Liberal Media Goes Completely Silent After New Report Proves Trump’s Tax Cuts Were Massive Success

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by XXJefferson#51, Jan 30, 2023.

  1. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    39,182
    Likes Received:
    19,733
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's a very cynical reason for this, and it all ties back to the power of the purse. Remember as I said, that it belongs explicitedly to the House. So a Republican House is not willing to spend for a Democrat President. Basically, politics is dictating an appearance of fiscal responsibility, but really its political pettiness.

    So, why doesn't it work the same with a Democrat House and a Republican President? Well, one only need look at how the Democrats wanted to pay their friends during the covid pause(seriously, the massive pork added into the covid bills was a major part of the problem.). Democrats don't care whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in the WH or Senate, they will spend on their allies, their lobbying groups and unions as well as the social programs.

    Whereas Republican spending is politically driven and motivated. That's why that combination works.
     
  2. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    24,341
    Likes Received:
    9,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Inflation was less. The unemployment was lower at the end of Trump's presidency and the labor participation rate was higher. We cannot get a plumber, an appliance repairman or an electrician. I had to book an appointment to get a repair of my car over two weeks in advance.
     
  3. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    24,341
    Likes Received:
    9,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just google "laffer curve computer simulations" and you will get thousands of responses. Pick some of those to criticize. I said there are computer simulations and there are hundreds of them.
     
  4. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    8,683
    Likes Received:
    4,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked a question: Why is it then that that analogy was first made by "Warren Buffet"?
     
  5. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    16,557
    Likes Received:
    19,964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can google, thank you very much. But, why should I do your homework? You claimed that there are simulations showing that we are past the peak of the Laffer curve. I asked you to support your claim with a citation. Apparently you can't.

    Now, I can provide you with a citation here:

    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/169271/1/711.pdf

    This one shows that our tax rates are way below the maximum point of the Laffer curve. Therefore, it stands to reason that lower tax rates should decrease revenue, not increase it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
    Hey Now likes this.
  6. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    24,341
    Likes Received:
    9,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. "This one". You can find hundreds with numerous answers depending on the assumptions that went into them. Those assumption are primarily based on how individuals at different pay rates and vastly different jobs will react to a tax rate cut.

    I am not going to get into your pitiful arguments. Tax rates were lowered. Revenue went up. I paid less in taxes. I like the results. Results count. Apparently, Trump was smart enough to understand how people react.

    If you do not like those results, you are free to pay more of your money to the government.
     
  7. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    16,557
    Likes Received:
    19,964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only thing that is pitiful is your inability or unwillingness to support your arguments. Why don't you just say so, so I won't waste my time with someone who doesn't want to discuss in good faith.
     
    Hey Now likes this.
  8. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    24,341
    Likes Received:
    9,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Revenue went up. Something you apparently want to deny.
     
  9. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    37,631
    Likes Received:
    27,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It’s crazy the depths cons will go to in attempts to defend billionaires from paying the same tax rate they are.

    I am not asking for them to be taxed into oblivion, just for them to have a higher tax rate than the people that work for them.

    The con is strong
     
    Quantum Nerd and Hey Now like this.
  10. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    37,631
    Likes Received:
    27,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, we have already identified compression of percentages are the issue. No need to keep highlighting it.
     
  11. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    15,936
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cons don't want that.
     
  12. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    39,182
    Likes Received:
    19,733
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They mostly do pay a higher tax rate, they're just able to have dividends, but also because of the individual/corporate tax system that you highlighted, logically corporations are taxed at a higher percentage than individuals/individual wealth, because to tax both at the same rate would be massive.

    So either make it a one-sized system where total wealth is taxed, or again, preferably the government shaves off the bloated programs that require us to break our backs for them to make bank.

    The con is strong indeed, for big fat government. If Uncle Sam were a real human being, Liberals would be passionately against it. But because it's 535 individuals combining to screw things, Liberals are okay with it.
     
  13. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    40,444
    Likes Received:
    11,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You could be for tax and spending cuts and not put forward the thoroughly debunked by economists claim that tax cuts increase revenue.
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  14. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    40,444
    Likes Received:
    11,067
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the problem...

    8DD3CA27-B1F4-4A98-9558-DF0CABD13E30.jpeg

    Workers lost what little leverage they had when right-to-work laws broke private sector unions.
     
    Hey Now and Quantum Nerd like this.
  15. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    22,008
    Likes Received:
    12,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Trump's tax cuts which benefit the rich far more than working folks are rooted in neoliberal thinking. 50 years of this kind of policy (starting with Reagan) has failed to provide benefit to working folks, as told by the wealth distribution tables provided by the Federal Reserve, which clearly shows that tax cuts benefit the rich, but few other people.

    wealthdistribgap.jpg

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/

    Therefore, whatever numbers appear to be in Trump's favor do not prove the contention they were a good thing so it's just incidental that the numbers favor Trump.

