Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That free money comes at the expense of every other taxpayer, dipshit. It is paid for with higher tax rates on EVERYONE, including the person who gets the gift!
Learn some basic economics, for chrissakes.
I'm sick of all you "gimme gimme gimme and make that guy over there pay for it" leeches.
Damn but your ignorant. Learn some basic economics? You really don't know who you are talking to. Matter of fact, I doubt anyone one this board has the economics background I do. Hell, I did research for the Reagan administration. I worked for Erskine Bowles. So piss off. But first, consider this.
That child tax credit, what is it now, $1500 a year. That is nothing when compared to the value of the mortgage deduction on a half million dollar mortgage. And that deduction requires every other taxpayer to pay more in taxes. So you Trumpsters are bitching about pennies while throwing away dollars. That is stupid. So you go learn some basic economics.
$1500 cash payment per child versus reducing your taxable income by the amount of interest you paid on your mortgage are not Apple and apples, professor.
If the principle of the mortgage still owed is $500,000, the interest paid in a year will be about $20,000. if your marginal tax rate is 33%, that’s roughly $7000 in tax savings from what you pay the Fed.
If you have 4 kids, that’s $6000 cash paid to you if you didn’t pay any taxes.
They don’t seem very disparate to me.
The person who is carrying the $500,000 mortgage is contributing mightily to the economy, and now the tens of thousands of dollars in taxes they are paying is reduced by $7000....so instead of $50,000 in taxes, for example, they will be paying $43,000.
The person with 4 kids and not paying taxes at all, and getting $6,000 in welfare from the Fed is a leech.
You are an economist like I am a brain surgeon.
Paying taxes is not "contributing mightily to the economy", unless you believe that government spending is preferable to private spending. Say the mortgage holder gets an extra seven grand and the child tax credit person gets six thousand. Except that the child tax credit is limited to three kids last I checked. But just another case of ignorance from lack of knowledge.
So impress me and tell me the difference between the mortgage holder spending six grand in tax savings and the child tax credit beneficiary spending six grand in tax credit money. Which one stimulates the economy more and why? I will give you a hint, you will probably want to use terms like multiplier and velocity.
What does physics have to do with economics? All you are attempting to do is justify your apparent lack of understanding of simple fairness.
If you don't pay taxes, why should you get a refund? That is welfare.
Multiplier and velocity are economic terms that would demonstrate which one of the two individuals would contribute more to economic growth. The spending of one will most certainly have a higher multiplier and greater velocity than the spending of the other. Matter of fact, one is going to spend all that money and the other is probably going to save some, which does not stimulate the economy at all. It is called the savings paradox. Something someone with even a basic knowledge of economics should be quite familiar with.
I asked for GDP data! Till then you’re an amateurwell we know what the corporate tax rate was under obummer, what was his GDP it proves your fking post wrong idiot.what was obummer's GDP over eight years? you should post up his numbers to show your genius..GOV gives "free money" to businesses to stimulate job growth and increase wages....Watch how this works:
More profit = more growth
More profit = hire wages
More profit = improved working conditions
TA-DA!
I realize you want to spoon feed your pet humans, DaShawn, ShaQuita, Hector and Guadalupe a little more but let me show you how that works:
More welfare = a newer Cadillac
More welfare = more weed and 40's
More welfare = a new pit bull
TA-DA!
I guess you still believe in Santa Claus too. No, more profit does not necessarily lead to more growth. Matter of fact, every time we have cut corporate taxes in the past we have seen a decline in the rate of GDP growth. Back when the corporate tax rate was north of fifty percent we consistently saw double digit GDP growth. Now, we think four percent is a kick ass rate. I promise you, when this corporate tax rate goes through three percent will be celebrated.
More profits do not lead to more hiring. Matter of fact, last time we had a tax holiday on repatriated profits most of the companies that took advantage of that provision actually LAID OFF WORKERS. Tell me, if you can achieve more "profits" doing the same amount of work and with the same number of workers, why would you hire more, especially if there was no additional DEMAND. Damn, but this is some simple shit.
And hell no, more profits sure as hell don't lead to better working conditions. What a company spends on improving the conditions of their workers is fully tax deductible. For example, if they spend an extra dollar on better toilet paper for the employee restroom and the corporate tax rate is 35%, well that extra dollar only costs them sixty-five cents in lost profits. But when the tax rate is 20% that extra dollar costs them eighty cents. So the cost of improving employee working conditions actually GOES UP when taxes are cut.
That is all basic business. And you know what else is basic business. The 40 is one of the most profitable items in the alcohol industry's inventory. And in states where it is legal, weed generates significant tax revenue and fuels jobs. Even where it is illegal that money tends to go back into the economy. New cars sales do the same, as do pit bulls that propel dog food sales and vet practices. The fact is, every single one of the things you mentioned has a greater multiplier and higher velocity than a corporate tax cut. Of course, you have no clue as to what either of those things are or how they stimulate the economy.
What was the corporate tax rate? I mean do try to keep up. I never even mentioned Obama. I said the lower the corporate tax rate the lower GDP growth. And by corporate tax rate, I mean EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate, which has been declining since 1955. So has GDP growth.
You really ought to do a little research before spouting off your mouth.
NothingHe is looking to score political points for a future Presidential run with OUR MONEY.
FUCK MARCO RUBIO he is not a conservative.
If you DO NOT PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAX, YOU SHOULD NOT GET $1400 IN WELFARE FOR EVERY KID YOU HAVE PAID THROUGH THE TREASURY.
The treasury shouldnt be used for welfare.
Just another 'FUCK THE MIDDLE-CLASS' thread from the Russian sympathizers.
Huh?That free money comes at the expense of every other taxpayer, dipshit. It is paid for with higher tax rates on EVERYONE, including the person who gets the gift!Only a liberal could think that allowing a company or individual to keep more of their own hard earned money is considered "free money."
Learn some basic economics, for chrissakes.
I'm sick of all you "gimme gimme gimme and make that guy over there pay for it" leeches.
Damn but your ignorant. Learn some basic economics? You really don't know who you are talking to. Matter of fact, I doubt anyone one this board has the economics background I do. Hell, I did research for the Reagan administration. I worked for Erskine Bowles. So piss off. But first, consider this.
That child tax credit, what is it now, $1500 a year. That is nothing when compared to the value of the mortgage deduction on a half million dollar mortgage. And that deduction requires every other taxpayer to pay more in taxes. So you Trumpsters are bitching about pennies while throwing away dollars. That is stupid. So you go learn some basic economics.
$1500 cash payment per child versus reducing your taxable income by the amount of interest you paid on your mortgage are not Apple and apples, professor.
If the principle of the mortgage still owed is $500,000, the interest paid in a year will be about $20,000. if your marginal tax rate is 33%, that’s roughly $7000 in tax savings from what you pay the Fed.
If you have 4 kids, that’s $6000 cash paid to you if you didn’t pay any taxes.
They don’t seem very disparate to me.
The person who is carrying the $500,000 mortgage is contributing mightily to the economy, and now the tens of thousands of dollars in taxes they are paying is reduced by $7000....so instead of $50,000 in taxes, for example, they will be paying $43,000.
The person with 4 kids and not paying taxes at all, and getting $6,000 in welfare from the Fed is a leech.
You are an economist like I am a brain surgeon.
Paying taxes is not "contributing mightily to the economy", unless you believe that government spending is preferable to private spending. Say the mortgage holder gets an extra seven grand and the child tax credit person gets six thousand. Except that the child tax credit is limited to three kids last I checked. But just another case of ignorance from lack of knowledge.
So impress me and tell me the difference between the mortgage holder spending six grand in tax savings and the child tax credit beneficiary spending six grand in tax credit money. Which one stimulates the economy more and why? I will give you a hint, you will probably want to use terms like multiplier and velocity.
Huh?It is a global economy. Now compare it to the rest of the world.
Fyi... The evil energy companies pay the highest effective rate of any sector.
The effective corporate tax rate does compare favorably to the rest of the world. It is right at the average. And I got to ask, if the stated corporate tax rate is such a big deal how come companies are falling all over each other, including Trump's companies, to do business in Dubai. The corporate tax rate in the UAE is higher than ours. If your argument was worth a shit, well no companies would be doing business over there. Instead, it is one of the hottest spots in the world.
If you can make more money there because of the all the rich Arabs, despite the high taxes, why not?
So, it is not the tax rate that matters. It is the demand. Well I be damned.
So it suddenly dawned on you that you were wrong? Praise the Lord!
WTF, are you twelve? You are the one belly aching about tax rates. I am the Keynesian that is trying to teach you that tax rates are irrelevant, it is demand that stimulates business investment.
Not reading the OP? Then why comment?
For trump fans, that's preferable to actually learning the facts. Why is that?
Perhaps you can say why the article is incorrect?
Thanks.
