Discussion in 'Conservation' started by Matt Paluch, Nov 28, 2017.
your assumption is quite incorrect
The cool thing is that kids pretty much know when they are being ripped off by the POTUS. What I can't figure out is why some adults don't get it??????
Man, you need to visit a small town in NCW and tell me my eyes are not opened to the truth. Are you serious or are you seriously ignorant?
Better hope Aaron Marshall of Boise, ID does not see this. Just more bullshit and stale air from you.
And you need to visit portland oregon suburbs. You know the type of place the vast majority of the middle class lives.
Funny thing about reality
You have to live where the work is.
Nothing you've said has really defended trickle down theory yet you still sit here and tell everyone else how little they know... Injecting money into the economy can/does generate growth, but tax cuts to the highest brackets don't always translate to that. Wealthy people have a much higher propensity to save money than middle class or poor people do, meaning a higher percentage of returned tax dollars go under the proverbial mattress and do nothing. We know this to be true, and saying otherwise is partisan gibberish. The other problem (or one of them at least) with the trickle down model is that those who would choose to invest that excess money (including corporations) will do it wherever they stand to yield the highest returns. Maybe that is growing their company and creating jobs that benefit their community or the nation's economy as a whole. But maybe it isn't. Maybe the best investment at the time is stocks or bonds or even Bitcoin. Maybe it's building resorts and golf courses in Dubai, or extracting oil from tar sands in Alberta, or manufacturing in China. All of which do little to nothing for middle class and poor Americans. That money can go anywhere and that's why it's a crapshoot and disingenuous to try to sell this economic model as fact, because it isn't. It's a gamble and it always has been. The US has the highest foreign-direct-investment outflows by a long shot. If you overlook that then it's easy to swallow the trickle down pill.
Trickle down theory has been debunked time and time again. That doesn't mean Reagan didn't grow or even fix the economy he inherited because he did (although that had some costs associated with it, namely the national debt). But the Republican party now uses that as an example to prove the trickle down economic model. It doesn't though. The correlations just aren't there. It's an attempt to sell these garbage tax cuts and convince their constituents they are getting a good deal instead of a shit sandwich.
Edit: Oh yeah, and I took Econ 101, and a bunch of other economics and finance classes when I was getting a degree in, you guessed it, economics....
Salient. Thanks T.O. for explaining this much better than I could.
It's called supply-side economics. You have your opinion so do many others....
If the tax reform becomes law let's wait and see the outcome. The proof will be in the pudding.
My hope is that all boats will be lifted...
If the tax cut causes a recession, will you be able to admit that trickle down economics is a failed theory and the tax cut was a bad idea?
Every American is getting a good deal regardless of who is in office or what the tax code is like.. thats the great thing about living here and having a free capitalistic society.
Merry Christmas everyone.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then, because this isn't really an opinion. Economics is a science, not an opinion. Some of it is based on assumptions, however, and the assumptions that Trump and senate Republicans are making about growth appear to be inaccurate as every independent analysis of the tax bill has shown. This is going to slash revenue by $1.5 trillion and they are claiming that it will "pay for itself" in growth. The problem is that in every verifiable example of this in history, only a fraction of the revenue lost is returned to the economy. In terms of corporations it can be up to 50% or so, but with individuals it is much lower. Long story short, there is almost no way and literally no historical evidence supporting that this will pay for itself. So what is left open to form an opinion about is what amount of debt you are comfortable with adding in exchange for marginal returns in terms of economic growth. If you are comfortable adding a trillion $$ to our debt while pocketing a little extra cash until your tax break sunsets, then yeah this might be a good plan for you. I'm not really comfortable with that though, and I would say the exact same thing about several of Obama's policies considering his administration added more money to our national debt than any in history. But it isn't an opinion that this tax cut won't pay for itself, that is a guarantee. And it isn't an opinion that trickle down economics do not work as advertised.
I would probably be on board if the cuts that normal Americans are going to get were permanent. At least that way, if the growth numbers they anticipate don't pan out then normal middle-class people would still have some tax relief and won't be left completely high and dry. But instead those cuts will sunset and the middle class's taxes will go up, and if the economy didn't grow in a manner where everyone is making more money then the middle class get's the shaft. The only people who definitely stand to benefit from this are the ultra rich. Why isn't there a sunset provision for corporate tax rates also, in case they don't do what they are intended to? Why are the people who actually need tax relief the most always the ones given the least consideration?
If there are no major incidents, natural or otherwise, and there is a contraction in the GDP for six months or longer from current levels with higher unemployment, stagnant wages, and a decrease in retail sales I will admit that these proposed tax cuts have failed. What's trickle down economics?
I'm not sure I follow you Rob. I think everyone here is probably proud to be an American and happy to live here, otherwise they wouldn't. That doesn't mean that everything is perfect or that we can't improve some things.
Are you suggesting that all economists think alike? Seriously. Of course they have varying opinions.
This is proving to be a huge waste of time. I have far more productive things to do...sayonara.