Tax cuts for the wealthy elite never worked

[Bullseye]

The sum and total of the Republican platform these days is MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! After all, they have to pay back those people who contribute to their campaign coffers. But here’s what those tax cuts for the wealthy elite actually do :

GOP has NEVER advocated "tax cuts for the rich". That's just a slogan your LW trainers use to whip you into a tizzy.

-Spike the annual deficit and the long-term debt (that’s shat happened after every one of those tax cuts)

As always the growing deficits are caused by profligate spending, not lessened revenues.

-Increase the economic inequality between the wealthy elite and the rest of us "c

Wrong again. Trump's tax "cuts" resulted in record Median Household Income.

You don’t have to believe me:
“The results suggest that tax reforms do not lead to higher economic growth. The effect size of major tax cuts for the rich on real GDP per capita is close to zero and statistically insignificant. Major tax cuts for the rich do not lead to higher growth in either the short or medium run.”

The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

Abstract . The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across the advanced democracies. There is still fervent debate in both political a

academic.oup.com

One of the reasons that the right wing economic propagandists give for the tax cuts for the rich is that it “frees up in estment money”. Actually, there was no need to do this. There has been plenty of investment money available since at least the mid-90s (except, of course, during the Great Recession), and what it actually does is to result in TOO MUCH investment money so that it goes looking for risky investments such as mortgage derivatives, or hedge funds that buy up perfectly good companies, fire a bunch of employees, sell off assets, and leave ruin and unemployment in its wake.

Know how to increase investment money? Give tax cuts to the masses. They will then use that money to invest in PRODUCTS, and those companies can then use their profits to increase infrastructure and employment.
In fact, every single one of those tax cuts should have been given TOTALLY to the masses. We have seen time and again that trickle-down doesn’t work, but we know that trickle up does. If people have money, they are going to spend it.

Problem is: there never WAS a "tax cut for the rich". That's just a bone libs throw to their undereducated minions.

 

[watsup]

Sure thing. Provided the government is funded sufficiently to perform the roles it must do, then there is absolutely no harm that comes from some citizens growing very wealthy and much more wealthy than others. In fact, it's probably a sign of a very healthy economy.

What about when those fabulously wealthy elitists get one huge tax cut after another that they simply don’t need and which results in INCREASED FEDERAL DEFICIT AND DEBT? Is that the sign of a healthy economy, or a sign that the Repubs are yet again paying off their campaign donors with government money?

 

[US&THEM]

What fantasy world are you living in?


Economically, this is not sound. Politically, it's a joke in poor taste.


That's a rather bizarre little study. For one thing, you have to dig deeply before you find which tax cuts are considered for the wealthy. So deep that I could not find them.

It's also interesting that the study omits the first half of the 1960s which was a period of major policy change. Indeed, there was a lack of number all the way through.


That's a new one on me, but they are talking about 18 countries and their associated mouthpieces.


That's a remarkably poor illustration of how businesses operate. It makes a better illustration of how things collapse when the business fails.


So, you favored the 2017 US tax cut aimed at the middle class. Interesting.


The 2017 tax reform did produce record low unemployment and increased personal income for hourly-paid employees. You may finally have a valid point.

2017 help with company stock buybacks, the middle class got squeezed

 

[Craig234]

Another example of why no one ever takes a Libertarian seriously.

Except Libertarians

 

[Craig234]

What about when those fabulously wealthy elitists get one huge tax cut after another that they simply don’t need and which results in INCREASED FEDERAL DEFICIT AND DEBT? Is that the sign of a healthy economy, or a sign that the Repubs are yet again paying off their campaign donors with government money?

Remember their long term plan isn't to just add to the debt; that's a short term approach because of the political difficulty cutting spending. But that's the 40 year old plan - "starve the beast" - to use the debt to force spending cuts for the people, leaving the rich with everything and the American people with little in the plutocracy. Starve the government really means ensure the people have very little. They justify it by attacking the big bad government.

 

[watsup]

Remember their long term plan isn't to just add to the debt; that's a short term approach because of the political difficulty cutting spending. But that's the 40 year old plan - "starve the beast" - to use the debt to force spending cuts for the people, leaving the rich with everything and the American people with little in the plutocracy. Starve the government really means ensure the people have very little. They justify it by attacking the big bad government.

Yes, the same old Libertarian blather from the propagandized right wingers in this thread.

 

[Outlook]

The sum and total of the Republican platform these days is MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!

LOL
Those nasty republicans that want to increase/eliminate the cap on the SALT deduction. Those rich fat cats will pay less in federal tax.
I forgot Schumer and Gillibrand are democrats. But wait. What they want to do is TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! How can that be?

