• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prediction: U.S. economy to look like Kansas in 4 years

TheGoverness said:
I stopped making predictions about Trump after he won the election.
Click to expand...

Clearly you're one of the few liberals with a brain. How about we let him take the oath of office, and see first? ;)
 
Fiddytree said:
Back last spring and summer my state was facing a budget crisis and in a recession; they called in folks from Moody's to help explain the shifting economy for the state and its interaction with the national economy in order to figure out where to shift priority in its budget (which is required to be balanced by the state constitution). The gent was quite clear: no matter who would win the election, the expected Fed rate raises would gradually be felt across the national economy, probably throwing us into a recession.
Click to expand...

Of-course rates are going to go up. They've been suppressed by 8 yeara of QE.

Central banks around the world have done everything to increase new private sector investment in the worlds economies without actually addressing the underlying issues that led to perpetual stagnation.

They thought if they bottomed out rates on fixed yield investment's it would force investors to spend in a economy that was being hammered with foolish and progressive tax pUSices.

Some central banks even toyed with the idea of negative interest rates. Anything to force savers to invest in a way that would lead to job

Here's a idea, do away with the idiotic tax increases that drive investment out of the US, that lead to Trillions of dollars in capital to stagnate
 
Absentglare said:
Sure, or a lose-lose, depending on whether he picks the wealthy to be the winners or if he instead invests in the American public in general.
Click to expand...
How would he pick the wealthy to be the winners? I don't know of any significant sized federal infrastructure spending that doesn't create jobs.
 
Mach said:
How would he pick the wealthy to be the winners? I don't know of any significant sized federal infrastructure spending that doesn't create jobs.
Click to expand...

Giving a tax cut to high earners is picking high earners as winners (and everybody else as losers by implication).
 
Absentglare said:
Giving a tax cut to high earners is picking high earners as winners (and everybody else as losers by implication).
Click to expand...

So if I pay 10% less tax next year, you lose? Please advise how this is possible.
You do not believe in trickle down benefits, why would you believe the reverse, that this would hurt you? It's worrisome.

I don't think Trump will do blanket tax cuts for high income, I think he'll try to, according to him, simplify the tax code, fix some loopholes that hurt the wealthy, and cut/raise some here and there as a byproduct of that simplification. We've already seen the first pass, he lowers taxes on most of the middle class, but raises it on some...but it's not his final plan. Who know what he'll finally do, certainly not him or the media...
 
Fenton said:
No you presented talking points, easily dismissed.

Here, a list of all States according to tax burdens from highest to lowest.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494/#main-findings

Texas is #41, Cali is #11. So no, you didn't present facts, you presented Bull ****
Click to expand...

You actually proved my point very nicely.

First, you did not cite anything to demonstrate that Texas does not have higher sales tax or property tax than California; you cited that it has a lower tax burden overall. I never contested that it did not, only that states with no income taxes derive their revenue from other sources, and thus those rates tend be higher. So you are still wrong on that one until you cite otherwise.

Second, posting total tax burden says nothing about how regressive Texas is in its taxation, or rather who is shouldering that burden.

Third, assuming that a lower total tax burden equates to better job growth then states like New York and Hawaii should be festering wastelands. That simply is not the case.

Which States Have Created the Most Job Growth since the Great Recession?

So thank you for proving me right.

My favorite part is the tax burden difference between California and Texas is a mere 2-3%. Apparently the progressive and conservative vision is not all that different after all. Texas just likes making the middle class shoulder more of its taxation burden.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
So if I pay 10% less tax next year, you lose? Please advise how this is possible.
You do not believe in trickle down benefits, why would you believe the reverse, that this would hurt you? It's worrisome.

I don't think Trump will do blanket tax cuts for high income, I think he'll try to, according to him, simplify the tax code, fix some loopholes that hurt the wealthy, and cut/raise some here and there as a byproduct of that simplification. We've already seen the first pass, he lowers taxes on most of the middle class, but raises it on some...but it's not his final plan. Who know what he'll finally do, certainly not him or the media...
Click to expand...

Many people use the phrase "picking winners and losers" to suggest that the government should not provide assistance to low earners or have a progressive income tax schedule.

I'm pointing out that a tax cut for high earners would also qualify as "picking winners" (high earners, those who benefit from the change in the system).

I think it's fairly safe to suppose that President-Elect Trump will support tax cuts that will provide direct benefit to high earners.
 
Absentglare said:
Many people use the phrase "picking winners and losers" to suggest that the government should not provide assistance to low earners or have a progressive income tax schedule. I'm pointing out that a tax cut for high earners would also qualify as "picking winners" (high earners, those who benefit from the change in the system). I think it's fairly safe to suppose that President-Elect Trump will support tax cuts that will provide direct benefit to high earners.
Click to expand...
But that's why liberals prefer "everyone's a winner", because they apparently don't understand what winners/losers are, and they hate losing. Let's review: If Bob is taxed at 38% and Sue at 20%, and this year tax on the upper class goes down from 38% to 34%, it is true only the high income earner got a tax cut. And yet its still true that Bob pays more overall taxes AND pays a higher percentage. Sue wins in both cases, despite your implication that somehow Bob's the big winner.
 
Mach said:
But that's why liberals prefer "everyone's a winner", because they apparently don't understand what winners/losers are, and they hate losing. Let's review: If Bob is taxed at 38% and Sue at 20%, and this year tax on the upper class goes down from 38% to 34%, it is true only the high income earner got a tax cut. And yet its still true that Bob pays more overall taxes AND pays a higher percentage. Sue wins in both cases, despite your implication that somehow Bob's the big winner.
Click to expand...

Not if we're evaluating the change to the system, rather than the overall system.
 
Absentglare said:
Not if we're evaluating the change to the system, rather than the overall system.
Click to expand...
Why would you do that in a vacuum? Oh yes, for political rhetoric purposes.
 
CriticalThought said:
You actually proved my point very nicely.

First, you did not cite anything to demonstrate that Texas does not have higher sales tax or property tax than California; you cited that it has a lower tax burden overall. I never contested that it did not, only that states with no income taxes derive their revenue from other sources, and thus those rates tend be higher. So you are still wrong on that one until you cite otherwise.

Second, posting total tax burden says nothing about how regressive Texas is in its taxation, or rather who is shouldering that burden.

Third, assuming that a lower total tax burden equates to better job growth then states like New York and Hawaii should be festering wastelands. That simply is not the case.

Which States Have Created the Most Job Growth since the Great Recession?

So thank you for proving me right.

My favorite part is the tax burden difference between California and Texas is a mere 2-3%. Apparently the progressive and conservative vision is not all that different after all. Texas just likes making the middle class shoulder more of its taxation burden.
Click to expand...

No Texas likes employing the Middle Class, and offering opportunities to hundreds of thousands of economic refugees over the past few years.

The population in Houston alone has increased 600k over the past few years.

If you want to compare tax polices look no further than the thousands if Businesses that thae bailed out of California since 2008.

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal
 
CriticalThought said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aster-economic-growth/?utm_term=.d94ca7d8368c



More debt and more income for the wealthy and that is the best case scenario if the economy grows. Tax cuts for the wealthy worked so well for Brownback in Kansas. I like being outright lied to with the notion there is no "absolute cut" for the wealthy when your own sources say otherwise. But hey, increase income inequality further through tax policy that redistributes wealth to the top then complain the bottom 50% is not carrying their share of the tax burden and demand more tax cuts. Great strategy. Will Americans ever learn?
Click to expand...

I've been reading about that too. They actually said that it would happen no matter who won.

I think you're right though. It's weird now, but it's going to get ugly I'm afraid.
 
Prediction: U.S. economy to look like Kansas in 4 years

We can hope.

Forbes Welcome

State record for new businesses. 3.7% unemployment. 127% increase in wages. 75% reduction in welfare dependency. Their economy is doing fine. Their govt has spending problems, but the deficit is 350 million out of a 15 billion dollar budget. In fact, they INCREASED spending by 700 million in 2015. As always, taxes arent the problem, spending is.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Prediction: U.S. economy to look like Kansas in 4 years

We can hope.

Forbes Welcome

State record for new businesses. 3.7% unemployment. 127% increase in wages. 75% reduction in welfare dependency. Their economy is doing fine. Their govt has spending problems, but the deficit is 350 million out of a 15 billion dollar budget. In fact, they INCREASED spending by 700 million in 2015. As always, taxes arent the problem, spending is.
Click to expand...

I read that article and it is a prime example of cherry picking statistics.

3.7% unemployment? It had low unemployment before the cuts and unemployment fell nationwide. It is actually ranked in the nation for unemployment almost exactly where it was before the cuts.

Increased wages by 127%? So you have a source showing people who made 30k before the cuts are making over 60k now? Wow. If you are going to make up stats then please make them plausible.

Welfare reform has little to do with tax cuts, so I am not sure where that came in with a state that already had close to ideal unemployment. But that is probably the source of your 127% statistic, because if you are making less than poverty (8k for individual) it is pretty easy to get 127% above it (16.5k). Not quite the doubling of incomes across the state you were claiming.

And right now Kansas cannot even afford to pay for needed road construction, so I guess if that is what you call wasteful government spending...
 
CriticalThought said:
I read that article and it is a prime example of cherry picking statistics.

3.7% unemployment? It had low unemployment before the cuts and unemployment fell nationwide. It is actually ranked in the nation for unemployment almost exactly where it was before the cuts.

Increased wages by 127%? So you have a source showing people who made 30k before the cuts are making over 60k now? Wow. If you are going to make up stats then please make them plausible.

Welfare reform has little to do with tax cuts, so I am not sure where that came in with a state that already had close to ideal unemployment. But that is probably the source of your 127% statistic, because if you are making less than poverty (8k for individual) it is pretty easy to get 127% above it (16.5k). Not quite the doubling of incomes across the state you were claiming.

And right now Kansas cannot even afford to pay for needed road construction, so I guess if that is what you call wasteful government spending...
Click to expand...

If you dont believe Forbes, present your own info.

https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-must-get-serious-spending/

Kansas Policy Institute has provided a plan for balancing the Kansas budget. It relies on structural changes and small improvements in efficiency.

Kansas can balance its budget by improving the operations of, and reducing the cost of, state government. In 2011 the Kansas Legislature lost three opportunities to do just this. Three bills, each with this goal, were passed by the House of Representatives, but each failed to pass through the Senate, or had its contents stripped and replaced with different legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom