Oh Dear! Did the Trump Tax Cuts Really "Pay For Themselves"?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

If you want to rid America of billionaires, like Bernie Sanders and WTF want, then just implement Baker's tax. I don't how Amazon, Tesla, and similar companies could have paid their taxes when they were rapidly growing if this had been in place.



Sorry WTF, the messenger (Dean Baker) has just been shot and he's dead as a doornail.

He was shot at....not shot.


Do you not understand the final destination of unabated Capitalism?

Do you think one airline is better for consumer than 10 fighting for your dollars?

Are against our Antitrust laws?


Now make up your mind , you're all over the map

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you not understand the final destination of unabated Capitalism?

Do you think one airline is better for consumer (sic) than 10 fighting for your dollars?

Are (sic) against our Antitrust laws?

Do you not understand the final destination of eccie posters who engage in chronic, unabated hijacking of threads?


#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

He was shot at....not shot.

Please allow me to illustrate. In Texas Contrarian's link, Dean Baker proposes a corporate tax of 25% on appreciation of the market value of a company's stock plus its dividends. I replied that Amazon and Tesla would not exist, at least as public companies, if Baker had had his way.

Amazon went public in 1997. From the end of 1997 to the end of 1999, Amazon's market cap increased from 1.45 billion to 26.27 billion. The 25% corporate tax on that appreciation in market cap would be $6.2 billion. During that same period, Amazon's cumulative net loss was 876 million. How was Amazon supposed to be able to dip into its pocket and pay $6.2 billion in tax when it was losing money?

Tesla went public in 2010. From the end of 2010 to the end of 2015, Tesla's market cap increased from 2.5 billion to 31.5 billion. The 25% corporate tax on that appreciation in market cap would be 7.3 billion. During that same period, Tesla's cumulative net loss was -2.0 billion. How was Tesla supposed to be able to dip into its pocket and pay $7.3 billion in tax when it was losing money?

Like I said, Texas Contrarian shot Dean Baker dead as a doornail.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

two long winded cut n pastes. Why is yours better than mine?

One was posted by a biased, closed-minded, far-left partisan hack quoting a Liz Warren fluff boy.

The other was posted by a thoughtful, erudite, trained economist who is familiar enough with fluff boy's hackish partisan advocacy of failed taxation policies to inform us that fluff boy's economic judgment is even more impaired than Joe Biden's cognitive abilities.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

How about you and your friend counter Dean Bakers points instead of attacking the messenger. That is always a bad sign...

I'll post it again for you.

Like I think I said, Texas Contrarian, LustyLad and I shot down his points in various posts already. Please read this thread, and others in which you've participated.

The only one I recall that we haven't addressed is investment. Baker says investment didn't increase as a result of the lower corporate tax rate.

Well, if you want to compare apples to apples, maybe instead of some number economists call "investment," the total for the USA, we should be looking at corporations. After all, it's the corporate tax rate we're talking about.

These are capital expenditures for the S&P 500, from Bloomberg, by year:

2012 71.75
2013 72.61
2014 76.90
2015 75.13
2016 70.55
2017 71.48
2018 83.78
2019 90.35
2020 78.08
2021 87.11
Last 12 months: 95.03

The corporate tax cut went into effect at the start of 2018. Please note that capex of the S&P 500 was stagnant from 2012 to 2017, and then steadily rose afterwards, except for 2020 (COVID).

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

One was posted by a biased, closed-minded, far-left partisan hack quoting a Liz Warren fluff boy.

The other was posted by a thoughtful, erudite, trained economist who is familiar enough with fluff boy's hackish partisan advocacy of failed taxation policies to inform us that fluff boy's economic judgment is even more impaired than Joe Biden's cognitive abilities.

I respect the new enforcement of the site rules and will refrain from a proper dressing down ( or in your case dresses off) that your disrespectful posts deserves.

Now have a good day and please please if this is your normal converse in real life change it if you leave the confines of your tribe before someone beats the gay out of you!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Like I think I said, Texas Contrarian, LustyLad and I shot down his points in various posts already. Please read this thread, and others in which you've participated.

The only one I recall that we haven't addressed is investment. Baker says investment didn't increase as a result of the lower corporate tax rate.

Well, if you want to compare apples to apples, maybe instead of some number economists call "investment," the total for the USA, we should be looking at corporations. After all, it's the corporate tax rate we're talking about.

These are capital expenditures for the S&P 500, from Bloomberg, by year:

2012 71.75
2013 72.61
2014 76.90
2015 75.13
2016 70.55
2017 71.48
2018 83.78
2019 90.35
2020 78.08
2021 87.11
Last 12 months: 95.03

The corporate tax cut went into effect at the start of 2018. Please note that capex of the S&P 500 was stagnant from 2012 to 2017, and then steadily rose afterwards, except for 2020 (COVID).

If it worked so well how come our Tech companies came a begging for more government money!

Do you understand that the Rooster is not the reason for the sunrise....

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you understand that the Rooster is not the reason for the sunrise....

Do you understand that GDP growth is not a function of the political party the President belongs to.

Please WTF. I like you. I want you to see the light and the truth. Then you can spend eternity with the Saints of Classical Liberalism, LustyLad and me in heaven.

You don't want to spend it with Bernie Sanders in hell. Bernie's going to get really annoying after a couple of hundred years.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Do you understand that GDP growth is not a function of the political party the President belongs to.

Please WTF. I like you. I want you to see the light and the truth. Then you can spend eternity with the Saints of Classical Liberalism, LustyLad and me in heaven.

You don't want to spend it with Bernie Sanders in hell. Bernie's going to get really annoying after a couple of hundred years.

You and Bernie are in bed on this latest give away!

Plus lustylad is a neocon....haven't you noticed there isn't a geopolitical intervention he doesn't want to enter!

Jesus from the babies in Syria to Taiwan and all conflicts in between. He may be a John Bolton clone!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

You and Bernie are in bed on this latest give away!

Plus lustylad is a neocon....haven't you noticed there isn't a geopolitical intervention he doesn't want to enter!

Jesus from the babies in Syria to Taiwan and all conflicts in between. He may be a John Bolton clone!

We're hijacking the thread WTF. Let's get back on topic.

The corporate tax cuts were one of the great legacies that President Trump left to our nation, exceeded in importance only by Operation Warp Speed. Every time we buy shares in an American corporation or get jabs in our arms, we should thank President Trump.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

We're hijacking the thread WTF. Let's get back on topic.

The corporate tax cuts were one of the great legacies that President Trump left to our nation, exceeded in importance only by Operation Warp Speed. Every time we buy shares in an American corporation or get jabs in our arms, we should thank President Trump.

The capex provisions are set to go bye bye in the near future....which might help you understand the uptick.

So get your thanks in while you can!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by WTF

two long winded cut n pastes. Why is yours better than mine?

For starters, I make every effort to stick with facts rather than just make stuff up!

Again, you haven't addressed what was posted but have pivoted to other articles he has written.

Quote from the article I posted and then dispute those points.

OK! Target-rich environment! (See below)

When I post something, I try to make sure it's either a verifiable fact or an opinion I can support with a reasoned argument. Dean Baker? Apparently not so much! Check this excerpt from the article you posted above:

"The story of the tax cut and the economy is simple. We gave a large tax cut, a bit less than $200 billion a year (around 0.9 percent of GDP), with the main beneficiaries being rich people. And, the rich spent a reasonable portion of their tax cut, leading to a boost in consumption and a boost to growth. This proves the old theory that if we give people more money, they will spend more. Of course, that is more true if we give the money to low and middle income people, but even high income people will spend more when they have more money.

The tax cut did lead to a large increase in the budget deficit, which is not necessarily a problem, except that we could have instead done things with this money like provide free child care, extend health care coverage, provide large subsidies to promote clean energy and conservation. In effect, we targeted increasing consumption by the rich instead of these alternative uses of resources." [End of excerpt]

(Note: Here Baker is talking mostly about the total tax cut -- largely income tax cuts -- rather than just the corporate tax cut.)

Did you not notice something just a bit fishy about that? He claimed that the income tax cuts mostly benefited the "rich." But that's completely false, as the new tax rate was reduced by a far larger percentage for lower and middle income taxpayers than for high income earners. And there was not even a capital gains tax cut. (Even the 3.8% surtax on investment income, which I think should have been the first thing to get deep-sixed, remains.)

Dean Baker, a PhD economist who frequently opines on tax policy and inequality issues, doesn't know this? How embarrassing!

But ... hey, why let little things like facts get in the way when you have a partisan political axe to grind?

[WTF]

I'm not an economist, nor is anyone else in this forum as far as I'm concerned.

Hell, I have trouble with this line in Baker's post..."The tax cut did lead to a large increase in the budget deficit, which is not necessarily a problem..."

So it is not like one has to agree with every item on every article to agree with the premise.

(I know lustylad and Tiny are from the Reagan school of deficits do not matter and probably agree with Baker on this point.)

I don't want to hijack the thread or I'd discuss three men walking into a bar, Tiny,lusty,Barney...

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

(Baker) claimed that the income tax cuts mostly benefited the "rich." But that's completely false, as the new tax rate was reduced by a far larger percentage for lower and middle income taxpayers than for high income earners.

I agree it's false, but let's examine why. What if we wanted to be scrupulously fair and cut taxes equally for everyone? The simplest way to do this would be to lower all bracket rates proportionately... e.g., a 10% across-the-board cut would reduce a 28% bracket rate to 25.2%, lower a 16% bracket rate to 14.4%, etc.

The problem is our federal income tax system is already so steeply progressive that the DOLLAR amounts involved are lopsidedly concentrated in the top brackets. So a proportionate, across-the-board cut in rates (what can be more fair, right?) reduces the sheer dollar amounts owed by high earners a lot more than it does for lower- or medium-income earners.

This allows the dim-retards to point to dollar amounts, not bracket rates, to demagogue EVERY tax cut as flowing to the "rich". Well no shit sherlock, if you live in a country where the top 10% pay a whopping 70% of all federal income taxes, then of course they're the ones who benefit the most in sheer dollar terms from any meaningful cuts.

What makes this so pernicious is that over time it becomes politically harder to cut taxes and easier to raise them (but only "on the rich"), making our tax system even more steeply progressive and worsening the vicious cycle.

Over time, this will gradually emasculate fiscal policy as a useful, available tool for stimulating the economy during periods when it used to be called for.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not an economist, nor is anyone else in this forum as far as I'm concerned.

The first part is obvious from your posting. The second part is unknowable to you.

And neither Tiny nor I have ever said deficits don't matter.