• 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!

Trump Voters: Behold your success

MaggieD said:
Nobody’s SS check is going to be cut. That’s the fearsome song Dems sing every time SS comes to the table. And it is NEVER going to happen. What probably has to happen is full retirement age will bump a year. Perhaps contributions will increase. And my favorite? That I’ve heard no one espouse? Taking into account ALL income when determining eligibility for SS benefits. Know how you can’t earn over $X without losing benefits? Well include dividends, interest and other investment income in that figure... not just the poor sap that has to get a part-time job at WalMart to make ends meet. THAT difference would be huge.

Social Security disability needs an overhaul and a bounty on fraud. So does Medicaid. Let the private sector find the fraudsters and pay them a percentage of amount saved to do so. Right now, Medicaid’s fraud dept is overworked and only finds the tip of the Titanic’s iceberg... like 900 dental procedures done by one dentist in a day.

As for Medicare? It needs an overhaul as well. Right now, it costs just over $100 a month for Part B. Part A is free. Part B should be priced progressively. A guy who’s getting an average Social Security check of around $1300 (I think it is) pay’s the same as the guy who structures all of his income in annuities and tax deferreds, has $5 million in the bank and earns $2700 (guess) a month SS. THAT guy should be paying $600 a month for his Part B and shouldn’t even be RECEIVING Social Security payments.

The system needs fixing. If Dems were smart, which they’re NOT, they’d be hammering for some of these changes themselves.
Click to expand...
Well, on one hand you say that 'it's never going to happen' and on the other you say the retirement age will be bumped up and contributions increased.

The idea to raise the retirement age, currently 66, and scheduled to rise to 67, because people are living longer. This sounds plausible until you look at exactly who is living longer. The rise in life expectancy, it turns out, is overwhelmingly a story about affluent, well-educated Americans. Those with lower incomes and less education have, at best, seen hardly any rise in life expectancy at age 65; in fact, those with less education have seen their life expectancy decline.

While you have faith that if Medicaid was turned over to the private sector, note that Medicaid is more efficient than private insurers.

Why do we have to have these cutbacks? Because Republican donors demand tax-cuts.
 
MTAtech said:
If you got that projection ("The projection from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that "economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade.") from my post, then you completely misunderstand what either I or the JCT was stating. JCT was stating that the 'massive growth' promised by the proponents of Trump/GOP tax bill will only add 0.8% to GDP. In other words, there will not be any great, terrific, yuge, growth from this tax-plan.

You made it sound as if growth for the last ten years was 0.8%.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the projection. I'm sorry that it was not clearly stated.

In any event, here is exactly what I posted on that topic:

"Has the US economy EVER posted a 0.8% growth rate across any 10years since the end of the Depression? I mean EVER? C'mon, man!"

I was asking for historical context to support the outrageously ridiculous projection you included in your post. That point in your post said this:

"The projection from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade."

How can that be interpreted to mean anything other than that the JCT projects a 0.8% growth over a decade? What are you pointing to as my misunderstanding?
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
I was talking about the projection. I'm sorry that it was not clearly stated.

In any event, here is exactly what I posted on that topic:

"Has the US economy EVER posted a 0.8% growth rate across any 10years since the end of the Depression? I mean EVER? C'mon, man!"

I was asking for historical context to support the outrageously ridiculous projection you included in your post. That point in your post said this:

"The projection from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade."

How can that be interpreted to mean anything other than that the JCT projects a 0.8% growth over a decade? What are you pointing to as my misunderstanding?
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. The Joint Committee on Taxation said that the increase in economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade due to the tax-cut -- and that presumes the dynamic scoring method required by Congress. The point is don't expect huge growth due to the tax-cut.
 
MTAtech said:
Well, on one hand you say that 'it's never going to happen' and on the other you say the retirement age will be bumped up and contributions increased.

The idea to raise the retirement age, currently 66, and scheduled to rise to 67, because people are living longer. This sounds plausible until you look at exactly who is living longer. The rise in life expectancy, it turns out, is overwhelmingly a story about affluent, well-educated Americans. Those with lower incomes and less education have, at best, seen hardly any rise in life expectancy at age 65; in fact, those with less education have seen their life expectancy decline.

While you have faith that if Medicaid was turned over to the private sector, note that Medicaid is more efficient than private insurers.

Why do we have to have these cutbacks? Because Republican donors demand tax-cuts.
Click to expand...

The scare factor is that people’s Social Security checks will be cut. That is never going to happen. Who said turn Medicaid over to the private sector? I sure didn’t. I said turn over fraud investigations to the private sector and pay they a percentage of what they find and stop.

Insurance companies do an EXCELLENT job of ferreting out disability cheaters collecting on either their private disability insurance or false workers’ comp claims. Let people do it who, you know, are already successful at it. They’ll find it. IMO, there is nothing the Federal gvmt does that the private sector can’t run circles around...
 
MTAtech said:
You still don't get it. The Joint Committee on Taxation said that the increase in economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade due to the tax-cut -- and that presumes the dynamic scoring method required by Congress. The point is don't expect huge growth due to the tax-cut.
Click to expand...

The point is: They are wrong.

IF they were right, there would be a post Depression precedent for this dismal projection.

There is not.

They are wrong.
 
code1211 said:
The point is: They are wrong.

IF they were right, there would be a post Depression precedent for this dismal projection.

There is not.

They are wrong.
Click to expand...
I am amazed that you still don't understand what the JCT is saying. They ARE NOT saying that GDP growth will only be 0.8% after a decade. They are saying that the boost from this tax plan will only be 0.8%. If GDP growth is 2.5% per year, after ten years it will be 25.8%, according to the JCT. There is plenty of precedent for a projection such as that.
 
MTAtech said:
I am amazed that you still don't understand what the JCT is saying. They ARE NOT saying that GDP growth will only be 0.8% after a decade. They are saying that the boost from this tax plan will only be 0.8%. If GDP growth is 2.5% per year, after ten years it will be 25.8%, according to the JCT. There is plenty of precedent for a projection such as that.
Click to expand...

The great thing about economics, even for real economists, is that if you give 10 economists the exact same parameters to work within, they will come up with 10 different predictions.

Let's look at history for a reality check. The tortured process of tax cuts today is not much different than that process under Bush in the 2001/2003 tax cuts. Some differences in targeting, but similar.

Under Bush, the second round of Tax Cuts took effect in 2003.

Federal Tax Receipts rose from the level of $1991.1 Billion in 2001 to $2406.9 in 2006. Similar levels of revenue occurred in 2006, 2007 and 2008. 2007 was the record peak until it was beaten in 2013. The Financial collapse caused a cratering to occur in 2009 and recovery included 2010, 11 and 12..

ACTUAL increased tax generated by the reduced rates based on the increased GDP rose by $415.8 Billion for a single year.

Actual GDP rose from 12.71 Trillion in 2001 to 14.72 Trillion in 2006.

ACTUAL increased GDP that occurred after the tax cuts was $2.01 Trillion.

The $2.01 Trillion of increased GDP, a 15.8 difference year over year, produced a Tax revenue increase of 20.8% year over year.

So, using history, we see that an increase in revenue seems to follow a decrease in tax burden, other things being equal.

Anecdotally, the same results followed the Reagan Tax Reform and the Kennedy Tax Reform.

What does all this mean? Absolutely nothing! I'm just the guy on the next bar stool.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003
 
code1211 said:
The great thing about economics, even for real economists, is that if you give 10 economists the exact same parameters to work within, they will come up with 10 different predictions.

...
Click to expand...

Not in this case:

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

Question A: If the US enacts a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate — and assuming no other changes in tax or spending policy — US GDP will be substantially higher a decade from now than under the status quo.
Click to expand...
Only 2% of the economists agree.

On the Bush tax-cuts increasing revenue:

So why did revenues increase after the 2nd round of Bush tax cuts? Data from the Congressional Budget Office show that nothing special happened either to payroll taxes, which are proportional to wages, or to withheld income taxes, which reflect normal wages and salaries. Instead, the revenue surge came from two places, profits taxes and “nonwithheld” income taxes.

Profit taxes surged partly because profits themselves surged -- this has been an economic recovery in which real wages for most workers have actually gone down, so that profits have gathered the lion’s share of the gains - but also because a temporary tax break instituted in 2002 expired.

Politifacts weighs in too:

[h=1]GOP strategist Christie: Tax revenues rose after Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003[/h]
tom-mostlyfalse.png


As I wrote in this post, "from 2000-2006, real rev/capita dropped by over 20%. There is no explanation besides the effect of Bush's tax-cuts to explain that drop. Then, revenue began to increase but never attained the level reached in 2000 -- even though GDP was larger."
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Not in this case:

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2
Only 2% of the economists agree.

On the Bush tax-cuts increasing revenue:

So why did revenues increase after the 2nd round of Bush tax cuts? Data from the Congressional Budget Office show that nothing special happened either to payroll taxes, which are proportional to wages, or to withheld income taxes, which reflect normal wages and salaries. Instead, the revenue surge came from two places, profits taxes and “nonwithheld” income taxes.

Profit taxes surged partly because profits themselves surged -- this has been an economic recovery in which real wages for most workers have actually gone down, so that profits have gathered the lion’s share of the gains - but also because a temporary tax break instituted in 2002 expired.

Politifacts weighs in too:

[h=1]GOP strategist Christie: Tax revenues rose after Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003[/h]
tom-mostlyfalse.png


As I wrote in this post, "from 2000-2006, real rev/capita dropped by over 20%. There is no explanation besides the effect of Bush's tax-cuts to explain that drop. Then, revenue began to increase but never attained the level reached in 2000 -- even though GDP was larger."
Click to expand...

I LOVE it.

Tax revenues in the real world stated with real numbers in actual revenues rise by more than 400 Billion dollars and Politifact says they diid not rise.

This is not a refutation of the increase. It is a refutation of the reliability of Politifact.

I've said it before: C'mon, man!

Tax revenue in 2000 was $2025.2 Billion.

That was exceeded by tax revue in 2005, 06, 07 and 08.

That last little tag in your post is not true.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
I LOVE it.

Tax revenues in the real world stated with real numbers in actual revenues rise by more than 400 Billion dollars and Politifact says they diid not rise.

This is not a refutation of the increase. It is a refutation of the reliability of Politifact.

I've said it before: C'mon, man!

Tax revenue in 2000 was $2025.2 Billion.

That was exceeded by tax revue in 2005, 06, 07 and 08.

That last little tag in your post is not true.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center
Click to expand...

Please don't pretend to be having a serious discussion. When discussing whether action "A" had an effect upon event "X", one always has to factor out other factors that also can affect event "X." When discussing revenue, inflation and population growth, which tend to increase revenue regardless of tax policy, must be factored out. When that is done, there was no increase in revenue under Bush. Want to see it visually? This graph (2009 dollars per capita) factors out inflation and population growth. Notice the huge increase in revenue? Me neither.

usgs_line.php
 
MTAtech said:
Please don't pretend to be having a serious discussion. When discussing whether action "A" had an effect upon event "X", one always has to factor out other factors that also can affect event "X." When discussing revenue, inflation and population growth, which tend to increase revenue regardless of tax policy, must be factored out. When that is done, there was no increase in revenue under Bush. Want to see it visually? This graph (2009 dollars per capita) factors out inflation and population growth. Notice the huge increase in revenue? Me neither.

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

So, you are suggesting that we dispose of the real world numbers,

impose artificial adjustments

and massage the actuality out of the results until they support the alternate conclusion that you conjure?

Alrighty then!

I prefer reality.
 
MTAtech said:
Please don't pretend to be having a serious discussion. When discussing whether action "A" had an effect upon event "X", one always has to factor out other factors that also can affect event "X." When discussing revenue, inflation and population growth, which tend to increase revenue regardless of tax policy, must be factored out. When that is done, there was no increase in revenue under Bush. Want to see it visually? This graph (2009 dollars per capita) factors out inflation and population growth. Notice the huge increase in revenue? Me neither.

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

What is the source of your graph?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom