Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[The Derp]

Consumer demand rises when consumers have more available expendable income. Like, when they get more money on their paychecks because we lowered their taxes!

Lowering corporate profit tax doesn't put one dime more into the wages of workers.

 

[Boss]

Seems like you're trying to seek out a red herring or semantic argument. Call them whatever you want; the rich, the wealthy, the 1%. My point remains unchanged.

Again, the "rich/wealthy/1%" mostly don't have earned taxable incomes. They've already earned their incomes and paid taxes on them, that's how they became wealthy!

You are conflating the wealthy with people who happen to report high taxable incomes. Most of those people are not in the 1% and a large swath are small business owners who report their business income on their individual tax returns.

I'm not trying to argue semantics or a red herring, I'm trying to correct you on a misnomer you seem to not be able to comprehend.... We do not tax WEALTH in America! Never have! We tax earned incomes! You are falsely assuming a high earned income equals wealth and it simply doesn't. I could be $100 million in debt and have a top marginal taxable income... I'm not ******* rich!

 

[The Derp]

I'm interested in corporate behavior at the moment.

A corporation isn't going to determine whether or not it expands and invests after the profit's been taxed. That determination is made prior. Anyone who has ever worked for, owned, or been tangentially connected to a business knows this.

d the middle class. And pension plans..

No, it doesn't. Less than half of all Americans have a 401k, and the average 401k amount for Americans aged 55-64 is merely $72,000. So a 1/10 of 1% change in the share price isn't going to help them. And we've had record stock market growth the last 8 years that hasn't helped those middle class consumers. So the entire premise of your argument is disproved by the realities of today.

It's true, cutting their corporate tax rate has been very helpful.

Obviously not, since the growth over the last three years was shit, and the unemployment rate is higher than that of the UK and USSA

The EU has been whining about Ireland's unfairly low tax rates for decades. Why?

Because the low corporate tax rate isn't helping spur growth in Ireland or in the EU. As we saw from the GDP growth from 2014-today, Ireland's GDP growth is wildly inconsistent and contains three instances where quarterly growth was negative. Also, when was that link of yours? Was it recent? Or is it, as I suspect, an outdated thing you're misrepresenting here? It seems to have mysteriously vanished from this thread. Hmmm.

If you wanted to see the results of their tax cut, you'd post info from years before and years after.

"The years after" I posted and the results show shitty growth, with three quarters of negative growth over the last three years. This is how we determine the effects of your shit policies...by looking at the state of things today. Today, Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than the UK. Today, Ireland's growth is shit. Today is the result of yesterday, correct? Time is linear, is it not? So you're going to argue that we should ignore the effects on the economy today because x amount of years ago, there may have been growth?

All you're saying is "don't look at Ireland today or even the last 12 quarters because it unfairly shows that the policies I support are crap".

Which Presidents haven't seen record highs in the market and corporate profits over an 8 year period?

Bush the Dumber, Bush the Elder. In fact, didn't Reagan's final year end with the S&L Crisis? So that was a hit to corporate profits.

Seriously? LOL!

So this is just another instance of you spamming the board.

 

[The Derp]

I'm interested in corporate behavior at the moment.

A corporation isn't going to determine whether or not it expands and invests after the profit's been taxed. That determination is made prior. Anyone who has ever worked for, owned, or been tangentially connected to a business knows this.

d the middle class. And pension plans..

No, it doesn't. Less than half of all Americans have a 401k, and the average 401k amount for Americans aged 55-64 is merely $72,000. So a 1/10 of 1% change in the share price isn't going to help them. And we've had record stock market growth the last 8 years that hasn't helped those middle class consumers. So the entire premise of your argument is disproved by the realities of today.

It's true, cutting their corporate tax rate has been very helpful.

Obviously not, since the growth over the last three years was shit, and the unemployment rate is higher than that of the UK and USSA

The EU has been whining about Ireland's unfairly low tax rates for decades. Why?

Because the low corporate tax rate isn't helping spur growth in Ireland or in the EU. As we saw from the GDP growth from 2014-today, Ireland's GDP growth is wildly inconsistent and contains three instances where quarterly growth was negative. Also, when was that link of yours? Was it recent? Or is it, as I suspect, an outdated thing you're misrepresenting here?

In fact, here's Ireland's GDP growth rate stretching back 10 years. It's still fuckin' shit no matter how you look at it, and still producing multiple quarters of negative growth. I count at least 13 quarters over the last 10 years where Ireland's growth was negative:

If you wanted to see the results of their tax cut, you'd post info from years before and years after.

First of all, why don't you post that shit since it's your point you're flailing at defending here?

So the tax cuts aren't currently still in effect? But you just posted before that they were. So what difference does it make looking 5, 10, 15, 20 years back if the current state of Ireland's economy -still under those policies- is shit today? If anything, now we're seeing the long-term effect of corporate tax cuts and it's not good.

You want us to look at it in a vacuum. Fine. Even when I do that, the growth is still shit.​

 

[The Derp]

Do people save more when the economy is doing well, or when the economy sucks?

The economy does not do well following a tax cut. So the underlying premise of your question is a false assumption. Toi answert your question; people tend to save more when the economy isn't doing as well...that's why when an economy contracts, government spending must fill the void created by a drop in consumer demand and increased savings rate.

 

[The Derp]

Yes they are lib

You saying it doesn't make it so, comrade.

 

[The Derp]

Again, the "rich/wealthy/1%" mostly don't have earned taxable incomes. They've already earned their incomes and paid taxes on them, that's how they became wealthy!

So you're saying the 1% didn't earn their income. No argument from me on that. So since they didn't earn it, why the **** should they get a tax cut?

You are conflating the wealthy with people who happen to report high taxable incomes. Most of those people are not in the 1% and a large swath are small business owners who report their business income on their individual tax returns.

As pass-through entities, correct? So cutting or eliminating the tax on pass-through, which has been a part of this current bill and was a part of the Kansas tax cuts too (that failed), creates jobs and growth, how? Because that was the argument y'all made in Kansas, and that turned out to be a crock.

I'm not trying to argue semantics or a red herring, I'm trying to correct you on a misnomer you seem to not be able to comprehend.... We do not tax WEALTH in America! Never have! We tax earned incomes! You are falsely assuming a high earned income equals wealth and it simply doesn't. I could be $100 million in debt and have a top marginal taxable income... I'm not ******* rich!

So this is all just a bunch of bullshit intended to take away from the garbage policy you support.

 

[BluesLegend]

Yes they are lib

You saying it doesn't make it so, comrade.

You have nothing to say about president Kennedy advocating tax cuts do you, of course not I predicted nothing but crickets from the left on this.

 

[The Derp]

You have nothing to say about president Kennedy advocating tax cuts do you, of course not I predicted nothing but crickets from the left on this.

Advocating?

LBJ is the one who passed the tax cut, and he also increased spending by 50% and put Medicare and Medicaid in place.

If you want to return to the tax rates during LBJ, I'm all for it. Otherwise, you're making a sophist argument.

 

[BluesLegend]

You have nothing to say about president Kennedy advocating tax cuts do you, of course not I predicted nothing but crickets from the left on this.

Advocating?

LBJ is the one who passed the tax cut, and he also increased spending by 50% and put Medicare and Medicaid in place.

If you want to return to the tax rates during LBJ, I'm all for it. Otherwise, you're making a sophist argument.

Yes advocating do you have a reading comprehension problem JFK STRONGLY ADVOCATED for tax cuts hello earth to Derp.

 

[The Derp]

Yes advocating do you have a reading comprehension problem JFK STRONGLY ADVOCATED for tax cuts hello earth to Derp.

He advocated for the top tax rate to be cut to 70%. And it was. If you want to return to that rate, I'm all for it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm interested in corporate behavior at the moment.

A corporation isn't going to determine whether or not it expands and invests after the profit's been taxed. That determination is made prior. Anyone who has ever worked for, owned, or been tangentially connected to a business knows this.

d the middle class. And pension plans..

No, it doesn't. Less than half of all Americans have a 401k, and the average 401k amount for Americans aged 55-64 is merely $72,000. So a 1/10 of 1% change in the share price isn't going to help them. And we've had record stock market growth the last 8 years that hasn't helped those middle class consumers. So the entire premise of your argument is disproved by the realities of today.

It's true, cutting their corporate tax rate has been very helpful.

Obviously not, since the growth over the last three years was shit, and the unemployment rate is higher than that of the UK and USSA

The EU has been whining about Ireland's unfairly low tax rates for decades. Why?

Because the low corporate tax rate isn't helping spur growth in Ireland or in the EU. As we saw from the GDP growth from 2014-today, Ireland's GDP growth is wildly inconsistent and contains three instances where quarterly growth was negative. Also, when was that link of yours? Was it recent? Or is it, as I suspect, an outdated thing you're misrepresenting here? It seems to have mysteriously vanished from this thread. Hmmm.

If you wanted to see the results of their tax cut, you'd post info from years before and years after.

"The years after" I posted and the results show shitty growth, with three quarters of negative growth over the last three years. This is how we determine the effects of your shit policies...by looking at the state of things today. Today, Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than the UK. Today, Ireland's growth is shit. Today is the result of yesterday, correct? Time is linear, is it not? So you're going to argue that we should ignore the effects on the economy today because x amount of years ago, there may have been growth?

All you're saying is "don't look at Ireland today or even the last 12 quarters because it unfairly shows that the policies I support are crap".

Which Presidents haven't seen record highs in the market and corporate profits over an 8 year period?

Bush the Dumber, Bush the Elder. In fact, didn't Reagan's final year end with the S&L Crisis? So that was a hit to corporate profits.

Seriously? LOL!

So this is just another instance of you spamming the board.

A corporation isn't going to determine whether or not it expands and invests after the profit's been taxed.

LOL!

No, it doesn't. Less than half of all Americans have a 401k,

Just the 1%ers, eh?

So a 1/10 of 1% change in the share price isn't going to help them.

Increasing after tax profit by 23% will only increase prices by 0.1%? Why?

Obviously not, since the growth over the last three years was shit,

Why are you looking at the last 3 years instead of 3 years before and 3 years after they cut?

Today, Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than the UK. Today, Ireland's growth is shit. Today is the result of yesterday, correct?

That's weird....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm interested in corporate behavior at the moment.

A corporation isn't going to determine whether or not it expands and invests after the profit's been taxed. That determination is made prior. Anyone who has ever worked for, owned, or been tangentially connected to a business knows this.

d the middle class. And pension plans..

No, it doesn't. Less than half of all Americans have a 401k, and the average 401k amount for Americans aged 55-64 is merely $72,000. So a 1/10 of 1% change in the share price isn't going to help them. And we've had record stock market growth the last 8 years that hasn't helped those middle class consumers. So the entire premise of your argument is disproved by the realities of today.

It's true, cutting their corporate tax rate has been very helpful.

Obviously not, since the growth over the last three years was shit, and the unemployment rate is higher than that of the UK and USSA

The EU has been whining about Ireland's unfairly low tax rates for decades. Why?

Because the low corporate tax rate isn't helping spur growth in Ireland or in the EU. As we saw from the GDP growth from 2014-today, Ireland's GDP growth is wildly inconsistent and contains three instances where quarterly growth was negative. Also, when was that link of yours? Was it recent? Or is it, as I suspect, an outdated thing you're misrepresenting here? It seems to have mysteriously vanished from this thread. Hmmm.

If you wanted to see the results of their tax cut, you'd post info from years before and years after.

"The years after" I posted and the results show shitty growth, with three quarters of negative growth over the last three years. This is how we determine the effects of your shit policies...by looking at the state of things today. Today, Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than the UK. Today, Ireland's growth is shit. Today is the result of yesterday, correct? Time is linear, is it not? So you're going to argue that we should ignore the effects on the economy today because x amount of years ago, there may have been growth?

All you're saying is "don't look at Ireland today or even the last 12 quarters because it unfairly shows that the policies I support are crap".

Which Presidents haven't seen record highs in the market and corporate profits over an 8 year period?

Bush the Dumber, Bush the Elder. In fact, didn't Reagan's final year end with the S&L Crisis? So that was a hit to corporate profits.

Seriously? LOL!

So this is just another instance of you spamming the board.

Which Presidents haven't seen record highs in the market and corporate profits over an 8 year period?

Bush the Dumber, Bush the Elder. <---the elder only served 4 years, idiot

Link?

Never mind. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm interested in corporate behavior at the moment.

A corporation isn't going to determine whether or not it expands and invests after the profit's been taxed. That determination is made prior. Anyone who has ever worked for, owned, or been tangentially connected to a business knows this.

d the middle class. And pension plans..

No, it doesn't. Less than half of all Americans have a 401k, and the average 401k amount for Americans aged 55-64 is merely $72,000. So a 1/10 of 1% change in the share price isn't going to help them. And we've had record stock market growth the last 8 years that hasn't helped those middle class consumers. So the entire premise of your argument is disproved by the realities of today.

It's true, cutting their corporate tax rate has been very helpful.

Obviously not, since the growth over the last three years was shit, and the unemployment rate is higher than that of the UK and USSA

The EU has been whining about Ireland's unfairly low tax rates for decades. Why?

Because the low corporate tax rate isn't helping spur growth in Ireland or in the EU. As we saw from the GDP growth from 2014-today, Ireland's GDP growth is wildly inconsistent and contains three instances where quarterly growth was negative. Also, when was that link of yours? Was it recent? Or is it, as I suspect, an outdated thing you're misrepresenting here?

In fact, here's Ireland's GDP growth rate stretching back 10 years. It's still fuckin' shit no matter how you look at it, and still producing multiple quarters of negative growth. I count at least 13 quarters over the last 10 years where Ireland's growth was negative:

If you wanted to see the results of their tax cut, you'd post info from years before and years after.

First of all, why don't you post that shit since it's your point you're flailing at defending here?

So the tax cuts aren't currently still in effect? But you just posted before that they were. So what difference does it make looking 5, 10, 15, 20 years back if the current state of Ireland's economy -still under those policies- is shit today? If anything, now we're seeing the long-term effect of corporate tax cuts and it's not good.

You want us to look at it in a vacuum. Fine. Even when I do that, the growth is still shit.​

Because the low corporate tax rate isn't helping spur growth in Ireland or in the EU.

The EU is whining about unfair competition, because Ireland's low rates don't help Ireland?
That's hilarious.

 

[The Derp]

No, it doesn't. Less than half of all Americans have a 401k,
Jut the 1%ers, eh?

The average amount someone aged 55-64 has in their 401K is merely $72,000. So a 1/10 of 1% change in the share price isn't going to benefit them. Particularly if their investments are diversified between stocks, bonds, and other investment options.

Increasing after tax profit by 23% will only increase prices by 0.1%? Why?

It could. It depends on the company. If the after tax profit still comes below estimates or projections, even with a lower profits tax rate, the stock price could decline. None of that has anything to do with consumer demand, therefore cutting the corporate profits tax only starves the treasury of revenue, and makes the rich, richer.

Why are you looking at the last 3 years instead of 3 years before and 3 years after they cut?

Because those corporate tax cuts didn't expire, and because this is the most recent data available. Even going back ten years, growth is shit with at least 13 quarters of negative growth out of 40. 1/3 of the time, Ireland's economy contracted in the last ten years of its low tax rates. That's good? By what measurement? Even the EU's economy didn't contract that many times over the last ten years! All your shitty corporate tax cuts do is create volatility and uncertainty. Not jobs or growth.

That's weird....

So this is a tactic you use frequently; when pinned in the discussion (this time about unemployment rates), you jump to a non-sequitur (GDP per capita), which is an entirely new measurement you're adding to this debate. What happened to the others? What happened to the unemployment rate (oh right, it doesn't reflect well on Ireland)? What happened to the GDP growth rate (oh right, it doesn't reflect well on Ireland). So now you're reduced to GDP per capita? So what's that supposed to prove?

And also, your chart seems to be missing two years: 2016 and 2017. Why didn't you include those? Another example of you cherry-picking data sets to make your argument look better than it actually is.

So Ireland's unemployment is worse than the UK's, Ireland's GDP growth is worse than the EU's, Ireland experienced at least 13 quarters of negative growth over the last ten years, but GDP per capita somehow invalidates all that, how?

 

[The Derp]

The EU is whining about unfair competition, because Ireland's low rates don't help Ireland?

Are they? That link you used about the EU complaining (that has magically disappeared from this thread) is from when? Is it from 2010 or today?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do people save more when the economy is doing well, or when the economy sucks?

The economy does not do well following a tax cut. So the underlying premise of your question is a false assumption. Toi answert your question; people tend to save more when the economy isn't doing as well...that's why when an economy contracts, government spending must fill the void created by a drop in consumer demand and increased savings rate.

The economy does not do well following a tax cut.......people tend to save more when the economy isn't doing as well..

So tax cuts should make the savings rate increase......

Darn post #375 for disagreeing with your claim....

Republican tax cut will not trickle down

 

[The Derp]

So tax cuts should make the savings rate increase.

They do increase savings...for the wealthy. Which is what I've been saying this whole time that you first didn't believe until I posted the article showing the savings rate.

The middle class and poor don't have savings anymore thanks to all the debt they had to ring up because you sold them a pack of lies that tax cuts would pay for themselves. Obviously, they didn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it doesn't. Less than half of all Americans have a 401k,
Jut the 1%ers, eh?

The average amount someone aged 55-64 has in their 401K is merely $72,000. So a 1/10 of 1% change in the share price isn't going to benefit them. Particularly if their investments are diversified between stocks, bonds, and other investment options.

Increasing after tax profit by 23% will only increase prices by 0.1%? Why?

It could. It depends on the company. If the after tax profit still comes below estimates or projections, even with a lower profits tax rate, the stock price could decline. None of that has anything to do with consumer demand, therefore cutting the corporate profits tax only starves the treasury of revenue, and makes the rich, richer.

Why are you looking at the last 3 years instead of 3 years before and 3 years after they cut?

Because this is the most recent data available. Even going back ten years, growth is shit with at least 13 quarters of negative growth out of 40. 1/3 of the time, Ireland's economy contracted in the last ten years of its low tax rates. That's good? By what measurement? Even the EU's economy didn't contract that many times over the last ten years! All your shitty corporate tax cuts do is create volatility and uncertainty. Not jobs or growth.

That's weird....

So this is a tactic you use frequently; when pinned in the discussion (this time about unemployment rates), you jump to a non-sequitur (GDP per capita), which is an entirely new measurement you're adding to this debate. What happened to the others? What happened to the unemployment rate (oh right, it doesn't reflect well on Ireland)? What happened to the GDP growth rate (oh right, it doesn't reflect well on Ireland). So now you're reduced to GDP per capita? So what's that supposed to prove?

And also, your chart seems to be missing two years: 2016 and 2017. Why didn't you include those? Another example of you cherry-picking data sets to make your argument look better than it actually is.

So Ireland's unemployment is worse than the UK's, Ireland's GDP growth is worse than the EU's, Ireland experienced at least 13 quarters of negative growth over the last ten years, but GDP per capita somehow invalidates all that, how?

The average amount someone aged 55-64 has in their 401K is merely $72,000

It's true, Obama's stock market help for the middle class didn't make up for his weak jobs and wage growth.

None of that has anything to do with consumer demand,

Who claimed it did? Where?

So this is a tactic you use frequently; when pinned in the discussion (this time about unemployment rates), you jump to a non-sequitur (GDP per capita),

Ireland, historically poorer than the UK. So much so that millions of Irish fled to America....suddenly has a higher GDP per capita than the UK. Oddly, it appears they surpassed the UK.......wait for it.......a few years after they cut their corporate tax rate.

And also, your chart seems to be missing two years: 2016 and 2017.

Whine to Google and the World Bank.......

World Development Indicators - Google Public Data Explorer

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So tax cuts should make the savings rate increase.

They do increase savings...for the wealthy. Which is what I've been saying this whole time that you first didn't believe until I posted the article showing the savings rate.

The middle class and poor don't have savings anymore thanks to all the debt they had to ring up because you sold them a pack of lies that tax cuts would pay for themselves. Obviously, they didn't.

They should increase for everybody.....like they did during the recession.
Like they do during every recession.