• 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!

Tax benefits should bubble up, not trickle down

Conservative said:
No they don't economic activity will and always has "PAID" for tax cut through the increase in revenue. Tax cuts do NOT have to be paid for as they are people keeping more of what they earn
Click to expand...

Forgot to mention that economists disagree:

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2

DPLjaaoUMAAvIUJ.jpg:large
 
Thumper39 said:
Only of spending is not cut.
Click to expand...
But they didn't.

And if they did, this then begs the question:

"Do the high-end tax cuts provide enough economic good, to trade for the services and protections lost?"

That's another question where there's much to debate, but you've probably figured out my general opinion here.
 
KLATTU said:
I tend not not to pay attention to the likes of Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders ,and ,sadly, the NY tImes ( they are an arm of the DNC) when it comes to this tax bill. No matter WHAT the GOP did, their reposnse would have been the same. They are Democrats ( or in the TIMES case, useful idiots for the Democrats). That's what they do.

I DO however pay attention to Tony Nitti, because he's not a partisan hack and he knows his stuff.

I would recommend taking off your partisan glasses and giving this article a looksee.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthon...d-losers-of-the-senate-tax-bill/#1bbfac8d254d
Click to expand...

Did you read the article you posted? It isn't exactly advocating this tax plan. It is reinforcing almost all things the liberal sources are saying, which you are complaining about here. Or, as someone else pointed out, the truth often has a liberal bias.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
No they don't economic activity will and always has "PAID" for tax cut through the increase in revenue. Tax cuts do NOT have to be paid for as they are people keeping more of what they earn
Click to expand...

Find a credible economist that agrees with this statement. You are once again operating off your ill-conceived notions and thinking you know the truth. You cite this stuff you do know with the arrogance of certainty you have no basis to have. Its time for you to go out and do some research and get back to us. Saying the same things over and over 67,230 times does not make them correct, but can make you look foolish. Its time to show us where you get this idea you have (and I don't mean posting up a bunch of treasury numbers, that isn't showing understanding)

The 2001/03 tax cuts, for example, in a nearly 20% decline in income tax proceeds and created nearly $2T of debt.
 
Chomsky said:
But they didn't.

And if they did, this then begs the question:

"Do the high-end tax cuts provide enough economic good, to trade for the services and protections lost?"

That's another question where there's much to debate, but you've probably figured out my general opinion here.
Click to expand...

Im generally a taxation is theft type of guy.
 
Thumper39 said:
Im generally a taxation is theft type of guy.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I can respect that. Been there myself.

(my displayed lean here - Libertarian Left - is the closest available to "Social Democrat", but I am not a Libertarian at all, though I briefly flirted with it at one time)
 
Thumper39 said:
You do understand that any increases in the cost of production raise the price of the product right?

Anyway. Getting pissed cause a group of people who already pay the majority of the tax burden cause they got a bigger tax cut doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

What does a corporate income tax increase/decrease have to do with the cost of production? Corporate income taxes aren't a production cost, they are based upon profitability of the company. Some companies pay no corporate income taxes at all, and companies that do pay corporate income taxes still have to compete in the market place against companies that pay less (or nothing). Prices are set by the market and are not based on how much profit a company makes or how much it pays in income taxes.
 
imagep said:
What does a corporate income tax increase/decrease have to do with the cost of production? Corporate income taxes aren't a production cost, they are based upon profitability of the company. Some companies pay no corporate income taxes at all, and companies that do pay corporate income taxes still have to compete in the market place against companies that pay less (or nothing). Prices are set by the market and are not based on how much profit a company makes or how much it pays in income taxes.
Click to expand...

Market prices are dictated by more than just supply and demand.
 
