Inflation? Pfffttzz! What you really need is ...

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

...MOAR!!

MOAR Taxes! -- MOAR Spending! -- MOAR Debt!

MOAR, MOAR, MOAR! Hell yeah!

Yeah! That's the ticket!

Where should one start? Well, I'll give it a shot!

First, there's the proposed increase in the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 28%. Did progressives forget that the pre-2017 tax code shackled the economy with significant deadweight loss by incentivizing the corporate inversions of the mid-'10s?

Quick explainer of deadweight loss:

https://taxfoundation.org/deadweight...igh-tax-rates/

Do we really want to shackle American firms with a tax code that renders them less competitive relative to overseas players? Imposing a rate higher than the OECD average would do just that.

Now we are at least close to being competitive, though there's still room for improvement:

https://taxfoundation.org/us-effecti...te-oecd-peers/

Second, there's the proposed near-doubling of the capital gains tax rate from the current 23.8% to a whopping 44.6%. (At that rate, who in the hell would ever sell anything unless virtually forced?!!) That humongous hike would cost the Treasury a great deal of money, not raise more revenue.

Third, and possibly even worse, is the proposed tax on unrealized capital gains. Among other destructive effects, that would chase huge amounts of capital out of the publicly traded markets and into private equity, which would obviously make it a lot more difficult for the taxing authorities to assess valuations. Since non-wealthy individuals own or have beneficial interests in the publicly-traded markets either directly or in 401(k) or other pension or retirement plans, and do not own much in the way of interests in private equity, how in the world can a progressive support such nonsense? This would increase wealth inequality, not ameliorate it.

Taken together, all of these proposals would raise little or no revenue -- and would likely cost the Treasury -- while increasing wealth inequality and impeding prospects for economic growth in the '20s by shackling the economy with significant additional deadweight loss.

Bad economic policy, please meet Mr. Real World.

Caution: Mr. World is a real badass. In fact, he's the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

300,000 more jobs.

Yes, what a boffo report!

Well, unless you pull the curtain back and do a little drill-down into the entirety of the data compilations of the last few days. Had you done so, you would have seen that the mean workweek contracted by about 0.3%, and factory overtime hours fell 3.2%. This negates a large portion of the +311K NFM headline report.

Yet the mainstream media presstitutes didn't mention any of this, did they? But the bond market is not so easily fooled. It reacted by sending yields down about 20 bps across most of the curve. This indicates market expectations of slowing growth, since reports of weakening industrial production are likely next up in the hit parade.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Reagan would be proud of you Tiny. Still believing in trickle down economics, which is a failed economic theory 100 times over. But you and lusty still believe that the 2017 tax cuts helped our post Covid recovery. I’ll once again agree to disagree but I know it won’t change your beliefs.

Really? Where did either Tiny or lustylad espouse policies generally describable as "trickle-down" economics in the fashion that the term is popularly taken to mean? Conservative policies, yes (as have I). But "trickle-down?" Seriously?

It's always great fun to ask our progressive friends exactly when "trickle-down" economic policies were implemented, and by whom.

Reagan? Really? (Are you sure?!!)

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Yeah! That's the ticket!

Where should one start? Well, I'll give it a shot!

First, there's the proposed increase in the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 28%. Did progressives forget that the pre-2017 tax code shackled the economy with significant deadweight loss by incentivizing the corporate inversions of the mid-'10s?

Quick explainer of deadweight loss:

https://taxfoundation.org/deadweight...igh-tax-rates/

Do we really want to shackle American firms with a tax code that renders them less competitive relative to overseas players? Imposing a rate higher than the OECD average would do just that.

Now we are at least close to being competitive, though there's still room for improvement:

https://taxfoundation.org/us-effecti...te-oecd-peers/

Second, there's the proposed near-doubling of the capital gains tax rate from the current 23.8% to a whopping 44.6%. (At that rate, who in the hell would ever sell anything unless virtually forced?!!) That humongous hike would cost the Treasury a great deal of money, not raise more revenue.

Third, and possibly even worse, is the proposed tax on unrealized capital gains. Among other destructive effects, that would chase huge amounts of capital out of the publicly traded markets and into private equity, which would obviously make it a lot more difficult for the taxing authorities to assess valuations. Since non-wealthy individuals own or have beneficial interests in the publicly-traded markets either directly or in 401(k) or other pension or retirement plans, and do not own much in the way of interests in private equity, how in the world can a progressive support such nonsense? This would increase wealth inequality, not ameliorate it.

Taken together, all of these proposals would raise little or no revenue -- and would likely cost the Treasury -- while increasing wealth inequality and impeding prospects for economic growth in the '20s by shackling the economy with significant additional deadweight loss.

Bad economic policy, please meet Mr. Real World.

Caution: Mr. World is a real badass. In fact, he's the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world!

Well said. Assuming California, with its 13.3% maximum tax rate, piggybacks the federal system, I wonder how many world beaters Silicon Valley will produce when company founders have to dip into their pockets annually to pay a 57.9% tax on the increase in the value of their businesses.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

It's always great fun to ask our progressive friends exactly when "trickle-down" economic policies were implemented, and by whom.

Reagan? Really? (Are you sure?!!)

Clue us in TC. PLEASE!!!

[Tsmokies]

The gop budget seeks....the gop budget seeks...the gop budget seeks any fucking republican that knows anything about budgets

And the winner ts santo. A real gop hero.
He can go from a broke ass con man to a gop supporters millionaire overnight. And...get his cock suked by mcart. Even skanky azz mtg has her limits and she was to busy getting her skanky unwashed cock suked by jorden little dick in a locker room shower blindfolded and deaf and really dumb

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tsmokies

... blindfolded and deaf and really dumb

Keep your worthless screeds to yourself if you are unable to keep up and on track. Try to understand that the truth ain't always pretty, instead of assailing the Truth Teller.

[1blackman1]

Should I have used the also broadly termed - supply side economics. Would that be more in line with “conservative” in your mind? In any event, the cut taxes inordinately in favor of the wealthy and all the world will benefit, is what Tiny cries in every discussion. No other factors matter. Good job numbers - 2017 tax cuts, increase in govt revenues - 2017 tax cuts, increased demand - 2017 tax cuts. Good economic numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Good job numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Reduced deficits under democrat presidents - 2017 tax cuts. He believes, like another of the economists on the forum that cutting taxes has never done harm to the economy and has only improved the economy.

I suppose you support that belief as well.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Should I have used the also broadly termed - supply side economics. Would that be more in line with “conservative” in your mind? In any event, the cut taxes inordinately in favor of the wealthy and all the world will benefit, is what Tiny cries in every discussion. No other factors matter. Good job numbers - 2017 tax cuts, increase in govt revenues - 2017 tax cuts, increased demand - 2017 tax cuts. Good economic numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Good job numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Reduced deficits under democrat presidents - 2017 tax cuts. He believes, like another of the economists on the forum that cutting taxes has never done harm to the economy and has only improved the economy.

I suppose you support that belief as well.

You're just regurgitating what you hear on MSNBC.

The argument I've made a hundred times is that developed countries with the lowest government revenues and government expenditures have the highest GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power. Kicking out the petrostates and small places, those countries are Singapore, Switzerland, the USA, Ireland and Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a very unequal country and the wealthy are taxed at low rates. Ireland has a high level of income equality and income tax rates on the wealthy max out at 52%. What matters more than maximum tax rates and tax progressivity is how much of the pie government takes -- that is, the size of the private sector relative to government. And the Democratic Party wants to grow the size of an inefficient federal government, by taking more resources out of the hands of the people and businesses. It wants to make the USA like France.

I've also pointed out that the USA has the most progressive tax system in the OECD, for perhaps 99.99% of the population. (The top .01% actually pay less as a % of income than other high income earners, but more than everyone else.) See Peter Whiteford's comments here,

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/...ssive-tax.html

Whiteford hints at the great fantasy of the Democratic Party --government can provide universal health care, forgive all student debt, and otherwise provide a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, if, in the words of Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and every other progressive, "the rich would just pay their fair share." Well fuck Biden, Warren and the rest of them. The rich don't have enough money. The only way to implement the Progressive platform is to tax the middle class at high rates. Or run up the national debt until we go bankrupt.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Should I have used the also broadly termed - supply side economics. Would that be more in line with “conservative” in your mind? In any event, the cut taxes inordinately in favor of the wealthy and all the world will benefit, is what Tiny cries in every discussion. No other factors matter. Good job numbers - 2017 tax cuts, increase in govt revenues - 2017 tax cuts, increased demand - 2017 tax cuts. Good economic numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Good job numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Reduced deficits under democrat presidents - 2017 tax cuts. He believes, like another of the economists on the forum that cutting taxes has never done harm to the economy and has only improved the economy.

I suppose you support that belief as well.

Biden's real tax plan. TAX EVERYONE! including YOU

[1blackman1]

I don’t watch MSNBC so I suppose your attempt at being snarky would be incorrect, unsurprisingly. We’ve done fine without hitting taxes. In fact it’s not surprising that the times in the past 50 years that we’ve raised taxes we’ve also cut deficits and seen significant rise in wealth for everyone. But I’ll let you have whatever argument you want. As a percentage of my income I pay less than my support staff. But hey, I like having more money so my attitude should just be “fuck em” they shoulda gone to law school.

That’s the conservatives answer right.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I don’t watch MSNBC so I suppose your attempt at being snarky would be incorrect, unsurprisingly. We’ve done fine without hitting taxes. In fact it’s not surprising that the times in the past 50 years that we’ve raised taxes we’ve also cut deficits and seen significant rise in wealth for everyone. But I’ll let you have whatever argument you want. As a percentage of my income I pay less than my support staff. But hey, I like having more money so my attitude should just be “fuck em” they shoulda gone to law school.

That’s the conservatives answer right.

Well, it looks to me like when government revenues as a % of GDP peak, that's often followed not long after by recession, although I don't believe there's cause and effect:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

If you're paying less tax as a % of your income than your support staff, you're the exception. See this, originally posted by Texas Contrarian, from the New York Times.

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Reagan would be proud of you Tiny. Still believing in trickle down economics, which is a failed economic theory 100 times over. But you and lusty still believe that the 2017 tax cuts helped our post Covid recovery. I’ll once again agree to disagree but I know it won’t change your beliefs.

WRONG how do you think the economy of the 1990s was so strong?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

WRONG how do you think the economy of the 1990s was so strong?

Might it have had something to do with what happened in the 1980’s? Excellent point.

Clinton and a Republican Congress cut the capital gains tax btw. And balanced the budget.

[1blackman1]

And raised other tax rates on high earners. Somehow you forget that I suppose.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

And raised other tax rates on high earners. Somehow you forget that I suppose.

Yes, that and Monica Lewinsky were the low points of his administration.

How does that look, the leader of the free world getting blow jobs from a fat chick?