U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,013,106 times
Reputation: 5600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I think some people are lost on the concept of a profession. The CBO is full of highly qualified professionals who are nonetheless human beings and sometimes make mistakes. Some people then use those mistakes to dismiss any findings they don't agree with.

It would be like a doctor giving your grandma 6 months to live. He says that 97% of patients die from her condition. Grandma lives 7 more years. You decide doctors are full of crap because granny didn't die within 6 months like the doctor said. It's not until you get cancer that you decide doctors are worth your time again, but you still don't really trust them. You just want them to "fix it" and then "leave you be" because you don't need any stinking "experts" telling you what to do.

Most conservative "experts" are recruited by industry-funded think tanks since they've abandoned all trust in the academy.
I tried to rep you but CD said I have to spread it around.

Anyway, conservative experts work for think tanks whose main objective is to produce biased data to use as talking points. Heritage and CATO come to mind. The Heritage mission statement makes no bones about it: the institution's purpose is to ''formulate and promote conservative public policies.''
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,611 posts, read 24,787,463 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Correct! And to add to this, it actually hurts the country to cut taxes to the rich, and increase the burden on the middle class and poor. When the rich get more money, they hold onto it. It's documented time and time again. When those living closer to the margins get more money, they spend it on things they need, which stimulates the economy and creates more wealth for all.
Yeah. Most of the tax savings will be paid to shareholders and approximately one-third of shares in U.S. companies are held by foreigners. So a lot of the money will be going to wealthy investors in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, China, Switzerland, etc.

If stimulating job growth were really the goal, then you could raise taxes on the wealthy, and then invest in infrastructure. There'd be no better way to get underemployed men back to work in the Rust Belt. Why try to get money to these people indirectly by giving it to plutocrats when you can create jobs directly through infrastructure spending?

Trump agrees with this idea in principle, but he's not going to do anything to buck the GOP Establishment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:08 AM
 
62,361 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Correct! And to add to this, it actually hurts the country to cut taxes to the rich, and increase the burden on the middle class and poor.
Completely false. Read and learn (pay careful attention to the scatter plot chart and the explanation of how to read it):

How other developed countries tax and spend
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,611 posts, read 24,787,463 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Completely false. Read and learn (pay careful attention to the scatter plot chart and the explanation of how to read it):

How other developed countries tax and spend
Keep in mind that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. First, taxes in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries are relatively high, which would not be the case under most conservative-backed flat tax plans such as Ted Cruz's. Second, you correctly note that wealthier people are less likely to spend tax refunds because they don't have to whereas poorer people do.

A flat tax, in theory, would generate more revenue than a progressive tax if all Americans paid a 40% flat tax. But that's not what most proponents of a U.S. flat tax want. They want a significantly lower rate for higher income earners, and as many Trump supporters here often point out, upper income earners pay the vast majority of taxes. You simply can't get enough revenue from lower and middle class earners to make up the revenue shortfall.

Ted Cruz's flat tax calls for a wholesale exemption of taxes for income under $36,000. The logic here is the same as the logic behind the Earned Income Tax Credit; if you tax poor people, they won't find it worth their while to work. So that's not a plausible source of revenue. That means the tax burden would be shifted entirely to the middle class. Obviously, if your paycheck is 25% smaller, that's going to mean less spending at the movies, restaurants, etc. How would that be good for the economy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:21 AM
 
62,361 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7862
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Keep in mind that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Completely false. I've provided a link to the research (econstor.eu), which then also includes a plethora of other research citations. As I've already advised... Read and learn. Don't keep making yourself look foolish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,013,106 times
Reputation: 5600
Why are we discussing a fantasy flat-tax, that isn't on the table, instead of the plan that is? My view is that lowering corporate taxes will result in lower investments by corporations.

How that works: Corporations can deduct, as expenses, labor costs, plant and equipment, etc. High corporate taxes encourage corporations to make these investments because it lowers their taxes -- essentially having the government pay a portion of their costs. When rates are lower, that incentive is reduced.

It's also why charities are worried that lower taxes on the rich will decrease contributions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,611 posts, read 24,787,463 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Completely false. I've provided a link to the research (econstor.eu), which then also includes a plethora of other research citations. As I've already advised... Read and learn. Don't keep making yourself look foolish.
You don't even understand what your links are saying. You claimed yesterday that a flat tax was the only way to fund extensive social funding. But that's not what the links say at all. The links say that OECD nations with more regressive tax schemes offer more government largess than the U.S., which is true, but you omit the fact that those countries have relatively high taxes across most income levels. A "flat" tax doesn't necessarily mean a "low" tax. You can have a flat tax that has comparatively high levels of taxation across the board.

This is not what U.S. conservatives are proposing (high taxes across the board). They want a tax on the order of 12-20% across the board, which sounds "fair," but results in a much lower effective tax rate for the wealthy. The top 1% pays roughly half of our income taxes, which is more than $700 billion. Lowering taxes on them would mean we'd have a revenue shortfall unless we make up for the revenue somewhere else (i.e., shifting the tax burden to the middle class).

There's no getting around that simple accounting reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:33 AM
 
62,361 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7862
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Why are we discussing a fantasy flat-tax, that isn't on the table, instead of the plan that is?
Because the current proposals don't go far enough in converting the US to a regressive tax system like European/Scandinavian countries have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:35 AM
 
62,361 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7862
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
You don't even understand what your links are saying.
Yes, I do. You're refusing to accept what they ARE saying. European/Scandinavian countries don't have regressive tax systems (exact opposite of the US) by accident. Read and learn, and stop making yourself look foolish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2017, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,611 posts, read 24,787,463 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Why are we discussing a fantasy flat-tax, that isn't on the table, instead of the plan that is? My view is that lowering corporate taxes will result in lower investments by corporations.
Because it's a conservative fantasy he read about somewhere though he didn't bother to read the many conservative writers who are very critical of a flat tax.

| National Review
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top