Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

Discussion in 'Politics' started by The Derp, Dec 4, 2017.

  1. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,244
    Thanks Received:
    4,549
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,355
    If I get to keep more of my own money because of a tax cut, I can only cause more growth by running out and spending it?

    Exactly.

    What if I go out and invest it?

    So now your argument in favor of tax cuts is...what?

    Increased economic growth and increased employment.

    My, that's a strange position change on your part.

    No, I've always said that some tax cuts pay for themselves, some don't.

    On what grounds?

    On the grounds of previous tax cuts increasing economic growth and employment.

    We just went through this shit 15 years ago with Bush, who promised his tax cuts would create jobs

    When did he cut taxes? What happened to jobs 1...2...3 years after? What happened to GDP?
    Or after Reagan cut taxes? Or LBJ? Or Coolidge?

    KS's GDP growth rate after the tax cuts was below the national average

    Post a chart of their GSP for the last decade. We can compare that to US GDP for the last decade.
     
  2. hadit
    Online

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    12,956
    Thanks Received:
    1,613
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,054
    Didn't have to. Didn't care about it, because that's not how you win.
     
  3. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    You're gonna have to be more specific. I know that's a challenge for you because you like to create wide parameters you can wiggle around within as you try to improvise a shit argument.


    But we know already from very recent history that cutting taxes for the rich didn't increase economic growth, and that during that period we lost 400,000 jobs. So what makes you think this, other than your own personal theorizing? What evidence leads you to that conclusion that doesn't rely on you invoking what you think is conventional wisdom? Because what you believe or hypothesize about how people behave isn't fact. It's bullshit.


    So you say things like this by design in order to allow yourself room to wiggle within the parameters. So what tax cuts pay for themselves and which ones don't? How about some specific examples you can point to with verifiable data, not your "conventional wisdom", which has as much value as one of my cat's turds?


    Which you are unable to prove beyond a correlation-is-causation argument. You were just handed a link that says the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, after the Bush Tax Cuts. Savings don't grow the economy. Spending does. And spending didn't increase by the wealthy after they got a tax cut 15 years ago, so why would it magically start increasing now?


    Bush cut taxes in 2001 and those cuts were accelerated in 2003 for the stated purpose of boosting a housing bubble. We know this because Bush said so himself while campaigning. Here is an article from March of 2004 from Fox News. Here, Bush quite clearly credits the housing bubble (they didn't know it was a bubble at the time, but it was) to his tax cut policy. The same housing bubble that would end up crashing the economy and killing 400,000 net jobs.

    Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
    Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.


    Reagan cut taxes in July 1981, then the country entered a recession that lasted through 1982. So tax cuts caused the recession and job loss, which spiked to 10.8% by the end of 1982. That's what happened after Reagan cut taxes.

    LBJ increased spending by 50%.

    Coolidge's laissez-faire policies are what caused the Great Depression. But keep touting the 1920's, please. Just don't forget about what happened at the end of the decade.




    Well, thankfully, BLS has already done that for us:

    [​IMG]

    And on a more specific level, here's the three years before and after the tax cut in Kansas:

    2011
    KS GDP Growth: 0.5%
    US GDP Growth: 1.5%

    2012
    KS GDP Growth: 1.4%
    US GDP Growth: 2.5%

    2013 (Brownback Tax Cuts passed)
    KS GDP Growth: 1.9%
    US GDP Growth: 1.8%

    2014 (First Year of Brownback Tax Cuts):
    KS GDP Growth: 1.8%
    US GDP Growth: 2.2%

    2015:
    KS GDP Growth: -0.8%
    US GDP Growth: 2.0%

    2016:
    KS GDP Growth: 0.2%
    US GDP Growth: 1.6%
     
  4. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Well, the problem is that Trump's not on record saying this until after he lost the popular vote. It's a small distinction, but one that cuts to the bone of credibility.
     
  5. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,244
    Thanks Received:
    4,549
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,355

    But we know already from very recent history that cutting taxes for the rich didn't increase economic growth,

    I disagree with your misinterpretation of the data.

    So you say things like this by design in order to allow yourself room to wiggle within the parameters.

    I've always said it. So your claim about what I said was wrong. Or were you lying?

    So what tax cuts pay for themselves and which ones don't?

    Income tax cuts from very high levels probably pay for themselves.
    Capital gains tax cuts usually pay for themselves.
    Many other tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

    Which you are unable to prove beyond a correlation-is-causation argument.

    Right back at ya, Sparky.

    You were just handed a link that says the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, after the Bush Tax Cuts.

    And?

    Savings don't grow the economy. Spending does.

    How does the savings rate in China compare to the US savings rate?

    Bush cut taxes in 2001 and those cuts were accelerated in 2003 for the stated purpose of boosting a housing bubble. We know this because Bush said so himself while campaigning.

    Bush said, "I want to accelerate my tax cuts to inflate a housing bubble"?
    That bastard!!!
    Could you post the YouTube video of that?

    Reagan cut taxes in July 1981, then the country entered a recession that lasted through 1982.

    Yup. It was in all the papers.

    So tax cuts caused the recession and job loss,

    [​IMG]
     
  6. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Moody's said that the wealthy increased their savings after the tax cuts. Savings don't grow the economy. That's why Bush's economy was shit until the mortgage bubble (which was also caused by the tax cuts, according to Bush himself). What you've failed to do is provide any evidence that supports your claims that isn't "correlation-is-causation". And you never will.


    Sophistry and captiousness for the world to see.


    PROBABLY? So you don't know. Why not just say that? Why posture? So it's just a guess on your part, informed by nothing than your ego. And no, as we linked before, the wealthy do not increase their spending to account for the tax cuts. They increased their savings, which didn't produce revenues...which is why we went from a surplus in 2001 to a record deficit by 2003. We also saw the same thing happen in Kansas. That's why KS' GDP growth post-tax cuts was worse than the rest of the country.


    Capital Gains tax cuts don't pay for themselves, as we saw in the dotcom bubble burst.


    Wrong. See, the difference between you and me is that I don't rely on what I mistakenly think is "conventional wisdom" to carry my argument. The entire premise of your argument hinges on correlation-is-causation, and you know it. That's why you posted that shit.


    AND that means tax cuts for the rich didn't create growth or pay for themselves, despite you theorizing it does in this very post.


    Increasing the rate of savings will directly reduce economic growth because you're pulling money out of the consumer economy. I'm wondering why you feel the need to do non-sequitur like this? What is it you're hoping to prove?


    According to Fox News, he was "touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof". So the strong housing market is a result of his tax cuts. The same housing market that would burst 3 years later. To this day, you have yet to reconcile that. The reason why is obvious; it pins the mortgage bubble on tax cuts, thus invalidating your imagined economic argument for them, and invalidating your attempt to blame other people for a mess your shit policies caused.


    And it was caused by the tax cut. Country not in a recession, Reagan cuts taxes, country enters recession. Unemployment stays steady, Reagan cut taxes, unemployment spikes.

    So there's a better argument that Reagan's tax cuts caused the recession than there is an argument that they brought us out of a recession.
     
  7. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,244
    Thanks Received:
    4,549
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,355
    PROBABLY? So you don't know.

    If tax rates were 99%, would a cut to 90% pay for itself?
    I think so.
    If rates were 90%, would a cut to 70% pay for itself?
    I think so.
    If rates were 70%, would a cut to 50% pay for itself?
    I think so.
    Below 50%, I'm less sure. So what?

    If you know they don't, post your evidence.

    Capital Gains tax cuts don't pay for themselves,

    You'd have to look at capital gains revenues before and after a cut in rates.
    You'd have to look at capital gains revenues before and after a hike in rates.
    You'd notice your error.

    as we saw in the dotcom bubble burst.

    Revenues didn't increase after the cap gains rate was cut? Prove it.

    AND that means tax cuts for the rich didn't create growth

    Who claimed the only source of growth comes from a steady or shrinking savings rate of the rich?

    or pay for themselves,

    I never claimed the Bush tax cuts would, or did, pay for themselves.

    Increasing the rate of savings will directly reduce economic growth because you're pulling money out of the consumer economy.

    So that's why Chinese GDP growth is lower than ours?
    Because their savings rate is much, much higher than our savings rate?

    According to Fox News, he was "touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof". So the strong housing market is a result of his tax cuts.

    Thanks!
    For so quickly admitting your lie.

    And it was caused by the tax cut. Country not in a recession, Reagan cuts taxes, country enters recession.

    Let's discuss your moronic claim.

    1)Reagan cuts taxes.
    2)People have more money in their pockets
    3)???
    4)???
    5)Therefore a recession happens

    Please fill in #3 and #4.
    Use #3a), #3b) etc., if you need more than 2 extra steps to back up your feeling.
     
  8. hadit
    Online

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    12,956
    Thanks Received:
    1,613
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,054
    Why should he say anything about it before hand? No one knew the situation would resolve the way it did. Heck, everyone paying any attention at all thought he would lose big time, so there was no reason to talk about it.

    You do remember Hillary being upset that Trump wouldn't swear to automatically accept the results of the election. I think she said something about it 'threatening democracy' or some such. Then, when she grabbed the dirty end of the stick, it suddenly wasn't such a bad thing to not accept her defeat and the knowledge that,a based a candidate as he was, she was worse.

    IOW, Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't change the score of the game.
     
  9. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    So you're trying to ascribe your rationale to Trump, after the fact.


    Exactly, and Trump claiming he would have won the popular vote if he campaigned that way is an example of retroactive revisionism.
     
  10. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    You think this, but offer no justification or support of it. Instead, you substitute your "conventional wisdom" for fact and hope no one notices. We had a top tax rate of 90% and the economy did fine.


    Yeah, and you'd have to look at the entire picture, not just the cherry-picked years that make your argument look better than it actually was, which is a habit of yours. Cutting the capital gains tax rate created volatility in the market, and that volatility ended up causing a recession. So why would cutting the capital gains tax rate today not result in the same thing?


    You can't prove that the increase in revenues had anything to do with the capital gains tax cut, which caused volatility in the market, which caused a bubble burst, which caused a recession.


    No one claimed that. But your claim is that cutting their taxes increases growth and there's no evidence that proves that. In fact, the increase in the savings rate proves the opposite; that cutting taxes for the wealthy results in less economic growth because the savings rate increased. Increasing a savings rate doesn't translate into increased economic activity. In fact, it translates to decreased economic activity because, as the link I provided to you said, the savings rate shot up. And if the savings rate shoots up, that means the spending rate declines. The two are intrinsically linked.


    But here you are, claiming that tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves while offering no support of that argument at all.


    China's growth rate is due to the economic stimulus the nation is currently employing.


    I didn't lie about anything. You're the one lying, or just not understanding what you're saying. Bush said his tax cuts caused the growth in the housing market. The housing market that would eventually pop three years later. Hence, Bush's tax cuts were responsible for the housing market bubble popping.


    People didn't have more money in their pockets because personal debt skyrocketed during Reagan. The tax cut resulted in a decline in economic activity, meaning the stimulative effects of the tax cuts didn't happen. And since that stimulus didn't happen, then the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves and didn't increase consumer spending at all. BTW - Reagan would hike taxes on the middle class one year later....then the recession ended.
     

Share This Page