- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Fox News guest storms off show after host refuses to accept tax math
Posted on 11/10/17 at 9:25 pm to BRgetthenet
Posted on 11/10/17 at 9:25 pm to BRgetthenet
Suuuuuuuure. I'm also sure you people think its fake news that the CBO came out saying the new tax reform will add 1.3 trillion to the deficit.
LINK
LINK
2
Posted on 11/10/17 at 10:47 pm to McChowder
quote:
I can only think of one time it didnt....and that came during a period of global turmoil, a war on two fronts, a housing bubble exploding slamming banking and financial markets, a terrorist attack which caused the Dow to loose almost %50, several major national disasters and a global recession.
Sooooo, you're saying it was Bush's fault.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 10:50 pm to RBu
quote:
uuuuuuuure. I'm also sure you people think its fake news that the CBO came out saying the new tax reform will add 1.3 trillion to the deficit
It's not fake news that the cbo came out with that analysis, it's just fake news that the cbo is meaningful.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 11:00 pm to RBu
quote:
I'm also sure you people think its fake news that the CBO came out saying the new tax reform will add 1.3 trillion to the deficit.
You do realize what they are talking about here with the difference between static and dynamic modeling...don't you? The CBO is using static modeling and it assumes GDP growth will remain the same.
If GDP growth gets to the 3% and stays there the tax plan reduces the deficit over a 10 year period.
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 11:05 pm to iPadThai
I watched it live and he was over his head. Melissa Francis isn't just a babe reading a teleprompter, she is a Harvard graduated economist. Simon wanted to repeat talking points and she wanted to have an economic discussion.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 11:42 pm to iPadThai
“Dynamic” analysis is dynamic in its absurdity. There is not a single credible example of a tax cut in the form being presented having ever sparked economic growth. Didn’t under Reagan, Bush, Bush, or anyone else. The wealthy hold onto the tax savings. “Dynamic” is a buzz word to combat the mental image of “trickle down economics”. No credible society of economists have ever scored or rely on scoring a budget on Dynamic method... only republican think tanks that use it as theory... as they don’t yet have an example of it working.
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 11:44 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 11:46 pm to marklsu
quote:This is actually wrong. MOST economists accept the idea that excessively high taxation deters economic growth, and there is indeed evidence worldwide for it.
“Dynamic” analysis is dynamic in its absurdity. There is not a single credible example of a tax cut in the form being presented having ever sparked economic growth. Didn’t under Reagan, Bush, Bush, or anyone else. The wealthy hold onto the tax savings. “Dynamic” is a buzz word to combat the mental image of “trickle down economics”. No credible society of economists have ever scored or rely on scoring a budget on Dynamic method... only republican think tanks that use it as theory... as they don’t yet have an example of it working.
The debate has always revolved around where that rate exactly is that causes negative repercussions.
quote:
The wealthy hold onto the tax savings.
define "hold onto". Do you mean keep under the bed?
Posted on 11/10/17 at 11:52 pm to iPadThai
quote:except for every time we've done it since the 20s
that rely on an assumption that economic growth will be stimulated by tax cuts which will increase overall tax revenue, despite years of evidence that this does not happen.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 11:58 pm to frogtown
quote:
You do realize what they are talking about here with the difference between static and dynamic modeling...don't you? The CBO is using static modeling and it assumes GDP growth will remain the same.
If GDP growth gets to the 3% and stays there the tax plan reduces the deficit over a 10 year period.
Wrong. “Static”, which is a republican charatcteriation of an established standard economic theory, does not assume GDP will remain the same. It assumes the rate of GDP will stay the same. Those are two different things.
Static goes on what has been achieved... it uses the tangible, because it has been achieved. It finds a number based on an existing tax rate and law. It has a constant in its methodology.
Dynamic it’s a crap shoot. It takes the assumption that IF rates were at a certain point, individuals could possibly do X with their $... in example: create jobs. It doesn’t have a constant, as the decision of what to do with savings is arbitrary.
Every example in history has shown top corporations have a huge variety of options to deal with extra money, and very few of them result in job growth or wage increases.
Stock dividends, buybacks, savings, automation, off shoring... all take precedence over increasing wages or hiring.
Dynamic doesn’t take into account any of the alternatives. It just says, well this is extra money, and so, if they have this extra money, we assume they will spend it on hiring or wages. The only way to make a constant in Dynamic is to mandate that tax savings is used in only certain forms.
Posted on 11/11/17 at 12:08 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The wealthy hold onto the tax savings.
define "hold onto". Do you mean keep under the bed?
Lets talk about that. If a company saves 50 million in taxes they have multiple ways they can use that money. They can essentially hide it in the mattress, they can pay huge bonuses to employees, they can feed it to their shareholders or they can plow it back into the company.
The thing that grows the economy in real terms is them using the money to expand and create more or better jobs. Without some form of corporate "social engineering" and/or some long-term assurance the rates won't jump back up they may use that money in ways that doesn't grow the economy as intended. That is a real threat here. I am not suggesting we don't try it I am just saying it is hard to know how companies will react in any given economic state, just like it is hard to determine how individuals will react.
Posted on 11/11/17 at 2:08 am to Obtuse1
No
As long as the money stays out of the government's hands it goes somewhere that leads to jobs. Money is a storehouse of activity. When a company distributes saved money to shareholders they either spend it on something someone spent labor hours to produce or they invest it with someone who produces something.
All the government does is redistribute it inefficiently
That is the choice - who makes resource allocation decisions? The government or the private sector
As long as the money stays out of the government's hands it goes somewhere that leads to jobs. Money is a storehouse of activity. When a company distributes saved money to shareholders they either spend it on something someone spent labor hours to produce or they invest it with someone who produces something.
All the government does is redistribute it inefficiently
That is the choice - who makes resource allocation decisions? The government or the private sector
Posted on 11/11/17 at 4:16 am to marklsu
quote:
“Dynamic” analysis is dynamic in its absurdity. There is not a single credible example of a tax cut in the form being presented having ever sparked economic growth. Didn’t under Reagan, Bush, Bush, or anyone else.
Rand Paul made a claim a couple years ago on the Senate floor that tax cuts increase revenue. The Washington Post decided to fact check that claim and concluded, of course, that Paul was FOS. It's worth a read: LINK
However, an economist from the Cato Institute wrote a rebuttal to the WaPo piece (and which the WaPo linked on their site). He pointed out that indeed both JFK's and Reagan's tax cuts saw an increase in tax revenue. You can read it here: LINK
He pretty much demolishes the WaPo writer. For example:
quote:
Mr. Kessler does not actually deny that “more revenue came in” after tax rates were reduced in 1984 and 1988, even though he accuses Senator Rand of lying about that. Kessler instead tries to attribute much of the (unmentioned) 1981-90 revenue increase to badly-estimated “tax increases” in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. Those tax laws mainly involved in reneging on promises to further accelerate business depreciation in 1984-85, not changes in rates. The 1983 law raised the Social Security tax rate one percentage point, but not until 1988-90.
Kessler also changes the subject from growth of revenue over time to revenues as percentage of GDP. He says, “revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from [a record high of] 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989.” Far from being “the best way” to discover whether or not “more revenue came in,” revenues as a percentage of GDP tell us almost nothing about that. The only two times revenues hit 19% of GDP – in 1969 and 1981 – the economy and revenues promptly collapsed under that burden.
Posted on 11/11/17 at 5:17 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Stormed off though??? It was the end of the segment.
She's correct.
She's correct.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News