eliminate poverty by raining more benefice down willingly than would have been stolen from wealth creators as taxes before, has it?

mnottertail -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/26/2017 1:22:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yes adding to the deficit to give tax breaks to the rich, such a smart idea so special. They can also borrow beyond the budget, and go right to debt, they did so to the tune of 1.4 Trillion last session, its probably going to double this session, this is beyond the deficit so add that in there as well.

MrRodgers -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/26/2017 7:58:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods What the fuck does el presidente care about tax reform? It's not like he's going to start paying tax again however the tax laws are adjusted to cut his dues. he needs more money to pay for his golf trips, security for trump tower and trips 3 million a trip, and a security and financial nightmare over trump tower. Taxpayers are paying for almost all of that, including the taxpayers of the city of NY.

MrRodgers -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/26/2017 8:38:47 PM)
Many intellectuals and learned commentators will tell you that economics is not even really a science at all as there are few if any empirical proofs to be...proven. They will tell you it is a guessing game lacking any true peer review, the objectives of which result in merely a policy statement with estimates and assumptions in an attempt to substantiate one's political goals and trying to achieve one's economic outcomes. Trump's vast and sweeping proposal as all proposals of this kind, rests almost entirely on those kinds of estimates and assumptions many of which have no historical validation and otherwise assumes incentives never historically demonstrated and thus unproven, beyond maximizing one's personal goal of a higher take home pay, or institutional goal...of maximizing profits. These estimates and assumptions represent the entire mathematical basis for both economic growth and job creation and are specious and highly speculative at best and in business, run counter to the corporate fiduciary of profits and/or maximizing stockholder value. This axiom being proven time and time again in massive layoffs (a reduction in employment) lowering costs to increase profits and multi-billion $ stock buy backs that increase their value through a reduction in the supply of outstanding shares. So as with Reagan's tax reform and budgets and Bush I's that followed, took years to create jobs the largest segments of which were shipbuilding and in construction of commercial bldgs. that often remained un-leased due to the creation of passive losses in the tax code and houses, any number of which were either depreciable or enjoyed unlimited interest costs deductions off personal income. In 12 years this produced approx, $3 trillion in additional federal debt that would have been more had Bush I not 'reneged' on his 'no new taxes' pledge, raised taxes that stemmed the flow of red ink. It is the total lack of any historical precedent for such tax changes that tells me, the economy will not grow anywhere near the estimates and job growth if any at all, which I seriously doubt, will be extremely marginal and might have occurred anyway, just as the economy has been adding jobs and the recent quarter job performance, were as much due to Obama's latest policy and not because of any changes at all from Trump & Co. The new admin. hasn't made any...yet.

DesideriScuri -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/27/2017 3:24:20 AM)
The problem with most politicians is they see things solely as static, and not fluid. They see the top 1% paid 15% of their income in taxes (numbers all hypothetical), so if they raise taxes 5% on the top 1%, that will result in the top 1% paying 20% in taxes. It doesn't pan out that way, either. They fail to take into account the next reaction to their move, as if nothing is going to change. People are just going to say, "oh well, I guess there's nothing I can do but pay government more." Welfare policies have noble goals. They usually don't work out as planned, though. Bush 43 produced large tax cuts, across the board. Sure, the richest got the highest decreases, dollar-wise. But, they were also paying the most, dollar-wise (and had the highest %-share of all income taxes paid). People bitch about the Bush tax cuts, but if you care to look, tax revenues went up afterwards. And, so did the number of tax filers who did not have any federal income tax liability. Yep, the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" resulted in higher overall tax revenues, fewer tax payers having a federal tax liability, and "the rich" actually shouldering a higher %-share of collected taxes. More money chasing the same amount of goods will result in higher prices. Why does the Federal Reserve want inflation? They have a stated goal of making our money worth less. WTF?

MrRodgers -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/27/2017 5:45:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The problem with most politicians is they see things solely as static, and not fluid. They see the top 1% paid 15% of their income in taxes (numbers all hypothetical), so if they raise taxes 5% on the top 1%, that will result in the top 1% paying 20% in taxes. It doesn't pan out that way, either. They fail to take into account the next reaction to their move, as if nothing is going to change. People are just going to say, "oh well, I guess there's nothing I can do but pay government more." Welfare policies have noble goals. They usually don't work out as planned, though. Bush 43 produced large tax cuts, across the board. Sure, the richest got the highest decreases, dollar-wise. But, they were also paying the most, dollar-wise (and had the highest %-share of all income taxes paid). People bitch about the Bush tax cuts, but if you care to look, tax revenues went up afterwards. And, so did the number of tax filers who did not have any federal income tax liability. Yep, the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" resulted in higher overall tax revenues, fewer tax payers having a federal tax liability, and "the rich" actually shouldering a higher %-share of collected taxes. More money chasing the same amount of goods will result in higher prices. Why does the Federal Reserve want inflation? They have a stated goal of making our money worth less. WTF? Not according to ThinkProgress: .....“tax relief will create new jobs, tax relief will generate new wealth, and tax relief will open new opportunities.” Instead, Bush’s tax cuts brought in a new era of red ink. Even with all the other economic catastrophes including the wars and the financial crisis the federal debt would be at a sustainable level today were it not for the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts ushered in the weakest economic expansion of the post-war period, as “growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance.” HERE I've read elsewhere and here confirmed by Forbes: the worst 2 term job creation of any other 2 term pres. in history. HERE

mnottertail -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/27/2017 5:45:32 AM)
Yeah, I was alive then and didnt see that: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/recent_revenue and of course the debt went up because we borrow and spend. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm But why dont we cut the tax rate to zero because then look at how our revenues go up. Cutting taxes does not raise revenues, not ever. There is no ... let me repeat that ... no causal relationship between cutting taxes and raising revenue.

MrRodgers -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/27/2017 5:54:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, I was alive then and didnt see that: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/recent_revenue and of course the debt went up because we borrow and spend. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm But why dont we cut the tax rate to zero because then look at how our revenues go up. Cutting taxes does not raise revenues, not ever. There is no ... let me repeat that ... no causal relationship between cutting taxes and raising revenue. Seems to me, it's very similar to saying, take a pay cut and you'll bring home more money.

Musicmystery -> RE: LOL. Tax Reform (3/27/2017 8:36:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Many intellectuals and learned commentators will tell you that economics is not even really a science at all as there are few if any empirical proofs to be...proven. They will tell you it is a guessing game lacking any true peer review, the objectives of which result in merely a policy statement with estimates and assumptions in an attempt to substantiate one's political goals and trying to achieve one's economic outcomes. What nonsense. Links to credible sources, please. What people pretty much universally ignore about economic models is that they are snapshots in time, giving ranges and probabilities. From there, circumstances change, and the models with them. That's not the same as the model being irrelevant in the moment.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875