50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

but we see it every time, no accountability to the extreme until a Dem takes over then the whine over money for needs starts up again.
btw, wtf policies of his were so great? he didn't even have that many lol
so why not try Liberal agendas again? we did so well the MAGAts claimed they wanted to repeat what Lib Socialists Dems accomplished!
Jeff Bezos alone could bail out the nation on what he made last year, money is never the real issue, it's the will to do it vs opposition.

 

I've seen criticisms by liberals on this site of the budget deficit and blaming Trump for it. So, you see, there's plenty of hypocrisy for everyone.

In my case, I'm consistent when it comes to the budget deficit and spending and taxation. I always say the same things no matter who the president happens to be.

You asked me what policies were so great ... a partial list follows.

- No new wars
- Peace agreements between Israel and multiple Arab nations.
- Lower taxes on business
- Border security and immigration
- Sentencing reform
- Energy independence, becoming a net exporter
- Improved trade agreements
- Encouraging NATO to take more responsibility for their own defense
- Support for the 2nd Amendment
- Reducing forces in Afghanistan and seeking a peace agreement
- Destroying ISIS and killing its leader

 

He STARTED an UNCIVIL war in our own nation.

Link to substantiate the part about "multiple".

That INCREASED the National Debt which makes it a NEGATIVE for We the People.

Massive FAIL because he committed Crimes Against Humanity.

Already in progress BEFORE he took office.

The Trade War with China was a DISASTER that resulted in American farmers going bankrupt and committing suicide.

He ALIENATED our NATO allies in the process which was a NEGATIVE.

Meaningless since he signed a BAN on bumpstocks.

About the only thing he does deserve some credit for.

ISIS was already failing BEFORE he took office.

Looks like YOUR biggest *LOSER* struck out on virtually everything on your list.

Sad!

 

Tell me why the comparison is lousy?

As to offshoring wealth: Yes, it is happening. It is an ant-American practice of the ultra-wealthy that should be regulated. Why didn't Trump regulate it? This practice will not be stopped by a race to the bottom, i.e. lowering taxes below the least lowest bidder.

Finally, you should read some behavioral economics work. People don't usually behave like simplified GOP voodoo economics predict they do.

 

Total BS President Trump had a fantastic economy going with low unemployment.

 

1. Because Unlike in the sports world where the game has a distinct end point in the business world if you stand still you lose.

And the wealthy become wealthy because they don't act like everyone else or think like everyone else.

 

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

The study must fail to see that "trickle down" is how capitalism works. Somebody takes risks and invests money to start a business. That somebody hires people and those people earn money from the business. It doesn't work in the other direction. It is plain old capitalism. I realize the OP probably isn't a fan of capitalism and it is almost certain that the people who did the study aren't.

 

What does it matter to them if their business loses, if they have their personal stash put away?

You know, real life has a distinct end point too, it is called death. You can't take the money with you to the afterworld. If you have more money then you could ever spend, why risk it? That's why "stop playing once you won the game" is a well-known phrase in the investment world:

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/11/04/once-youve-won-the-game-quit-playing.aspx

 

Nope won't create any pressure at all to balance the budget. Tax rates high or low have never generated any desire to balance the budget. The last time we had a balanced budget was Calvin Coolidge and the top tax rate was less than ten percent.

 

Because their wealth is tied into and too that business and failure in their minds is not an option. As I said the wealthy do not think like the rest of us. You've heard the old saw, He who dies with the most toys wins.? Well that as much as anything describes how many of the rich think. It may be a game to them but money is how you keep score.

 

I think we also had a balanced budget during the Clinton years thanks to the tech boom that was happening at the time.

We’ll just have to disagree on taxes and the budget. There are a lot of millionaires and multi millionaires in Congress, so my guess is that the 1% have nothing to worry about. I think we may see the Democrats raise the highest tax bracket by a symbolic 2% and congratulate themselves for achieving “tax fairness” ... lol.

 

Yes, for some it is about the legacy. Money has little to do with that. They would want their legacy whether taxes are low or high. Low taxes as a motivator is a highly exaggerated supposition.

 

Yep, and what happened after the Clinton balanced budget? The GOP came in and told everyone that people should keep more of their hard earned money and the government wouldn't need it, so they cut taxes. The result is the exploding federal debt we have today.

THERE WILL NEVER BE A BALANCED BUDGET IN THE LONG TERM. Either the deficit is increased by tax cuts without spending cuts, or it is increased by increased spending without tax increases, or both of those combined. Pick your poison.

 

The rich, like all taxpayers, seek to reduce their taxes, and as taxes become higher, they spend more time planning to mitigate them. The rich, though, have the wherewithal to implement strategies, tax forum shop and pay the best professionals, that the rest of us don't have. It's elementary, and requires no "studies," that rich people will avoid and DO avoid abusively high tax regimes, and that is unavoidable. It doesn't take a tax attorney or accountant to know this. It's common sense in a world increasingly full of places to live and conduct business, to submit to this or that applicable tax jurisdiction.

So the proper analysis of "taxes for the rich" is not stale, partisan resentment narratives such as in the OP, but rather a nonpartisan analysis of what point will maximum revenues be achieved? Simply, at what point of taxation will (revenues - tax mitigation) produce the greatest revenue? In essence, if you beat the golden goose past a point, it will run away, escape, and then revenue capture becomes negative, no one gets the golden eggs. This is uncontroversial, accepted economics:

Laffer curve - Wikipedia

What is debatable is what happens next? How is that "rich tax" equilibrium point calculated? What policy achieves it? Those considerations are beyond the scope of this thread and forum generally, but rest assured partisan narratives of any flavor will not come anywhere close to meeting it.

So what is the true partisan aim of repetitive "tax the rich" propaganda narratives? They are specifically tailored towards:

1. Resentment Propaganda among mostly nontaxpayers or low taxpayers which can then be used to raise taxes on all of us middle and upper middle class taxpayers, not the rich. They know that excessive taxation of "the rich" is a thorny issue, everyone reading here knows it. They also know that in "nontaxpayer land" ANYONE who has anything and earns any middling or higher income can be falsely characterized as "the rich." It starts out as "tax the rich," but the real aim is to tax YOU and ME more, and this is why they dishonestly forward all the many gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex Aristocracy LIE NARRATIVES on wealth and income. Complex middle level and up "workers" are able to shelter lots of their income passively by DEFERRING it into outsized pensions to a far greater extent than you and I in the private sector can, so they aren't concerned about what is really going on, MORE TAXES FOR YOU AND ME.

2, The above reality ironically plays into Complex enrichment and its very rich crony-donor corporate elites via redistribution. As a middle or upper middle income earner, your family will likely buy a few consumer goods, game and show tickets, wares advertised on TV, but if they can take more money from you, a multiple of goods and services can be sold by large corporate cronies, and as an added benefit, sold to dumber, non taxpaying consumers. If people aren't stupid enough to buy junk, take money from smart people and give it to the stupid. Great business plan for those seeking to extract as much from as many taxpayers as possible at the end of a government gun barrel. Immoral to the point of evil, but they aren't known for their moral compass.

3. False classification of middle and upper earners and savers as "the rich" towards greater and greater levels of Complex thievery. So you started a business/farm in 1995, scraped and saved, raised and educated kids, created jobs and valuable services in the community, lived on peanuts. Now, when it's time to retire and sell your business/farm? Guess what? despite a lifetime of sweat and sacrifice, YOU are now "THE RICH!" for tax purposes and LIE NARRATIVES on taxation, wealth and income. And YOU must pay your "fair share." They know they can't soak the really rich, and they don't want to anyway, that's THEIR Complex uniparty best donor bloc. What they want to do is penalize YOU and ME when after a long life of work and sacrifice, you want to retire and leave something for the next generation. THAT is the real reason for Cap Gains tax abuse/increase and other tax increases, taking your sweat away and effectively redistributing it to THEIR benefit.

 

Maybe in a pre-international time that might have been true. But in today's world, a high taxation means they will choose to invest overseas or
in other areas where they don't have to give up that money. We saw Obama lash out at this with executive orders. Rather than promote more wealth creation that will lead to more money, Liberals are only obsessed with the money in circulation. And they don't realize it's as much of a fallacy as trickle down.

Both trickle down and trickle up don't exist, they're flawed economic premises.

 

They invest where there is money to be made. You make it impossible to make money here they'll invest else where.

 

When I was much (MUCH) younger and started taking an interest in politics, I asked someone to explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans. And their answer stuck with me: Republicans focus on top down solutions and Democrats, bottom up. Unfortunately, as the OP demonstrates, the top down (or trickle down) method doesn't seem to work.

 

Agreed, and with respect to the last sentence, "trickle down" not only doesn't exist, but is and has always been pernicious jargon towards resentment propaganda. The Laffer Curve, though, is very real, and this is why they never want to talk about it. They aren't really interested in rational capture of maximum tax revenues, just repetitive resentment propaganda towards raising taxes on all those who can't easily mitigate them, especially the non government-dependent private sector.

 

In my mind tax fairness is the old Steve Forbes plan. Everyone pays 17% of all earnings above 35k. No deductions.

 

This is a self contradictory statement. "Fair share" has nothing to do with same amount. Flat taxes such as sales taxes are regressive, undemocratic and make the poor pay for the rich (again).

 

As a US citizen, you pay US capital gains tax on investments, no matter whether the investment is in the US or abroad.

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...nderstanding-taxation-foreign-investments.asp

Next excuse....

 

That is the closest to fair I can think of.

It is not about what the government receives. It is about who pays for it. Why should a rich person pay or the poor man? The poor man did nothing to help him gain his wealth.

 

Again the government has three break pedals that effect the economy. Interest rates, rules and regulations and taxes. You can not look at one by itself and draw any sort of worthwhile conclusions. Yet that is precisely what this and other studies have done for years.

 

In the very article you link, there's a "Foreign tax credit" that essentially wipes some, or sometimes all of said tax obligations at least as it regards Uncle Sam. Not an excuse, a pragmatic reality of the world. Hell, Elizabeth Warren complains about said tax havens, isn't she on your side? Does she make excuses?

 

No, the foreign tax credit is only in place to avoid double taxation. If there is no foreign capital gains tax, you pay the full US tax.