Progressive Propaganda: The Tax Edition

[bendog]

Trump is on track to smash Obama's spending record.

This thread is not about spending. If you want to discuss spending, start a thread about that. But don't hijack this one. You will be reported for one more idiotic outburst about a topic that is not being discussed here. Moron.

You can't talk tax cuts without talking spending. To try and do so is simply a lie, because the issue is DEFICITS and GROWTH. The tax cut was sold as being so wonderful that growth would more than make up for any new deficits. Aside from spot and isolated receipts, nothing shows that is true. Moreover, the ORIGINAL gop idea was a tax cut for working families in an expansion of the child tax credit. That was tossed overboard because the 1% will not have any tax cut that does not predominantly help them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is simply indisputable - low taxes are good for businesses, the economy, and individuals.

Pro-growth reforms like tax cuts and regulatory reforms give businesses the incentive to invest and plan long term.

Low Unemployment Rate Proves Pro-Growth Policies Work

LOL, I suggest you enroll in a couple of courses in Econ. Low unemployment is inflationary. Every heard of the Phillips Curve? I figured not. As a good liberal and always willing to help in the education of an ignoramus, see this link:

How Inflation and Unemployment Are Related

Low unemployment is inflationary

No it isn't.

Every heard of the Phillips Curve?

Ever heard of Milton Friedman?
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"

Explain the quote.

If the money supply isn't expanding, you can't have inflation.
So, for instance, oil could go to $1000 a barrel, but without an increase in the money supply,
other prices would have to fall. Net inflation would be zero. < massive oversimplification

 

[Winston]

Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie. And the left knows it too. But they are more interested in getting their hands on your money than they are in prosperity.

Many U.S.-based multinationals are finding luck with Ireland’s low corporate tax rate—and that 12.5% rate has been a pot of gold for the Irish economy as well.

In 2015, the Irish economy was estimated to have grown by 26.3% through foreign companies opening operations and providing high-paying jobs, including about 700 U.S. companies currently operating in the country.

The indisputable, undeniable fact is that low taxes brings in businesses, creates jobs, and stimulates considerable economic growth and GDP.

Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

Q. Since this has been tried before, and failed, why would anyone believe the same thing done again will trickle down this time

A. Those who are insane, apparently.

The Bill pushed by Ryan, and signed by Trump is a shame, and exposes what many of us already know and knew, that Plutocrats supported Trump, and will continue to support him because it is good for their pocket book, and Ryan saw the writing on the wall and will end up in a high six figure job in one of the private sector think tanks or Wall Street Firms, which benefit from the Bill; and they will find ways to keep the largess given to them and not use it to, "stimulate considerable economic growth and GDP".

T&R were slick, as are most con men, they give a few hundred dollars in year one, a little less in year two, and by year three - after the 2020 election, when States Raise taxes, and inflation continues to rise, the poor biddable fools will finally see they were screwed when the see their tax bill in 2021.

Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.

You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.

Of course it is.

What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?

Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.

Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*

What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.

By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.

Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.

So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.

Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?

Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.

You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

 

[bendog]

It is simply indisputable - low taxes are good for businesses, the economy, and individuals.

Pro-growth reforms like tax cuts and regulatory reforms give businesses the incentive to invest and plan long term.

Low Unemployment Rate Proves Pro-Growth Policies Work

LOL, I suggest you enroll in a couple of courses in Econ. Low unemployment is inflationary. Every heard of the Phillips Curve? I figured not. As a good liberal and always willing to help in the education of an ignoramus, see this link:

How Inflation and Unemployment Are Related

Low unemployment is inflationary

No it isn't.

Every heard of the Phillips Curve?

Ever heard of Milton Friedman?
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"

Explain the quote.

If the money supply isn't expanding, you can't have inflation.
So, for instance, oil could go to $1000 a barrel, but without an increase in the money supply,
other prices would have to fall. Net inflation would be zero. < massive oversimplification

ummm, no, not absolutely. The correlation is imprecise. Moreover, you miss the entire issue. If the number of dollars necessary to service the debt increases, we either will have deflation because fewer dollars are available for spending on new products, or we will have to increase the money supply. And as you do correctly note if we simply increased the money supply to cover increase in the number of dollars going to debt service, then we would have inflation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The left-wing propaganda has been obliterated by reality...

