# Biden just indicated, that he would preserve Trump tax cuts



## notimp (Jun 4, 2021)

Jeffrey Sachs be like - whhhhaaaaaat? 

Too good not to post.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

Well that makes Biden look pretty damn weak, but since it comes with the caveat of Republicans approving infrastructure spending, it's probably not gonna happen anyway.  Like c'mon, did he learn absolutely nothing from Obama's two terms?  When Democrats are in power, the right's only purpose is to obstruct.  No amount of compromise is going to change that.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 4, 2021)

Trumps tax plan was why we had the 2020 election? Not sure wtf the guy was talking about with that comment. But god fucking forbid Biden is willing to work with Republicans to gain some of their support. Whether a person likes him going back on this or not, regardless of how one feels about it whatsoever, working together is something the previous administration knew absolutely NOTHING about. It's a good strategy and maybe if Drump had even remotely tried to gain some Liberal supporters... he'd not have lost so fucking BIGLY. Not that I wanted him to still be in office, but the point is a valid one imo. While the rights objective may be to obstruct and no compromise will change that... it's ultimately the voters that are watching and keeping track of things. Those in government positions obstruct all they want, but the more Republican voters that see Biden is willing to work with the other side of the fence, the better he looks to Republican voters. Don't like the change myself, but I do feel it was a good move for reasons why he did it.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 4, 2021)

What a loser


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Those in government positions obstruct all they want, but the more Republican voters that see Biden is willing to work with the other side of the fence, the better he looks to Republican voters.


This is assuming that Republican voters place value in the act of compromise, and I've seen nothing to indicate that this is the case.  Hell, more than half of them will probably continue believing Biden stole the election until the day they die.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> This is assuming that Republican voters place value in the act of compromise, and I've seen nothing to indicate that this is the case.  Hell, more than half of them will probably continue believing Biden stole the election until the day they die.



Honestly, fair enough point to make.


----------



## digipimp75 (Jun 4, 2021)

I read this as "Biden just indicted...".   Oh if only it were true.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

Vote Democrat vote Republican nothing changes


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 4, 2021)

Seliph said:


> What a loser



Except he won the electoral, and the popular vote by over 7 million. Yup, so much losing.



digipimp75 said:


> I read this as "Biden just indicted...".   Oh if only it were true.



Too bad for you, there's zero grounds to do so. Keep dreaming.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 4, 2021)

digipimp75 said:


> I read this as "Biden just indicted...".   Oh if only it were true.


You do know a Trump indictment is the one that's likely imminent, right?

https://theweek.com/donald-trump/10...ns-point-to-a-likely-indictment-in-trump-case


----------



## smf (Jun 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> This is assuming that Republican voters place value in the act of compromise



What is Biden's other choice?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Vote Democrat vote Republican nothing changes


Dems are far from perfect and neoliberalism pisses me off to no end, but the sad reality of the situation is that they're the only major party in the US that still supports democracy in the modern day.  Republicans are ready to give up and give in to monarchy or authoritarianism so that somebody else can tell them how to live every minute of their lives, even if it's the wrong way.



smf said:


> What is Biden's other choice?


Play hardball with Manchin and Sinema.  Literally call them up every day and lay into them until they're willing to vote to abolish the filibuster.  Use positive and negative reinforcement, along with every bit of leverage that the party has to offer.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2021)

digipimp75 said:


> I read this as "Biden just indicted...".   Oh if only it were true.


The comma threw me off, so I had to take a double-take, as well.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 4, 2021)

Trumps tax cuts helped the economy grow and prosper so I'm not sure why anyone would want to get rid of them. Though Biden did run on a platform often mentioning how he is going to raise taxes and usually that was followed with the cheering of his supporters. I'm not sure what sort of idiot wants their taxes raised. 

"Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more"
 - 
Ten Years After – I'd Love To Change The World Lyrics
from album: A Space In Time (1971)

https://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/ten+years+after/id+love+to+change+the+world_20135632.html


----------



## Lacius (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Trumps tax cuts helped the economy grow and prosper so I'm not sure why anyone would want to get rid of them. Though Biden did run on a platform often mentioning how he is going to raise taxes and usually that was followed with the cheering of his supporters. I'm not sure what sort of idiot wants their taxes raised.
> 
> "Everywhere is freaks and hairies
> Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
> ...


The former president's tax cuts disproportionately affected the rich, and they had no measurable effect on the economy. Taxes are necessary for revenue, and taxes on higher earners need to go up.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not sure what sort of idiot wants their taxes raised.


Nobody wants their own taxes raised, just the taxes for corporations and the wealthy.  We're talking like the top 5-10%, a group neither you nor I will ever be a part of.  And even if by some miracle we did get there, higher taxes would not affect our lavish lifestyles in the least at that point.  Class war has been waging for quite some time now, and the rich have been piling up the wins thanks to so many serfs licking their boots.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> This is assuming that Republican voters place value in the act of compromise.



