Analysis of Trump''s Tax Plan

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Rockydonovang
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-corporate-tax-cut-may-not-be-as-big-as-it-looks/

DarthSkywalker0
Before I being debunking this article, there are a few critical things to note FiveThirtyEight should not be your source in regards to tax plan analyses. The most accurate and reputable source is the Tax Foundation. So, I will be referring to their findings repeatedly throughout this debunk. I also want to make clear that the rest of the tax cuts are terrible. The corporate cuts are the only good part of this plan. So FiveThirtyEight beings talking about the effective corporate tax rate,



What this fails to note is that corporations are paying a lot more tax than taxes they write to the government treasury. Obama's IRS estimated that corporations and subsequent partnership are paying over 100 billion dollars to comply with business tax laws. Those taxes include their costs of recording, keeping and hiring paid tax professionals. The compliance costs are a result of all of the myriad deductions that corporations that government has laid out for corporations. The main problem, of course, is the lack of productivity in the economy as investors are forced to invest in tax-friendly activities rather than productive enterprise. The housing sector has had their returns depressed severely due to the incentive to invest in tax-free enterprise. The graph shows the hidden tax that is levied by tax-evasion. This is why the market has reacted so strongly to the cuts.
https://plus.google.com/photos/albums/p89o0d1vai9841vepcrqd9vmuej2529un?pid=6500222542465002738&oid=100213122022901184109

As the economist Casey Mulligan notes,



The article continues prattling on about effective tax rates, but that should be handled in the first part of my response. The article now states that corporations would not invest their profits in new labor and would simply save the money earned.



Repurchase shares to give shareholders money so those shareholders invest in new businesses to stimulate the economy. That is how this works. The rest of the article is pretty debunked by the same logic. Now let's run over the numbers provided by the Tax Foundation. They concluded the corporate cuts in conjunction with the other minor changes in corporate tax policy will lead to 3.3% change with GDP.

DarthSkywalker0
The image didn't work my bad.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zV4oztpR_kw/WjVt9nSc7PI/AAAAAAAAD_c/cGHNvil8AH4iz6EbTpTtPgMcyswn-yvuQCL0BGAYYCw/h378/2017-12-16.jpg

Raisen
Best tax plan ever

Flyattractor
A Califunnian would know, cause they Love to pay the Taxes in that State.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Raisen
Best tax plan ever

Nope...

Nephthys
mzQ3bAtODok

Skip to about 4 minutes in, the host asks the guy to name ONE loophole this is eliminating for corporations and he can't. Eventually he just flat out admits "the point is for corporations to pay less." This tax plan is a naked hand out to corporations and the Republican parties top donors. They don't care how unpopular it is (30% approval, lower even than Trumps), they're prepared to sell out the American people to their donors.

Raisen
Little bit of sarcasm you dry mother phuckers

Raisen
Originally posted by Flyattractor
A Califunnian would know, cause they Love to pay the Taxes in that State.

What state are you in

Flyattractor
Congested and with a fever.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Nephthys
mzQ3bAtODok

Skip to about 4 minutes in, the host asks the guy to name ONE loophole this is eliminating for corporations and he can't. Eventually he just flat out admits "the point is for corporations to pay less." This tax plan is a naked hand out to corporations and the Republican parties top donors. They don't care how unpopular it is (30% approval, lower even than Trumps), they're prepared to sell out the American people to their donors.
Gotta love how the video starts with the senator blatantly lying about what studies have said and lying again about our corporate tax rate in the same sentence.

Robtard
If Corp taxes go down by 14%, that's going to leave a hole that needs to be filled, as the government runs on money. The middle-class will be the ones to mostly refill that hole, likely along with the cutting back of social programs, medicare, medicaid, social security. Which is essentially stealing money, as people pay into those programs.

Wouldn't be surprised if we're in another recession/crash in 2-3 years, after the bill passes. #maga

Emperordmb
Here's an idea... why not cut government spending? Why does this not cross the minds of people complaining about the deficit in Trump's tax plan? Stop pouring inordinate amounts of money into entitlement programs.

Edit: Not social security though since people have paid into it

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's an idea... why not cut government spending? Why does this not cross the minds of people complaining about the deficit in Trump's tax plan? Stop pouring inordinate amounts of money into entitlement programs.

Edit: Not social security though since people have paid into it

Such as? The military? Or?

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Robtard
Such as? The military? Or?

The spending on the military is significantly less than the spending on social programs. You seem to be conflating discretionary spending with mandatory spending. You have to take an aggregate of the two to find the total fiscal bill.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KY3YqFOTgT0/WjgGP8zCHfI/AAAAAAAAEBQ/Agf-swXNpqYaXE_5bh-P9Wgg23MISKXPQCL0BGAYYCw/h819/2017-12-18.png

But, what we are also forgetting is the fiscal gap created by social programs. To ascertain this fiscal gap, we must simply look to the work done by Laurence Kotlikoff. The fiscal gap is $210 trillion according to Congressional Budget Office's July 2014 Alternative Fiscal Scenario extended on an infinite horizon. This method is endorsed by 17 Nobel Laureates in economics and over 1200 Ph.D. economists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia, Penn, and lesser known universities and colleges around the country. Medicare, Medicaid, and social security are going to continue racking up debt every year.

Emperordmb
Bu-bu-but Repulicans are driving up the debt! People not wanting to cram money into entitlement programs are just a bunch of selfish rich pricks... right? I mean it's not like anything objectively bad could come out of this much government spending.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Bu-bu-but Repulicans are driving up the debt! People not wanting to cram money into entitlement programs are just a bunch of selfish rich pricks... right? I mean it's not like anything objectively bad could come out of this much government spending.

They would have a point if the policies were actually effective.

Kurk
Tax is theft

Robtard
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The spending on the military is significantly less than the spending on social programs. You seem to be conflating discretionary spending with mandatory spending. You have to take an aggregate of the two to find the total fiscal bill.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KY3YqFOTgT0/WjgGP8zCHfI/AAAAAAAAEBQ/Agf-swXNpqYaXE_5bh-P9Wgg23MISKXPQCL0BGAYYCw/h819/2017-12-18.png

I considering healthcare and social security "mandatory spending", cos people need to live and they're entitled to their own money.

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Bu-bu-but Repulicans are driving up the debt! People not wanting to cram money into entitlement programs are just a bunch of selfish rich pricks... right? I mean it's not like anything objectively bad could come out of this much government spending.

Tell me again how you're a Democrat?

What exactly do you consider an "entitlement program"?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Robtard
Tell me again how you're a Democrat?
I'm not.

I stopped being center-left around October.

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm not.

I stopped being center-left around October.

And now you're?

Also:
Originally posted by Robtard
What exactly do you consider an "entitlement program"?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Robtard
And now you're?
An economically right wing classical liberal who doesn't identify with either party because they're both shit.

Maybe this post from another thread will clarify things:
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Party: Independent **** the Democrats and **** the Republicans

Political ideology: Classical liberalism- individualist (**** identity politics and identitarian movements), economically right-wing (used to be economically left wing, but I could no longer square compelled wealth redistribution with my principles), free-speech absolutist (**** hate speech laws), interest in defending life liberty and property, pro-life (life of mother>life of fetus>liberty of mother to get an abortion), pro-gun rights, pro-drug legalization (especially weed and psychedelics), pro-free trade, etc.

Political pundits: Ben Shapiro, Sargon of Akkad, Jordan Peterson

Vote in 2016: I voted for Clinton... I regret that after realizing how awful she was. If I could go back in time I wouldn't have voted for either since my vote as a Texan didn't really do anything, and both suck.

Originally posted by Robtard
Also:
Welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. though I've already conceded that anything someone has already paid into like social security shouldn't be pulled out from under them.

Robtard
Social Security and Mediacare are paid into, they're part of the safety net for seniors.

Medicaid and Welfare are social programs funded by our tax dollars in general, some state and some Fed. These do need overalls for sure, imo.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Robtard
And now you're?

A taxation-is-theft, unregulated-free-market-will-solve-everything edgelord who just discovered Ayn Rand.

Emperordmb
Taxation is an infringement on people's right to property. If it's a sacrifice to protect people's rights as a whole I'm fine with it, but taxation for the sake of wealth redistribution isn't something i support.

Robtard
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A taxation-is-theft, unregulated-free-market-will-solve-everything edgelord who just discovered Ayn Rand.

So 2nd year of college, is what you're telling me stick out tongue

SquallX

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Robtard
So 2nd year of college, is what you're telling me stick out tongue

I was thinking 18 or 19-year-old college freshman or sophomore, whose favorite book in high school was Catcher in the Rye, and just discovered the campus Libertarians.

BackFire
So future house speaker?

lazybones
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's an idea... why not cut government spending? Why does this not cross the minds of people complaining about the deficit in Trump's tax plan? Stop pouring inordinate amounts of money into entitlement programs.

Edit: Not social security though since people have paid into it Just how do you suggest we cut government spending? Because conservatives always talk about cutting those entitlements, but almost never give specifics. How do you suggest that the US goes about cutting those programs?

Also, government spending contributes to economic growth as it is part of the GDP equation. Considering the already meager economic benefits of Trump's tax plan, any government spending cuts would likely depress the few positive effects and make the whole thing a pointless endeavor.

https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/07/pm-gdp/gr-pm-gdpequation-462.gif

www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-bill-goldman-sachs-text-analysis-2017-12

Now, that's not to say that we shouldn't cut government spending when it is genuinely wasteful and can be diverted to real quality tax cuts. But when you've got a tax plan like Trump's, which would result in negligible-negative economic growth from the outset, cutting government spending would only slow the economy.

Robtard
I've asked that myself. I'm all for cutting spending, if it makes sense.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Taxation is an infringement on people's right to property. If it's a sacrifice to protect people's rights as a whole I'm fine with it Taxation can't be an infringement on peoples' rights to property because property rights don't exist without government enforcement you jackass.



"Wealth distribution" is a meaningless buzz word for "government things I don't like".

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Taxation can't be an infringement on peoples' rights to property because property rights don't exist without government enforcement you jackass.
Why don't you read John Locke's treatises of government or look at the founding document of the US you jackass.

The political ideology that founded the United States was predicated on a notion of negative rights not positive rights. The concept of negative rights holds that rights are inalienable, inherent to each individual is an ethical right they have to life liberty and property. The concept of positive rights is that rights are only what government determines them to be. The former is a framework around which an idea of what government is meant to do can be constructed, and the latter is an ethically relativist answer that can ethically justify anything as long as the state power deems it so... as such it's pretty clear why I ascribe to the former rather than the latter because I am not an ethical relativist.

In the classical liberal view, rights exist independently of government, the government just exists to enforce those rights. This idea proposed in Locke's Treatises of Government is the social contract, the sacrifice of some rights in order to create an entity to protect the rest of your rights on the whole.

If you'd notice in my post that you quoted I don't have a problem with the government taxing me in order to protect my rights.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
"Wealth distribution" is a meaningless buzz word for "government things I don't like".
Not really tbh. It's a word that means the government taking someone's money to give to someone else, which I don't see an ethical justification for. I don't see an ethical justification for forcibly taking someone's property and them getting nothing in return.

Don't hand wave arguments from principle just because those principles aren't in alignment with your political goals.

DarthSkywalker0
So rights are derived from the state. Does the right to life no longer exist without the state? It is also a false assumption to assume that government is the only mechanism in which our rights can be defended?



If I fashion something with my energy, time, and ideas do I have the right to that product? If the answer to that question is yes, then, therefore, taking my money is immoral.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I was thinking 18 or 19-year-old college freshman or sophomore, whose favorite book in high school was Catcher in the Rye, and just discovered the campus Libertarians.
19 year old sophomore whose favorite book in highschool was Brave New World and I'm not a part of a political group on campus though I am part of a Christian group.

Nephthys
God, what a chode you turned out to be.

Emperordmb
Your definition of a chode is someone who has different political views?

Nephthys
A person who see's more value in a rich mans right to hoard his treasure than to use it to help the needy and helpless is a huge chode, yes.

And you dare to call yourself a Christian.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Nephthys
A person who see's more value in a rich mans right to hoard his treasure than to use it to help the needy and helpless is a huge chode, yes.

And you dare to call yourself a Christian.
I think rich people absolutely should use their wealth to help poor people. I do believe inaction when you have the power to help people is immoral. Take someone like Bill Gates for example who does philanthropy work, I think that's what rich people should do. I just don't believe it's moral to use force to compel wealth redistribution, nor under the purview of what government should be from a Lockean perspective.

There's a difference between thinking that rich people shouldn't help poor people, and thinking the government shouldn't force rich people to help poor people. In that religious group on campus I mentioned I've actually volunteered to help drive around town and give homeless people food and clothes.

I think hateful speech is immoral too, but I find the notion that the government should use force to enforce that moral standard to be disgusting and an overreach of government power. Just because I believe someone should have the freedom to make a choice doesn't mean I think whatever they do with that choice is a good thing. I also morally disapprove of casual sex, but I absolutely am revolted at the government legislating that standard. I also think people have a moral obligation to be honest human beings, but that doesn't mean the government should criminalize lying.

The government doesn't exist to compel all forms of moral behavior, it exists to protect people's rights.

Also BTW it's by this exact line of reasoning that some people I know who morally disapprove of "gayism" (to use the LeGenD terminology) term still think gay sex and gay marriage should be legal. I'm not one of those people since I don't have a problem with gayism.

SquallX

Emperordmb
It's like, people wanna acknowledge the government as some wish granting fairy instead of an instrument of force and ignore the fact that it doesn't just magically generate whatever outcome they want with no cost to people's liberty or property.

ILS
Originally posted by Nephthys
A person who see's more value in a rich mans right to hoard his treasure than to use it to help the needy and helpless is a huge chode, yes. Spoken like a true parasite.

Nephthys

Nephthys
Ignore. I thought my edit didn't go through.

ILS
Newsflash: people with relevant skills/qualifications that can find well-paid jobs which are in demand, or start up a successful business, tend to have more money than people who don't understand basic finances. Thus, they will have a higher quality life. That model in of itself works and is fair, as it encourages people to improve themselves and contribute to the economy.

Trying to reduce the quality of life of someone who can look after themselves in order to prop up the needy or, more likely, the lazy, doesn't work.

What may work is if you stop insisting on taxing the shit out of people, letting the government waste the money on lesbian dance theory degrees, and instead just teach people how to make a living without relying on welfare. People should be responsible for themselves unless they are legitimately retarded or a child.
Maybe not piss all your money away on garbage, not have children you can't look after and get a job. That usually helps.

SquallX
You ****ing idiot! The 1% already pays far more taxes than anyone in this country.

Also, forcing them to give away their riches is ****ing immoral you nitwit.

Robtard
Self-pulling-bootstraps, oh my!

dadudemon
Originally posted by Nephthys
A person who see's more value in a rich mans right to hoard his treasure than to use it to help the needy and helpless is a huge chode, yes.

And you dare to call yourself a Christian.

No, there's a difference between forcing someone, at the threat of violence, to do charity and people willingly doing charity. People who try to violently force others to do charity are assholes. The Chodiest of Chodes.

Nephthys
Again, I'm not saying anything about forcing people to do charity. Just to pay taxes and for the government to use taxpayer money to help the needy with healthcare and social security programs. And only morons think taxes are a form of violence.

Surtur
Lol let us be clear: it's not charity if it's forced.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Nephthys
Again, I'm not saying anything about forcing people to do charity. Just to pay taxes and for the government to use taxpayer money to help the needy with healthcare and social security programs. And only morons think taxes are a form of violence.

I've posted links to this already: don't pay your taxes, you go to jail and/or prison. If you believe you're in the right, and you resist being put in jail, violence happens.

Only an idiot thinks that you can get away with paying your taxes without incurring violence from the government.

Check it out: it's against my religious beliefs to be forced to do charity. no expression

Nephthys
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've posted links to this already: don't pay your taxes, you go to jail and/or prison. If you believe you're in the right, and you resist being put in jail, violence happens.

Only an idiot thinks that you can get away with paying your taxes without incurring violence from the government.

Check it out: it's against my religious beliefs to be forced to do charity. no expression

If you resist in that case you are the one instigating the violence. The tax itself isn't a form of violence, theres merely the possibility if you try punching a bailiff. That possibility exists in almost every aspect of life. Living in society requires you to follow rules. Don't like it, go live on an island.

Taxes aren't charity, dumbass.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Nephthys
If you resist in that case you are the one instigating the violence. The tax itself isn't a form of violence, theres merely the possibility if you try punching a bailiff. That possibility exists in almost every aspect of life. Living in society requires you to follow rules. Don't like it, go live on an island.

Taxes aren't charity, dumbass.

Taxes are absolutely the Govts use of authority over you to TAKE your money for the "common good." It is force, all taxes are a use of force to take money from its citizens.

Apparently it passed the House and is being sent to the Senate.

ILS
Resisting your assets being seized by force = instigating violence? That's retarded. If you don't agree to being taxed, but the government still want a slice of your pie, they will still take it. I'll leave you to work out the word we use for that.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Don't like it, go live on an island.

Taxes aren't charity, dumbass. You must be retarded if you think it's possible to relocate to an island without being forced to pay taxes somewhere down the line.

