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:
    35,270
    Thanks Received:
    4,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,364
    THE LINK ITSELF SAYS THE HOURS WORKED BY HIGH-WAGE WORKERS INCREASED.

    You're such a fucktard.
    They raised the minimum wage.
    By doing so, they hurt low wage workers.

    We're not talking about the high wage workers who weren't impacted by the minimum wage.
     
  2. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    We were, and then you changed the topic to individual rates all to avoid answering the question of; how exactly do corporate income tax rates affect consumer demand? You can't answer that question. All you do is pose hyperbolic, hypothetical questions. At this point, it'd be easier on yourself just to admit that there is no connection between the corporate income tax rate and consumer demand.


    That's what you've been arguing this entire time; that cutting the corporate income tax rate, and/or cutting the rates for the rich will somehow trickle down into growth by way of increased consumer demand. Not once have you been able to tie those things to consumer demand. You leave the question unanswered because you cannot answer it truthfully. You can't say that cutting those rates leads to increased growth because no such data exists to support that. You say you're not arguing trickle-down, but that is precisely what you're arguing. Then you fall back on your sophistry and captious arguments because you're not even 100% clear on what you think.


    No they didn't. That's a lie.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Why would they invest here if they didn't before when given the chance in 2004's repatriation holiday, and why would they invest here if there's no demand? They're only going to invest if there's demand to justify it, otherwise they're going to do what they do now; pay dividends, stock buybacks, and executive compensation. You have been unable to tie increased consumer demand to a corporate income tax cut. I think you think that businesses expand just because. And that belies your inexperience.


    So you're working from the assumption that there is already consumer demand to justify investment, and if that's the case, why not invest right now? Also, if a corporation invests, it doesn't pay taxes on that. So how does lowering the corporate income tax rate have anything to do with reinvestment, which happens pre-tax and in lieu of paying income taxes???????

    This is that inexperience I was alluding to earlier. That, and the apparent cognitive dissonance.


    More jobs to fill demand. If you're not increasing consumer demand, then the jobs aren't going to be there. "If you build it, they will come" may work in the movies, but not real life. I'm not sure you know the difference between movies and real life.
     
  3. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Duh! Because there were fewer of those workers because they got higher wages and full-time work


    Total employment for those workers declined, and total employment for higher-wage workers increased. Overall, the unemployment rate declined to an historic low, and Seattle had faster wage growth than the rest of the nation.

    So something isn't squaring here. Is it you, who is somehow lamenting the decline of low-wage, part-time work, or is it me, who is providing you with the economic indicators of record-low unemployment and wage growth faster than the rest of the country? No...It's you.


    So minimum wage workers got better paying jobs! Which is one of the consequences proponents of the MW hike said would happen. If what you're saying is true, then wages in Seattle would have declined and the unemployment rate would have risen. But the opposite occurred and you can't explain why.


    They didn't get hurt. Wages in Seattle rose faster than the rest of the country and the unemployment rate declined to a record low. That data is very inconvenient for you.
     
  4. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    They hurt low wage workers by getting them higher wages and creating better paying jobs? You think those low-wage workers were hurt by getting higher wages and working more hours. That's how fucking stupid you are.


    Actually, they were as wages in Seattle rose faster than the rest of the country after the MW hike.

    Seattle's unemployment rate is also below 3%, an historic low.

    If the MW increase hurt MW workers, it sure isn't coming through in the data!

    But I can see how you think it's a bad thing for a MW worker to get a higher paying job...it ruins the false narrative you're trying to construct.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Corporations don't need a low income tax rate to "reinvest" because "reinvestment" happens pre-tax.
     
  6. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    You are completely wrong, and don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The marginal rate goes from 10% to 12% beginning in 2019.


    First of all, the "doubling" of the standard deduction only applies to families. For individuals, the standard deduction increases only by about 20%. For seniors collecting Social Security, it increases the deduction by about 5%.

    Secondly, when you remove the Child Tax Credit, individual deduction, dependent deduction, the various housing deductions, the various medical deductions, the various interest deductions, the various SALT deductions, the charitable deductions, and the various education deductions, you don't come out ahead, and society falls behind because you've reduced charitable giving because you've removed itemizing deductions. And not only that, but you've also crashed the value of everyone's home because those housing deductions are baked into home values. So if you remove the deductions, then home values drop. When home values drop, a housing crisis occurs. When a housing crisis occurs, an economic collapse follows. We know because we've just lived through it.
     
