How would you react if a 2019 Dem Congress cut taxes?

[caulfield12]

disproportionately for the bottom 80% of the population, and financed it largely by taxing the top 20% at a higher rate?

 

Would that be ANY different than the current reaction of Democrats/liberals to Trump's tax law, and why? Study after study have shown that by giving the poor and middle class more money (disposable income) in their pockets, they'll directly inject it back into the economy and also pay down debt to a much larger extent than the positive economic impact of gifting it to the rich/elites. The middle class and those living in poverty might also wisely invest it into their children's education/s, which sociologists point out is the only realistic way to break poverty cycles, for example...or into saving some of it for retirement (putting it back into the economy by buying shares).

 

Yes, stocks are up (under Obama, 250%, Trump around 30%). But 80 percent of the value is held by the richest 10 percent. 84% of the tax cut benefits are going to the Top 1%.

 

We can throw out any numbers we want, like 52% have "stock market investments/shareholder class" all the way up to 63% having some type of 401-k/pension/mutual funds/Roth/IRA/profit-sharing or stock option plan, but the fact is that almost all of the benefits of the new Republican tax bill are going to the richest Americans, leading to more and more inequality/unequal distribution of wealth.

 

But why is this good for America, exactly?

 

Studies of the 2004 tax cut confirm exactly what economists predicted is already happening:

 

Repatriated earnings (think Apple here) were used largely to repurchase stock. The obvious problem is that stock buybacks aren't as productive as ordinary business investment, research and design/development, capital expenditures, improving technology/efficiency/productivity and 2) they inflate corporate earnings (misleadingly) per share by reducing overall share count, eventually leading to a recession.

 

Rewarding existing shareholders for remaining loyal and faithful shareholders would certainly be argued by many to be a productive business investment, but, once again, almost all of the benefits are going to the wealthiest 10% of Americans.

 

So if we argue that roughly 20% of the benefits are trickling down to middle class tax cuts AND employee bonuses/raises/minimum wage increases, we have a bigger question...

 

 

 

 

Why wouldn't Democrats simply turn around and "victimize" the rich by doing the exact opposite somewhere down the line?

 

To many, Trump's policies are, at their heart, about rewarding his family and his base of support...so, wouldn't doing the opposite pretty much ensure that the majority of Americans would vote for Democrats? That 80% of the benefits should flow to the middle class/poor and only 20% of the benefit to the rich/corporations? Since the corporate taxes are already locked in, wouldn't it be natural to turn around and continue this "class warfare" thing we've got going on going all the way back to the Clinton Administration in the 1990's and realistically even earlier.

 

One COULD argue that this was exactly what Hillary Clinton was attempting to articulate in 2016, but it didn't come across as genuine or authentic because she and the Obama admin were too cozy with Goldman Sachs/Wall Street and the corporate elites to be believed or trusted in the same way that Bernie Sanders was...

 

 

https://finance.media.yahoo.com/news/tax-cu...-185047405.html

Edited January 19, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Expected response/s:

 

Quotes from Ayn Rand.

 

Derogatory comments about blacks and/or Hispanics and "enabling them to become dependent" on the government...quotes about WIC, AFCD, food stamps, people driving around in Cadillacs with a fur coat and I-phone 8, etc. Using the money to buy alcohol, drugs or guns.

 

Shareholders SHOULD be rewarded. 47% of the people in America have no net tax burden. People who have a strong work ethic and have established retirement plans through their own initiative should be rewarded for their positive/proactive behavior.

 

Economic benefits will eventually trickle down to everyone else when you "invest" in the American economy.

 

The poor won't change their negative behaviors if you reward them for being lazy/unproductive/inefficient/ill-educated and ill-trained.

 

At least half of Americans are shareholders. Those who aren't saving or wise enough to invest deserve to fall behind.

 

The government doesn't have the right to confiscate our earnings and frivolously spend it on $750 toilet seats for the Department of Defense...for Obama's vacations/golfing or for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer's gold-plate health care plans and pensions.

