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 Yesterday, 02:39 PM
 
12,011 posts, read 21,633,400 times
Reputation: 11857

Advertisements

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.
That is more of a result of our trade policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,889 posts, read 11,290,335 times
Reputation: 6184
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?


So tell me this: If that's what they were going to do with the tax cuts (spoiler: They didn't, they pocketed it and bought back their own stocks), then why would you advocate for the government to forcefully take the money from the middle class, give it to the rich, so they can just give it back to the working class?


Be honest here. If a liberal politician had come up with this plan, to take money from people, give it to other people, and trust them to give it back to the people you forcefully took it from, would you support it? Or do you only support it because it's a Republican plan?


I'm sure many will be tempted to deflect by telling me what the Liberals and Dems would (or do) do, but the question is not about that. Tell me, without deflecting, why it's a good idea to forcefully take money from the working class, give it to the rich, and expect them to give it back to the working class. If you can explain that, then explain to me why they would give it back, and when we might expect that to start. If you can't answer those two questions, then maybe you can tell us why you still think it's a good idea, or alternately, if you've changed your mind about that, tell us why.
There is no such thing as trickle down economics. It was made up by a comedian and how it is described isn't how it works.

How about you be honest and don't use made up cliches?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Dublin, OH
2,480 posts, read 3,444,699 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
it isnt the conservatives that want to redistribute the wealth, its the liberals. remember they are the ones that are pushing tax increase, welfare, free college tuition, free health care, etc. and since there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone has to pay for all that free stuff, and that ends being anyone paying taxes.
It absolutely needs to be redistributed from the wealthy to the middle class and lower classes.
The wealthy either got wealthy because of inheritance or because the infrastructure and economy allowed them to.
Their is no reason in hades that the wealthiest 1% should possess 50% of the nation's wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,889 posts, read 11,290,335 times
Reputation: 6184
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohioaninsc View Post
It absolutely needs to be redistributed from the wealthy to the middle class and lower classes.
The wealthy either got wealthy because of inheritance or because the infrastructure and economy allowed them to.
Their is no reason in hades that the wealthiest 1% should possess 50% of the nation's wealth.
lol The wealthy got their money from hard work. Just another jealous person who'd rather steal others money than work for it.

A 2017 survey from Fidelity Investments found that 88 percent of millionaires are self-made. Only 12 percent inherited significant money (at least 10 percent of their wealth), and most did not grow up in exclusive country club neighborhoods. The majority of millionaires went to college and are married or partnered.

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...t-millionaires
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:02 PM
 
2,293 posts, read 665,171 times
Reputation: 1947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost

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.
If you got a tax cut (and most taxpayers did, but there are bound to be some odd exceptions here or there), the tax cut didn't cost you any money at all. It resulted in a net increase in take-home pay for that particular taxpayer. If you don't pay any federal income tax to begin with, then you garnered no particular benefit.

If you're trying to make the point that the government ended up with less money, even that is a intellectual canard, since revenues to the Treasury actually increased. Overall federal spending, however, courtesy of the Democrats in Congress, increased even more, thereby exacerbating the issue with the federal deficit. (At this point, you're no doubt ready to start putting the heads of Democrat Congressmen on pikes, and nobody would blame you in the least.)

Almost all of your confusion regarding this issue stems from the fact that you are blissfully unaware as to how each taxpayer chose to use their tax savings. You have blithely assumed that the money was not put to good use because the taxpayers who benefited from the tax cuts didn't necessarily wander down to the corner to hand what little they saved in taxes to people you deem to be more deserving than the people who actually created the wealth in the first place.

At this point, you have now obligated yourself to explain exactly why you believe you are entitled to some power of appointment over the use of the tax savings (however meager in amount) of others. While any such explanation cannot be flattering to you yourself for obvious reasons, it will probably at least have some entertainment value, in the comedic sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,889 posts, read 11,290,335 times
Reputation: 6184
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
The tax cuts didn't decrease revenue, though.
Tax cuts do help the economy but they decrease revenue. It is impossible to recoup the $100 I saved from taxes and spent because one cannot get back more than the 100 I spent. That's why it's always a spending problem.

