Tax cuts are good for the economy to the extent that they reflect a smaller government. If you are gonna make government smaller and government is going to be less of a burden on the economy if government is going to take fewer resources out of the economy freeing those resources up for the private sector. If you're lowering people's taxes because you relieve them of the responsibility of paying for a larger government that is a big positive. Anytime we can take resources out of the government sector and put them back into the private sector those resources will be used more efficiently and more productively and the economy will be better off.
But if we simply cut taxes but allow government to get bigger and bigger that is not good for the economy because we haven't diminished the size of government or the amount of resources it is consuming. All that is happening is the government has to find an alternative source of paying for the resources it is using and if it's not going to collect it through taxes well it's gonna have to borrow it it's gonna have to print it and those other ways of sucking up those resources do more economic damage than what otherwise would have been the case if they had just left taxes alone.
So everybody is wrong in believing that these "tax cuts" are gonna be good for the economy they are not gonna be good for the economy and they're certainly not going to be good for the dollar.
There is no tax cut. Corporate tax cuts are being slashed and the tax burden is being shifted to the middle class. Top US corporations like Apple are already sitting on billions in cash doing nothing with it. The rich will soon dump all of their monies into corporations to get around taxes even more. The US is going to collapse over night because the nogs will move on from robbing and raping for air Jordans to robbing and raping for pieces of bread. The quality of life will decline immensely for all of us super high iq city people who voted Hillary who are forced to live in proximity to nogs.
Good job rural and suburban retards, I hope it was worth it.
Gabriel Perry
wait what?
Why would living standards go down for the middle class because taxes are lowered for the rich. This argument doesn't make sense.
Are you retarded?
Levi White
>Sup Forums economics
Isaac Long
>keynesian economics
Cameron Collins
The corporate tax cuts are being shifted to the middle class you rural and suburban retard.
Ryan Walker
the standard deduction has been doubled from 12000 to 24000, my taxes will go down alot
Oliver Clark
Well let's follow your argument:
1)Lowering taxes causes inflation because more money is chasing the same goods
2)Taxes are lowered at a higher percentage for the wealthy so now their money can chase more of the goods that usually exists. They will then invest that money into things like real estate and buy up a bunch of real estate. This will then cause rents to go up for the middle class, as a percentage of their income.
If you look at the data that's what's been happening. As inequality has gone up the rent has become too damn high.
Jason Bailey
>The corporate tax cuts are being shifted to the middle class I know and that's a bad thing. I was asking why leftists like yourself believe that if the government only lowered taxes on the rich it would fuck over the middle class. Can you explain why you people believe this?
>you rural and suburban retard. Is this the epitome of the leftist "argument"?
Michael James
Rent is going up because of inflation. The fed is pumping money into the housing market which increases the cost of housing and thus rent goes up.
>As inequality has gone up Inequality is a non argument.
If there was zero inflation and instead a natural deflation, rents would be coming down. High rent prices are you people's fault.
Matthew Jones
>Rent is going up because of inflation.
why is rent "inflating" faster than middle-class income is "inflating"
Liam Perry
>why is rent "inflating" faster than middle-class income is "inflating" I told you. The fed is pumping money into the stock market and housing sector. Obviously those prices will go up but wages will not.
We need a free market, especially in currency.
Aiden Foster
Let me repeat the argument again
1)You agree lower taxes causes inflation if it's not followed up with a reduction in the size of the government because more money is chasing the same amount of goods.
2)If you believe in proposition 1 and if you reduce taxes for wealthy people faster than for the middle class, wealthy people can buy more of the things that exists. This means they invest in real estate, causing rents to go up as a percent of middle-class income. For example why is housing much more expensive for ordinary people in Silly Con valley than in other parts of the country. Answer: because the people living there have more money and they use it to buy up housing. This causes rents to go up.
Mason Ward
>The fed is pumping money into the stock market and housing sector.
It's not pumping it directly into the stock market and housing sector, at least not in the USA. It's pumping it into the treasury bond market.
The people who benefit from this then push up the prices of stocks and housing.
Chase Brown
>and if you reduce taxes for wealthy people faster than for the middle class, wealthy people can buy more of the things that exists. Wealthy people will buy more CAPITAL. This capital increases economic production and raises living standards for the poor and middle class. It's the only actual thing that can raise living standards for the poor and middle class. The amount of consumer goods they buy is irrelevant. It's such a small amount and doesn't matter.
>This means they invest in real estate, causing rents to go up as a percent of middle-class income. The real estate bubbles have nothing to do with tax cuts. It's all about federal reserve money creation. Rich people are going to buy expensive houses regardless.
Wyatt Fisher
Holy fuck you guys are so retarded...
>1)Lowering taxes causes inflation because more money is chasing the same goods
No you retard. When taxes are cut, it means LESS money for the government leading to less government spending. So the increase in consumer/investment spending is proportionally decreased by government/welfare spending. It ends up being a wash.
>not going to be good for the dollar.
Take some basic econ. A "weakening" currency is actually GOOD for GDP as it increases export. Why the fuck do you think the Chinese manipulate their currency downwards?
Isaiah Allen
So, the government spending other people's money won't cause inflation, but the people spending the money themselves will. I am amazed that someone with an IQ as low as yours was even able to turn on his parent's computer.
Justin Carter
>It's not pumping it directly into the stock market and housing sector yes it is. the banks get basically trillions of dollars and use it to lower mortgage interest rates and invest in housing, also to invest in the stock market
why do you think the housing market and stock market is so high?
These are things you retards support.
>It's pumping it into the treasury bond market. It's doing that too.
Jacob Diaz
>No you retard. When taxes are cut, it means LESS money for the government leading to less government spending. LMAO you're a retard
The government just prints the money. Government spending doesn't decrease. If we had sound money they would be forced to decrease government spending, but we have central banks now.
>Take some basic econ. A "weakening" currency is actually GOOD for GDP as it increases export. Please fall off a fucking bridge with your keynesian garbage. GDP is a terrible way of measuring economic success. Devaluing currency is TERRIBLE for people in a country, it's good for government and large corporations though. We need a natural deflation.
Jose Powell
>A rising stock market is BAD! >lower mortgage rates hurt the middle class
You gotta be fucking joking me.
Hey retard, what happens when people cant get mortgages? They rent. Which is better for your equity paying rent, or paying for a mortgage?
Austin Myers
I fundamentally agree that tax cuts should be accompanied with spending cuts. Let's start by defunding all welfare programs, please.
Landon Watson
>So, the government spending other people's money won't cause inflation, Yes it will.
>but the people spending the money themselves will. This also will. Unless the government also cuts spending to free up resources back into the private sector.
>I am amazed that someone with an IQ as low as yours was even able to turn on his parent's computer. Why do 12 year old leftists project so hard?
Austin Bell
>No you retard. When taxes are cut, it means LESS money for the government leading to less government spending.
Leaf hasn't heard about deficit spending.
>Rich people are going to buy expensive houses regardless.
They're buying houses they're not even living in just to store their money somewhere. This pushes up housing prices.
>Wealthy people will buy more CAPITAL. This capital increases economic production and raises living standards for the poor and middle class.
If you purchase stuck at an IPO or invest as Venture Capital in a startup, then maybe. If you buy stocks that money is not going towards the business but to previous holders of the stock typically just other investors. All it does is increase is give money to the brokerage or investment bank who facilitated the transaction
"Stanford University compared firms that went public with similar firms that stayed private. His 2014 report, Does Going Public Affect Innovation? found that when companies went public the quality of internal innovation declined and firms experienced both an exodus of skilled inventors and a decline in the productivity of remaining inventors. "
Hunter Clark
>>A rising stock market is BAD! It's terrible if it's the result of central bank money printing. The zimbabwe stock market was the best performing stock market in the world when they had their hyperinflation.
>>lower mortgage rates hurt the middle class LOL Home ownership rates are at an all time low and housing costs are sky high. Especially in Canada. You're a fucking brainwashed shill.
>Hey retard, what happens when people cant get mortgages? They rent. Why was home ownership at a much higher rate when interest rates were higher? Hmm.
David Collins
>They're buying houses they're not even living in just to store their money somewhere. No fucking shit. They can do this because the federal reserve pumps an endless supply of money into them.
>If you buy stocks that money is not going towards the business but to previous holders of the stock typically just other investors. LOL You're wrong. In a free market, businesses are forced to make a profit by actually increasing economic production. In the central bank corporate fascist system we have now(that you support) the central bank pumps money into the stock market so rich people can just leave all of their money in the stock market, make a fuckton of money and not have to actually increase economic production.
Leftists are the biggest supporters of wall street.
Parker Anderson
The government can't print money, only the central banks can, and they're independent and not allowed to finance the government like that. At least that's how it works when it's set up right.
Isaiah Long
almost every central bank just prints money and the government spends it nowadays
The USA and China are perfect examples of this.
Kevin Brown
Wow, I can't believe you outed yourself like that, mr. projecting 12 year old. Too bad your IQ was too low to understand rather obvious sarcasm.
Ryan Evans
>10 year old doesn't even know how to quote people properly lmao
Sebastian Bailey
Has Trump not already started cutting spending?
Christopher Cruz
The central banks base their policies off of three metrics:
GDP Unemployment Inflation
In that order. GDP is the best way to measure economic success unless you're a communist or anrachist retard.
Last time I checked, employment is good for the country. So yes, slow devaluating currency is good. Hence, why China does it and why it's literally beating the US in trade. Stock markets literally correct due to the GDP contraction from high valued currency.
>It's terrible if it's the result of central bank money printing. >The zimbabwe stock market was the best performing stock market in the world when they had their hyperinflation.
Well, what isa good way to measure real health of the economy? OH wait, thats GDP, again.
>Why was home ownership at a much higher rate when interest rates were higher?
Beucase mortgages were given out like candy? Because it was before a big housing crash when anyone could get approved for a loan? Hmmmmmm.
You are legit saying that higher interest rates, which makes loans MORE expensive, somehow means more home ownership. You may be a retard good sir.
Why?
Whether you want to believe it or not, that leads to economic expansion.
Aaron Murphy
>trump >cutting spending
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
He's increasing it more than Obama.
We're almost at 21 trillion national debt.
Easton Howard
>In the central bank corporate fascist system we have now(that you support)
a)The Central banks are a bunch of faggots (I should know) b)You're also a faggot because
>the central bank pumps money into the stock market so rich people can just leave all of their money in the stock market
No they pump money into the government bond market. Now that the people who benefited from this have more money they use it to push up other asset prices like stocks and real estate. This is the key step that you're ignoring.
Brody White
>Retarded nigger 5 year old can't even read properly. LMAO.
Dominic Turner
OH odd everything I had read suggested otherwise
William King
>GDP is the best way to measure economic success unless you're a communist or anrachist retard. But it's not. GDP increases whenever anyone in the economy spends money. It goes up when the government prints and spends money too. This is why China is building massive amounts of bullshit like ghost cities to boost their GDP numbers. GDP doesn't mean real economic production is increasing or living standards for the working class are increasing. It's fucking government bullshit and you are a tool for believing it.
>employment is good for the country Employment in real economic production is, not government waste.
>So yes, slow devaluating currency is good. No it's not. It's horrible. and what does this have to do with unemployment. During the late 1800s there was deflation for 30 straight years, massive levels of economic growth and low unemployment.
>Hence, why China does it and why it's literally beating the US in trade. China is a joke lol. Their people are suffering and have low living standards compared to countries with high currencies(Switzerland, Norway etc).
>Well, what isa good way to measure real health of the economy? OH wait, thats GDP, again. It's not and you got BTFO by the "high stock market is good" argument by zimbabwe lol
>Beucase mortgages were given out like candy? Because it was before a big housing crash when anyone could get approved for a loan? Hmmmmmm. No you fucking idiot. I was talking about in the 60s/70s/80s, even 90s. Interest rates were higher and many more people had homes.
>which makes loans MORE expensive, somehow means more home ownership. Actual emperical data shows this to be true. Housing prices were much CHEAPER back then(see the graph I posted earlier) so the financial burden on the average person was less even with higher interest rates.
Luke Thomas
>Whether you want to believe it or not, that leads to economic expansion. No it leads to stagnation, the USA is stagnating to fucking shit thanks to central banking.
When they had no central bank they had real economic production and had a fucking industrial revolution.
David White
>No they pump money into the government bond market. I already explained that they lower interest rates and give banks virtually unlimited free money which the banks use to pump up the stock and housing markets.
What is your argument against this fact? You have none.