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April

Please stop it! You want to talk about propaganda? We have already established that the Investors Business Daily is propaganda at best. This is only one side of the story, if it is even true. The fact is that the deficit is skyrocketing on a monthly basis and, long term, the debt will as well. That is why you don't want to talk about the deficit and the debt. The reality does not fit your narrative. But, here it is, in your face:

Rising federal debt: US budget deficit rose 18.4% in March

WASHINGTON — The federal government recorded a budget deficit of $208.7 billion in March, an increase of more than $32 billion from a year ago as revenues slipped and expenditures climbed.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit was 18.4% higher than a year ago, largely due to increased expenditures on benefits for the military, veterans and recipients of supplemental security income as well as higher Medicare payments because April expenses were paid in March.

For the first five months of this budget year, the deficit has totaled $599.7 billion. This is an increase of 13.8% from the same period a year ago.

Stop the lies!

Lies are prolific across the board by Trump apologists and supporters. Damn lies, cherry picked statistics, rumors, innuendos and character assassination are the tools used by those who: Hate Obama, hate liberals and progressives, hate Democrats (in fact, hate democracy), and hate government; unless the government does something which benefits them, either emotionally or in terms of their own benefit, with no consideration for anyone else who might suffer from the same policy or law.

 

[P@triot]

This is only one side of the story, if it is even true. The fact is that the deficit is skyrocketing on a monthly basis and, long term, the debt will as well.

As we’ve already established, that is not because of the tax cuts. Revenues to the government have increased because of the tax cuts. We have a spending problem. Period. End of story.

And, as I previously stated, stick to the discussion about taxes. This thread is NOT about deficits or debt. Start your own thread about that topic if that is what you want to discuss.

 

[P@triot]

Hate Obama, hate liberals and progressives, hate Democrats (in fact, hate democracy), and hate government

The question is - why don’t you hate those things? Barack Insane Obama pissed all over the U.S. Constitution, ran up the highest debts of any president in U.S. history, and ran the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Only an anti-American, radical lunatic wouldn’t hate him.

And why don’t you hate liberals/progressives/Democrats? These are people who are devout fascists, work hard to strip people of their constitutional rights, and who resort to violence when they don’t get their way.

As far as government - what conservatives hate is unconstitutional government. Any decent, informed, intelligent American should hate that. The only one’s who don’t are the parasites who are able to mooch off of society due to the unconstitutional government.

 

[P@triot]

People like you and me that buy his products.

Right. And? You still seem to have ZERO point here. Bill Gates has spent a gabillion times the money that you have buying products (which is what I said previously and is 100% true).

Also, keep in mind that we wouldn’t have the product to buy if it wasn’t for Bill Gates producing it. What the left completely fails to understand is that it is neither a “supply” nor “demand” economy. It is an innovation economy. People invent goods and services based on needs they see that can be filled and then they can only sustain the availability of those goods and services based on efficiencies.

If it were merely a “demand” economy (as the left laughably wants people to believe), then Toys R Us wouldn’t have gone out of business. There is a HUGE demand for toys all over the U.S. But Toys R Us failed to continue to provide their product in an efficient, cost effective manner.

 

[P@triot]

The tax cut was sold as being so wonderful that growth would more than make up for any new deficits. Aside from spot and isolated receipts, nothing shows that is true.

Thank you for proving the premise of this thread 100% true (that progressives lie about tax policy).

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie. And the left knows it too. But they are more interested in getting their hands on your money than they are in prosperity.

Many U.S.-based multinationals are finding luck with Ireland’s low corporate tax rate—and that 12.5% rate has been a pot of gold for the Irish economy as well.

In 2015, the Irish economy was estimated to have grown by 26.3% through foreign companies opening operations and providing high-paying jobs, including about 700 U.S. companies currently operating in the country.

The indisputable, undeniable fact is that low taxes brings in businesses, creates jobs, and stimulates considerable economic growth and GDP.

Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

Q. Since this has been tried before, and failed, why would anyone believe the same thing done again will trickle down this time

A. Those who are insane, apparently.

The Bill pushed by Ryan, and signed by Trump is a shame, and exposes what many of us already know and knew, that Plutocrats supported Trump, and will continue to support him because it is good for their pocket book, and Ryan saw the writing on the wall and will end up in a high six figure job in one of the private sector think tanks or Wall Street Firms, which benefit from the Bill; and they will find ways to keep the largess given to them and not use it to, "stimulate considerable economic growth and GDP".

