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 Today, 12:09 PM
 
5,590 posts, read 2,056,208 times
Reputation: 7082

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad View Post
The Trump tax cuts merely allowed the working class to keep more of their money.
Nope. A tax cut is only a cut when the budget has a surplus. When there's a deficit a tax cut is actually a federal subsidy financed by public borrowing.

Your tax cut, and Richie Rich's tax cut, is a subsidy because of how it was funded. It's paid for by additional deficit spending, financed by selling Treasury bonds, adding to the public debt. That extra money in your pocket was borrowed from all of us, and you, me, and our kids will be paying it back for years to come.

Enjoy your tax subsidy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 12:14 PM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,510 posts, read 7,767,420 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Nope. A tax cut is only a cut when the budget has a surplus. When there's a deficit a tax cut is actually a federal subsidy financed by public borrowing.

Your tax cut, and Richie Rich's tax cut, is a subsidy because of how it was funded. It's paid for by additional deficit spending, financed by selling Treasury bonds, adding to the public debt. That extra money in your pocket was borrowed from all of us, and you, me, and our kids will be paying it back for years to come.

Enjoy your tax subsidy.
Until we get spending under control then none of it matters. You don't fund a tax cut, you (should) just spend less like anyone with a high school level understanding of budgeting knows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,777 posts, read 3,874,511 times
Reputation: 3594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Actually, it's both.

Many of the current liberal candidates want to do as you describe (I am not for it, not on the scale they are promoting).

Conservatives since Reagan have stagnated income growth of the American worker and redistributed it to the richest of rich. I have posted the graph so many times, but if you want to look it up, just google something like "income gap by year" and see what you get, starting around 1980 until present.
This divergence goes back much earlier than 1980. Google "productivity and average earnings". Workers' pay has been diverging since at least 1973, around the time two major things happened: Nixon's opening up of China/start of globalization and US abandoning the gold standard. Some economists think it actually goes back even further, and moves such as abandoning the gold standard are merely the outcomes of much deeper structural problems in the economy that go back to the 1960s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:22 PM
 
7,017 posts, read 2,560,001 times
Reputation: 3837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
So the whole premise of Trickle Down Economics, and the current Trump Tax increase on the middle class so he can give cuts to the ultra-rich is that if you make the rich, richer, they will create jobs and it will benefit the middle and lower class. Is that right?
No, that is not right.

Link to my repeated post about the myth/lie of "trickle down economics" that no economist or Republican politician has ever actually advocated.

Everything else after your false premise is meaningless because it argues against a straw man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:30 PM
 
2,288 posts, read 663,767 times
Reputation: 1940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post

Co out. It still does not explain the fact that a tax break was given to the rich based on the promise that they'll give those breaks to the poor.

1. Why add in the bureaucracy? and
2. Why hasn't it happened?


I guess my real question is this: Do you think the Trump Tax plan is a failure, or was it a lie from the get-go? I really struggle with answering that, because both are so likely with this admin....
Allow me to set your mind at ease.

The tax cuts were successful because, for the most part, those who were paying taxes received cuts in the amount they paid, which could then be used in the manner deemed best by each such taxpayer.

Some taxpayers gave employee bonuses. Others increased dividends. Some individuals bought consumption items they wouldn't have otherwise. Some taxpayers saved the money for a rainy day. Some taxpayers no doubt gave the windfall away to others as they may have deemed proper. Some taxpayers may have even repurchased their own common stock. It doesn't matter, obviously, how they used their tax savings, so long as any such use was lawful.

That's exactly why your question is based on a false premise: the money saved by the Trump tax cuts never even entered the bureaucracy because the taxpayers were empowered to keep it to do with it what they will. If your complaint is that a taxpayer didn't give his tax savings to a poor person, your issue is not with the tax cuts themselves, but with the recalcitrant taxpayer who is not spending his own money as YOU think he should.

It's clear you didn't think your question through very well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,027 posts, read 7,816,967 times
Reputation: 5729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Nope. A tax cut is only a cut when the budget has a surplus. When there's a deficit a tax cut is actually a federal subsidy financed by public borrowing.

Your tax cut, and Richie Rich's tax cut, is a subsidy because of how it was funded. It's paid for by additional deficit spending, financed by selling Treasury bonds, adding to the public debt. That extra money in your pocket was borrowed from all of us, and you, me, and our kids will be paying it back for years to come.

Enjoy your tax subsidy.
Tax cuts have exactly zero to do with the deficit. The deficit is caused by overspending, which was happening well before the idea of a tax cut even got bandied about.