 

Those who are in the richest 10% all got their through old-fashioned sweat equity, pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths.

 

 

 

But as one travels around the world and talks to policymakers, investors, and current and former officials, there is the unmistakable sense that China is on the rise and the West … well, "muddling through" is probably a charitable way to put it.

 

Few serious people think that the U.S., a proxy for the West, is remotely capable at this juncture of launching something on the scale of the Belt and Road Initiative. More corrosive is an idea becoming fashionable that democracies just can't do big things any more. We'll see how that plays out. Declinism is rife throughout American history -- and yet the U.S. keeps bouncing back.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/d5741c5d-f4...ina%3A-its.html

Edited January 19, 2018 by caulfield12

[LittleHurt05]

I'd buy a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label with the money

[caulfield12]

See, you’re already contributing $190 back into the economy.

 

DACA, military funding, hurricane relief and CHIP...should all be no brainers with widespread national support. Yet they aren’t because nobody knows what Trump wants. Call his bluff, pass a bill along the lines of Graham/Durbin Senate version or the Will Hurd (TX) one in the House and dare Trump to veto it and shut down the government. No way he doesn’t cave and try to declare victory, arguing that the final version is what he wanted all along.

Edited January 19, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

I'd probably stop grinding in my career and try to be a teacher or something.

 

This is why education in America is falling apart.

 

No respect, kids are addicted to mobile phones or iPads and can focus for 10-15 minutes tops and are also expected to double as counselors because parents no longer parent...but you have succeeded in illuminating why China is winning the real trade war. Parents and society respect teachers and education, period. All parents here are willing to spend $15-30,000 per year for high school and SAT training centers and an infinite amount on undergrad and grad school.

 

Look at the majority of the winning schools for the Mathematics Modeling Contest.

 

 

Of course, you’ve now made your flippant comment, but haven’t admitted you would go ape poop crazy if the Dems wrote a bill to benefit either poor minorities or new Muslim immigrants in America.

 

What’s wrong? No GOP talking points issued by Drudge, Fox and Friends or The Heritage Foundation yet today? And most schools wouldn’t hire you because of your long track record of comments here, so you might have to join the Google discrimination lawsuit instead.

Edited January 19, 2018 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

This is why education in America is falling apart.

 

No respect, kids are addicted to mobile phones or iPads and can focus for 10-15 minutes tops and are also expected to double as counselors because parents no longer parent...but you have succeeded in illuminating why China is winning the real trade war. Parents and society respect teachers and education, period. All parents here are willing to spend $15-30,000 per year for high school and SAT training centers and an infinite amount on undergrad and grad school.

 

Look at the majority of the winning schools for the Mathematics Modeling Contest.

 

Of course, you’ve now made your flippant comment, but haven’t admitted you would go ape poop crazy if the Dems wrote a bill to benefit either poor minorities or new Muslim immigrants in America.

 

What’s wrong? No GOP talking points issued by Drudge, Fox and Friends or The Heritage Foundation yet today? And most schools wouldn’t hire you because of your long track record of comments here, so you might have to join the Google discrimination lawsuit instead.

 

Funny to see both of these in the same post.

[RockRaines]

Yikes, that was weird.

[pettie4sox]

Was Rabbit baiting caulfield tho?

[bmags]

"No respect, kids are addicted to mobile phones or iPads and can focus for 10-15 minutes tops and are also expected to double as counselors because parents no longer parent...but you have succeeded in illuminating why China is winning the real trade war. Parents and society respect teachers and education, period. All parents here are willing to spend $15-30,000 per year for high school and SAT training centers"

 

And then send their kids to an American university.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Was Rabbit baiting caulfield tho?

 

Lol. They come just to the absolute border of saying what they really mean...without explicitly saying something that can’t later be walked back or denied.

 

Somewhere in there is a story about school teachers not being able to succeed in life or business...complaints that school teachers’ pensions are bankrupting Chicago or America. Probably some anecdotes about the restaurant jobs being eviscerated by ObamaCare.

 

[caulfield12]

I wouldn't know how to bait caulfield. His response to a general point on taxes, earnings and incentives was about Fox and Friends, muslims getting aid, kids looking at iPads and universities being awful. Any topic is in play in any thread,

 

 

You almost have to wonder why the brightest minds out of China almost always come here since everything is so terrible...

 

Not for public high schools.

 

Tsinghua University, National Univ Of Singapore...Hong Kong, will eventually pass American schools in another 10-15 years.

 

They go to learn creativity/innovation/design.

 

And then will apply lessons to sharing economy, AR, VR, green tech, AI, autonomous vehicles, drones, mobile payments, delivery/logistics, One Belt One Road, massive infrastructure projects, etc.

[bmags]

They'll study and then apply their studies to a field?

 

Why doesn't America do this!

[bmags]

The thing that gets lost in the student gawking is it is incredibly impressive how public schools in places like Houston take students from many dozens of different countries, languages and cultures, assimilate them and educate them to the high level they do.

 

US public schools do this all the time.

[caulfield12]

They'll study and then apply their studies to a field?

 

Why doesn't America do this!

 

Good question...seems like it should be fairly straightforward and bipartisan, right?

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/sequoia-vc-...&yptr=yahoo

Rabbit will like this, Silicon Valley politically correct culture slammed...

 

Mike Moritz, a top partner at Silicon Valley's most successful venture capital firm, says that the local tech culture has descended into "soul-sapping discussions" about "the inequity of life," and compared it unfavorably with the work ethic in the Chinese tech scene.

 

Moritz, a managing partner at Sequoia Capital, wrote in the Financial Times that Silicon Valley's culture is becoming "unhinged" with discussions of things like the politics of speakers at tech companies, debates over work-life balance, and "grumbling about the need for a space for musical jam sessions."

 

He contrasts this with China, where:

 

"Top managers show up for work at about 8am and frequently don't leave until 10pm. Most of them will do this six days a week — and there are plenty of examples of people who do this for seven. Engineers have slightly different habits: they will appear about 10am and leave at midnight."

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by caulfield12

[Dam8610]

disproportionately for the bottom 80% of the population, and financed it largely by taxing the top 20% at a higher rate?

 

Would that be ANY different than the current reaction of Democrats/liberals to Trump's tax law, and why? Study after study have shown that by giving the poor and middle class more money (disposable income) in their pockets, they'll directly inject it back into the economy and also pay down debt to a much larger extent than the positive economic impact of gifting it to the rich/elites. The middle class and those living in poverty might also wisely invest it into their children's education/s, which sociologists point out is the only realistic way to break poverty cycles, for example...or into saving some of it for retirement (putting it back into the economy by buying shares).

 

Yes, stocks are up (under Obama, 250%, Trump around 30%). But 80 percent of the value is held by the richest 10 percent. 84% of the tax cut benefits are going to the Top 1%.

 

We can throw out any numbers we want, like 52% have "stock market investments/shareholder class" all the way up to 63% having some type of 401-k/pension/mutual funds/Roth/IRA/profit-sharing or stock option plan, but the fact is that almost all of the benefits of the new Republican tax bill are going to the richest Americans, leading to more and more inequality/unequal distribution of wealth.

 

But why is this good for America, exactly?

 

Studies of the 2004 tax cut confirm exactly what economists predicted is already happening:

 

Repatriated earnings (think Apple here) were used largely to repurchase stock. The obvious problem is that stock buybacks aren't as productive as ordinary business investment, research and design/development, capital expenditures, improving technology/efficiency/productivity and 2) they inflate corporate earnings (misleadingly) per share by reducing overall share count, eventually leading to a recession.

 

Rewarding existing shareholders for remaining loyal and faithful shareholders would certainly be argued by many to be a productive business investment, but, once again, almost all of the benefits are going to the wealthiest 10% of Americans.

 

So if we argue that roughly 20% of the benefits are trickling down to middle class tax cuts AND employee bonuses/raises/minimum wage increases, we have a bigger question...

 

 

 

 

Why wouldn't Democrats simply turn around and "victimize" the rich by doing the exact opposite somewhere down the line?

 

To many, Trump's policies are, at their heart, about rewarding his family and his base of support...so, wouldn't doing the opposite pretty much ensure that the majority of Americans would vote for Democrats? That 80% of the benefits should flow to the middle class/poor and only 20% of the benefit to the rich/corporations? Since the corporate taxes are already locked in, wouldn't it be natural to turn around and continue this "class warfare" thing we've got going on going all the way back to the Clinton Administration in the 1990's and realistically even earlier.

 

One COULD argue that this was exactly what Hillary Clinton was attempting to articulate in 2016, but it didn't come across as genuine or authentic because she and the Obama admin were too cozy with Goldman Sachs/Wall Street and the corporate elites to be believed or trusted in the same way that Bernie Sanders was...

 

 

https://finance.media.yahoo.com/news/tax-cu...-185047405.html

 

The title is misleading. I think this type of reform is exactly what most people want. In fact, with what Trump and his cronies did to taxes, you wouldn't even need a cut, just make the new credits permanent, make the standard deduction about two-thirds of what it is for 2018, put exemptions back in, eliminate the nonsense Republicans did with above the line and below the line deductions, and make massive increases for the wealthy and corporations. You'd probably end up with a revenue positive bill that way.

[Texsox]

I would demand to know what they were cutting. I believe if there is a raise or lowering of taxes there should be an accompanying list of spending cuts/additional programs or costs incurred.

[caulfield12]

I would demand to know what they were cutting. I believe if there is a raise or lowering of taxes there should be an accompanying list of spending cuts/additional programs or costs incurred.

 

Would you also take the position of approving 3-5% cuts in Medicare and Social Security?

That's the one area politicians have been afraid to deal with for decades...on both sides of the fence.

 

With defense spending increasing at least 10%, if not more...there's only so much room to cut discretionary funding without having huge impacts in terms of creating even larger state deficits in places like KS, CA or IL.

Edited January 24, 2018 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

Probably not. But what I want to see is either hey we are cutting X so we can cut your taxes. Or we're going to spend more on X so we are going to raise your taxes. How much support might a border wall get if it was going to raise your taxes? How about jumping into a war with North Korea that will cost you an extra $500 a year? You want to offer junior college to the masses? It will cost every an extra $300 a year.

 

My concern is we have lost all connection between income and expenses. We claim that we are going to be bringing in more money into the treasury after the cuts. OK, who is writing the bigger checks for more money to come in?

[caulfield12]

Probably not. But what I want to see is either hey we are cutting X so we can cut your taxes. Or we're going to spend more on X so we are going to raise your taxes. How much support might a border wall get if it was going to raise your taxes? How about jumping into a war with North Korea that will cost you an extra $500 a year? You want to offer junior college to the masses? It will cost every an extra $300 a year.

 

My concern is we have lost all connection between income and expenses. We claim that we are going to be bringing in more money into the treasury after the cuts. OK, who is writing the bigger checks for more money to come in?

 

A lot of it, theoretically, should be from repatriated taxes (think corporations like Apple) and capital gains taxes, as long as the super hot stock market continues.

 

But yeah, you're right. They also should have explained how much each additional American would have to pay to make up for the estate tax "giveaway," for example.

 

A lot of economists have argued we should have some type of quantifiable matrix for any government policy in terms of measuring impacts on worker training/efficiency/productivity. How much improvements in worker output were leading to increased wages, versus how much was going to shareholders and the top executives?

 

One estimate says that only 10% of the tax law benefits are going to trickle down to the lowest rungs of the ladder. Another had it at 20%, so even if you took the average of 15%, the bottom 60% of taxpayers receiving such a small amount compared to the Top 40% receiving 85% would seem to be a consequence that voters primarily concerned with pocketbook issues would have to consider when voting.

 

Another huge issue is convincing retired people (concerned more with cuts in SS and Medicare) that they should "invest" in young people, training, vocational school, reduced or free tuition for community college, etc. There's always a generational conflict in terms of the allocation of resources.