Anler Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Zambroski said: "Cut" meaning save (or pay down debt), or "Cut" meaning reallocate? Imagine that argument from both sides. I say pay down debt. Others would say more social welfare. Cuts definitely need to be made but what the internet economic experts dont understand is that when you take $1 trillion out of the economy it is going to have a very negative effect, that is just math brah. So I would say the cuts need to be made strategically and slowly over time as to have the least negative effect. In the meantime, you need to have something to replace that revenue with. Cheap and easy credit is what we have been running on, that is why our growth is weak. That is not what you build an economy on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted April 25, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 25, 2017 Wages need to rise so there is more demand.....seems simple to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Highmark said: Tax cuts in the right places have historically always created increases in tax revenue. Spending cuts I mean save....not reallocate. We already collect over $22,000 per person in this country in Federal, State and Local taxes. That's more than enough for what the govt should be responsible for doing for its people. I just love that NOBODY likes to talk about what the govt ALREADY collects. Speaking of that....gotta start my tax battle plan this afternoon after receiving this years evaluations. Fuckers just upped my house value another 20%!!!!!!!!!!!! And no changes from last year or the year before when it went up 35%!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im4snow Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 58 minutes ago, Highmark said: If you want greater than 2% growth then you have to cut taxes. If you are happy with sub 2% growth then keep the status quo. I'd like to see a freeze in spending growth for about 10 years. It would amount to huge cuts by the end of that decade. Then we can start actually cutting the size of govt from there. I'd really like to cut govt down by 25% after 10 years but its probably not realistic. Without investment incentive we will continue to have the economy grow at basically the population growth or even less when accounting for illegal immigration if its not dramtically curbed or halted. Pretty sure we've had equal or higher tax RATES, and higher growth. The answer to growth, at least in my world, is less regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted April 25, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Anler said: I dont think you understand what I am saying. Carry on... I agree military spending is not the same as other govt spending. I was just foolin about. The best bang for the buck in infrastructure spending no doubt would be a wall and significant increase in border security. California has enough illegal children cross the border or be born as anchor babies to require one new school be built every day. Think about that. That's just the tip of the iceberg in what its costing this country. I agree bringing back manufacturing and money companies are holding overseas but we need to get off this kick that everyone gets free college and get people working. All this talk of bringing back manufacturing is foolish without a push for people to work. And that means more changes to the entitlement system. I would like to see a staged SS retirement age. Have jobs rated on their physical toll on a body. Those that work those jobs get higher return in their SS or earlier retirement. Edited April 25, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted April 25, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Im4snow said: Pretty sure we've had equal or higher tax RATES, and higher growth. The answer to growth, at least in my world, is less regulation. Careful. You can't just look at tax rates. You need to evaluate effective tax rates. Even when the TMR was 70-90% the ETR's were similar and at time less than today. Add to it the fact of all the other taxes we've added over the years. It doesn't put money back in the hands of the people to cut rates 5% and what they can deduct so in the end they still pay the same. That works some at the top but not always. Capital gains and business tax cuts are extremely effective but with sub chapter S you have to cut income taxes to help small business'. Edited April 25, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Anler said: Cuts definitely need to be made but what the internet economic experts dont understand is that when you take $1 trillion out of the economy it is going to have a very negative effect, that is just math brah. So I would say the cuts need to be made strategically and slowly over time as to have the least negative effect. In the meantime, you need to have something to replace that revenue with. Cheap and easy credit is what we have been running on, that is why our growth is weak. That is not what you build an economy on. "Take $1 trillion out of the economy"? You lost me there. Tax cuts do not primarily come out of the economy. Or are you talking sub-public sector? And even then...$1 trillion? None of that made sense to me. I agree with the "cheap" credit though. But it's been anything but "easy" under these regulations. Businesses have suffered tremendously. The easy credit and low rates have propped up a no/low growth economy as a nice looking placebo for what has really happened....not much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Zambroski said: "Take $1 trillion out of the economy"? You lost me there. Tax cuts do not primarily come out of the economy. Or are you talking sub-public sector? And even then...$1 trillion? None of that made sense to me. I agree with the "cheap" credit though. But it's been anything but "easy" under these regulations. Businesses have suffered tremendously. The easy credit and low rates have propped up a no/low growth economy as a nice looking placebo for what has really happened....not much. It's OK to,take money out of the economy in tax but not OK to take money out of the economy in cuts , according to liberal economics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 10 minutes ago, Biggie Smails said: Wages need to rise so there is more demand.....seems simple to me. Sort of...you got it a hair backwards though. Wages rise when demand is up and unemployment falls. This causes employers to have to raise their hiring wages to attract more employees from other employers. Forcing wage hikes without proper demand pushes higher prices on products creating less demand for them...and less reason for employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im4snow Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, Highmark said: Careful. You can't just look at tax rates. You need to evaluate effective tax rates. Even when the TMR was 70-90% the ETR's were similar and at time less than today. Add to it the fact of all the other taxes we've added over the years. It doesn't put money back in the hands of the people to cut rates 5% and what they can deduct so in the end they still pay the same. That works some at the top but not always. Capital gains and business tax cuts are extremely effective but with sub chapter S you have to cut income taxes to help small business'. I'm in agreement with tax cuts to effective rates. I'd like it even more if Gov spending were cut dollar for dollar. Regulation is my biggest hurdle to better living standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 Just now, Zambroski said: "Take $1 trillion out of the economy"? You lost me there. Tax cuts do not primarily come out of the economy. Or are you talking sub-public sector? And even then...$1 trillion? None of that made sense to me. I agree with the "cheap" credit though. But it's been anything but "easy" under these regulations. Businesses have suffered tremendously. The easy credit and low rates have propped up a no/low growth economy as a nice looking placebo for what has really happened....not much. Ok I thought you were talking about spending cuts. However, the tax cut narrative is mostly bullshit that the pubes throw around to see what grows. Old school politicians knew that bills had to be paid so taxes were increased. Reagan came out with the "trickle down" THEORY and then used some bullshit stats about increased revenues from increased economic activity. However that data is often cherry picked and look at what has been happening to our debt in the meantime. Its been going up. Alot. There is a balance that needs to be addressed with taxes, so it is not burdensome to growth. Paying little to no taxes doesnt help at all. All the while spending like drunken sailors is a recipe for collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted April 25, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 25, 2017 Just now, Im4snow said: I'm in agreement with tax cuts to effective rates. I'd like it even more if Gov spending were cut dollar for dollar. Regulation is my biggest hurdle to better living standards. There is a tremendous amount of overlap in govt. Federal govt into itself and all the way down the line. These cuts should have little impact to the beneficiaries of the programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said: It's OK to,take money out of the economy in tax but not OK to take money out of the economy in cuts , according to liberal economics I found a coke bottle with your name on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted April 25, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Anler said: Ok I thought you were talking about spending cuts. However, the tax cut narrative is mostly bullshit that the pubes throw around to see what grows. Old school politicians knew that bills had to be paid so taxes were increased. Reagan came out with the "trickle down" THEORY and then used some bullshit stats about increased revenues from increased economic activity. However that data is often cherry picked and look at what has been happening to our debt in the meantime. Its been going up. Alot. There is a balance that needs to be addressed with taxes, so it is not burdensome to growth. Paying little to no taxes doesnt help at all. All the while spending like drunken sailors is a recipe for collapse. Very true. But when many American's are paying a total effective tax rate (All taxes, fed, state and local) of 40%+ its beyond burdensome. Edited April 25, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im4snow Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Highmark said: Very true. But when many American's are paying a total effective tax rate (All taxes, fed, state and local) of 40%+ its beyond burdensome. Too many American's see Gov as the solution to man's problems (it happens when the Gov is doing the educating of most American's)....hence their desire for even more gov (taxes). Edited April 25, 2017 by Im4snow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Very true. But when many American's are paying a total effective tax rate (All taxes, fed, state and local) of 40%+ its beyond burdensome. Sure it is. But cutting taxes with a half trillion dollar deficit and $20 trillion debt is just irresponsible. There has to be a plan to pay down the debt all the while boosting growth and reducing unnecessary spending. Just cutting taxes does nothing for us at this point. And you are NOT going to get responsible fiscal solutions from either party whatever bullshit they promise. Until people realize that there are no viable solutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Ez ryder said: I will never understand why any one is doing there own taxes . having your taxes done is fucking tax deductible . Well, two things. 1, It's only tax deductible if you itemize. Most people in the US don't itemize their deductions so they can't deduct the cost of tax preparation from their income. 2. You are spending $3 to save $1. For the average tax payer, If you spend $300 to have your taxes prepared it will reduce your tax burden by about $100. Spending $3 to reduce your taxes by $1 doesn't make sense unless you were planning to spend the $3 anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted April 25, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted April 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, Anler said: Sure it is. But cutting taxes with a half trillion dollar deficit and $20 trillion debt is just irresponsible. There has to be a plan to pay down the debt all the while boosting growth and reducing unnecessary spending. Just cutting taxes does nothing for us at this point. And you are NOT going to get responsible fiscal solutions from either party whatever bullshit they promise. Until people realize that there are no viable solutions. Tax cuts in the right places INCREASES tax revenue. Just can't increase spending at the same time. Damn you guys look at history. I swear some of you haven't passed grade school math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 58 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Why are they flush with money though...why haven't they reinvested in their own stateside growth? A: it wasn't worth the pay-out of high capital tax rates for corporate improvements in a market with such low consumer confidence and an overbearing and over regulating administration. Better to plan an overseas merger or just plain move operations out of the country. It was cheaper and almost no oversight or penalties for doing so. seriously? because they're paying shit wages, low taxes, and generally speaking, have a bunch of dipshits defending them all the damn time. what a dumb question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 24 minutes ago, Anler said: I found a coke bottle with your name on it. LOL, Right back at cha! 🖕 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 12 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: seriously? because they're paying shit wages, low taxes, and generally speaking, have a bunch of dipshits defending them all the damn time. what a dumb question. It's not your money Quote ) Greed: To a liberal, believing that you pay too much in taxes or even opposing paying more in taxes is greedy. In actuality, wanting to loot as much money as possible that someone else has earned to use for your own purposes, which is what liberals do, is a much better example of greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 46 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: seriously? because they're paying shit wages, low taxes, and generally speaking, have a bunch of dipshits defending them all the damn time. what a dumb question. That answer was absolutely perfect for your side. You're a good LIBRUL fuck-face! Now, I know you didn't notice in all your zeal to post up this informative and well rounded answer of yours, but I answered the question in the same post. That's what the "A:" meant. Be a good librul now...get back in front of MSNBC for your next clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, Zambroski said: That answer was absolutely perfect for your side. You're a good LIBRUL fuck-face! Now, I know you didn't notice in all your zeal to post up this informative and well rounded answer of yours, but I answered the question in the same post. That's what the "A:" meant. Be a good librul now...get back in front of MSNBC for your next clue. oooh, someone's getting mad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 btw I'm guessing you watch msnbc more than I do, surely maddow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: oooh, someone's getting mad 4 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: btw I'm guessing you watch msnbc more than I do, surely maddow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.