Traitors.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not necessarily because we can all agree that 5,000,000 jobs is better than 0 jobs, right?

At no time do we spend money and produce zero jobs. My statement was that we can disagree on whether that spending is good for the country or not. Spending on the military creates jobs but you don't think it is good for the country. Someone else may think it is great for the country. Until you are willing to find common ground with that person you will never be able to find a compromise which is required for government to work.

What have tax cuts given us besides debt? They haven't created a single job. No business hires based on a tax cut...they hire based on demand. And if demand is low because we are in a recession and/or people don't have high enough wages, then a business isn't going to hire anyone. No one hires a worker just because...people are hired to meet demand. The only way to increase demand is to give consumers more to spend. You can accomplish that any number of ways, but slightly improving their after-tax income ain't one of them.

Actually, one of my first jobs was as a result of a targeted tax cut. Tax policy is not just "Pay or don't pay". It often can be used to incentivize decisions or direct policy. You seem to only be able to work in broad strokes and have no understanding of the details.

 

[LV426]

The excess is not always sitting outside the economy.

For the most part, it sure is.

It is often invested in ways to that could in fact help the economy.

No it's not. This is not true. We know it's not true because we just lived through it. There was a tax cut in 2018 that was promised would "increase business investment".

What happened? Business investment declined. In 2018 and 2019. So you can't blame COVID or anything else.

The 2018 tax cut ended up resulting in LESS business investment, not more.

And we on the Left knew that would happen but were assured by people just like you that "oh, the rich will invest, just wait and see."

They didn't invest. In fact, in the last three quarters of 2019, business investment declined: https://www.marketplace.org/2020/01...n-falling-for-three-quarters-should-we-worry/. But the wealthy managed to increase their share of the wealth.

So...did the tax cut result in business investment? No.

Do they ever result in business investment? Also, no.

So since the rich aren't using the tax cut to reinvest, what are they doing with it?

 

[LV426]

Try looking up angel investing sometime.

Give me a fucking break with this shit.

"Angel investing" doesn't need a tax cut in order to happen.

Let's deal in reality, not Shark Tank.

 

[LV426]

At no time do we spend money and produce zero jobs

Except for tax cuts.

My statement was that we can disagree on whether that spending is good for the country or not. Spending on the military creates jobs but you don't think it is good for the country.

Cause it's not good for the country because what it produces isn't even used here, we get no benefit out of it being used overseas, and they're weapons of war! They don't help an economy grow, they destroy economies.

Ike warned us about this exact thing 60 years ago. Why have you forgotten it?

Keeping people employed for the sake of war is not sound economic policy, and it's probably the reason why we have so many economic problems right now. Spending all that money on planes we'll never use, tanks we'll never use, bombs we'll never drop is a money suck. It's pulling $700B out of the economy EVERY YEAR and providing us with nothing in return. NOTHING.

Until you are willing to find common ground with that person you will never be able to find a compromise which is required for government to work.

Go ahead and make the argument for perpetual war as employment policy and see how far you get.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

How does a tax cut benefit anyone other than the rich when we know that after tax cuts, personal savings declines and household debt increases?

Facts not in evidence since the chart you presented shows that personal savings declined and debt increased after tax increases as well. At no time did they reverse themselves no matter what the tax policy was.

No, defense spending doesn't help the economy because what defense produces isn't used in this country. It's exploded overseas, where it doesn't benefit the people over there, nor does it benefit the people over here. A bomb dropped in Syria doesn't help Syrians, it doesn't help a worker in Ohio, and mere employment is not what we're striving for here if that employment is a black hole that sucks up taxpayer dollars on ordinance that is used overseas. We don't see any benefit from tanks and planes here. And if the only reason we do is to keep 2-3 million people employed, then I think we need to reexamine our priorities. Because war for the sake of employment is horseshit. It's exactly what Ike warned about.

You don't need to join the military to learn new skills.

And there it is. You are so blinded by your ideology that you refuse to see any benefit. Building tanks and planes produces jobs that pay people so those people can in turn buy cars, houses, meals out etc. Every dollar spent building a plane or tank probably adds $5 to the economy. Let me repeat what I said earlier. You reject out of hand any benefit that you don't think is the right benefit.

You might not need to join the military to learn new skills but it may be the only place that someone poor with no skills can be paid to learn new skills.

 

[LV426]

Actually, one of my first jobs was as a result of a targeted tax cut. Tax policy is not just "Pay or don't pay". It often can be used to incentivize decisions or direct policy. You seem to only be able to work in broad strokes and have no understanding of the details.

Well, I speak in broad strokes because of you.

Like, you're the one who is forcing me to do it this way because you don't use specifics, you don't use sources, you don't acknowledge the resources and citations I give you, you routinely conflate and confuse topics, and you rely on anecdotes and "conventional wisdom" (BARF) to carry you instead of doing the work.

Take Bush's Housing Bubble and Tax Cuts, for example. How Bush tied the two together as he was campaigning in 2004 on the strength of the housing market that he said was due to his tax cuts. I mean you have the literal guy whose name is on the tax cuts telling you that they're the reason the housing market was so strong.

I didn't make that up. I didn't put those words in his mouth. He said it, so there ya go. Tax cuts were responsible for the housing market collapse! That's according to Bush himself. So I don't know why anyone would think any differently.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Most people don't get paid enough to save today (only half of Americans own stock, and the average amount most Americans have in savings is just $400).

https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-savings-account-balance/
The funny thing is I have ZERO in a savings account and yet I own more stock than the majority of Americans so I am one of the people that pulls down that savings number to $400.
Yes, we need to raise the minimum wage so people get paid a livable wage. We also need to educate people in a responsible fashion so they can help themselves.

So the problem isn't taxation, the problem is and always has been wages.

So why concentrate on taxation when the real problem is wages?

The wealthy hoard their wealth instead of increasing everyone's wages.

The reality is that most of the low wage earners work for small companies or franchisees where the owners themselves are not rich. Microsoft and Apple aren't paying all their employees minimum wage.

If instead of hoarding $400M, you use that $400M to increase everyone's wages, then you're going to end up with more than $400M because all those workers whose wages you just rose are now going to spend those increased wages in the economy, and THAT is how you create wealth...through demand. And the only way to increase demand is to increase wages.

Savings will naturally come after, as they have before.

The problem isn't so much the large companies paying their employees low wages but rather demanding the lowest possible price from their suppliers. Those suppliers are competing with each other to drive down costs to get business and survive. We are back to capitalism at work.

 

[LV426]

Facts not in evidence since the chart you presented shows that personal savings declined and debt increased after tax increases as well.

Ah, did it though? What was the increase after the tax increase? Was it less than after tax cuts? You have the chart, you can see for yourself. One line seems to only marginally increase during the 90's remaining largely flat. Are you honestly looking at the chart? Be honest, I can tell when you're lying.

Building tanks and planes produces jobs

No it doesn't, because those same people can build other things...things that are actually used in this country. Things that can create wealth instead of destroying it. Keeping people employed for the sake of perpetual war is what Ike warned us about. You gonna listen to antifa OG, or are you going to tow the line of neo-liberal interventionism? Be careful how you answer.

Every dollar spent building a plane or tank probably adds $5 to the economy.

No it doesn't. It adds nothing to the economy. This is what I am referring to when I spoke earlier about how you lazily conduct yourself in this debate, ignoring sources, and refusing to do the hard work of solidifying your points.

The greatest economic multiplier in our economy is housing...and that is $3 for every $1 spent on home construction, and every 1 home construction creates 3 new jobs. Nothing is higher than that.

Defense spending is NOT an economic multiplier. It is an economic divider because the product produced by defense spending isn't sold anywhere, it isn't consumed, it is exploded and that explosion harms economic growth; it doesn't create any economic growth because it quite literally destroys economies by blowing them up. That is what defense spending is used for...destroying economies.

I'll even make this very simple for you because I'm such a nice guy: How many jobs do you create when you blow up a factory in, say, Iraq?

You reject out of hand any benefit that you don't think is the right benefit.

It's not that I don't feel it's the right benefit, it's that it's not, and I explained how it's not right above. Dropping bombs on other countries doesn't create jobs. It destroys jobs. Literally.

You might not need to join the military to learn new skills but it may be the only place that someone poor with no skills can be paid to learn new skills.

Right, and don't you think that's a problem? That someone should put their life on the line to learn how to...direct air traffic, like SmarterThanYou did? Come on. We can also pay these people to go to college and learn skills there. Or a trade school. Or Clown College. Literally anything is better than the military for our economy.

 

[LV426]

The funny thing is I have ZERO in a savings account and yet I own more stock than the majority of Americans so I am one of the people that pulls down that savings number to $400.Yes, we need to raise the minimum wage so people get paid a livable wage. We also need to educate people in a responsible fashion so they can help themselves.

You're a white guy, right?

So maybe your privilege has a little bit more to do with your circumstances than any self-aggrandizing effort you put in trying to shame people. The fact is you probably didn't work nearly as hard as other people have to in order to achieve and attain your status. You were given plenty of advantages from the moment you were born that other people didn't have.