Taxes aren't charity, they're taking money from people who are self-sufficient and giving it to people who aren't, by force, unless you want to be ostracised from society.

If I start my own business, sell a product to a customer, and they give me something of a value, e.g money, that should be my money. The government, using it's monopoly on lawful use of violence, forces me to cut them in, even though they had nothing to do with the transaction. That's essentially theft.

Whether you agree with this theft or not is another debate, but whether or not it's theft at all is without question.

Surtur
I bet Fantasy Island is an island you could get to without being forced to pay taxes. Assuming your fantasy was to live on an island where you aren't forced to pay taxes.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Nephthys
If you resist in that case you are the one instigating the violence. The tax itself isn't a form of violence, theres merely the possibility if you try punching a bailiff. That possibility exists in almost every aspect of life. Living in society requires you to follow rules. Don't like it, go live on an island.

Taxes aren't charity, dumbass.

So if a person disagrees with the taxes on moral, ethical, or religious grounds, they are not allowed to refuse. They get put in jail or prison. AKA, violence.

Thanks for agreeing with me. Wasn't this a fun game where I talk you into agreeing with me when you originally disagreed?

You're right, taxes are forced charity for those who do no wish to pay taxes for charity. You may not like it but there are people who exist out there who have different political beliefs from you. Some people are...wait for it...libertarians. Some people are very liberal and believe in personal freedoms and rights quite a bit.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Nephthys
Oh cry me a ****ing river. Your problem is that you have a serious misplaced sense of priorities.
What being concerned about people's rights from infringement instead of trying to force everyone to conform to the behavior I'd like to see is a misplaced sense of priorities.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You're worried about people having to pay slightly more taxes more than you are about the people actually suffering and dying. Rich people and corporations having to pay taxes isn't some grand injustice.
I mean I don't disagree that they should pay taxes just as anyone else pays taxes... so no. As it currently stands though they're paying almost all of the income taxes the government takes in. I have no problem with taxes being proportionate to the amount of property one has, but you're not advocating for proportionality here.

Oh just because they're rich **** them? We should take away their property at a disproportionate rate to their earnings because we think we deserve it more than they do?

Also have you ever heard of capital flight? The US having a lower corporate tax rate makes the US economy more inviting to businesses which is an economic boon.

Originally posted by Nephthys
They'll live and thrive and they'll do so a lot better than any of us will. People dying from preventable illness or injury or suffering from extreme debt or poverty are real problems, not your whingefest about "the use of force."
Yeah they are real problems, which is why I'm a proponent of voluntary charity work rather than the ineffectual government systems that are coercive via threat of force and inherently require involuntary infringements on people's property.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Which I'm sure makes you feel like you're a super great guy. Meanwhile you won't lift a finger to solve the actual issues that lead those people to those streets in the first place and instead actively argue for less of a safety net for them and more weight to the boot holding them down.
Neph I already told you I participate in and advocate for charity work.

Also what a retarded metaphor you've used. My refusal to redistribute wealth does not equate to me oppressing poor people. Me oppressing poor people would require me to actively be infringing on their rights, which is not something I'm doing by not supporting wealth redistribution.

As far as "solving the actual issues" goes the war on poverty and increasing welfare spending in the US has done **** all to actually reduce the poverty rate.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hz5ekR2ETRU/WcbfO1mvEBI/AAAAAAAACxo/1ZRvJVFA_zUMReMEsdKMAP8rw-0wrK1XQCL0BGAYYCw/h487/2017-09-23.jpg

And also the US is continually sinking further and further into debt with entitlement programs accounting for over half of our government spending.

So no from an ethical point of principle that actually gives a shit about people's rights, it doesn't work. From the practical goal of "lifting a finger to solve these issues" it doesn't work. From a consideration of whether we can actually afford these government programs or whether it's just gonna sink us further into a debt that's gonna come around and bite us in the ass someday, it doesn't work.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I wasn't making a point about the government enforcing morals, I was merely commenting on your own despicable sense of morality.
Go on, keep telling me I'm despicable for not wanting to infringe on people's rights, and how I'm despicable for not supporting programs that are plunging my nation further and further into debt at an increasing rate without actually doing jack shit to reduce poverty.

Also it's nice to know that you're so intolerant of disagreement that you think anyone whose not economically left wing is a deplorable, I can only imagine the kinds of productive discussions you'll have with people on the other side. Are you going to call them racists and sexists too while you're at it?

Originally posted by Nephthys
No, government exists to create and support a society for the benefit of the people living in it. A state that fails to support its citizenry indicates a flawed system. A system of rights only exists for the benefit and protection of the people in the first place.
The primary role of the state is to protect your rights because without your life liberty and property you have nothing. A system of government built on negative rights, on protection, has a clearly defined and objective framework that protects each individual and can ensure justice on an individual level. A system of government built on the notion of positive rights can justify any abuse of the individual so long as it is deemed to serve the greater good, which is exactly the kinda bullshit thinking that lead to some of the greatest atrocities in human history.

I am a Liberal, not a Marxist, I fundamentally object to your view of government.

Originally posted by Nephthys
If a few of the most privileged of those people and powerful corporations have to be minorly inconvenienced to relieve the great suffering of a great many people then so be it. Thats how a government is supposed to function.

You call a 40% tax rate on the highest income bracket a "minor inconvenience"? Damn your head must really be lodged far up your own ass to think that.

Originally posted by Nephthys
A government that protects the comfort of a few at the expense of the pain of the many scarcely deserves to exist.
What euphemistic language. It's not the fault of rich people being successful that poor people are poor, it is the fault of wealth redistribution programs that people's property rights are infringed upon for something they'll see no return on.

The government that protects everyone's rights instead of delineating between them based on class or identity group is the one that deserves to exist.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Also Locke was a ponse.
Because he was an individualist and not a collectivist?

TheMuser
All I can say is.....brutal....

lazybones
Originally posted by Emperordmb


As far as "solving the actual issues" goes the war on poverty and increasing welfare spending in the US has done **** all to actually reduce the poverty rate.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hz5ekR2ETRU/WcbfO1mvEBI/AAAAAAAACxo/1ZRvJVFA_zUMReMEsdKMAP8rw-0wrK1XQCL0BGAYYCw/h487/2017-09-23.jpg

Misleading graphic. The Federal Poverty Rate is calculated using pre-tax income, and excludes vital benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Housing Assistance and Medicaid. The Center on Budget and Policy Prorities estimates that about 10 million are lifted out of poverty thanks to the EITC alone, and about 5 million children as well.


https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/10-21-16tax-f2.png


https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure

Strong welfare states are both essential and desirable, and not just for moral reasons. And such welfare states require progressive taxation because charity just won't cut it.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by lazybones
Misleading graphic. The Federal Poverty Rate is calculated using pre-tax income, and excludes vital benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Housing Assistance and Medicaid. The Center on Budget and Policy Prorities estimates that about 10 million are lifted out of poverty thanks to the EITC alone, and about 5 million children as well.


https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/10-21-16tax-f2.png


https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure

Strong welfare states are both essential and desirable, and not just for moral reasons. And such welfare states require progressive taxation because charity just won't cut it.

Well, this is a half truth. While it is true that absolute poverty measure does not include the earned income tax credit nor the child tax credit, the Supplemental Poverty Measure does and it still paints a dreary picture.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GVAq8qqNbZA/Wjm37AfKMlI/AAAAAAAAECY/5Y1phh7dVAcnQu8G0tt6qKMjKBW7L52tgCL0BGAYYCw/h379/2017-12-19.png

While does this does depict a greater drop in poverty, it does not contrast the decline in previous years. The poverty rate was already falling drastically before The War On Poverty was implemented. In fact, the biggest drops on this chart transpired during the welfare cuts of 1996.The SPM does show that poverty has dropped, despite the lukewarm results what it does not show is the fact that such drops are simply due to government handouts. We can use the Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure Before Taxes and Transfers to assess welfare's success. This measure shows people's ability to earn money without the taxes and subsidization.



We have spent 22 trillion dollars in an attempt to prevent poverty. GDP has grown immensely since 1967.



The incentive structure created by the welfare state has discouraged economic recovery and has turned government into a post to lean on rather than a trampoline upon which to jump off of. We can contrast this startling number with poverty declination in the past. Real income in 1990 was 15 times greater than it was in 1900. Real per capita income was over four and one-half times greater in 1990 than in 1900. Not only have real earnings increased drastically so has poverty. 56% of families were poor in the year 1900. In 1947, despite the economic troubles of the Great Depression and WWII, the poverty rate had gone down to 27%. This number decreased way before the War on Poverty even began. One more note regarding the SPM, California has the highest SPM out of any state in the nation. California has one of the biggest welfare states in the nation. You also seemingly purported that welfare without the state is not enough. I already mentioned the decrease in poverty in the 1900s, but this topic reminds me of an article published by FEE. It very clearly addresses this conundrum: https://fee.org/articles/welfare-without-the-welfare-state/

Beniboybling
Good to see many woke brothers and sisters on this thread who realise the poor are just lazy and incompetent. mad

snowdragon
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Good to see many woke brothers and sisters on this thread who realise the poor are just lazy and incompetent. mad

Woke or educated? How does the trump plan hurt the poor?

Beniboybling
It doesn't, Trump's plan will uplift the poor as newly unburdened gazillionaires reinvest in the economy and create more jawbs. sad

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
I bet Fantasy Island is an island you could get to without being forced to pay taxes. Assuming your fantasy was to live on an island where you aren't forced to pay taxes. Crazy right, whoever heard of an island where you get to pay next to no taxes.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Beniboybling
It doesn't, Trump's plan will uplift the poor as newly unburdened gazillionaires reinvest in the economy and create more jawbs. sad

What a childish sentiment and you never answered my question.

Beniboybling
Agreed, but get this, some people actually believe it. sad

dadudemon
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Good to see many woke brothers and sisters on this thread who realise the poor are just lazy and incompetent. mad


https://i.imgur.com/8DjUk5K.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry, no sympathy for people whining about their situations of not being able to afford to live when they clearly have the English language know how to write an article about how hard their life is at 35 for not getting motivated to do something about it. Clearly, he's intelligent. Clearly, he's well-written and spoken. Clearly, he's lazy and should do something about his situation

Originally posted by dadudemon
...I...think we should have a universal healthcare system and a universal basic income...

Robtard
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Crazy right, whoever heard of an island where you get to pay next to no taxes.

laughing out loud

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by snowdragon
Woke or educated? How does the trump plan hurt the poor?

It hurts them by enstating numerous sunset clauses which turns the plan into a potempkin phased. So, it helps them for 8 years, before leaving them in the cold to maintain their cost requirements.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Good to see many woke brothers and sisters on this thread who realise the poor are just lazy and incompetent. mad

I don't think the poor are lazy and incompetent. I think welfare creates an incentive structure which breeds indolence. If we eliminated these programs the poor would have a greater incentive to increase their living standards.

Robtard
It looks like Trumptax is going to be made law, so prepare for a recession and then crash in 2-3ish years thumb up

lazybones
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Well, this is a half truth. While it is true that absolute poverty measure does not include the earned income tax credit nor the child tax credit, the Supplemental Poverty Measure does and it still paints a dreary picture.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GVAq8qqNbZA/Wjm37AfKMlI/AAAAAAAAECY/5Y1phh7dVAcnQu8G0tt6qKMjKBW7L52tgCL0BGAYYCw/h379/2017-12-19.png A ten point drop in poverty is dreary? I'd say that's quite a good result, especially when you break it down further. Poverty among the elderly, for instance, plummeted from around 48% to 16%. Child poverty also experienced a notable decline after the 1996 welfare reforms, although progress in that area is more patchy.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/1-6-14pov-s1-f3.png


https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/1-6-14pov-s1-f5.png



Right, but we know in retrospect that millions more would still be in poverty today if these programs were not implemented, even if the downward trend continued. Food stamps alone have profound antipoverty impact, lifting about 4 million out of poverty altogether.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/09/9-17-13snap1.jpg

Add that 4 million to the almost 10 million adults and 5 million children lifted out of poverty due to the EITC+Child Tax Credits, and you've got almost 20 million out of poverty who would not be otherwise. When you add the remaining federal assistance programs, this number rises to 40 million according to the CBPF (citing the Census Bureau). And when you add in the 30 million who have been made "less poor" as shown on the first chart that you responded to, the total number helped by these programs balloons to 70 million. It's possible that if EITC and the like were expanded, then those 30 million "less poor" people would finally be able to leave poverty.



https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_371px/public/atoms/files/10-21-16tax-f2.png


https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/3-11-13pov.jpg



It's inaccurate to call the 1996 Welfare Reforms "cuts". After all, the War on Poverty measures remained intact and welfare spending continued to grow afterwards. What the welfare reform s did was establish strong welfare to work incentives and expand the EITC. These measures were broadly successful at making the welfare system a better ladder out of poverty, and the drop in poverty afterwards simply show the efficacy of a disciplined welfare state.

Well, if we want to assess the effect that welfare payments are having on poverty, then it makes sense to include them in our figures. And when we do, the results are quite stunning. And although I accept that non-welfare earnings have not been rising to the same degree, this can be explained by wages lagging severely behind productivity and inflation increases. In that way, welfare is actually an essential fortification of people's incomes against these negative trends.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/1-6-14pov-s1-f6.png


This is not accurate for a number of reasons. First off, transfers to individuals in the form of credits and entitlements actually produce a net positive economic return, sometimes as high as 2:1. This, by the way, makes a targeted EITC or Medicaid expansion vastly more effective than any corporate tax cut or tax cuts to the middle-upper classes. Secondly, targeted welfare expansions have been shown to increase the number in work. This was seen in the 90s, when an EITC expansion coaxed single mothers out of unemployment. Thirdly, welfare payments such as the EITC made early in life have a profound impact on a child's prospects, so they certainly could be described as a trampoline.


https://www.gfmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gfmiblog1-300x199.png

If you can't see above image, click on this link and zoom in:

https://www.gfmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gfmiblog1-300x199.png

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/downsample150to92/public/atoms/files/single-mothers-fig-1.png

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_371px/public/atoms/files/fig4.png


Some issues here:

- Using poverty rates from 70-100 years ago is going to run into problems due to the immense social changes that have occurred since then, notably the decline of marriage. The way that poverty is classified has also changed.

- 27% poverty is about where we would be if no welfare programs were in place, so this just underlines the crucial need for welfare.

- The US economy was booming in the aftermath of World War 2, due to the devastation of Europe and America's domination of export markets. So a 27% poverty rate is pretty horrendous.


Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that welfare payments have lifted more than 4 million Californians out of poverty. Consult tables at the bottom of this article.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/safety-net-more-effective-against-poverty-than-previously-thought

Lestov16
I have a question regarding this tax plan. I know someone who has cerebral palsy which essentially paralyzes their spine, making them unable to walk and barely able to grasp objects. They were born with this condition. Despite this, they have lived independently their entire lives due to SSI providing rent, SNAP benefits providing food, and Medicaid insurance providing medical benefits. How is Trump's tax plan going to effect this individual's subsistence benefits, and if they are removed, what is the justification, given the individual was born with their crippling condition?

Surtur
I'm at least glad nobody had a hysterical reaction to this tax plan. Good stuff.

Anyways, interesting:

Germans Fear Tax Cut Will Spur US Investment and Growth

lazybones
Originally posted by Lestov16
I have a question regarding this tax plan. I know someone who has cerebral palsy which essentially paralyzes their spine, making them unable to walk and barely able to grasp objects. They were born with this condition. Despite this, they have lived independently their entire lives due to SSI providing rent, SNAP benefits providing food, and Medicaid insurance providing medical benefits. How is Trump's tax plan going to effect this individual's subsistence benefits, and if they are removed, what is the justification, given the individual was born with their crippling condition? The Republicans have been hinting at deep cuts, but not in this tax bill AFAIK. Likely next year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2017/12/12/why-big-medicare-and-medicaid-cuts-are-likely/

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm at least glad nobody had a hysterical reaction to this tax plan. Good stuff.

Anyways, interesting:

Germans Fear Tax Cut Will Spur US Investment and Growth Goldman Sachs appears to disagree and thinks the US will experience negligible to negative economic benefits. Considering there are Goldman Sachs insiders within the Trump administration who would actually have every reason to sugarcoat the tax plan, I am inclined to believe their estimates are accurate or even understating its mediocrity. In the short term, it may attract a trickle of investment but I wouldn't expect anything significant. And international reaction might cancel out the effects.

Only time will tell who is right, though, I suppose.

Flyattractor
This pretty much sums it up.


HEY WHERE IS EVERYBODY!? They are DEAD cause Republican Tax Law Passes

Surtur
Wells Fargo, Fifth Third Bancorp unveil minimum wage hikes after tax bill passage

Nice.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg unveils $300M in initiatives in response to tax bill

Neat.

AT&T Announces Big Bonuses for Employees After GOP Tax Bill Passage

"This news might come as a black eye for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who invoked AT&T as he criticized the GOP reform plan in a speech of dissent today"

lol

Emperordmb
But I thought rich people were evil

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
But I thought rich people were evil

I thought only rich people would benefit. AT&T must have 200,000 wealthy folk working for it.

Robtard
Bread and circuses

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
Wells Fargo, Fifth Third Bancorp unveil minimum wage hikes after tax bill passage

Nice.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg unveils $300M in initiatives in response to tax bill

Neat.

AT&T Announces Big Bonuses for Employees After GOP Tax Bill Passage

"This news might come as a black eye for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who invoked AT&T as he criticized the GOP reform plan in a speech of dissent today"

lol

Wait....is this trickle down economics at play? I thought that was a myth? It's what I learned in college.

No, I'm not joking.

Surtur
No doubt it is a sinister plot by corporations to make liberals look foolish.

lazybones
Originally posted by Surtur
Wells Fargo, Fifth Third Bancorp unveil minimum wage hikes after tax bill passage

Nice.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg unveils $300M in initiatives in response to tax bill

Neat.

AT&T Announces Big Bonuses for Employees After GOP Tax Bill Passage

"This news might come as a black eye for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who invoked AT&T as he criticized the GOP reform plan in a speech of dissent today"

lol Wealthy make token gestures to legitimise massive tax cuts on wealthy. What a shock.

And you're totally gullible if you think these were are actually done in response to tax cuts. Corporations already have $1.6 trillion in cash reserves, and also have enough deductions to get their effective tax rates down to the teens. This tax reform just makes it a lot easier, and lowers the corporate rate to far below the personal income tax rate, basically inviting more evasion. And if they didn:'t invest massively with $1.6 trillion in reserves,then a few tens more billions isn't suddenly going to spark reverse of attitudes.

Surtur
Originally posted by lazybones
Wealthy make token gestures to legitimise massive tax cuts on wealthy. What a shock.

And you're totally gullible if you think these were are actually done in response to tax cuts. Corporations already have $1.6 trillion in cash reserves, and also have enough deductions to get their effective tax rates down to the teens. This tax reform just makes it a lot easier, and lowers the corporate rate to far below the personal income tax rate, basically inviting more evasion. And if they didn:'t invest massively with $1.6 trillion in reserves,then a few tens more billions isn't suddenly going to spark reverse of attitudes.

Lol, image is everything. This is a win for Trump.

Robtard
While it's great that AT&T is giving 200,000 employees a $1,000.00 bonus, they'll be able to buy a new car or something according to that senator. In reality, $200mil is nothing compared to what they'll be saving when the corp-tax-rate drops 14%.

As noted, Bread and Circuses

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
While it's great that AT&T is giving 200,000 employees a $1,000.00 bonus, they'll be able to buy a new car or something according to that senator. In reality, $200mil is nothing compared to what they'll be saving when the corp-tax-rate drops 14%.

As noted, Bread and Circuses

So, because of the tax plan they are giving employees a bonus. Okay lol.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, image is everything. This is a win for Trump.

Absolutely a win for Trump, his first major. As a Trumper you can be a smugphag over it, you've earned it.

Trump and the GOP now own the US economy, if it soars in the years to come, he/they can take full responsibility and gloat; if it stagnates and/or crashes, the blame is on them

BackFire
Funny to see the repubs using the same argument for this unpopular tax plan as the dems did for their unpopular obamacare - "People will like it once they experience it".

Time will tell how it works out for the GOP and this tax plan.

lazybones
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, image is everything. This is a win for Trump. Fair point. However, the tax reform only has about a 38% approval rating, which is lower than historic ratings of many tax hikes, and Obamacare which led to the 2010 House bloodbath. 38% is higher than Trump's (35%) so it may give a little boost. But Democrats are polling at about 56% (+18 lead) in latest generic ballot. So the popularity would have to reach that sort of ballpark to stem the Dem wave.

Surtur
Originally posted by lazybones
Fair point. However, the tax reform only has about a 38% approval rating, which is lower than historic ratings of many tax hikes, and Obamacare which led to the 2010 House bloodbath. 38% is higher than Trump's (35%) so it may give a little boost. But Democrats are polling at about 56% (+18 lead) in latest generic ballot. So the popularity would have to reach that sort of ballpark to stem the Dem wave.

Approval ratings are irrelevant to me. People are spoon fed bullshit these days and are clueless. Example? The hysteria over the net neutrality thing. Utterly ridiculous, in every single sense of the word.

Same with this plan. No doubt there are legit criticisms. Is that what the opposition goes after? Nah lol. They go into full on hysteria mode. Say only the rich benefit.

When will they learn to stop setting the bar so low?

Robtard
Stop being so dramatic all the time, Surt

ps As a Trumper, don't whine about setting the bar low, cos we're going to get The Rock or Zuckerberg now

Surtur
Lol. I wonder if Hitler would have passed a tax plan like this?

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Stop being so dramatic all the time, Surt

ps As a Trumper, don't whine about setting the bar low, cos we're going to get The Rock or Zuckerberg now

It's not about who you pick, but what you expect. Leftists set the bar low by calling him Hitler and saying he will destroy America. All he needs to do is...not be Hitler lol. Trumps daily schedule:

-Don't commit genocide

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
It's not about who you pick, but what you expect. Leftists set the bar low by calling him Hitler and saying he will destroy America. All he needs to do is...not be Hitler lol. Trumps daily schedule:

-Don't commit genocide

More fake ass drama

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
More fake ass drama

A liberal commenting about fake drama. Lol, good stuff.

Robtard
I do strongly believe in liberty and equality, so thanks for the compliment thumb up

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
I do strongly believe in liberty and equality, so thanks for the compliment thumb up

I didn't say you were a pre Trump liberal, just a liberal.

NewGuy01
>implying

Kurk
I'm a young millennial who looks forward to not having to pay a penalty for not getting health insurance once I turn 26. In other words, I like the idea of not having to pay for the health-care of others; especially when that group is comprised of idiots who don't know how to take care of themselves and drug addicts.

Why is this tax plan bad for me?

Robtard

dadudemon
Originally posted by lazybones
Fair point. However, the tax reform only has about a 38% approval rating, which is lower than historic ratings of many tax hikes, and Obamacare which led to the 2010 House bloodbath. 38% is higher than Trump's (35%) so it may give a little boost. But Democrats are polling at about 56% (+18 lead) in latest generic ballot. So the popularity would have to reach that sort of ballpark to stem the Dem wave.


Wait a minute...our congress passed legislation that a majority of Americans don't agree with? Preposterous!!!

5tu32CCA_Ig

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol. I wonder if Hitler would have passed a tax plan like this?

haermm

Rage.Of.Olympus
Originally posted by Surtur
Wells Fargo, Fifth Third Bancorp unveil minimum wage hikes after tax bill passage

Nice.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg unveils $300M in initiatives in response to tax bill

Neat.

AT&T Announces Big Bonuses for Employees After GOP Tax Bill Passage

"This news might come as a black eye for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who invoked AT&T as he criticized the GOP reform plan in a speech of dissent today"

lol Originally posted by Surtur
I thought only rich people would benefit. AT&T must have 200,000 wealthy folk working for it.

That's.....nothing. It's so insignificant to the overall economy particularly the money they save on taxes and the wealth they've accumulated so far. Particularly Fargo and AT&T. Have you seen their earnings report for the last 5 years? They've made a lot of people money over the years but they're the worst example of capitalism run unchecked.

It's the equivalent of a local government where every member is obese on fine food giving out a quarter of a single grain of rice to about 1000 people each in an imporvished community only for the people to be grateful.

Don't fall for it. Do some fundamental analysis, all information can be found on google.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by BackFire
Funny to see the repubs using the same argument for this unpopular tax plan as the dems did for their unpopular obamacare - "People will like it once they experience it".

Time will tell how it works out for the GOP and this tax plan.

Kind of like how the Demo's break out the usual Lies about Hate and Fear every time a Tax Cut comes up.

Ahh Politics.

Rage.Of.Olympus
This bull run has been going for almost an unprecedented amount of time. At one point, we went 109 days without a 1% decline in the S&P. It's lunacy. Junk bonds are valued as prime securities, corporations are buying back their shares at record pace (This simulates growth, pushing price up) and expanding by accumulating debt at a ridiculous level. I am a firm believer in EROI being tied to the market ROI and the deeper you dig into the current trends and compare it to past market data, the more you feel like chicken little with a hard hat.

Clear ALL your debt. Live frugally. Save every penny and don't attach your money into any high beta securities. This shit is coming down hard. I just hope it won't be for another 5 years so I can get all my shit in order.

Flyattractor
Why do Democrats and Liberals and Leftist always act like they have more right to YOUR MONEY then you do?

Surtur
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
That's.....nothing. It's so insignificant to the overall economy particularly the money they save on taxes and the wealth they've accumulated so far. Particularly Fargo and AT&T. Have you seen their earnings report for the last 5 years? They've made a lot of people money over the years but they're the worst example of capitalism run unchecked.

It's the equivalent of a local government where every member is obese on fine food giving out a quarter of a single grain of rice to about 1000 people each in an imporvished community only for the people to be grateful.

Don't fall for it. Do some fundamental analysis, all information can be found on google.

Maybe an extra $1000 is "nothing" to you, but not to everyone. And it's a win pretty much within 24 hours lol. Like Trump jr. says: love it.

And this is why I love these stories. Leftists will bend over backwards to downplay them and will just come off as petty sore losers. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't(because not screeching about this will lose a Dem credibility), which is a position Trump is usually put in. The optics: love it smile

I predict similar responses to every single story about this tax plan that paints Trump in a good light.

Surtur
O to the P to the T I C S

Comcast announces $1,000 bonuses after passage of tax bill

snowdragon
Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe an extra $1000 is "nothing" to you, but not to everyone. And it's a win pretty much within 24 hours lol. .

The left LOVES Govt, when the govt has a new plan to give money to a group they love it (they expect the money from the well to do.) Now there is money being given out and all of a sudden it's a problem because of how it is being dispersed or why.

Surtur

Robtard
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
That's.....nothing. It's so insignificant to the overall economy particularly the money they save on taxes and the wealth they've accumulated so far. Particularly Fargo and AT&T. Have you seen their earnings report for the last 5 years? They've made a lot of people money over the years but they're the worst example of capitalism run unchecked.

It's the equivalent of a local government where every member is obese on fine food giving out a quarter of a single grain of rice to about 1000 people each in an imporvished community only for the people to be grateful.

Don't fall for it. Do some fundamental analysis, all information can be found on google.

^ This guy understands Bread and Circuses

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe an extra $1000 is "nothing" to you, but not to everyone. And it's a win pretty much within 24 hours lol. Like Trump jr. says: love it.

And this is why I love these stories. Leftists will bend over backwards to downplay them and will just come off as petty sore losers. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't(because not screeching about this will lose a Dem credibility), which is a position Trump is usually put in. The optics: love it smile

I predict similar responses to every single story about this tax plan that paints Trump in a good light.

^ This guy's too busy being a smugphag to see the Forest for The Trees

snowdragon
Originally posted by Robtard
^ This guy understands Bread and Circuses



^ This guy's too busy being a smugphag to see the Forest for The Trees

Yeah it's probably way WORSE then the cash for clunkers program...lulz.

The money that these people will get will more then likely greatly improve their christmas experience, in addition it will get thrown back into the economy in the form of consumerism plus taxes.

So in the bigger picture what do you expect from a tax bill in a culture that thrives on FB headlines to feed their news experience?

Robtard
I recall in 2001 when GW Bush signed his tax cut bill and people received their $300-$600 dollar checks, the mentally then was similar "people will use that to fuel the economy".

I recall in 2008 when GW Bush signed the 'Economic Stimulus Act of 2008' and people again received their checks... I think you know what happened to the economy 2008-9, it was too late by then

The bigger picture will be seen in (or begin to be) in 2-3ish years with the economy and this new Tax Reform. Hopefully it works and everyone benefits, I certainly don't want another crash/recession, but it's coming, imo

edit: I'm sure you recall the 2008 act, but in case you don't recall the 2001, here you go: Bush signs $1.3 trillion tax cut bill / $300-$600 rebate checks start going out next month

snowdragon
Originally posted by Robtard
I recall in 2001 when GW Bush signed his tax cut bill and people received their $300-$600 dollar checks, the mentally then was similar "people will use that to fuel the economy".

I recall in 2008 when GW Bush signed the 'Economic Stimulus Act of 2008' and people again received their checks... I think you know what happened to the economy 2008-9.

The bigger picture will be seen in (or begin to be) in 2-3ish years with the economy and this new Tax Reform.

I think that's a very myopic view and my view is shared by:

FactCheckReviewsEconomicDownfall

In my opinion, if you want to look at legislation that led to the economic fallout it was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2k, republican congress wrote it and signed by Bill Clinton.

Robtard
It was a buildup, but ignoring all the pieces that lead to it is silly

That aside, do you actually believe Trump's words that this Tax Reform bill isn't going to help the wealthiest people at all or not much at all?

snowdragon
Originally posted by Robtard
It was a buildup, but ignoring all the pieces that lead to it is silly

That aside, do you actually believe Trump's words that this Tax Reform bill isn't going to help the wealthiest people at all or not much at all?

Percentages generally favor bigger numbers, they have the most to gain for sure.

That said wtf do people cry the most about wealthy people when lower income people are still benefiting.

I don't have the website now but I was reading that on average many folks that earned from 27k to 30k are going to pay around 500$ less in taxes. I know the companies paying that one time bonus isn't worl changing but imagine if you had a kid and were making that income and all of a sudden you are going to see extra money.

You wouldn't be sitting at the coffee table thinking about legislation and world politics when you were struggling to feed your families or give them gifts.

And you could very well be right in the next 2-3 years we could see a downfall, at the very least with your crystal ball you will know when to short your trades and win still stick out tongue

As an aside, I don't normally take Trumps words as honest ones.

Robtard
Alright, cool. Was just curious if you were delusional like some here, you seem to be more grounded. Trump was lying though, the rich will absolutely benefit.

The concern is usually because when it comes around to pay the piper, it's not the wealthy that pay, they make out on both sides. Who made out and who ended up paying in the last crash/recession? It wasn't the mega corps, Wall Street, the 1% etc.

As I said, it's very nice that some companies are giving some of their employees a nice little check, but when you factor in the percentage incoming coming from a 14% tax deduction to these corps, it's really spitting on people and telling them it's raining.

Fore sure and that's why the small gestures work, more people live in the now.

If only I had one, but it's mostly just looking at what's came before.

dadudemon
huehuehue

https://i.imgur.com/hxIQT6B.jpg

snowdragon
Originally posted by Robtard
The concern is usually because when it comes around to pay the piper, it's not the wealthy that pay, they make out on both sides. Who made out and who ended up paying in the last crash/recession? It wasn't the mega corps, Wall Street, the 1% etc.

.

You are 1000% right there. I was a broker years ago working in employee benefits, sold my business because a bank wanted me to build their system. The crash came and even though I wasn't in the banking side I was still required to participate in classes, monitor calls periodically for certain standards because of my title. It's the only time I lost sleep because of work. They wrecked lives and I'm ashamed to even have worked at the bank because of that.

While the Govt should providing a general blanket to provide some protection they are in bed with large corporations and the publis best interest is generally at best glossed over, by both parties.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
huehuehue

https://i.imgur.com/hxIQT6B.jpg

Nice

Surtur
Lol holy shit:

CNN Gives Dem Forum to Slam GOP 'Scrooges' Hurting '9 Million Tiny Tims'

Stop going full retard.

Flyattractor
Ahh Taxes.

1LUgjobs2HU

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by lazybones
A ten point drop in poverty is dreary? I'd say that's quite a good result, especially when you break it down further. Poverty among the elderly, for instance, plummeted from around 48% to 16%. Child poverty also experienced a notable decline after the 1996 welfare reforms, although progress in that area is more patchy.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/1-6-14pov-s1-f3.png


https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/1-6-14pov-s1-f5.png


When I called the 10% drop dreary, I was referring to the fact that most of the reductions were happening before the War On Poverty was implemented. Other then the 1996 cuts there has been no real drop on poverty there can be no substantial drop in poverty which can be attributed to the War on Poverty. You posted two graphics which illustrate a reduction in Elderly Poverty and Child Poverty.The first graphic demonstrated the fact that odious Social Security benefits and Medicare assistance do drop poverty. I do not think it is fair to say that these are the only mechanisms by which poverty can decrease. We can utilize the Personal Savings Rate to show how Social Security effected human action. To quote Forbes,



The problem here, of course, is that lack of saving precipitates a slower economy. Saving creates more money to invest in capital goods. The Keynesian will usually rebut by claiming that spending makes up the most significant percentage of GDP. The great economist Mark Skousen calculated Gross Domestic Expenditures. He did this as GDP estimates leave out the intermediary steps, goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages that all go into bringing a product to market.

To quote his findings,



This is the principle of Say's Law a law which is repeatedly misunderstood by Keynesians. Wealth is created from production, not consumption. Thus the decrease and savings drastically affect domestical economic flourishing. This, of course, does not mention the effect of the Social Security Tax. The economist Andrew Biggs ran the numbers on poverty without the Social Security Tax and actual social security,



This is imperative as it demonstrates why the working-age American poverty rate has been relatively stagnant ever since the War On Poverty began.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VFNwpHzvvh4/Wj0-qO56YXI/AAAAAAAAEDw/FNrDm5Byg4sEgX7ymOrFnXzby91EoAPiQCL0BGAYYCw/h493/2017-12-22.png

Biggs continued the analysis and applied it to the entire populous,



He also discusses the repercussions of the change in policy,



These results are astounding. The elimination of the Social Security Tax creates a far greater boost in income the EITC. While I have more to say on this topic, I will save it for future responses. The second graphic expounds upon the reduction in child poverty. This graph merely proves my point. It indicates that the policies put in place by the government have failed in creating positive behavior. The only reason why so many citizens are not impoverished is due to government handouts. Self-sufficiency is a dying art. Here is a great podcast which discusses the culture which welfare inculcates: https://tomwoods.com/ep-644-how-not-to-help-the-worlds-poor/ The second thing which your graph indicates is the success in the welfare reforms of 1996 in reducing child poverty. This assists my argument.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UfLrRPnLrKg/Wjrv5ZGleCI/AAAAAAAAEC0/6u31RthjNLMIGnpe9V5qz77GKRlpJt84ACL0BGAYYCw/h548/2017-12-20.png

All of the way until 1996, child poverty was higher then it was when these programs were first established. If you were correct, then poverty should have increased after the reforms. The reforms replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. We can see the decrease in welfare receipts to single mothers. The peak year of welfare receipts was 1976. During that year, 71% of single mothers received AFDC benefits.



Here is a graph which corroborates these claims.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9vVT_wHhDTY/WjtIO28ySsI/AAAAAAAAEDE/wugU29Bzhx8GjUNhqDKughuFt0WEXEOjwCL0BGAYYCw/h546/2017-12-20.png

To quote the Harvard Economist Scott Winship,



But I would still it is disingenuous to place the majority of said boost on EITC expansion. Most states had switched a federal waiver program which was created to create more work and greater independence. Another indicator that '96 welfare reforms are responsible for the decrease in Welfare Receipts is the unmarried mother unemployment rate.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-BUDcr9qi3ks/WjtNXekJflI/AAAAAAAAEDU/tL8_pBPKLl8sezlT2CPpXON-H3Ink_kPwCL0BGAYYCw/h382/2017-12-20.png

So, while it would be foolish to say that the expansion in Earned Income Tax Credit does not affect child poverty, I think the success falls more resoundingly on the 1996 reforms. You are probably wondering, why I spent so much time analyzing these cuts. The main reason is that cutting welfare is the best way to eliminate child poverty and single motherhood. Lazybones would like you to believe the 1996 cuts weren't cuts at all. Let's detail exactly what the bill did.

DarthSkywalker0
This act was a welfare cut plain and simple. You may agree with the areas cut inside of the bill, but it does demonstrate that when you stop subsidizing lousy behavior, good results manifest. It's unfortunate that so many of these reforms were written over later on. The bill did increase child care, but most of the drop in child poverty is attributable to the increase in single mother employment. (More on this coming up) Why have I wasted my time showing evidence welfare cuts effect on single motherhood? There was a 14-month bipartisan study conducted by the Brookings Institute in conjunction with the AEI that looked into the causes of poverty. In this study, they heavily relied on the scholarly work of Bell Sawhill. She is the expert on child poverty at the left-wing Brookings Institute.



Wow. After reading this quote, I wanted to figure how badly the social structure had been affected by these programs.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s8D3yP0HmJg/Wj1BcCrOkPI/AAAAAAAAED8/jg0RDxGv_XADLGD9u13gPQtlRqhcSazIQCL0BGAYYCw/h455/2017-12-22.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-L17kiCMOkno/Wj1BdiqtwdI/AAAAAAAAEEI/N2aDNdb0VzoOJvsWgkWo2FAzsh21s6e0ACL0BGAYYCw/h730/2017-12-22.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--bbLqDCFHfI/Wj1BfkqMzlI/AAAAAAAAEEI/cNWo45hTfH8cOHo1v0QQZnJ96MmRBVTQgCL0BGAYYCw/h730/2017-12-22.jpg

The casual reader still may be confused. I have proved correlation and some causation, but perhaps they are still confused how welfare policies affect the social fabric. The programs that exist inside of welfare encourage single motherhood. To quote Heritage(you used cbpp, I can use Heritage).



So, to conclude on child poverty. While welfare has decreased child poverty in some respect, the adverse effects on the social fabric has wholly counteracted this positive. Overall, welfare programs have had a negative impact on self-sufficiency and child poverty, due to their corrosive marriage-killing effects. Lazybones now tells me the numbers of all of those lifted out of poverty due to social programs.

DarthSkywalker0

DarthSkywalker0
Of course, I would never expect poverty to fall so sharply, mainly due to inflation, it does speak volumes. I, expect, you are going to counter be explanation the wage-productivity gap, but I will address that down below. To conclude, it is disingenuous to tout the CBPP's graph as evidence of the War on Poverty's success. It does not include all of the taxes which welfare levies on the populous and the negative social effects which have drastic effects on poverty. Now, Lazybones explains that the welfare reforms were not cuts.



I have already addressed all of these points in the post above, so I will simply reiterate the findings. The 1996 Welfare Reforms were cuts by definition. The welfare reform did not expand the EITC, that happened in 1993. It did, however, extend the CTC. The ladder out of poverty was due to the spending cuts and the return to some of the old social norms. Alright, on to the next point.

Originally posted by lazybones
Well, if we want to assess the effect that welfare payments are having on poverty, then it makes sense to include them in our figures. And when we do, the results are quite stunning. And although I accept that non-welfare earnings have not been rising to the same degree, this can be explained by wages lagging severely behind productivity and inflation increases. In that way, welfare is an essential fortification of people's incomes against these negative trends.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/1-6-14pov-s1-f6.png

I'll start off with the simple points. The inclusion of the benefits depends on the context of the discussion. I was pointing out that welfare has not changed behavior in a positive light. I have, amply, covered this above. The wage-productivity gap is an economic myth. James Sherk did an excellent job addressing this concern, I will report his findings. There are three errors which the wage-productivity charts possess.



If we correct for those errors, the entire gap goes away. Before, I show the data I want to explain how this whole myth makes no sense in theory. If I pay a worker lower this his productivity dictates, another firm will hire him. It makes no economic sense to underpay workers as long as there is competition. This is why 95% of workers are paid above the minimum wage.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vAtP_fKfkko/Wj1Vo-eJzQI/AAAAAAAAEEk/zXSTXhcFMpQ0UF3-GAiWir2mN1TcEkW4gCL0BGAYYCw/h578/2017-12-22.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-F_905A-Ugz4/Wj1WIY4s81I/AAAAAAAAEEs/kL-gRSIiv44NFwzlY0z4lHSDhnXPmXu7ACL0BGAYYCw/h836/2017-12-22.jpg

The chart I am sure you are referring too is the one generated by the EPI.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-n-TKctFpMG8/Wj1WgQ0vlZI/AAAAAAAAEE0/u2hf4ubQ_4gwF0x1Tsy0v3kCPMp9F0sQQCL0BGAYYCw/h1592/2017-12-22.png

Sherk replicated the EPI's methodology for the non-farm business sector.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-47U7XWKALNg/Wj1W-YSLOjI/AAAAAAAAEE8/Wx90mT6cVRUjtUpeRDxABodGEm_4He_FwCL0BGAYYCw/h513/2017-12-22.jpg

Sherk notes the problems with this analysis,



The notion of the wage productivity-gap is widely rejected in the academic field.



As mentioned above, one of the main reasons that studies show this gap is due to control groups used and the methodology of compensation.



Sherk goes way deeper into this subject: http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/workers-compensation-growing-along-productivity But this all that is necessary for this post. Moving on.

DarthSkywalker0
The only economic return is giving people money. To quote Lao Tzu,



I have addressed all of the points in this post above. Moving on.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XpBVgA5SZy0/Wj1aCMRUiKI/AAAAAAAAEFM/-7WRwD8t74Y2rB33JjsoUe0A0MHWQWlRACL0BGAYYCw/h199/2017-12-22.png

This is another economic myth. I have already addressed the fact that GDP does not include investment, but there are still more flaws to uncover. If you have taken any introductory macro class you know the formula for GDP.

GDP = C + I + G + NX,

C and I are consumption and private investment. G is government spending and NX is net expenditures. Even if we dismiss all of the difficulties that go into finding these figures it is still just accounting jargon, not actual economic theory. An increase in G is going to increase GDP, ceteris paribus. This issue here is that the argument rests on ceteris paribus. To quote the Austrian economist Bob Murphy,



Even if we assume that the decrease in G does not raise GDP, that still does not mean we should advocate government spending. 10 million dollars spent by a politician are less effective than 10 million dollars spent in the market. If the Keynesian multiplier was accurate, then the Sequester would have much more dire consequences. To quote Murphy,




I can go way deeper into the myth of the Keynesian multiplier, but I'll just link this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixvhQAIiinI

Lazybones posts two more graphics which essentially reiterate the points he makes above. No need to make this post longer then it already is. Lazybones then tries to refute my example of the free market decreasing poverty.



Point 1: The way we measure poverty has changed but it still indicates a decrease in impoverished citizens and the way we measure real income has not really changed at all. The decline of marriage rests on the shoulders of welfare.

Point 2: This is obviously not true as addressed above.

Point 3: The economic boom of WW2 is another economic myth perpetuated by the neocons. Here is a video which details this myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71tPBjrTeJU



As I have said repeatedly, I do not deny that welfare helps poverty. I just do no think i is the best method to achieve these results. Well, that concludes my counters now, I will spend some time to respond to some common objections/questions.

Question/objection 1: Well, maybe you are right that welfare negatively effects the social fabric, why not just reform welfare rather than abolish it outright?
There is this wonderful article that details the spending reasons: https://fee.org/articles/the-welfare-state-needs-abolition-not-reform/ But spending is not the only reason we should eliminate welfare. The issue for me is the fact that welfare is nigh impossible to cut because people have become attached the myriad benefits meaningfully. Perhaps the most significant incentive welfare programs provide is the income which one receives on welfare juxtaposed to the income received in the job market. As of 2013, Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour. These benefits are consistently increasing which of course explains the greater number of enrollees. In 11 states, welfare pays more than the average pretax first-year wage for a teacher. In 39 states it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the three most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer. If you have that many benefits, it is challenging to take that away from people. Any reform will just be compounded by complaints which will entail future boosts in interests.

Question/Objection 2: How will welfare be provided with the welfare state?

I'll just link two articles which address this point as this post is already way too long.

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/richard-ebeling-a-world-without-the-welfare-state/

https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

That is about it. This post was really fun for me, feel free to plagiarize.

Flyattractor
Well that was boring.

DarthSkywalker0
I want to make one correction: I used the wrong child poverty graph in the first post. Here is the correct one:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-paJOvWA1rnQ/Wj10Y3Qq5oI/AAAAAAAAEFw/tCSYgaO8-gsWtrY7s5iQZQbJIykSMx0rACL0BGAYYCw/h521/2017-12-22.jpg

lazybones
Christ, you've given me a lot to respond to. Not sure if I'll be able to get back until after Christmas, but I'll see what happens . Alhough just one quick thing: you address the productivity vs wage trend quite well, but what about wages vs inflation? Inflation in many years has outpaced wage growth, thus shredding many increases. Thus, by drastically reducing or abolishing welfare, you would leave many individuals at the mercy of wage increases always staying above inflation, which they haven't been doing.

And I'm not sure me using the CBPP warrants the use of the Heritage Foundation, who notoriously claimed that the Bush tax cuts would near-eliminate the national debt. Haven't heard anything even comparably crazy to that from the CBPP.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by lazybones
Christ, you've given me a lot to respond to. Not sure if I'll be able to get back until after Christmas, but I'll see what happens . Alhough just one quick thing: you address the productivity vs wage trend quite well, but what about wages vs inflation? Inflation in many years has outpaced wage growth, thus shredding many increases. Thus, by drastically reducing or abolishing welfare, you would leave many individuals at the mercy of wage increases always staying above inflation, which they haven't been doing.

And I'm not sure me using the CBPP warrants the use of the Heritage Foundation, who notoriously claimed that the Bush tax cuts would near-eliminate the national debt. Haven't heard anything even comparably crazy to that from the CBPP.

You could just submit that the welfare state sucks. As far as inflation goes, I am inclined to agree with you. The issue then presides with the FED. I never used anything egregious from Heritage, and I vetted the sources as well. Also the graphs I did use the account for inflation. I agree money is non-neutral, but the markets do catch up.

Surtur
I just can't get over the Tiny Tim thing lol. They literally say Tiny Tim. Lunatics.

A Christmas Carol is about a PRIVATE citizen donating to charity lol. It is not about the government f*cking over dying children. I'm shocked they didn't have a blown up picture in the background of Jimmy Kimmel holding his baby while crying, just to sell it even more.

Surtur

Surtur
"It's all just rational with Bernie, with Trump it's not" - Unnamed Genius

"I miss Bernie now more than ever" -Unnamed Genius

lazybones
Pretty misleading as the guy only read out the very best provisions and left all the trashy bits out. Like how the chained CPI measure will increase middle class taxes over time, and how the personal tax breaks will expire in 8 years while the corporate cuts stay. And it's not surprising that liberals would react positively to the mentioned provisions as some (child tax credit expansion) were proposed by liberal politicians like Clinton before.and lifted by the GOP to make this plan sound rosy. If the nasty parts were included, then it'd sound like a distinctly Republican plan.

Surtur
Originally posted by lazybones
Pretty misleading as the guy only read out the very best provisions and left all the trashy bits out. Like how the chained CPI measure will increase middle class taxes over time, and how the personal tax breaks will expire in 8 years while the corporate cuts stay. And it's not surprising that liberals would react positively to the mentioned provisions as some (child tax credit expansion) were proposed by liberal politicians like Clinton before.and lifted by the GOP to make this plan sound rosy. If the nasty parts were included, then it'd sound like a distinctly Republican plan.

And yet, they seem to know nothing about a tax plan they hate, until another name is put on it lol. It's deeply sad.

And how is it any more or less misleading than the media who only talk about the nasty bits? I'd love for your response to this question to be "Surtur, it is indeed not any more or less misleading".

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by lazybones
Pretty misleading as the guy only read out the very best provisions and left all the trashy bits out. Like how the chained CPI measure will increase middle class taxes over time, and how the personal tax breaks will expire in 8 years while the corporate cuts stay. And it's not surprising that liberals would react positively to the mentioned provisions as some (child tax credit expansion) were proposed by liberal politicians like Clinton before.and lifted by the GOP to make this plan sound rosy. If the nasty parts were included, then it'd sound like a distinctly Republican plan.

This is true. thumb up

Surtur
Like I said, the media misleads in the opposite direction. IMO it'd be super duper sweet if nobody mislead anyone.

Flyattractor
I do like how Robbie pretty much stated that the Democrats pretty much make up their Laws on the standings of Fear, Hate ,and Jealousy.

dadudemon

Surtur

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
And yet, they seem to know nothing about a tax plan they hate, until another name is put on it lol. It's deeply sad.

Except that the tax plan they were presented with wasn't the republican tax plan, only part of it. So you don't have a point.
Originally posted by Surtur
And how is it any more or less misleading than the media who only talk about the nasty bits? I'd love for your response to this question to be "Surtur, it is indeed not any more or less misleading".
Blatantly not true. Every single provision listed inthe video has been mentioned and was included in virtually every main stream media outlet's overview of the bill.

Your deflection is both based on imagination. Maybe if you bothered to read past headlines, you'd stop misrepresenting what the media outlets you criticize say.

Surtur
But they had no clue of ANY of the details obviously lol, try again.

And yes, the media is doing the opposite, acting like this is the end of the world. It's not. It's not the best thing ever, nor is it the worst thing ever, period.

Emperordmb

Emperordmb

Surtur

Flyattractor
If only we could get that lucky.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur] But they had no clue of ANY of the details obviously lol, try again.
Please substantiate this claim that they had no clue about anything in the tax bill? You can't because aside from most of the interviewees not being quizzed for their knowledge of the bill's specifics, you also have no idea how many people were interviewed overall, and just how many of those people have responses similar to those interviewed.

Of course all of this is just a deflection from the main point in the post you originally responded to:

The source you cited tried to potray a group of people as stupid based on what a chest picked handful of them said regarding a portionof the plan.

It's rather hypocritical for someone who doesn't trust media for their misleading narratives to prop up media that blatantly misrepresents what a group of people say.

Your quest to call out hypocrisy is likely best started with yourself.
Do tell Surt, which part of my post was this supposed to address? Please do be specific and quote me. Or are we deflecting again? Do be specific. Which media source specifically called it the end of the world? Something doesn't have to be the end of the world to deserve heavy criticism. Not that you'd actually be able to determine how heavily the tax bill is being criticized since you only read headlines. Surt logic: Antifa is neither the worst thing in the world or the best thing in the world. Hence news that gives Antifa lopsidedly negative coverage is fake news.

Surtur
Holy shit, are you retarded? They do not act like they are being told things they already know were in the tax bill. If they knew they were in the tax bill they would have known it wasn't Bernies plan.

And you said it's blatantly not true the media isn't doing the opposite, but they are IMO.

And I was using hyperbole, they are acting like this is the end of the world. Are you saying you truly didn't get that?

Your Antifa example makes no sense. Try harder. I never said negative coverage is fake news lol. I said people are getting hysterical. We had people protesting this saying they were going to die over this.

And btw the quoting system here doesn't always work. You should know that by now.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>