• 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

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,171
Reaction score
82,446
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tax benefits should bubble up, not trickle down


BY KIMBERLY CLAUSING
11/27/17

factory_worker_1.jpg


Economic dissatisfaction fuels political polarization and populist policies. Indeed, many attributed the election of Trump to middle-class economic discontent, although there were clearly other factors at work in his election. What sort of tax policy would we expect from a populist movement? Presumably something that would help those harmed by economic stagnation and income inequality. Yet, when one looks at the actual details of the House and Senate tax bills, one sees that their true priorities are upside down. Claims of help for workers melt into nothing more than trickle-down economics. The House bill provides $1.5 trillion in deficit financed tax cuts. Of this, $600 billion go to pass-through businesses; 98 percent of these benefits accrue to those with incomes greater than $100,000. Another $150 billion goes the top one-fifth of 1 percent of households that would normally pay the estate tax. And corporate tax cuts total another $750 billion.

Before 1980, Growth Lifted all Boats. Since then, not so much.
6honi8.jpg


When all the dust is settled, individuals without estates receive only 15 percent (about $215 billion) of the deficit-financed tax cuts in the House bill. Analysis by the Tax Policy Center shows the top 1 percent with a tax cut of over $60,000 by 2027, while the tax cut for the bottom four-fifths of the population averages only $315 in 2027. And this ignores the reality that deficits generate borrowing that must be repaid. Once that awkward fact is acknowledged, the middle class faces increasing tax burdens, all to give tax breaks to business owners and those at the very top of the income distribution. all of the individual tax cuts in the Senate bill sunset. By 2027, a majority (50.3 percent) of Americans face higher tax increases. While the tax cuts for the middle class expire, the corporate tax cuts are forever. That is a clear statement of priorities if there ever was one. What would a worker-friendly tax policy look like? It’s quite simple. Direct any tax cuts to workers. Worker prosperity will bubble up to companies and the economy as a whole. After decades of serious economic disruption, these tax bills move us in the wrong direction. And, they are more likely to harm than help American workers.

In reality, the GOP House and Senate bills deal far more with tax cuts than tax code reform. The tax landscape is being purposefully altered to favor the .01% of the wealthiest individuals and corporations. No independent analysis of the GOP tax plans agree with the faulty GOP's conclusions that their legislation will spur enough sustained (decade) economic growth to pay for the huge federal revenue shortfalls. The GOP tax schemes substantially reward the individual/corporate wealthy at the expense of the middle class and government revenue. There will also be increasing interest payments on the deficits that result from these GOP "revenue-negative" taxation schemes. In order to make up for the eventual revenue shortfalls, taxes will have to be raised and programs such as Medicare and Social Security fleeced. McConnell and Ryan are wishing and hoping that Democrats are in power when all the GOP 115th Congress negative-revenue/interest-payment shortfalls being engineered in 2017 come due in 2028.
 
Tax benefits should bubble up, not trickle down




In reality, the GOP House and Senate bills deal far more with tax cuts than tax code reform. The tax landscape is being purposefully altered to favor the .01% of the wealthiest individuals and corporations. No independent analysis of the GOP tax plans agree with the faulty GOP's conclusions that their legislation will spur enough sustained (decade) economic growth to pay for the huge federal revenue shortfalls. The GOP tax schemes substantially reward the individual/corporate wealthy at the expense of the middle class and government revenue. There will also be increasing interest payments on the deficits that result from these GOP "revenue-negative" taxation schemes. In order to make up for the eventual revenue shortfalls, taxes will have to be raised and programs such as Medicare and Social Security fleeced. McConnell and Ryan are wishing and hoping that Democrats are in power when all the GOP 115th Congress negative-revenue/interest-payment shortfalls being engineered in 2017 come due in 2028.
There is a marked difference between tax cuts and tax reform.

Tax reform is otherwise revenue neutral.

This is tax cutting (for the wealthy and corporations).
 