So to hear you pretend like the reason those people are poor is because of their work ethic or something is really you telling on yourself that you didn't put in similar effort to achieve the status you currently enjoy.

Basically, check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It's the "it's not happening to me so I don't see the problem" principle. That's usually what comes from bOtHsIdErIsTs who are more about infusing their own egos with self-righteousness than they are about sincerely debating a topic.

 

[LV426]

So why concentrate on taxation when the real problem is wages?

I'm glad you asked that...I really, really am...so here's why:

Since they aren't going to be raising wages anyway, and since wages have largely remained flat for most workers the last 40 years, taxes must be raised so that most workers don't have to spend as much out of pocket on essential services like education and health care. So you raise taxes to lessen the burden of those things for most workers, which frees them up to spend in the consumer economy, which is the largest part of our economy.

If someone is paying $300 a month for a student loan, that is $300 that is not being spent in the consumer economy, which is 70% of the economy. If that person suddenly didn't have to pay $300 a month for a student loan, they end up with $3,600 more in their pocket every year. And what can $3,600 buy? It can buy a new car. It can buy a vacation. It can buy a home renovation/improvement. The point is that in order to lessen the burdens on most workers, you have to raise taxes on those at the top (mostly) in order to free up those workers to spend more money in the consumer economy, which is where the wealth is mainly generated, and where we want economic activity, right?

So it never made sense to me to cut taxes as a matter of policy anyway because the policy fix we need is to lessen the burden for most workers, not increase it.

Also, tax cuts are racist policy, as Lee Atwater said in 1981.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're a white guy, right?

So maybe your privilege has a little bit more to do with your circumstances than any self-aggrandizing effort you put in trying to shame people. The fact is you probably didn't work nearly as hard as other people have to in order to achieve and attain your status. You were given plenty of advantages from the moment you were born that other people didn't have.

you think he has what he was, simply because he's white?

 

[LV426]

The reality is that most of the low wage earners work for small companies or franchisees where the owners themselves are not rich. Microsoft and Apple aren't paying all their employees minimum wage.

Ah, but they are paying some of them minimum wage, and in the case of Apple, they are paying slave wages since their manufacturing is done overseas in places like China. And most of the Apple retail employees don't get much more than minimum wage. The corporate workers are probably paid well, but the store employees? The customer service people? If they're even in America, they're not doing great.

I think a good rule of thumb should be that you cannot pay anyone so little that they qualify for supplemental programs like SNAP. If that means you can't run your business, then you weren't supposed to run it in the first place.

You're not entitled to owning a business.

 

[LV426]

The problem isn't so much the large companies paying their employees low wages but rather demanding the lowest possible price from their suppliers. Those suppliers are competing with each other to drive down costs to get business and survive. We are back to capitalism at work.

For me, if you can't pay your worker enough that they don't qualify for supplemental benefits, then you shouldn't own a business at all.

We have to break the entitlement mentality among business owners and the wealthy. No one in this country is entitled to run and/or own a business. It's a privilege, and it should be treated that way.

 

[LV426]

you think he has what he was, simply because he's white?

Yeah, I do.

Your skin color determines your fortunes in this country, like it or not. For white people, they have institutional advantages others do not have, and for white men in particular, have advantages no one else has.

Minority groups have to work that much harder than their white counterparts at everything, and this is nothing new...research has shown that your lifetime earnings cap is higher if you're white, home ownership is more likely if you're white, college admission is more likely if you're white, hiring practices are better if you're white, even life expectancy is better if you're white.

Now, if you're white and you didn't manage to raise to a higher level of status or privilege, then it becomes about work ethic and responsibility, but even so, poor white people grow up with less opportunities than middle class or wealthy white people.

Acknowledging that harms no one.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yeah, I do.

Your skin color determines your fortunes in this country, like it or not. For white people, they have institutional advantages others do not have, and for white men in particular, have advantages no one else has.

Minority groups have to work that much harder than their white counterparts at everything, and this is nothing new...research has shown that your lifetime earnings cap is higher if you're white, home ownership is more likely if you're white, college admission is more likely if you're white, hiring practices are better if you're white, even life expectancy is better if you're white.

Now, if you're white and you didn't manage to raise to a higher level of status or privilege, then it becomes about work ethic and responsibility, but even so, poor white people grow up with less opportunities than middle class or wealthy white people.

Acknowledging that harms no one.

that's an absolute load of horseshit. stop drinking the liberal koolaid. it's making you racist.

My skin color had absolutely nothing to do with where i'm at today.

 

[BattleofHodow]

Yeah, I do.

Your skin color determines your fortunes in this country, like it or not. For white people, they have institutional advantages others do not have, and for white men in particular, have advantages no one else has.

Minority groups have to work that much harder than their white counterparts at everything, and this is nothing new...research has shown that your lifetime earnings cap is higher if you're white, home ownership is more likely if you're white, college admission is more likely if you're white, hiring practices are better if you're white, even life expectancy is better if you're white.

Now, if you're white and you didn't manage to raise to a higher level of status or privilege, then it becomes about work ethic and responsibility, but even so, poor white people grow up with less opportunities than middle class or wealthy white people.

Acknowledging that harms no one.

Jews too?

 

[LV426]

that's an absolute load of horseshit. stop drinking the liberal koolaid. it's making you racist.

"You didn't build that."

If you didn't rise to a higher level of status or privilege and you're white, then it means you don't have a good work ethic, good moral character, good sense of responsibility.

You underachieved, or you just aimed really low.

How does it feel to be referred to in those terms? Because you know I'm talking about you, personally, right?

 

[LV426]

My skin color had absolutely nothing to do with where i'm at today.

Yes it did.

It was probably the single biggest factor in where you are today.

 

[BattleofHodow]

"You didn't build that."

If you didn't rise to a higher level of status or privilege and you're white, then it means you don't have a good work ethic, good moral character, good sense of responsibility.

You underachieved, or you just aimed really low.

How does it feel to be referred to in those terms? Because you know I'm talking about you, personally, right?

Is that why White Hasidim Jews make Blacks look rich?

Because they're lazy, dumb, bums?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Ummm...no...anecdotes are filtered through a prism of bias and are not the same thing as empirical evidence, which is what I think you're getting at, right?

Empirical evidence is something you and everyone else can see with your own two eyes, like the Board of Regents saying they are raising tuition because of revenue shortfalls.

An anecdote is you saying you observed something yourself, and you're relaying what you observed to me directly. Anecdotes are not empirical. Anecdotes are almost always filtered through a prism of bias. I never accept anecdotes in a debate because there's no way to prove them, and they're almost always made in bad faith.

No. You are mistaken. When reaching conclusions about a large data set using just one or two anecdotes is anecdotal evidence. I would never use one Board of Regents raising tuition to claim all Board of Regents are doing something. You are claiming one or two instances mean all have the same result. You are guilty of relying on anecdotal evidence instead of taking the time to do an actual statistical analysis of all the data. You are simply relying on anecdotal evidence when the statistical analysis shows your anecdotal evidence is not true.

The entire reason taxes are cut is to starve revenue to force through cuts to spending programs. It's what Lee Atwater said 50 years ago, and the principle hasn't changed. Also, the Board of Regents said SPECIFICALLY that they had to raise tuition because of revenue shortfalls.

What caused revenue shortfalls? You know the answer...

Oh, then by all means, show me the data where a tax cut created economic growth, and didn't result in a recession a couple years later. Because that's the 40-year history of this dogma.

From 1945-1980 there was a recession every 5 years or less except for one period.
Recession 1960-1961
1963 - GDP growth 4.4%
1964 - tax cut - lowest rate from 20 down to 16, highest rate from 91 to 77
1964-1966 Average GDP growth - 6.3%
Recession - 1970 ( 6 years after tax cut)

Recession - 1981-82
1982 - Tax cut
1982 - GDP - (-1.44%)
1983 - GDP - 7.9%
1984 - tax cut - most brackets reduced by 1%, top 50% bracket went from $109,400 to $169,200
1984-1986 - Average GDP growth 3.25%
Recession - 1990 (6 years after tax cut)

After Reagan cut taxes, the economy went from stagflation into full-blown recession within two years.

False. The recession actually started prior to the tax cut taking effect since it started in 1981 and the tax cut was for 1982. Please provide your evidence of stagflation after 1983. From 1983-1985 inflation was under 5%.

After Bush the Dumber cut taxes, the economy went from middling post-dotcom to full-blown recession within three years.

After Trump cut taxes, the economy went from Obama's recovery to full-blown recession within two years.

How many times do we have to go through this before we start recognizing the same pattern?

How many times does the Left have to be right about this before we get taken seriously?

How many recessions do we need to go through before it sinks in that tax cuts are causing them?

Clearly you have convinced yourself of this but it doesn't make it so. Tax revenues have no real relationship to GDP growth. Tax revenues correlate much better with deficits.

Table 1.2

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2021-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2021-TAB.pdf


.