independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[The Derp]

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.

That's because you're looking solely at the marginal income tax rates, and not all the other payroll, excise, and etc. taxes. I think you do that deliberately because tunneled, myopic vision is all you're capable of doing, or because you know that as soon as the conversation is actually detailed and expansive, your point falls apart.

So are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just a douchebag?

Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

From all the other taxes he raised to make up for the gap that came from cutting income taxes.

You know that, but are pretending you don't...I want to know why?

 

[The Derp]

Simple question, Winston...was Ronald Reagan a net tax raiser or did he lower over all taxes?

Not sure on either, but one thing's certain; he was a net debt and deficit raiser.

 

[Oldstyle]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business! Let me explain how it works in the real world, Sparky! If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit. I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit. If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

So, how is the weather in Ireland. I mean you own a business. Obviously you would choose the lowest corporate tax rate. So how is the weather in Ireland?

I'm retired and living in Florida and Costa Rica. If I still owned businesses I would do so in the locale that allowed me to make and RETAIN the most profit from that business! Doing so is what's given me the means to retire comfortably. If that locale was Ireland...that's where I'd invest. Why would anyone kill themselves working nonstop just to give most of what they make to government? Only an idiot would do so! It's quite obvious that Derp has never owned a business so he doesn't have to worry about profits or taxes on the rich because he'll never have any of the former and never become one of the latter!

So let me get this straight. You used to own nightclubs, including in states that have some pretty punitive income taxes. And you owned those clubs at a time when corporate taxes were higher than they are now if you did it as long as you said you did. Tell me, and be honest, what the tax rate was in the area where you opened a club didn't even factor into your decision did it? You opened clubs, it looks like in college and tourist towns, because there was a demand for the product you were peddling. I mean why didn't you open a club somewhere in Switzerland?. Or at least keep your clubs in states that didn't have an income tax. It would take a damn fool to open a club in Wilmington and pay income taxes when tey could open one in Myrtle Beach where there is no income tax.

North Carolina has a flat rate of 3%...the lowest in the country. Still think I was a "damn fool" to invest there?

Income tax? Pretty sure South Carolina and Tennessee didn't even have an income tax at that time. Tennessee doesn't have one today. Hell, why not Nevada, again NO income tax. Just be honest, taxes didn't play into your decision. At least if you a worth two shits as a business man. It was all about the market.

I'm talking corporate tax rates, Winston.

 

[Oldstyle]

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.

That's because you're looking solely at the marginal income tax rates, and not all the other payroll, excise, and etc. taxes. I think you do that deliberately because tunneled, myopic vision is all you're capable of doing, or because you know that as soon as the conversation is actually detailed and expansive, your point falls apart.

So are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just a douchebag?

Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

From all the other taxes he raised to make up for the gap that came from cutting income taxes.

You know that, but are pretending you don't...I want to know why?

So you're now claiming that Reagan was a net tax raiser? Back that claim up, Derp! Once again you're talking about things YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!

 

[The Derp]

I'm talking corporate tax rates, Winston.

So this is a clear-cut example of goalpost shifting. You didn't even breach that topic in the post to which Winston replied. Instead, you made a general statement that you then had to redefine in a subsequent post. That was by design, to give yourself the ability to weasel your way out of reconciling the shit you spew forth.

 

[Oldstyle]

Taxes will always be part of the decision of where I live and where I invest. Why do you think I chose Florida and not Massachusetts?

 

[Winston]

Stop. You've never owned a ******* business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.


For ****'s sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.


Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.


NO IT ******* ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.


I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

Stop right there. Yes, the higher the tax rate the more businesses are encouraged to invest IN their business. Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

Look, this whole argument was settled over thirty years ago. It was settled after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, hence the massive tax increase of 1983. All those "experts" attempting to perpetuate the false dream of "trickle down" know they are spewing nothing but propaganda. It is all about getting those tax cuts so that they can get more pie without making more pie. To be perfectly honest, the argument was settled over a hundred years ago back when it was called the horse and sparrow theory. You know, feed the horse enough oats some will come out on the street for the sparrows to eat.