Ya know, that's pretty fuckin' rich, after the way Democrats behaved 2016-2020.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 4, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Ya know, that's pretty fuckin' rich, after the way Democrats behaved 2016-2020.


Tell me: How did the Democratic Party behave in 2016-2020 that suggested they oppose compromise?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Ya know, that's pretty fuckin' rich, after the way Democrats behaved 2016-2020.


If they had compromised with lawless fascism, they wouldn't have won in 2018 and 2020.  But the Dems put forward plenty of bills with compromises included during those years, and none of them even got put to a vote in the Senate.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Tell me: How did the Democratic Party behave in 2016-2020 that suggested they oppose compromise?



Nope. I'm not even bothering with this shit today. Said what I had to say, you know exactly what I mean, and that's all that needs sayin'.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 4, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Nope. I'm not even bothering with this shit today. Said what I had to say, you know exactly what I mean, and that's all that needs sayin'.


There's only one political party in this country that has flat-out said they aren't going to work with the incumbent president (once for 44 and once for 46), and it's not the Democratic Party.

My post wasn't the one that could be described as "shit."


----------



## smf (Jun 5, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Nope. I'm not even bothering with this shit today. Said what I had to say, you know exactly what I mean, and that's all that needs sayin'.



Exactly what you mean is "oh no my point doesn't make any sense, I'll blame everyone else and pretend that I'm upset so you won't notice"


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2021)

smf said:


> Exactly what you mean is "oh no my point doesn't make any sense, I'll blame everyone else and pretend that I'm upset so you won't notice"


If @Hanafuda wants to look at how Democrats behaved under the last Republican president, vs. how Republicans are acting under Biden, we can literally look at an apples to apples comparison like COVID-19 relief. Democrats compromised and voted for COVID-19 relief under the previous administration, but Republicans obstructed and didn't vote for COVID-19 relief under Biden.

The idea that Democrats are somehow just as bad as Republicans when it comes to obstruction and overt refusal to compromise is absurd.


----------



## smf (Jun 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The idea that Democrats are somehow just as bad as Republicans when it comes to obstruction and overt refusal to compromise is absurd.



As you have to be absurd to be a republican then it makes sense.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 5, 2021)

Hmm... Can't deny I'm disappointed here.

Biden's still over par with canceling most of Trump's idiotic agenda (no, you're NOT leaving the WHO, to name just something) and handling the pandemic...

... But this isn't a small concession. Heck... Am I missing something? I thought this was one of Biden' s most prominent campaign promises. 


EDIT: there's something odd about this timing. The OP sort of boo's out Biden, and I can see why.

But just today on my local news channel, one of the topics was about the G7 (basically the 7 richest countries) that signed a global accord regarding corporate taxes. More specifically that they agreed to not have it come below 15%. My local newspaper even added the following interesting bit (source: https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20210605_96050493):


_De G7 zijn akkoord om de strijd tegen belastingontwijking op te voeren. Volgens de deal zullen Europese landen meer mogelijkheden krijgen om grote multinationals te belasten waar ze klanten hebben, en dus niet enkel in het land van hun hoofdkantoor. Veel bedrijven planten hun hoofdzetel namelijk in landen met lage belastingtarieven.

Daarnaast willen de G7 ook een wereldwijde vennootschapsbelasting van minstens 15 procent doorvoeren, om de race naar de bodem tussen verschillende landen tegen te gaan. Dit voorstel kwam van de Amerikanen, die aanvankelijk zelfs een tarief van 21 procent wilden._

Roughly translated by yours truly:

_The G7 agree to crank up the battle against tax evasion. According to the deal European countries will have the possibility to tax multinations where they've got customers, so not just in the country of their main office. Many companies put their main seat in countries with low tax rates.

Aside this, the G7 want to introduce a global corporate tax of at least 15 procent, to stop the race to the bottom between different countries. This proposition came from the Americans, who initially even proposed a tarif of 21 percent.
_

So...what's the fucking play here? 
It's obviously a good thing that at least a large chunk of the legal loopholes for tax evasion are being halted, but how do you combine that with this news? Especially the last bit?

I'd sort of understand that Biden (and the rest of world leaders) want to raise the bar to increase income but don't get above the bar to lose out to those limbo'ing a bit more, but why was Biden (and/or Janet Yellen) pushing for a 21% minimum when the video in OP sort of shows a direct 180° turn on that trajectory?

I don't like to compare against the previous guy, but at least Trump sort of consistently combined maliciousnes with incompetence, making the end result a mess we (well...non-US residents, at least  ) learned to ignore or watch in a sort of bewildered glee ("okay...today he wants to buy Greenland. Am I supposed to laugh or cry at this news?").
This is...well...something actually *important*. Which makes this local news in the US also world news...