    If it were true, then the 50 years of tax cuts would also prove it, and it just isn't true, as the tax cutting neoliberal policies of Reagan and the Bushes haven't panned out for working folks.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing taxes on working folks, those are beneficial for the economy, there is no doubt about that, but the argument, for me, is whether or not cutting taxes on the super rich benefits the economy. The stats don't bear this out.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/
     
    Hey Now and Quantum Nerd like this.
  16. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    39,182
    Likes Received:
    19,733
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tax cuts are not a policy, but they're also not the issue either. Take a look at that graph. Before the big bad tax cut theory, the bottom 50%, was well still at the bottom. The issue is the gap between the bottom 50% and that top 1%. And no, tax cuts did not contribute largely to that. They may have of course benefited from paying not as much(although still the highest amount) to the government, but they benefited more broadly from the ability to use capital to invest, and to grow their investments to earn even more money(think: Hedge funds as one example. And back in the day, owning monopolies such as the steel, oil and train industries allowed them to consolidate wealth further.)

    Karl Marx was not wrong about the means of production, he was just wrong about how to go about fixing the problem. The government, hording capital by way of taxation does not improve the lot of that bottom 50%. They don't receive a single penny of the government's. And never have, excepting the Covid Crisis.(and even then, the government paid way more in Pakistani gender studies, then they did to the average working class.)

    The reason people believe that the government has a role to play in the financial sector, is that it is a political incentive(particularly for Democrats, who made it a wedge issue) to pretend that it is so. But the only role the government has ever played in the economy(from the Wall Street collapses, to the repeal of Glass-Stegall and everything in between) has been nothing short of disastrous.

    Hell, even the linked graph and accompanying article essentially note that there has been no difference in economic outcome between the two. This is no surprise, both economic fallacies are that: A fallacy. However, the authors note the economic boon of the 50's-60's and ask themselves: What happened.

    I will gladly take this post to answer them: There is something else, other than high taxation that happened during that period. What was it? The post-war period coincided with the rise of the baby boomers. Veterans were returning from war to the arms of their loved ones, and building new families. These families would need a crib, a van, and a home. As utterly simplistic(and non-government) as this is going to sound, the demand for these things meant a demand to return to the work force.

    Coincidentally, with a whole war that would leave of course a shortage of workers. A shortage that could be filled in the post war era. And, as you can see not a single government policy affected this phenomena to take place.

    So if that explains yesterday's growth, what explains today's stagnation? We know that the GDP has been increasing. And even though the rich didn't invest their tax breaks in raising salaries, that does not inherently lower salaries either. What HAS increased? I'm going to keep showing it until Liberals acknowledge it's a problem:


    [​IMG]


    This graph isn't totally current(I googled it) but with federal spending outpacing national defense, social security and health care we need to finally say ENOUGH. The Liberal economic philosophy is every bit as flawed as the conservative one, but it doesn't get talked about because it's hard for people to understand.

    Money to the government, is money taken from YOUR pockets. Whether it goes to Uncle Sam or to the billionaire, is the SAME DEAL. Liberals shouldn't be so happy to be giving it to Uncle Sam.
     
  17. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    37,631
    Likes Received:
    27,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can agree with almost everything you just said and still believe it is unjust for billionaires to be paying 0-875 in taxes per year while a person making under a 59 grand pays more than that.

    They are not mutually exclusive.
     
  18. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    47,881
    Likes Received:
    34,290
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're complaining about a tax code BOTH parties have created.. And if you think your chosen rep isn't using every loophole to squirrel away his or her nuts then hypocrisy and biased rules your logic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
     
    independentthinker likes this.
  19. independentthinker

    independentthinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is very simple. You either want to pay Buffet's taxes or his secretary's. This is not rocket science.
     
  20. independentthinker

    independentthinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, who's taxes would you rather pay, Buffet's or his secretary's? It's not a hard question but I'm betting you avoid the question and spin it.
     
  21. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    8,683
    Likes Received:
    4,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not rocket science, I know ... I used to be one. 8)

    Why is it then that that analogy was first made by "Warren Buffet"?

    BTW, nobody hung an "IN CHARGE" sign on your neck.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  22. independentthinker

    independentthinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, you refuse to say whose taxes you would rather pay, Buffet's or his secretary's? I don't blame you for trying to change the subject. You want the rich to pay more in taxes than the poorer and that is exactly what we have.
     
  23. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    16,557
    Likes Received:
    19,964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's your hangup? I would be ecstatic to pay Buffet's tax bill if I had his wealth. In fact, I wouldn't complain one bit. That's why I don't understand that people feel sorry for the wealthy's higher tax bills. The ultrarich donor class in the US currently live a lifestyle that even kings could not dream of a few hundred years ago. Yet, what do they do? Whine, whine, whine, and lobby, so they can pay even less taxes, with the aim to build generational wealth for their families, so none of their trust fund babies will have to work a day in their lives in the future. Newsflash: Trust fund babies are NOT the driver of innovation and economic growth.
     
    Hey Now likes this.
  24. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    8,683
    Likes Received:
    4,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So! You refuse to say, why is it then that that analogy was first made by "Warren Buffet"? I don't blame you for dodging the question because it up ends your paradigm. You like to see the 1% of this nation favored while the poor suffer and are left behind, which is EXACTLY what we have and have had since Ronald Reagan.
     
  25. independentthinker

    independentthinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds like you are agreeing with me, the rich already pay the most taxes.
     

Share This Page