T&R were slick, as are most con men, they give a few hundred dollars in year one, a little less in year two, and by year three - after the 2020 election, when States Raise taxes, and inflation continues to rise, the poor biddable fools will finally see they were screwed when the see their tax bill in 2021.

Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.

You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.

Of course it is.

What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?

Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.

Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*

What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.

By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.

Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.

So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.

Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?

Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.

You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is simply indisputable - low taxes are good for businesses, the economy, and individuals.
Low Unemployment Rate Proves Pro-Growth Policies Work

LOL, I suggest you enroll in a couple of courses in Econ. Low unemployment is inflationary. Every heard of the Phillips Curve? I figured not. As a good liberal and always willing to help in the education of an ignoramus, see this link:

How Inflation and Unemployment Are Related

Low unemployment is inflationary

No it isn't.

Every heard of the Phillips Curve?

Ever heard of Milton Friedman?
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"

Explain the quote.

If the money supply isn't expanding, you can't have inflation.
So, for instance, oil could go to $1000 a barrel, but without an increase in the money supply,
other prices would have to fall. Net inflation would be zero. < massive oversimplification

ummm, no, not absolutely. The correlation is imprecise. Moreover, you miss the entire issue. If the number of dollars necessary to service the debt increases, we either will have deflation because fewer dollars are available for spending on new products, or we will have to increase the money supply. And as you do correctly note if we simply increased the money supply to cover increase in the number of dollars going to debt service, then we would have inflation.

The correlation is imprecise.

Of course it's imprecise.

If the number of dollars necessary to service the debt increases, we either will have deflation because fewer dollars are available for spending on new products,

Do you feel that money paid as interest disappears? That it's not available for the lender to spend?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is only one side of the story, if it is even true. The fact is that the deficit is skyrocketing on a monthly basis and, long term, the debt will as well.

As we’ve already established, that is not because of the tax cuts. Revenues to the government have increased because of the tax cuts. We have a spending problem. Period. End of story.

And, as I previously stated, stick to the discussion about taxes. This thread is NOT about deficits or debt. Start your own thread about that topic if that is what you want to discuss.

OK I'll indulge you for now. Revenue has been increasing every year -not due to tax cuts but because the economy is growing

What Is the Current Fiscal Year?

In fact, there is much historical evidence that tax cuts DO NOT increase revenues

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue? No, History Shows the Opposite

In addition:

Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

The government's annual income will only pay for 88 percent of spending, creating a $985 billion budget deficit. Shouldn't Congress only spend what it earns, just like you and me? It depends. Deficit spending boosts economic growth in a recession. That's when the government steps in to create jobs with stimulus spending.

Once the recession is over, the government should live within its means and spend less. It should raise taxes, if needed, to reduce the deficit and the debt. That will keep the economy from overheating and forming dangerous bubbles. It should switch from expansionary to contractionary fiscal policy.

You cannot talk about taxes and revenue without talking about the debt and the entire economy, as much as you want to avoid the subjects that you cant deal with

 

[Andylusion]

Poodle lives in fear at night that his boss he fetches coffee for might have to pay his fair share in taxes.

Almost half the country doesn't pay any income tax. What exactly is 'fair' about this?

Again, if the boss has zero profits, you'll be unemployed. There went your "fair share".

 

[Andylusion]

Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

You mean it's made the rich richer...

The rest of the world doesn't practice "Trickle Down'. The rich pay their fair share and they aren't allowed to loot their countries, which is why the Great Recession wasn't as bad there as it was here.

Really? So if I go to France, and see an employed person there, he isn't working for a rich man? Why yes he is.
The rest of the world does play trickle down. Name one that doesn't, and I'll look it up and see. Want to place a wager on this? Put your money where your ignorant mouth is?

 

[bendog]

This is only one side of the story, if it is even true. The fact is that the deficit is skyrocketing on a monthly basis and, long term, the debt will as well.

As we’ve already established, that is not because of the tax cuts. Revenues to the government have increased because of the tax cuts. We have a spending problem. Period. End of story.

And, as I previously stated, stick to the discussion about taxes. This thread is NOT about deficits or debt. Start your own thread about that topic if that is what you want to discuss.

But the gop's REASON for tax cuts was to reduce the deficit

 

[bendog]

The tax cut was sold as being so wonderful that growth would more than make up for any new deficits. Aside from spot and isolated receipts, nothing shows that is true.