SG854 said:


> Vote Democrat vote Republican nothing changes


Erm... I get why you make this post, but let's not kid ourselves. You know damn well there's major differences, even when talking hyperbolically.

I'm willing to settle on 'the same bullshit policy, but at least it's not covered up by a daily slew of controversies'. You okay with that?


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 5, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Trumps tax cuts helped the economy grow and prosper so I'm not sure why anyone would want to get rid of them. Though Biden did run on a platform often mentioning how he is going to raise taxes and usually that was followed with the cheering of his supporters. I'm not sure what sort of idiot wants their taxes raised.


Have tax cuts really caused economic growth? Because it seems like there's always a constant recession following every attempt to implement trickle-down economics.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 5, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Have tax cuts really caused economic growth?


Only if they're given to the working poor, because those dollars then get spent on necessities.  Tax cuts designed to benefit mostly the wealthy do nothing to boost the economy because that money doesn't get spent, just shoved in an offshore account somewhere.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 5, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Only if they're given to the working poor, because those dollars then get spent on necessities.  Tax cuts designed to benefit mostly the wealthy do nothing to boost the economy because that money doesn't get spent, just shoved in an offshore account somewhere.


Yeah, but that's not trickle-down economics and caring about the income of the poor isn't really on the table for most politicians in the US. So we always end up with trickle-down and rich people hoarding money they didn't earn.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Have tax cuts really caused economic growth? Because it seems like there's always a constant recession following every attempt to implement trickle-down economics.



Bill Clinton raises taxes on high earners, economy improves anyway
George W. Bush cuts taxes for high earners, economy tanks anyway
Obama raises taxes on high earners, economy improves anyway
Trump cuts taxes on high earners, economy tanks anyway
Gosh, this is a tricky one.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jun 5, 2021)

ngl every time something happens and someone pulls the false equivalency of both parties being roughly the same it just makes me sad that they don't know what a "lesser evil" is
one party can't do jack shit, mostly due to the obstinacy and stonewall obstruction of the other
one party can do shit, refuses to do anything the other suggests and sticks to doing things that *actively worsen the situation*
I legitimately can't understand how the two can be considered remotely close to equal after we just had four years of a narcissistic madman shitting on whatever rights and reason he could, actively doing as little as possible to combat a global pandemic when he could have potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives by doing so, spouting nonsensical claims of fraud when he got his ass electorally kicked and inflaming his base with said claims to the point of INCITING A FUCKING ATTEMPTED COUP



Lacius said:


> Bill Clinton raises taxes on high earners, economy improves anyway
> George W. Bush cuts taxes for high earners, economy tanks anyway
> Obama raises taxes on high earners, economy improves anyway
> Trump cuts taxes on high earners, economy tanks anyway
> Gosh, this is a tricky one.


gee it's almost like the rich are already far too wealthy and the way to get them to shit out a reasonable amount of money back into the economy is NOT to shove more back up their asses


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 6, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Have tax cuts really caused economic growth? Because it seems like there's always a constant recession following every attempt to implement trickle-down economics.



Yes, there was major economic growth affecting almost every sector and benefiting the upper, middle and lower classes. COVID19 caused the bed economies and I'd say you could blame Trump for that, but it affected 99.9% of the world's economies in about the same fashion, so blaming Trump is not a valid option.

Since the pandemic is almost over and things are getting back to where they were before COVID-19 the question remains - Is Biden going to fuck things up? Him not getting rid of Trump's tax cuts would be a good start to making sure we don't fall further into the shit hole.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You do know a Trump indictment is the one that's likely imminent, right?
> 
> https://theweek.com/donald-trump/10...ns-point-to-a-likely-indictment-in-trump-case


imagine living in a fantasy and doing it for free


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imagine living in a fantasy and doing it for free



There's a grand jury in New York deciding right now whether or not to indict him.
He's being investigated for breaking Georgia election law.
Numerous obstruction of justice instances were outlined in the Mueller Report.
I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 6, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yes, there was major economic growth affecting almost every sector and benefiting the upper, middle and lower classes. COVID19 caused the bed economies and I'd say you could blame Trump for that, but it affected 99.9% of the world's economies in about the same fashion, so blaming Trump is not a valid option.
> 
> Since the pandemic is almost over and things are getting back to where they were before COVID-19 the question remains - Is Biden going to fuck things up? Him not getting rid of Trump's tax cuts would be a good start to making sure we don't fall further into the shit hole.


What about the other times with trickle-down economics that didn't work? Every single instance of using Trickle-down has been followed by a recession, then followed by Democrats slightly increasing taxes on the rich with economic growth, followed by another recession when under trickle-down. This has been the same repeating cycle since Reagan's administration. Biden choosing to keep using Trump's tax cuts is just going to result in another recession, history backs that up.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jun 6, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Vote Democrat vote Republican nothing changes


based


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's a grand jury in New York deciding right now whether or not to indict him.
> He's being investigated for breaking Georgia election law.
> Numerous obstruction of justice instances were outlined in the Mueller Report.
> I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.


This we got him boy THIS TIME FOR SURE


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> This we got him boy THIS TIME FOR SURE


Florida officials seem to think so. They were actively preparing for the possibility of the former president being indicted at Mar-a-Lago.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/donald-trump-indictment-palm-beach


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 6, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> What about the other times with trickle-down economics that didn't work? Every single instance of using Trickle-down has been followed by a recession, then followed by Democrats slightly increasing taxes on the rich with economic growth, followed by another recession when under trickle-down. This has been the same repeating cycle since Reagan's administration. Biden choosing to keep using Trump's tax cuts is just going to result in another recession, history backs that up.



I'm curious to what exactly you've been reading that would give you the impression that each time we had a Republican in office and they lowered taxes that we ended up in a recession? Are you old enough to have been around when Reagan was in office or are you just referring to something you've read online? If you are sourcing your claims from online would you mind linking me? I also don't really find Wikipedia to be that great of a source when it come to politics. Just saying ....


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm curious to what exactly you've been reading that would give you the impression that each time we had a Republican in office and they lowered taxes that we ended up in a recession? Are you old enough to have been around when Reagan was in office or are you just referring to something you've read online? If you are sourcing your claims from online would you mind linking me? I also don't really find Wikipedia to be that great of a source when it come to politics. Just saying ....


Please see my previous post:


Lacius said:


> Bill Clinton raises taxes on high earners, economy improves anyway
> George W. Bush cuts taxes for high earners, economy tanks anyway
> Obama raises taxes on high earners, economy improves anyway
> Trump cuts taxes on high earners, economy tanks anyway
> Gosh, this is a tricky one.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 6, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm curious to what exactly you've been reading that would give you the impression that each time we had a Republican in office and they lowered taxes that we ended up in a recession? Are you old enough to have been around when Reagan was in office or are you just referring to something you've read online? If you are sourcing your claims from online would you mind linking me? I also don't really find Wikipedia to be that great of a source when it come to politics. Just saying ....


https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/23/tax-cuts-rich-trickle-down/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...nomics-fails-a-sophisticated-statistical-test
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/20/joe-biden-trickle-down-economics-build-up
https://www.americanprogress.org/is.../24/437625/trickle-tax-cuts-dont-create-jobs/
This isn't even a fraction of the sources stating that trickle-down doesn't work.
Literally, the only time trickle-down worked was when Reagan increased government spending to make up for the losses caused by decreasing taxes. This isn't evidence of his economic plan working as it still required taking the money from somewhere else. There's a pretty trend of the economy tanking under trickle-down when there isn't government spending to offset the losses.
spending
Edit: We can also just look at the data and take note the massive obvious patterns
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/10/business/us-economy-trump-vs-other-presidents/
I would like to see some sources that actually prove trickle-down works.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Please see my previous post:


Except you are ignoring external factors that were unrelated to the tax cuts that was the main factor is causing the economy to tank during those terms:
2001 9/11 terror attacks
2008 Financial crises
2020 Coronavirus pandemic


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 6, 2021)

There are times when, as a foreigner and Eurasian, the Asian side of me will say that all of this is another Family's internal bickering; we see Countries as just larger versions of the Family Unit, which is why most times our Foreign Policies reflect that mindset and our bodies, e.g. ASEAN are seen as slow to respond internationally.

You don't really want to be quick to run into your neighbour's Family squabbles before giving them enough time to resolve it themselves.
Because we all can see just how sending Armed Forces and forcing Embargoes work so magnificently in said local issues ...

An Internet joke that gets it right was a Comment that said, in 2020, that "If America saw what America is doing in America, America would invade America to liberate America from the tyranny of America."

That's the double standard everyone outside of America sees.
Same with this issue.

Logic dictates that just keeping Corporations' taxes inside the United States would help, but the Political Willpower for that can be Lobbied for apparently cheaper than the cost of coughing up said Taxes. Then there are Countries that call themselves Allies to America but feed off taking away American Citizens' rights to Taxes by providing Offshore Havens.

Corporations in the United States abuse the Infrastructure more than any group of Citizens ever can but they pay little to nothing for its Maintenance while everyone stuck using them has to feel its downside.

Then again, this is a Family squabble that can't be solved by sending in Americans to invade America.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> Except you are ignoring external factors that were unrelated to the tax cuts that was the main factor is causing the economy to tank during those terms:
> 2001 9/11 terror attacks
> 2008 Financial crises
> 2020 Coronavirus pandemic


Your post is incredibly disingenuous.