Thumper39 said:
Market prices are dictated by more than just supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Sure. There is a floor price and a ceiling, but the actual realized price is going to be somewhere in between. Only the floor price is set by cost, and since businesses nearly always price above the floor (because the floor is breakeven and they couldnt make a profit that floor price), then it's not really cost that determines price, it's the free market, competition, supply, etc.
 
upsideguy said:
Find a credible economist that agrees with this statement. You are once again operating off your ill-conceived notions and thinking you know the truth. You cite this stuff you do know with the arrogance of certainty you have no basis to have. Its time for you to go out and do some research and get back to us. Saying the same things over and over 67,230 times does not make them correct, but can make you look foolish. Its time to show us where you get this idea you have (and I don't mean posting up a bunch of treasury numbers, that isn't showing understanding)

The 2001/03 tax cuts, for example, in a nearly 20% decline in income tax proceeds and created nearly $2T of debt.
Click to expand...

You think I really care about what some economist say about people keeping more of what they earn? How about answering the questions posed, are tax cuts an expense to the Federal Govt.? When taxes are increased do the bureaucrats cut a check for the poor people so that they create a more equal income level. What is it about liberals that never answer questions
 
MTAtech said:
Forgot to mention that economists disagree:

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2

DPLjaaoUMAAvIUJ.jpg:large
Click to expand...

You keep running from the question as to what school teaches students that people keeping more of what they earn is an expense and has to be paid for. Now answer the question

How many economists predicted that Reagan's tax cuts would double GDP or that Bush's would generate 4.5 trillion in GDP including 2008?
 
MTAtech said:
That is demonstrably false. Reagan's tax-cuts didn't pay for themselves; Bush's tax-cuts didn't pay for themselves; Kansas tax-cuts didn't pay for themselves.

Wishful thinking is not an economic policy.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts never have to pay for themselves as they aren't an expense to anyone. where did you get your education?
 
Media_Truth said:
Blah, blah, blah. What are you getting - 50 cents per post? Your billionaire-financed rhetoric is unwelcome. A poll on this forum shows that about 10% agree with you.
Click to expand...

How about answering the question and showing us how smart you really are? Still waiting, are the bureaucrats in DC going to write a check to the poor people to spread that liberal equality equally? are those poor people going to get to spend their own money with that check? The ones that don't agree with me are the leftwing radicals many of whom are probably paid to be here to try and destroy the greatest economy on the face of the earth. None understand the question nor will they answer it, are tax cuts an expense??
 
Chomsky said:
The school of zero-sum mathematics.

You either pay the bills, or run up deficits and debt.

Labeling an argument a "talking point", does not remove it's merit.
Click to expand...

So tell me when was the last time the Federal bureaucrats refused to spend money because of tax cuts?
 
MTAtech said:
That is demonstrably false. Reagan's tax-cuts didn't pay for themselves; Bush's tax-cuts didn't pay for themselves; Kansas tax-cuts didn't pay for themselves.

Wishful thinking is not an economic policy.
Click to expand...

That's because you are of the false impression that tax cuts are an expense and have to be paid for plus the reality that you haven't a clue as to the actual results generate by both Bush and Reagan because in your world results don't matter.
 
Conservative said:
That's because you are of the false impression that tax cuts are an expense and have to be paid for plus the reality that you haven't a clue as to the actual results generate by both Bush and Reagan because in your world results don't matter.
Click to expand...
Whether or not tax-cuts are an expense or not isn't the item in question. What is at question is your assertion that tax-cuts pay for themselves/ Tax cuts have never generated enough revenue through economic growth to pay for the tax-cuts.

That's just not me saying this, it's the finding of the JCT and the view of economists, as I have previously posted. You are free to believe in myths and unfounded voodoo economics but real economists disagree and the historical record is clear.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You keep running from the question as to what school teaches students that people keeping more of what they earn is an expense and has to be paid for. Now answer the question

How many economists predicted that Reagan's tax cuts would double GDP or that Bush's would generate 4.5 trillion in GDP including 2008?
Click to expand...

Reagan and revenue
JANUARY 17, 2008 7:03 PM

Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:
Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.

Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.

Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
Whether or not tax-cuts are an expense or not isn't the item in question. What is at question is your assertion that tax-cuts pay for themselves/ Tax cuts have never generated enough revenue through economic growth to pay for the tax-cuts.

