• House Republicans Have Forced Their Tax Plan Through
    54 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52897573]Can someone please explain what this bill is doing to cause a tax hike for lower and middle classes? How can they call it a "tax cut" if all it does is redistribute the costs to the middle and lower classes? I don't understand how that works. [/QUOTE] Dick Cheney's napkin. No I'm fucking serious, Dick Cheney's napkin, the basis for all of supply side economics. [t]http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-RWS2013-01555&max=1000[/t]
[QUOTE=Sableye;52898064]Dick Cheney's napkin. No I'm fucking serious, [B]Dick Cheney's napkin, the basis for all of supply side economics.[/B] [t]http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-RWS2013-01555&max=1000[/t][/QUOTE] That's a myth. There's truth to cutting taxes to make an economy be more productive and wealthier, the problem is "where are ideal rates" and republicans like to decide "very fucking far to the left on the laffer curve my dude." [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52898060]Huge, massive cuts to Healthcare. Over a trillion added to the debt year over year, deductions for rich people have stayed, multiplied, and loopholes were created for specific abuse. Deductions for the middle class and poor are gone more or less. Corporate tax rates have been slashed from a rate of "35%" to 20%. The thing is no one pays anywhere close to the 35% rate, the effective tax rate of most corporations is something like 20% IIRC. I'll look for a link for that shortly. Deductions for corporations and corporate entities have also increased so that 20% will see a much lower effective rate. You know, I don't want to sound like this is a big deal or possibly a major sign of change to come, but this is a BFD.[/QUOTE]It is true that the effective rate is lower than 35% (albeit it is still relatively high at the eff. rate,) and that's why I don't like deductions. They often act as quick solutions politicians jam in for brownie points instead of setting proper rates on things in the first place, and their acceptance leads to the massive plethora of "loopholes" as people call them when they don't like them. Although they aren't "gone more or less" on the poor and middle class, on average, all income groups will have a cut at least according to the joint committee on taxation. But that's an average across the country which has to be kept in mind.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52898079]That's a myth. There's truth to cutting taxes to make an economy be more productive and wealthier, the problem is "where are ideal rates" and republicans like to decide "very fucking far to the left on the laffer curve my dude." It is true that the effective rate is lower than 35% (albeit it is still relatively high at the eff. rate,) and that's why I don't like deductions. They often act as quick solutions politicians jam in for brownie points instead of setting proper rates on things in the first place, and their acceptance leads to the massive plethora of "loopholes" as people call them when they don't like them. Although they aren't "gone more or less" on the poor and middle class, on average, all income groups will have a cut at least according to the joint committee on taxation. But that's an average across the country which has to be kept in mind.[/QUOTE] All groups get cuts, but not effective cuts. Most groups see effective tax increases due to the removal of deductions. You need to not downplay this. There's all sorts of exemptions being taken off the books and being put on the books. Even golf course owners get a break, but students don't, mom and pop don't, I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't actually see any effective cuts to their taxes, meanwhile they do lose out on some services over the next few years. This is a very dramatic shift towards something that combined with the FCC ruling, and the Sinclair media buy out is likely to see the US undergo extreme changes in the next decade, regardless of who's in office.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52898114]All groups get cuts, but not effective cuts. Most groups see effective tax increases due to the removal of deductions. You need to not downplay this. There's all sorts of exemptions being taken off the books and being put on the books. Even golf course owners get a break, but students don't, mom and pop don't, I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't actually see any effective cuts to their taxes, meanwhile they do lose out on some services over the next few years. This is a very dramatic shift towards something that combined with the FCC ruling, and the Sinclair media buy out is likely to see the US undergo extreme changes in the next decade, regardless of who's in office.[/QUOTE] Those numbers were effective cuts, until 2027 (things change by the 10 yr mark.) A time in which it's incredibly unlikely that congress and the presidency don't change hands, where the tax structure would be changed again.
I like how the cuts see taxes rise for the poor in 2021, when a recession is predicted towards the end of 2020 and a Democrat to blame it on will most likely be in office.
[QUOTE=Potus;52897760]And if you guys think the Senate can't be as stupid.... Well.... [media]https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/931279048998899712[/media][/QUOTE] Is this a tax plan or a GOP Christmas list? Seriously.
[QUOTE=Tureis;52898190]I like how the cuts see taxes rise for the poor in 2021, when a recession is predicted towards the end of 2020 and a Democrat to blame it on will most likely be in office.[/QUOTE] That would be just before said democrat enters office, actually. Jan 20 2021 is the inauguration Also according to who? I don't think there's a way to really predict things that accurately so far ahead of time. Most contractions are also pretty moderate and nothing like 2008, with an average time of 11 months before growing again. If it actually happened in 2020 dems could spin that pretty well, to be honest.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52898209]That would be just before said democrat enters office, actually. Jan 20 2021 is the inauguration Also according to who? I don't think there's a way to really predict things that accurately so far ahead of time. Most contractions are also pretty moderate and nothing like 2008, with an average time of 11 months before growing again. If it actually happened in 2020 dems could spin that pretty well, to be honest.[/QUOTE] There's a few articles out there that gave rough time frames of 2019 to 2020. [url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/axiometrics/2017/04/21/is-a-recession-coming/amp/[/url] [url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2017-06-05/anxious-about-the-economy-it-ll-still-set-a-record[/url]
[QUOTE=Tureis;52898375]There's a few articles out there that gave rough time frames of 2019 to 2020. [URL]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/axiometrics/2017/04/21/is-a-recession-coming/amp/[/URL] [URL]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2017-06-05/anxious-about-the-economy-it-ll-still-set-a-record[/URL][/QUOTE] Neither are really academic sources and both admit that a lot can change/it's hazy.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52898079]That's a myth. There's truth to cutting taxes to make an economy be more productive and wealthier, the problem is "where are ideal rates" and republicans like to decide "very fucking far to the left on the laffer curve my dude." It is true that the effective rate is lower than 35% (albeit it is still relatively high at the eff. rate,) and that's why I don't like deductions. They often act as quick solutions politicians jam in for brownie points instead of setting proper rates on things in the first place, and their acceptance leads to the massive plethora of "loopholes" as people call them when they don't like them. [/QUOTE] Cutting rates doesn't correlate with economic growth. There's simply too much going on in the economy to simplify it to "this always works" Kennedy cut rates and the economy boomed, but regan cut rates and the economy slumped once and the stock market crashed. Kansas cut their rates to the bone and their economy went into the toilet and they have no money to pull it up through investments. Deductions aren't loopholes either. They ideally should serve to the public's good, and yes, we don't re-evaluate them, ideally an agency such as the IRS should re-evaluate each deduction and determine if it is in fact doing what its intended to, but since taxes are the mainstay of congress, that's not gonna happen. Things like the mortgage interest deduction for example, are intended to help people own homes by not penalizing them for it. Student loan interest deduction lets you lower your income based off of your student loan debt, which is very helpful for young professionals. The standard deduction is really such a petty handout, ya its intended to make doing your taxes easier, but they're using it as a distraction, "here we doubled this, pay no attention to everything else we're removing" but a not insignificant amount of people are going to get screwed in a lot of ways because the various programs and deductions are being removed, which the standard deduction may not always cover.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52898024]Haha now the country is fucked take that libtard snowflakes[/QUOTE] "We may end up payin' more taxes while the rich that we idolize get richer and richer, but at least our taxes aren't goin' to help the sick and elderly, or no damned refugees!"
[QUOTE=Sableye;52898511][B]Cutting rates doesn't correlate with economic growth. There's simply too much going on in the economy to simplify it to "this always works" Kennedy cut rates and the economy boomed, but regan cut rates and the economy slumped once and the stock market crashed.[/B] Kansas cut their rates to the bone and their economy went into the toilet and they have no money to pull it up through investments.[/QUOTE] This is a terrible way to argue. I hope I don't even have explain why. Note, that I never said tax cuts were always [I]worth[/I] it. Only that they increase growth all else equal. A tax cut's beneficial effects will have diminishing returns past a certain point, where the money will be better utilized by government. That's a large part of what hurt Kansas, for example. And it's why these tax cuts are a bad idea, as they're just going run up the deficit for little reason. [quote]Deductions aren't loopholes either. They ideally should serve to the public's good, and yes, we don't re-evaluate them, ideally an agency such as the IRS should re-evaluate each deduction and determine if it is in fact doing what its intended to, but since taxes are the mainstay of congress, that's not gonna happen. Things like the mortgage interest deduction for example, are intended to help people own homes by not penalizing them for it. Student loan interest deduction lets you lower your income based off of your student loan debt, which is very helpful for young professionals. [/quote] Except they are. Deductions are a large part as to why the rich, and corporations with the corporate income tax don't actually pay their real rates. People call them loopholes when they don't like them, deductions/credits when they use them, but it's all the same, legal tax avoidance. If you're going to have them there should be very few, as most are unnecessary, they make the tax system much more complicated, and some even backfire. Instead of letting people write off their student loan debt, take that government money the government is giving up... and just stick it in as increased education subsidies. Doing this could be better for the poor too, as schools tailor aid based on need. The mortgage deduction is ludicrous. Almost no country does it, and it mostly benefits people who are already well off. [thumb]https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/4-4-13hous-f1.jpg[/thumb] It encourages urban sprawl and immobility as well, which are quite problematic.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52898528]"We may end up payin' more taxes while the rich that we idolize get richer and richer, but at least our taxes aren't goin' to help the sick and elderly, or no damned refugees!"[/QUOTE] "We may be getting fucked in the arse, but at least the guy fucking us is enjoying it" essentially
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52899185]"We may be getting fucked in the arse, but at least the guy fucking us is enjoying it" essentially[/QUOTE] So the total happiness in the world goes up I guess :v:
[QUOTE=dai;52897967][media]https://twitter.com/Alt_Spicerlies/status/931283416875655170[/media] (since they don't embed from a subtweet I guess) [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOyVIk4XUAAW2na.jpg:large[/t][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOyVIlPXkAAuKhl.jpg:large[/t][/QUOTE] These fucks aren't even doing capitalism right. Even Adam Smith shits on idiots like this: "For a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas in the more ancient method of expense they must have shared with at least a thousand people. With the judges that were to determine the preference this difference was perfectly decisive; and thus, [B]for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest, and the most sordid of all vanities, they gradually bartered their whole power and authority.[/B]"
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;52898198]Is this a tax plan or a GOP Christmas list? Seriously.[/QUOTE] It is an economic death sentence.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52899185]"We may be getting fucked in the arse, but at least the guy fucking us is enjoying it" essentially[/QUOTE] Not so much that as it's more like "At least my tax dollars are going to something worth-while like our military instead of stupid slackers!" I shit you not, this is the mentality they have.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;52897765]The tyranny of the rich and powerful grows as they continue their war on the middle and working classes. These oligarchs need to be thrown out.[/QUOTE] Then fucking do it. Talking about it won't help. Protesting won't help. Voting won't help. There's nothing left that'll really save America but to make like the French Revolution and make a few heads roll, ugly as it is. The oligarchs who own you people need to be reminded just how heavily outnumbered they are, and that only the good will of society at large has kept them alive so far. I very much understand that no society wants to go so far until they're desperate, but at this rate it won't be long. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Advocating Murder" - Mezzokoko))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52902288]Not so much that as it's more like "At least my tax dollars are going to something worth-while like our military instead of stupid slackers!" I shit you not, this is the mentality they have.[/QUOTE] That's literally the mentality of most people in the UK as well, a couple thousand people getting £50 a week as benefits is a disaster which much be stopped immediately. People pouring billions of pounds into offshore accounts so they dodge taxes is perfectly fine.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52898079]That's a myth. There's truth to cutting taxes to make an economy be more productive and wealthier, the problem is "where are ideal rates" and republicans like to decide "very fucking far to the left on the laffer curve my dude."[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;4yBgTN5JT-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yBgTN5JT-Y[/video] [url=https://youtu.be/4yBgTN5JT-Y?t=2m53s]2:53[/url] for the specific time stamp it's mentioned. [QUOTE]In 1974, economist Arthur Laffer sketches his theory of tax policy over dinner with Wall Street Journal writer Jude Wanniski and Ford administration officials Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, kick-starting the rise of supply-side economics.[/QUOTE] [b]Supply-side or "trickle-down" economics originally started as a talking point used purely by Republicans during the Reagan administration.[/b] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics[/url] [QUOTE]Supply-side economics developed in response to the stagflation of the 1970s.[6] It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, including the Chicago School and New Classical School.[7][8] Bruce Bartlett, an advocate of supply-side economics, traced the school of thought's intellectual descent from the philosophers Ibn Khaldun and David Hume, satirist Jonathan Swift, political economist Adam Smith, and even United States 'Founding Father' Alexander Hamilton.[9] However, what most separates supply-side economics as a modern phenomenon is its argument in favor of low tax rates primarily for collective and notably working-class reasons, rather than traditional ideological ones. [b]Classical Liberals opposed taxes because they opposed government, taxation being the latter's most obvious form.[/b] Their claim was that each man had a right to himself and his property and therefore taxation was immoral and of questionable legal grounding.[10] [b]Supply-side economists, on the other hand, argued that the alleged collective benefit (i.e. increased economic output and efficiency) provided the main impetus for tax cuts.[/b][/QUOTE] Tax-cuts have been used all throughout history, but it was usually because of some ideological purpose- or because rich people were hiding their money and it was cheaper to lower taxes than to prosecute them (since it was pre-20th century this usually meant they were burying money in the ground instead of putting it in an offshore bank account). [b]Supply-side economics is based on the idea that lowering taxes on rich people and reducing regulation will automatically cause economic growth without any consideration of any other economic factors, such as market share and monopolies or market demand.[/b] [QUOTE]As in classical economics, supply-side economics proposed that production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence. Early on, this idea had been summarized in Say's Law of economics, which states: "A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value."[/QUOTE] Other economic theories attempt to consider both supply and demand, as well as the effect of other market forces. So [b]the difference between a logically sound economic theory and trickle-down economics isn't simply a matter of the ideal rates of tax cuts.[/b] [b]Supply-side economics is basically a shitty meme[/b] at this point, it's been solidly proven both through modeling and real world examples ( the w.bush administration, which lead to the [b]2008 financial crash[/b]) that it's an [b]overly simplistic model that doesn't reflect the real world[/b]: [QUOTE]In 2003, Alan Murray, who at the time was Washington bureau chief for CNBC and a co-host of the television program Capital Report, declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the revenue generating effects of the specific tax cuts examined would be, in his words, "relatively small."[28] Murray also suggested that Dan Crippen may have lost his chance at reappointment as head of the CBO over the dynamic scoring issue. Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts", which states that: "Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[54] Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts would reduce tax revenues and result in intolerable deficits, though he supported them as a means to restrain federal spending.[55] Friedman characterized the reduced government tax revenue as "cutting their allowance".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In 2006, the CBO released a study titled "A Dynamic Analysis of Permanent Extension of the President's Tax Relief."[64] This study found that [b]under the best possible scenario, making tax cuts permanent would increase the economy "over the long run" by 0.7%.[/b] Since the "long run" is not defined, some commentators[65] have suggested that 20 years should be used, making the annual best case GDP growth equal to 0.04%. When compared with the cost of the tax cuts, the best case growth scenario is still not sufficient to pay for the tax cuts. Previous official CBO estimates had identified the tax cuts as costing an amount equal to 1.4% of GDP. According to the study, if the [b]best case growth scenario is applied, the tax cuts would still cost an amount equal to 1.27% of GDP.[65][/b][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zyler;52905159][video=youtube;4yBgTN5JT-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yBgTN5JT-Y[/video] [URL="https://youtu.be/4yBgTN5JT-Y?t=2m53s"]2:53[/URL] for the specific time stamp it's mentioned. [B]Supply-side or "trickle-down" economics originally started as a talking point used purely by Republicans during the Reagan administration.[/B] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics[/URL] Tax-cuts have been used all throughout history, but it was usually because of some ideological purpose- or because rich people were hiding their money and it was cheaper to lower taxes than to prosecute them (since it was pre-20th century this usually meant they were burying money in the ground instead of putting it in an offshore bank account). [B]Supply-side economics is based on the idea that lowering taxes on rich people and reducing regulation will automatically cause economic growth without any consideration of any other economic factors, such as market share and monopolies or market demand.[/B] Other economic theories attempt to consider both supply and demand, as well as the effect of other market forces. So [B]the difference between a logically sound economic theory and trickle-down economics isn't simply a matter of the ideal rates of tax cuts.[/B] [B]Supply-side economics is basically a shitty meme[/B] at this point, it's been solidly proven both through modeling and real world examples ( the w.bush administration, which lead to the [B]2008 financial crash[/B]) that it's an [B]overly simplistic model that doesn't reflect the real world[/B]:[/QUOTE] [B]I don't think you actually disagreed with me?[/B] The ideas at play date back to the 18th century, as earliest as I'm familiar with economists. The napkin might have been quite involved for current republicans, [B]but it's not where[/B] "super low taxes will make everyone better off simply due to supply and is thus worth it" originates from. edit: holy fuck I was wrong on the 18th century lol. Talk of the laffer curve, which is what was drawn on the napkin, was done by keynes and 14th century arabs too. And I was just thinking of jean-baptise say. In academic economics "supply-side economics" isn't really used as a term/ideology, and it hasn't for decades, it's largely a political thing. aka it's normative bullshit. The CBO study you linked gives us a GDP decrease because of the spending cuts that were assumed. In a perfect world, we would have all of the social services, etc. that we need with zero tax rates. Obviously, things have to be paid for and that's why I clarified that tax cuts aren't necessarily "worth" it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.