How Can People Deny Trickle Down Economics...

[david52875]

No, it is not doublespeak. It has been decided that progressive taxation is indeed the American rational tax policy. No doublespeak needed.

"It has been decided" Lol. You have no argument other than to assert "IT HAS BEEN DECIDED"

 

[haymarket]

Theory? It's like if I take $30,000 from you, when you wanted buy a car, and instead use it to renovate your house, then say that I made you richer because your house is nicer.

And that stuff you just made up has what exactly to do with the government and there role Hoover Dam or the TVA and all the economic benefit that came from both?

 

[haymarket]

"It has been decided" Lol. You have no argument other than to assert "IT HAS BEEN DECIDED"

You badly misunderstand - probably by intention. No 'doublespeak' is involved. There is no trickery or duplicity and no trick language is being employed to pull a fast one. For a century now, we as a people have determined that a rational tax policy if indeed a progressive income tax policy.

For you to call that political reality doublespeak is intentionally intellectually dishonest.

 

[david52875]

And that stuff you just made up has what exactly to do with the government and there role Hoover Dam or the TVA and all the economic benefit that came from both?

The government TOOK WEALTH from its citizens, and REDISTRIBUTED it into building a new dam. It CREATED nothing, it only REDISTRIBUTED.

 

[david52875]

You badly misunderstand - probably by intention. No 'doublespeak' is involved. There is no trickery or duplicity and no trick language is being employed to pull a fast one. For a century now, we as a people have determined that a rational tax policy if indeed a progressive income tax policy.

For you to call that political reality doublespeak is intentionally intellectually dishonest.

So, the rational tax policy is one that shrinks GDP, and thereby tax revenues?

 

[haymarket]

So, the rational tax policy is one that shrinks GDP, and thereby tax revenues?

Where are you getting those two claims from?

 

[haymarket]

The government TOOK WEALTH from its citizens, and REDISTRIBUTED it into building a new dam. It CREATED nothing, it only REDISTRIBUTED.

And you ignore all the gained wealth that was produced from expanded economic activity in both of those regions for decade upon decade upon decade because of the initial government investment. To do that is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

 

[Centinel]

The government TOOK WEALTH from its citizens, and REDISTRIBUTED it into building a new dam. It CREATED nothing, it only REDISTRIBUTED.

And reduced overall social well-being, as it prevented people from using that money for their first preference. Instead they get something they either didn't want, or is lower on their preference scale. Taking people's money and buying what you want probably won't make them as satisfied as if they had been able to spend the money on what they want.

 

[david52875]

And you ignore all the gained wealth that was produced from expanded economic activity in both of those regions for decade upon decade upon decade because of the initial government investment. To do that is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

You are assuming that if the government did not take that money and spend it, people would have just stuffed it under their couch and it never would have seen the light of day. It's ridiculous. The government did not create wealth by creating the hoover dam. It redistributed wealth. You are also ignoring the fact that people would have invested that money anyway.

 

[haymarket]

And reduced overall social well-being, as it prevented people from using that money for their first preference. Instead they get something they either didn't want, or is lower on their preference scale. Taking people's money and buying what you want probably won't make them as satisfied as if they had been able to spend the money on what they want.

Again, your side is given real life examples of government spending money and increasing wealth and you respond with theory from a high school textbook.

 

[david52875]

Where are you getting those two claims from?

Tax Revenues are Directly Proportional to GDP and Business friendly Policies raise GDP.

 

[haymarket]

You are assuming that if the government did not take that money and spend it, people would have just stuffed it under their couch and it never would have seen the light of day. It's ridiculous. The government did not create wealth by creating the hoover dam. It redistributed wealth. You are also ignoring the fact that people would have invested that money anyway.

I am assuming nothing.

I am dealing with historical reality of what actually happened.

 

[haymarket]

Tax Revenues are Directly Proportional to GDP and Business friendly Policies raise GDP.

So the tax increases of the 1993 Reconciliation Act did not lead to expanded revenues?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf

Are these figures of increased revenues lies?

 

[david52875]

Again, your side is given real life examples of government spending money and increasing wealth and you respond with theory from a high school textbook.

Believe me, the stuff they teach in high school is idiotic. Because they teach what you are saying. So, since your arguments are the ones in the high school textbooks, does that mean your wrong?

 

[david52875]

So the tax increases of the 1993 Reconciliation Act did not lead to expanded revenues?

No. How can any sane person look at that GDP/Tax Revenue Graph and conclude that Shrinking GDP will not lower tax revenue?

 

[haymarket]

Believe me, the stuff they teach in high school is idiotic. Because they teach what you are saying. So, since your arguments are the ones in the high school textbooks, does that mean your wrong?

Really? Please present what I am saying and show its companion language in a high school textbook.

 

[david52875]

I am assuming nothing.

I am dealing with historical reality of what actually happened.

If you're done posting substantial arguments, just stop posting.

 

[misterman]

The government TOOK WEALTH from its citizens, and REDISTRIBUTED it into building a new dam. It CREATED nothing, it only REDISTRIBUTED.

It created a dam, dude.

And the jobs of people building it, and the power, irrigation, and flood control that results from it.

Jesus, why do I have to tell you this?

 

[Centinel]

Again, your side is given real life examples of government spending money and increasing wealth and you respond with theory from a high school textbook.

It didn't increase wealth. It reduced wealth. The people whose money was taken got something they wanted less than they would have gotten had they been able to use their money for their first preference. Wealth was destroyed.

 

[haymarket]

No. How can any sane person look at that GDP/Tax Revenue Graph and conclude that Shrinking GDP will not lower tax revenue?

Really!!?!?!!? Revenues grew by a rough amount of $100 billion each year after the 1993 tax raises were passed. And the governments budget was in excellent shape compared to what happened afterwards.

 

[haymarket]

It didn't increase wealth. It reduced wealth. The people whose money was taken got something they wanted less than they would have gotten had they been able to use their money for their first preference. Wealth was destroyed.

And you can say this as fact because..........?????????????

I and others keep giving you real life and you keep spouting theory.

 

[david52875]

It created a dam, dude.

And the jobs of people building it, and the power, irrigation, and flood control that results from it.

Jesus, why do I have to tell you this?

People would have spent their money on creating things they wanted. The government created nothing. every once of wealth added to the economy by building the Hoover Dam was first taken out of the economy by the government taxing its citizens.

 

[haymarket]

It created a dam, dude.

And the jobs of people building it, and the power, irrigation, and flood control that results from it.

Jesus, why do I have to tell you this?

Because there are none so blind as they who will not see.

 

[haymarket]

People would have spent their money on creating things they wanted. The government created nothing. every once of wealth added to the economy by building the Hoover Dam was first taken out of the economy by the government taxing its citizens.

Again, you ignore the effect of the dam on that etire area and its economy for decade after decade and all the wealth and economic benefit it produced. That is intellectually dishonest.

 

[david52875]

And you can say this as fact because..........?????????????

I and others keep giving you real life and you keep spouting theory.

The same way we can say supply and demand are fact.