Dameon Farrow
Superstar
In theory there is no reason it shouldn't benefit any and everybody.
In practice? History tells quite a tale.
In practice? History tells quite a tale.
Can lowering taxes actually stimulate growth?
- Thread starter Secure Da Bag
- Start date
Jhoon
Spontaneous Mishaps and Hijinks
Some people can spend $1 million daily for over 200 years.
No. Next question.
Unless people are being taxed at unbelievable rates, it's always a net loss. We've proven it with Reagan and Bush and we're about to prove it again with Trump. But, people are going to keep pitching this horseshyt because the end game is this:
1. Con people that tax cuts are a way to generate revenue
2. Cut taxes; mostly on the rich people who paid off politicians to push the idea
3. When government coffers dry up, cry poverty and cut social spending
4. SMALLER GOVERNMENT!
It's never about sound economic policy. It's about cutting taxes on the rich and large businesses. Yeah, the rest of us get peanuts but we're not the ones the tax cuts are targeting.
1. Con people that tax cuts are a way to generate revenue
2. Cut taxes; mostly on the rich people who paid off politicians to push the idea
3. When government coffers dry up, cry poverty and cut social spending
4. SMALLER GOVERNMENT!
It's never about sound economic policy. It's about cutting taxes on the rich and large businesses. Yeah, the rest of us get peanuts but we're not the ones the tax cuts are targeting.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
$1 million * 365.25 * 200 dollars? IE. $73,050,000,000...
Make a nikka wanna rob everybody
The Fukin Prophecy
RIP Champ
No
Been tried and test and has ALWAYS resulted in a net loss...
George Bush Sr put it best, "Reaganomics" aka trickle down economics is voodoo economics...
Been tried and test and has ALWAYS resulted in a net loss...
George Bush Sr put it best, "Reaganomics" aka trickle down economics is voodoo economics...
DonKnock
KPJ Gonna Save Us
Folks arguing one or the other are falling into a false dichotomy.
This is a question of relativity. The Laffer curve, even though the "creator" is a supply side republican shill, is valid.
At some point it becomes detrimental to lower taxes to a certain point that causes public services and public investment to suffer. See Kansas and Oklahoma. This is the direction current republicans wish to trend towards. In this context, its bad policy.
However, having way too high tax rates can discourage private industry from growing.
So in short: Depends.
In the US currently, tax cut for the wealthy and further cuts to education, infrastructure, and pithy tax cuts for the middle and lower classes will not stimulate growth given the underlying issues and growing wealth gap since Reagan first started this movement. Tax cuts for the middle class and lower classes would be preferred since as people have already said, they tend to spend additional monies since they usually have needs to be fulfilled. When you rich, you tend to just move a lot of money around and not spend it because all your basic needs and enough of your luxuries are taken care of. The latter does not create economic growth because it does not create a demand that can be fulfilled by a supply.
This isn't even taking into account offshoring, tax evading, tax inverting. It is the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals doing this as well so they're making their taxable income smaller before it even goes into the equation.
The fact that wages have remained flat despite productivity of workers increasing dramatically since 1975 makes this worse.
There will undoubtedly be another economic downturn as a result of the latest tax cuts and the wealth disparity is reaching a threshold where inevitable civil unrest will occur based on historical trends.
People wonder will poor people spend the money saved from taxes . They live check to check . What makes you think they won’t spend it? They needed that extra $15 for gas on Monday and when they don’t get paid till Wednesday.
That’s a weak argument .
I don’t agree with the tax rates , but lowering taxes on the poor is never a bad idea .
That’s a weak argument .
I don’t agree with the tax rates , but lowering taxes on the poor is never a bad idea .
Alpha Male
Spare me your daps
Nobody here wants higher taxes and nobody here wants more money taken out of their check y’all need to stop 
what you really mean is that you want RICH PEOPLE to pay more taxes and subsidize the things that you don’t want to pay for.
what you really mean is that you want RICH PEOPLE to pay more taxes and subsidize the things that you don’t want to pay for.
I wouldn’t mind higher tax if it was for something I care about such as universal healthcare.Nobody here wants higher taxes and nobody here wants more money taken out of their check y’all need to stop
what you really mean is that you want RICH PEOPLE to pay more taxes and subsidize the things that you don’t want to pay for.
I don’t remember which altright guy you are. Are you the one who lives in Canada? If you are, you can’t say anything about the above.
Reverse the Reagan tax cuts. Invest in infrastructure, economy will grow.
Pass a Medicare for All, destroy the Insurance industry and save money for everyone.
Bring back Glass-Steagall. Break up the banks.
Enforce Anti-trust laws and break up monopolies.
Reduce Empire of Bases...
The solutions to America's ills are easy to see.
Pass a Medicare for All, destroy the Insurance industry and save money for everyone.
Bring back Glass-Steagall. Break up the banks.
Enforce Anti-trust laws and break up monopolies.
Reduce Empire of Bases...
The solutions to America's ills are easy to see.
Alpha Male
Spare me your daps
i don't live in canada but guess what their healthcare system sucks too. people wait 10 hours in ER, they go on waiting lists for treatments and procedures. it's a joke.
this guy is a canadian, if you have the time watch this. very eye opening.
if you're okay with paying for healthcare then wouldn't it better if you were able to just purchase your own private policy? why would you RATHER the govt tax you and leave with you fewer options??
Untrue.
The only wait times are elective surgeries not emergency care. Nice try but I’ve already researched this shyt and have actually listened to and watched Canadian doctors explain their system.
Elective surgeries includes nonemergency care such as a hip surgery or something like shoulder surgery. But emergency care is the same as the United States and general care and checkups are actually much easier.
They will admit this is an issue that they wish to fix. But you notice the solutions, if you research, aren’t to deconstruct their whole system and the average Canadian reports more satisfaction with their healthcare than the average American. They are not throw out the baby with the bath water types like most Americans.
The only people who come to the United States from Canada are typically richer patients who have the money to throw around and don’t mind spending the extra money to come to the US on their own volition to get the surgery done quicker.
The private insurance system does not work because paying for people’s healthcare is not a money making venture. So private insurers make a profit via charging exhorbantly high price for good coverage and also use administrative procedure (which makes up most of their overhead and cost) to DENY claims when possible. If not that, put doctors through the wringer to try and deny them pay whenever possible. Because their goal isn’t care it’s money.
So no, I rather have a public system whether it’s a single payer, which kills the health insurance Middle man scam, or a public option that forces private companies to compete with a public healthcare program.
Choice is often used as an euphemism in his debate. The real choice they are talking about is for insurers to give you useless cheap plans or robust plans that cost an arm and leg. Yeah you have a choice for a cheap useless plan but when you get in an accident or come down with a disease through no fault of your own it’s useless.
I rather everyone have cheaper robust care and public healthcare historically is cheaper everywhere it’s inplemented relatively speaking.
Alpha Male
Spare me your daps
if you want low cost, high quality plans... you need competition in the marketplace.
Patients in life threatening health situations are seen immediately.
Competition doesn't necessarily mean lower pricing, especially if you are already at risk.