Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,561
In Reply To
Norvell

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,113
Subj: Re: Thoughts on a minimum income? (Re: The Impending Tax Cut Vote)
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 02:31:37 pm EST (Viewed 156 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Thoughts on a minimum income? (Re: The Impending Tax Cut Vote)
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 01:11:34 pm EST (Viewed 162 times)



    Quote:
    Sorry for snipping your post, I'm limited on time today.


I sort of went into a rant anyway.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Nobody wants to pay taxes. However, most of this just hides a willingness to shrink government. Which may or may not be bad on its face. However, cut taxes, increase debt, wait for a Dem or Dems to be in power and demand spending cuts. Or demand them of yourselves for decreasing revenue.



    Quote:
    The infamous Lee Atwater, Republican strategist of the 1980s, suggested (originally under the promise of anonymity) there was a far more sinister reason for shifting around the tax burden. If you research the guy you'll see what I mean.



    Quote:
    And the problem with trickle down economics, which you alluded to, is that it never really trickles down. The economy may boom for one class, but the middle class remains stagnant and the wealth disparity increases. And in the end, someone has to make up the difference for lowering taxes. Either there's a cut in government services, and/or it falls to the Middle Class.



    Quote:
    The fallout of the 1980s was that the economic greed of the super-rich fell out of favor. And now everyone's 'favorite' 1980s mogul is running the show. How ironic.


It is, but one could have made a better case in the 80's. As taxes were high at the top end and were reduced downward. The logic was bad but it was going to happen.

At the moment the logic is not even that good.

Marco Rubio was talking the other day, and other senators and conservatives echo this, that the point of tax cuts is to expand the tax base. What they think is that the extra money to businesses or individuals will lead to reinvestment and new jobs. This increases employment and leads to more taxes being paid because more people have jobs.

Sounds good, even though it does not work that way. Without demand for things, the company has no incentive to do anything with the money regarding hiring. They are more likely to perform stock buy backs, increase dividends or increase automation in some cases. The money ,at least not much of it, rarely trickles anywhere. CEO's even agreed to this in a fairly recent survey. They would use it for stock reasons, pay down debt and so on.

Also, it is hard to imagine that the tax base could be made large enough in the current climate. The economy has been humming along for a while now (even the last two years under Obama it was solid and doing well now despite little economic policy from Trump). We are looking at an unemployment number around 4.1%. What the fed considers full employment.

Where are the extra people going to come from to increase the tax base enough to pay for anything? I imagine they would answer the underemployed getting full time higher paying jobs, but that is a stretch it seems to me. Even with that, it is not enough to offset.

This is a pretty poor time for these sorts of cuts overall. Particularly with the Senate plan. Where corporate taxes are permanent and the ones that help the middle class a little set to expire in time.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software