• 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!

Rubio admits GOP tax cut is a bust:

MTAtech said:
You can't argue two opposite positions at the same time, such as arguing that tax-cuts improving the economy in a slow process, then assigning credit to the tax-cuts for companies increasing pay.

The reality is that companies gave announced pay raises and bonuses in 2016 also. The Trump Admin made a big deal about WalMart giving raises after the tax-cuts. They made no mention that WalMart gave 1,000,000 employees raises in 2016.

The reality is also that tax-cuts are long term affairs. The problem (discussed in this Paul Krugman piece):
Click to expand...
I think there are actually two phases to Trump's tax cuts. A lot of companies moved on their own because they knew what the tax cuts would bring; they acted on anticipation and knowledge. The actual effect from the law going into effect will take longer. You're correct on that.

I've said a couple of times that Presidents can effect the economy not just on the bills and programs they enact, but also on the enthusiasm and optimism they create in the minds of economic decision makers - business owners, entrepreneurs, investors, consumers.

Obama screwed the pooch early on when he stated he was more interested in a "fair" tax system than one which maximized revenues. His whole mantra about "making the rich pay their fair share" was a class warfare broadside against economic growth as was his promise to cause energy prices to skyrocket. That was a mortal wound to the economy. Even some more liberal CEO's, who initially supported him turned into harsh critics. Given all that it's hardly surprising the economy under Obama was lackluster at best.

Trump came along, ended up winning at the economy began singing "ding, dong the wicked ***** is dead". Just on the possibility that things were looking up the stock market rose dramatically. And when Trump finally delivered on his promises for tax cuts some of the bolder companies jumped on the band wagon.

So now the cuts are law and the longer term effects will begin to show.

PS: I love your link: NYT's little "nuh-uh" rebuttal to try and diminish Trump's success. Funny that it would be Walmart - one of the left's favorite corporate whipping boys that they cite.
 
jonny5 said:
I posted over 500 immediate effects. Thats evidence.

2. If Krugman wants to come here, hes welcome to. I dont accept him as any more of an authority than you. Make youre argument, provide facts and logic to back it. Thats debate, not appealing to others.

B. GDP is not more of the same. Its only been 2 months, but Q1 shows twice the growth of the last two years Q1. And itll likely be revised up as they typically do. But we'll see.

gdp1q18_adv_chart.png
Click to expand...

We learn this day one in statistics: One data point does not a trend make.

Moreover, Q1-2018 isn't especially strong when reviewing a longer historical period (see below). We also must remember that proponents of the tax-cuts are counting on strong short-term growth to offset the huge amount of debt created by those cuts. Growth would need to be north of 5% to even approach breaking even. 2.3% just doesn't cut it and it is likely that we won't even get 3.0% annual. The Federal Open Market Committee is forecasting 2018 to be between 2.2% and 2.6% and lower for 2019 and 2020. So, besides wishful thinking, how are these tax-cuts going to pay for themselves?

fredgraph.png
 
Bullseye said:
I think there are actually two phases to Trump's tax cuts. A lot of companies moved on their own because they knew what the tax cuts would bring; they acted on anticipation and knowledge. The actual effect from the law going into effect will take longer. You're correct on that.

I've said a couple of times that Presidents can effect the economy not just on the bills and programs they enact, but also on the enthusiasm and optimism they create in the minds of economic decision makers - business owners, entrepreneurs, investors, consumers.

Obama screwed the pooch early on when he stated he was more interested in a "fair" tax system than one which maximized revenues. His whole mantra about "making the rich pay their fair share" was a class warfare broadside against economic growth as was his promise to cause energy prices to skyrocket. That was a mortal wound to the economy. Even some more liberal CEO's, who initially supported him turned into harsh critics. Given all that it's hardly surprising the economy under Obama was lackluster at best.

Trump came along, ended up winning at the economy began singing "ding, dong the wicked ***** is dead". Just on the possibility that things were looking up the stock market rose dramatically. And when Trump finally delivered on his promises for tax cuts some of the bolder companies jumped on the band wagon.

So now the cuts are law and the longer term effects will begin to show.

PS: I love your link: NYT's little "nuh-uh" rebuttal to try and diminish Trump's success. Funny that it would be Walmart - one of the left's favorite corporate whipping boys that they cite.
Click to expand...

1) I think we agree more than we disagree, such as this taking longer. As I said in post #77, those proposing the cuts were betting on a short-term boost not a "long run," outcome. As John Maynard Keynes said, "in the long run, we're all dead."
2) Whatever the enthusiasm and optimism effect might be, we aren't seeing the results in the numbers. Corporations aren't pouring money into investment or worker pay, they are predominantly buying back their own stock, which has no economic benefits (just like we liberals predicted.)
3) I have no recollection of Obama "screwing the pooch." His economic performance coming out of the worst crisis since the Depression was impressive. I also don't remember him saying that he's more interested in fair taxes than maximizing revenue. Fair taxes and maximizing revenue are the same thing, according to those of us that support a progressive income tax system. Obama wanted the millionaires tax and did raise taxes on wealth in 2013. Also be aware that according to economists C. Romer, D. Romer, Saez and Diamond, to maximize revenue upper-income taxes should be 73% (Diamond and Saez,) maybe 80% (Romer and Romer.) Fair = maximizing revenue = raising taxes on the wealthy.
 
MTAtech said:
1) I think we agree more than we disagree, such as this taking longer. As I said in post #77, those proposing the cuts were betting on a short-term boost not a "long run," outcome. As John Maynard Keynes said, "in the long run, we're all dead."
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like that line; his response to the question what effect will increased deficit spending have in the long run .
MTAtech said:
2) Whatever the enthusiasm and optimism effect might be, we aren't seeing the results in the numbers. Corporations aren't pouring money into investment or worker pay, they are predominantly buying back their own stock, which has no economic benefits (just like we liberals predicted.)
Click to expand...
Stock buybacks puts money in the hands of those selling the stock -pension plans, mutual funds, investors - what they do with the money most certainly does have an economic effect.
MTAtech said:
3) I have no recollection of Obama "screwing the pooch." His economic performance coming out of the worst crisis since the Depression was impressive. I also don't remember him saying that he's more interested in fair taxes than maximizing revenue. Fair taxes and maximizing revenue are the same thing, according to those of us that support a progressive income tax system.
Click to expand...
No, actually they're mutually exclusive. Progressive systems takes more away from the ones most likely to improve the economy. PS:You call the worst recovery since the Great Depression "impressive"?

MTatech said:
Obama wanted the millionaires tax and did raise taxes on wealth in 2013. Also be aware that according to economists C. Romer, D. Romer, Saez and Diamond, to maximize revenue upper-income taxes should be 73% (Diamond and Saez,) maybe 80% (Romer and Romer.) Fair = maximizing revenue = raising taxes on the wealthy.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of those laughable ideas.
 
MTAtech said:
We learn this day one in statistics: One data point does not a trend make.

Moreover, Q1-2018 isn't especially strong when reviewing a longer historical period (see below). We also must remember that proponents of the tax-cuts are counting on strong short-term growth to offset the huge amount of debt created by those cuts. Growth would need to be north of 5% to even approach breaking even. 2.3% just doesn't cut it and it is likely that we won't even get 3.0% annual. The Federal Open Market Committee is forecasting 2018 to be between 2.2% and 2.6% and lower for 2019 and 2020. So, besides wishful thinking, how are these tax-cuts going to pay for themselves?
Click to expand...

They dont have to pay for themselves. They arent outlays. If you want to reduce the deficit, the only way that works is slowing the growth of spending. Taxes are irrelevant.

And I said evidence, as in signs or indications. Im not claiming a trend, only pointing to a sign which maybe leads to the next one.
 
jonny5 said:
They dont have to pay for themselves. They arent outlays. If you want to reduce the deficit, the only way that works is slowing the growth of spending. Taxes are irrelevant.

And I said evidence, as in signs or indications. Im not claiming a trend, only pointing to a sign which maybe leads to the next one.
Click to expand...
It's math. Deficit = Revenue (e.g. taxes) minus Spending. Those are two variables. You can't say that "taxes are irrelevant" because that would mean one could cut taxes to zero without consequence of deficits.

Therefore, when taxes are cut and nothing is changed with spending, deficits rise. It's even worse recently because the previously 'deficit hawk" Congress not only cut taxes on corporations and the rich but increased spending too. Now, if there was a good reason to cut taxes on the corporations, that would be one thing. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to the economy or to workers (the pretend beneficiaries of this cut).
 
Bullseye said:
...
Stock buybacks puts money in the hands of those selling the stock -pension plans, mutual funds, investors - what they do with the money most certainly does have an economic effect.
...
Click to expand...
While many Americans own some stocks, the great bulk of stock value is held by a small, wealthy minority-- 10% of the population owns 84% of stock equities. So, any subterfuge that is is really a broad-based gift to Joe and Mary Everydayamerican, and not a tax cut for the rich, is malarkey.
 
biglawnmower said:
rubio knows a lot about losing massively to trump and whining about it. his views on the tax cuts? lol

rubio is the same guy the left continuously mocked time and time again. so to see "moderates" (lefties) take his side is funny.
Click to expand...

Yea, the truth does have a way of coming out and all too often...embarrasses the right.
 
biglawnmower said:
yea thats gonna get your side a win. calling an entire group of people stupid. obama invaded countless countries, lied constantly, drone civilians, and i dont think all his supporters are stupid.

just shows your lack of maturity.

get over it. find someone to run in 2024 that will actually win
Click to expand...

I've asked professionals (right & left) how Trump got elected. They replied that 90-95% of Americans...are morons.
 
MTAtech said:
While many Americans own some stocks, the great bulk of stock value is held by a small, wealthy minority-- 10% of the population owns 84% of stock equities. So, any subterfuge that is is really a broad-based gift to Joe and Mary Everydayamerican, and not a tax cut for the rich, is malarkey.
Click to expand...
Well, no, not really. About 50% of American households have stock market exposure, either directly, or through mutual funds, or retirement accounts. Also defined benefits pension plans invest in the market as well.
 
MTAtech said:
It's math. Deficit = Revenue (e.g. taxes) minus Spending. Those are two variables. You can't say that "taxes are irrelevant" because that would mean one could cut taxes to zero without consequence of deficits.

Therefore, when taxes are cut and nothing is changed with spending, deficits rise. It's even worse recently because the previously 'deficit hawk" Congress not only cut taxes on corporations and the rich but increased spending too. Now, if there was a good reason to cut taxes on the corporations, that would be one thing. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to the economy or to workers (the pretend beneficiaries of this cut).
Click to expand...

If you cut taxes to zero the deficit would still be because of spending more than zero. Thus taxes are irrelevant. Not taking something from someone doesnt cost anything. And there is certainly a benefit to THIS worker. In the amount of about $200 a month.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
What Rubio has not communicated or potentially understands is

Business's will not provide more compensation to workers than it has to in order to have people work for them. If they could pay $40 000 a year then they will pay just $40 000 a year if that is what it took to attract the staff they want. If it required $45 000 and they could afford it, then they would pay it. But if it only took $35 000 they would gladly just pay that amount.

As for the corporate tax cuts.

The real goal and expectation is not that business's would just let that money go directly to workers. That would be idiotic and not in the interests of shareholders. What it could do it encourage other business's to start up or expand in operations as the increase after tax profits could encourage more companies to operate as to take a slice of the increased profits. Higher profits in a dynamic economy would generally cause new business's to open up to get some of those profits. The increased business activity, would require more labour, increasing the competition for workers, leading to higher wages and compensation. That said for the above to occur would take longer than just 6-9 months to start. More likely 1-2 years at the earliest. Companies would want to see proof of higher profits, in sectors they are interested in, before taking the jump to invest
Click to expand...

And there is where the idea fails. You aren;t taxed on the money that you use to expand or start up operations. This is the BS that gets spouted. Companies don't need an income tax break to expand.. if they expand. they already alleviate their tax burden.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Investment Boom From Trump’s Tax Cut Has Yet to Appear

So much for the GOPs 'trickle-down' fantasy.
Click to expand...

So much for your link

https://taxfoundation.org/business-investment-increases-39-percent-q1-2018/

Business investment in the United States is on the rise. Bloomberg Markets reports that among the 130 S&P 500 companies that have reported results for the first quarter of 2018, capital spending increased by 39 percent—the fastest growth in seven years.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom