A historic disaster is coming for the US from the tax bill
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
^ Im familiar with moon tech spinoffs ( really space spin offs) but that's applied technology -I have no idea why you bring this up.
Long term investments are a good idea - infrastructures ( when it's not botched spending) as well as education.But just to touch on education simply cranking out more liberal arts isn't helpful.
You neglect to mention the STEM sector - get some growth there and we agree.
But you got to increase GDP to do these things as they increase revenue.
One thing ( because i'm not going to debate historical tax rates) to think of is business is plowing more money back as investments. I had a thread going "GDP 3.3% that showed that.
Business investment is going up
So it's not just stuff the rich, and hope it trickels down -there is pent up demand for goods and services.
I want those demands met by US business not China or India.
Again those countries are getting 6%+ GDP growth and that's why they get a balance of payments going against the US.
There is no reason we cannot compete.
I don't like things like keeping the carried interests rates. That's a bad factor the bill as of now isn't the best.
But the Senate has to croak out a bill -imperfect as it is..
If we get skewed growth to the rich -it's still better then chugging along at <2% GDP like it has been.
PS talking about cutting spending is what I've been saying for years..there is no political chanch it will happen
Long term investments are a good idea - infrastructures ( when it's not botched spending) as well as education.But just to touch on education simply cranking out more liberal arts isn't helpful.
You neglect to mention the STEM sector - get some growth there and we agree.
But you got to increase GDP to do these things as they increase revenue.
One thing ( because i'm not going to debate historical tax rates) to think of is business is plowing more money back as investments. I had a thread going "GDP 3.3% that showed that.
Business investment is going up
So it's not just stuff the rich, and hope it trickels down -there is pent up demand for goods and services.
I want those demands met by US business not China or India.
Again those countries are getting 6%+ GDP growth and that's why they get a balance of payments going against the US.
There is no reason we cannot compete.
I don't like things like keeping the carried interests rates. That's a bad factor the bill as of now isn't the best.
But the Senate has to croak out a bill -imperfect as it is..
If we get skewed growth to the rich -it's still better then chugging along at <2% GDP like it has been.
PS talking about cutting spending is what I've been saying for years..there is no political chanch it will happen
evince
Truthmatters
they voted against the BILL that gave us the budget surpluses asshole
they FOUGHT the bill that creaated them
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
Please spell out in some detail a tax cut for the poor that you envision.
A survey of CEOs has already said that the tax cut will go to stock BuyBacks and better packages for upper management.
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
I am all for people keeping more of what they earn
I don’t care if it stimulates the economy or not. It isn’t the governments money
If you are worried about the debt then cut spending.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
a New Yorker reporter counting hands versus the CEA report......lol.....next we should ask a NYT reporter's interview of Boy Scout Troop 147 what conclusions he can draw about the military situation in Syria.......
No, it's not revisionist history. Clinton had a mixed record, but his sins were the exceptions for Democrats and they followed the Reagan doctrine and had full Republican support (they'd have happened with a Republican president also). It's his first, deficit attacking budget that's the issue here - which raised taxes on the top 2% - and which passed with ZERO Republican votes and without one vote to spare, that Republicans all said would destroy the economy - but it did the opposite.
Democrats controlled the presidency, House and Senate the first two years of Clinton's presidency. He reduced the deficit similarly all 8 years, including the first two with all Democrats, destroying the lie the Republicans deserved the credit (rather hard to claim since the deficits had been so much higher the 12 years under Republicans before him and the 8 years under Republican after him). The deficit reduction began with his first budget with no Republican votes. Some info on some of its tax increases:
"Previously the top individual tax rate of 31% applied to all income over $51,900. The Act created a new bracket of 36% for income above $115,000, and 39.6% for income above $250,000.
Previously, corporate income above $335,000 was taxed at 34%. The Act created new brackets of 35% for income from $10 million to $15 million, 38% for income from $15 million to $18.33 million, and 35% for income above $18.33 million.
The 2.9% Medicare tax had previously been capped to apply to only the first $135,000 of income. The cap was removed...
The phaseout of the personal exemption and the limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
The AMT tax rate was increased from 24% to tiered rates of 26% and 28%"
The AMT - you know, the 'alternative minimum tax' to try to ensure the rich didn't pay no taxes because of loopholes. The current tax bill in the House ELIMINATED the AMT, though the Senate version PARTIALLY keeps it.
Unless you are going to get the economy more equally distributed to the American people, Social Security (paid for by the recipients) and Medicare are entirely justifiable and should only be increased. They're not the problem.
You have a very simplistic view. You need to get a clue about what economics is and what plutocracy is and what government actually does and the role of the private aristocracy. You're a sucked at the moment for right-wing propaganda. If a billionaire takes a lot of money from the society, and the government taxes a dollar of it and spends it on the people, that government action is not making the people poorer.
read the whole article..it's a mixed bag.
Some are going to just increase profits, some are going to re-invest
Some economist say wage growths will happen -some wont'
it's the usual. get 3 economist in a room and 2 will disagree and the other will say something else.
I keep looking back at Q3. business investment is growing across tthe sectors.
I have to go with those results
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
Your premise is flawed. Where do you get this notion that a “billionaire is taking a lot of money from society”
You seem to be laboring under this delusion that the government is better suited to distributing resources than the individual
Again I believe in the notion of private property. You obviously do not.
You somehow equate the federal gobblement with charity. It is seductive if not tyrannical
evince
Truthmatters
right wing yammering
go get documentation that your idiiot economic ideas actually work
PROOF
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
So do you want everyone to have an equal income? Is “some” inequality OK with you? If so why? If so how much?
I said we'd see if you had ears. Sadly, we did, and you don't.
But let's respond to some things.
That's part of that 'ears' problem. The point was to show you how even economically TERRIBLE spending by the government like tens of billions to put a man on the moon or build bombs in WWII had great benefit to the economy, in contrast to simply inflating the value of the assets of the rich, having them hoard all the wealth, which does NOT increase growth, it HURTS it, taking the wealth out of productive use.
I really don't care about your opinions on the spending particulars, because the issue here has nothing to do with them - it has to do with the actual bill, which is nothing but a $6 trillion redistribution from the people to the rich. So you approving of that while blathering about the bits you do or don't like is like criticizing the food on the Titanic when the relevant topic is the iceberg.
One more time, since you don't have ears: you fell for the big lie that redistributing wealth to the rich INCREASES growth when it actually HURTS growth in today's environment.
If this were Cuba, increasing wealth to the rich would help growth. We're not Cuba. We're a plutocracy.
First, no, this bill is a killed for the long-term US economy. It will simply increase poverty and make the rich richer and hurt growth and increase debt because they can't cut spending enough to pay for the tax cuts.
But about China and India.
Now try to listen.
It's a very easy political point to say 'American first, screw the other countries'.
So let's consider one option. We make China and India our slave states, our colonies Everyone in them has to make things for us at slave wages. Good idea?
Economically, for Americans, it is. The objection to that idea is not economic (for Americans), it's moral. But that moral objection is both correct and powerful today, so there is no chance of it happening (thank goodness).
Because we operate under another system - one which points out that such exploitation tends to be economically inefficient - and which demands some level of more 'fair' competition in the name of higher productivity.
What that means is, that this IS a global economy, and having billions of people who are ready to become skilled labor and compete with the US means it's going to get a lot harder for the 5% of the human race in the US to continue to consume 25% (a rough estimate from memory) of the world's goods - because why WOULD that inequality exist except by forceful injustice? And that privileged 5% in the US is highly separated itself between most of them and the few at the top.
What it means is, we DO have to take a global view, and stop pretending we can just 'screw the Chinese and Indians', and we should be thinking about how to have a decent economy with broad shared prosperity globally, before the few at the top exploit the situation to drain the US of its wealth (since Reagan, going from the world's biggest creditor to the world's biggest debtor) and creating more inequality.
But that's another topic, and you're still blathering about how this growth that ALL GOES TO THE RICH FOR DECADES NOW, a point which you have been simply unable to understand, justifies redistributing $6 trillion MORE to the rich.
More talk about the food on the Titanic while insisting the ship run into the iceberg.
Actually, it's not, because you still don't understand how growth works or how a broader distribution of income increases growth.
You are saying - and you are clueless that you are saying it - is that if we doubled the growth, but all that and more went to the Koch brothers while all the rest of America actually LOST money, that's a good thing.
Actually, the Republicans are going to FORCE cuts to GOOD spending (they'll protect the BAD spending like the military's excesses) - this is called "starve the beast". They can't politically just say "we're going to quit funding healthcare" so instead they keep increasing the debt to the point there simply isn't any budget left to pay for healthcare and it has to be cut. This is what Grover Norquist meant when he said shrink government to the size it can be drowned in the bathtub.
Weaponized tax cuts for the rich, to redistribute wealth to the rich and FORCE reducing government and the people's share of the wealth. It'll kill thousands of Americans a year, and they want that, to take the money for themselves.
But let's respond to some things.
That's part of that 'ears' problem. The point was to show you how even economically TERRIBLE spending by the government like tens of billions to put a man on the moon or build bombs in WWII had great benefit to the economy, in contrast to simply inflating the value of the assets of the rich, having them hoard all the wealth, which does NOT increase growth, it HURTS it, taking the wealth out of productive use.
I really don't care about your opinions on the spending particulars, because the issue here has nothing to do with them - it has to do with the actual bill, which is nothing but a $6 trillion redistribution from the people to the rich. So you approving of that while blathering about the bits you do or don't like is like criticizing the food on the Titanic when the relevant topic is the iceberg.
One more time, since you don't have ears: you fell for the big lie that redistributing wealth to the rich INCREASES growth when it actually HURTS growth in today's environment.
If this were Cuba, increasing wealth to the rich would help growth. We're not Cuba. We're a plutocracy.
First, no, this bill is a killed for the long-term US economy. It will simply increase poverty and make the rich richer and hurt growth and increase debt because they can't cut spending enough to pay for the tax cuts.
But about China and India.
Now try to listen.
It's a very easy political point to say 'American first, screw the other countries'.
So let's consider one option. We make China and India our slave states, our colonies Everyone in them has to make things for us at slave wages. Good idea?
Economically, for Americans, it is. The objection to that idea is not economic (for Americans), it's moral. But that moral objection is both correct and powerful today, so there is no chance of it happening (thank goodness).
Because we operate under another system - one which points out that such exploitation tends to be economically inefficient - and which demands some level of more 'fair' competition in the name of higher productivity.
What that means is, that this IS a global economy, and having billions of people who are ready to become skilled labor and compete with the US means it's going to get a lot harder for the 5% of the human race in the US to continue to consume 25% (a rough estimate from memory) of the world's goods - because why WOULD that inequality exist except by forceful injustice? And that privileged 5% in the US is highly separated itself between most of them and the few at the top.
What it means is, we DO have to take a global view, and stop pretending we can just 'screw the Chinese and Indians', and we should be thinking about how to have a decent economy with broad shared prosperity globally, before the few at the top exploit the situation to drain the US of its wealth (since Reagan, going from the world's biggest creditor to the world's biggest debtor) and creating more inequality.
But that's another topic, and you're still blathering about how this growth that ALL GOES TO THE RICH FOR DECADES NOW, a point which you have been simply unable to understand, justifies redistributing $6 trillion MORE to the rich.
More talk about the food on the Titanic while insisting the ship run into the iceberg.
Actually, it's not, because you still don't understand how growth works or how a broader distribution of income increases growth.
You are saying - and you are clueless that you are saying it - is that if we doubled the growth, but all that and more went to the Koch brothers while all the rest of America actually LOST money, that's a good thing.
Actually, the Republicans are going to FORCE cuts to GOOD spending (they'll protect the BAD spending like the military's excesses) - this is called "starve the beast". They can't politically just say "we're going to quit funding healthcare" so instead they keep increasing the debt to the point there simply isn't any budget left to pay for healthcare and it has to be cut. This is what Grover Norquist meant when he said shrink government to the size it can be drowned in the bathtub.
Weaponized tax cuts for the rich, to redistribute wealth to the rich and FORCE reducing government and the people's share of the wealth. It'll kill thousands of Americans a year, and they want that, to take the money for themselves.
Absolutely not. Equal income is a disaster, and highly concentrated wealth is a disaster. What we need is a moderate level of inequality - that maximizes everything from productivity to the well-being of society.
The thing is, our vocabulary doesn't even HAVE A WORD for that happy medium. All we have are words like "capitalism" and "plutocracy" and "socialism" which are not about the real issues, and are polarizing and harm the discussion of the issues.
Instead, to even discuss the right policies, we have to use phrases and paragraphs to define the solutions. And that's a big reason the political discussion is so screwed up.
I could answer your question being more specific about the 'right amount' of inequality, but that's not really the issue. The issue is for you to understand that that happy medium IS the right answer - there's all kinds of economic reading you can do about the number. But the topic of "Democratic Socialism" gives an idea. Look at the Progressive Caucus's budget they put out every year - it balances the budget faster than the Republicans or Democrats AND pays for many things for the American people. It has growth.
cawacko
Well-known member
For six years Repubkicans in Congress and Clinton battled. It was because of that battle we got the results we did. (Well actually it was because of the Internet and the dot come boom) but from a govt perspective neither let the other get out of hand fiscally.
If you don't care about the debt that's one thing but the facts are S.S., Medicare and the military are our three largest expenses. That is a fact. So trying to address debt without dealing with those three is futile. We also know S.S. is on an unsustainable path which is for another conversation