Thank you for proving the premise of this thread 100% true (that progressives lie about tax policy).

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April

let's not cherry pick.

 

[Winston]

Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie. And the left knows it too. But they are more interested in getting their hands on your money than they are in prosperity.

Many U.S.-based multinationals are finding luck with Ireland’s low corporate tax rate—and that 12.5% rate has been a pot of gold for the Irish economy as well.

In 2015, the Irish economy was estimated to have grown by 26.3% through foreign companies opening operations and providing high-paying jobs, including about 700 U.S. companies currently operating in the country.

The indisputable, undeniable fact is that low taxes brings in businesses, creates jobs, and stimulates considerable economic growth and GDP.

Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

Q. Since this has been tried before, and failed, why would anyone believe the same thing done again will trickle down this time

A. Those who are insane, apparently.

The Bill pushed by Ryan, and signed by Trump is a shame, and exposes what many of us already know and knew, that Plutocrats supported Trump, and will continue to support him because it is good for their pocket book, and Ryan saw the writing on the wall and will end up in a high six figure job in one of the private sector think tanks or Wall Street Firms, which benefit from the Bill; and they will find ways to keep the largess given to them and not use it to, "stimulate considerable economic growth and GDP".

T&R were slick, as are most con men, they give a few hundred dollars in year one, a little less in year two, and by year three - after the 2020 election, when States Raise taxes, and inflation continues to rise, the poor biddable fools will finally see they were screwed when the see their tax bill in 2021.

Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.

You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.

Of course it is.

What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?

Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.

Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*

What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.

By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.

Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.

So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.

Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?

Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.

You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.

We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie. And the left knows it too. But they are more interested in getting their hands on your money than they are in prosperity.
The indisputable, undeniable fact is that low taxes brings in businesses, creates jobs, and stimulates considerable economic growth and GDP.

Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

Q. Since this has been tried before, and failed, why would anyone believe the same thing done again will trickle down this time

A. Those who are insane, apparently.

The Bill pushed by Ryan, and signed by Trump is a shame, and exposes what many of us already know and knew, that Plutocrats supported Trump, and will continue to support him because it is good for their pocket book, and Ryan saw the writing on the wall and will end up in a high six figure job in one of the private sector think tanks or Wall Street Firms, which benefit from the Bill; and they will find ways to keep the largess given to them and not use it to, "stimulate considerable economic growth and GDP".

T&R were slick, as are most con men, they give a few hundred dollars in year one, a little less in year two, and by year three - after the 2020 election, when States Raise taxes, and inflation continues to rise, the poor biddable fools will finally see they were screwed when the see their tax bill in 2021.

Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.

You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.

Of course it is.

What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?

Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.

Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*

What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.

By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.

Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.

So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.

Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?

Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.

You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.

We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.

Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.
​

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,​

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.
​

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. ​

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

​

 

[Andylusion]

Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie. And the left knows it too. But they are more interested in getting their hands on your money than they are in prosperity.
The indisputable, undeniable fact is that low taxes brings in businesses, creates jobs, and stimulates considerable economic growth and GDP.

Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

Q. Since this has been tried before, and failed, why would anyone believe the same thing done again will trickle down this time

A. Those who are insane, apparently.

The Bill pushed by Ryan, and signed by Trump is a shame, and exposes what many of us already know and knew, that Plutocrats supported Trump, and will continue to support him because it is good for their pocket book, and Ryan saw the writing on the wall and will end up in a high six figure job in one of the private sector think tanks or Wall Street Firms, which benefit from the Bill; and they will find ways to keep the largess given to them and not use it to, "stimulate considerable economic growth and GDP".

T&R were slick, as are most con men, they give a few hundred dollars in year one, a little less in year two, and by year three - after the 2020 election, when States Raise taxes, and inflation continues to rise, the poor biddable fools will finally see they were screwed when the see their tax bill in 2021.

Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.

Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.

You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.

Of course it is.

What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?

Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.

Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*

What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.

By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.

Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.

So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.

Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?

Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.

You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",

Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.

And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.

Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.

You finally got one right.

We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.

The problem is, in a true free-market, no one could engage in rent seeking. It would not be impossible.

Take for example, ethanol. There is only one reason an ethanol industry exists, and that's because the government makes it exist. There are cheaper, safer, and better quality alternatives to Ethanol as a fuel additive.