I know this because I worked for Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Now I was just a lowly numbers cruncher, Econometrics was my forte. I was working for Andrew Benavie. See, when other kids went to band camp I went to Economics camp. I started my studies when I was 14. By the time I got to college I was well versed in the old school economic theory, from Xenophon to Adam Smith. This new Chicago School theory seemed to be a little sketchy. But I did what I was told, I crunched the numbers, and then I confidently pronounced it would not work.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down. The savings generate rents that suck the demand out of the economy. Classic, basic, Keynesian economics. I could not see a growth in demand that would stimulate the necessary investment. All I saw was an increase in the Marginal Propensity to Save and when you plug that increase into the Chicago school model the result is a contraction of GDP and a decline in tax revenue.

So Reagan, under the advice of his economic advisers, quickly reversed course and increased taxes not once, not twice, but three times. And, like a cat chasing it's tail, be borrowed, and he borrowed, and he borrowed some more in order to compensate for the lack of consumer demand and push out some growth in GDP.

Now the zealots tried. They talked about Say's Law, as if supply magically created it's own demand. And they claimed Keynes was dead. And then the Koch brothers started donating to Economics departments, they pretty much own the one at George Mason, and as a stipulation of their contributions, those universities started to require the reading of Ayn Rand's terribly written screed, Atlas Shrugged. Torture for anyone that enjoys fine literature. Now we have an entire generation of business and economics graduates that are absolutely clueless as to how the economy actually works. But make no mistake about it, those at the top, from the Kochs to Laffer to Rubin, they know trickle down doesn't work. They are con men, one and all, and you my friend, have been conned.

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

Oh yeah, Reagan raised taxes. Hell, he is dead and he is still raising them. Every year the income cap on Social Security taxes goes up, Reagan does that. And if it is an increase in rates you are looking for then look no further than both the OASDI and HI components of Social Security. He increased both of those rates. But I will give Reagan credit for one thing. He believed earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rate. He considered taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned income completely MORONIC. So let's fix that little problem, you know, WWRD. What would Ronnie Do.

Simple question, Winston...was Ronald Reagan a net tax raiser or did he lower over all taxes?

Net taxes as a percentage of GDP were higher when Reagan left office than when he entered office. About one point, and almost all of it due to his tax increase in 1982 that went in to effect in 1983.

 

[The Derp]

So you're now claiming that Reagan was a net tax raiser?

I never claimed such a thing! This is you trying to put words in my mouth because you're not steady in your own argument.

Whether or not he was a net tax raiser isn't something we can even figure out. One thing's for sure, though, he was a net debt and deficit raiser.

Back that claim up, Derp! Once again you're talking about things YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!

I'm not backing up a claim I never made. You are trying to force my position into a very narrow set of optics because you're not comfortable having a detailed discussion because you're too ******* lazy to do the work.

 

[The Derp]

Taxes will always be part of the decision of where I live and where I invest. Why do you think I chose Florida and not Massachusetts?

Because Florida has nice weather and Massachusetts is a snow-covered moonscape for 6 months of the year.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm talking corporate tax rates, Winston.

So this is a clear-cut example of goalpost shifting. You didn't even breach that topic in the post to which Winston replied. Instead, you made a general statement that you then had to redefine in a subsequent post. That was by design, to give yourself the ability to weasel your way out of reconciling the shit you spew forth.

Every single nightclub I've either managed or owned for nearly four decades has been incorporated, idiot child! I merely pointed out that the corporate tax in North Carolina was one of the lowest in the nation. How does THAT become moving the goal posts?

 

[The Derp]

Every single nightclub I've either managed or owned for nearly four decades has been incorporated, idiot child! I merely pointed out that the corporate tax in North Carolina was one of the lowest in the nation. How does THAT become moving the goal posts?

