Tax benefits should bubble up, not trickle down

[Chomsky]

Not really.

First 75K taxed at 9%

Top tax rate capped at 25%

Being able to immediately write off equipment instead of the current rule where we are estimating the depreciation of every major tool or piece of equipment.

For guys like me, this is pretty nice.

Are the cuts permanent?

 

[Media_Truth]

This tax plan will only serve to increase the ever-widening income gaps in this country. Americans don't want this, and it's being shoved down their throats.

 

[MTAtech]

And you are wrong, tax cuts that increased tax revenue had absolutely nothing to do with the increase in debt and in fact reduced the amount of deficit. You have been bought and paid for by the radical left totally ignoring basic civics, economics and the official data from Treasury. Tax cuts or people keeping more of what they earn has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit as that is caused by spending

It's a zombie lie (a lie that is stated, killed, but gets up to be repeated again) that tax-cuts pay for themselves. It was especially true for the Bush tax-cuts. At best, less than a third of the Bush tax-cut could be attributed to economic growth -- and some dispute that.

 

[Conservative]

It's a zombie lie (a lie that is stated, killed, but gets up to be repeated again) that tax-cuts pay for themselves. It was especially true for the Bush tax-cuts. At best, less than a third of the Bush tax-cut could be attributed to economic growth -- and some dispute that.

Your opinion noted but you have no data to support it and cannot prove what percentage of the tax cuts benefited the economy, only your leftwing opinions because you want a bigger, more powerful Federal govt. creating more dependence

 

[MTAtech]

Your opinion noted but you have no data to support it and cannot prove what percentage of the tax cuts benefited the economy, only your leftwing opinions because you want a bigger, more powerful Federal govt. creating more dependence

Let me remind you, I don't have to prove that tax-cuts don't pay for themselves, proponents of the theory, such as it is, have to prove tax-cuts DO pay for themselves.

Nevertheless, the issue has been studied widely. Regarding the tax-cut at hand, The GOP must choose between faith and evidence in tax-cut vote:

Faith in tax cuts as the path to economic growth has reigned supreme within Republican theology since President Ronald Reagan. The party clings so strongly to this belief that it has become the answer to competing concerns over the national debt; growth sparked by tax cuts, insist White House officials and GOP leaders, will reduce, not increase, annual budget deficits.

Evidence for that belief has long been weak. On Thursday, it got even weaker.

Analyses by economists in both parties have shown that no tax cut in modern history has ever "paid for itself" by generating a surge in revenues. Reagan's tax cuts, like President George W. Bush's 20 years later, made deficits bigger.

The conservative Tax Foundation said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.
The Penn-Wharton budget model, run by a former economist from the second Bush administration, said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.
The tax analysts whom Congress pays to provide impartial advice delivered a similar verdict.
The Joint Committee on Taxation said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.

But Conservatives says that they will, so there we have it.

 

[Conservative]

Let me remind you, I don't have to prove that tax-cuts don't pay for themselves, proponents of the theory, such as it is, have to prove tax-cuts DO pay for themselves.

Nevertheless, the issue has been studied widely. Regarding the tax-cut at hand, The GOP must choose between faith and evidence in tax-cut vote:


The conservative Tax Foundation said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.
The Penn-Wharton budget model, run by a former economist from the second Bush administration, said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.
The tax analysts whom Congress pays to provide impartial advice delivered a similar verdict.
The Joint Committee on Taxation said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.

But Conservatives says that they will, so there we have it.

Wow, this is a perfect example of the liberal education system, keeping more of what you earn has to be paid for? Unbelievable, you have been indoctrinated well

What accounting system teaches that tax cuts are an expense?

 

[Conservative]

Let me remind you, I don't have to prove that tax-cuts don't pay for themselves, proponents of the theory, such as it is, have to prove tax-cuts DO pay for themselves.

Nevertheless, the issue has been studied widely. Regarding the tax-cut at hand, The GOP must choose between faith and evidence in tax-cut vote:


The conservative Tax Foundation said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.
The Penn-Wharton budget model, run by a former economist from the second Bush administration, said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.
The tax analysts whom Congress pays to provide impartial advice delivered a similar verdict.
The Joint Committee on Taxation said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.

But Conservatives says that they will, so there we have it.

This has to be one of the most convoluted arguments in history as for some reason all of a sudden the money belongs to the govt. and is being lent to the people requiring them to pay it back thus making it an expense. Rather sad that we have a group of people promoting that totally false contention. The money doesn't belong to the govt. it isn't an expense, and thus doesn't have to be paid for when more of it is kept by the individual who earned it in the first place.

 

[Conservative]

Let me remind you, I don't have to prove that tax-cuts don't pay for themselves, proponents of the theory, such as it is, have to prove tax-cuts DO pay for themselves.

Nevertheless, the issue has been studied widely. Regarding the tax-cut at hand, The GOP must choose between faith and evidence in tax-cut vote:


The conservative Tax Foundation said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.
The Penn-Wharton budget model, run by a former economist from the second Bush administration, said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.
The tax analysts whom Congress pays to provide impartial advice delivered a similar verdict.
The Joint Committee on Taxation said the tax-cuts won't pay for themselves.

