|
Post by palealeman on Dec 21, 2017 14:04:39 GMT -5
It's interesting that no one has started a thread on the tax bill that was just passed by Congress. Anyone have any comments? Is the bill a true middle class tax cut, or a big tax relief bill for the rich? Will corporations invest in new plants and workers, or is the economy at the point where there isn't too much room for additional growth? Will the bill lead to changes in Social Security and Medicare?
I point out that I have no horse in the race here. This bill has no impact at all on the amount of income tax I pay. I will pay no more and no less under this bill. There could be an issue with Social Security or Medicare, but there are no proposals at present to even consider.
Comments?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 21, 2017 14:13:29 GMT -5
It's interesting that no one has started a thread on the tax bill that was just passed by Congress. Anyone have any comments? Is the bill a true middle class tax cut, or a big tax relief bill for the rich? Will corporations invest in new plants and workers, or is the economy at the point where there isn't too much room for additional growth? Will the bill lead to changes in Social Security and Medicare? I point out that I have no horse in the race here. This bill has no impact at all on the amount of income tax I pay. I will pay no more and no less under this bill. There could be an issue with Social Security or Medicare, but there are no proposals at present to even consider. Comments? It’s early yet to know what will happen, but a few companies have already increased pay, or issued bonuses. Making US corporate tax rates comparable to most of the world will probably bring a lot of new investment here. For individuals, this should result in a small net tax cut for nearly everyone. I don’t think it particularly favors any income group.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 21, 2017 15:28:20 GMT -5
I think a number of think tanks have already examined the bill, RJ, and that we have a pretty good idea of what will happen. As written, the rich will get big tax breaks and get richer, the middle class will get a tax break that expires in a few years and ultimately gets poorer, and corporations get a reduced tax rate that remains unchanged for the foreseeable future. Since (1) trickle-down economics has never worked, and (2) the economy is at almost full employment, I don't see much growth happening. Some companies will increase pay a bit or give some bonuses, others will buy back stock or increase dividends. But I don't think this will give us the hugh economic impact that Mr. Trump claims.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 21, 2017 15:54:38 GMT -5
I think a number of think tanks have already examined the bill, RJ, and that we have a pretty good idea of what will happen. As written, the rich will get big tax breaks and get richer, the middle class will get a tax break that expires in a few years and ultimately gets poorer, and corporations get a reduced tax rate that remains unchanged for the foreseeable future. Since (1) trickle-down economics has never worked, and (2) the economy is at almost full employment, I don't see much growth happening. Some companies will increase pay a bit or give some bonuses, others will buy back stock or increase dividends. But I don't think this will give us the hugh economic impact that Mr. Trump claims. Thats certainly the take of many leftist think tanks. Some of those people didn't think the current GDP growth numbers we're seeing were possible anymore. While it is true that the individual tax cuts are set to expire in 10 years, they could remain in place if the Democrats get on board. If they don't they'll be responsible for a large tax hike on the middle class. The rich are not getting a huge tax break. Trickle down economics works just fine. It's not even really "trickle down economics" so much as it is just economics. Bringing US corporate taxes in line with the rest of the world will make US companies more competitive, and can't do anything but help their employees.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 21, 2017 16:11:03 GMT -5
Depends on what they do with the money, RJ. Corporations have been doing well for the last 8 year. However, most have been sitting on money, hiding it overseas, not reinvesting it, not hiring or increasing employee pay. Why will things be different now?
Trickle down has never worked. Didn't work under Reagan, didn't work under Bush 1, didn't work under Bush 2. Instead, we had recessions and the largest deficits at the time. And I have to comment on your way of thinking. The Republicans passed a bill with some provisions set to expire in 10 years. But if they do expire, it's the Democrats fault? If the Republicans are so insistent on permanent tax cuts for everyone, why bother with the sunset provisions? Why not just make them permanent and be done with it?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 21, 2017 16:44:34 GMT -5
Depends on what they do with the money, RJ. Corporations have been doing well for the last 8 year. However, most have been sitting on money, hiding it overseas, not reinvesting it, not hiring or increasing employee pay. Why will things be different now? They've been hiding it overseas because the taxes were A LOT lower overseas. Bringing it back here made for a huge tax penalty. This tax bill addresses that. In fact, Its sort of the point of the bill. Not knowing that pretty much ends any credibility you had on this topic. This is just nonsense not even worthy of a response. The economy soared starting with Reagan, after Carternomics failed. It'll soar again now that Obama is done reimposing Carternomics again. Well, thats just smart politics, isn't it? 9 years from now, if the Democrats are in control of Congress again, the GOP gets to campaign on extending the tax cuts.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 21, 2017 19:43:56 GMT -5
You got to explain this to me, RJ. Reagan cut taxes in '81. Then raised them 11 times during his 8 years to make up for the reduced income. The deficit soared to all-time highs. The budget increased by over 60% in his 2 terms. There was a major recession in the late 80s - early 90s. How do you figure that the economy soared?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 21, 2017 20:19:52 GMT -5
You got to explain this to me, RJ. Reagan cut taxes in '81. Then raised them 11 times during his 8 years to make up for the reduced income. The deficit soared to all-time highs. The budget increased by over 60% in his 2 terms. There was a major recession in the late 80s - early 90s. How do you figure that the economy soared? No one thinks the early 90s recession was "major". en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession_in_the_United_StatesWell, no one who understands economics does. Reagan did cut taxes in '81. It was one of the primary reasons the economy got back on track after Carternomics gave us double-digit inflation, gasoline lines, and "malaise." He cut them again in '86. There were about 11 tax increases during Reagan's administration, but the cuts were so much larger than the increases, the increases took back only about half of the cuts. With the exception of the relatively mild early 1990s recession,which was mostly due to the oil price shock, and then the second minor recession in 2001 when the dot-com bubble burst, the period after the Reagan tax cuts was the longest and largest economic expansion in US history, and basically lasted clear through until the mortgage crisis hit in 2007. You're either ignorant of Reagan's actual record, or outright lying about it.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 21, 2017 22:53:39 GMT -5
I remember the early 90s recession. I quit my job to start a business. A few week later my job was eliminated by the State. In 91 or 92 there was a tax increase in Maryland of about $350 million, due to the recession.
Trickle-down resulted in 2 major recessions. Not minor, major. Obviously you know little about economics. And you're such a far right wing partisan that nothing can detract from the myth of St. Ronnie, not even the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 21, 2017 23:13:06 GMT -5
I remember the early 90s recession. I quit my job to start a business. A few week later my job was eliminated by the State. In 91 or 92 there was a tax increase in Maryland of about $350 million, due to the recession. Trickle-down resulted in 2 major recessions. Not minor, major. Obviously you know little about economics. And you're such a far right wing partisan that nothing can detract from the myth of St. Ronnie, not even the truth. I've given you the wiki article. And I lived through them too. I also remember the late 1970s. The early 1990s recession and the 2001 recession were very minor, and that's what the experts will tell you too.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 22, 2017 8:04:20 GMT -5
No wiki article mentioned in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 22, 2017 8:06:05 GMT -5
No wiki article mentioned in this thread. Sure. Just like the tax cuts didn’t boost the economy. See 5 posts up.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 22, 2017 9:35:19 GMT -5
Depends on what they do with the money, RJ. Corporations have been doing well for the last 8 year. However, most have been sitting on money, hiding it overseas, not reinvesting it, not hiring or increasing employee pay. Why will things be different now? Trickle down has never worked. Didn't work under Reagan, didn't work under Bush 1, didn't work under Bush 2. Instead, we had recessions and the largest deficits at the time. And I have to comment on your way of thinking. The Republicans passed a bill with some provisions set to expire in 10 years. But if they do expire, it's the Democrats fault? If the Republicans are so insistent on permanent tax cuts for everyone, why bother with the sunset provisions? Why not just make them permanent and be done with it? It did work under Reagan. And the recessions were caused by Leftist stupidity. The CRA, forcing lenders to make bad loans, then having the Feds cover those bad loans, the .com bubble bursting because of mismanagement, and a host of other 'mistakes' by the Feds led to both recessions. The corporations don't bring that money back here because the Federal government wants to take most of it away from them. A lower tax rate will encourage corporations to reinvest their money here, because massive chunks of it won't go to paying for illegal aliens' welfare, or various Federal agencies to attack them for nonexistent "crimes". Nor will the money be used as a slush fund for Leftist organizations, like The Puppet did with all those "fines" against banks and other lenders. The sunset clause was because the Party of the KKK can't stand the thought of people keeping the money they earn, and wouldn't have bothered to even show up if it weren't in there.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 22, 2017 9:37:55 GMT -5
No wiki article mentioned in this thread. Sure. Just like the tax cuts didn’t boost the economy. See 5 posts up. Sorry. Missed it 2 or 3 times. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 22, 2017 9:44:08 GMT -5
I remember the early 90s recession. I quit my job to start a business. A few week later my job was eliminated by the State. In 91 or 92 there was a tax increase in Maryland of about $350 million, due to the recession. Trickle-down resulted in 2 major recessions. Not minor, major. Obviously you know little about economics. And you're such a far right wing partisan that nothing can detract from the myth of St. Ronnie, not even the truth. So, your Party of the KKK controlled enclave raised taxes, to "pay for" a recession? That makes as much sense as shooting a person attempting suicide to stop him from doing so. The "trickle down" didn't cause the recessions. Stupid policies by the Feds, or by corporations did. Revenue to the Federal government went up significantly after Reagan's tax cuts. It always goes up after tax cuts, because people don't try so hard to get around the taxes, and employment goes up. So do sales. And, by the way, The Puppet over doubled the debt, and raised taxes all along. Why weren't you so worried about it under him? www.heritage.org/taxes/report/tax-cuts-increase-federal-revenueswww.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#6ad039d4bf26
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 22, 2017 9:47:00 GMT -5
Still have to disagree with you, RJ. The point behind trickle-down is that benefits for the wealthy work their way down to everyone else. Cut corporate taxes, encourage business growth, get more people working, get more money into the economy. If working properly, wages would increase all around. In fact, the disparity in wages and wealth between upper and middle class had increased dramatically over the last 30 or 40 years. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer.
If you have a cut to your income but increase your spending, you have a problem. That's what happened under Reagan. Taxes cut, spending increased -- Reagan's budgets increased spending by 60% over his 8 years, income to the government did not increase, and the deficit tripled. If that's what you call success, I'd hate to see your definition of failure.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 22, 2017 9:51:17 GMT -5
Still have to disagree with you, RJ. The point behind trickle-down is that benefits for the wealthy work their way down to everyone else. Cut corporate taxes, encourage business growth, get more people working, get more money into the economy. If working properly, wages would increase all around. In fact, the disparity in wages and wealth between upper and middle class had increased dramatically over the last 30 or 40 years. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer. If you have a cut to your income but increase your spending, you have a problem. That's what happened under Reagan. Taxes cut, spending increased -- Reagan's budgets increased spending by 60% over his 8 years, income to the government did not increase, and the deficit tripled. If that's what you call success, I'd hate to see your definition of failure. And that worked. Your propaganda outlets won't tell you that, because they have to keep as many people as possible on the public teat, or they lose all their power. The spending increased almost exclusively because of the Party of the KKK wanting to buy more votes by putting as many people as possible in dependence on the Federal government. And on useless and illegal "agencies" like the EPA and the Dept of Ed. Just like they are doing today.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 22, 2017 10:00:40 GMT -5
Still have to disagree with you, RJ. The point behind trickle-down is that benefits for the wealthy work their way down to everyone else. Cut corporate taxes, encourage business growth, get more people working, get more money into the economy. If working properly, wages would increase all around. In fact, the disparity in wages and wealth between upper and middle class had increased dramatically over the last 30 or 40 years. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer. If you have a cut to your income but increase your spending, you have a problem. That's what happened under Reagan. Taxes cut, spending increased -- Reagan's budgets increased spending by 60% over his 8 years, income to the government did not increase, and the deficit tripled. If that's what you call success, I'd hate to see your definition of failure. It is true that the rich are richer. It is a filthy lie that the poor are poorer. The poor are considerably richer than they were in the 1980s. What has to be understood in terms of what Reagan did, is where the economy was when he started. The “malaise” of the late 1970s, Carter era was bad. Gas lines. Stagflation. Double digit inflation. Reaganomics saved the country from that. It is not perfect, no economic system is. But it is a vast improvement over Carternomics, both the first time, and when Obama brought it back.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 22, 2017 11:20:56 GMT -5
Still have to disagree with you, RJ. The point behind trickle-down is that benefits for the wealthy work their way down to everyone else. Cut corporate taxes, encourage business growth, get more people working, get more money into the economy. If working properly, wages would increase all around. In fact, the disparity in wages and wealth between upper and middle class had increased dramatically over the last 30 or 40 years. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer. If you have a cut to your income but increase your spending, you have a problem. That's what happened under Reagan. Taxes cut, spending increased -- Reagan's budgets increased spending by 60% over his 8 years, income to the government did not increase, and the deficit tripled. If that's what you call success, I'd hate to see your definition of failure. It is true that the rich are richer. It is a filthy lie that the poor are poorer. The poor are considerably richer than they were in the 1980s. What has to be understood in terms of what Reagan did, is where the economy was when he started. The “malaise” of the late 1970s, Carter era was bad. Gas lines. Stagflation. Double digit inflation. Reaganomics saved the country from that. It is not perfect, no economic system is. But it is a vast improvement over Carternomics, both the first time, and when Obama brought it back. That's what the Left refuses to acknowledge. When they talk about "paying for" tax cuts, or that "the rich get richer", they never, ever mention stopping the spending. Every time the revenues go up, the Party of the KKK spends all of it, and more.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 22, 2017 14:14:34 GMT -5
Still have to disagree with you, RJ. The point behind trickle-down is that benefits for the wealthy work their way down to everyone else. Cut corporate taxes, encourage business growth, get more people working, get more money into the economy. If working properly, wages would increase all around. In fact, the disparity in wages and wealth between upper and middle class had increased dramatically over the last 30 or 40 years. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer. If you have a cut to your income but increase your spending, you have a problem. That's what happened under Reagan. Taxes cut, spending increased -- Reagan's budgets increased spending by 60% over his 8 years, income to the government did not increase, and the deficit tripled. If that's what you call success, I'd hate to see your definition of failure. It is true that the rich are richer. It is a filthy lie that the poor are poorer. The poor are considerably richer than they were in the 1980s. What has to be understood in terms of what Reagan did, is where the economy was when he started. The “malaise” of the late 1970s, Carter era was bad. Gas lines. Stagflation. Double digit inflation. Reaganomics saved the country from that. It is not perfect, no economic system is. But it is a vast improvement over Carternomics, both the first time, and when Obama brought it back. Saw some stats on the "lie" that the poor are poorer. What I read was that wages for the "poor" had increased by 6%, while in the same period wages for the wealthy increased by something like 80%. I forget the exact period involved, but it was a good 20 - 25 years from the 80s into the 2000s. You're also forgetting a few things, RJ. A lot of the Carter economic problems were caused by Nixon economic policies and practices. In fact, the pattern over the years seems to be something like Republican comes into office, cuts taxes on the assumption that doing so will pump up the economy, revenues go down, spending goes up, the deficit hits record numbers, a recession hits, then a Democrat gets elected and straightens things out. In short, want to ruin the economy? Elect a Republican and watch the deficit spending start. Want to improve the economy? Elect a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 22, 2017 15:00:55 GMT -5
It is true that the rich are richer. It is a filthy lie that the poor are poorer. The poor are considerably richer than they were in the 1980s. What has to be understood in terms of what Reagan did, is where the economy was when he started. The “malaise” of the late 1970s, Carter era was bad. Gas lines. Stagflation. Double digit inflation. Reaganomics saved the country from that. It is not perfect, no economic system is. But it is a vast improvement over Carternomics, both the first time, and when Obama brought it back. Saw some stats on the "lie" that the poor are poorer. What I read was that wages for the "poor" had increased by 6%, while in the same period wages for the wealthy increased by something like 80%. I forget the exact period involved, but it was a good 20 - 25 years from the 80s into the 2000s. So, I should resent someone who’s doing a lot better, because I’m only doing a little better? Nothing like class envy to define a political party. Never mind the poor now have things like smart phones and flat screen TVs - things that not even the hyper wealthy had in the 80s - because the rising tide has lifted everyone’s boat. Unlike say, Venezuela, whrere people are starving. Carter didn’t solve the problem, and it got worse under his administration. I’d argue the economic problems of the 1970d actually had their roots in FDR’s Administration, but whatever. Reaganomics fixed the economic problems, and the economy soared for almost 30 years. And it was mostly Gingrich’s congress that prevented Clinton from effing things up again.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 22, 2017 20:19:03 GMT -5
OMG, RJ, are you serious? I've never seen such a divorce from reality. The economy soared for almost 30 years? Which economy? Not the US. Recession in the 90s, another "great recession" in the starting around 2007-2008. And most experts agree that it was the tax increases enacted under Clinton that turned the economy around in the 1990s.
I'm not sure i'd consider the poor "considerably richer" than in the 1980s. In terms of gross income between now and then, yes. In comparison to the wealthy, no way. But, if you're happy with a small increase in comparison to major increases for others, . . .
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 22, 2017 20:30:14 GMT -5
OMG, RJ, are you serious? I've never seen such a divorce from reality. The economy soared for almost 30 years? Which economy? Not the US. Recession in the 90s, another "great recession" in the starting around 2007-2008. And most experts agree that it was the tax increases enacted under Clinton that turned the economy around in the 1990s. From 1982 to 2007 is 25 years. There were two very minor recessions in that time period. The first one was the oil shock from the Iraq war, the second was the dot-com bubble. Both were shallow and short. Economists that think tax hikes help the economy aren't economists. They're idiots. Did the poor have smart phones, or HDTV, or microwave ovens in the 1980s? No. They have all that stuff now.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 23, 2017 14:05:50 GMT -5
So having a smart phone means I'm rich? Having a microwave (which I did have in the late 70s) or an HDTV, means I'm rich? Cell phones and HDTVs weren't even around in the 70s or 80s. What a false argument.
Raising taxes to get out of a recession and stabilize means someone is an idiot? Must be why Reagan raised taxes so many times to get out of the 82 recession his tax cuts caused.
Where did you study economics?
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 23, 2017 14:09:46 GMT -5
And now I understand why the free government cell phone program started while Bush 2 was President. Make all those poor people think they're rich!
|
|