Who is your 1% owner?He is looking to score political points for a future Presidential run with OUR MONEY.
FUCK MARCO RUBIO he is not a conservative.
If you DO NOT PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAX, YOU SHOULD NOT GET $1400 IN WELFARE FOR EVERY KID YOU HAVE PAID THROUGH THE TREASURY.
The treasury shouldnt be used for welfare.
They are low income working people. Tell the corps to pay them more.
Agree but Rubio and the other Republiccans never had any intention of voting no or of voting to help the working class.
If they don't support this mess, they won't get more money from their 1% owners.
that would be welfare as I already mentioned to you in another thread. they don't qualify since they don't pay into the tax pool. You are for additional free money? I thought you were a conservative?I'm with Rubio on this issue. Look the senate bill increased the child tax credit to $2,000 and everyone gets the increase EXCEPT poor families. They only get $1,100. That's a gift to Democrats during upcoming elections. DO NOT underestimate the American people's sense of fair play, that's not going to set well with most Americans.
You don't want me in charge, I'd cut taxes $3 trillion and spending $6 trillion then throw hundreds of government morons in prison for losing $400 billion this year alone to government waste and fraud.
That said why give middle to upper income families a $2,000 per child tax credit then taunt poor families with ha ha you losers get nothing. Do we want to lose elections? Just reduce their rates, don't go looking for trouble.
You'd cut spending $6 trillion dollars on a $4 trillion budget? That would be a major accomplishment. Tell me how you do that. I taught math for years and I don't see how that would work.
Hello the tax bill being discussed is over a 10 year period try to keep up.
I need to try and keep up because you used the wrong figures? Newsflash, we don't budget for 10 years!
Damn but your ignorant. Learn some basic economics? You really don't know who you are talking to. Matter of fact, I doubt anyone one this board has the economics background I do. Hell, I did research for the Reagan administration. I worked for Erskine Bowles. So piss off. But first, consider this.
That child tax credit, what is it now, $1500 a year. That is nothing when compared to the value of the mortgage deduction on a half million dollar mortgage. And that deduction requires every other taxpayer to pay more in taxes. So you Trumpsters are bitching about pennies while throwing away dollars. That is stupid. So you go learn some basic economics.
$1500 cash payment per child versus reducing your taxable income by the amount of interest you paid on your mortgage are not Apple and apples, professor.
If the principle of the mortgage still owed is $500,000, the interest paid in a year will be about $20,000. if your marginal tax rate is 33%, that’s roughly $7000 in tax savings from what you pay the Fed.
If you have 4 kids, that’s $6000 cash paid to you if you didn’t pay any taxes.
They don’t seem very disparate to me.
The person who is carrying the $500,000 mortgage is contributing mightily to the economy, and now the tens of thousands of dollars in taxes they are paying is reduced by $7000....so instead of $50,000 in taxes, for example, they will be paying $43,000.
The person with 4 kids and not paying taxes at all, and getting $6,000 in welfare from the Fed is a leech.
You are an economist like I am a brain surgeon.
Paying taxes is not "contributing mightily to the economy", unless you believe that government spending is preferable to private spending. Say the mortgage holder gets an extra seven grand and the child tax credit person gets six thousand. Except that the child tax credit is limited to three kids last I checked. But just another case of ignorance from lack of knowledge.
So impress me and tell me the difference between the mortgage holder spending six grand in tax savings and the child tax credit beneficiary spending six grand in tax credit money. Which one stimulates the economy more and why? I will give you a hint, you will probably want to use terms like multiplier and velocity.
What does physics have to do with economics? All you are attempting to do is justify your apparent lack of understanding of simple fairness.
If you don't pay taxes, why should you get a refund? That is welfare.
Multiplier and velocity are economic terms that would demonstrate which one of the two individuals would contribute more to economic growth. The spending of one will most certainly have a higher multiplier and greater velocity than the spending of the other. Matter of fact, one is going to spend all that money and the other is probably going to save some, which does not stimulate the economy at all. It is called the savings paradox. Something someone with even a basic knowledge of economics should be quite familiar with.
There again you would be wrong, but since I taught economics I can recognize someone stroking their own ego like they stroke something else. Your choice of wording indicates you are more concerned with trying to impress people and have no real faith in what you are saying because you know that no one really gives a rat's ass.
$1500 cash payment per child versus reducing your taxable income by the amount of interest you paid on your mortgage are not Apple and apples, professor.
