- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Axios: GOP tax bill will increase number of Americans who pay no federal income tax
Posted on 9/26/17 at 5:12 pm to tigerfoot
Posted on 9/26/17 at 5:12 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
So, tax the rich and give it to those that dont care to be fully employed. Allow them to remain in the education system on our dime while getting free abortions and STD care.
How could it fail.
But you basically do all this anyway, right? And we don't have full employment right now, so what are we going to do when there's no work driving, serving burgers, stacking shelves and checking out goods etc?
How do we deal with the upcoming shift towards a greater degree of jobs that exclude people all together without just throwing a ton of working class people on the scrap heap and telling them to beg or borrow? How do we deal with 15% unemployment as a norm? There are predictions of 50% unemployment in 30 years.
We could do what I say, we could do what Friedman wanted, which was a negative income tax and as close to a free market as possible, to allow people to invest in themselves wisely or otherwise, or we could just say frick it all let 'em die of starvation because god knows his own.
ETA: I have no problem with the main remedy for poverty being work, but how does that work when work becomes more scarce? Are you willing to consider some sort of UBI or guaranteed welfare in a future with high unemployment as a norm? If so, is that just because there is a chance you'll be a victim of the advance of technology? And if so, why are you any better than someone who is unemployed but looking hard right now?
This post was edited on 9/26/17 at 5:22 pm
1
Posted on 9/26/17 at 5:26 pm to wickowick
The theory of trickle-down economics ("TDE") (as I have always considered it) is about Reagan's plan to let the *actual* rich hold on to their capital to create jobs on a grander scale. IMO, TDE has never had anything to do with the middle-class. At a minimum – if you do assign the theory of TDE to the middle-class- then it has worked better than anyone would have ever dreamed. Why? Because the middle class makes just enough to live a slightly better lifestyle: We eat out, we take vacations, we hit up Lowes and Home Depot every weekend... In short, we are redistributing the wealth.
On the other hand, if you consider what TDE really meant (that the *actual rich* would spread the wealth around then I have to agree that it has not worked out very well at all as even the super-rich only need to spend so much every year. If you make $100M a year and your lifestyle only costs $20M you are taking a huge amount of capital out of play every year... I work in private equity and see first-hand what trickle-down means for the super-rich all the time: A new jet, a new ranch, a new beachfront house on The Cape. And when they do invest real dollars (like acquiring a company, we did that quite a bit) they are more often than not companies that are offshore. So, if that guy who made $100M spends $20M on his lifestyle and then invests $50M on a company in Norway, how does that work for the theory of TDE as it pertains to improving the economics of the US?
Anyway, I'm sick of the middle-class getting blamed for unfairness in the system. That's bullshite. We are the lifeblood of the economy, period.
On the other hand, if you consider what TDE really meant (that the *actual rich* would spread the wealth around then I have to agree that it has not worked out very well at all as even the super-rich only need to spend so much every year. If you make $100M a year and your lifestyle only costs $20M you are taking a huge amount of capital out of play every year... I work in private equity and see first-hand what trickle-down means for the super-rich all the time: A new jet, a new ranch, a new beachfront house on The Cape. And when they do invest real dollars (like acquiring a company, we did that quite a bit) they are more often than not companies that are offshore. So, if that guy who made $100M spends $20M on his lifestyle and then invests $50M on a company in Norway, how does that work for the theory of TDE as it pertains to improving the economics of the US?
Anyway, I'm sick of the middle-class getting blamed for unfairness in the system. That's bullshite. We are the lifeblood of the economy, period.
This post was edited on 9/26/17 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 9/26/17 at 5:30 pm to Mephistopheles
quote:What are we going to do with the tipping point of their being no more to take from the rich, it is a finite amount of money. Or do you suggest that every person with a job just sponsor one without. If so, do I get to choose how they spend our money so that it goes further for all of us.
How do we deal with the upcoming shift towards a greater degree of jobs that exclude people all together without just throwing a ton of working class people on the scrap heap and telling them to beg or borrow? How do we deal with 15% unemployment as a norm? There are predictions of 50% unemployment in 30 years.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 5:57 pm to TBoy
The chart i saw in another thread said under 10k annum will pay 2% more. May be more than one plan considered.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 8:01 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Please do detail this "trickle down" in economic terms the "Republicans keep trying to institute."
Trickle. Down. Economics. Does. Not. Exist.
Clearly, it does. Republicans keep trying to institute it.
Trickle Down is not a technical term for good reason. It's a nonentity. But I'm really interested to see if you have any economic basis for repeatedly forwarding it as something real.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 8:03 pm to Zach
quote:
How about we get rid of the EITC?
I most definitely support this. No one should get back more than they pay in.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 8:07 pm to stickly
quote:Are you referring to the "Middle Class" with incomes below the 48% no-income-tax demarcation, or the "Middle Class" above that 48% line?
Anyway, I'm sick of the middle-class getting blamed for unfairness in the system.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 8:23 pm to stickly
quote:The purpose is to get “the rich” it invest—not spend. The first creates wealth for others. The latter creates landfills.
On the other hand, if you consider what TDE really meant (that the *actual rich* would spread the wealth around then I have to agree that it has not worked out very well at all as even the super-rich only need to spend so much every year.
If one cannot differentiate between an expense and an asset, there is no discussing economics with them.
quote:It actually accurate. The “middle class” is getting a hell of a deal. Their share of the tax revenue has been going down. Not up.
Anyway, I'm sick of the middle-class getting blamed for unfairness in the system. That's bullshite.
quote:Nope. They are the lifeblood of China’s economy. Generally, the vast majority “middle class” income goes into disposable consumer goods. That aren’t even made here. That’s isn’t the path to wealth for the purchaser nor the economy.
We are the lifeblood of the economy, period.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:00 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
The purpose is to get “the rich” it invest—not spend.
Yep. I get what it is supposed to do but I have seen for years how it just isn't so. If someone makes $500M per year, invests $100M in pharma and biotech startups that have low employment numbers (3-5 people doing research) and then spends the rest on buying companies or assets in Sweden, how did that trickle-down work for the American people?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:09 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Trickle. Down. Economics. Does. Not. Work.
What economics would you like to see? The 1% taxed at 90%? Top 10% taxed at 75%?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 9:05 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Income tax should be abolished.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News