That's just not me saying this, it's the finding of the JCT and the view of economists, as I have previously posted. You are free to believe in myths and unfounded voodoo economics but real economists disagree and the historical record is clear.
Click to expand...
One more time your assertion is that tax cuts have to pay for themselves thus implying they are an expense. What school did you go to that taught you that a person keeping more of the what they earned is an expense? I really don't care what some Economist say because I can quote you economists that disagree. The reality is tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer thus creating economic activity. There is nothing to pay for

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
MTAtech said:
Reagan and revenue
JANUARY 17, 2008 7:03 PM
Click to expand...
I can only prove actual results and did so. Reagan's tax cuts were 3 years in a row and generated increased Revenue. For some reason you have this belief that the government is a solution to all problems and it is a government's money first that is liberal hogwash.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
LOL, yep, people always spend more when they have less spendable income due to high taxes. Obama's unemployment numbers was skewed due to high numbers of part time for economic reason employees, something you fail to understand.
Click to expand...
The number of part time for economic reasons is higher than it was pre-recession. Is it your claim that part time for economic reasons is not skewing the UE rate under Trump?
 
Conservative said:
You think I really care about what some economist say about people keeping more of what they earn? How about answering the questions posed, are tax cuts an expense to the Federal Govt.? When taxes are increased do the bureaucrats cut a check for the poor people so that they create a more equal income level. What is it about liberals that never answer questions
Click to expand...

We should rename you Mr. Irony. You respond to a direct question on my part by suggesting "liberals that don't answer questions" .....

my question was asking you to show us an expert that could attest to your economic philosophy. You continually espouse these things but when challenged can not really defend them. We call out your facts and you change the discussion. The reality is, you can't support the notion that when taxes are cut taxes increase.

You have these impressions of how the economy should work, but that is all they are, impressions. You have no education on this subject, you refuse to learn about it and when called on it, you refuse to acknowledge you have been called out. You have skewed view of how economics because you don't understand it. 66,300 ill-informed posts all asking us to answer your qauestions that you really are not interested in the answer of as you just like to hear yourself talk. Sorry, I am not playing.
understanding.

I simply wanted to point out to our listening audience that you have no foundation for your utterances. I'm not sure why I needed to point that out, as most on DP already know that. You actually seem like a smart guy. We all wish you would upgrade your game by bringing some verifiable insight to the discussion. 66,300 posts that say fundamentally the same thing gets old after post... say 200.
 
upsideguy said:
We should rename you Mr. Irony. You respond to a direct question on my part by suggesting "liberals that don't answer questions" ..... my question was to show us an expert that could attest to your economic philosophy. The reality is, you can't. You have these impressions of how the economy should work, but that is all they are, impressions. You have no education on this subject, you refuse to learn about it and when called on it, you refuse to acknowledge you have been called out. You have skewed view of how economics because you don't understand it. 66,300 ill-informed posts all asking us to answer your questions that you really are not interested in the answer of as you just like to hear yourself talk. Sorry, I am not playing.
understanding.

I simply wanted to point out to our listening audience that you have no foundation for your utterances. I'm not sure why I needed to point that out, as most on DP already know that. You actually seem like a smart guy. We all wish you would upgrade your game by bringing some verifiable insight to the discussion. 66,300 posts that say fundamentally the same thing gets old after post... say 200.
Click to expand...

Look, you have a problem, you counter my actual data and facts with projections and opinion pieces. My foundation is based upon the use of BLS.gov, BEA.gov and Treasury data. You and the rest of the left don't like it, tough. I keep hearing from you and the rest of the radical left that I don't understand the data when the reality it is you that cannot explain your interpretation of the data or how it is being misinterpreted. Pretty simple request, prove me wrong.
 
Conservative V said:
LOL, yep, people always spend more when they have less spendable income due to high taxes. Obama's unemployment numbers was skewed due to high numbers of part time for economic reason employees, something you fail to understand.
Click to expand...
fredgraph.png
 
upsideguy said:
Did you read the article you posted? It isn't exactly advocating this tax plan. .
Click to expand...

Yea- I've mentioned that a few times already.That was the point of posting it.This guy evaluated the plan on it's marits, no based on his political affiliation. So it carries a litle more depth and weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom