EPTWe are at full employment and at war. There is little reason for a tax cut now.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9363
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
We are at full employment and at war. There is little reason for a tax cut now. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:38 mozoku wrote: People with high incomes get a bigger cut in absolute $. This would be true even if the the % cut for the middle class was bigger than the % cut for the rich. Not to mention this chart is lacking all context so it'd be meaningless even if the above weren't true. Can any leftist convincingly explain why the motivation for a tax cut on the rich isn't just... growth? Or principle? It's seems to be an axiom of tax analysis here that any GOP tax plan amounts to nothing more than a selfish money grab by those who need the money least. A tax cut on the poor is 100% guaranteed to flow right back into the economy, since poor people struggle to find any discretionary income and have trouble making ends meet as it is. A tax cut for the rich is guaranteed to go absolutely nowhere, and often does just that. Trickle-down has never worked like the rich want you to believe. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:31 mozoku wrote: You're mistaking the cause for the effect, and we're coming full circle. Nationalism is about putting your nation/countrymen above others. Widespread and extreme nationalism tends towards war in a world with scarce resources. I'm well aware of 20th century history. Moderate levels of nationalism (e.g. the average person) are less clearly destructive. On the other hand, there are at least two motivations for being a nationalist. You can A) be a bigot or B) care more about those who are close to you (something akin to loyalty or kinsmanship). The first socially taboo (and rightfully so). The second is socially virtuous in most circles. The default leftist assumption is that all nationalism is the former. Trump's base likely has significant numbers of both. Maybe more A than B, but there's definitely some B in there too. At the very least, you can support Trump's non-racist nationalist stuff (which I don't) under B and not be an evil cretin. B has very little to do with nationalism. Great to be close to your community and family, but that is not and will not be 300 million people, which is what your nation consists of. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Geraldo with a red hot take on Lauer being fired. Unfortunately it reminded some people of something from 91 interview An old clip from a Barbara Walters interview might be coming back to haunt Geraldo Rivera. Rivera took a lot of heat Wednesday for tweeting his defense of newly-fired NBC anchor Matt Lauer. The Fox News personality called Lauer’s alleged actions (which reportedly included the former Today host exposing himself to a woman) “courtship,” and said that the news is a “flirty business.” In the wake of the firestorm the longtime TV personality made for himself, a clip of a 1991 interview Barbara Walters did with Bette Midler has been circulating around the web. Walters asked Midler to react to Rivera’s claim in an autobiography that the two of them had an “affair.” Initially, Midler laughed it off, saying that Rivera’s “penis went to his head.” Midler then recalled the time she met him in the early ’70s. She alleges that while shooting an interview, Rivera and his producer “pushed” her into a bathroom, “broke two poppers and pushed them under [her] nose,” and groped her. “I did not offer myself up on the altar of Geraldo Rivera. He was unseemly, his behavior was unseemly.” Before moving on, she told Walters had she known he was going to become a “slimy talk show host,” she “wouldn’t have let him in the room” and that these things could “come back to haunt” her. www.mediaite.com | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:45 NewSunshine wrote: A tax cut on the poor is 100% guaranteed to flow right back into the economy, since poor people struggle to find any discretionary income and have trouble making ends meet as it is. A tax cut for the rich is guaranteed to go absolutely nowhere, and often does just that. Trickle-down has never worked like the rich want you to believe. Trickle down works pretty much everywhere it's tried. It's called capitalism at work. It's the only true generator of wealth out there. And I'm not sure what you think rich people do with their money, because saying that the money goes "nowhere" is just pure bullshit. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4744 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/935976749766205448 https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/935998812363153408 Geraldo with a red hot take on Lauer being fired. Unfortunately it reminded some people of something from 91 interview www.mediaite.com I was driving on the west side highway once and saw Geraldo Rivera pull up next to me. Whoever detailed his Bentley left swirls in the paint. He had some dumb looking red glasses on. What a silly person. He seems like someone who needs attention at all times. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:51 xDaunt wrote: Trickle down works pretty much everywhere it's tried. It's called capitalism at work. It's the only true generator of wealth out there. And I'm not sure what you think rich people do with their money, because saying that the money goes "nowhere" is just pure bullshit. Money might generate wealth, but nothing makes that trickle down to the middle and lower classes. Increasing inequality and the failure of minimum wage to keep up with inflation pretty much shows it doesn't work. | ||
KwarK
United States42596 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:51 xDaunt wrote: Trickle down works pretty much everywhere it's tried. It's called capitalism at work. It's the only true generator of wealth out there. And I'm not sure what you think rich people do with their money, because saying that the money goes "nowhere" is just pure bullshit. They buy a larger share of the means of production, thus concentrating income into a smaller group of hands. This is settled. We have seven decades of income tax policy and wealth distribution data to draw from and there is an extremely clear correlation. The 1986 tax cuts led directly to a huge concentration of wealth at the top, at the expense of the middle classes. It can be covered up when using mean, rather than median, but the reality is that the even the upper middle class haven't done well under trickle down economics. When you average the top 10% it looks similar but that's because the top 0.1% are fucking the average up, once you compare the medians it's clear that there has been a colossal redistribution. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:51 xDaunt wrote: Trickle down works pretty much everywhere it's tried. It's called capitalism at work. It's the only true generator of wealth out there. And I'm not sure what you think rich people do with their money, because saying that the money goes "nowhere" is just pure bullshit. They stash it in offshore havens to avoid taxes. I've never heard of a rich person doing something worthwhile in the US. It is always poor/middle class people who then become rich and useless. | ||
|
doomdonker
90 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:51 xDaunt wrote: Trickle down works pretty much everywhere it's tried. It's called capitalism at work. It's the only true generator of wealth out there. And I'm not sure what you think rich people do with their money, because saying that the money goes "nowhere" is just pure bullshit. Positive examples being? Wealth inequality in the United States is increasing exponentially since Reagan's trickle down economics became the default. Same with the rest of the world, with wage stagnation and erosion of the middle class occurring everywhere and zero sign of it stopping. I mean, cutting the corporate tax rate and lowering taxes for the wealthy doesn't translate to increased wages and benefits for lower rung workers. It definitely hasn't happened in the United States, despite supply side economics being the norm over there for three decades. Businesses have already admitted that the shareholders are going to be the ones who gain from the proposed Republican tax cuts and not the workers. Not to mention rich people aren't hanging around with the lower classes. I don't think Ivanka Trump eats cheesesteaks and hangs out in dives, she's drinking $1,000 bottles of white and eating at prix fixe restaurants. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Don't worry Donald, she has better things to do than worry about your stupid ass. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 30 2017 11:02 Danglars wrote: I'm building an argument in five or six sentences, and you can't get a clue beyond one sentence. Seems like the point is lost on you. You said Trump is using executive orders just like Obama, and Trump's exploitation of white grievance is him "capitalizing" on Obama's supposed use of racial grievance. This is clearly a statement that in important ways, Trump is just doing the same thing Obama did. A flagrant false equivalence. But it is funny that you would later deny that this is what you said - I don't blame you. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:49 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/935976749766205448 https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/935998812363153408 Geraldo with a red hot take on Lauer being fired. Unfortunately it reminded some people of something from 91 interview www.mediaite.com Looks like Geraldo has hit the panic button. I'll bet he's next on the chopping block. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:45 NewSunshine wrote: A tax cut on the poor is 100% guaranteed to flow right back into the economy, since poor people struggle to find any discretionary income and have trouble making ends meet as it is. A tax cut for the rich is guaranteed to go absolutely nowhere, and often does just that. On the contrary, the wealthiest are most able to invest in riskiest and highest-rewarding opportunities (in a risk-averse world like the one we live in). Hence why moonshots are a sensible investments for Google and Jeff Bezos, but not for you and I. Consumption produces GDP today, but not tomorrow. Investment produces GDP today, and also accrues additional GDP in the future. No wealthy person puts marginal capital under their mattress. At the very least, they're buying US government debt. Trickle-down has never worked like the rich want you to believe. And I'm sure you're qualified to say that. How many independent economic environments have been observed that we have detailed records of? (Hint: We have one.) Please explain to me how we have a replication crisis in fields that are conducting randomized controlled testing, but you've seen convincing evidence to conclude that the entire field of finance is full of shit based on ~30 years of autocorrelated observational data where the estimated effect size (i.e. of tax policy) on the response (quarterly economic growth) is about <5-10% of its variance. Let me answer that for you: you don't. Empirical macroeconomics in 2017 is hard because literally every macroeconomic forecast is an extrapolation. Maybe in 300 years you can answer the above (except probably not because the economic growth vector space will likely never be well-covered). Until then, let's stick to the obvious investment > consumption paradigm, huh? | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On November 30 2017 12:58 KwarK wrote: They buy a larger share of the means of production, thus concentrating income into a smaller group of hands. This is settled. We have seven decades of income tax policy and wealth distribution data to draw from and there is an extremely clear correlation. The 1986 tax cuts led directly to a huge concentration of wealth at the top, at the expense of the middle classes. It can be covered up when using mean, rather than median, but the reality is that the even the upper middle class haven't done well under trickle down economics. When you average the top 10% it looks similar but that's because the top 0.1% are fucking the average up, once you compare the medians it's clear that there has been a colossal redistribution. How do you conclude that it came at the "expense" of the middle class when everyone is richer lol? I don't have a problem with redistribution when it's weighed against its effects on growth and property rights. Except that isn't what any liberal actually does. All I ever hear from leftists is "greedy rich are trying to fuck me" paired with total ignorance (or sheer denial) of the underlying economics. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42596 Posts
On November 30 2017 14:08 mozoku wrote: How do you conclude that it came at the "expense" of the middle class when everyone is richer lol? I don't have a problem with redistribution when it's weighed against its effects on growth and property rights. Except that isn't what any liberal actually does. All I ever hear from leftists is "greedy rich are trying to fuck me" paired with a total ignorance of the underlying economics. I have an awful lot of trouble with your "liberals don't consider the effect of their redistributive policies on growth" when redistribution increases growth. The two are correlated. | ||
| ||
. 
