Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

[Toddsterpatriot]

To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

Well, now we know the price of your ignorance...whatever it costs to be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

How much did you pay for yours?

 

[Winston]

Nope, good time to cut spending is BEFORE you **** up already fucked up budget even further.

And here is another thing about cutting spending - IT IS CONTRACTIONARY. If we cut one trillion dollar in 2027 from government spending economy will contract by around 5% GDP and put us into recession.

And here is another thing about cutting spending - IT IS CONTRACTIONARY.

So are tax hikes. Why do you love deficits?

How are tax hikes contractionary?

In the same way spending cuts are....except worse.

illogical. The government spends all the tax revenue it takes in. Tax hikes are not contractionary.

The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks

By Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer*

This paper investigates the impact of tax changes on economic activity. We use the narrative record, such as presidential speeches and Congressional reports, to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major postwar tax policy actions. This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes. (JEL E32, E62, H20, N12)

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf

LMAO. Romer and Romer, seriously?

This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary.

Now let me translate that for you. "allows us", wtf--no, what they did is picked and chose the data that would provide them with the conclusion they were looking for. Either a tax increase, or cut for that matter, was done for what they called "prospective economic conditions" or it was for "exogenous reasons". Tell me, can you provide a time when taxes were either increased or decreased for "exogenous reasons" and NOT due to economic conditions? And lo and behold, well it was only for those tax increases due to exogenous reasons that they determined were contractionary. If you take the time to break the study down you will find no real differences between the two subsets of data they were analyzing. It was a deeply flawed study.

Now, I will admit that there are times when tax increases can be contractionary. For instance, I noticed that by 2027 those earning less than thirty thousand a year will be looking at a collective tax increase of about eleven billion dollars under the current tax reform proposal. To the extent that any of that tax revenue is used to fund defense spending as opposed to being in the pocket of those low income families, well that is contractionary. Both the multiplier and the velocity of that money would be higher in the hands of the low income families.

But, in general, as I pointed out, the government spends all the money it takes in. Intuitively, if the citizens would have saved, and notice I said "SAVE" as opposed to invest, and we know you have no clue as to the difference, any of the revenue that is collected from a tax increase, then that tax increase, by definition, would be the opposite of contractionary. I will refer you to the Paradox of Thrift again.

 

[Winston]

To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

Well, now we know the price of your ignorance...whatever it costs to be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

I'll await your link that backs up your claim.

No link needed. Don't you think that the wealthy will at least take a portion of their tax savings and purchase equities? That is saving. Will they buy a CD? That is saving. But maybe most of all, will they purchase Treasuries? That is saving. And honestly, that is the reason for the tax cuts. The wealthy prefer loaning the government money, AT INTEREST, over paying taxes. That is why the expanding deficits don't make a shit. It is an exchange of taxes for Treasuries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And here is another thing about cutting spending - IT IS CONTRACTIONARY.

So are tax hikes. Why do you love deficits?

How are tax hikes contractionary?

In the same way spending cuts are....except worse.

illogical. The government spends all the tax revenue it takes in. Tax hikes are not contractionary.

The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks

By Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer*

This paper investigates the impact of tax changes on economic activity. We use the narrative record, such as presidential speeches and Congressional reports, to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major postwar tax policy actions. This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes. (JEL E32, E62, H20, N12)

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf

LMAO. Romer and Romer, seriously?

This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary.

Now let me translate that for you. "allows us", wtf--no, what they did is picked and chose the data that would provide them with the conclusion they were looking for. Either a tax increase, or cut for that matter, was done for what they called "prospective economic conditions" or it was for "exogenous reasons". Tell me, can you provide a time when taxes were either increased or decreased for "exogenous reasons" and NOT due to economic conditions? And lo and behold, well it was only for those tax increases due to exogenous reasons that they determined were contractionary. If you take the time to break the study down you will find no real differences between the two subsets of data they were analyzing. It was a deeply flawed study.

Now, I will admit that there are times when tax increases can be contractionary. For instance, I noticed that by 2027 those earning less than thirty thousand a year will be looking at a collective tax increase of about eleven billion dollars under the current tax reform proposal. To the extent that any of that tax revenue is used to fund defense spending as opposed to being in the pocket of those low income families, well that is contractionary. Both the multiplier and the velocity of that money would be higher in the hands of the low income families.

But, in general, as I pointed out, the government spends all the money it takes in. Intuitively, if the citizens would have saved, and notice I said "SAVE" as opposed to invest, and we know you have no clue as to the difference, any of the revenue that is collected from a tax increase, then that tax increase, by definition, would be the opposite of contractionary. I will refer you to the Paradox of Thrift again.

LMAO. Romer and Romer, seriously?

You don't like liberal Dem sources? Seriously?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

Well, now we know the price of your ignorance...whatever it costs to be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

I'll await your link that backs up your claim.