Complaining that tax cuts increase the deficit is akin to saying that you not getting a raise caused you to file bankruptcy while ignoring the fact that you had $200k in debt while working a $30k per year job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:36 PM
 
1,141 posts, read 795,791 times
Reputation: 2144
OP, I donít know where you get your information, but we got a great tax cut as did everyone we know!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:38 PM
205
 
287 posts, read 296,677 times
Reputation: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Until we get spending under control then none of it matters. You don't fund a tax cut, you (should) just spend less like anyone with a high school level understanding of budgeting knows.
You can try to explain this until your blue in the face but it will fall on deaf ears. This idea that letting ALL working Americans both rich and poor keep more of THEIR money is somehow TAKING money from people to give to other people shows how illogical people's reasoning can be.

The one thing mentioned in this thread that Republicans HAVE done a poor job of getting the reductions in spending to go along with the tax cuts. Hard data shows that every major tax cut plan including JFK's, Reagan's, W Bush's, and now Trump's all resulted in significantly higher GDP growth, an invigorated economy, and an INCREASE in federal tax receipts compared to the years before the tax cut plans were implemented. In other words, the tax cuts themselves have never been the reason deficits occurred. That tired liberal myth has been and continues to be debunked by the actual tax receipts numbers.

Unfortunately, Republicans have done a poor job of implementing spending cuts to cut the bloated federal budget. Republicans while in power have more or less spent just as irresponsibly as Democrats have and the resulting spending under both parties leadership has led to ever increasing deficits and an ever increasing debt. Sooner or later Republicans are going to have to do the politically unpopular but responsible thing by passing significant spending cuts likely through entitlement reform for the sake of the future health of the country. Lord knows the Democratic party (especially today's far left Democratic party and their new multi trillion dollar annual spending proposals) isn't going to ever cut spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:02 PM
 
Location: NC
7,093 posts, read 5,002,656 times
Reputation: 7862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
No, that is not right.

Link to my repeated post about the myth/lie of "trickle down economics" that no economist or Republican politician has ever actually advocated.

Everything else after your false premise is meaningless because it argues against a straw man.
I did not click on all your links, but I read one (The first one, I think), and all it did was say how it's a lie, but never said what the truth is. The fact is that both Reagan and Trump based their economic strategy on the trickle-down effect. I think Reagan called it "Supply side economics", but in both cases, the case was made that if you leave employers and other ultra rich with more money, they'll spend it to cause more demand, and trump specifically said employers will use it to hire more people. They didn't. Call it whatever you want, the premise of my argument is taken from the source.

Don't believe me, see the VERY NEXT POST:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad View Post
Allow me to set your mind at ease.

The tax cuts were successful because, for the most part, those who were paying taxes received cuts in the amount they paid, which could then be used in the manner deemed best by each such taxpayer.

Some taxpayers gave employee bonuses. Others increased dividends. Some individuals bought consumption items they wouldn't have otherwise. Some taxpayers saved the money for a rainy day. Some taxpayers no doubt gave the windfall away to others as they may have deemed proper. Some taxpayers may have even repurchased their own common stock. It doesn't matter, obviously, how they used their tax savings, so long as any such use was lawful.

That's exactly why your question is based on a false premise: the money saved by the Trump tax cuts never even entered the bureaucracy because the taxpayers were empowered to keep it to do with it what they will. If your complaint is that a taxpayer didn't give his tax savings to a poor person, your issue is not with the tax cuts themselves, but with the recalcitrant taxpayer who is not spending his own money as YOU think he should.

It's clear you didn't think your question through very well.
I will give you that the money never entered the beaurocracy, but it does not negate my premise. The "money saved" was never spent as promised, and the cost to tax payers was HUGE. Just the bureaucratic expense of redoing the tax laws at the last minute cost us all. As did the cost of increasing the defecit, which this ill-conceived policy did. I know you'll defend it anyway, so I'll leave it at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
Tax cuts have exactly zero to do with the deficit. The deficit is caused by overspending, which was happening well before the idea of a tax cut even got bandied about.

Complaining that tax cuts increase the deficit is akin to saying that you not getting a raise caused you to file bankruptcy while ignoring the fact that you had $200k in debt while working a $30k per year job.
WRONG: If you have a deficit, and you decrease revenue, your deficit grows faster than it would have otherwise. For your stupid analogy, it is more like saying that my spending all my savings on lotto tickets, while ignoring that I was already in debt caused me to go bankrupt. Because that is exactly what Trump is doing. He's gambling on something that has a proven track record of failure, while we are already badly in debt. It is more like voluteering for a pay cut when you are in debt, and then scratching your head trying to figure out why you are closer to bankruptcy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpydove View Post
OP, I donít know where you get your information, but we got a great tax cut as did everyone we know!
I got it from my 1040. The decrease in my refund more than offset any amount more I took home. And that does not take into account that my so-called 'cut' is temporary, while the corporate giveaway is permenent. So while I lost moderate amounts this year, in future years, when the full tax increase is in effect, it will be worse. #winning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:06 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,959 posts, read 9,743,657 times
Reputation: 9767
The simple answer is that you either believe in an involuntary State which is paid dues then redistributes the money as it sees fit or you don't.

Well over 99% of the population are in the former's camp regardless of team color (Red or Blue).
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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