Tax benefits should bubble up, not trickle down




In reality, the GOP House and Senate bills deal far more with tax cuts than tax code reform. The tax landscape is being purposefully altered to favor the .01% of the wealthiest individuals and corporations. No independent analysis of the GOP tax plans agree with the faulty GOP's conclusions that their legislation will spur enough sustained (decade) economic growth to pay for the huge federal revenue shortfalls. The GOP tax schemes substantially reward the individual/corporate wealthy at the expense of the middle class and government revenue. There will also be increasing interest payments on the deficits that result from these GOP "revenue-negative" taxation schemes. In order to make up for the eventual revenue shortfalls, taxes will have to be raised and programs such as Medicare and Social Security fleeced. McConnell and Ryan are wishing and hoping that Democrats are in power when all the GOP 115th Congress negative-revenue/interest-payment shortfalls being engineered in 2017 come due in 2028.

I’m not going to get into an argument about tax reform, but it does seem that bubble up makes sense. If I give a person with two kids who makes $25,000 a $5,000 rebate, handout, whatever you want to call it*, he will probably spend every dime on widgets. And widget makers will have to staff up. And will make more money. Consumers control the economy not big business. JMVHO

I’ve never understood the trickle down theory.

I wish someone could tell me the fallacy in that thinking process...

* I expect it to be a handout, because someone in that income bracket would be unlikely to pay any taxes at all.
 
I’m not going to get into an argument about tax reform, but it does seem that bubble up makes sense. If I give a person with two kids who makes $25,000 a $5,000 rebate, handout, whatever you want to call it*, he will probably spend every dime on widgets. And widget makers will have to staff up. And will make more money. Consumers control the economy not big business. JMVHO

I’ve never understood the trickle down theory.

I wish someone could tell me the fallacy in that thinking process...

* I expect it to be a handout, because someone in that income bracket would be unlikely to pay any taxes at all.

A person with 2 kids making $25 K pays no taxes. How do you propose to give them a $5K rebate?
 
I’m not going to get into an argument about tax reform, but it does seem that bubble up makes sense. If I give a person with two kids who makes $25,000 a $5,000 rebate, handout, whatever you want to call it*, he will probably spend every dime on widgets. And widget makers will have to staff up. And will make more money. Consumers control the economy not big business. JMVHO

I’ve never understood the trickle down theory.

I wish someone could tell me the fallacy in that thinking process...

* I expect it to be a handout, because someone in that income bracket would be unlikely to pay any taxes at all.

It's a symbiotic relationship. One cannot exist for long without the other.
 
They pay about $2000 in FICA taxes

FICA is not income tax, and $2000 is not $5000.

SS and Medicare are already underfunded. Taking people out of that loop will not help the shortfall.
 
I’m not going to get into an argument about tax reform, but it does seem that bubble up makes sense. If I give a person with two kids who makes $25,000 a $5,000 rebate, handout, whatever you want to call it*, he will probably spend every dime on widgets. And widget makers will have to staff up. And will make more money. Consumers control the economy not big business. JMVHO

I’ve never understood the trickle down theory.

I wish someone could tell me the fallacy in that thinking process...

* I expect it to be a handout, because someone in that income bracket would be unlikely to pay any taxes at all.

The problem is that bubble up demands that money be taken away from the people who are able to create jobs. If you cripple the supply, the demand is meaningless. But if you create a supply that reflects current demand and allow the suppliers to fulfill that demand, the jobs will happen and the ability to fund the demand will be there. Look at the auto industry as an example. There was low demand for automobiles until the auto industry created a supply of automobiles. That supply created demand and that demand created more jobs. Had the early auto industry been deprived of it's capital in order to fund free horse feed, that supply and the demand that followed would have never happened or happened far later. Supply can create demand, just as demand can drive supply, but if you starve EITHER side of it's ability to be a part of this relationship, you break the whole system. By allowing the supply side to initiate this process, you allow those with the greatest amount of money to put into the system to take the risk instead of the people with least amount of money. Demand side economics demands that the people who can least afford it are the ones taking that risk. That's why liberals like to try to pump tax money into the demand side, it's the only way that it can happen without gutting the finances of the poorest people. In all honesty, demand-side economics gives the richest people a huge advantage, since it takes away the risk from them and pushes it onto the gov't.
 
FICA is not income tax, and $2000 is not $5000.

SS and Medicare are already underfunded. Taking people out of that loop will not help the shortfall.

You didn’t say income tax

A person with 2 kids making $25 K pays no taxes.

And a person who makes $25k with 2 kids only pays no taxes because of the EITC rebate which is exactly what Maggie was talking about.

As far as SS and Medicare being underfunded, the cap needs to come off and take away the regressiveness of it.
 
The problem is that bubble up demands that money be taken away from the people who are able to create jobs.

A survey of Fortune 500 CEOs strongly suggest that job creation is far down on the CEO "to do" list. Far more extensive will be paying off corporate debt, buying back company stock, more generous compensation packages for Tier 1 corporate officers and board members, investing in overseas firms and start-ups, using the extra cash for takeover/merge tender offers, purchasing automated and robotic systems.

Very little of the GOP corporate tax bonanza "trickles down" to create more jobs for workers or generate higher wages.
 
A person with 2 kids making $25 K pays no taxes. How do you propose to give them a $5K rebate?

Had you read the entire post, the * at the end, you wouldn’t have asked.

The problem is that bubble up demands that money be taken away from the people who are able to create jobs. If you cripple the supply, the demand is meaningless. But if you create a supply that reflects current demand and allow the suppliers to fulfill that demand, the jobs will happen and the ability to fund the demand will be there. Look at the auto industry as an example. There was low demand for automobiles until the auto industry created a supply of automobiles. That supply created demand and that demand created more jobs. Had the early auto industry been deprived of it's capital in order to fund free horse feed, that supply and the demand that followed would have never happened or happened far later. Supply can create demand, just as demand can drive supply, but if you starve EITHER side of it's ability to be a part of this relationship, you break the whole system. By allowing the supply side to initiate this process, you allow those with the greatest amount of money to put into the system to take the risk instead of the people with least amount of money. Demand side economics demands that the people who can least afford it are the ones taking that risk. That's why liberals like to try to pump tax money into the demand side, it's the only way that it can happen without gutting the finances of the poorest people. In all honesty, demand-side economics gives the richest people a huge advantage, since it takes away the risk from them and pushes it onto the gov't.

Well, when Obama provided rebates for anyone who purchased a new car, in 2009, I think that was a HUGE boost to the auto industry. And think what happened when the gvmt started giving rebates on residential solar power installations. And when the gvmt gave actual CASH in 2009, again time estimate, it was ALSO a great boost to the economy. Why? Because lower income people SPEND it.

Maybe we ought to do both in the tax reform bill. And just maybe that’s what it’s doing...?
 
In reality, the GOP House and Senate bills deal far more with tax cuts than tax code reform. The tax landscape is being purposefully altered to favor the .01% of the wealthiest individuals and corporations. No independent analysis of the GOP tax plans agree with the faulty GOP's conclusions that their legislation will spur enough sustained (decade) economic growth to pay for the huge federal revenue shortfalls. The GOP tax schemes substantially reward the individual/corporate wealthy at the expense of the middle class and government revenue. There will also be increasing interest payments on the deficits that result from these GOP "revenue-negative" taxation schemes. In order to make up for the eventual revenue shortfalls, taxes will have to be raised and programs such as Medicare and Social Security fleeced. McConnell and Ryan are wishing and hoping that Democrats are in power when all the GOP 115th Congress negative-revenue/interest-payment shortfalls being engineered in 2017 come due in 2028.

1. They dont have to pay for revenue shortfalls. The purpose isnt to generate more revenue or help the budget, its to burden the economy less.
2. They arent HUGE new shortfalls. We still have no idea what they actual final bill will be, so youre just guessing on the numbers, but the House bill for example would reduce revenue by 140bn a year. The govt will collect 3.5 trillion next year (and spend 4) no matter what happens.
3. Theres no expense to the middle class. They dont pay much taxes, and in any case theyll be going down too
4. There nothing wrong with 'rewarding' the wealthy/corporate. They pay far more than their share of taxes and generate most of the wealth
5. Interest payments are indeed a concern, but theyre caused by spending too much, and there is no expectation any revenue shortfalls will have to be made up anywhere. Whens the last time congress 'paid' for anything?

And finally, when Democrats are in power they will say deficits dont matter and add another 10 trillion in debt and blame Republicans for every ill instead of changing anything, just like the last time they were in power.
 
Had you read the entire post, the * at the end, you wouldn’t have asked.