No link needed. Don't you think that the wealthy will at least take a portion of their tax savings and purchase equities? That is saving. Will they buy a CD? That is saving. But maybe most of all, will they purchase Treasuries? That is saving. And honestly, that is the reason for the tax cuts. The wealthy prefer loaning the government money, AT INTEREST, over paying taxes. That is why the expanding deficits don't make a shit. It is an exchange of taxes for Treasuries.

All you need to prove DERP's claim is to show the savings rate of the rich before the Bush tax cuts and their savings rate after.

 

[francoHFW]

More for the bloated rich, more for Wall Street, scraps for the middle class cuts for the poor, and watch out here comes another giant corrupt GOP bubble... Great job greedy idiot Rich GOP and silly dupes... Don't worry about policy, just be obsessed with silly bulshit character assassination and gossip.

 

[BluesLegend]

"So-called"? Why did you qualify the popular vote like that? Are you trying to deligitimize the popular vote because then you don't have to admit your guy is unpopular because he didn't win it?

First let me laugh in your face then mock you by pointing out there was never a popular vote election, or popular vote campaign, or popular vote campaign strategy, no popular vote campaign stops, no popular vote campaign ads. Why? Obviously because there was no popular vote election. LMAO you libs are not the brightest bulbs.

 

[BluesLegend]

More for the bloated rich, more for Wall Street, scraps for the middle class cuts for the poor, and watch out here comes another giant corrupt GOP bubble... Great job greedy idiot Rich GOP and silly dupes... Don't worry about policy, just be obsessed with silly bulshit character assassination and gossip.

Win an election then maybe you can do something about it, all you have to do is convince the American people. Trump won 30 states, how many did your side win? LOL

 

[francoHFW]

Breaking for super dupes... Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI, the rich don't pay enough in taxes and it's Wrecking the country for 35 years now, and you brainwashed functional morons believe so much bulshit and misinformed character assassination it's ridiculous... You're joke a laughingstock and a horror around the world except in your imaginary GOP world. You didn't win a damn thing with Trump except getting screwed even more...

 

[francoHFW]

More for the bloated rich, more for Wall Street, scraps for the middle class cuts for the poor, and watch out here comes another giant corrupt GOP bubble... Great job greedy idiot Rich GOP and silly dupes... Don't worry about policy, just be obsessed with silly bulshit character assassination and gossip.

Win an election then maybe you can do something about it, all you have to do is convince the American people. Trump won 30 states, how many did your side win? LOL

30 Backwater misinformed foolish hopeless screwed again States...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Breaking for super dupes... Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI, the rich don't pay enough in taxes and it's Wrecking the country for 35 years now, and you brainwashed functional morons believe so much bulshit and misinformed character assassination it's ridiculous... You're joke a laughingstock and a horror around the world except in your imaginary GOP world. You didn't win a damn thing with Trump except getting screwed even more...

Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI,

Shit......dude.......don't bogart that joint.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More for the bloated rich, more for Wall Street, scraps for the middle class cuts for the poor, and watch out here comes another giant corrupt GOP bubble... Great job greedy idiot Rich GOP and silly dupes... Don't worry about policy, just be obsessed with silly bulshit character assassination and gossip.

Win an election then maybe you can do something about it, all you have to do is convince the American people. Trump won 30 states, how many did your side win? LOL

30 Backwater misinformed foolish hopeless screwed again States...

Yup.....and if she runs...err...hobbles again in 2020, it'll be more than that.

 

[Papageorgio]

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

Is this the same Goldman Sachs that took TARP money because they mismanaged their money so bad that it cost taxpayers millions?

Please spare me their self serving BS.

 

[francoHFW]

Breaking for super dupes... Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI, the rich don't pay enough in taxes and it's Wrecking the country for 35 years now, and you brainwashed functional morons believe so much bulshit and misinformed character assassination it's ridiculous... You're joke a laughingstock and a horror around the world except in your imaginary GOP world. You didn't win a damn thing with Trump except getting screwed even more...

Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI,

Shit......dude.......don't bogart that joint.......

Who needs evidence, right, dupe? Comey says Hillary never lied- of course it's a conspiracy now LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

Is this the same Goldman Sachs that took TARP money because they mismanaged their money so bad that it cost taxpayers millions?

Please spare me their self serving BS.

The US Treasury made over $1.4 billion in profit from Goldman's TARP loan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Breaking for super dupes... Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI, the rich don't pay enough in taxes and it's Wrecking the country for 35 years now, and you brainwashed functional morons believe so much bulshit and misinformed character assassination it's ridiculous... You're joke a laughingstock and a horror around the world except in your imaginary GOP world. You didn't win a damn thing with Trump except getting screwed even more...

Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI,

Shit......dude.......don't bogart that joint.......

Who needs evidence, right, dupe? Comey says Hillary never lied- of course it's a conspiracy now LOL!

Are you talking about Hillary's criminally negligent mishandling of classified material?