We the people are not as wasteful with that money as government is though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:07 PM
 
835 posts, read 150,105 times
Reputation: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewjdeg View Post
Yet, money has value because the Fed created it. Are you paid in Bitcoin?
the Fed owns all the money because they printed it? dafuq kind of alternate universe are you people living in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:14 PM
 
2,839 posts, read 1,164,375 times
Reputation: 2720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_N_1962 View Post
the Fed owns all the money because they printed it? dafuq kind of alternate universe are you people living in?
USD has value because the US government exists and has been stable over long periods. Money doesn’t have value out of thin air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,307 posts, read 4,417,367 times
Reputation: 5710
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?

So tell me this: If that's what they were going to do with the tax cuts (spoiler: They didn't, they pocketed it and bought back their own stocks), then why would you advocate for the government to forcefully take the money from the middle class, give it to the rich, so they can just give it back to the working class?

Be honest here. If a liberal politician had come up with this plan, to take money from people, give it to other people, and trust them to give it back to the people you forcefully took it from, would you support it? Or do you only support it because it's a Republican plan?

I'm sure many will be tempted to deflect by telling me what the Liberals and Dems would (or do) do, but the question is not about that. Tell me, without deflecting, why it's a good idea to forcefully take money from the working class, give it to the rich, and expect them to give it back to the working class. If you can explain that, then explain to me why they would give it back, and when we might expect that to start. If you can't answer those two questions, then maybe you can tell us why you still think it's a good idea, or alternately, if you've changed your mind about that, tell us why.
If you looked at even one short article explaining what the Trump tax changes actually did - instead of believing the news-clip sound bytes that incorrectly summarize those facts, you would know that what you call the "current Trump Tax increase on the middle class" is not a tax increase on the Middle Class / Working Class in any way, shape or form - and your notion that it gives "cuts to the ultra-rich" is also wrong.

Here's what the Tax Plan that Trump signed into law in December of 2017 does: "It cuts individual income tax rates, doubles the standard deduction, and eliminates personal exemptions. The top individual tax rate (on income over $600,000) drops to 37% (from 39.6%). The Act cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%..." https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-t...ts-you-4113968.

How exactly do you think lowering (all) individual income tax rates and doubling the standard exemption constitutes a "Tax increase on the Middle Class"?

The other part of your incorrect understanding is the lowering of the corporate income tax rate. You seem to think that the tax cut on corporate income constitutes a tax cut "to the ultra-rich." And while I also loathe the ultra-rich and the political system that created and sustains them, a tax cut on corporate income is NOT a tax cut for the ultra-rich. Corporate income is what is left over after the corporation pays its CEOs and high executives - but those CEOs and high executives pay income tax on their wage income. Yes, the tax rate on their income over $600,000 is now taxed at 37%, instead of the previous 39.6% - but these high wage earners (still Working Class, since they are working a job and earning "wages") still pay 37 cents of every dollar they earn over $600,000 that year. Remember, a tax rate is a totally arbitrary number that should be viewed as "is this a good tax rate on this level of income" rather than compared to what it was before the tax change, and frankly 37% is a still a ridiculous rate that is sent to Washington rather than invested in the economy or saved in some investment vehicle.

So the tax rate on money earned by the corporation, but not spent on current business activities, investments in capital equipment, and wages and benefits, went down, leaving more money to be distributed...to the rich? Not entirely. Corporate income not sent to Washington in taxes is distributed to shareholders, which include "the rich" who own a lot of stock, but also include average Working Class people like myself (you can buy stock for under $100 and purchase part of that income stream), pension plans and 401(K) retirement plans, mutual funds, and a variety of other investors that directly benefit the Working Class citizen. So no, a tax cut on corporate income is not even primarily a tax cut to the ultra-rich - it is a tax cut on your retirement savings and investments, if you have a 401(K) and/or a traditional pension plan. Those things allow the average Working Class Americans to retire sooner, and if we have to pay off "the ultra-rich" to get that, then that is the cost of Washington politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,028 posts, read 7,818,683 times
Reputation: 5730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Tax cuts do help the economy but they decrease revenue. It is impossible to recoup the $100 I saved from taxes and spent because one cannot get back more than the 100 I spent. That's why it's always a spending problem.

We the people are not as wasteful with that money as government is though.
Again, the tax cuts did not decrease revenue. Revenue for 2018 was up $14b over 2017.
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