If the principle of the mortgage still owed is $500,000, the interest paid in a year will be about $20,000. if your marginal tax rate is 33%, that’s roughly $7000 in tax savings from what you pay the Fed.
If you have 4 kids, that’s $6000 cash paid to you if you didn’t pay any taxes.
They don’t seem very disparate to me.
The person who is carrying the $500,000 mortgage is contributing mightily to the economy, and now the tens of thousands of dollars in taxes they are paying is reduced by $7000....so instead of $50,000 in taxes, for example, they will be paying $43,000.
The person with 4 kids and not paying taxes at all, and getting $6,000 in welfare from the Fed is a leech.
You are an economist like I am a brain surgeon.
Paying taxes is not "contributing mightily to the economy", unless you believe that government spending is preferable to private spending. Say the mortgage holder gets an extra seven grand and the child tax credit person gets six thousand. Except that the child tax credit is limited to three kids last I checked. But just another case of ignorance from lack of knowledge.
So impress me and tell me the difference between the mortgage holder spending six grand in tax savings and the child tax credit beneficiary spending six grand in tax credit money. Which one stimulates the economy more and why? I will give you a hint, you will probably want to use terms like multiplier and velocity.
What does physics have to do with economics? All you are attempting to do is justify your apparent lack of understanding of simple fairness.
If you don't pay taxes, why should you get a refund? That is welfare.
Multiplier and velocity are economic terms that would demonstrate which one of the two individuals would contribute more to economic growth. The spending of one will most certainly have a higher multiplier and greater velocity than the spending of the other. Matter of fact, one is going to spend all that money and the other is probably going to save some, which does not stimulate the economy at all. It is called the savings paradox. Something someone with even a basic knowledge of economics should be quite familiar with.
There again you would be wrong, but since I taught economics I can recognize someone stroking their own ego like they stroke something else. Your choice of wording indicates you are more concerned with trying to impress people and have no real faith in what you are saying because you know that no one really gives a rat's ass.
Sorry, but the fact that you taught a high school Econ class does not impress me. Matter of fact, it kind of distresses me. I asked you a simple question, of the two people, the half million dollar mortgage holder and the child tax credit beneficiary, with both getting the same amount of additional disposable income, which one would stimulate the economy more. And I asked you to explain why.
The answer is clear. It is the child tax credit beneficiary. They will spend all, or almost all, of the additional disposable income. And they will spend it on things like groceries, gas, an evening out, or school supplies and clothing for the kids. The "velocity" of their spending will be greater than the velocity of the half million dollar mortgage holder, in other words, those grocery dollars will move through the economy much quicker than the higher ticket items the mortgage holder would likely spend it on. And the multiplier would be greater for the child tax credit beneficiary. The multiplier is 1/(1-mpc). Pretty sure you didn't teach that in high school. The mpc is the marginal propensity to consume, which would be significantly higher for the child tax credit beneficiary. The half million dollar mortgage holder is likely going to save some of their extra disposable income. And that savings will end up costing "rents", economic rent, which is income that is not earned. Interest paid on savings is not "earned" in the economic sense.
That is the basics. And that is why this tax plan will fail to stimulate the economy over the long term. The wealthy, who get the vast majority of the benefit, will save, not spend. And that will result in economic rent being extracted from the lower and middle classes. The corporate tax cut will do what corporate tax cuts have done in the past. It will result in rent seeking by the corporations that will depress economic growth. It will also result in the working people having to foot more of the tax burden, just like the trend line has been going for more than fifty years. And that additional tax burden will suppress demand, which is why past corporate tax cuts, rather a cut in the rate or an additional tax expenditure, has resulted in decreased GDP growth.
I actually gained a LITTLE respect for Rubio for doing what he did. The only thing he has ever done I approved of.He is looking to score political points for a future Presidential run with OUR MONEY.
FUCK MARCO RUBIO he is not a conservative.
If you DO NOT PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAX, YOU SHOULD NOT GET $1400 IN WELFARE FOR EVERY KID YOU HAVE PAID THROUGH THE TREASURY.
The treasury shouldnt be used for welfare.
I actually gained a LITTLE respect for Rubio for doing what he did. The only thing he has ever done I approved of.He is looking to score political points for a future Presidential run with OUR MONEY.
FUCK MARCO RUBIO he is not a conservative.
If you DO NOT PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAX, YOU SHOULD NOT GET $1400 IN WELFARE FOR EVERY KID YOU HAVE PAID THROUGH THE TREASURY.
The treasury shouldnt be used for welfare.