Stop. I do not believe you've ever owned a business. Your continued insistence that you did only strengthens my belief that you're posturing for the sake of your shitty argument.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're now claiming that Reagan was a net tax raiser?

I never claimed such a thing! This is you trying to put words in my mouth because you're not steady in your own argument.

Whether or not he was a net tax raiser isn't something we can even figure out. One thing's for sure, though, he was a net debt and deficit raiser.

Back that claim up, Derp! Once again you're talking about things YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!

I'm not backing up a claim I never made. You are trying to force my position into a very narrow set of optics because you're not comfortable having a detailed discussion because you're too ******* lazy to do the work.

LOL...so now it's impossible to figure out if Reagan raised taxes? You make that claim and then run from it? Let me guess...you Googled it and discovered that Reagan actually lowered taxes across the board?

 

[Winston]

Taxes will always be part of the decision of where I live and where I invest. Why do you think I chose Florida and not Massachusetts?

Not asking about where you live and where you invest. I am talking about where you chose to open your clubs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason.

Yeah, Democrats never do that.

Salisbury News: Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Wins Near-Billion Dollar California ‘High Speed Rail’ Contract

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

How long have we been fighting and how much have we spent on the Democrat "War on Poverty"?

 

[Winston]

Every single nightclub I've either managed or owned for nearly four decades has been incorporated, idiot child! I merely pointed out that the corporate tax in North Carolina was one of the lowest in the nation. How does THAT become moving the goal posts?

Oh, so you paid corporate taxes. Tell me, why did you have your clubs in the United States. Did you not know, we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country. Who gives a shit about the piddly ass state corporate tax rate. And North Carolina might have had a low corporate tax rate, but where did you get your alcohol? Did you get to shop around, did you have a good wholesaler? Remember, I live in North Carolina hoss. I know exactly where you got your alcohol. Pretty sure that more than made up for your low corporate tax rate. Nope, the state made some mad money on your club, probably more than you did. Don't seem that you factored in taxes whatsoever.

 

[The Derp]

LOL...so now it's impossible to figure out if Reagan raised taxes?

You asked about the net tax raise. I said I didn't know, and didn't think you could really figure that out. So now, once again, you shift the goalposts of what you meant. Before, you asked if I thought he was a net tax raiser. I said I didn't know. Then you came back in the next post and chopped off the "net" to just a tax raiser. I say, of course Reagan raised taxes. He did it at least three different times. But that's not the question you asked before. You changed it in the very next post.

Your problem is that you recognize your posts are shit, so that's why you constantly find yourself walking back what you said, or misrepresenting what someone else said...all so you don't have to own up to the fact that you're a zealot, and what you believe is shit.

You make that claim and then run from it? Let me guess...you Googled it and discovered that Reagan actually lowered taxes across the board?

He lowered the marginal income tax rate, but raised all sorts of excise and payroll taxes, a limited deductions, and so on and so forth. You are focusing on just the marginal income tax rates and representing them in a vacuum, outside of all the other non-income taxes he raised to make up for the gap from the income tax cut.

You know this, of course, but are just acting like a piece of shit because you are insecure and helpless.

 

[The Derp]

Oh, so you paid corporate taxes. Tell me, why did you have your clubs in the United States. Did you not know, we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country. Who gives a shit about the piddly ass state corporate tax rate. And North Carolina might have had a low corporate tax rate, but where did you get your alcohol? Did you get to shop around, did you have a good wholesaler? Remember, I live in North Carolina hoss. I know exactly where you got your alcohol. Pretty sure that more than made up for your low corporate tax rate. Nope, the state made some mad money on your club, probably more than you did. Don't seem that you factored in taxes whatsoever.

That's because he never owned a club. Never ran one. Never started one. He is just pretending he did for the sake of his shit argument.

Thing is, we all know it's shit. Even he does.

 

[Oldstyle]

Taxes will always be part of the decision of where I live and where I invest. Why do you think I chose Florida and not Massachusetts?

Not asking about where you live and where you invest. I am talking about where you chose to open your clubs.[/QUOTE

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

Stop right there. Yes, the higher the tax rate the more businesses are encouraged to invest IN their business. Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

Look, this whole argument was settled over thirty years ago. It was settled after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, hence the massive tax increase of 1983. All those "experts" attempting to perpetuate the false dream of "trickle down" know they are spewing nothing but propaganda. It is all about getting those tax cuts so that they can get more pie without making more pie. To be perfectly honest, the argument was settled over a hundred years ago back when it was called the horse and sparrow theory. You know, feed the horse enough oats some will come out on the street for the sparrows to eat.

I know this because I worked for Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Now I was just a lowly numbers cruncher, Econometrics was my forte. I was working for Andrew Benavie. See, when other kids went to band camp I went to Economics camp. I started my studies when I was 14. By the time I got to college I was well versed in the old school economic theory, from Xenophon to Adam Smith. This new Chicago School theory seemed to be a little sketchy. But I did what I was told, I crunched the numbers, and then I confidently pronounced it would not work.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down. The savings generate rents that suck the demand out of the economy. Classic, basic, Keynesian economics. I could not see a growth in demand that would stimulate the necessary investment. All I saw was an increase in the Marginal Propensity to Save and when you plug that increase into the Chicago school model the result is a contraction of GDP and a decline in tax revenue.

So Reagan, under the advice of his economic advisers, quickly reversed course and increased taxes not once, not twice, but three times. And, like a cat chasing it's tail, be borrowed, and he borrowed, and he borrowed some more in order to compensate for the lack of consumer demand and push out some growth in GDP.

Now the zealots tried. They talked about Say's Law, as if supply magically created it's own demand. And they claimed Keynes was dead. And then the Koch brothers started donating to Economics departments, they pretty much own the one at George Mason, and as a stipulation of their contributions, those universities started to require the reading of Ayn Rand's terribly written screed, Atlas Shrugged. Torture for anyone that enjoys fine literature. Now we have an entire generation of business and economics graduates that are absolutely clueless as to how the economy actually works. But make no mistake about it, those at the top, from the Kochs to Laffer to Rubin, they know trickle down doesn't work. They are con men, one and all, and you my friend, have been conned.

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

Oh yeah, Reagan raised taxes. Hell, he is dead and he is still raising them. Every year the income cap on Social Security taxes goes up, Reagan does that. And if it is an increase in rates you are looking for then look no further than both the OASDI and HI components of Social Security. He increased both of those rates. But I will give Reagan credit for one thing. He believed earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rate. He considered taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned income completely MORONIC. So let's fix that little problem, you know, WWRD. What would Ronnie Do.

Simple question, Winston...was Ronald Reagan a net tax raiser or did he lower over all taxes?

Net taxes as a percentage of GDP were higher when Reagan left office than when he entered office. About one point, and almost all of it due to his tax increase in 1982 that went in to effect in 1983.

I'd love to see that claim backed up by something Winston...

 

[The Derp]

How long have we been fighting and how much have we spent on the Democrat "War on Poverty"?

It worked, as poverty rates declined through the 60's and 70's. It wasn't until you assholes got power that the poverty rate started increasing. Funny how that is; Conservatives get power and immediately people enter poverty. It's almost as if Conservative policies are designed to perpetuate and inflate poverty to force a conversation about the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs...

 

[The Derp]

I'd love to see that claim backed up by something Winston..

Even if he provides it, would you accept it? Doesn't seem like you would to me. I don't see you getting this data from Winston, then turning around in the next post and admitting you've been trying to con us this whole time, that you're not what you claim to be, and all this is just an exercise to pad your delicate, fragile ego.

Yeah, not bloody likely you'll own up to your flaws, faults, and arrogance.