Sure. Then stop bring race into the debate. Most of your argument is about White vs Black not to mention your obsession with wealthy people.
OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT ?????
- Thread starter SnakeTom
- Start date
Sure. Then stop bring race into the debate. Most of your argument is about White vs Black not to mention your obsession with wealthy people.
And here is a link to the contrary signed by 100 economists.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-opinion-congress-pass-2017-11
What % of our economy is based on comsumption?
What’s the MPC of middle class families compared to wealthy families?
I’m in favor of a tax policy that aims to help the economy... and not a fan of a tax policy which forces us to borrow 1 trillion so wealthy people can “move money around”
I’ve been posting here for 15 years and probably talked about race in a handful of conversations.
I talk about the wealthy during discussions about taxes because in my study of economics and history, I believe we will be most prosperous when the wealthy pay a higher percentage.
I have. Though my grad and undergrad degrees were in accounting, I did study econ as well. Call SHU and tell them they did a bad job if you want. Consumption and velocity are not combating concepts.
Give just the middle class a tax cut. What happens to velocity and consumption rates? They both improve.
Give the same cut to just the wealthy and they may improve, but also depend on many other factors.
If they don’t have a reason to spend money, they won’t. The middle class doesn’t have that same luxury. They will put that money back into the economy.
When the economy is booming again, and middle class incomes are increasing - that is when you can look to lower rates on the wealthy. Until then, they don’t need it and lowering our revenue without cuts hurts our ability to react to other future pressures.
If you have the ability to meet with people with wealth, go have this discussion with them and see what they will do with the extra capital they will have. It may open your eyes.
This goes beyond spending.
BTW, they are not evil. You will realize this the next time you go to a Broadway show.
Last edited:
Lol, now I think they are evil because I have an opinion on tax policy? Never once said or implied that.
I am not suggesting anything crazy here. Economics is math with a significant number of variables, but simple truths are that the poor and middle class spend money when they have it, and the wealthy spend money when they want to (want doesn’t change when you add more cause they have it already) and invest it when there is opportunity.
Merge, not to sound trite, but taking your assumptions....if lower and middle class folks have more money that they will spend, isn't that motivation for the wealthy to invest in new businesses (or reinvest in existing ones), to take advantage of that new found money in the market?
I will explain more clearly.
Pretend we just give a middle class cut. Theoretically, middle class spends more money / creates more demand and rich people invest.
Now, do the same thing but give rich more money. are they investing more than the new demand requires? Or are the they investing what the investment requires?
So now remove the vacuum - what happens when x occurs which hurts the economy and consumer spending does not increase. Will the wealthy invest or wait for demand to return?
We accomplish what we want to accomplish in the economy with just a break to the middle class. So why does the donor class get a break when it does not help our economy to do so?
The answer is because they told politicians they money will stop flowing unless they get a break.
Thanks for explaining but I'm not sure what you are suggesting with "when x occurs". We each have our theiories and I've listened to a number of business owners about their opinions and plans.
Personally, I think we need to have an expanding middle class to sustain growth. An expanding middle class is also a positive motivation for lower income to have hope and strive.
If the middle class has more disposable income, they will likely spend most and save some. Some of that spending will create more jobs (probably most benefitting lower income/low skilled workers). (For example, a couple of family might go out to eat one more time/per month...resulting in increased labor/investment in food service). Someone who is wealthy and a business owner in that segment will hire more workers to meet that demand or possibly invest in a new restaurant. This is all theory but as the business tax rate reductions are permanent, there is less downside because the flow of money will be sustained. Sometimes we focus only on the large corporatations but it's the small/medium size businesses that make local economies go. Have spoken to a number of those folks that are making investments for the reasons I've mentioned.
X is the unknown disruption that we can’t predict. Massive storm, terrorism, foreign economic pressures etc.
We are mostly on the same page though.
I was in favor of a corporate rate cut (though I’m not sure if we dropped it too far)
Giving the middle class a break should help grow the economy. I am all in favor of that.
I don’t believe cutting the rates for the wealthy has nearly the same impact as cutting the rates for the middle class. If there is a profitable investment to be made, they will make it so why are we borrowing more money to give them a break?
I believe the wealthy already have avenues to earn more in a thriving economy when the middle class has more money to spend. They don’t need a cut at all, and I would have been in favor of another bracket or 2 at the top to help balance the corporate rate cuts.
Awful lot of Marxism and classism in there.
Everyone needs to pay less in taxes and the government needs to spend less money.
Everyone needs to pay less in taxes and the government needs to spend less money.
Yes. Unless you think the impact of a tax cut can be calculated exactly... any discussion about the economic impact is theoretical.
I’m not against the government spending less. I don’t see much of a chance of that happening in the current political climate.
So for now, we have a budget and require a certain amount of revenue.
Looking at the best way to obtain that revenue while considering consumption, income generation, wealth distribution etc is not about classism. It is about economics.
It’s not out of jealousy, anger or hatred of people who make a lot of money. Jus look at the “patriotic millionaires” who were petitioning for themselves to pay higher taxes.
And like I said many times, there is a time when we should look at lowering rates for the wealthy. That is far from a Marxist or classist opinion to hold.
I just don’t believe now is that time. I’d want it to be when wages are rising and revenue is increasing from the growth in middle class income.
When you threw in the "need" word, that was reasonable for SPK t call you out on Marxism.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
I agree with you that the wealthy do not "need" a tax break. Our economic foundation is capitalism. Wealth is not distributed based on need. I have no desire to progress any further toward socialism or communism.
I do not agree with your theory that a tax cut to the wealthy is a bad thing for the economy.
I was referring to the insane UK tax rates.
I was hoping you were no where near thinking about these kinds of rates
In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war.
Again, I do not agree that we will be prosperous by taxing the wealthy more.
BTW, for clarity, I would like to understand your definition of wealthy.
I didn't realize a word in a different context would mean I am a Marxist....
A tax cut to the wealthy is not necessarily bad for the economy.
Would you agree that we should be moving towards reducing our deficit?
Would you agree that a tax cut to the middle class is a good method to increase consumption / demand and helps our economy grow?
Would you agree that a globally competitive corporate tax rate would be beneficial for companies and America and could help in keeping companies here?
From our discussions - I am guessing you would agree with all off that?
Great. How should it be funded?
An additional tax cut for the highest earners?
It will be interesting if Trump takes on deficit reduction during this term. And whether that's trimming around the edges or addressing entitlement programs. We do need to have an honest bipartisan discussion and put everything on the table, but the parties as constructed will never do that. Will Trump initiate it though?
There is some interesting stuff going on like Tillerson doing a major restructuring of the State Department, eliminating a number of non-essential positions and skinnying down administrative layers....doesn't get any air time, but it is happening.
Yes, I agree with the first sentence.
Regarding funding, given the top 1% pay half the income taxes, are you suggesting we merely increase their taxes to fund the tax break for the the half or the taxes.?
The top 1% pay around $550 Billion in taxes. 39.6% reduced to 37% is 2.6%, or a 6.6% reduction in the marginal rates.
Let's assume that translates to the reduction in their taxes and you are then looking at the tax break for the wealthy costing $36B.
Last I checked the federal budget was $4,100B.
Last I checked the estimated cost of the tax legislation is $1,500B
Last I checked, $37B won't cover that.
I agree with that, do you?
Spending is 50% of the problem (just like defense is 50% of a basketball game) yet you refuse to ever put spending cuts on the table.
Cuts are too granular, so none of us really talk about them here outside of saying "defense or entitlements" I'm not against cuts. I think there is plenty of room for negotiation and I have said many times on here that one of my problems with dems is that they don't know when to stop spending. Anything should be on the table with potential economic impact being the biggest factor for each.
They are not to granular....Politicians and the public don't like to talk about cuts because they require sacrifice and discipline. Just because something is hard to talk about doesn't mean we shouldn't or resort to the standard talking points. Too much partisanship and too much NIMBY.
We have close to 1,000 active grant programs currently.
Please list which you think should be cut, which shouldn't and why.
^ That is why it is too granular.
If you bring up a single issue here, we usually discuss it... All I was saying was it is an incorrect assumption to suggest that I was not willing to put "spending cuts on the table" Anything is on the table. We can start with $24 million dollar refrigerators, and weekly million dollar golfing trips.
Wow, you got really granular on me...lol.
I would start with the VA (one of the few things I actually know just a little something about...). Budget in the $300 billion range. There is excess capacity in our existing healthcare system and providing a higher quality of care (which our veterans desperately deserve). David Shulkin is focused on redefining the culture, but that's an uphill battle and unwinnable IMO. The premises that the VA system was built back in 1930 are very different today. Every major metropolitan area where a VA center exists there are either large IDN's or teaching hospitals that have far superior technology and quality of care. Politics and selfishness will prevent this from happening.