But Conservatives says that they will, so there we have it.

Keep ignoring Post 357 for that is what leftists do when challenged and proven wrong. For some reason it is hard for the radical left to admit when wrong

 

[Media_Truth]

Wow, this is a perfect example of the liberal education system, keeping more of what you earn has to be paid for? Unbelievable, you have been indoctrinated well

What accounting system teaches that tax cuts are an expense?

Tax cuts are worse than an expense, if they add to the deficit. An expense usually implies that the spender has the money to pay for the item.

 

[Conservative]

Tax cuts are worse than an expense, if they add to the deficit. An expense usually implies that the spender has the money to pay for the item.

Only to a govt. bureaucrat who doesn't have control over the spending, now stop being foolish. You keeping more of what you earn isn't an expense to anyone as it isn't the government's money. Stop the damn spending as we don't need 50 state and hundreds of local governments along with a 4 trillion dollar federal govt. All we need is basically defense and basic costs of running the govt. not social engineering.

 

[KLATTU]

I tend not not to pay attention to the likes of Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders ,and ,sadly, the NY tImes ( they are an arm of the DNC) when it comes to this tax bill. No matter WHAT the GOP did, their reposnse would have been the same. They are Democrats ( or in the TIMES case, useful idiots for the Democrats). That's what they do.

I DO however pay attention to Tony Nitti, because he's not a partisan hack and he knows his stuff.

I would recommend taking off your partisan glasses and giving this article a looksee.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthon...d-losers-of-the-senate-tax-bill/#1bbfac8d254d

 

[MTAtech]

I tend not not to pay attention to the likes of Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders ,and ,sadly, the NY tImes ( they are an arm of the DNC) when it comes to this tax bill. No matter WHAT the GOP did, their reposnse would have been the same. They are Democrats ( or in the TIMES case, useful idiots for the Democrats). That's what they do.

I DO however pay attention to Tony Nitti, because he's not a partisan hack and he knows his stuff.

I would recommend taking off your partisan glasses and giving this article a looksee.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthon...d-losers-of-the-senate-tax-bill/#1bbfac8d254d

Facts do have that unmistakable liberal bias.

 

[iliveonramen]

I tend not not to pay attention to the likes of Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders ,and ,sadly, the NY tImes ( they are an arm of the DNC) when it comes to this tax bill. No matter WHAT the GOP did, their reposnse would have been the same. They are Democrats ( or in the TIMES case, useful idiots for the Democrats). That's what they do.

I DO however pay attention to Tony Nitti, because he's not a partisan hack and he knows his stuff.

I would recommend taking off your partisan glasses and giving this article a looksee.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthon...d-losers-of-the-senate-tax-bill/#1bbfac8d254d

The article rips apart the tax plan.

He points out that they are making massive changes to the tax code in such a short time. They weren't transparent in the process. It blows a whole in the budget and all individual tax cuts expire after year 5 so they could ram the 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut without a single Dem vote.

His winner

Winner: Corporations, the Richest 1%, and the Middle Class (for now)

He points out this is a bill that really helps the rich and only helps the middle class IF another bill is passed in 5 years extending the individual tax cuts.

Also...he seems to point out that Republicans claiming this was a tax plan is just plain lying

Ah...that middle class...the very group of taxpayers for whom this plan was designed, according to those who built it. While the majority of middle-income taxpayers will enjoy a tax cut right away, some won't be so lucky, with the Tax Policy Center estimating that 15% - 20% of those earning between $86,000 and $300,000 will experience an immediate tax increase, resulting from the confluence of lost itemized deductions, eliminated personal exemptions, and slower indexing of the individual tax brackets.

 

[KLATTU]

Facts do have that unmistakable liberal bias.

Not sure somebody with an unmistakable liberal bias is the right person to comment on this

 

[KLATTU]

The article rips apart the tax plan.

ng

Yeah that was the point. t
That's what us principled free marketers do.

 

[Conservative]

Facts do have that unmistakable liberal bias.

LOL, yeah like individual taxpayers KEEPING MORE OF THEIR MONEY being an expense and something that has to be paid for? Those are liberal facts which have no credibility.

 

[KLATTU]

LOL, yeah like individual taxpayers KEEPING MORE OF THEIR MONEY being an expense and something that has to be paid for? Those are liberal facts which have no credibility.

LOL just antother case of of unoriginal liberals copying conservatives. Way back when Margaret Thatcher famously said " the facts of life are conservative" . Liberals wer so jealous of that they just decided to rip it off .

 

[Kushinator]

It's a zombie lie (a lie that is stated, killed, but gets up to be repeated again) that tax-cuts pay for themselves. It was especially true for the Bush tax-cuts. At best, less than a third of the Bush tax-cut could be attributed to economic growth -- and some dispute that.

It wasn't tax cuts that led to revenue to rebound... it was fiscal stimulus in the form of deficits. If tax cuts for those who pay the most, the wealthy, were financed by expenditure cuts (even across the board), it would be a disaster for the economy and future tax revenues. A person who saves a million a year isn't going to spend more simply because they will now have $1.5 million. But if a person who can save maybe $1k per year gets a $2k tax break... I would be willing to wager the majority of that additional $2k is spent, unless they are in serious debt.

 

[iliveonramen]

Yeah that was the point. t
That's what us principled free marketers do.

What...completely discount a political party and a major newspaper?

 

[Marco Montana]

There is NO Taxes that benefit? The word taxes mean you are taking Monies from some to benefit the few.... Less taxes and more free market enterprise is what created this Country.

 

[Marco Montana]

What...completely discount a political party and a major newspaper?

Capitalism created the Greatest Country with the most Technological and Medical breakthroughs in the History of Earth! See Venezuela how your Bernie Sanders system is working!

 

[LostArtist]

The problem is that bubble up demands that money be taken away from the people who are able to create jobs. If you cripple the supply, the demand is meaningless. But if you create a supply that reflects current demand and allow the suppliers to fulfill that demand, the jobs will happen and the ability to fund the demand will be there. Look at the auto industry as an example. There was low demand for automobiles until the auto industry created a supply of automobiles. That supply created demand and that demand created more jobs. Had the early auto industry been deprived of it's capital in order to fund free horse feed, that supply and the demand that followed would have never happened or happened far later. Supply can create demand, just as demand can drive supply, but if you starve EITHER side of it's ability to be a part of this relationship, you break the whole system. By allowing the supply side to initiate this process, you allow those with the greatest amount of money to put into the system to take the risk instead of the people with least amount of money. Demand side economics demands that the people who can least afford it are the ones taking that risk. That's why liberals like to try to pump tax money into the demand side, it's the only way that it can happen without gutting the finances of the poorest people. In all honesty, demand-side economics gives the richest people a huge advantage, since it takes away the risk from them and pushes it onto the gov't.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

The people who are able to create jobs, ALREADY have the money, and this will give them MORE of it, just not directly through government breaks, they'll actually have to WORK for it a bit through marketing and being competitive in the marketplace.

If you create a supply to fit the current demand - that's already being done, that's how the market works. so, by giving supply a tax break assuming it'll create more supply that creates surplus which drives prices down, reducing the profit motive for the suppliers to create more to fit demand, so they'll stop producing to restore the previous demand/supply balance, when they stop producing they LAY-OFF workers and this is a spiral to crap. Your auto analogy is way too simplified to even go into and since the auto market is 100+ years old you should think about it some more, this is not a chicken and the egg problem, DEMAND comes first, the first supplier WANTED/DEMANDED it first, then took it to market to see if their demand was just them or if the market would accept their idea as a viable product.

The Supply side is already too corrupted through various financing and investment schemes to bother trying to actually WORK for anything anymore, all they have to do is invest and wait, which is WAY easier than actually creating anything through actual work.

No, Demand side economics says if you FEED the poor, they'll spend the money IN THE MARKETPLACE to the products that they demand, automatically creating demand without the suppliers having to invest/work with marketing, then the suppliers GET the money they deserve to service the marketplace that already exist.

Yes Demand side economics gives Suppliers a HUGE advantage of allowing them to focus on supplying demand instead of forcing them to try to create demand through marketing (which, is pretty hard and an iffy proposition at best)

so yeah, that's all probably overly simplified but much more reasonable than trickle down BS

 

[LostArtist]

Capitalism created the Greatest Country with the most Technological and Medical breakthroughs in the History of Earth! See Venezuela how your Bernie Sanders system is working!

I agree, but at some point Capitalism turns into Oligarchy, like they have in Russia, so without restraints and rules for a fair marketplace capitalism turns into a kind of feudalism like with kings and queens etc.. but now with CEOs and executives.

 

[iliveonramen]

Capitalism created the Greatest Country with the most Technological and Medical breakthroughs in the History of Earth! See Venezuela how your Bernie Sanders system is working!

Bernie Sanders proposals are more in-line with countries such as Japan, Germany, Norway, Denmark etc than they are with Venezuela.

 

[iliveonramen]

If you cripple the supply, the demand is meaningless

Is supply crippled? Is there a large amount of demand out there that isn't being met? The fact we've had very low inflation for decades seems to point to the fact supply isn't an issue at all.

But if you create a supply that reflects current demand and allow the suppliers to fulfill that demand, the jobs will happen and the ability to fund the demand will be there. Look at the auto industry as an example. There was low demand for automobiles until the auto industry created a supply of automobiles. That supply created demand and that demand created more jobs. Had the early auto industry been deprived of it's capital in order to fund free horse feed, that supply and the demand that followed would have never happened or happened far later.

Sure...added supply can drive down prices thereby increasing demand. The issue is....companies have plenty of capital available to them. Interest rates are low and companies have been very profitable. If they wanted to re-invest capital or expand production...they could do it now! There's nothing that is stopping them! Getting even more money isn't going to make a difference.

In all honesty, demand-side economics gives the richest people a huge advantage, since it takes away the risk from them and pushes it onto the gov't.

Demand-side economics is....economics. The fact someone wants something, is willing to pay for it, and has the money to pay for it is economics. It's not some alternate take.

The supply side method is predicated on being able to reduce the price of goods. Do you think prices will be reduced due to these corporate tax cuts?