tax cuts cause deficits

More pie in the sky.


Our neighbor Kansas suffered under the same low tax more jobs BS.

Originally Posted by bamscram

Before the tax cuts, wheat was 8$/bushel, corn was 8$/bushel, oil was +$100/barrel. Those commodities are essentially half of that now.

While the chart shows non-farm income, it includes the farm support infrastructure. There are few states that could withstand that sort of calamity, and still be ticking with positive wage growth, very low unemployment, and an exceptional infrastructure.

Kansas' unemployment rate is as low as it can get. If someone in Kansas says they can't find a job, they are disabled, or lying. The one group of people in kansas who are suffering are parasites. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

You are an idiot, and likely a parasite. IJS.

Kehaar

You are an idiot, and likely a parasite. IJS.

Kehaar Originally Posted by kehaar

A displaced dog.



Did someone say "Kansas"?

All these debates are politicians employing "shiny argument distractions" to disguise the simply fact that corporate America doesn't pay it's fair share in taxes. All you need to know is that corporate and government spending in this country amount to about 2/3 of the total G.D.P of the USA and spending from individuals makes up the other 1/3. The problem is that, in terms of total dollars paid, individuals pay 5 times in taxes what corporate America pays yet we represent just 1/3 of the economy. These are government figures, but I can't find the link at this time. Corporate America doesn't not need their top bracket cut from 35% to 20%. Keep the current deductions they have in place and they will basically pay NOTHING in taxes. The chart in the article link below doesn't perfectly align with numbers I've seen from other government sources, but you can see the problem without having to squint! It's not going to happen, but if we had a flat tax system when every individual AND CORPORATION paid 20-25% of their top line income we would have a shot at a balanced budget. As we stand now Democrats represent minorities and the poor. Republicans represent Corporate America, and the middle class is left with the majority of the tax burden and without representation.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...nues-come-from

All these debates are politicians employing "shiny argument distractions" to disguise the simply fact that corporate America doesn't pay it's fair share in taxes. All you need to know is that corporate and government spending in this country amount to about 2/3 of the total G.D.P of the USA and spending from individuals makes up the other 1/3. The problem is that, in terms of total dollars paid, individuals pay 5 times in taxes what corporate America pays yet we represent just 1/3 of the economy. These are government figures, but I can't find the link at this time. Corporate America doesn't not need their top bracket cut from 35% to 20%. Keep the current deductions they have in place and they will basically pay NOTHING in taxes. The chart in the article link below doesn't perfectly align with numbers I've seen from other government sources, but you can see the problem without having to squint! It's not going to happen, but if we had a flat tax system when every individual AND CORPORATION paid 20-25% of their top line income we would have a shot at a balanced budget. As we stand now Democrats represent minorities and the poor. Republicans represent Corporate America, and the middle class is left with the majority of the tax burden and without representation.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...nues-come-from Originally Posted by jd75019

What you are saying is that there ought to be a 20% tax on every recorded transaction in the US. That is a sales tax, and, truly, one of the dumbest proposals I have heard yet. Have you thought about the consequences of that?

I challenge you to look up an oil company's yearly report, and determine the total total revenue, total taxes, and their net income after taxes. If you aren't a piggish thug, you will report the results back here. The facts will clearly shock you.

If your are a piggish thug, you will just skulk away.

kehaar.

Explanation: Pissing off money aka spending more than being brought in.

After all .. it wasn't "his" money! Originally Posted by LexusLover

This for the win. We spend way to much, imo mostly on UN-NEEDED depts (how many do we need for security.. we got the FBI, CIA< DHS, NSA, NIS, BAFTA, BP.) AND on all sorts of entitlements, which are RIFE with fraud and abuse..

At some point you have made enough money Originally Posted by The2Dogs

And who gets to decide 'what is enough money someone can make'? What is enough? 200k/yr? 500k/yr?

The more money brought in ...the more money "they" spend.

As long as people scream murder every time there is reduction of the increase of spending we will be fucked forever. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Reduce spending across the board or STFU.... Originally Posted by WTF

As long as ALL entitlements get hit by that exact same cut, i wouldn't mind.. BUT that's the problem, every time someone suggests an 'across the board cut for everything, INEVITABLY we hear the screams about how wrong it is to cut welfare etc..

Why is this still in publication year after year after year... Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Cause until the shitheads in government GET IT INTO thei head all of those wasteful programs need to go, the author of that book WILL KEEP writing it...

All these debates are politicians employing "shiny argument distractions" to disguise the simply fact that corporate America doesn't pay it's fair share in taxes. Originally Posted by jd75019

Hey the liberals favored phrase.
So JD, exactly what do YOU SEE as 'fair share'?
When the top 10% of earners in the country (which corp america makes up a good chunk of) pay over 40% of the total tax burden, how is THAT not 'unfair'? Why should say 500 people pay when millions cause of all the 'tax credits, deductions and the like, pay nothing'?

Before the tax cuts, wheat was 8$/bushel, corn was 8$/bushel, oil was +$100/barrel. Those commodities are essentially half of that now.

While the chart shows non-farm income, it includes the farm support infrastructure. There are few states that could withstand that sort of calamity, and still be ticking with positive wage growth, very low unemployment, and an exceptional infrastructure.

Kansas' unemployment rate is as low as it can get. If someone in Kansas says they can't find a job, they are disabled, or lying. The one group of people in kansas who are suffering are parasites. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

You are an idiot, and likely a parasite. IJS.

Kehaar Originally Posted by kehaar

A displaced dog.



Did someone say "Kansas"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

LMAO, typical lemming and a yap dog.
Yah Kansas was mentioned we sat here and watched it go down the tubes under Brownback.
It is what congress is trumpeting now.

LMAO, typical lemming and a yap dog.
Yah Kansas was mentioned we sat here and watched it go down the tubes under Brownback.
It is what congress is trumpeting now. Originally Posted by bamscram

Down the tubes?

Can you explain?

I'd bet not.

Kehaar......Guess you don't understand the concept of a flat tax. Review the attached link and you'll see that only about 9% of government revenue comes from corporate taxes. Here is another link showing where government revenues are generated. You will see individual income taxes provide the bulk of the revenue the social security taxes (normally split between corporations and workers unless self employed and paying both sides.) As I stated Corporate America doesn't need their top bracket reduced from 35% to 20%. Corporations should pay more in taxes, not less. If you don't like my argument that's fine, but offer an explanation of how our deficit will be reduced with corporations paying less in tax. I'd also be interested in seeing if you can provide an explanation as to this is helpful to citizens of this country.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...ral-government

Down the tubes?

Can you explain?

I'd bet not. Originally Posted by kehaar

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...riment/389874/

http://www.kansascity.com/news/polit...114021098.html

We did not eliminate all the Bush II tax cuts DilbetDumbAss Originally Posted by WTF

Yeah, those Bushie tax cuts really STARVED the federal government of revenue!

Here are the facts:

Federal revenues in 2003 (prior to tax cuts): $1,782 Billion

Federal revenues in 2007 (four years later): $2,568 Billion

Hmmm... looks like the feds saw their "income" grow by 44% over the next 4 years - AFTER cutting taxes!

Anybody here see their income go up by 10% each year (on average)? The federal government did, even after those evil Bushie tax cuts.

Would YOU be able to live comfortably with a 10% pay increase every year?

All you need to know is that corporate and government spending in this country amount to about 2/3 of the total G.D.P of the USA and spending from individuals makes up the other 1/3... These are government figures, but I can't find the link at this time. Originally Posted by jd75019

You can't find the link because your breakdown is wrong. Consumer spending has always been the driver behind 2/3 of our total GDP:

As long as ALL entitlements get hit by that exact same cut, i wouldn't mind.. BUT that's the problem, every time someone suggests an 'across the board cut for everything, INEVITABLY we hear the screams about how wrong it is to cut welfare etc..


? Originally Posted by garhkal

Do not forget Defense....bunch of people cry if you talk about even maintaining present spending. These chickenhawks love them some Defense Spending and want taxes cut on the rich and businesses and for the middle class and poor to pay for it on the backend.

Corporate America doesn't not need their top bracket cut from 35% to 20%. Originally Posted by jd75019

As I stated Corporate America doesn't need their top bracket reduced from 35% to 20%. Corporations should pay more in taxes, not less. Originally Posted by jd75019

Riiight! Let's just keep driving all of that corporate money and investment to lower-taxed foreign countries! That's the ticket to higher growth!



The US has the highest corporate tax rate of any of the 34 OECD countries. That's why close to $3 trillion in corporate earnings are trapped overseas! You may be cool with that, but I sure as hell ain't! I would rather bring that money back home, and make the US competitive with the rest of the 34 OECD nations as an attractive place to invest and expand operations.

Riiight! Let's just keep driving all of that corporate money and investment to lower-taxed foreign countries! That's the ticket to higher growth! We're at $3 trillion and counting... let's make 'em keep all their profits overseas!
Originally Posted by lustylad

And this plan does nothing to encourage them to invest that money in jobs...Jesus , you nitwit.

They buy back stock .

And this plan does nothing to encourage them to invest that money in jobs...Jesus, you nitwit.

They buy back stock. Originally Posted by WTF

You're the fucking nitwit. You mindlessly parrot all of the libtard talking points on economics. If it made sense for companies to buy back stock, they would be doing it already by borrowing at home. They don't need to wait until they repatriate money that is parked overseas. Besides, stock prices are at all-time highs right now. You buy back your own stock when it looks cheap.