Of Course Trickle Down Works

That is true. The only difference is how big of place or nice of area you will live in.

When I lived in Florida I had a one bed room postage size apartment that cost me the same as the 2 bed room house I rented on an acre of land in North Carolina. Everything else was priced just about the same.

 

Brings to question why Kansas Republicans voted to raise taxes and even had enough votes to override the governors veto.

Could it be it left schools underfunded? That the state could not afford to continue to maintain its infrastructure? That the economic growth was not exceeding what the rest of the country was and is experiencing?

I would also look into who founded and funds the Mercatus Center. The Koch Family Foundation, Then ask yourself is the information you get from that source reliable and not biased. If you want evidence of bias try figuring out how they came up with the results while thinking about the below.

California has been running with a budget surplus from 2013-2017 which was just about a year after proposition 30 passed that raised taxes on the wealthiest of residents. Kansas how ever has been running a deficit at the same time, even after cutting funding for things like education. Something California did not have to do.

Poverty levels for both states are just about the same.

Take a look at the bond ratings for each state. IMHO this is the most telling. This has to do with making money and not politics. During the time frame when both states made changes to taxes one lowering and the other raising their bond ratings changed. California's rating increased from A- to AA-. Kansas' decreased from AA+ to AA-. Something that does not jive with the results in your link. That rating is about the ability and confidence that debts will be paid.

Kansas ranks among the last 5 in economic growth this year and the years following the tax cuts. California ranked among the top 5.

Kansas does beat California in unemployment. 3.6 vs 4.9. Putting Kansas in the sweet spot and California a little higher than what someone would like to see, but not by much. California has shown a more dramatic improvement while Kansas has show very slow improvement since 2011. California going from around 11.8 to 4.9 after raising taxes. Kansas going from from around 7% to 3.6%.

Kansas were one of the few states that pay more to the federal government than they got in return. It is also a state that ranks about the same as California of residents and government that rely on federal money. California ranks 41st for residents and 43rd for government. Kansas ranks 39th and 45th respectively. So both are in the top ten for being less dependent on federal money for government. Kansas almost makes the top ten for having less people per capita being reliant on federal money. Something else that does not line up with the rankings you provided with all of the above considered.

Thinking just about the things I listed the information provided in your link does not really seem to make sense.Makes me wonder why California ranks so badly. Me thinks it has to do with California being a more liberal state with more liberal policies someone over at the Mercatus Center does not like.

As for pay of course people with skills get paid more than those without skills. A company hire who they need to conduct business. A tax break does not result in hiring more people and paying them more. Even if a person is more skilled. The only people who will get paid more are at the top and shareholders.

I will agree if tax breaks were going to small businesses we would see some more hiring and the owners maybe more willing to give their employees higher wages. Except this tax bill does not focus on them and the cuts they do get expire. Large corporations get to deduct state and local taxes. The 70/30 rule will likely negate any benefit the republican plan will have for small business.

The Republican's plan benefits those at the top and large corporations while leaving the little guys to shoulder the burden of paying higher tax rate for them. If the Republicans would come out with a plan reducing taxes for the small business owner and leaving the large corporations at almost the same rate I could support it.

 

Double post

 

What you pretend to ignore (and Buffett doesn't) is that HER taxes impact her life and his do not...since obviously he has so much left after paying those taxes and she does not.

 

You can thank seven years of very consistant economic policy beginning in 2009 for all of it.

 

If a corporation buys back stock from someone, they give them cash for the stock, right?

 

Voodoo economics works well. However it's goal is to make the rich wealthier. That's about all it does

 

How has "voodoo economics" prevented you from becoming wealthy?

 

I know that and so does most people, but I have heard on here, people making $70,000 consider themselves on the edge of poverty. Living from week to week. I was just trying to figure out what income range people consider middle class. Then again if I lived in California and made $70,000 what kind of lifestyle would I be living. I watch programs on TV and see people buying these homes for over a million dollars and they are crap in my estimation. Compared to what they are buying, I am living in a castle, and paying a third for a mortgage what they are paying.

 

What,s stopping him ??

 

I agree we had steady 1% - 2% growth but at a cost of onerous regulations on industries which many had to outlay money too comply with. We could have had much more. Liberals and the left believe climate change is all made by man the other argument is that climate change is just the normal course of things that have been going on for millions of years. 2% GDP does allow much for paying off debt, the cost of inflation and real wage growth.

 

The rate should be zero. Why tax production?

 

I agree. Companies are taxed on profits and then taxed again on distributions to stock & bond holders.

 

My salary...like that of millions of other middle class folks...has stagnated.

 

You haven't added additional sources of revenue? You only have one job? You haven't improved your skill set so that you could command a higher salary?

 

Since when ?? How do you define stagnation ??

 

As a result of the financial collapse bequeathed to the Obama Adminstration by the Wall Street casino (which fools in Trumpsterland want back in business) and the lax or no existant financial regulation of the Bush Adminstration (which fools in Trumpsterland want back as well).

This tax bill does NONE of the things Trump promised you. NONE. And what little tax benefit you might get, goes away the day Trump leaves office, not because someone else is going to repeal it, but because it is written that way.

 

Are you seriously asserting that there was no regulation of the banking/financial industry?

 

So our only hope of making more money (since wages have stagnated) is to work 2-3 jobs?

 

Are you seriously claiming that the RELEVANT regulations weren't rolled back ALLOWING the abuse that crashed our economy?

 

Nobody is preventing you from becoming wealthy. That's the point.

 

Regulations cause the crash.

 

In the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s, incomes for the poor and middle class grew faster than those of the rich. Then, in the 1970s and 1980s, something changed. In recent decades, the typical American has seen their income grow by 1 percent per year, often less, barely keeping up with inflation. Meanwhile the richest of the rich have seen annual income grow by 3, 4, 5, even 6 percent. Income growth for the middle class fell substantially below economic growth for the nation as a whole.

This problem — deep income inequality and stagnating or slow-growing wages for the majority of Americans — is pretty well recognized at this point. But few politicians or analysts have proposed ideas large enough in scale to tackle the problem. Free college won’t fix this. Nor will more tax cuts for corporations.

1% growth is less than inflation

 

In 1971, Nixon went off the gold standard. And income inequality has grown ever since.

 

What a crock of ****.

I work a 40 hour job (that actually ends up being 60 hours most weeks).

So by your reasoning...all I have to do to become fabulously wealthy is get a second job at Dunkin Donuts and a third at Lowes.

Yea...that makes sense