My point was, in fact, that economies can still collapse after tax cuts for the rich, and economies do not collapse as a direct consequence of tax increases on the rich. This is true regardless. My point was not that tax cuts for the rich directly cause recessions or that tax increases on the rich directly prevent recessions. I'm not sure if you misread my post or are being deceptive.
The terror attacks had nothing to do with the Bush recession.
The financial crisis happened for various reasons, mostly because of deregulation under Bush (and despite the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which was my original point). We also saw no improvement with the economy after the Bush tax cuts but before the Bush recession.
The economic consequences of the pandemic happened in large part due to the utter mishandling of the pandemic by the former president (and despite the Trump tax cuts, which was my original point). We also saw no improvement with the economy after the Trump tax cuts but before the Trump recession.
Modern history is paved with Republican presidents fucking up the economy and dramatically increasing the debt and deficit, and Democratic presidents having to clean up their messes.

Edit: I forgot to mention that, like how the pandemic response by the former president was in large part why the pandemic ended up being as bad as it was, a good argument can be made that 9/11 happened in part because of the Bush administration's mishandling of the relevant intelligence up until that point.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 6, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> 2008 Financial crises


Less aggressive deregulation during the Bush years would've prevented this.



Joe88 said:


> 2020 Coronavirus pandemic


Not entirely preventable, but the impact on the economy could've been lessened quite a bit with competent leadership.


----------



## JaNDeRPeiCH (Jun 6, 2021)

Americans...Seriously you have to pitchfork it to Trump and never give any of their privileges.Trump deserves go to jail with the huge damage doing all the world.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> My point was, in fact, that economies can still collapse after tax cuts for the rich, and economies do not collapse as a direct consequence of tax increases on the rich. This is true regardless. My point was not that tax cuts for the rich directly cause recessions or that tax increases on the rich directly prevent recessions. I'm not sure if you misread my post or are being deceptive



Umm...  Guess I misread.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Umm...  Guess I misread.
> 
> View attachment 265986


Yeah, you did misread. I said "improved *anyway*" and "tanked *anyway*."


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Yeah, you did misread. I said "improved *anyway*" and "tanked *anyway*."



It still reads like your point is that tax cuts directly lead to recession despite a perpetuated common belief. @Foxi4 made an excellent post about how tax cuts AND increases are both able to improve the economy depending on how much closer they are to the equilibrium than the previous position.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2021)

I wasn't participating in this thread, but it seems I was name dropped, so I'll throw in my two cents. Blaming the current state of the economy on the Trump tax cuts is inherently disingenuous - the economy was booming prior to the pandemic and the jobless numbers hit record lows, particularly among the most disadvantaged groups. Biden would do well preserving them going forward to accelerate post-lockdown recovery, and the "bright" idea of increasing corporate tax rates should be shelved until the economy is back on its feet, or ideally indefinitely. Blaming the "tanking" economy on anything other than the pandemic, which was an unpredictable factor at the time the tax cuts were made, is ridiculous. Biden should maintain the current tax policy for the remainder of his term and lift the remaining Trump tariffs, that'd be ideal.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It still reads like your point is that tax cuts directly lead to recession despite a perpetuated common belief. @Foxi4 made an excellent post about how tax cuts AND increases are both able to improve the economy depending on how much closer they are to the equilibrium than the previous position.





Foxi4 said:


> I wasn't participating in this thread, but it seems I was name dropped, so I'll throw in my two cents. Blaming the current state of the economy on the Trump tax cuts is inherently disingenuous - the economy was booming prior to the pandemic and the jobless numbers hit record lows, particularly among the most disadvantaged groups. Biden would do well preserving them going forward to accelerate post-lockdown recovery, and the "bright" idea of increasing corporate tax rates should be shelved until the economy is back on its feet, or ideally indefinitely. Blaming the "tanking" economy on anything other than the pandemic, which was an unpredictable factor at the time the tax cuts were made, is ridiculous. Biden should maintain the current tax policy for the remainder of his term and lift the remaining Trump tariffs, that'd be ideal.


My point was never that tax cuts for the rich lead to recessions, and I never said they do. My point was tax cuts for the rich generally don't help the economy, and they definitely don't offset other boneheaded Republican policies that have repeatedly tanked the economy throughout modern history.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I wasn't participating in this thread, but it seems I was name dropped, so I'll throw in my two cents. Blaming the current state of the economy on the Trump tax cuts is inherently disingenuous - the economy was booming prior to the pandemic and the jobless numbers hit record lows, particularly among the most disadvantaged groups. Biden would do well preserving them going forward to accelerate post-lockdown recovery, and the "bright" idea of increasing corporate tax rates should be shelved until the economy is back on its feet, or ideally indefinitely. Blaming the "tanking" economy on anything other than the pandemic, which was an unpredictable factor at the time the tax cuts were made, is ridiculous. Biden should maintain the current tax policy for the remainder of his term and lift the remaining Trump tariffs, that'd be ideal.



Sorry about that.  I was trying to find the lesson you posted and tried to summarize it as best as I recalled.  It seemed like a relevant, and recent enough, point that @Lacius should be able to remember and appreciate in the context of actually answering @Lilith Valentine , as opposed to the propagandic response he posted.

@Lacius what you said and what you are saying about what you said shows deviation.  If you need to reword what you said for clarity, don't make it out to be the reader's fault.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Sorry about that.  I was trying to find the lesson you posted and tried to summarize it as best as I recalled.  It seemed like a relevant, and recent enough, point that @Lacius should be able to remember and appreciate in the context of actually answering @Lilith Valentine , as opposed to the propagandic response he posted.
> 
> @Lacius what you said and what you are saying about what you said shows deviation.  If you need to reword what you said for clarity, don't make it out to be the reader's fault.


You're thinking about the Laffer curve.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Sorry about that.  I was trying to find the lesson you posted and tried to summarize it as best as I recalled.  It seemed like a relevant, and recent enough, point that @Lacius should be able to remember and appreciate in the context of actually answering @Lilith Valentine , as opposed to the propagandic response he posted.
> 
> @Lacius what you said and what you are saying about what you said shows deviation.  If you need to reword what you said for clarity, don't make it out to be the reader's fault.


David Stockman worked under Ronald Regan as the Director of Office Managment and Budget in 1981-1985.

He was one of the reasons why Ronald Regan pushed Reaganomics. He was pushing for Trickle Down Economics which is just another word for Supply Side Conservative Austerity Economics. Which is the same conservative theory called the Horse and the Sparrow.

Which is different from Kenyes Demand Side Economics. He was one of the main catalyst for why Regan did the Tax cuts.


David Stockman since then came out saying & criticsing that Reganomics and Bush Tax cuts are incompetent and reckless.

He said these things


> "You're kidding yourself if you think cutting taxes is really cutting taxes,"
> 
> "We're simply deferring massive taxes unfairly and immorally putting huge debt burdens on future generations and that is just wrong."




https://www.businessinsider.com/david-stockman-hank-paulson-reaganomics-tarp-2011-1


Another person that has spoken out is Bruce Barlett. He was also with the Regan Administration  and was the demostic policy advisor to Ronald Regan also another catalyst pushing for tax cuts.

He called the GOP tax cuts a myth and says it leaves out key things and other factors that lead to economic growth during Regan times and wasn't sorely on tax cuts. One of the reasons was a sharp reduction on interest rates by the Federal Reserve.

Another was Regans defense build up and highway construction programs which greatly increased federal government purchases of goods and services. Which he says is textbook Keynesian Economics. Third he says post war recoveries from a recession tends to be v-shaped. The deeper the recession the more robust the recovery.


And finally something alot of Republicans don't know Regan raised taxes several times after 1981. He lost 264 billion from the Tax cut of 1981. After that,  legislated tax increases brought back about half of that. The increased money came from taxes being rasied, while tax cuts made them loose money, both happened during Regans Era.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...th-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/


These are 2 guys who were working with Ronald Regan and are the main reason why Regonomics existed in the first place, have both since come out and say that the Republican belief that tax cuts being good for the economy is just flat out wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Sorry about that.  I was trying to find the lesson you posted and tried to summarize it as best as I recalled.  It seemed like a relevant, and recent enough, point that @Lacius should be able to remember and appreciate in the context of actually answering @Lilith Valentine , as opposed to the propagandic response he posted.
> 
> @Lacius what you said and what you are saying about what you said shows deviation.  If you need to reword what you said for clarity, don't make it out to be the reader's fault.


I refer you to my first post and my subsequent posts reiterating my first post. I'm sorry you didn't understand it, but it was pretty clear, and I've only been consistent.

Let me know if you have a substantive response to anything I said.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 7, 2021)

Less taxes, less Government agencies, less regulations, less laws = GOOD.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 7, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Less taxes, less Government agencies, less regulations, less laws = GOOD.


If you love the idea of unchecked corporate rule, sure.  In most films/games that's portrayed as a dystopian outcome, not a utopian one.  And with good reason.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I refer you to my first post and my subsequent posts reiterating my first post. I'm sorry you didn't understand it, but it was pretty clear, and I've only been consistent.
> 
> Let me know if you have a substantive response to anything I said.



I raise your point that tax cuts are always bad and offer the Laffer curve.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I raise your point that tax cuts are always bad and offer the Laffer curve.


It's more like the laughable curve.  Nobody else gets to decide the limit on what they're willing to pay in taxes, nor should the rich be able to.  Simplify the tax code, better fund the IRS to criminally prosecute rich/corporate tax dodgers, and raise the top tax brackets.  Hell, they should be about double what they are now.  That would pay for sweeping infrastructure upgrades, healthcare reform, and improvements to public education all on its own.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's more like the laughable curve.  Nobody else gets to decide the limit on what they're willing to pay in taxes, nor should the rich be able to.  Simplify the tax code, better fund the IRS to criminally prosecute rich/corporate tax dodgers, and raise the top tax brackets.  Hell, they should be about double what they are now.  That would pay for sweeping infrastructure upgrades, healthcare reform, and improvements to public education all on its own.



I agree that the points you raise reflect a shameful state of affairs, but there are legal ways for people to shift their tax liabilities to other jurisdictions.  Regardless if it is via legal or illegal means, the economy doesn't improve after a certain point of taxation.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I raise your point that tax cuts are always bad and offer the Laffer curve.


Conservatives push these two contradicting ideas.

Laffer Curve
Starve the Beast

Laffer curve is cut taxes to bring in more revenue


Starve the Beast cut taxes to increase the deficit and to reduce gov spending


So what is it?

Increase revenue or reduce revenue? These both theories contradict each other.





It's literally a snake oil sales man strategy.

During Trumps presidency they wanted to cut taxes to starve the beast. Which expands the deficits, which reduces the tax revenue collected from the tax cuts. Then point to the alarmingly high deficits they created from the tax cuts, and claim that we need to spend less. And use that to attack high gov spending and also target entitlement programs.

This republican belief contradicts with the other republican belief that they want to implement tax cuts to increase revenue collected with the Laffer curve.



Ronald Regan had the belief that higher deficits will reduce spending.

Also Larry Kudlow who is Trumps top economic advisor and someone that worked in the Regan administration said this



> “Tax cuts impose a restraint on the size of government. Tax cuts will starve the beast… Specifically, tax cuts provide a policy incentive to search for market solutions to the problems of Social Security, health care, education and the environment.”




So which is it? Increase revenue or decrease revenue? It's so contradicting. It's literally contradicting with the Laffer Curve.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresa...rm-plan-for-social-security-starve-the-beast/


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Laffer curve is cut taxes to bring in more revenue



Laffer curve is a chart that shows the relationship between revenue and tax rate.  There is a point where taxes are too low.  There is a point where taxes are too high.  If your goal is less revenue then it is possible for taxes to be both too high and too low at the same time.



SG854 said:


> Starve the Beast cut taxes to increase the deficit and to reduce gov spending



I'm not sure that works in a country where debts are written off and never paid.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 7, 2021)

... The Economic arguments are flawed because all said Theories rely on the fact that the input of Taxes equate to the actual sum owed to the Country.

That is not the case with the many Corporate Loopholes to avoid Taxes altogether.

So on top of losing money that is rightfully the Country's and, by definition, the Citizen's, there is the bad Optics of fiddling around with Tax Rates with each new Government.

It feels more like Diversionary Tactics intentionally placed by those that gain the most for the Average Citizen to be baited into arguing either side without paying as much attention to recouping lost Taxes as they should.

I believe, whichever side of the Tax Cuts one is at, everyone can agree that those that are paying Zero Taxes should be chased down first before arguing the next Economic Policy.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Laffer curve is a chart that shows the relationship between revenue and tax rate.  There is a point where taxes are too low.  There is a point where taxes are too high.  If your goal is less revenue then it is possible for taxes to be both too high and too low at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that works in a country where debts are written off and never paid.


Which they use the Laffer Curve to try to bring in more Revenue.

Many Republicans argue that they use the Laffer curve to find the optimal amount, the point of tax rate that will bring in the most revenue. They say their goal for the tax cuts is to bring in more tax revenue.



Which contradicts the other belief of starve the beast. You say you are not sure if that works in a country where debts are written off and not paid. So then why are Republicans like Trumps top financial advisor Larry Kudlow have this belief? Have the belief to starve the beast.

As he said in this quote here



> Tax cuts impose a restraint on the size of government. Tax cuts will starve the beast… Specifically, tax cuts provide a policy incentive to search for market solutions to the problems of Social Security, health care, education and the environment.”



https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresa...lan-for-social-security-starve-the-beast/amp/



So are they trying to bring less revenue or more revenue? They are contradicting themselves.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 7, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Which they use the Laffer Curve to try to bring in more Revenue.
> 
> Many Republicans argue that they use the Laffer curve to find the optimal amount, the point of tax rate that will bring in the most revenue. They say their goal for the tax cuts is to bring in more tax revenue.
> 
> ...


"Starving the beast" is their ultimate goal, the laffer curve is just one of many convenient excuses used by Republicans to help get them there.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "Starving the beast" is their ultimate goal, the laffer curve is just one of many convenient excuses used by Republicans to help get them there.


They say they want market solutions for social security, health care, education and environment.

As Larry Kudlow says they want to starve the beast so they can crush them as government funded programs and switch them to free market programs. That's the goal of starve the beast.

They starve the beast by cutting taxes. And again Larry knows that cutting taxes reduces tax revenue. Since that's the point of starve the beast.

Laffer Curve is just a snake oils sales man pitch.




David Stockman, Bruce Barlett, Larry Kudlow

That makes three people that worked under Regan during his presidency that knows and admitted openly that tax cuts reduces revenue


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Many Republicans argue that they use the Laffer curve to find the optimal amount, the point of tax rate that will bring in the most revenue. They say their goal for the tax cuts is to bring in more tax revenue.



This presents a possible contradiction, because if taxes are already too low, tax cuts are not going to bring in more revenue.  You can use the Laffer curve to rationalize raising or lowering taxes for less or more revenue.  

I don't know how they plan on "starving the beast" without there being other government agencies being potential casualties.  How do you pick one government managed thing and say,"we are going to starve that out, and nothing else?"


----------



## Xzi (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't know how they plan on "starving the beast" without there being other government agencies being potential casualties. How do you pick one government managed thing and say,"we are going to starve that out, and nothing else?"


You don't, the Republican party ultimately wants private enterprise to carry out all of government's functions, thus replacing it entirely.  Obviously there are a lot of problems with that idea, not the least of which being that many public services cost money rather than bringing in a profit.  We probably wouldn't even keep fire departments under that kind of oligarchy.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You don't, the Republican party ultimately wants private enterprise to carry out all of government's functions, thus replacing it entirely.  Obviously there are a lot of problems with that idea, not the least of which being that many public services cost money rather than bringing in a profit.  We probably wouldn't even keep fire departments under that kind of oligarchy.



Though that seems to be the ideaologic principle, I'm not sure I believe that to truly to be an end-goal of most Republicans.  Once politicians gain a position, they tend to want to keep it, and influence policy that would benefit those who'd benefit them in turn.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Though that seems to be the ideaologic principle, I'm not sure I believe that to truly to be an end-goal of most Republicans.  Once politicians gain a position, they tend to want to keep it, and influence policy that would benefit those who'd benefit them in turn.


They'd just get hired on as some do-nothing consultants at various corporations making millions a year, and possibly have just as much power as they did in government.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> They'd just get hired on as some do-nothing consultants at various corporations making millions a year, and possibly have just as much power as they did in government.


So more government with less accountability.  I think that more or less applies to politicians across the whole spectrum.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> So more government with less accountability.  I think that more or less applies to politicians across the whole spectrum.


To a greater extent with Republicans than Democrats, but yes, ultimately both parties are capitalists first, everything else second.  Otherwise the 13th amendment would've been changed to abolish ALL slavery decades ago.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2021)

The Laffer curve is not an argument for or against lowering taxes, all the theory states is that tax revenue equals zero when the tax rate is 100% (zero productivity, nobody works for free) or 0% (no tax collected equals no revenue), and that there's an optimal middle point between those two.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> This presents a possible contradiction, because if taxes are already too low, tax cuts are not going to bring in more revenue.  You can use the Laffer curve to rationalize raising or lowering taxes for less or more revenue.
> 
> I don't know how they plan on "starving the beast" without there being other government agencies being potential casualties.  How do you pick one government managed thing and say,"we are going to starve that out, and nothing else?"


Cutting taxes from the previous Democrat presidency. Not cutting taxes that was already implemented by a Republican since they were already cut. Unless they believe they can go lower.


Like I was saying and Xzi clarified they want to switch gov programs to a private enterprise. They believe the free market is superior, and they are trying to reach their goal by starving thr beast.


Whether or not this is most Republicans end goal we don't know. But one important republican that had this as his end goal was Trumps top financial advisor Larry Kudlow. His thoughts and goals on this carries more weight then any other Republican because he was the one working directly with Trump as the top guy. So you can be sure that was also Trumps end goal.


Also 2 of Regans advisors, David Stockman & Bruce Barlett, got first hand experience of the effects of their tax cuts on the Economy. This isn't someone reading a textbook on Republican hypothesis of how the cuts will affect the economy. These are two guys with real world experience so their thoughts carry more weight.

They also provided reasons as to how they were able to increase revenue by changing up the tax policies, and they pointed out that other factors besides tax cuts brought in more cash. Like one being raising the tax several times during Regans presidency. If they  say that tax cuts don't equal growth after first hand experience of their policies then I take them more seriously.


----------

