good article. Thanks for posting. The other data posted, however, are not significantly incorrect. All the data show essentially stagnant real wages . Perhaps a little drop in 2017 that's been recovered. Basically nothing to see here, yet, either way. Certainly there is no evidence yet that the Trump economy is helping the low wage worker.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MAGA: Wages were supposed to rise after Trump's tax cuts. Instead, they’ve fallen
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
There can be no question that "trickle down" supply-side economics does not deliver on its promises. It has been thoroughly discredited and yet the Republicans just can not let go of it because it is so damn generous to the constituents they really serve, but not of course to the ones they claim to serve.
There has been no question every time you attempt to make that argument you have been discredited.
Would you like to try again?
How is it that supply side economics has been discredited?
Are you claiming tax revenues did not go up after Reagan's tax cuts'
Are you claiming the economy did not boom?
Are you going to try and use a model?
Models make assumptions. They are not facts. They are not reality.
There is just no factual way for you to say supply side economics did not work.
Would you like to try again?
How is it that supply side economics has been discredited?
Are you claiming tax revenues did not go up after Reagan's tax cuts'
Are you claiming the economy did not boom?
Are you going to try and use a model?
Models make assumptions. They are not facts. They are not reality.
There is just no factual way for you to say supply side economics did not work.
There can be no question that "trickle down" supply-side economics does not deliver on its promises. It has been thoroughly discredited and yet the Republicans just can not let go of it because it is so damn generous to the constituents they really serve, but not of course to the ones they claim to serve.
Possibly the best place to go for a thorough analysis and well documented discussion of "supply-side economics" is to Australian Economist John Quiggin's book, "Zombie Economics." Though it is written for economists and has been assigned reading in graduate economics study, it is so well written that it is accessible to the lay person with a basic knowledge of economics. Quiggin has a delightful sense of humor, which makes the book all the more enjoyable. I can hardly recommend this book too highly. Other 20th Century economic fads are covered too, and there is a nice discourse contrasting the "fresh water" and "saltwater" economists.There has been no question every time you attempt to make that argument you have been discredited.
Would you like to try again?
How is it that supply side economics has been discredited?
Are you claiming tax revenues did not go up after Reagan's tax cuts'
Are you claiming the economy did not boom?
Are you going to try and use a model?
Models make assumptions. They are not facts. They are not reality.
There is just no factual way for you to say supply side economics did not work.
I new you were going to argue models. Not facts.
I read Quiggen. He is argument is anchored by a model.
You can't logically just assume the higher level of economic expansion that existed after the tax cuts and say had taxes been higher you would have had more revenue. You actually have to get to that economic expansion.
I am going to keep this as basic as possible for you.
Its like saying even though we traded for Messi and we scored more goals, Messi did help us because or model says so.
(Remember the model assumed the increase in production that came about while Messi was on the field instead of using the pre messi goal production.)
Keynes himself stated sometimes you have to put dresses on sale to sell more of them.
(which means sometimes you have to cut taxes to create more revenue... putting taxes on sale.)
I read Quiggen. He is argument is anchored by a model.
You can't logically just assume the higher level of economic expansion that existed after the tax cuts and say had taxes been higher you would have had more revenue. You actually have to get to that economic expansion.
I am going to keep this as basic as possible for you.
Its like saying even though we traded for Messi and we scored more goals, Messi did help us because or model says so.
(Remember the model assumed the increase in production that came about while Messi was on the field instead of using the pre messi goal production.)
Keynes himself stated sometimes you have to put dresses on sale to sell more of them.
(which means sometimes you have to cut taxes to create more revenue... putting taxes on sale.)
Possibly the best place to go for a thorough analysis and well documented discussion of "supply-side economics" is to Australian Economist John Quiggin's book, "Zombie Economics." Though it is written for economists and has been assigned reading in graduate economics study, it is so well written that it is accessible to the lay person with a basic knowledge of economics. Quiggin has a delightful sense of humor, which makes the book all the more enjoyable. I can hardly recommend this book too highly. Other 20th Century economic fads are covered too, and there is a nice discourse contrasting the "fresh water" and "saltwater" economists.
Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
Tax revenues do not pay for themselves. Use comparative peak to peak.
Your comment is not a negative critique.
The purpose of tax cuts for govt to take a smaller percentage of an expanded GDP but still see an increase in revenue.
Your comments highlight some of the benefits of well structured tax cuts.
1. Tax rates are lower. (tax payers have more money)
2. The economy expanded. (tax payer have more mone)
3. Yet, because the economy expanded tax revenues to the govt increase.
Leading to another round of tax cuts... please.
The purpose of tax cuts for govt to take a smaller percentage of an expanded GDP but still see an increase in revenue.
Your comments highlight some of the benefits of well structured tax cuts.
1. Tax rates are lower. (tax payers have more money)
2. The economy expanded. (tax payer have more mone)
3. Yet, because the economy expanded tax revenues to the govt increase.
Leading to another round of tax cuts... please.
Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
Tax revenues do not pay for themselves. Use comparative peak to peak.
Last edited:
Your article stated this...
"The latest Labor Department numbers show wages and salaries growing at 2.8% per year. By one measure, that’s the biggest growth in income since 2008."
If you are interested in seeing wages rise I suggest we refrain from importing millions and millions of low wage workers every decade.
"The latest Labor Department numbers show wages and salaries growing at 2.8% per year. By one measure, that’s the biggest growth in income since 2008."
If you are interested in seeing wages rise I suggest we refrain from importing millions and millions of low wage workers every decade.
Jem created a new handle.