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

I don't think you understand what I wrote.

It has nothing to do with 'what I see'.

The following statement is fact:

If you are in a taxable bracket, the state ( or government, whichever term you prefer) has a legitimate claim on a portion of your income, and that portion does not belong to you, it belongs to the government.

That FACT has NOTHING to do with 'what I see' nor does the concept of whether or not you labored for that income have anything to do with it. As for size of portions claimed, that is the ultimate result of whom we elect, and the laws they enact. That is the system. I didn't create it, but you and I and all concerned, by virtue of residence and citizenship, consent to it.

 

Yes. It means that naming one would be simple.

 

I’ve named several. Every year after a tax rate cut is implemented. 2018 is the latest after the trump welfare handout to the rich.

 

You wrote:

And the spenders will simply claim it's not enough. The smokers, gamblers, drinkers, fast food eaters, shopaholics, air-conditioning addicts, etc will all just say that they can't afford to live on what you deem 'enough'.

Your assertions are emotional plea. It's also cynical, and suppositional.

Good policy should not be derived from emotion, cynicism, nor supposition. Moreover, good policy wouldn't be based on what "I deem enough", You are shifting the argument to me, and I have nothing to do with it, I'm not a legislator.

 

I understand your position. The legitimate claim on my labor is a communist position. It may not be at communist levels yet, but one nibble at a time, it is heading in that direction. Currently, more than half my labor belongs to the government and my fellow man is no better off as a result.

At least illegal aliens get to enjoy the fruits of their labor tax free.

 

The federal government had an increase in 2018. Try again.

 

The left struggles with the concept of effective tax.

Plus, let's go back more than 50 years. Let's go back to when there was zero income tax. Yet we still had schools, roads, an army.

Weird.

 

Do you have a job? Have you ever worked for somebody else?

THAT is trickle down.

 

Lol @ focusing on Kansas and whatever proof you think that makes while ignoring New York, Illinois, and California.

You know, the liberal progressive led states with the largest wealth gaps, highest taxes, and highest cost of living.

 

That's the reality. Those intent on spending whatever they get, immediately - without planning ahead or saving for the future - will always claim they don't receive enough. That has nothing to do with emotions, it's a fact of human nature.

The EMOTIONAL response would be to listen to them and/or act on it. And to dismiss the human factor is actually cynical. So often we hear things like "I suppose you think everyone should plan ahead and be self-disciplined", etc. That's nothing if not cynical, because the answer is, logically, yes. Careful stewardship of limited resources is utterly logical, and also a freely made choice. Therefore if someone refuses to steward their finances according to their means, logically, they have chosen to avoid financial security. When finite resources are involved we have no option, nor moral right, to go with anything but logic.

 

So much nonsense, and other people liked it.

I'm glad most of the posters on this forum aren't in positions of leadership.

 

Communism is totalitarianism. It's an all (or close to it) or nothing proposition.

If you want to argue that government is communism painted pink. Fine, many have, but it's a meaningless argument.

All western societies have government, and government has to be paid for. Government is necessary, for without it, there is anarchy and anarchy is chaos. What is the point in calling government 'incremental communism'?

If you are arguing that taxes are 'communist' then you are saying there are elements of communism in the Constitution.

No one is saying 'taxation without representation' because otherwise is tyranny.

That is why we have elections, to put into place those whom we elect to enact policies we favor.

But, since not everyone's candidate becomes elected, there will always be people who are unhappy with the laws, the taxes, and the like, but that is the nature of democracy, and thus far, as bad as all the other systems are, no one has proposed a better system than the one we have.

Not something that can be debated, i.e, it's a non-argument (your point of. 'fellow man is no better off'.)....i.e., vague.

Every one bitches about taxes. Whether your complaint is just or not depends on your level of income.

Illegals pay taxes

https://itep.sfo2.digitaloceanspace...-Immigrants-State-and-Local-Contributions.pdf

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes

 

So what? They'll get whatever the law allows, and that is that.

You are saying people bitch, every one bitches, even the rich bitch.

So?

 

If you receive something but refuse to pay for it what happens?

 

Hey patricio, are you employed and do you make good money? Do you have a business?

 

No its not, you receive govt services you have to pay for them.

 

#


When you make a small bit of sense I' will answer.

 

You are implying that the reasoning justifying having the rich pay more in taxes is to increase revenue

That is NOT the reason, and, as such, the answer to your question is a moot point. The actual reason is to shift the burden of taxation to those who benefit from the system the most.

It's about fair burden. Revenue has nothing to do with it If taxes don't bring in a enough revenue, either the gov

1. spends less
2. borrows and prints more
3. borrows, prints, and spends more

but, raising taxes on the rich does decrease deficits.
We know this because lowering taxes on the rich increases it, so the opposite must be true

#3 is usually what happens.

 

Historically the US economy has grown..
This is why historically decrease taxes as a percentage yet still take in more taxes over all.

Its not The Year Before (TYB) revenues the tax cut vs the year after (TYA) tax revenues.
Its TYA vs a hypothetical TYA in which the previous tax rates remained in place. At least, that's how economists calculate it, that's what they mean when they say revenues have gone down.

I know you know this. I just want to make sure people reading understand why your statement is largely meaningless to the conversation.

 

Most of this is true, but the bold is faulty reasoning. It may also be true, its a reasonable assumption, but that +X does +Y does not necessarily mean that -X does -Y.

 

You do know that Kansas is only 0.44% lower in taxes than the evil California and 0.79% lower than Illinois, you know that right?
Kansas SHOULD be the focus since it was touted as the the great conservative experiment and was going to prove once and for all that trickle down worked and conservative is the way to go.
It was and still is a epic failure on every level and every conservative knows it.
Thats why you are loath to talk about it and instead play the same old game of the lost, whataboutism.

 

math says they took in less because they cut the rate at which they collected revenues.

 

It's a fair assumption. If lowering taxes on the super riches results in deficits, then raising taxes on the supperich will lower them ( as long as spending isn't drastically altered.

 

Cop out.

I know the entitlement crowd find it hard to believe, but I don't owe you anything and I certainly don't care if you respond.

Employment is trickle down. If you can't debate that, sorry the facts are inconvenient.

 

I assume you are using only one tax rate to draw those conclusions. Is that income tax? There is a whole lot of taxes that need to be considered.

Looking at the total tax burden:

#1 New York - 12.28%

#9 Illinois - 9.62%

#13 California - 9.27%

#20 Kansas - 8.83%

In fact, out of the top 15 highest tax burdens in the country a whopping 13 of them voted blue in the last election.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

Well first, I encourage you to source this so called "experiment". Second, it certainly appears that Kansas. The value of $100 bucks in KS is actually worth about $111 nationally.

New York - $86.36
California - $87.11
Illinois - $101.52

From a wealth inequality perspective, Kansas is again in the middle of the pack and much lower than the national average.

Cost of living is reasonable, mid-way down the list of states. Taxes are reasonable at number 20.

These are all facts and statistics.

Funny, I posted all the facts. You just posted platitudes.

When you look at the Progressive experiments in NY, CA, and IL... every one of them is a failure. But you keep on believing that it's the red states that are causing the issues.