|
Post by porkyman on Nov 16, 2017 21:26:38 GMT -6
First, there is a larger percentage of companies that have "net" tax rates in the single digits approaching zero. There are many multinationals that hold their cash in other countries enabling them to pay as little tax as possible. The proposed tax cut in its current form is looking to reduce the mortgage interest deduction, etc. This is a big sticking point at the moment. At the end of the day debating it doesn't matter for a few reasons (there are more), 1. We cannot do anything about it. 2. It will never be in our best interest because we do not make sizeable enough political contributions 3. They just don't give a shit. I happen to excel at mathematics but this is simple math, here you go: Tax Revenues = $2,700,000,000,000.00 Federal Budget = $4,000,000,000,000.00 So TR - FB = X, in this case the answer is ($1,300,000,000,000.00) Question for the day: If you are spending $1.3 TRILLION dollars more than you bring in how exactly do you cut taxes and reduce revenue? If you believe that it will be offset by a reduction in spending, I have have some swamp land in Florida that's for sale Ppl/corporations are holding offshore to avoid paying US taxes. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The point of lowering the rate to 20% is to get them to keep their money here and pay US taxes rather than Ireland's or Singapores. We're talking about trillions of dollars that are currently taxed at zero. Tax revenues won't go down they'll go up. The simple math is would you rather have 33% of 50. Or 20% of 100. Corporations don't pay taxes consumers do. Any taxes or penalties they incur are included in the costs of goods. If you increase their costs (raise their taxes) they simply pass those costs on down to you. All taxes are a tax on the consumer. Your rich neighbor. Your poor neighbor. And you.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 16, 2017 21:46:19 GMT -6
First, there is a larger percentage of companies that have "net" tax rates in the single digits approaching zero. There are many multinationals that hold their cash in other countries enabling them to pay as little tax as possible. The proposed tax cut in its current form is looking to reduce the mortgage interest deduction, etc. This is a big sticking point at the moment. At the end of the day debating it doesn't matter for a few reasons (there are more), 1. We cannot do anything about it. 2. It will never be in our best interest because we do not make sizeable enough political contributions 3. They just don't give a shit. I happen to excel at mathematics but this is simple math, here you go: Tax Revenues = $2,700,000,000,000.00 Federal Budget = $4,000,000,000,000.00 So TR - FB = X, in this case the answer is ($1,300,000,000,000.00) Question for the day: If you are spending $1.3 TRILLION dollars more than you bring in how exactly do you cut taxes and reduce revenue? If you believe that it will be offset by a reduction in spending, I have have some swamp land in Florida that's for sale Ppl/corporations are holding offshore to avoid paying US taxes. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The point of lowering the rate to 20% is to get them to keep their money here and pay US taxes rather than Ireland's or Singapores. We're talking about trillions of dollars that are currently taxed at zero. Tax revenues won't go down they'll go up. The simple math is would you rather have 33% of 50. Or 20% of 100. Corporations don't pay taxes consumers do. Any taxes or penalties they incur are included in the costs of goods. If you increase their costs (raise their taxes) they simply pass those costs on down to you. All taxes are a tax on the consumer. Your rich neighbor. Your poor neighbor. And you. Actually, they've realized that they don't pass on taxes to the consumer in the form of price increases. What has been seen and proven isthat they pass it on to their employees in the way of hiring fewer, and reducing compensation and benefits. Lowering taxes has always had the effect of hiring surges and employee benefits increases regardless of what people heard on MSNBC. Some of the most socialist European countries, like Denmark, are often used as tentpoles in arguments for vast government oversight on corporations, and how super high personal tax rates(50-60%) aren't totally killing the economy, but suspiciously leave out how Denmark has NO minimum wage, and their corporate tax rate is only 24.5%, which are the real reasons they enjoy a good economy even with ridiculous personal tax rates..
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 16, 2017 21:50:32 GMT -6
Well, as to cowboycoalminer's topic, I too hope the studio owners see a little of the daylight a tax break might offer. Great studios are becoming harder to find or afford, so I hope the smaller outfits catch a break and it helps them stay in business.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Nov 16, 2017 22:39:30 GMT -6
Great studios are becoming harder to find or afford, so I hope the smaller outfits catch a break and it helps them stay in business. that's not the fault of the studio owners. the audience changed entirely. Have you seen that video of Skrillex collaborating with The Doors? You don't need a major studio if everything you're producing and releasing comes from Massive or Serum. People don't have the attention span for live bands lol. just listen to the new Taylor Swift album, that has been on endless repeat on KIIS 102.7's HD2 channel (LA-based station, also iHeartRadio). there might be a couple live instruments, but it's basically all computer music now.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 16, 2017 22:57:25 GMT -6
Ppl/corporations are holding offshore to avoid paying US taxes. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The point of lowering the rate to 20% is to get them to keep their money here and pay US taxes rather than Ireland's or Singapores. We're talking about trillions of dollars that are currently taxed at zero. Tax revenues won't go down they'll go up. The simple math is would you rather have 33% of 50. Or 20% of 100. Corporations don't pay taxes consumers do. Any taxes or penalties they incur are included in the costs of goods. If you increase their costs (raise their taxes) they simply pass those costs on down to you. All taxes are a tax on the consumer. Your rich neighbor. Your poor neighbor. And you. Actually, they've realized that they don't pass on taxes to the consumer in the form of price increases. What has been seen and proven isthat they pass it on to their employees in the way of hiring fewer, and reducing compensation and benefits. Lowering taxes has always had the effect of hiring surges and employee benefits increases regardless of what people heard on MSNBC. Some of the most socialist European countries, like Denmark, are often used as tentpoles in arguments for vast government oversight on corporations, and how super high personal tax rates(50-60%) aren't totally killing the economy, but suspiciously leave out how Denmark has NO minimum wage, and their corporate tax rate is only 24.5%, which are the real reasons they enjoy a good economy even with ridiculous personal tax rates.. They also have tiny populations that are exponentially less diverse than ours in almost every way. I don’t think of those models as very applicable to the U.S. whether for positive or negative arguments. They’re just completely different ballgames.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 16, 2017 23:17:22 GMT -6
Ppl/corporations are holding offshore to avoid paying US taxes. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The point of lowering the rate to 20% is to get them to keep their money here and pay US taxes rather than Ireland's or Singapores. We're talking about trillions of dollars that are currently taxed at zero. Tax revenues won't go down they'll go up. The simple math is would you rather have 33% of 50. Or 20% of 100. Corporations don't pay taxes consumers do. Any taxes or penalties they incur are included in the costs of goods. If you increase their costs (raise their taxes) they simply pass those costs on down to you. All taxes are a tax on the consumer. Your rich neighbor. Your poor neighbor. And you. Actually, they've realized that they don't pass on taxes to the consumer in the form of price increases. What has been seen and proven isthat they pass it on to their employees in the way of hiring fewer, and reducing compensation and benefits. Lowering taxes has always had the effect of hiring surges and employee benefits increases regardless of what people heard on MSNBC. Some of the most socialist European countries, like Denmark, are often used as tentpoles in arguments for vast government oversight on corporations, and how super high personal tax rates(50-60%) aren't totally killing the economy, but suspiciously leave out how Denmark has NO minimum wage, and their corporate tax rate is only 24.5%, which are the real reasons they enjoy a good economy even with ridiculous personal tax rates.. Okay please provide the proof then. Employee benefits always increase? To my understanding, businesses hire and expand primarily based on new markets and demand, not low taxes. Furthermore, what serious business person decides not to make an investment due to high taxes? If it's a good investment it's a good investment, and if the taxes are an issue, then it's actually not that promising an investment, think about it. The rest is about shareholder profits. www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/would-cutting-corporate-tax-rates-really-grow-the-economy/504845/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/corporate-tax-cuts-jobs.htmlThe socialist European companies are an example of getting more for your tax dollar. I am all ears on various corporate positions on trade and tax burdens, but the bottom line is I want my tax dollars going toward affordable education, research and the social safety net, not yet another carrier strike group or F-35 boondoggle which does nothing for the economy or subsidies for industries that don't need them.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 16, 2017 23:29:28 GMT -6
Actually, they've realized that they don't pass on taxes to the consumer in the form of price increases. What has been seen and proven isthat they pass it on to their employees in the way of hiring fewer, and reducing compensation and benefits. Lowering taxes has always had the effect of hiring surges and employee benefits increases regardless of what people heard on MSNBC. Some of the most socialist European countries, like Denmark, are often used as tentpoles in arguments for vast government oversight on corporations, and how super high personal tax rates(50-60%) aren't totally killing the economy, but suspiciously leave out how Denmark has NO minimum wage, and their corporate tax rate is only 24.5%, which are the real reasons they enjoy a good economy even with ridiculous personal tax rates.. Okay please provide the proof then. To my understanding, businesses hire and expand primarily based on new markets and demand, not low taxes. Furthermore, what serious business person decides not to make an investment due to high taxes? If it's a good investment it's a good investment, and if the taxes are an issue, then it's actually not that promising an investment, think about it. The rest is about shareholder profits. www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/would-cutting-corporate-tax-rates-really-grow-the-economy/504845/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/corporate-tax-cuts-jobs.htmlThe socialist European companies are an example of getting more for your tax dollar. I am all ears on various corporate positions on trade and tax burdens, but the bottom line is I want my tax dollars going toward affordable education, research and the social safety net, not yet another carrier strike group or F-35 boondoggle which does nothing for the economy or subsidies for industries that don't need them. I have friends that are successful small business owners (which is what accounts for most of the jobs in the U.S.). Both just flaming liberals. They have no dogmatic stance against tax burdens whatsoever. But their growth plans are directly proportional to their expenses, including tax burdens. It’s not true to say “a good investment is a good investment, taxes don’t matter”. If they’re paying something at 30% and it goes to 20%, they’re going to invest more money into growth and expansion. It’s not that they wouldn’t have invested at 30%, it’s just a question of how much. I think Trump is a disaster and the GOP is a dumpster fire right now (which is not something I take pleasure in) but there’s no sense pretending lowering taxes doesn’t benefit some people. It does.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Nov 16, 2017 23:32:33 GMT -6
Okay please provide the proof then. Employee benefits always increase? To my understanding, businesses hire and expand primarily based on new markets and demand, not low taxes. Furthermore, what serious business person decides not to make an investment due to high taxes? If it's a good investment it's a good investment, and if the taxes are an issue, then it's actually not that promising an investment, think about it. The rest is about shareholder profits. www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/would-cutting-corporate-tax-rates-really-grow-the-economy/504845/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/corporate-tax-cuts-jobs.htmlThe socialist European companies are an example of getting more for your tax dollar. I am all ears on various corporate positions on trade and tax burdens, but the bottom line is I want my tax dollars going toward affordable education, research and the social safety net, not yet another carrier strike group or F-35 boondoggle which does nothing for the economy or subsidies for industries that don't need them. Lol you're wasting your time sharing those "fake news stories from the left" as a reply, bro. He's just gonna turn around and share an article from a right-leaning website. That's how these arguments work. no one shares actual data from unbiased university studies, either. they just share interpretations of that data by whatever website they like reading. relevant and also for jokes: babylonbee.com/news/poll-majority-of-evangelicals-would-support-satan-if-he-ran-as-republican-candidate/ Johnkenn can we get this political thread locked and deleted?
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 16, 2017 23:54:31 GMT -6
Okay please provide the proof then. Employee benefits always increase? To my understanding, businesses hire and expand primarily based on new markets and demand, not low taxes. Furthermore, what serious business person decides not to make an investment due to high taxes? If it's a good investment it's a good investment, and if the taxes are an issue, then it's actually not that promising an investment, think about it. The rest is about shareholder profits. www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/would-cutting-corporate-tax-rates-really-grow-the-economy/504845/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/corporate-tax-cuts-jobs.htmlThe socialist European companies are an example of getting more for your tax dollar. I am all ears on various corporate positions on trade and tax burdens, but the bottom line is I want my tax dollars going toward affordable education, research and the social safety net, not yet another carrier strike group or F-35 boondoggle which does nothing for the economy or subsidies for industries that don't need them. Lol you're wasting your time sharing those "fake news stories from the left" as a reply, bro. He's just gonna turn around and share an article from a right-leaning website. That's how these arguments work. no one shares actual data from unbiased university studies, either. they just share interpretations of that data by whatever website they like reading. relevant and also for jokes: babylonbee.com/news/poll-majority-of-evangelicals-would-support-satan-if-he-ran-as-republican-candidate/ Johnkenn can we get this political thread locked and deleted? I would have said everything posted was civil and thoughtful until this post. Assumptions and demonizing are the problem. Don’t anticipate what your perceived adversary is gonna say and get all defensive about it preemptively. That’s why we are where we are in my view.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Nov 17, 2017 3:20:01 GMT -6
Actually, they've realized that they don't pass on taxes to the consumer in the form of price increases. What has been seen and proven isthat they pass it on to their employees in the way of hiring fewer, and reducing compensation and benefits. Lowering taxes has always had the effect of hiring surges and employee benefits increases regardless of what people heard on MSNBC. Some of the most socialist European countries, like Denmark, are often used as tentpoles in arguments for vast government oversight on corporations, and how super high personal tax rates(50-60%) aren't totally killing the economy, but suspiciously leave out how Denmark has NO minimum wage, and their corporate tax rate is only 24.5%, which are the real reasons they enjoy a good economy even with ridiculous personal tax rates.. Man... They've got you hook line and sinker. In Denmark people don't spend $30,000 on a broken arm. They get it fixed for free – you suspiciously leave out that Danes have universal healthcare. They have amazing roads too, great schools, great unemployment benefits, and an amazing social security net... Perhaps those are the reasons why they enjoy a good economy, and a happy population? And Denmark has unions who negotiate and set minimum wages... covering almost all the population. PS: lowering taxes bankrupts the government, and the only way they can make that money back is by slashing social services which the poor and middle class need the most. Unless you're rich, you might want to tighten your belt, because they're coming after you next. This seals the death of single payer healthcare too, guaranteeing there's not enough money to pay for it. It's a thing as Americans you don't seem to take into account – you pay higher taxes in Europe, but spend almost nothing on healthcare. When you add it all up, who's coming out in front?
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 17, 2017 6:43:01 GMT -6
Actually, they've realized that they don't pass on taxes to the consumer in the form of price increases. What has been seen and proven isthat they pass it on to their employees in the way of hiring fewer, and reducing compensation and benefits. Lowering taxes has always had the effect of hiring surges and employee benefits increases regardless of what people heard on MSNBC. Some of the most socialist European countries, like Denmark, are often used as tentpoles in arguments for vast government oversight on corporations, and how super high personal tax rates(50-60%) aren't totally killing the economy, but suspiciously leave out how Denmark has NO minimum wage, and their corporate tax rate is only 24.5%, which are the real reasons they enjoy a good economy even with ridiculous personal tax rates.. Man... They've got you hook line and sinker. In Denmark people don't spend $30,000 on a broken arm. They get it fixed for free – you suspiciously leave out that Danes have universal healthcare. They have amazing roads too, great schools, great unemployment benefits, and an amazing social security net... Perhaps those are the reasons why they enjoy a good economy, and a happy population? And Denmark has unions who negotiate and set minimum wages... covering almost all the population. PS: lowering taxes bankrupts the government, and the only way they can make that money back is by slashing social services which the poor and middle class need the most. Unless you're rich, you might want to tighten your belt, because they're coming after you next. This seals the death of single payer healthcare too, guaranteeing there's not enough money to pay for it. It's a thing as Americans you don't seem to take into account – you pay higher taxes in Europe, but spend almost nothing on healthcare. When you add it all up, who's coming out in front? It's been gone through before but I'll touch lightly on it.. If you take a similar(to demark's services) private insurance plan's cost in the USA, and add our effective average tax for the middle class, you still pay less than those people in Denmark pay for the same services in their total taxes. It's not that I've been "tricked" by some right wing bullshit, I've seen the data and made my own opinion based on the facts.. A lot of their taxes are eaten up by the overhead that always comes with larger government. We certainly get more for our money here in the US, but it's been turned into nothing but politics and sound bites for the sides to argue about.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 17, 2017 7:42:20 GMT -6
You only get more for you money without a social safety net if you have money in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 17, 2017 7:51:58 GMT -6
For those actually interested in a history lesson.. Tax cuts have always been followed by increased tax revenue. Reagan specifically: Which also spurred on one of the fastest and highest economic recoveries after a recession: HOWEVER.... As an economics buff, I also have a HUGE issue with Reagan.. He devoted ALL of the increased revenue (and then some) to massive increases in defense spending. He might have spurred on the last great age of technology by cutting tax burdens to US companies, allowing them to grow and drive the personal computer revolution.. But he did so by also kicking off the largest jump into debt/deficit spending that had happened up to that point in time. Almost all tax cuts made by JFK, Reagan and GW bush have resulted in LARGER tax revenues, but have ALL come with LARGER debt due to the increased spending that also ensued. Government has NEVER once cut actual spending to below the prior year/budget. Even the NewtGingrich led republican congress which crafted the balanced budget during Clinton (which clinton always took credit for) was still just forecasts on paper. The government is like a kid who get's their first credit card and maxes it out because it's not "real" money right?
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 17, 2017 8:03:21 GMT -6
You only get more for you money without a social safety net if you have money in the first place. I certainly don't want to argue, because it's much, much too nuanced to be discussed in a few paragraphs, but I'll say that I agree in practice because people need healthcare, but disagree in theory because the rise of healthcare costs are directly related to the amount of government subsidies. We're seeing it with tuition costs exponentially rising right now as well. However, I digress back to a simple solution. There is an old method of healthcare that's coming back into style very quickly. Concierge medicine is what it's called. It's effectively a doctor who takes patients, directly, on a subscription basis. You pay him/her directly, maybe 50-100$ a month and you can go see them anytime you need. It harkens back to the days when people didn't use insurance for every sniffle and sneeze (another huge reason healthcosts have risen). A lot of local doctors are switching to this simply because of the ridiculous costs and laws around insurance that keep overhead high, and therefor premiums high.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 17, 2017 8:09:57 GMT -6
Okay please provide the proof then. To my understanding, businesses hire and expand primarily based on new markets and demand, not low taxes. Furthermore, what serious business person decides not to make an investment due to high taxes? If it's a good investment it's a good investment, and if the taxes are an issue, then it's actually not that promising an investment, think about it. The rest is about shareholder profits. www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/would-cutting-corporate-tax-rates-really-grow-the-economy/504845/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/corporate-tax-cuts-jobs.htmlThe socialist European companies are an example of getting more for your tax dollar. I am all ears on various corporate positions on trade and tax burdens, but the bottom line is I want my tax dollars going toward affordable education, research and the social safety net, not yet another carrier strike group or F-35 boondoggle which does nothing for the economy or subsidies for industries that don't need them. I have friends that are successful small business owners (which is what accounts for most of the jobs in the U.S.). Both just flaming liberals. They have no dogmatic stance against tax burdens whatsoever. But their growth plans are directly proportional to their expenses, including tax burdens. It’s not true to say “a good investment is a good investment, taxes don’t matter”. If they’re paying something at 30% and it goes to 20%, they’re going to invest more money into growth and expansion. It’s not that they wouldn’t have invested at 30%, it’s just a question of how much. I think Trump is a disaster and the GOP is a dumpster fire right now (which is not something I take pleasure in) but there’s no sense pretending lowering taxes doesn’t benefit some people. It does. Just to be clear, you misquoted me the second time. Actually what I said was "If it's a good investment it's a good investment, and if the taxes are an issue, then it's actually not that promising an investment, think about it." That's not the same thing as taxes don't matter. Yes, in this case lower taxes does benefit some people, which is covered in Rubin's Washington Post article I linked to earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 17, 2017 8:13:03 GMT -6
For those actually interested in a history lesson.. Tax cuts have always been followed by increased tax revenue. Reagan specifically: Which also spurred on one of the fastest and highest economic recoveries after a recession: HOWEVER.... As an economics buff, I also have a HUGE issue with Reagan.. He devoted ALL of the increased revenue (and then some) to massive increases in defense spending. He might have spurred on the last great age of technology by cutting tax burdens to US companies, allowing them to grow and drive the personal computer revolution.. But he did so by also kicking off the largest jump into debt/deficit spending that had happened up to that point in time. Almost all tax cuts made by JFK, Reagan and GW bush have resulted in LARGER tax revenues, but have ALL come with LARGER debt due to the increased spending that also ensued. Government has NEVER once cut actual spending to below the prior year/budget. Even the NewtGingrich led republican congress which crafted the balanced budget during Clinton (which clinton always took credit for) was still just forecasts on paper. The government is like a kid who get's their first credit card and maxes it out because it's not "real" money right? I think you make fair points, but what is source of these figures? I'm genuinely curious. Also I think it's a bit unfair to say one recovery was better than another. Pretty small sample size, and circumstances of the two time periods in figure differ drastically. Remember Romney's stated policy was against the auto bail out.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 17, 2017 8:16:18 GMT -6
You only get more for you money without a social safety net if you have money in the first place. I certainly don't want to argue, because it's much, much too nuanced to be discussed in a few paragraphs, but I'll say that I agree in practice because people need healthcare, but disagree in theory because the rise of healthcare costs are directly related to the amount of government subsidies. We're seeing it with tuition costs exponentially rising right now as well. However, I digress back to a simple solution. There is an old method of healthcare that's coming back into style very quickly. Concierge medicine is what it's called. It's effectively a doctor who takes patients, directly, on a subscription basis. You pay him/her directly, maybe 50-100$ a month and you can go see them anytime you need. It harkens back to the days when people didn't use insurance for every sniffle and sneeze (another huge reason healthcosts have risen). A lot of local doctors are switching to this simply because of the ridiculous costs and laws around insurance that keep overhead high, and therefor premiums high. Do you think it would be a bad thing to have a base line government plan that covers unexpected catastrophic illness like cancer or disabilities in new children? Concierge can't deal with that, and insurance pools need healthy people in order to keep costs down.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 17, 2017 8:21:20 GMT -6
Okay please provide the proof then. Employee benefits always increase? To my understanding, businesses hire and expand primarily based on new markets and demand, not low taxes. Furthermore, what serious business person decides not to make an investment due to high taxes? If it's a good investment it's a good investment, and if the taxes are an issue, then it's actually not that promising an investment, think about it. The rest is about shareholder profits. www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/would-cutting-corporate-tax-rates-really-grow-the-economy/504845/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/corporate-tax-cuts-jobs.htmlThe socialist European companies are an example of getting more for your tax dollar. I am all ears on various corporate positions on trade and tax burdens, but the bottom line is I want my tax dollars going toward affordable education, research and the social safety net, not yet another carrier strike group or F-35 boondoggle which does nothing for the economy or subsidies for industries that don't need them. Lol you're wasting your time sharing those "fake news stories from the left" as a reply, bro. He's just gonna turn around and share an article from a right-leaning website. That's how these arguments work. no one shares actual data from unbiased university studies, either. they just share interpretations of that data by whatever website they like reading. relevant and also for jokes: babylonbee.com/news/poll-majority-of-evangelicals-would-support-satan-if-he-ran-as-republican-candidate/ Johnkenn can we get this political thread locked and deleted? The articles I linked are good policy studies and well reasoned. Anyone is free to read them and make up his own mind, or find counterargument from WSJ or the Economist or Financial Times, for example. I would be interested to read it. University studies also have a "discussion section," where they interpret their own results.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 17, 2017 8:27:06 GMT -6
For those actually interested in a history lesson.. Tax cuts have always been followed by increased tax revenue. Reagan specifically: Which also spurred on one of the fastest and highest economic recoveries after a recession: HOWEVER.... As an economics buff, I also have a HUGE issue with Reagan.. He devoted ALL of the increased revenue (and then some) to massive increases in defense spending. He might have spurred on the last great age of technology by cutting tax burdens to US companies, allowing them to grow and drive the personal computer revolution.. But he did so by also kicking off the largest jump into debt/deficit spending that had happened up to that point in time. Almost all tax cuts made by JFK, Reagan and GW bush have resulted in LARGER tax revenues, but have ALL come with LARGER debt due to the increased spending that also ensued. Government has NEVER once cut actual spending to below the prior year/budget. Even the NewtGingrich led republican congress which crafted the balanced budget during Clinton (which clinton always took credit for) was still just forecasts on paper. The government is like a kid who get's their first credit card and maxes it out because it's not "real" money right? I think you make fair points, but what is source of these figures? I'm genuinely curious. Also I think it's a bit unfair to say one recovery was better than another. Pretty small sample size, and circumstances of the two time periods in figure differ drastically. Remember Romney's stated policy was against the auto bail out. Ok, sources in links below. taxfoundation.org/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue/www.cato.org/blog/lessons-reagan-tax-cuts?utm_content=buffer53780&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferAs far as Romney's comments, I agree in principle. We've never actually had a "capitalist" society here. We've had a society of "corporatism" which intermingles politics, government and business. While I certainly didn't want a ton of people become unemployed with the closing of a major car manufacturer, what we've done through bailouts is given candy to tantrum-ing children and effectively rewarded bad fiscal behavior on the part of these companies. We should have let them fail. We should have let the banks fail. The banks KNEW better, because they certainly know monetary policy, but they also knew they would likely be bailed out. Sometimes safety nets become crutches, and when you have unscrupulous people(corporations are nothing but an amalgamation of PEOPLE) who know there's an entity that will prop them up, they're more apt to do risky things and make fiscal "bets" that otherwise wouldn't happen when someone must rely on themselves. It's the same as the "helmet" laws that a lot of municipalities have enacted to force kids to wear helmets while riding bikes and skateboards and the like.. Brain and bodily injuries actually went UP after these laws were enacted. Nobody knew why at first, but then the reality was very simple.. Kids who wore helmets thought that they were now essentially immune to being hurt and were trying more risky behaviors than before. The safety-net blowback effect on the small scale.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 17, 2017 9:01:35 GMT -6
I think you make fair points, but what is source of these figures? I'm genuinely curious. Also I think it's a bit unfair to say one recovery was better than another. Pretty small sample size, and circumstances of the two time periods in figure differ drastically. Remember Romney's stated policy was against the auto bail out. Ok, sources in links below. taxfoundation.org/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue/www.cato.org/blog/lessons-reagan-tax-cuts?utm_content=buffer53780&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferAs far as Romney's comments, I agree in principle. We've never actually had a "capitalist" society here. We've had a society of "corporatism" which intermingles politics, government and business. While I certainly didn't want a ton of people become unemployed with the closing of a major car manufacturer, what we've done through bailouts is given candy to tantrum-ing children and effectively rewarded bad fiscal behavior on the part of these companies. We should have let them fail. We should have let the banks fail. The banks KNEW better, because they certainly know monetary policy, but they also knew they would likely be bailed out. Sometimes safety nets become crutches, and when you have unscrupulous people(corporations are nothing but an amalgamation of PEOPLE) who know there's an entity that will prop them up, they're more apt to do risky things and make fiscal "bets" that otherwise wouldn't happen when someone must rely on themselves. It's the same as the "helmet" laws that a lot of municipalities have enacted to force kids to wear helmets while riding bikes and skateboards and the like.. Brain and bodily injuries actually went UP after these laws were enacted. Nobody knew why at first, but then the reality was very simple.. Kids who wore helmets thought that they were now essentially immune to being hurt and were trying more risky behaviors than before. The safety-net blowback effect on the small scale. Okay first I don't agree with you at all that entire industries should be left to fail catastrophically rather than restructured. And if the banks weren't bailed out the entire world economy would have gone in the shitter. Suggest you read this with an open mind. www.amazon.com/dp/B00DTUHN80/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1In response to your articles, the top marginal tax rate is much lower now than it was initially under Reagan, and we're not currently under recession. Also under Reagan federal revenues were particularly high. So how does cutting it further produce the same results, even following the logic? The question is whether any stimulus in investing from the tax cuts will make up for the revenue lost to the government. The answer is basically no, services will be targeted and the deficit will go up. The other issue is whether countries competing for money parked in tax havens at the expense of the middle class is good tax policy. That said, you are right that GOP tends to spend too much on defense every time they cut taxes. Also Bush's Medicare Part D.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 17, 2017 9:04:55 GMT -6
I certainly don't want to argue, because it's much, much too nuanced to be discussed in a few paragraphs, but I'll say that I agree in practice because people need healthcare, but disagree in theory because the rise of healthcare costs are directly related to the amount of government subsidies. We're seeing it with tuition costs exponentially rising right now as well. However, I digress back to a simple solution. There is an old method of healthcare that's coming back into style very quickly. Concierge medicine is what it's called. It's effectively a doctor who takes patients, directly, on a subscription basis. You pay him/her directly, maybe 50-100$ a month and you can go see them anytime you need. It harkens back to the days when people didn't use insurance for every sniffle and sneeze (another huge reason healthcosts have risen). A lot of local doctors are switching to this simply because of the ridiculous costs and laws around insurance that keep overhead high, and therefor premiums high. Do you think it would be a bad thing to have a base line government plan that covers unexpected catastrophic illness like cancer or disabilities in new children? Concierge can't deal with that, and insurance pools need healthy people in order to keep costs down. I certainly like the idea of a true universal healthcare. I'm very socially liberal on these ideas. That being said, I'm also very fiscally conservative, and I have very big reservations on how to pay for these things. I've looked into this a lot, and it's a push-pull scenario where you can push a little bit here, and "fix" policy for a lot of people, but you always end up leaving out others. You can pull a little over there but now you've left out another group somewhere else. In almost all cases, the sides acquiesce and end up throwing money at the problem and proclaim they've "fixed" it. The right does it to bargain for other pork (less than half the ACA bill is about healthcare.. the rest is essentially bribery), the left does it to satisfy constituent's virtue signalling. Whatever the political angle may be, huge increases in funding never result in more than a minor uptick in actual healthcare services, which are still mostly shouldered by the private insurance industry. And then you get into the aspects of dictating costs and that always includes compensation for doctors. How can a government dictate overall costs, but not interfere with a doctor's pay? Now you get into grey areas that surround dictating how/why/when a doctor provides healthcare, and ultimately you end with doctors performing as servants of the government. It's a slippery slope to try to justify wrapping government around personal healthcare, and balancing all of the real and perceived benefits and detriments.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 17, 2017 9:14:12 GMT -6
Do you think it would be a bad thing to have a base line government plan that covers unexpected catastrophic illness like cancer or disabilities in new children? Concierge can't deal with that, and insurance pools need healthy people in order to keep costs down. I certainly like the idea of a true universal healthcare. I'm very socially liberal on these ideas. That being said, I'm also very fiscally conservative, and I have very big reservations on how to pay for these things. I've looked into this a lot, and it's a push-pull scenario where you can push a little bit here, and "fix" policy for a lot of people, but you always end up leaving out others. You can pull a little over there but now you've left out another group somewhere else. And then you get into the aspects of dictating costs and that always includes compensation for doctors. How can a government dictate overall costs, but not interfere with a doctor's pay? Now you get into grey areas that surround dictating how/why/when a doctor provides healthcare, and ultimately you end with doctors performing as servants of the government. It's a slippery slope to try to justify wrapping government around personal healthcare, and balancing all of the real and perceived benefits and detriments. As far as I can see, private health insurance companies unlike many other types of insurance provide no added value over cutting out the middle man, but create an expensive bureaucracy. The reason I am for a baseline government plan (that could be supplemented with private plans if desired) is that you lower costs with the largest pool of healthy people and preventative medicine, and help protect more people's families from disaster and one diagnosis causing financial ruin. That's how insurance is supposed to work, with large pools. Also, people aren't tied down to employer provided insurance, which if not very good we end up subsidizing anyway.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 17, 2017 9:22:17 GMT -6
I certainly like the idea of a true universal healthcare. I'm very socially liberal on these ideas. That being said, I'm also very fiscally conservative, and I have very big reservations on how to pay for these things. I've looked into this a lot, and it's a push-pull scenario where you can push a little bit here, and "fix" policy for a lot of people, but you always end up leaving out others. You can pull a little over there but now you've left out another group somewhere else. And then you get into the aspects of dictating costs and that always includes compensation for doctors. How can a government dictate overall costs, but not interfere with a doctor's pay? Now you get into grey areas that surround dictating how/why/when a doctor provides healthcare, and ultimately you end with doctors performing as servants of the government. It's a slippery slope to try to justify wrapping government around personal healthcare, and balancing all of the real and perceived benefits and detriments. As far as I can see, private health insurance companies unlike many other types of insurance provide no added value over cutting out the middle man, but create an expensive bureaucracy. The reason I am for a government plan is that you lower costs with the largest pool of healthy people, and help protect more people's families from disaster and one diagnosis causing financial ruin. That's how insurance is supposed to work, with large pools. Also, people aren't tied down to employer provided insurance, which if not very good we end up subsidizing anyway. As much as it pains me to say it, I actually liked the idea of expanding medicare/medicaid to all and essentially eliminating everything else. It would have been a much more simple solution than the ACA, which in my opinion is nothing more than a way to enact a new tax avenue that hasn't been completely pilfered by the government already. You can see the cronyism in the law, considering Sabelius enlisted the "help" of many insurance industry bigwigs in crafting the bulk of the healthcare portion of the bill. It's no wonder that they used the bill to destroy low-cost insurance plans and push higher cost, but lower benefit plans to record profits. It's much the same as when Dodd-Frank was being drafted, the banking system cried foul, but ultimately HELPED create the bill. The reasons for the complicity weren't known until it was enacted, and then the larger banks were able to swallow the increased costs of the added red-tape, while the smaller banks were not. Small, local, banks closed by the tens-of-thousands, and their assets gobbled up by the larger banks as they swelled to record profits. Just another clear point that government interference, no matter how well meaning, always ends up hurting us in the end. And while I believe that ultimately the private industry could do much, much better, it's this crony-filled system we have that will never allow it to happen. As long as government protects lobbyists and their ilk, we'll never get a fair market where these industries are required to compete. Instead, they have the full power of the law to hide behind when it comes to questioning their costs.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 17, 2017 9:26:49 GMT -6
As far as I can see, private health insurance companies unlike many other types of insurance provide no added value over cutting out the middle man, but create an expensive bureaucracy. The reason I am for a government plan is that you lower costs with the largest pool of healthy people, and help protect more people's families from disaster and one diagnosis causing financial ruin. That's how insurance is supposed to work, with large pools. Also, people aren't tied down to employer provided insurance, which if not very good we end up subsidizing anyway. As much as it pains me to say it, I actually liked the idea of expanding medicare/medicaid to all and essentially eliminating everything else. It would have been a much more simple solution than the ACA, which in my opinion is nothing more than a way to enact a new tax avenue that hasn't been completely pilfered by the government already. You can see the cronyism in the law, considering Sabelius enlisted the "help" of many insurance industry bigwigs in crafting the bulk of the healthcare portion of the bill. It's no wonder that they used the bill to destroy low-cost insurance plans and push higher cost, but lower benefit plans to record profits. And while I believe that ultimately the private industry could do much, much better, it's this crony-filled system we have that will never allow it to happen. As long as government protects lobbyists and their ilk, we'll never get a fair market where these industries are required to compete. Instead, they have the full power of the law to hide behind when it comes to questioning their costs. I agree strongly with your first and last two sentences! In terms of lower benefit crap plans, that's what the House bill was pushing before it failed in the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 17, 2017 9:28:22 GMT -6
I'll say this, if a corporation has managed not to pay taxes through loopholes, and you lower the tax rate, they're not going to start paying taxes anyway. Take the loophole away, they'll find another one. Cutting corporate taxes will increase the deficit. It's true that health care is a monstrous issue to tackle, but it needs to be handled, and what's being done now isn't working.
The only answer I can think of is corporations should have a minimum tax they must pay, no deductions, no loopholes, no government tax breaks, nothing. It would cause painful consequences, considering fair trade hasn't really been addressed. But only then might things be possible to sort out.
Economist buffs, am I wrong? I don't know enough to speak with any certainty about this.
|
|