Quote:
|
[QUOTE=nightfighter;1135608]
Quote:
If I owned a company, and I could legally minimize my taxes by moving money elsewhere, I would. So would you. How stupid would one have to be, to pay billions more in taxes than one has to? W had an uncompetitive corporate tax rate. When you make stupid public policy, sometimes there are negative results. I'm not saying the GOP is perfect. I'm not even saying that the tax overhaul will necessarily prove to be a good thing. I'm saying that because of that tax overhaul, and only because of that tax overhaul, we will have 38 billion more to do some good with. |
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135617]
Quote:
But no, it's better in the eyes of Progressives to spend beyond means and tax the rich at higher rates to pay for overspending, then borrow from the rich in order to pay for money lost by overtaxing, and so get deeper in debt, and keep the circle jerk going of constantly paying by borrowing as the debt becomes unsustainable. And in the meantime grossly enriching the very rich whom the Progressives say are going to pay their "fair share" so that the government can give the rest of us a lot of good stuff. Genius! |
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135617]
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
and your Tax cut has done the same over night...clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom .. the tax cut they changed the rules for so it would pass ..or the only way it would pass with less than 60 votes 51-48 Vote unlike ACA you use alot but which passed with in the rules 60-39 But you seem to avoid this truth with great effort but will champion the stock market today but before Trump took office it didnt count just like the unemployment numbers or job growth numbers which were labeled as fake .. but Magically under Trump and republicans Now they count and mean something :faga: Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan. why do you think that Why Americans saving so little for retirement? There are a few reasons: -They simply are too broke to save -The stock market has turned into a wild casino -Many options within 401ks are loaded with wild expenses that eat away at your returns -Lack of financial literacy |
Quote:
What if Obama and the Dems, in his first year, passed a tax bill similar to the current one? Would a lot of corporations have brought back, to the U.S., tax sheltered money? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would have been added to the U.S. treasury? And how many foreign companies would have decided to move to the U.S.? And how much more disposable income would the aggregate public have to spend into the economy? And how many more people could be employed in the expanded economy? |
the left prefers a stick to a carrot
|
Quote:
then we do the same with Trump in 4 years and Tada we have hard data could be positive could be negative your in your time machine again talking what if's |
re election money $5 million Ryan received in the 4th quarter of 2017, more than $330,000 arrived in the two days after the House passed the tax bill.
but he did it for the people |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Flying German Shepherds, on the other hand, do have quite an impact. It requires a sturdy stroller cover to protect the baby from the big load of sh*t those dogs are known to drop. Often, as well, we need a defense against loads dropped from incoming flying Spence posts. :spin: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There is also the logic of the more money you have, the more you can spend. |
Quote:
No I do not assume that, it's based on empirical evidence of companies announcing raises, bonuses, new jobs. I give Obama credit for helping the economy. But not once did the Democrats do anything that incentivized companies to reward rank-and-file employees in this fashion. "your Tax cut has done the same over night...clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom" When the economy grows, those at the top benefit more. You think that didn't happen when the stock market shot up during the Obama years? Or is income inequality only bad when the president is a republican? "will champion the stock market today but before Trump took office it didnt count" I always give Obama some credit for the stock market increase. Can you tell me if that helped the rich disproportionately? "Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan." Because pensions are not viable or realistic. The reason the exist in the public sector is that you can just take my money with force of law. In the private sector, you have to make me choose to give you my money, and consumers want a low price, they aren't willing to pay exorbitant prices to companies that give pensions. You don't look for low prices? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
(2) have you not seen an y of the announcements from companies giving raises, bonuses, or making investments in the US? (3) but there is some speculation involved. But what we do know, especially here in CT, is that uncompetitive taxes do not work. |
Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method. Jim in CT detbuch clearly dont understand Empirical evidence its clear data points exist for 8 years under obama They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy over time and some see 1 time offers from Companys as Empirical evidence of the benefits of a certain action.. thats not how it works I am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation) but their is no Empirical evidence any of his legislation he has passed (aka tax cut) or just repealing every this with Obamas name on it . will have the promised out come ... we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out ... and who wins and who looses |
Quote:
I keep saying I give Obama some credit for helping to get the economy chugging again. Is that going too fast for you? Do you need me to sing it for you? Believe me, you don't want that. You keep saying that under Trump, it's the rich that are benefitting more. I agree the rich benefit more. I keep asking you, didn't the rich benefit more when the stock market surged during the Obama years? Did Obama pass a law saying that the wealthy couldn't buy stocks, in order to prevent them from disproportionately benefitting from the market surge? When the economy grows, the wealthy benefit more. Simple arithmetic guarantees that will happen, because they have a lot more to invest. You cannot stop that, and I don't see why you'd want to. WDMSO, does it help anyone, if the wealthy don't get wealthier? That's the only question that matters if your beef is income inequality. If the wealthy all decide to stop working and stop investing, how is anyone better off? "They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy" It's been a year. That's not exactly a meaningless time horizon. No one is calling for a recession anytime soon. The market has been booming since 09, so we are due for a pullback, regardless of which party I sin charge. Not many financial planners are calling for that. Here's another question. Which party ran Congress (where laws and budgets are passed) for the last 6 years of Obama's 8 years? " am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation) " Wrong. It's not pure speculation. We know what the stock market is doing, we know what's happening with black unemployment and home ownership. We have empirical data to measure those things. As to the impact of the tax overhaul, that is mostly speculative. But most fair-minded financial professionals will concede that the economy is doing well in general, because it perceives that there is a very business-friendly person in the Oval Office. There wasn't really any specific policy that was enacted until the tax overhaul. But there has been optimism that Trump would be business-friendly. That optimism, matters. "we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out " True. But as I said, a year isn't a worthless sample size. if the market tanked in the first year, do you expect anyone to believe that you'd be saying "hey, it's only been a year, we need to give Trump time before we can judge him"? . we can go into a recession that isn't necessarily Trump's fault. Some things, probably many things, are beyond the control of the feds. Maybe the best Trump can do is make a recession les severe than it otherwise would be. If Obama was POTUS in 2017, I am confident the economy would still have improved. I don't think it would have improved as much. All I can base that on, is my speculation that the optimism that the market clearly feels, at having a rabidly pro-business POTUS. The economy likes having him as POTUS. I'm not sure that can be denied. |
Quote:
:D |
The economy likes having him as POTUS. I'm not sure that can be denied.
I agree in the short term .but only time will tell how much the economy will like him |
Quote:
And your use of the "time machine" contradicts itself and other things you've said. As in when I proposed that if past administrations had reduced the corporate tax rates over the past 24 years, the Federal government, during that period, would have collected hundreds of millions, even trillions of revenue more than they got with the high tax rates, you rejected that as being in the past, that I was in my time machine again. Yet you then went on your own time machine into the future, the gathering of "hard data" that will have occurred after Trump's first term is over, to be compared to the past time machine of Obama's eight years and the "hard data" it produced. First, the data is softer than you portray. The data gets "interpreted" by politically opposing reporters. We're still arguing about the data from the Reagan years or the Kennedy years or the Roosevelt years, and all the data before, in between and after them. Nor, as in my "what if" conjecture about economic decisions that could have been made in the past, is your sally forth into the future an actual future that is assured to happen. We don't know if Trump will survive the through the rest of this year. We don't know if some cataclysmic event or war will happen. And all of the data that is gathered will be subject to interpretation and will not confirm anything for those who wish it not to. You validate your time machine conjecture merely by expressing it. And pooh-pooh mine, again, merely by saying so. So far, human nature has not changed since antiquity. And you don't get to limit how far back or how far into the future one may go to find evidence or to speculate on how humans will act under given circumstances. You certainly cannot dismiss how they acted under those circumstances in the past as being too long ago to matter. At least, not without "hard data" to suggest they would act differently today than in the past under the same circumstances. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com