Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Who's got the scoop on the new Tax cuts..?

Chizzang wrote:

Who's got the scoop on the new Tax cuts..?

Shouldn't you be asking Congress? Trump has been waiting with the rest of us.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Who's got the scoop on the new Tax cuts..?

Shouldn't you be asking Congress? Trump has been waiting with the rest of us.

Oh...
Thank goodness its a Republican controlled congress

The President said he was going to lower my taxes
(So is this kinda like you can keep your doctor?)

Honestly though I am interested as hell
and hope it's not another "I've seen the new healthcare plan, it's the best... You'll love it... it's incredible"
Followed by "Who knew Healthcare was so hard.."



Also: crossing my fingers that Mexico is going to pay for the Tax cuts

I think there are certain things the Republicans want to do but I also think there's a good chance Trump is going to screw them up because he has no clue and won't be able to resist opening his mouth.

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Shouldn't you be asking Congress? Trump has been waiting with the rest of us.

Oh...
Thank goodness its a Republican controlled congress

The President said he was going to lower my taxes
(So is this kinda like you can keep your doctor?)

Honestly though I am interested as hell
and hope it's not another "I've seen the new healthcare plan, it's the best... You'll love it... it's incredible"
Followed by "Who knew Healthcare was so hard.."



Also: crossing my fingers that Mexico is going to pay for the Tax cuts

The tax cuts are going to be payed for with unshackled and unprecedented growth...and massive spending cuts. Remember, the Republicans now control everything and this is their best chance EVER to prove Reaganomics.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Oh...
Thank goodness its a Republican controlled congress

The President said he was going to lower my taxes
(So is this kinda like you can keep your doctor?)

Honestly though I am interested as hell
and hope it's not another "I've seen the new healthcare plan, it's the best... You'll love it... it's incredible"
Followed by "Who knew Healthcare was so hard.."



Also: crossing my fingers that Mexico is going to pay for the Tax cuts

The tax cuts are going to be payed for with unshackled and unprecedented growth...and massive spending cuts. Remember, the Republicans now control everything and this is their best chance EVER to prove Reaganomics.

They're not going to do Reaganomics because Trump is going to want to do populist stuff at the same time. He's fixated on creating the impression that this is about middle class tax cuts and the middle class doesn't pay a high proportion of the taxes to begin with. Reaganomics dictates that you have to focus on cutting taxes among the people who actually pay most of the taxes.

Just to illustrate, you can go to the latest CBO thing on distribution of taxes and income at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51361. The latest year analyzed is 2013. That year the middle 60 percent of households in terms of income paid 16% of income taxes while the top 20% paid 88% of taxes.

If you want to practice Reaganomics you're going to have to focus on the top 20%. The "middle" in terms of income isn't where the money you want to shoot into the economy is.

JohnStOnge wrote:Just to illustrate, you can go to the latest CBO thing on distribution of taxes and income at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51361. The latest year analyzed is 2013. That year the middle 60 percent of households in terms of income paid 16% of income taxes while the top 20% paid 88% of taxes.

If you want to practice Reaganomics you're going to have to focus on the top 20%. The "middle" in terms of income isn't where the money you want to shoot into the economy is.

Except it doesn't get shot into the economy.

JohnStOnge wrote:Just to illustrate, you can go to the latest CBO thing on distribution of taxes and income at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51361. The latest year analyzed is 2013. That year the middle 60 percent of households in terms of income paid 16% of income taxes while the top 20% paid 88% of taxes.

If you want to practice Reaganomics you're going to have to focus on the top 20%. The "middle" in terms of income isn't where the money you want to shoot into the economy is.

Except the economy is 2/3's driven by consumerism. You need the middle on down to spend, continue to provide them with enough crumbs, or suffer the pitchforks.

Well I'm ready to try a real tax break...
You know, just to see if I like it

Chizzang wrote:Well I'm ready to try a real tax break...
You know, just to see if I like it

if you like it, I can send you an application for membership in the Republican Party.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Well I'm ready to try a real tax break...
You know, just to see if I like it

if you like it, I can send you an application for membership in the Republican Party.

So he can ask for a tax break but not get one?

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Well I'm ready to try a real tax break...
You know, just to see if I like it

if you like it, I can send you an application for membership in the Republican Party.

So you buy into the fan fiction of the Republican Party..?
Next you're going to tell me they spend less

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Just to illustrate, you can go to the latest CBO thing on distribution of taxes and income at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51361. The latest year analyzed is 2013. That year the middle 60 percent of households in terms of income paid 16% of income taxes while the top 20% paid 88% of taxes.

If you want to practice Reaganomics you're going to have to focus on the top 20%. The "middle" in terms of income isn't where the money you want to shoot into the economy is.

Except the economy is 2/3's driven by consumerism. You need the middle on down to spend, continue to provide them with enough crumbs, or suffer the pitchforks.

I think it's safe to say that the top 20% account for the lion's share of consumer spending. Here's a Wall Street Journal article referencing a Moody's Analytics analysis that the bottom 80% of income earners account for 39.5% of consumer outlays:

https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/05 ... -the-rich/

You can do the math and see that means the top 20% account for 60.5%. There's also a note that just the top 5% account for 37%; which means that 5% of the population accounts for almost as much as the bottom 80%.

My understanding has always been that "Reaganomics" was predicated on giving tax relief to the rich and corporations. I Googled around just now and what I saw is pretty much consistent with that. Here's one example:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/59b.asp

Tax relief for the rich would enable them to spend and invest more. This new spending would stimulate the economy and create new jobs.

Anyone that thinks the rich would spend the tax cuts in the US in any substantive way is delusional.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:
Except the economy is 2/3's driven by consumerism. You need the middle on down to spend, continue to provide them with enough crumbs, or suffer the pitchforks.

I think it's safe to say that the top 20% account for the lion's share of consumer spending. Here's a Wall Street Journal article referencing a Moody's Analytics analysis that the bottom 80% of income earners account for 39.5% of consumer outlays:

https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/05 ... -the-rich/

You can do the math and see that means the top 20% account for 60.5%. There's also a note that just the top 5% account for 37%; which means that 5% of the population accounts for almost as much as the bottom 80%.

My understanding has always been that "Reaganomics" was predicated on giving tax relief to the rich and corporations. I Googled around just now and what I saw is pretty much consistent with that. Here's one example:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/59b.asp

Tax relief for the rich would enable them to spend and invest more. This new spending would stimulate the economy and create new jobs.

The glory days...
"The national debt tripled from one to three trillion dollars during the Reagan years."
from your article

John,
Even industrialists have admitted already
Tax cuts do not lead to Jobs growth - nobody even bothers to pretend that happens anymore

Chizzang wrote:

Tax cuts do not lead to Jobs growth - nobody even bothers to pretend that happens anymore

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it depends on what the level of taxation is when taxes are cut. I think that there is a sweet spot such that if you raise taxes things get worse and if you lower taxes things get worse. And I think that nobody really knows exactly where the sweet spot is.

But that's not what I was getting at anyway. All I was getting at is that if you do take the "Reaganomics" approach you're not going to be focusing on middle class tax cuts.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Tax cuts do not lead to Jobs growth - nobody even bothers to pretend that happens anymore

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it depends on what the level of taxation is when taxes are cut. I think that there is a sweet spot such that if you raise taxes things get worse and if you lower taxes things get worse. And I think that nobody really knows exactly where the sweet spot is.

But that's not what I was getting at anyway. All I was getting at is that if you do take the "Reaganomics" approach you're not going to be focusing on middle class tax cuts.

There is a lot of mythology and fiction surrounding taxes and economics...
The Reagan years reflect poorly on most of them

Chizzang wrote: Tax cuts do not lead to Jobs growth - nobody even bothers to pretend that happens anymore

Economic growth leads to job growth. Better chance at job growth through tax cuts than tax increases..

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:
Except the economy is 2/3's driven by consumerism. You need the middle on down to spend, continue to provide them with enough crumbs, or suffer the pitchforks.

I think it's safe to say that the top 20% account for the lion's share of consumer spending. Here's a Wall Street Journal article referencing a Moody's Analytics analysis that the bottom 80% of income earners account for 39.5% of consumer outlays:

https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/05 ... -the-rich/

You can do the math and see that means the top 20% account for 60.5%. There's also a note that just the top 5% account for 37%; which means that 5% of the population accounts for almost as much as the bottom 80%.

My understanding has always been that "Reaganomics" was predicated on giving tax relief to the rich and corporations. I Googled around just now and what I saw is pretty much consistent with that. Here's one example:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/59b.asp

Tax relief for the rich would enable them to spend and invest more. This new spending would stimulate the economy and create new jobs.

From your own article, John:

The second reason is that those people in the middle- and lower-income groups are struggling to pay off debt and stay afloat amid rising unemployment, as today’s data remind us. That has crimped their spending.

The data may be a further sign that the U.S. is becoming a Plutonomy–an economy dependent on the spending and investing of the wealthy. And Plutonomies are far less stable than economies built on more evenly distributed income and mass consumption. “I don’t think it’s healthy for the economy to be so dependent on the top 2% of the income distribution,” Mr. Zandi said. He added that, “In the near term it highlights the fragility of the recovery.”

Even if the numbers are accurate, that 40% that the hoi poloi spends is still pretty fucking important, no? But Reagnomics says "no, cut the rich guy's taxes so he can spend more."

Where does that lead you? More growth which eventually trickles down? The economy should have been booming for everyone over the last 30 years!

Here's where else it can lead....

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/co ... e-economy/

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: if you like it, I can send you an application for membership in the Republican Party.

So you buy into the fan fiction of the Republican Party..?
Next you're going to tell me they spend less

You haven't noticed the enormous drop in spending that happens every time the Republicans control all branches of government?

These threads are why I love this place. You have people thinking conks are going to make meaningful taxcuts that benefit the middle class...

...and you a guy that doesn't understand that the economy cost hilldog the election...arguing that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the economy...

...you can't make this shit up.

houndawg wrote:

Chizzang wrote:


So you buy into the fan fiction of the Republican Party..?
Next you're going to tell me they spend less

You haven't noticed the enormous drop in spending that happens every time the Republicans control all branches of government?

If by "drop" you mean "increased spending" then yes... I have noticed

SDHornet wrote:These threads are why I love this place. You have people thinking conks are going to make meaningful taxcuts that benefit the middle class...

...and you a guy that doesn't understand that the economy cost hilldog the election...arguing that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the economy...

...you can't make this **** up.

The economy isn't what cost Clinton the election. The objective polling data pretty clearly illustrate that.

Right. I'm sure that Evangelical Christians voted for Trump in a greater percentage than they've EVER voted for any other Republican candidate was because the economy. Not.

JohnStOnge wrote:

SDHornet wrote:These threads are why I love this place. You have people thinking conks are going to make meaningful taxcuts that benefit the middle class...

...and you a guy that doesn't understand that the economy cost hilldog the election...arguing that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the economy...

...you can't make this **** up.

The economy isn't what cost Clinton the election. The objective polling data pretty clearly illustrate that.

Right. I'm sure that Evangelical Christians voted for Trump in a greater percentage than they've EVER voted for any other Republican candidate was because the economy. Not.

The Billy Grahamcrackers supported the least Christian presidential candidate in living memory. Go figure.