The only reason petrol companies use Ethanol, is because the government mandates it. Thus this is rent seeking. The industry is able to force on consumers the cost, and lower quality additive, only because government mandates such rent seeking to happen.

In a real free-market, no one would pay a premium for an inferior product.

I'd be curious to read anything you would like to link to, on the supposed non-compete for former walmart stores.
First, because I happen to actually know of two former walmart stores, that are now other things.
Second because most of the walmart stores I know about are owned by the company, and I can't image someone buying a walmart property, only to have it be rendered un-usable by a non-compete agreement. That sounds like a really large, and expensive lawsuit against Walmart.

That said, I am generally against non-compete agreements, because they are inherently anti-free-market.

That's not what a free-market is about. In fact, originally the entire legal reason for having a ban on non-compete agreements, was specifically because it was a restraint on trade.
Non-compete clause - Wikipedia

You can look it up elsewhere, but it's still a known fact, that non-competes are an anti-capitalist free-market policy.

So any anti-capitalist or anti-free-market argument that involves non-competes, and Intellectually property rights, is in my book an automatic failed argument. You are looking at government encroachment in the market and capitalism, as being a reason for why markets and capitalism don't work? No that's a bad argument.

The drug market is a perfect example. In a real true free-market, there would be no way to "buy up" all the competition, because without patents and intellectual property law, there would be no way to prevent someone else from opening a company to offer the medication. You can't do that in a free-market.

Only with help of government intervention, can prevent others from offering a competing product.

This is why the right-wing finds the left-wing ideology so ridiculous. You look at the effects of bad government policy, and then complain we need even more bad government policy to fix the problems your bad policies created.

If we deregulated the entire pharm-industry, the prices across the entire world, would fall like a rock as other companies found ways to provide the same products at lower prices. Instead with all your idiotic regulations and controls, it's possible for one company to buy ALL the competing products, and then you say "free-markets are not working!"???? RIDICULOUS.

Just flat out ridiculous.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Stock buy backs are there for many reasons. It's not up to you, some random unconnected person, to determine what a company does with it's own money.

It is up to the shareholders. If the shareholders approve of the company using money to buy back stocks.... that's their company. They are the ones who own it. They are the ones who approve of the use of that money. Not you.

Do I come and demand you use your money for more productive purposes than to be on a forum complaining about stock buy backs? No. So to sum up what my parents, and all good parents should teach their kids.... "Nonya".

It's not rent seeking. You are not forced to buy products from that company. If a company actually spent all their money doing stock buy backs, and nothing on improving themselves, the result would be that we would buy stuff from a different company. The reason we keep buying from Walmart, even with their stock buy backs, is because it's a good place to shop for cheap goods.

Like I said before, Walmart spent over ten Billion each of the last three years, in capital investment in the US.

Again, even if they didn't. It's the shareholders of the company, that own the company, that determine what the company should, or shouldn't be involved in. Not you, unless you are a shareholder. I actually am, and I'm very happy with how Walmart is operating.

Lastly, I'm always a little baffled by the complain about stock options, and stock manipulation. You understand that not giving a CEO, or executive, a stock option, does not save the company money. Nor does giving a stock option, cost the company money.

When a CEO sells stock in the company, that he received as compensation, where does that money come from?

It comes from whoever buys the stock, from the CEO. Not the company.

Again, if you complain about the stock buy back, that's on shareholders, not the CEO. But even then, most stock options have a time limit before they can be sold. Meaning, it's not like they can give the CEO $10 Million in stock, and then have a $10 Million buy back the next month, and have that affect the value of the CEOs stock.

Most of the time they have to be vested before they can sell the stock. I have read that average vesting period is over 6 years.

Regardless, it still isn't rent seeking, because no one is being forced to pay for it. You don't have to buy anything from Walmart.

 

[Andylusion]

The tax cut was sold as being so wonderful that growth would more than make up for any new deficits. Aside from spot and isolated receipts, nothing shows that is true.

Thank you for proving the premise of this thread 100% true (that progressives lie about tax policy).

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April

let's not cherry pick.

The claim from the left wing, is that if you cut taxes, revenue goes down, resulting in a deficit.

That is a true, or false, statement.

Trump cut taxes? True.
Revenue is at a record high? True.

Tax cuts cause revenue to decline. True or False?

False.

It's that simple.