Well, when Obama provided rebates for anyone who purchased a new car, in 2009, I think that was a HUGE boost to the auto industry. And think what happened when the gvmt started giving rebates on residential solar power installations. And when the gvmt gave actual CASH in 2009, again time estimate, it was ALSO a great boost to the economy. Why? Because lower income people SPEND it.

Maybe we ought to do both in the tax reform bill. And just maybe that’s what it’s doing...?

But lower income people can only be able to risk that spending if the money comes from somewhere else. It ONLY works if the gov't is involved. Trickle down puts the risk in the hands of the richest people, not the gov't's (by way of the poor). It creates the product to buy and the jobs to have the money to buy the product. As more jobs are created, the effect is magnified. Bubble-up only works by continually pumping money into the system, since it does little to create jobs and keeps taking away the ability to create new products.
 
But lower income people can only be able to risk that spending if the money comes from somewhere else. It ONLY works if the gov't is involved. Trickle down puts the risk in the hands of the richest people, not the gov't's (by way of the poor). It creates the product to buy and the jobs to have the money to buy the product. As more jobs are created, the effect is magnified. Bubble-up only works by continually pumping money into the system, since it does little to create jobs and keeps taking away the ability to create new products.

So you’re saying when the new car market is in the toilet and inventories are dangerously high that the way for GM and other mfgrs. to turn it around is to hire more people?
 
I’m not going to get into an argument about tax reform, but it does seem that bubble up makes sense. If I give a person with two kids who makes $25,000 a $5,000 rebate, handout, whatever you want to call it*, he will probably spend every dime on widgets. And widget makers will have to staff up. And will make more money. Consumers control the economy not big business. JMVHO

I’ve never understood the trickle down theory.

I wish someone could tell me the fallacy in that thinking process...

* I expect it to be a handout, because someone in that income bracket would be unlikely to pay any taxes at all.

It works like this. I give a poor person 5000, he buys a fish, eats it, and is still poor. I give a rich person 5,000, he builds a lake, hires people to farm fish and drives the price of fish down. Which is why even though we redistribute 2.5 trillion in income every year, theyre all still poor.
 
The problem is that bubble up demands that money be taken away from the people who are able to create jobs. If you cripple the supply, the demand is meaningless. But if you create a supply that reflects current demand and allow the suppliers to fulfill that demand, the jobs will happen and the ability to fund the demand will be there. Look at the auto industry as an example. There was low demand for automobiles until the auto industry created a supply of automobiles. That supply created demand and that demand created more jobs. Had the early auto industry been deprived of it's capital in order to fund free horse feed, that supply and the demand that followed would have never happened or happened far later. Supply can create demand, just as demand can drive supply, but if you starve EITHER side of it's ability to be a part of this relationship, you break the whole system. By allowing the supply side to initiate this process, you allow those with the greatest amount of money to put into the system to take the risk instead of the people with least amount of money. Demand side economics demands that the people who can least afford it are the ones taking that risk. That's why liberals like to try to pump tax money into the demand side, it's the only way that it can happen without gutting the finances of the poorest people. In all honesty, demand-side economics gives the richest people a huge advantage, since it takes away the risk from them and pushes it onto the gov't.

What convoluted logic. Supply creates demand? What company would increase supply when demand is flat? Lowering taxes on those that don't need it like the top 5% and corporations that are already making record profits only increases the already high unused cash and destabilizes the financial system. There is no shortage of cash to invest, 35 years of tax cuts has already provided a huge excess. The great Recession was caused by banks looking to capitalize on the trillions in excess cash looking for returns. These latest cuts will only exacerbate the problem and create another bubble.
 
Tax benefits should bubble up, not trickle down




In reality, the GOP House and Senate bills deal far more with tax cuts than tax code reform. The tax landscape is being purposefully altered to favor the .01% of the wealthiest individuals and corporations. No independent analysis of the GOP tax plans agree with the faulty GOP's conclusions that their legislation will spur enough sustained (decade) economic growth to pay for the huge federal revenue shortfalls. The GOP tax schemes substantially reward the individual/corporate wealthy at the expense of the middle class and government revenue. There will also be increasing interest payments on the deficits that result from these GOP "revenue-negative" taxation schemes. In order to make up for the eventual revenue shortfalls, taxes will have to be raised and programs such as Medicare and Social Security fleeced. McConnell and Ryan are wishing and hoping that Democrats are in power when all the GOP 115th Congress negative-revenue/interest-payment shortfalls being engineered in 2017 come due in 2028.