Schumer himself has been pushing to bring back the deduction. Schumer and his fellow Democratic New York senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, introduced legislation in January that would eliminate the SALT cap.
The SALT deduction was capped at 10K, by former President Donald Trump’s tax reform bill, which became law in late 2017. Taxpayers, particularly wealthy people, in New York and other high-tax states, including New Jersey and California, saw the biggest benefits when there was no cap.
For high-income taxpayers, this cap increased federal taxable income.”

 

[watsup]

View attachment 67381035

View attachment 67381036
View attachment 67381037

Love that middle chart especially,

 

[rickc]

Just don't understand why the united states government borrows money to enrich the rich.

 

[watsup]

So, you favored the 2017 US tax cut aimed at the middle class. Interesting.

In sure that you know that is false. Yes, that was the propaganda that the Repubs drilled into their ignorant base, but it is certainly not true. The middle class tax cut was just bones being thrown to the puppies to keep them quiet while the Repubs gave away the store to their wealthy elite buddies. You and I both know that is the case, so why are you intentionally posting a falsehood. Very poor taste on your part.

 

[watsup]

I'll respond where and when I wish to. My point stands. You are making statements, and so am I.

And yet you have not accurately refuted even a single portion of the OP with any actual facts. What are you so afraid of? Is that why you hijacked and changed the focus of the thread? Shame shame.

 

[Grand Mal]

The sum and total of the Republican platform these days is MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! After all, they have to pay back those people who contribute to their campaign coffers. But here’s what those tax cuts for the wealthy elite actually do :
-Spike the annual deficit and the long-term debt (that’s shat happened after every one of those tax cuts)
-Increase the economic inequality between the wealthy elite and the rest of us

You don’t have to believe me:
“The results suggest that tax reforms do not lead to higher economic growth. The effect size of major tax cuts for the rich on real GDP per capita is close to zero and statistically insignificant. Major tax cuts for the rich do not lead to higher growth in either the short or medium run.”

The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich

Abstract . The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across the advanced democracies. There is still fervent debate in both political a

academic.oup.com

One of the reasons that the right wing economic propagandists give for the tax cuts for the rich is that it “frees up in estment money”. Actually, there was no need to do this. There has been plenty of investment money available since at least the mid-90s (except, of course, during the Great Recession), and what it actually does is to result in TOO MUCH investment money so that it goes looking for risky investments such as mortgage derivatives, or hedge funds that buy up perfectly good companies, fire a bunch of employees, sell off assets, and leave ruin and unemployment in its wake.

Know how to increase investment money? Give tax cuts to the masses. They will then use that money to invest in PRODUCTS, and those companies can then use their profits to increase infrastructure and employment.
In fact, every single one of those tax cuts should have been given TOTALLY to the masses. We have seen time and again that trickle-down doesn’t work, but we know that trickle up does. If people have money, they are going to spend it.

Give a rich man a thousand bucks and he'll say, "Thank you!" and add it to his stash. Give a poor man a thousand bucks and he'll say, "Thank you!" and take it out to circulate in the local economy.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

GOP has NEVER advocated "tax cuts for the rich".

Major examples of Republicans supporting what critics call "trickle-down economics" include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[3] In each of the aforementioned tax reforms, taxes were cut across all income brackets, but the biggest reductions were given to the highest income earners

 

[watsup]

Give a rich man a thousand bucks and he'll say, "Thank you!" and add it to his stash. Give a poor man a thousand bucks and he'll say, "Thank you!" and take it out to circulate in the local economy.

Exactly! Just imagine how much less the wealth inequity would be and how much better our economy would be for the masses if all those hundreds of billions of dollars that the Repubs gave to their wealthy elite buddies had been targeted towards the middle class instead!

 

[Grand Mal]

Even if tax cuts don't lead to economic growth (a point I would refute), so what? Any society that claims to defend individual liberty -- as ours should though increasingly does not -- should not be interested in confiscating more of what its citizens earn than is absolutely necessary. And tax cuts don't just help the rich. They help everyone who pays taxes.

Why are Americans so allergic to taxes? Don't you understand that a cut in revenue has to equal a cut in the essential services you depend on government for?
I've paid Canadian-level taxes all my life and never minded. It's never been a burden to me- I see the benefits all around me and I have a comfortable retirement after a life of financial irresponsibility just on the pensions I've paid into, government and union. And it happens inside a capitalist system.

 

[watsup]

As always the growing deficits are caused by profligate spending, not lessened revenues

So if less income comes into your house, that in no way affects you overall economic well-being? Really?

Wrong again. Trump's tax "cuts" resulted in record Median Household Income.

While also INCREASING wealth inequity because the average wealthy ELITIST received HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in tax breaks while the average middle class family received a few hundred. Can you do math?


Problem is: there never WAS a "tax cut for the rich". That's just a bone libs throw to their undereducated minio

,The tax cut was targeted towards the wealthy while the middle class got a bone of a few hundred bucks to keep them quiet. Like you.

GOP has NEVER advocated "tax cuts for the rich". That's just a slogan your LW trainers use to whip you into a tizzy

Not really. It is you who is repeating the slogans that you hear on FOX and other right wing sources. Nothing original. We’ve heard them all thousands of times.

 

[rickc]

Oh no those republican tax cuts never targeted the rich. Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%. Now who pays the top marginal rate?

All the republican tax cuts since targeted the wealthiest among us.

In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.

 

[Bullseye]

So if less income comes into your house, that in no way affects you overall economic well-being? Really?

WTF are you talking about?

While also INCREASING wealth inequity because the average wealthy ELITIST received HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in tax breaks while the average middle class family received a few hundred. Can you do math?

Same ol' LW nonsense. You seem to think wealth is a finite resource, it's not.

Problem is: there never WAS a "tax cut for the rich". That's just a bone libs throw to their undereducated minio

,The tax cut was targeted towards the wealthy while the middle class got a bone of a few hundred bucks to keep them quiet. Like you.

Nonsense.

Not really. It is you who is repeating the slogans that you hear on FOX and other right wing sources. Nothing original. We’ve heard them all thousands of times.

No irony that you start out with the LW mantra about watching FOX. Facts don'e change however, liberal nonsense does.

 

[watsup]

WTF are you talking about?

Same ol' LW nonsense. You seem to think wealth is a finite resource, it's not.

Nonsense.

No irony that you start out with the LW mantra about watching FOX. Facts don'e change however, liberal nonsense does.

This says nothing. It’s just whining. Get back to me when you want to actually discuss the subject at hand.

 

[Bullseye]

This says nothing. It’s just whining. Get back to me when you want to actually discuss the subject at hand.

You've shown nothing that would make me think you are capable of rational discussion. I thought I'd made that clear.

 

[watsup]

You've shown nothing that would make me think you are capable of rational discussion. I thought I'd made that clear.

Lame excuse and PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION BIGTIME!

 

[Bullseye]

Lame excuse and PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION BIGTIME!

 

[Jay59]

2017 help with company stock buybacks, the middle class got squeezed

Howso? Stock buybacks stabilize jobs.

In sure that you know that is false.

Correct. I was making note of your inconsistency.

Yes, that was the propaganda that the Repubs drilled into their ignorant base, but it is certainly not true.

This is the propaganda drilled into the media cult.

It's funny that you mention Republican propaganda as they have nothing equivalent. Chances are that this is 100% projection.

The middle class tax cut was just bones being thrown to the puppies to keep them quiet while the Repubs gave away the store to their wealthy elite buddies. You and I both know that is the case, so why are you intentionally posting a falsehood. Very poor taste on your part.

Yatta, Yatta.

The tax cuts were attached to a tax reform that brought USA into compliance with the de facto international standard. Is that what you are mislabeling a giveaway? i doubt that you even know yourself.

Still, I should not be surprised. You posted a link to a study that you clearly do not understand and likely have not read. You can work for Bidan and his Ideology-is Everything administration. Competence is not required and might be a hindrance.

 

[Craig234]

Just don't understand why the united states government borrows money to enrich the rich.

Because that's how power works. It leads to plutocracy, and massive borrowing to give all the borrowed money to the rich is one method of plutocracy. The American people would have to get a clue, stop fighting over CRT and fight against the plutocrats and raise their taxes to prevent it, which isn't seeming likely. Get back to me when Bernie is president, when progressives are the majority of Democrats elected.

 

[Craig234]

Oh no those republican tax cuts never targeted the rich. Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%. Now who pays the top marginal rate?

All the republican tax cuts since targeted the wealthiest among us.

In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.

That's really the game. Republicans get political power and use it for corrupt moves to increase plutocracy. Reagan won a 49 state re-election - let's cut taxes on the rich. Bush is popular because of unity over 9/11 - let's cut taxes for the rich. trump got elected with a Republican Congress for reasons, let's cut taxes on the rich. Even Eisenhower and Nixon didn't do that. And we should restore the legitimate tax rates and balance the budget.

Of course, Republicans have a better answer how to balance the budget: make the American people poorer, by talking about black people wanting free stuff and saying 'don't you hate that' to justify less wealth for the American people and more debt.