50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

Shall we go back to the spending priorities if those days as well? 67% military, 20% infrastructure and 13 % everything else? Eliminate the department's if education, EPA, and about a half a dozen others? Also adjusted for inflation the only one paying the top rate would be Warren Buffet, who as JP Getty did under similar circumstances, move out of the country

 

While some illegal aliens do pay some taxes, there is no way to know the unreported income because it is, well, uh, unreported. While taxes keep going up, it is never enough to compensate for irresponsible spending and it is only a matter of time until it reaches a tipping point.

As far as my labor belonging to the government, the two extremes are 0%, anarchy, 100%, slavery, and between those extremes are all forms of government. I am over 50%.

By the time I pay federal, state, and city taxes, I fill my truck with heavily taxed fuel and buy my families needs from heavily taxed businesses, pay my high property taxes, and pay almost 10% sales tax. Having 5 kids, my health insurance was $28K for the year after the ACA took effect.

I am not bitching about taxes. If half my labor was used to create a thriving, healthy, society, I would have no issues. Results show the opposite.

 

You become a politician!

 

What do I get for my high taxes?

Highest poverty in the nation
Low performing schools
Crumbling roads
poop on the sidewalk
government employees enjoying benefits uncommon for workers in the private sector
Cheap corn products (HFCS)
Highest rate of obesity in US history
Diabetes
Cancer
heart disease

 

You are incorrect. Its meaning becomes obvious when spending is factored in. We have politicians spending like thieves with stolen credit cards and all they need is useful people voting to reward their irresponsibility by increasing the burden on others. They claim higher taxes will create a better society, but results show the opposite.

 

No, your hypothetical scenario says they took a loss, but in real numbers, they took in more than any prior year. They want you to demand more from others instead of holding them accountable for irresponsible spending. Rewarding irresponsibility with higher taxes already has a petri dish with results we can discuss.

 

I'm not giving you hypotheticals. I'm pointing out that the economy grew at the same rate as before the tax cuts. Because we collected less percentage, we collected less revenue than we would have had trump not given a welfare hand out to the rich. This is very basic math.

 

I did not misunderstand your opinion that they would have brought in more with a higher tax rate. You may be right, but we will never know for sure. What we do know its that it did not result in a loss.

As far as more handouts to our government from the rich, there is already a petri dish where this is happening. Care to discuss results?

 

I didn't offer an opinion. I pointed out that math says they would have.

we of course know, mathematically, that it did.

huh?

 

Would have/could have


The math shows they hauled in a record level of revenue. I understand your position and how easy it is to point at others and demand that they pay more. This is already happening in California and in spite of paying the highest taxes, CA leads the nation in poverty and the gap between the rich and poor is wide. Is this what you want for the whole country?

 

but less than they would have had trump not slashed revenues.

CA leads the nation in GDP, and is the 5th largest in the entire world. CA is doing just fine. The high poverty is directly related to the high cost of housing/living, because CA is such a desirable place to live, both economically and due to it's mild climate.

 

Would have/could have arguments have no end or value.

The fact that CA is the 5th largest economy in the world makes these results even more inexcusable.

Highest poverty levels in the US
Wide gap between the rich and poor with few in the middle
Poorest road conditions in spite of spending more than twice per mile of road than the rest of the country
Schools rank with the lowest
CA cities were on the brink of insolvency before Covid
Homelessness at record levels. (They did not come from colder states)

Is this what you want for the rest of the country?

 

You obviously don't live in the shithole known as Kalifornia. The people that can leave Kalifornia are doing so as fast if not faster than the garbage filling the vacuum.

 

which is why I used actual GDP increase to show you that we received less revenues than we would have had trump not slashed revenues.

only if you have no idea how economics works.

addressed this in my previous post

 

quite demonstrably false, as housing prices continue to remain high. Supply/demand. Basic economics.

 

Those who have no idea would result to cheap insult attempts or blaming the weather for government irresponsibility.

I am not talking would have/could have; I am talking about actual results and your position of supporting higher taxes has its own petri dish and results speak for themselves.

 

or.................economic reality. I know I know, it's over your head, as is basic math apparently.

You've been shown otherwise.

 

Cheap insult attempts do not address the list of results I posted. I thought Democrats cared about the less fortunate and proposing higher taxes is supposed to help the little guy. Why do you think actual results show the exact opposite?

 

pointing out your mathematical and economic deficiencies is not an insult.

they don't show the exact opposite, lol.

 

You proved me correct, you just failed to do the math. Those were my sources, you actually did some work, bravo.
Nice job, thanks!

Kansas, the "red state model" was and remains an epic failure. Trickle down doesn't work and we have KS to prove it.
Largest tax hike in US history, why to go GOP!

 

You attempted insults, but only revealed that you chose a position you cannot defend. I am not talking hypothetical projections; I am discussing actual results that show that what you propose is not better for society, In fact, it caused even more harm to those Dems claim to care about.

The list you are ignoring is a short one. There are many more results, but just like the government can't manage the money they have now and thats why giving them more is a bad idea, you can't address the list in front of you now.

Ignoring facts don't make them go away.

 

There was no insult, attempted or otherwise. My position is based in mathematical and economic fact. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that.

And I've refuted your position.

I've addressed your position and directly refuted it. Pretending otherwise isn't going to change reality.

 

Hmmm...I'll have to read the paper, but it occurs to me that the paper's statistics are about OECD "nations" over a period of time in which the "global" economy paid an increasingly important role in regard to national economics. Post-industrialization was largely "anticipatory," in the sense that the developed countries shifted what may have been "national growth" to "global growth." IOW, tax cuts didn't trickle "down," they trickled "out" resulting on a national basis in the old clique "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." However, the poorer were crutched with social programs and easy credit.

Not to say, Republicans hadn't discovered the Reagan fallacy subsequently. This was one of the puzzelments of the G.W. Bush tax cuts. His tax cuts came early, but failed initially to have much of an impact. This failure was eventually blamed on 9/11, which occurred in the Fall of 2001, followed by a "mini-recession" and a second tax cut (objected to by most economists). The economy didn't start booming until the "housing bubble," which led to poorly managed domestic investment and the worst recession since the Great Depression. That "boom" was possible not so much by "trickle down" (but could have served that purpose, except for greed), but for the irresponsible expansion of credit/debt, and the lowering of lending standards [If not driven by greed, then by incompetence possibly caused by erroneous economic models based on old lending standards]. The "housing boom and bust" crisis was also a banking and credit failure.
Republicans have also long credited WW II as the force that brought us out of the Great Depression, rather than FDR's New Deal policies.

 

Another insult attempt. Its your only move at this point. Your position is not complicated or hard to comprehend. You believe higher taxes benefit society and many others have been sold the same story. In the end, one would have to completely ignore results to hold onto that belief. My list of results remain unchallenged.

Here is the list again in case you want to dodge or attempt another insult:


Highest poverty levels in the US
Wide gap between the rich and poor with few in the middle
Poorest road conditions in spite of spending more than twice per mile of road than the rest of the country
Schools rank with the lowest
CA cities were on the brink of insolvency before Covid
Homelessness at record levels. (They did not come from colder states)

 

And we're finished.

Deflecting in the face of facts, sourced, referenced, with nothing but platitudes.

Go play with somebody else.