Why do conservatives think cutting taxes on the rich will decrease the debt?

Why do conservatives think cutting taxes on the rich will decrease the debt?

Other urls found in this thread:

my.mixtape.moe/jhuchx.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>that slutshaming in panel 2
wew lad
Who knew Horsey was so problematic?

>implying I give a shit about decreasing the national debt

I just want my taxes cut. stay mad poorfag cuck, go move to canada if you want to live in a socialist country.

The first two are personal choices. The deficit doesn't have to rely on stealing from the rich.

He could of easily said

>I want to be a fiscal conservative. That is why I want to increase the military budget another 50 billion"

Would of made sense and been true. Horsey's been slaking

If you reduce taxes and cut spending you can reduce or eliminate the deficit and not add to the debt. Also debt is not the same thing as deficit.

Furthermore Horsey is a fucking retard like most liberals; the left's approach to the budget is essentially like someone saying: "I went broke and maxed out all my credit cards by irresponsibly buying stupid shit I don't need and making bad investments; you need to extend my credit so that I can max it out again buying more stupid shit and making more bad investments. Also if you don't agree to my demands you are a greedy racist."

The top percent of Americans includes many small business owners, the success of whom is essential for a healthy economy.

Reminder that "trickle down" economics and the idea that allowing wealth to concentrate in the hands of the few in hopes that it will improve the lives of the poor has never been proven to work in reality.

Reminder that this way of thinking is a liberal's attempt to understand conservative policies by filtering them through their own worldview. Most conservatives regardless of personal income don't consider it the government's responsibility to "help" the poor, but to ensure that people have the liberty to succeed or fail on their own merit and can keep as much of the fruits of their own labor as possible.

reminder that trickle down is a strawman

The debt will not reduce until the government decides to act against it, but that involves diminishing the government itself. It's like a fatass that wants to lose weight but also refuses to exercise and continues eating fast food 5 times a day.

>why do leftists think throwing money at problems is going to solve them?
see what I'm doing?

Yes, that's why more rich people should get tax cuts. Good goy, now you understood the system. Work until you die like a slave. If you don't become a slaveowner one day it's your own fault.

Taxes and regulations are inherently anti-competitive.

Competition reduces prices and promotes innovation.

Common people benefit from those lower prices and innovations.

Trickle down may or may not be a myth, but for certain, taxing capital is (dare I say) problematic because it's the very lifeblood of the economy, funding businesses and thus jobs.

A really poorly illustrated point and hilarious that his audience is so politically illiterate that he has to throw a big button on the people theyre supposed to ridicule to identify them.

Still think wealth inequality is getting to obscene levels and low wage workers losing around 1/5 of their paychecks to taxes is horseshit when the 1% cant even feel the sting of taxes to their lifestyle. But thats more of a Jewish problem.

So why arent their ever tax cuts for the lower or middle classes of this magnitude?

Because they don't pay that much in the first place.

>everyone who isn't a billionaire is poor and miserable
Speak for yourself, faggot. I highly doubt I'll ever be a billionaire, or a """""slave owner""""" as you put it, but I earn a decent living and what I have belongs to me. I know this concept is almost impossible for someone like you to grasp, but I take pride in the work I do and value my accomplishments.

If you want to spend your life as a miserable little defeatist shit, scraping at burger grease somewhere for minimum wage and blaming your shit life on the wealthy, have fun. Just keep your hands the fuck out of my pockets.

A. There is no such thing as trickle down economics.

B. Wealth will concentrate in the hands of a few regardless of taxation policies. California is a very progressive state with regard to taxation, but it has the sharpest wealth disparity of any state.

Because in our current tax system we tax income- and then we tax how people spend that income (look at how capital gains and business taxes work). The way that the Democrats frame tax breaks make it sound like the Republicans are trying to make it easier for the rich to dodge taxes, but let me break it down in detail here:

>Gov't charges all citizens an income tax that you can't dodge, credits exist to reward lower-middle class to poor people for certain behaviors, these are phased out as you become more solidly middle class and beyond
>Tax brackets are already brutal on the federal level to personal income (25% tax bracket carries from 40,000 in taxable income all the way to 100,000 for single filers)
>Monetary ventures reported on a Schedule D modifies a taxpayer's income tax rate (on top of including a capital gains tax) which punishes people for using their after-tax dollars and investing it into things such as a mutual fund or other investments (which are way more frequently used by middle class individuals)
>Business tax codes encourage all businesses big and small to take as much of their operating revenue as possible and convert it into relatively illiquid reinvestments into their companies to retain as much of the money that they have made as possible (because capital investments, for example, can allow you to report a loss or very small amounts of business profit even if you made billions in revenue potentially)

So most of the tax cuts that get talked about actually ease up the standards on middling Americans who are working hard to try and become rich, as opposed to already wealthy Americans, because instead of just taxing income on a flat basis, we tax people based on the way they use income, and hurt them for trying to be smart with their money. Think about this.

Wealth inequality is at obscene levels because of mass immigration since 1970. Huge numbers of legal and illegal people make the problem far larger than it had to be.

Nevertheless, wealth inequality is the natural outcome of any property system. I think this is the real reason that Glubb found that dynasties only last 250 years. Ten generations is enough time to concentrate property in the hands of a few of the original families while newcomers have less and less. At the end of the dynasty the wealth of the elite will either be confiscated by a new dynasty and portioned out to their followers or else destroyed in the transition and power struggle.

See my explanation of how the American tax code works before you make a presumptious statement about why we fight for tax cuts

I'm going to file a god damn tax return and show you what it's like to do a Schedule D, you massive turbonigger

...

see
Also, in general I'm in favor of reducing taxes for everyone as much as possible. Reducing them for the wealthy arguably frees up capital for investment and creates jobs, but I somewhat agree that the complex tax code and various loopholes is largely the result of companies paying for government favors and the mess should be cleaned up.

Short term I basically am in favor of what Trump and other Republicans say they want to do, which is to reduce the number of tax brackets to three and simplify the tax code by eliminating a lot of deductions and loopholes. I think people making under $40,000 will pay around 12% income tax and people making $100k and up would pay 33% under this plan which isn't terrible; personally I think people making less than $25,000 shouldn't pay taxes at all but it's definitely a start.

>I wanted to reduce traffic
>that's why I closed off some streets
And it can work. In an adult's world, the solution is not always obvious or intuitive

Wealth inequality is also getting worse because of progressive policy like Dodd-Frank that's choking out well run small corporations. The ultimate effect this law has had is that it makes compliance on how to do an IPO so much harder for companies that it costs a great deal of resources that are a challenge for everyone except the largest corporations, dare I say it, the 1% (of corporations, that is). I'm using that term more to pose a point than provide statistical evidence, but the practical outcome is all the same. Regulations and compliance related to doing an IPO (initial public offering- a company's first issue of stock on the public markets for you illiterates) from Dodd-Frank did immense damage to the IPO market which meant that well run new corporations wouldn't be able to get nearly as much selling their stock, since again, large corporations would have the wherewithal to lowball companies.

Take the case of an actual company in Portland, OR. Swiss Bank valued their stock at $22 a share and believed their IPO would be worth 50 million dollars in 2009. Dodd-Frank passed and now in 2017, this company will be lucky if that same IPO is worth 5 million dollars. The regulations involved with Dodd-Frank have wound up assisting in the consolidation of markets under the banner of the 1% mega-giant corporations, and because people don't understand this, nothing gets done as their financial freedom and ability to rise and do buiness is eroded all around them.

Because these taxes are primarily directed at the middle class. As for lower class people, they generally get tax breaks of about 40-100% of what they owe depending on their circumstances and how responsibly they behaved, right now. Tax revenue is next to nothign from people below the 25% income tax bracket.

There's nothing wrong with higher taxes on the rich, as long as the increased revenue then goes to improve the lives of productive people. The economic history of the wprld has demonstrated that the wider the gap between the richest and the poorest grows, the worse society is. Just look at the Third World for an excellent example of where a huge rich-poor wealth gap gets you.

The problem is that we continue to import the poor, while taxing the productive to fund programs that exclusively benefit the rich and the poor -- robbing the productive to feed rentiers and useless people. Boondoggle defense contracts that serve to enrich stockholders in defense companies at the cost of effective national defense serve to enrich rentiers. Handouts to newly-arrived, useless Third World poor serve to encourage more useless Third World poor (in the hope that they will achieve the minimum level of usefulness to compete against our poor for jobs, keeping entry-level wages low).

Both sides are right. The rich should pay more, but the government spends money in a way that hurts productive citizens. Until the government spends in the best interest of its citizens, taxation should be at a minimum.

We get the worst of both worlds -- high taxation for awful spending.

I would argue that if we based our government's tax systems exclusively on income and didn't classify certain after-income behaviors such as dividends and capital gains (investments), you would see more people enrich themselves with these services, and more importantly, you would see larger businesses producing much more wealth because they wouldn't be so focused on stashing away all their value in illiquid assets, which means substantially the same or more tax revenue despite a lower rate. Taxes aren't a static scorecard where the higher rates garner higher taxes.

>#2

thank you for not being a retard and understanding basic economics

I have more experience on these topics than your average joe Sup Forums poster. I have work in finance, taxes, and I major in economics and real estate.

True. The ability to hide income in assets is pretty much the biggest fuckover for ordinary people in the tax code.

That's how Warren Buffett can be worth tens of billions, but declare a few million a year in income for tax purposes -- if anyone actually believes the Sage of Omaha is getting a >1% rate of return on his investments, that person is a victim.

And it's why such people are so noisily in favor for income tax increases, because they are stashing 99.9% of their gains in assets. Productive people pay income taxes, the super-rich hide their income in asset purchases. The tax code is designed for this.

That's why we used to have luxury taxes and wealth taxes.

>thinking the rich didn't steal any of their shit themselves

>Why do conservatives think cutting taxes on the rich will decrease the debt?

Rich, informed, businessmen style conservatives don't believe it, but benefit from it.

Poor-ass, ignorant, blue collar redneck hicks believe snake oil and/or Jesus cures all ailments

Lower taxes by percentage = higher economic activity = higher tax revenue

It doesn't actually work though, but that's the myth. You repay debt with higher taxes and lower spending ideally trying to maintain the debt at around the same size while having the economy outgrow it.

My point is that by lowering taxes you allow for normal ethical corporations small and large to create more taxable income under a flat tax and thus revenue does not change much. If all we did was abolish all non-personal income taxes, and have everyone report their income on the same line on a 1040, people would create more wealth while revenue wouldn't take a god damn hit for the gov't.

Please read the musings of a guy who works in taxes before you regurgitate the things your college professor and the MSM taught you to say

For demonstration's sake I'm still working on providing a 1040 with Schedule D for demonstration to those of you who need to see a practical example. Our subject will have made 69550 dollars in gross income, and have 55950 dollars in taxable income. These things take some time from home, but I'll get it done here.

>Hi I'm faggot OP and I've never heard of "starve the beast"

I adjusted a few numbers really slightly, but basically I was able to determine that a guy with 56,500 dollars in taxable gross income would get an additional 165 dollars added to his tax if he got paid a dividend of 1100 dollars thanks to the capital gains tax. The 1100 dollars are also counted as part of his adusted gross income, which is counted from to determine the taxpayer's taxable income, so 1100 dollars in this guy's income are being taxed by two separate sources despite being an average joe. This is a really light case but it still sucks ass to be the taxpayer here. I thought about including the Schedule D but I figured it would probably be a waste of time since nobody here probably cares.

my.mixtape.moe/jhuchx.pdf

Woops, here's the actual form.

Honestly if a situation like that ever arose I would be fine with busting up those big monopolies and giving certain people from those companies a lifetime credit card or something. They basically already have it with the money they make from those positions but we can break up and redistribute in a non murderous, understanding way and start fresh. Re-introduce some of that money that they would have hoarded otherwise. Sell off parts of the company to fresh new people for a new cycle.

Would anyone here support the idea of implementing a large land value tax and using the income to replace existing more economically distorting forms of taxation.