Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

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

  1. Tipsycatlover
    Offline

    Tipsycatlover Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Messages:
    15,617
    Thanks Received:
    2,628
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +18,252
    The reality is, Donald Trump is president. That's the reality.
     
  2. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,297
    I don't deny this, and he had plenty of help from his Russian friends to get there. Whether he lasts four years remains to be seen.
     
  3. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,224
    Thanks Received:
    4,548
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,342
    I can.

    Yet you don't. Because it's hypothetical.

    Historical changes in the capital gains tax rate are hypothetical?
    What, are you 12? Or stoned?

    You said that the wealthy would generate economic activity from their tax cut to pay for the tax cut.

    Businesses will generate additional economic activity.
    I didn't say anything about the rich. I didn't say anything about paying for a tax cut.

    How do the wealthy do that if not by trickling down?

    What's "trickling down"?

    Theirs is direct stimulus spending. Which they've been doing

    How does it compare as a percentage of GDP?

    Wow dude...you just admitted here that tax cuts create deficits by reducing the amount of money the government has.

    Wow dude...you think that tax cuts reduce the amount of money the people have.

    3) Government cuts spending on programs like SNAP, Medicaid, Pell Grants & FAFSA, Low-Income Energy Assistance, Section 8 housing, and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).

    After the Reagan tax cuts, how much did the government reduce spending on those things?
     
  4. Tipsycatlover
    Offline

    Tipsycatlover Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Messages:
    15,617
    Thanks Received:
    2,628
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +18,252
    Four years! The man is looking at a landslide reelection!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,297
    You didn't say "rate", you said "revenue". So you're doing that thing again where you exercise sophistry to cover for the massive holes in your shit argument, unable to remember what you say from post to post.


    How so? Businesses can reinvest now, pre-tax. So what difference does the corporate income tax rate make when it comes to a business reinvesting? If anything, a higher corporate tax rate would force the business to invest more to avoid the tax liability. Unfortunately, thanks to Reagan, buybacks and dividends now count as "reinvestment", and that's the "reinvestment" I suspect you're alluding to. Businesses don't expand just because. There has to be demand to justify the expansion. Cutting corporate income taxes doesn't increase that demand. Neither does cutting tax rates for the rich.


    That's what you've been saying this entire time...that cutting taxes for the rich and corporations will magically translate into growth, despite a lack of demand to meet. That's not economics, that's zealotry.


    Nothing trickles down. That's the point. Despite you promising it does when you claim those cuts "increase economic activity". That's just your way of saying "trickle down" without saying those exact words. We know your playbook.


    It's a pretty significant part. In fact, Chinese government stimulus spending is what kept China's economy going this whole time.


    It does, and we know this because after every tax cut, personal savings rate drops and household debt increases. So you cut taxes, which forces cuts to spending, which forces people to pay more out of pocket for essential services.

    The best example of this is what happened in Kansas with the Kansas State University Board of Regents...KS cut taxes, which created deficits, which had to be closed because of KS' BBA. So to close those deficits, KS cut spending on education. Those cuts forced the KS State Board of Regents to raise tuition, which resulted in students and families having to borrow more and spend more out of pocket.

    KS also increased co-pays, co-insurance, and drug costs for Medicaid patients (of which there are many in KS because it's a piss-poor state of underachievers and losers) because state spending on Medicaid was cut...to pay for tax cuts that didn't pay for themselves as promised.

    So that's how tax cuts end up costing taxpayers more in the end.


    $44B, which was a 5.7% cut to the overall budget. Over half of the $44 billion budget reduction came from two areas: income security; and education, training, employment, and social services.

    Predictably, household debt increased and personal savings decreased. Why? Because those people had to go into debt to get an education or health care or energy or housing.
     
  6. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,297
    What if you're wrong?
     
  7. Tipsycatlover
    Offline

    Tipsycatlover Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Messages:
    15,617
    Thanks Received:
    2,628
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +18,252
    What if you're wrong?

    After all, you have been predicting Trump's impeachment since before he was sworn in. How did that work out for you?
     
  8. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,224
    Thanks Received:
    4,548
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,342
    Historical changes in the capital gains tax rate are hypothetical?
    You didn't say "rate", you said "revenue".
    Ummmmm.......​



    You can't prove that the increase in revenues had anything to do with the capital gains tax cut

    Previous cuts in capital gains rates gave the government higher revenues.
    Previous hikes in capital gains rates gave the government lower revenues.

    Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

    Fucking moron.
     
  9. hadit
    Online

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    12,947
    Thanks Received:
    1,613
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    You're proudly proclaiming Hillary's consolation prize in a thread on a completely different subject and I'm building a straw man?
     
  10. hadit
    Online

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    12,947
    Thanks Received:
    1,613
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    You say that like you really believe it.
     

Share This Page