 

[Winston]

How are tax hikes contractionary?

In the same way spending cuts are....except worse.

illogical. The government spends all the tax revenue it takes in. Tax hikes are not contractionary.

The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks

By Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer*

This paper investigates the impact of tax changes on economic activity. We use the narrative record, such as presidential speeches and Congressional reports, to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major postwar tax policy actions. This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes. (JEL E32, E62, H20, N12)

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf

LMAO. Romer and Romer, seriously?

This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary.

Now let me translate that for you. "allows us", wtf--no, what they did is picked and chose the data that would provide them with the conclusion they were looking for. Either a tax increase, or cut for that matter, was done for what they called "prospective economic conditions" or it was for "exogenous reasons". Tell me, can you provide a time when taxes were either increased or decreased for "exogenous reasons" and NOT due to economic conditions? And lo and behold, well it was only for those tax increases due to exogenous reasons that they determined were contractionary. If you take the time to break the study down you will find no real differences between the two subsets of data they were analyzing. It was a deeply flawed study.

Now, I will admit that there are times when tax increases can be contractionary. For instance, I noticed that by 2027 those earning less than thirty thousand a year will be looking at a collective tax increase of about eleven billion dollars under the current tax reform proposal. To the extent that any of that tax revenue is used to fund defense spending as opposed to being in the pocket of those low income families, well that is contractionary. Both the multiplier and the velocity of that money would be higher in the hands of the low income families.

But, in general, as I pointed out, the government spends all the money it takes in. Intuitively, if the citizens would have saved, and notice I said "SAVE" as opposed to invest, and we know you have no clue as to the difference, any of the revenue that is collected from a tax increase, then that tax increase, by definition, would be the opposite of contractionary. I will refer you to the Paradox of Thrift again.

LMAO. Romer and Romer, seriously?

You don't like liberal Dem sources? Seriously?

Supply siders. So no, I don't buy in to supply side economics. Say's Law is dead. And that particular white paper by Romer and Romer has been condemned by dozens of economists. Remember Angry Bear,

the Romers develop a data set based on observations they deem important, they further prune the data set in a manner that is at times inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary, and from there, they manage to show that tax cuts are good for the economy. Forgive me if I don’t believe it.

Angry Bear » A Further Critique of Romer and Romer

 

[Winston]

To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

Well, now we know the price of your ignorance...whatever it costs to be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

I'll await your link that backs up your claim.

No link needed. Don't you think that the wealthy will at least take a portion of their tax savings and purchase equities? That is saving. Will they buy a CD? That is saving. But maybe most of all, will they purchase Treasuries? That is saving. And honestly, that is the reason for the tax cuts. The wealthy prefer loaning the government money, AT INTEREST, over paying taxes. That is why the expanding deficits don't make a shit. It is an exchange of taxes for Treasuries.

All you need to prove DERP's claim is to show the savings rate of the rich before the Bush tax cuts and their savings rate after.

No, the savings rate is irrelevant. Remember, the government spends ALL the money it takes in. If the wealthy save ANY of their savings from a tax cut it makes that tax cut contractionary. Are you willing to make the argument that the wealthy do not save ANY of their savings from a tax cut?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

Well, now we know the price of your ignorance...whatever it costs to be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.

I'll await your link that backs up your claim.

No link needed. Don't you think that the wealthy will at least take a portion of their tax savings and purchase equities? That is saving. Will they buy a CD? That is saving. But maybe most of all, will they purchase Treasuries? That is saving. And honestly, that is the reason for the tax cuts. The wealthy prefer loaning the government money, AT INTEREST, over paying taxes. That is why the expanding deficits don't make a shit. It is an exchange of taxes for Treasuries.

All you need to prove DERP's claim is to show the savings rate of the rich before the Bush tax cuts and their savings rate after.

No, the savings rate is irrelevant. Remember, the government spends ALL the money it takes in. If the wealthy save ANY of their savings from a tax cut it makes that tax cut contractionary. Are you willing to make the argument that the wealthy do not save ANY of their savings from a tax cut?

No, the savings rate is irrelevant.

Not to DERP's claim.

Are you willing to make the argument that the wealthy do not save ANY of their savings from a tax cut?

Why would I do that?

 

[francoHFW]

Breaking for super dupes... Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI, the rich don't pay enough in taxes and it's Wrecking the country for 35 years now, and you brainwashed functional morons believe so much bulshit and misinformed character assassination it's ridiculous... You're joke a laughingstock and a horror around the world except in your imaginary GOP world. You didn't win a damn thing with Trump except getting screwed even more...

Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI,

Shit......dude.......don't bogart that joint.......

Who needs evidence, right, dupe? Comey says Hillary never lied- of course it's a conspiracy now LOL!

Are you talking about Hillary's criminally negligent mishandling of classified material?

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked, super dupe. All investigated and no problem, except on the total b*******GOP propaganda service...