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.
True. And I'm not glad that people other than high blue state earners will be hurt, but I'm glad they passed it. They rushed it through, and gave no thought to many of the implications, such as the real estate investor windfall, but the voters are going to get wise by November 2018, and today in Trump's press conference, he stupidly claimed that "they repealed Obamacare," in the bill, so when nobody can afford health insurance and many have lost it, Trump will own that too. He just gave the Dems a great sound bite.
The voters are already wise to it. A majority oppose the bill. The bill is being passed over the objection of a majority of voters and the Republicans don't care because (a) this bill is for their donor class and (b) they can use the resulting budget deficits as justification for spending cuts in the future. This is a long-term play to hamper the progressive agenda.
You should listen to David Stockman, not quite an economist but an expert on tax cuts. Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Krugman and several others. I didn't see an economist that supports this other than Laffer but I am sure there are a few. Just like climate science you can always find a denier.
Dividends and share buybacks are what companies do with their profits whenever they do not want to re-invest that capital into the business.
This is like Finance 101
they don't get it, they just ape the talking points they hear, somehow missing the Cohn meeting where all the CEO's said they would take the gift and return to shareholders not reinvest it in the business.
I'm waiting for the one poster on here who claims to be a whiz in this stuff to come tell me again how Buffet structures his payments from BRK in one specific way and somehow the means entire economy is doing the same thing. I love when that guy posts his drivel.
Question A: If the US enacts a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate — and assuming no other changes in tax or spending policy — US GDP will be substantially higher a decade from now than under the status quo.
"our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession."
You're right. That's why the University of Chicago assembled a panel of economists cutting across all partisan lines. 41 of 42 said that the tax cut would not pay for itself through higher economic growth. Only 2% agree that the GOP tax cut will lead to higher GDP growth. Virtually all agree that it will substantially increase the deficit.
To give you some sense of the composition of the panel.
Quote:
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.
Question A: If the US enacts a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate — and assuming no other changes in tax or spending policy — US GDP will be substantially higher a decade from now than under the status quo.
"our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession."
In other words, among both conservative and liberal economists surveyed by the University of Chicago (a well-known bastion of conservative economics), only a mere 2% of responses believed that the tax bill would substantially increase GDP.
So it's clear that economists are not supporting the tax bill. At this point all conservatives can do is claim that their party leaders know more about economics than economists do. (Or do what they normally do, and just ignore everything they don't like, and keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.)
Question A: If the US enacts a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate — and assuming no other changes in tax or spending policy — US GDP will be substantially higher a decade from now than under the status quo.
Strongly Agree: 0%
Agree: 2%
------
Uncertain: 36%
------
Disagree : 33%
Strongly Disagree: 19%
I just posted this. "B-b-b-but, it feels like it's going to create a bajillion jobs!" Imagine if NASA just shot rockets into space without relying on any type of analysis of collected data.
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.
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.