>This is the key step that you're ignoring. I've been trying to explain this to you for ages but you keep going on about muh tax cuts or whatever.
Isaiah Wilson
>duduuuurrrrr how do i quot on 4chunz!!11 t. 3/4ths of brain removed at birth
Luis Richardson
>spewing conjecture >using it as a fact
You dont know what's going to happen!
It will be unlikely that Trump DOUBLES our deficit like Prez Barry did, and for now Trump is making deals for tax cuts for more Americans to keep more of their money, and lessening corporate taxes, which will create more revenue as more businesses will open in the US, while killing stagnating EPA regulations that have already surpassed Barry's GDP. True that spending is not going down, but more money/revenue will be paid in.
Caleb Wood
>What is your argument against this fact?
You're merely repeating what I said with different words.
>give banks virtually unlimited free money which the banks use to pump up the stock and housing markets.
What I said:>the people who benefited from this have more money they use it to push up other asset prices like stocks and real estate.
>It will be unlikely that Trump DOUBLES our deficit like Prez Barry did But he's already increasing the debt/deficit much faster than Obama.
Matthew Morales
In fact I think we agree more than we disagree.
Jacob Long
>You're merely repeating what I said with different words. No, you implied they were only pumping money into the bond market.
>>the people who benefited from this have more money they use it to push up other asset prices like stocks and real estate. You were saying tax cuts were the reason this is happening, not fed reserve money creation.
Jace Thomas
Sure I guess.
Only if you think all central banks need to be abolished and we should go back to free banking.
Brandon Robinson
So? Its not set in stone that pace will continue. You lefties live in the "what if's" too much.
Lucas Cruz
>GDP increases whenever anyone in the economy spends money. >GDP doesn't mean real economic production is increasing or
They spend money because means that there is actually money to be spent. It also means there's a service/product that can actually be bought. Also, GDP is measured in real terms so its already inflation adjusted.
>living standards for the working class are increasing.
It doesnt necessarily mean that, but it sure is a good indicator. Hence why all the countries with the highest GDPs just also happen to have the highest standards of living.
>During the late 1800s there was deflation for 30 straight years, massive levels of economic growth and low unemployment.
Because of the fact that US was a new country that needed to be developed and operated under a different monetary system?
>China is a joke lol. Their people are suffering and have low living standards compared to countries with high currencies(Switzerland, Norway etc).
China now compared to China decades ago is a the result of decentralizing government spending. And lol @ bringing up Switzerland; they are legit the poster boy for tax havens.
>It's not and you got BTFO by the "high stock market is good" argument by zimbabwe lol
You got BTFO by the great depression and reccession argument LOL. What happened to the stock market during 2009?
>I was talking about in the 60s/70s/80s, even 90s.
Because you dont what real interest rates are and what nominal interest rates are.
Kayden Cook
>You lefties I'm far more economically right wing than you will ever be.
Trump is a leftist economically.
Jaxon Walker
Actually Trump is not an ideologue, which is whats been refreshing from the status quo of the last 5 administrations.
How would you know if you're more economically to the right of me?...you dont KNOW shit, junior.
Sebastian Hill
>No, you implied they were only pumping money into the bond market.
What the US central bank is doing is buying up bonds. What the other institutions do afterwards is not the business of the central bank. It is not directly buying up stocks.
>You were saying tax cuts were the reason this is happening, not fed reserve money creation.
If you increase inequality, either through a change in central bank policy or a change in government taxation, this can happen. The people who benefit from this policy can increase the price of real estate or other assets relative to the income of the middle-class.
Luke Powell
>They spend money because means that there is actually money to be spent. No, they just fucking print the money you gigantic retard. It's not like they actually increased economic production and got real profits in which they can now spend. LOL How do you not know this?
>It also means there's a service/product that can actually be bought. Like ghost cities?
>Also, GDP is measured in real terms so its already inflation adjusted. HAHA this isn't even true. These adjustments are bullshit.
>Hence why all the countries with the highest GDPs just also happen to have the highest standards of living. Because more often than not they can actually spend the money. A lot of the time they can't and just print it instead.
>Because of the fact that US was a new country Many countries are new countries. Why isn't South Sudan experiencing a massive economic boom? Also USA was already over 100 years old at the time.
>that needed to be developed Lots of countries need to be developed. Why are the countries that were/are the most successful ones, the countries with the most economic freedom? The united states had NO central bank and a mostly free market and experienced a MASSIVE increase in economic growth for 30 straight years. This was all with DEFLATION. This totally ruins the keynesian delusion.
>and operated under a different monetary system? Why would they need a different monetary system when the one they were using was the most successful? What a stupid fucking argument.
>China now compared to China decades ago is a the result of decentralizing government spending. China had massive government spending under Mao too. The only difference is they are much more capitalist than they were before. That's why they are much better off. It's still a shithole there because they don't embrace economic freedom and the government has total power over the people to print and spend money.
Easton Gonzalez
Wtf are you even arguing about? You're FOR increasing taxes but more economic freedom? What. You need to get back on dem schizo meds m8
Grayson Collins
>And lol @ bringing up Switzerland; they are legit the poster boy for tax havens. Why are they a tax Haven you fucking dummy? Because they have economic freedom thus people want to keep their money there. Only goes to show that economic freedom works. Tax havens are GOOD things. Switzerland and Norway have strong currency and their people have HIGH living standards. Poor countries have WEAK currencies.
>You got BTFO by the great depression What do you mean? The great depression only proves my argument further. Fed reserve created a stock market bubble that crashed and then the government took complete control of the economy and destroyed any prospect of recovery. The GD was the most overregulated and government controlled era in american history. That's why it lasted so long. The only reason we got out of it was not the fucking war, but it was when we cut taxes spending and regulation AFTER the war which lead to the post war boom.
>Because you dont what real interest rates are and what nominal interest rates are. You don't know what these things are either. The fact housing prices were much cheaper and many more people owned houses back then proves artificially low interest rates are cancer.
You're such a corporate fascist shill, I can't believe how stupid you people are.
Daniel Hernandez
>What the US central bank is doing is buying up bonds. Yes and it's also lowering interest rates so banks can get a fuckton of money to pump into the housing and stock market.
I've already explained this like 5 times and you keep ignoring me. What a retard you are.
>If you increase inequality, either through a change in central bank policy or a change in government taxation, this can happen. No. Inequality is a retarded argument. In a free market, prices constantly come down, including prices of rich people's homes. There should be zero or corporate tax anyway.
Caleb Reyes
>You're FOR increasing taxes When did I say I was FOR increasing taxes you fucking retard.
>hurrr in the OP
All I said is if you don't cut spending when you decrease taxes it will cause massive problems like inflation. You need to do both.
Alexander Martinez
>All I said is if you don't cut spending when you decrease taxes it will cause massive problems like inflation. >You need to do both.
That's pretty much already assumed when a republican gets into office.
Wyatt Long
>They will then invest that money into things like real estate... >This will then cause rents to go up for the middle class, as a percentage of their income. Why? Why would rent go up? Investment in real estate = rent going up? Doesn't seem to make sense
Joseph Nelson
Doesn't middle class get increased deductions?
Samuel Taylor
republicans increase spending like crazy
Isaiah Williams
>In a free market, prices constantly come down, including prices of rich people's homes.
The relative prices are what matters. The price of the assets relative to people's incomes.
You can have a deflating currency and deflating house prices. If your income deflates faster than the house prices, you're getting screwed. This happened during the 1880s as well. This is why Victorian Era housing is associated with the haunted house.
" Furthermore, the industrial boom in the North was largely supported by the influx of immigrants who were lumped together in tenement houses. These disparities made wealth a very visible experience--and drew attention to the rampant corruption that was embedded in this system of growth. As America entered the twentieth-century, the American Victorian home drew the ire of those seeking to criticize the bloatedness of the period. These homes quickly became the McMansions of this era as critics such as Hamlin Talbot decried the style as a blight upon the American landscape, labelling them "wooden monstrosities.""
For example if you're making 1cent a year and the average house costs 1 dollar, you're fucking broke. Deflation does not necessarily produce prosperity.
Christian Cooper
>Investment in real estate = rent going up?
When two brothers tried to corner the silver market in the early 80s by buying up all the silver, why did that cause price of silver to go up?
If you can answer that question you can answer yours.
Hunter James
Obviously long term it may cause house prices to go down as more houses will be built.
Then again most mcmansions have such poor workmanship that I doubt they will last that long. The modern economy really is one gigantic scam, the goal of which is to leave ordinary people holding the bag of turd.
Benjamin Sanders
>The relative prices are what matters. The price of the assets relative to people's incomes. Exactly. In a free market, real incomes go up while prices go down. That's the point.
>If your income deflates faster than the house prices, you're getting screwed. Real incomes increase in free markets though. The late 1800s is a perfect example of this.
>This happened during the 1880s as well. This is why Victorian Era housing is associated with the haunted house. Even while all of these big mansions were being built, a lot more houses for the middle class were being built.
>Deflation does not necessarily produce prosperity. If deflation is the result of a previous government intervention it won't help everyone right away. It takes time to increase economic production.
Luke Myers
We need to abolish central banking.
Austin Hall
central banks carry a lot of the blame for sure.
Suppose you make your income selling goods with a certain price attached to it like a farmer or a self-employed baker, or a self-employed butcher.
Can you produce the data showing how the average butcher's, baker's, and farmer's incomes went up while the prices of the crops they produced went down?
Remember that something like 50-60% of America was a farmer back then.
Jaxson Hill
>Can you produce the data showing how the average butcher's, baker's, and farmer's incomes went up while the prices of the crops they produced went down? People in the economy moved into different sectors because the economy was rearranging itself. This is a good thing. Overall living standards increased. This book and it's countless sources explain how living standards increased dramatically for virtually all americans during the gilded age.
Another issue that you must take into account is debt.
If the currency deflates but you have debt, your debt increases as a percent of your income.
To give an example suppose a women's studies major takes on 35k worth of student debt to "earn" her degree and she only manages to find a job that pays $12/hr, if deflation occurs and her wage goes down to $10/hr, the debt now makes up a larger percent of her income.
Obviously she's an idiot for studying something like women's studies but I'm just using this as an example of how deflation can harm someone who's taken on debt.
You are correct besides the fact that only because they have not cut spending before tax reform it doesn't mean they won't do it. In this political climate it is impossible to cut spending before tax reform, they will only cut spending (maybe) if they are forced to after tax reform. If they don't cut spending you are right that the country will be fucked. But it would also be fucked without tax reform and without cutting spending. So we will se if they will be forced to do it soon and if they will do it. But remember, many wanna see it all collapsing anyways.
Chase Robinson
Under free markets debt is strongly discouraged and much harder to take on.
I said real incomes. Prices decreased much much further than did wages. Real incomes increased. Anyway read the entire book, it's really informative.
Zachary Davis
Republicans destroy the economy, Democrats fix is. Same as it ever was.
Cooper Miller
>Republicans destroy the economy, Democrats fix is. Same as it ever was. >government spending fixes the economy bullshit
Elijah Bailey
>Real incomes increased.
What was the average inflation/deflation rate from 1870 to 1880 and from 1880 to 1889, etc? We can only compare the data if we have that. because the average farm labor wage went from 13.9 to 11.7 and for farmers it went down from 1.57 to 1.28. The deflation rate would have to be quite substantial to make up for reduction in wages.
Secondly, real wages have increased under our current corrupt system as well.
>Anyway read the entire book, it's really informative.
If I spent the the next 3 hours reading the entire book I can't take part in this thread.
Ryan Reyes
>The deflation rate would have to be quite substantial to make up for reduction in wages. It literally was. It was the second american industrial revolution, of course economic production massively increased and prices fell.
>If I spent the the next 3 hours reading the entire book I can't take part in this thread. Just read it or skim through it. This thread is basically over.
Andrew Thompson
You are simply summing up the GOP platform. Bush did it, Reagan did it, Trump will do it. They talk a good game but they don't actually reduce the scope of government concurrently with cutting taxes. Because they don't really want small govt, they want control, but of different things than the democrats. The democrats are better with the deficit, but worse with the constitution.
Those are your choices
Alexander Taylor
...
Zachary Allen
>It was the second american industrial revolution, of course economic production massively increased and prices fell.
Look this topic has piqued my interest so I'll have a more thorough look through look through this another time. But pic related chart doesn't appear to show a real increase in wages or a substantial deflation (which occurred during the 1930s depression)
Are you familiar with Irving Fisher's debt deflation theory?
Michael Jackson
> (which occurred during the 1930s depression)
nvm I'm retarded, it appears to have occurred after ww1 ended. This makes sense because there would be less demand for goods and food stuffs after the war's end.
Christian Cooper
that graph is bullshit man just read the book, im busy as fuck right now
Carter Hernandez
>2008: start to inflate WS with tax payer's money >2008 bonds run out >cut taxes for WS by adding debt for the state >companies spend money on debt relief / buybacks / dividends >trickle down not habbeding This is a robbery in slo-mo, you libertarian inbred sherlock.
Isaac Morales
>Wealthy people will buy more CAPITAL.
Only true nationally in a closed market. In a market with open capital borders you will not achieve anywhere near 100% capitalization for national production on that tax cut. A lot of it will go offshore, either through FDI stats in India/China/etc or to offshore accounts to sit. Still more of it will go towards stock buybacks and not towards new plant. Some will go towards new plant but it won't be this massive surge you're expecting.
Colton Richardson
>This is a robbery in slo-mo, you libertarian inbred sherlock.
>calls me inbred >literally supports a violent government banking monopoly that steals purchasing power from the working class, printing trillions of dollars and giving it to bankers and corporations
It's YOUR fault this entire system is the way it is. You corporate slave.
Oliver Gray
If interest rates were higher they wouldn't get much money from stock buybacks. If taxes and regulations were lower, they would invest in the USA.
Brandon Bell
>If interest rates were higher they wouldn't get much money from stock buybacks.
But they aren't.
>If taxes and regulations were lower, they would invest in the USA.
Not necessarily, but they would invest more in the USA. But not as much as if repatriated or freed-up currency due to reduced tax burdens were legally required to be held in American banks.
Logan Torres
Some significant (4-7%) inflation would be great for everyone buried in debt (read everyone but boomers), and to bad it never gonna happen. Obama piped trillions down the tube and nothing had happened, monetarists were BTFOed and all their theories about money supply can go to hell. The only cases causing prices surge are rising costs or high consumer demand (aka economic boom).
Neither of this is gonna happen.
Adam Hughes
>Combine with massive cuts to the welfare state and gov >Massive pleb prosperity!
Zachary Ward
>But they aren't. They need to be. That or the fed needs to be abolished.
Isaac Kelly
>Some significant (4-7%) inflation would be great for everyone buried in debt Sure but the reason they have that debt in the first place is the central bank.
We need to cancel most debt including government debt and then end the federal reserve.
>Obama piped trillions down the tube and nothing had happened, monetarists were BTFOed and all their theories about money supply can go to hell. Obama pumped trillions into the banks and bond market. The banks didn't spend that money on consumer goods. The inflation happened in the stock market and housing market. Also the USA has the world reserve currency which keeps down inflation.
Asher Adams
Shouldn't have Fed tax at all... Pure Socialism.. Wealth redistribution. We SHOULD have border tarriffs and corporate import taxes for buying parts/goods abroad then importing. America First, Bichez
Eli Rogers
taxes on exports become taxes on imports and the country becomes poorer
Leo Hernandez
The idea that a drop in taxes is going to cause problems is ludicrous. The only people in danger are the Democrats who are defending federal programs just so they and their friends can get rich.
Taxes need to drop much farther than what is now proposed. As taxes drop, the scams that Democrats and Republicans set up to maintain taxes will come to light and fall apart. It's the only way the public will see that Medicare has been raped by the politicians and they're desperate to bail it out so they don't have to face the music.
We will see all the rhetoric around rights, and helping the needy for what it really is: just stories designed to justify taxes that go into the pockets of a few select politicians and their friends.
Now that the Clinton cartel is finally on the ropes we can begin to drive this home.
My proposal: 15% flat tax for everyone.
Lucas Campbell
>lower taxes >increase spending
and you brainlets see no problem with this whatsoever?
Why do economic illiterates believe resources are infinite?
Gavin Gray
Less imports leads to less USD going out to other countries. Less USD "out there" in other countries means strong US dollar. Strong US dollar eventually leads to lower exports. Now you're back to square 1, except now everyone isnt trading anymore.
This is the main reason why most economists oppose tariffs.
The main reason people go offshore is to hide assets. Dont really need to hide assets if the tax man isnt coming after you.
Besides, lower taxes means other countries will also want to invest, so you also get surges of capital from abroad.
