When Lower Tax RATES Produce Higher Tax Revenue
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, July 4, 2019 03:19
VIEWED: 9588
PAGE 2 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
That is the point G. That has always been the point. So why do the Republicans always get away with Raising taxes on those with less? I think todays politics sheds a light on that. It may just be because of the bigotry within the party. The Republicans sell it as though to many who don't belong here, or are freeloaders, are getting free money. Just look at how people like JSF turn on their own when it comes to being centered on issues. Inclusive instead of reclusive.
Hate G, perhaps hate is behind the Republican success when it comes to giveaways to the rich. I have to add stupidity as a reason for their success. Some are so blinded by hate they make really stupid decisions based on really stupid politics. Again, I hold up JSF as an example.
Approving of and encouraging hate is like a drug for some people, and Trump is the dealer. It was interesting to read an article that interviewed Trump voters who to a person said they will vote for him again in 2020.
"Why?"
"He does what he says he will."
"Like what? There's no wall."
"Not his fault..."
like that on and on and after each item, "not his fault."
They seem most perturbed about the NFL players and happy at how Trump had called them out.
"You know what N-F-L stands for? N*ggers For Life."
I don't know if I already posted this here but it dawned on me the other day that apart from Trump being president the biggest thing the bugged me about now is this isn't a glitch. No matter what level of Russian influence there was, the Trump voter is real, they live here, and they'll vote again. How can he still have a 30% approval rating? It is unbelievable.
==============================
Populism 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'? It works both ways. The minorities against the corrupt whites. To me, both parties are guilty of this destructive messaging. Both parties are responsible for Trump.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:IN CHINA. OR SOUTH KOREA.
Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy ...
What would you do with that money?
Get a new phone? Where is it made? China.
Buy a new frig? Where is THAT made? South Korea.
New clothes? Vietnam.
A new purse? Bangladesh.
Household supplies from Walmart? China
There is only one way you would definitely "stimulate" the economy here at home - Buy an in-person service: restaurant meals, lap dances, or medical care. If you're going to buy a manufactured item, you would be hard-pressed to find a product which was MOSTLY made in the USA.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:IN CHINA. OR SOUTH KOREA.
Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy ...
What would you do with that money?
Get a new phone? Where is it made? China.
Buy a new frig? Where is THAT made? South Korea.
New clothes? Vietnam.
A new purse? Bangladesh.
Household supplies from Walmart? China
There is only one way you would definitely "stimulate" the economy here at home - Buy an in-person service: restaurant meals, lap dances, or medical care. If you're going to buy a manufactured item, you would be hard-pressed to find a product which was MOSTLY made in the USA.
While I do have some problems with globalization I am not the fatalist you are. Which is why you present a fatalist populist message whenever you discuss it.
Where something is made does not tell the whole story. For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there. The goods are shipped into this country. So much of that process provides Americans with jobs... so on and so on.
The point is to expose your posting as populist and destructive. This applies to most of the issues you post about.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And are paid so poorly that Walmart actually hands out brochures on how to apply for food stamps and other government aid.
For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there.
Service jobs are not manufacturing jobs.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:And are paid so poorly that Walmart actually hands out brochures on how to apply for food stamps and other government aid.
For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there.
Service jobs are not manufacturing jobs.
I love that we are having this discussion. Brief as it will be because you are an asshole troll who I'll tire of.
My response to you this time, is that no matter what is posted that has a positive outlook, you'll go negative, because that's the populist message. Unless it concerns Putin, Trump and Putins' ally's, like Trump. Did I mention Trump?
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know this is somewhat off-topic, but THUGR, you need to think this through more completely.
We've offloaded our manufacturing to other nations and become a nation of service-workers and banksters. In order to bring those manufacturing jobs back home, we would need to be more "efficient" (ie have lower costs) than the manufactures elsewhere.
In some cases, shoddy third-world work imposes its own costs, and there is SOME incentive to manufacture here, closer to the goods-market and with better quality control than some other nations. But mostly wages here would have to be lowered, or automation would have to be utilized, or environmental controls would have to be reduced, or taxes would have to be trimmed ... in one way or another, we would have to PAY to return the manufactures here.
But is that really necessary?
It is, but only if you subscribe to the ideas that profits can never be touched, and that we HAVE to compete in the world market. Both of those assumptions should be questioned, because in reality, the ONLY ENTITIES which benefit from that POV are transnational companies and banks. Average people on both ends of the trade deals are hurt by this collective competition to the bottom of the barrel.
I personally think that ....
1) We need to be more self-sufficient for security and "ruggedness" purposes. That means that there should be the fewest possible "critical" commodities and supplies NOT made here. We're lucky enough to have agricultural land, water, metals, minerals and forests, and with wise stewardship we should have enough resources for the foreseeable future. Yes, there are some strategic metals that we don't have here, but we should be able to trade for those, not be dependent on other nations' largesse.
