Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies

exGOPer said:
More ad hominem attacks, not a single claim rebutted,a long flurry of personal attacks by the worshiper of a reality TV star and a child rapist.
More...


Actually i already rebutted all of staribaits claims, but i dont care to waste any more time, especially not on you, have a good one bro, you must be having an awesome night!
 
Max E. said:
Actually i already rebutted all of staribaits claims, but i dont care to waste any more time, especially not on you, have a good one bro, you must be having an awesome night!
More...

I didn't post an article by straitbaist, I have yet to see anyone rebut the claim that US is the most taxed nation in the world, I would like someone to attempt 'rebutting' that.

I had a good night out, thanks for asking.
 
exGOPer said:
I didn't post an article by straitbaist, I have yet to see anyone rebut the claim that US is the most taxed nation in the world, I would like someone to attempt 'rebutting' that.

I had a good night out, thanks for asking.
More...

I assume Max E is parroting Peter Fererra, that great econo... sorry, lawyer with the Heartland Institute. https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...ry-since-the-great-depression/3/#3406a8705250

The people who don't think smoking is linked to cancer and much much more.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Tobacco_regulation . He said outlandish propagandist stuff a lot and got published in Forbes sometimes.

Highest taxed nation? The plant pots are fine, the stoner comments reminded me of the other time Trump was on too much cocaine or not snorting enough Modafinil.

Yes, as exGOPer asked, please explain the statement and incoherence in the interview. Yeah why would we not trust him?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/01/trump-wall-street-journal-interview-full-transcript-241214
"TRUMP: I want to achieve growth. We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world, essentially, you know, of the size. But we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. We have — nobody knows what the number is. I mean, it used to be, when we talked during the debate, $2.5 trillion, right, when the most elegant person — right? I call him Mr. Elegant. I mean, that was a great debate. We did such a great job. But at that time I was talking $2.5 trillion. I guess it’s $5 trillion now. Whatever it is, it’s a lot more. So we have anywhere from 4 [trillion] to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore."
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
How tax cuts and increases are distributed is a critical factor often overlooked. It is flat wrong to say tax cuts, or increases, are good or bad without any consideration of timing, distribution, and government spending. It is not a black and white issue. The government increases the amount of fiat money available in the private economy via net deficits, and government decreases private sector money via net surpluses. But where the money is (distribution) and who gets to spend it first (the government is always first!) are among the important factors. Since Reagan's administration and the increasing influence of neoclassical economics, "supply-side" economics has dominated U.S. tax policy. Compression of tax brackets and taxing unearned at lower rates than earned income are characteristics of the supply-side approach.

We learned from Piketty that a lop-sided wealth distribution is the normal state, colorfully observed by Will Rogers in his 1932 quip -- "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands." The U.S. golden era of the 1950s and 60s was an abnormal period. However the extreme growth rate of lopsidedness in U.S. Wealth distribution is not normal; it is abnormal. It is socially destabilizing and dangerous to the Country and particularly to the wealthy.

Our abnormal rate of growth in wealth disparity is traceable to the adoption of supply side economics in the 1980s with lower tax rates for unearned income and steep compression of tax brackets. The entire Trump campaign, right down to its slogan and its tax proposals is a virtual carbon copy of the Reagan campaign and its economic proposals. One should expect the same result given the same starting conditions. But economic conditions today are different after 30 ears of supply-side economics, and different than they were during the recession of 1980. There is already in place an extremely lopsided wealth distribution -- by far the most extreme of any industrialized nation! If the Republicans are successful in pushing their tax agenda through Congress, we should expect a response similar to what was seem in the 1980s and subsequent years, but greatly exaggerated. Expect increased deficits and savings, and interest rates held in check by upward pressure on reserve accounts*, credit growing more rapidly among labor than cash , a robust economy and a wealth distribution growing even more skewed at an accelerated pace. Expect a lot of pain among the lower middle class and the poor. Even without the Trump tax cuts, there can be absolutely no question whether investment is limited by the amount of capital at the top; it clearly isn't. So the Trump tax proposals make no sense given current conditions. Any limitation in the U.S. economy will be on the Demand side, which current Republican proposals largely ignore.

What is needed of course is just the opposite. More tax brackets, not fewer, and at least bracketed unearned income rates, if not identical rates to those on earned income. The supply side approach to economics has been thoroughly critiqued in economist John Quiggin's book, "Zombie Economics." The premise is that by making the rich richer you can help the poor. This seems intuitively ridiculous. But it isn't. And under some circumstances, yet to be discovered, supply-side stimulus might work as anticipated. The problem so far for U.S. supply siders has been that consumption, which is what makes investment profitable, is more stimulated by demand than by supply. Demand requires money or credit in the pockets of consumers.

In the Kennedy tax cuts, we have an example of what happens when an approach more or less opposite to that of the Trump proposal is instituted. The former cuts were aimed at correcting faults in the tax code including a counterproductive uppermost bracket rate and at stimulating the demand side. The Trump cuts, on the other hand, would exacerbate the current faults of too low a top most bracket, too much compression in the brackets and too low an unearned income rate. So far, all cuts focused on the supply side have resulted in revenue shortfalls once revenue stimulus from increased deficits and a stimulated recession recovery cycle is accounted for, whereas economists generally agree that the Kennedy cuts were the only ones since WWII to result in a revenue increase once all factors are accounted for.

Apparently some tax cuts can "pay for themselves", but most haven't. This is not a very important consideration however. What is important is the affect of tax policy on money distribution in the economy, because this has a profound affect on supply and demand, the amount of credit and the overall health of the economy and social fabric of the nation. It is not enough to have a "robust" economy. Or viewed another way, one could say that no matter how robust the macroindicators, an economy that doesn't lift nearly all boats is not truly robust.

Think of it this way, suppose your taxes are suddenly cut by a million bucks. What do you do with the money. Start a business, expand your present business, hire twenty more maids and gardeners, or invest in sovereign bonds or equities somewhere around the globe. You decide. But it is easy to see that in our present economy business investment is not supply-side limited; it is limited by the demand side.

_____________________
*The Fed always has the upper hand when it comes to controlling short term interest rates, as reserves increase they can drain excess reserves by selling bonds.
More...

Untaxing the Rich

A misguided Republican obsession
EDITORS’ NOTE: This article is adapted from one that appears in the October 15, 2017, print issue of National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452754/taxes-rich-gop-priority

Even during this unusual presidency, some features of our national politics have not changed at all. Republicans are preparing to cut taxes in basically the same fashion they would cut them under any president of their party. Democrats are resisting by using their standard lines, among which “It’s a tax cut for the rich!” has pride of place. The Republicans know their retorts by heart, too; they have 40 years of practice. For anyone disoriented by the political events of the last two years, it’s all very reassuring.

Conservatives could stand to be a little less reflexive about these issues, though. The Democrats have a point that is worth taking seriously.

That point is not that Republican tax policy is motivated by a slavish devotion to the interests of rich people. The supply-side economic theory that has underlain Republican economic thinking for more than a generation offers an economic argument for seeking to bring down their taxes, and even for seeking that goal especially. The theory places great emphasis on the way taxes reduce incentives to work, save, and invest. The highest tax rates — the ones that apply to the highest earners — have the biggest disincentivizing effect.

The way our income taxes are structured provides a subtler reason for concentrating on the top rate they impose. If you cut the lowest tax rate — the 10 percent rate that applies to the first $9,500 of a single person’s taxable income — you’re not just giving people in that tax bracket a very slightly stronger incentive to work. You’re also cutting taxes for everyone in the higher tax brackets, from the middle class to Elon Musk, because their first $9,500 will be taxed less too. Nonetheless, their incentives to earn more will not change at all. The federal government will still be taxing the next dollar Musk earns at the top tax rate.

Most of the revenue that the 10 percent tax rate raises for the federal government does not come from people who are actually in that tax bracket. That’s true, as well, of the 15 percent tax rate. It’s true of all of the tax rates except for the very highest one, the 39.6 percent tax rate. That’s the only tax rate that applies to the next dollar earned by everyone who pays it. Cutting it therefore offers more bang for the buck than cutting any other rate.

That’s the economic case for cutting taxes for rich people. There’s also a moral case. Most conservatives do not object in principle to a “progressive” tax code that takes a larger percentage from people who have more income. Even the flat tax and the “fair tax” (a proposed national sales tax) have this feature, because they have exemptions large enough to let people afford the necessities of life with untaxed income. But how progressive the tax code should be is a dividing line between Left and Right.

(More at above url)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top