  7. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    10,258
    Thanks Received:
    2,652
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +22,179
    Bullshit!

    This is the fake news shit that is coming out of the filthy ass Democrats now. The CBO is notorious about getting things like this wrong. Just look how they fucked up the calculations for Obamcare as an example. They are a joke.

    I would love to see how those stupid numbers are calculated because you don't get there by increasing the bottom deductions and decreasing the tax brackets.

    Did you bother to even look at the silly shit you posted? How can somebody making $30K be facing a tax increase when the standard deduction is increased and the tax brackets for lower income decreased? Huh?

    My retirement income is significantly more than $75K and every calculation that I have made says I will save several thousands . We will see what the savings will be when the final bill is sent to Trump. Beats the hell out of that Obama asshole that increased taxes.

    I don't know why you stupid Moon bats are against tax cuts so much. Are you stupid or what?
     
  8. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298

    That information comes directly from the Joint Committee on Taxation. So go fuck off, amateur.
     
  9. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    10,258
    Thanks Received:
    2,652
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +22,179

    You obviously never took a course in economics and are very confused. Taxes are a burdensome expense that artificially runs up the cost of goods and services. Lower expense is good for business growth. What is bad is when money is taken out of the productive economy and given to the filthy government to be spent on the welfare queens and illegals or any of the other shit that the government waste money on that only benefits the greedy special interest groups that live off of the government..

    That doesn't even include the flight of American businesses to other countries that have lower corporate taxes.


    First of all you don't know what the tax plan is because it hasn't come out of committee yet. Second of all that statement comes from the CBO and the hate Trump media that are notorious for lying to the American people. For instance. the news today is that they are upping the deductions for state and local taxes by almost 50% to $14K and that would change the CBO predictions by a significant amount.

    You don't get higher taxes when you increase standard deductions and decrease tax brackets, do you? Maybe if I lived in a commie state with high taxation and was very rich and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in state income tax and property tax I would be affected but most Americans won't be affected.


    Fuck the welfare state. Fuck socialism. I don't want to ever pay anything. You pay your bills and I will pay mine. There are oppressive assholes in this country that will steal my money to give to other and that is despicable, don't you agree?
     
  10. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,270
    Thanks Received:
    4,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,364

    We were, and then you changed the topic to individual rates

    You made the moronic claim that corporations and their investors do not change their behavior when tax rates change.
    You even said you'd invest all you could in a profitable business hit with a 95% tax rate.
    Would individuals change their behavior if hit with a 95% tax rate?

    That's what you've been arguing this entire time; that cutting the corporate income tax rate, and/or cutting the rates for the rich will somehow

    Increase employment, increase wages, increase dividends, increase capital gains.
    Absolutely.

    No they didn't. That's a lie.

    Yes, they cut their corporate rate. Yes, they saw huge growth.

    Why would they invest here if they didn't before when given the chance in 2004's repatriation holiday

    The holiday didn't change the rate they pay on US profits.

    otherwise they're going to do what they do now; pay dividends, stock buybacks, and executive compensation.

    Yeah, I hate higher dividends, higher stock prices and higher executive compensation.
    Nobody benefits from any of that. DURR!

    You have been unable to tie increased consumer demand to a corporate income tax cut.

    You just mentioned 3 things that would increase consumer demand.
    Do you have a brain tumor?

    So you're working from the assumption that there is already consumer demand to justify investment, and if that's the case, why not invest right now?

    It's true that after 8 years of Obama over-regulation and an expected 4 years, or until the cirrhosis kills her, of Hillary over-regulation, businesses were reluctant to expand.

    You didn't build that yourself, you greedy kulak.........

    Also, if a corporation invests, it doesn't pay taxes on that.

    When normal people consider an investment, that excludes you, obviously, they consider the after tax return on that investment.
    Keeping 80% of your profit is much preferred to keeping 65%.

    And don't get me started on the moron who thought keeping 5% was plenty.
     

Share This Page