50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

well, the economic and fiscal data shows I am correct.

this is false.

this is also false. If businesses could charge more, they would be doing so already. So, increasing taxes does not and will not be passed to consumers, because if they could be charging additionally for their products, they would already be doing so. Basic economics.

Democrats love them some spending too, but at least they have the revenue for it, because they don't slash tax rates. Republicans slash revenues, and increase spending at a higher rate than democrats.

some are, most aren't.

and GDP. The cost of housing is what drives poverty in CA, and that is because EVERYONE wants to live there.

did I say I want the country to be like CA?

 

It did, obama/dems.

 

You are incorrect and thats why you refused to post the data. There has never been a case where tax cuts resulted in loss of revenue for the federal government. Your hypothetical argument does not change that fact.

Please post a link showing that businesses eat the tax burden and do not pass it down to the consumer.

Your next false statement says that "at least they have the revenue for it". That makes their irresponsibility even more inexcusable. They have the revenue, but still manage to spend more and increase debt. CA cities were on the brink of insolvency before Covid.

Moving to your next false statement "The cost of housing is what drives poverty in CA, and that is because EVERYONE wants to live there."
Housing is not the only thing that costs more. Excessive taxes are passed down to the consumer. If you drive a car, registration fees (A sneaky tax) are high and we pay a gas tax on top of a gas tax. Taxes cost workers more than housing.

Not everyone wants to live here. In fact, businesses are fleeing CA and taking jobs with them.

 

The issue isn't about 'revenue' it's about placing the burden in the most optimum and fair fashion. My proposal given here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ics-study-says.584311/page-10#post-1072407307

 

Why would change come from the top? When they all only interested in keeping their seats on the gravy train except for the very few . No,real change always comes from the bottom, the future lies with the young. I'm not at all interested in the endless squabbles between Democrats and Republicans as I'm not American so I don't have to live with it. Lastly we are discussing Trickle Down not Trickle Up, since when did crumbs acquire wings. You ask me Which economies would you rather have now?[/QUOTE] well now one that isn't ranked 38th in the World List of health provision for its nation and where ther are no

 

I understand the issue and replied directly. Progress was made when you took spending into account. Our government cannot responsibly manage the money they have now and here you are proposing they get more and for no other reason than because some people have more. You can't use the term "fair" when you support making people pay more because they have it. I would feel differently if the results were a thriving, healthy society, but results show the exact opposite.

What if the additional money they take is used to buy bombs to drop on countries that didn't attack us?

 

Oh yes, life is so hard now that obesity is a problem amongst the poor......

 

How did it work? They said it would hold unemployment to 8% and then rapidly decline, instead it shot to 10% and it stayed over 8% for the next three years. It took over 4 years to get it back to where we are now. Wages fell. The LFPR went over the cliff. The worst recovery in modern history so how exactly did it work and work better the the supply-side economics of Gingrich/Kasich, Bush43/Republican Congress, Trump/Republican Congress and be specific not just unsupported declarations.

 

You said

Spending and revenues are a KEY component of fiscal policy. And what burden should the top 1% have for that revenue versus the bottom 50% if you want to talk the burden of taxation.

 

If you were talking about deficits, spending and taxation are the two sides of it, no dispute there.

A vague declaration, you'll have to elaborate.

Whenever you throw pronouns around, remember, you are not right in front of me and not the only person I'm communicating with and I often reply a day or so later. Be specific, who are 'they' and how am I proposing they get 'more'. You mean the government? No, I'm not. The objective
is to allow those who can shoulder the burden the most, to shoulder it.

Taxes have to be paid, so it only makes sense to tax those who have it. And it is not 'for no other reason that they have more', it is ONLY for the reason they are MORE ABLE TO PAY.

See, you are looking at it wrong.

Sure I can. Those who benefit from the system the most should, under the concept of fairness, shoulder the greater burden.

Well, the super rich are always thriving, another reason why they should pay the taxes.

We were a thriving, healthy society, economically speaking, in the 50s, when taxes on the super rich were the highest.

The economy overall grew by 37% during the 1950s. At the end of the decade, the median American family had 30% more purchasing power than at the beginning. Inflation was minimal, in part because of Eisenhower's efforts to balance the federal budget. Unemployment remained low, about 4.5%.

Please quit using pronouns (often I reply a few days later, and need my memory to be refreshed)

You mean the government? What are you talking about? This is crazy talk. You can 'what if' all day long.

 

Because of leadership and capital. And your sloganeering does not change the facts and history. Currently there are two competing economic theories in my country, don't know about yours because you don't display what it is for some reason. Keynesian and Supply-Side. Keynesian says big government spending and hand outs is what grows and stimulates the economy, supply-side says leaving all the capital in the private markets to invest and expand is what stimulates and grows the economy and have listed the BIG time the former was tried and the three times the latter and the results point to supply-side economics the best and increasing jobs and increasing wages and salaries and expanding the economy and lifting people out of poverty. And don't play wack-a-mole and keep changing the subject.

 

Doof said "Our government cannot responsibly manage the money they have now"

You believe the government has managed tax revenues responsibly or something?

 

I love how you guys can't deny that things got better under Obama, so you have to pull out this "slowest recovery" crap.

 

The only thing that is not clear about your position is the end game. What is it you want done with the money of others?

 

It was the slowest, the worst recovery in modern history, and things got lots worse under Obama as far as unemployment, the things that started a year after he and his fellow Democrats had taken back the Congress and lame ducked Bush. His stimulus was an utter failure by his own set goals. The full recovery which he put Biden in charge up never happened we barely held on but the more the Republicans took back power, first the House, then the Senate and then the WH the better things got. You have yet to support your claims that the "trickle up" policies worked better than supply-side.

 

All of this has been addressed already. You remain as incorrect as the first to me I refuted your argument.

 

None of this is correct, as I have shown you hundreds of times.

 

My position remains unchallenged. Tax cuts have never resulted in a loss of revenue for the federal government. You dodged that fact with hypothetical examples, but could not produce a year and dollar amount.

 

The question is what is this "enough to live on". These people



have "enough to live on" they live don't they? I wouldn't want to live that standard of living but they apparently have "enough to live on" just as these people



So yes what is enough to live on. And why should one hard working stiff have to give up some of their pay to someone else for "disposable income"? I imagine the person who earned it can dispose it quite on their own thankyou.

 

As you know it is pointless to try and have a discussion with you as you will merely claim you have already refuted anything posted, as you demonstrated regularly, and refuse to answer direct questions to you. Your history of obfuscation well documented.

And of course your claims of white flags, no white flag offered. So don't fallaciously claim one as that seems to be your only goal on this board.

 

I'll let Doof answer the question

 

I don't want anything done with the money of others.

Ahhh, you're talking about taxes. Right?

You're frame of reference is incorrect.

Taxes are not 'other people's money'.

Not trying to interject religion ( I'm not religious ) but Jesus said it best, "Give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's".

It's not different here. You pay taxes to the government, taxes which belong to the government.

See? It's NOT 'other people's money'. The money belongs to the government.

See, the state has a legitimate claim on a portion of income, so says the constitution.

That portion is NOT yours. It's the government's.

So, when you state it the way you did, you are incorrect, IF you are talking about taxes. If not, I don't know why you ask.

So, when you ask me 'what do I want done with the money of others?"

The only correct answer I can give to that question, is 'nothing, why do you ask?'.

 

refuted this. basic math shows us revenues were less than they should have been had taxes not been cut.

correction, I refuted your claim by demonstrating basic math.

 

white flag noted and accepted. Everyone, including you, knows why you are unable to address the facts and data you are presented with. You do this with every single person who refutes your silly bullshit.

 

Interesting. You see my property as belonging to the government. Your distraction is interesting, but still does not clarify your position. Let say you get everything you propose and now our government is taking in a lot more from those you consider rich.

Now what? What benefit to society are you hoping for?