Republican tax cut will not trickle down

Discussion in 'Politics' started by rightwinger, Dec 4, 2017.

  1. 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
    Why would consumers change their behavior based on the income tax rate for corporations?

    Who said anything about consumers? But if you'd like, we can talk about them.

    Raise the individual tax rate to 95% on income above $30,000.
    Does that change anyone's behavior?
    Hey, over $30,000 you still get to keep 5%, right?

    You didn't ask that.

    I didn't ask about tax rates changing behavior? Are you sure?
     
  2. 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
    For minimum wage workers, it increased.
    Oddly, their hours worked shrank.
    Which refutes your claim that their hours increased.
     
  3. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,297
    That's what we're talking about. You're insistence is that cutting corporate taxes will somehow result in magical growth (somehow) that ends up paying for the tax cut. How does it do that?


    So...you have this nasty habit of going to hyperbolic extremes because that's the only way you can get your shitty point across. You construct straw men and then argue those straw men. And you switched the topic of this conversation. You've jumped twice between individual taxes and corporate taxes, all to avoid answering the question of how exactly does corporate tax cuts result in increased growth? You can't answer that question truthfully, because the answer is that it doesn't. And since it doesn't, then there's no justification for cutting corporate income taxes. One way or another, your fiscal policy relies on the trickling down of spending by the top and corporations to "pay for" the tax cut. You can deny it, but that's what you're arguing.

    So I want to know why you keep jumping from non-sequitur to non-sequitur like that? How come you can't stay on one topic?

    You insist that cutting corporate income taxes will result in growth. You can't say how. You won't say how. For growth to occur, consumer demand has to increase. What you've been unable to do is tie the corporate income tax rate to consumer demand. And you'll never be able to do it because they're not intrinsically linked at all.


    No, you didn't ask about that specific rate. So you did that thing you always do, which is go to hyperbolic extremes just because you didn't get the answer you wanted.

    How does lowering or raising corporate income taxes affect consumer demand? That's the question. One you cannot answer.
     
  4. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,297
    And it increased for full-time, higher-paying workers too. That's what the data shows. That's what that link said. Wages for everyone in Seattle went up. Hours worked for higher-wage jobs increased. The unemployment rate declined. So not sure what point you're arguing, but it sounds like you are arguing in favor of low-wage, part-time work.


    Yeah, because there are fewer low-wage workers because they became higher-wage workers thanks to the increase in wages. So the number of low-wage workers declined, ergo the hours worked by low-wage workers declined. While at the same time, the number of higher-wage workers increased, and the hours worked by higher-wage workers increased.

    The overall unemployment rate declined as well.

    So what's your point? That you're upset Seattle has fewer low-wage workers and those low-wage workers work fewer hours.


    THE LINK ITSELF SAYS THE HOURS WORKED BY HIGH-WAGE WORKERS INCREASED.

    THE LINK ITSELF ALSO SAYS THAT UNEMPLOYMENT DROPPED.

    THE LINK ITSELF ALSO SAYS THAT AVERAGE WAGES ROSE FOR THE CITY

    You ignored all that because you're a sophist.
     
  5. 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

    In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase

    Is that an actual increase in the amount the Federal government takes out of their paychecks?
    Or is it a reduction in the amount the government spends on Obamacare subsidies for people
    who freely choose to stop getting Obamacare or stop paying the penalty.

    That would be a typical liberal lie, eh?
    People have more in their paycheck from reduced rates. More in their pocket from no more Obamacare penalty and the Dems twist that into a tax hike.
     
  6. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,297
    It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.


    It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.


    It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.


    Not everyone. Those who make up to $30,000 will pay more in taxes by 2019. Those who make up to $40,000 will pay more in taxes by 2021. Those who make up to $75,000 will pay more in taxes by 2027. That's how they can pass this bill with 50 votes. That's what the JCT said.
     
  7. 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
    That's what we're talking about.

    No, we're talking about corporate rates.
    And your moronic claim that corporations and their investors don't change their behavior
    when tax rates change. That no behavior would change, even with a 95% corporate rate.

    You're insistence is that cutting corporate taxes will somehow result in magical growth (somehow) that ends up paying for the tax cut.

    Where did I say there would be magical growth? Or that the added growth would pay for the tax cut?
    Put up or shut up....liar.

    all to avoid answering the question of how exactly does corporate tax cuts result in increased growth?

    Ireland cut their corporate tax rate. Ireland saw huge growth.
    Do you deny either point?

    You insist that cutting corporate income taxes will result in growth.

    It will.

    You can't say how.

    Corporations will invest here when they see they can keep more of their profits.
    More hiring, more wage hikes.
    Higher profits will mean higher dividends and higher stock prices.

    For growth to occur, consumer demand has to increase.

    More jobs, higher wages, more dividends, more capital gains.
    People spend that money.
     
  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
    Hours worked for higher-wage jobs increased. The unemployment rate declined.

    And hours worked for low wage workers declined.
    Declined so much, that even with the hiked minimum wage, total take home declined.
    Great job, assholes!

    Yeah, because there are fewer low-wage workers because they became higher-wage workers thanks to the increase in wages.

    Moron!
    Minimum wages workers are low wage workers before and after the hike.

    So what's your point? That you're upset Seattle has fewer low-wage workers and those low-wage workers work fewer hours.

    I'm upset that assholes with no clue about economics, that includes you, thought they'd help low wage workers by boosting the minimum wage. What could go wrong? Apparently the workers the morons tried to help ended up getting hurt.

    Typical liberal morons.
     
  9. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,297
    THE LINK ITSELF SAYS THE HOURS WORKED BY HIGH-WAGE WORKERS INCREASED.

    There's also this inconvenient fact:

    Seattle Sees Fastest Wage Growth in the U.S. in October
    Tied with San Francisco for best in the nation, Seattle's wages grew 2.1 percent from October 2016 to October 2017 to a median salary north of $60,000.
    ...
    Barista (up 5.8% to a median salary of $29,172)


    And this:

    May 7, 2017
    [​IMG]

    So not sure what shit points you're trying to make, but following Seattle's minimum wage increase, the city saw the fastest wage growth and record-low unemployment.

    But keep screeching nonsensically about low-wage workers, even though Baristas saw their wages increase too.
     
  10. 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
    It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.

    Since the rate doesn't change from 2019-2020-2021 etc, that doesn't explain the steady increases.
    And the fact that the standard deduction is doubled more than offsets the 2% hike.
     

Share This Page