I guess you mean back before we shrunk the middle class?
 
It works like this. I give a poor person 5000, he buys a fish, eats it, and is still poor. I give a rich person 5,000, he builds a lake, hires people to farm fish and drives the price of fish down. Which is why even though we redistribute 2.5 trillion in income every year, theyre all still poor.

No, the rich guy pockets the $5,000, because there is no demand for fish, and he would be crazy to risk his money. If there was a demand for fish, somebody would already have invested in the business. And no, that doesn't take a pile of pre-existing money, a tax break, or any other incentive/giveaway to the already rich.
 
It works like this. I give a poor person 5000, he buys a fish, eats it, and is still poor.

You missed the part how the poor person buys the fish which puts money in the fish market and puts money in the pockets of the fish business owners.
 
FICA is not income tax, and $2000 is not $5000.

SS and Medicare are already underfunded. Taking people out of that loop will not help the shortfall.

And a tax rebate would not come from those funds.
 
The problem is that bubble up demands that money be taken away from the people who are able to create jobs. If you cripple the supply, the demand is meaningless. But if you create a supply that reflects current demand and allow the suppliers to fulfill that demand, the jobs will happen and the ability to fund the demand will be there. Look at the auto industry as an example. There was low demand for automobiles until the auto industry created a supply of automobiles. That supply created demand and that demand created more jobs. Had the early auto industry been deprived of it's capital in order to fund free horse feed, that supply and the demand that followed would have never happened or happened far later. Supply can create demand, just as demand can drive supply, but if you starve EITHER side of it's ability to be a part of this relationship, you break the whole system. By allowing the supply side to initiate this process, you allow those with the greatest amount of money to put into the system to take the risk instead of the people with least amount of money. Demand side economics demands that the people who can least afford it are the ones taking that risk. That's why liberals like to try to pump tax money into the demand side, it's the only way that it can happen without gutting the finances of the poorest people. In all honesty, demand-side economics gives the richest people a huge advantage, since it takes away the risk from them and pushes it onto the gov't.

There was low demand for automobiles until Ford paid his employees enough to buy cars. I'm surprised you didn't cite that - it's one of the more famous lines about business and economics. If you are going to talk supply and demand, you need to focus on the dollars.

Also, the bit about the poor "risking" their money by spending is a bit silly. The poor spend all of their money, because they have to, in order to live. They will buy a car because they need a car to get to work, or get to the store, not because "the risk is low."

Now, do demand-side policies starve the supply side? Absolutely not. The only time producers are "starved" of anything is when there is no demand for their products. They can always borrow capital to start or grow their business (which is, in fact, how most businesses operate).

Example - the government could either give $1000 each in food stamps to 1000 families (a demand-side policy), or $1 million directly to the grocery store, (a supply side policy). In which scenario do more groceries get sold?
 
You didn’t say income tax



And a person who makes $25k with 2 kids only pays no taxes because of the EITC rebate which is exactly what Maggie was talking about.

As far as SS and Medicare being underfunded, the cap needs to come off and take away the regressiveness of it.

FICA is supposedly paygo.

And now you want the upper taxpayers to pay more so others who pay nothing can pay less.

That's not tax reform, that's redistribution.
 
FICA is supposedly paygo.

And now you want the upper taxpayers to pay more so others who pay nothing can pay less.

That's not tax reform, that's redistribution.

No I want upper taxpayers to pay the same rate as everyone else, that seems fair doesn’t it?
 
They pay about $2000 in FICA taxes

Those "taxes" are a down payment on a federal pension. The taxpayer, should they live to retirement age, gets a direct benefit from those "taxes" until the day they die.
 
Those "taxes" are a down payment on a federal pension. The taxpayer, should they live to retirement age, gets a direct benefit from those "taxes" until the day they die.

actually they arent, the SCOTUS has ruled that the tax payer is no way entitled to that money. You could work all your life pay hundreds of thousands into SS and they shut it down they day before you file and you wouldnt be owed a dime.
 
Back
Top Bottom