2) Our trade should be nearly balanced. It's a problem to be in perpetual trade debt; but it's also a problem being in perpetual trade surplus because then you're dependent on external markets.
3) Our wealth should be more evenly distributed, and not because of government handouts but through meaningful work available to everyone who wants to work. That fosters a mentality of self-reliance, not dependence on "government" or other centralized entity.
4) That will probably lead to reduced efficiency, but "efficiency" is a dangerous metric for judging an economy. Maximal efficiency leads to maximal fragility. Robust ecologies have multiple overlapping niches, allowing some to "fill in" for others which may suddenly go missing.
There are a series of policies that need to be implemented to get from "here" to "there": Tariffs, government loans to key industries, control of the Fed, revival of our infrastructure, change in tax structure etc etc. It would require such a comprehensive approach that no President could accomplish it in four - or eight- years, and it's extremely unlikely to occur, but I believe that it's necessary to bring the economy back in service to the American people, and not the other way around.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic of tax rates ...
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy and possibly, ultimately create the demand for new jobs... but you'd probably have to do it every year. I'd be wiling to bet that knowing my fellow citizens like I do a lot of people would get the $500 check and spend $750 - $1000.
==============================
I've actually said that I would be a fan of a Universal Income of $12,000/yr for every American Citizen with a social security number. This is an idea that has been floated around by some economists for a few years.
The catch is, that it would be given to everybody. Every single person. Yes, the rich too. A completely neutral spending catalyst that would not be available to certain classes and not other classes. All people. The epitome of Equal Opportunity and a shining example of unequal outcome.
Most rich people wouldn't even blink before buying something stupid with it, but it would drastically improve the lives of the people who would need it the most. Chances are, most of it would be spent no matter who gets it.
My only condition I would put on it is that for the first 18 years it is put into a trust, and a child only gets the trust money if they complete high school and go to some form of secondary school. Either college or a trade school. This would also be a great incentive for kids to actually learn something while they're spending most of their time at state run daycare centers.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You might have a nation of involuntary Couch Potatoes even without the handout. Joblessness could be forced upon the Potatoes: Over the next 13 years, the rising tide of automation will force as many as 70 million workers in the United States to find another way to make money, a new study from the global consultancy McKinsey predicts.
Originally posted by G:
If the handout is too big then you'd have a nation of couch potatoes.
==============================
That means nearly a third of the American workforce could face the need to pick up new skills or enter different fields in the near future, said the report's co-author, Michael Chui, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute who studies business and economics.
www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/future-of-organizations-and-work/what-t
he-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reaganomics Tax Cuts.
Total Federal Revenues 1980 = $517 Billion. 1990 = over $1 Trillion. GDP Aldo doubled in this period.
Individual Income Tax Revenue 1980 = $244 B. 1990 = $467 B.
Proportion of total Income Tax paid by top 1% of Income Tax payers in 1981 = 18%. In 1988 = 28%. In 1991 = 25%. (After Bush41 raised taxes)
Top 5% in 1991 = 43%.
Bottom 50% = 5%.
If including Social Security Taxes (which Reagan did not change), share of Total Federal Taxes paid:
By the top 1% of taxpayers in 1980 = 12.9%. 1989 = 15.4%.
Top 5% of taxpayers in 1980 = 27.3%. 1989 = 30.4%.
Top 20% of taxpayers in 1980 = 56.1%. 1989 = 58.6%.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've actually said that I would be a fan of a Universal Income of $12,000/yr for every American Citizen with a social security number. This is an idea that has been floated around by some economists for a few years.
The catch is, that it would be given to everybody. Every single person. Yes, the rich too. A completely neutral spending catalyst that would not be available to certain classes and not other classes. All people. The epitome of Equal Opportunity and a shining example of unequal outcome.
Most rich people wouldn't even blink before buying something stupid with it, but it would drastically improve the lives of the people who would need it the most. Chances are, most of it would be spent no matter who gets it.
My only condition I would put on it is that for the first 18 years it is put into a trust, and a child only gets the trust money if they complete high school and go to some form of secondary school. Either college or a trade school. This would also be a great incentive for kids to actually learn something while they're spending most of their time at state run daycare centers.
If the handout is too big then you'd have a nation of couch potatoes.
==============================
True, but $12,000 doesn't go very far. Those that don't work already don't get the EIC, and those that don't work and are of "able bodied" age do not get food stamps. This would supplement their income.
I really can't imagine there are too many people who would say "wow. $12,000 bucks a year for free. I'll never work again". It wouldn't really be a great life they'd be living.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME