I agree with you. The corporate tax rate should have gone down over a several year period, not at once. This immediate boost in cash to corporations will not go towards the right causes. My problem with SALT is that it is too lopsided. I have posted before how I am not a big fan of deductions for people who are not running businesses as their primary occupation. Everyone should pay their share of taxes. Its quite frustrating for those who are in the lower side of middle class paying more in taxes than those who make 2-3x more than them because they do not have the means to come up with ways to reduce their tax burden.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...unce-special-bonuses-pay-hikes-2017-12/#att-1 Companies like Boeing & AT&T are already announcing plans to give back to their workforce, grow their inferstructure and add jobs. Claims are not baseless, they are actual announcements.
Why concern yourself with how rich the rich are? Your concern should be more about your own quality of life. This isn’t about class rank or equality of outcome, this tax plan is about making everyone’s life better which of course it did. The real binefit to you is not the individual tax breaks but the corporate tax breaks which is true supply side economics. If you are in college then you absolutely want corporations to do well so they can creat more jobs with good pay. I’ve been hearing the past couple of decades how college students graduate only to find they are forced to take menial low wage jobs at fast food businesses. Now you have a better chance at a real entry level job in a career with growth potential. Personally I’m a middle class wage earner and my company has a pretty nice profit sharing plan. I just got a small bump in monthly income plus a nice boost to my profit sharing check. Additionally my stocks and 401k which has been doing exceptionally well over the last year should see an even greater jump as well. I’m pretty happy about all of this.
National Dept to GDP was 106% at the end of 2016, In 2008 that ratio was only 67%. The reality is that dept will likely not go down so you need your GDP to be much higher than it is right now. When talking about GDP or national dept you should always look at both in my opinion to see where you really stand. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
Didn't AT&T just announce a layoff at the time of the bonus? Also, didn't AT&T also acknowledge that the bonus was negotiated with the union months ago?
Actually the most basic college microeconomics course will teach you that corporations expand production and services provided when there is demand to expand. They don't expand because of savings. Stock markets however can sky rocket up because of corporations having more potential revenue/tax savings. But the stock market sky rocketing has really no benefit to the average middle class worker. It greatly benefits those who are majority shareholders but you won't find majority shareholders from your typical middle class community. Corporations don't create jobs because more money is thrown at them. Now on to the macroeconomics side. You mentioned how the tax cuts for the wealthy at worst won't effect the middle to poor classes and you left us with a premise: why should you care anyway?. But if you followed this bill with due diligence, you would know that the massive loss in tax revenue from slashing taxes for an entity of humans that are emperically holding on to the most accumulated wealth in mankind history will result in the increase of our ANNUAL DEFICIT, not the debt, the DEFICIT by 1.8 trillion dollars. That drastic increase in the deficit will force slashing of federal services which the middle class and poverty class rely on far more than the wealthy class. So ya, the average middle class family can add a 4k tv to their annual budget at the sacrifice of losing federal programs and services. That's what I obtained from college. Wasn't an economic major though. That's the little I retained from my gen Ed econ courses.
You should provide a graph that expands the data past 2008. Notice how the first derivative/slope/rate of change or whatever you want to call it is very similar between Reagan's administration. Notice how Reagan had a similar philosophy to yours. See, we have this thing called historical precident. Your claim that increasing the defecit by over a trillion shouldn't be a concern because you expect a GDP bump of epic proportions to offset the increase to the sovereign debt. Well, they said that with Reagan and they said that with Bush Jr. Where did that epic GDP jump occur? The type of GDP jump you expect to offset the debt/GDP ratio shows how naive you are .The GDP bump you expect can only occur in a place where a significant portion of a country is not developed. Places like India and Bangladesh can see that type of GDP growth because the potential for absurd rates of growth are there. Unless you see a new revolution in quantum computing down the horizon that will drastically influence the potential ceiling if GDP growth, you are off your rockers and have no clue how the economy works.
There are different philosophies different people and experts are emotionally tied to. The experts that don’t believe in “Supply Side Economics” are typically liberal but supply side economics has proven track record. If you give 10 dollars to 10 million people everyone gets to by a burger and fries, great for a day I guess. But if you give a 100 million dollars to corporations you get more jobs and more products that make our lives better. That is the very basics of “Supply Side Economics”. There wasn’t a demand for smart phones before we had smart phones. Likewise, many of the great medical advances we enjoy today are credited to the amount of money Reagan infused that industry with when he budgeted for Star Wars back in the 80s. When when lcorporations have more money the invest more money back into infrastructure, R&D etc... all of that leads to more jobs. Additionally when corporate taxes were 39% we were the highest in the industrialized world. Does anyone really think that was a good thing for keeping jobs in the US and prevented companies from setting up shop someplace else? Remember deficit and debt are 2 different things although both are important. Our dept to GPD ratio was at 106% in 2016, that is almost a disaster. We need strong corporations to increase our GDP. At the very least we should all be able to agree that the less money a corporation has the less likely they are to increase wages and add new jobs. We should also be able to agree that corporations are in business to make money and when they make money it typically binefits society with newer products and more jobs.
David Stockman, Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget and known as the "father of Reaganomics" says "supply side economics" and "trickle-down economics" are synonymous and that it was really just a trojan horse to bring down the top tax rate and give tax cuts to the rich. "the supply-side theory was not a new economic theory at all but only new language and argument to conceal a hoary old Republican doctrine: Give the tax cuts to top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects "trickle down" through the economy to reach everyone else." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...b91-8001-d82dd2816f06/?utm_term=.4a0e5832d3ea The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory". He wrote: "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics Corporate profits have been high for years and yet I don't think you can point to "more jobs" nor higher wages.
Cool graph but what is the “Debt to GDP ratio”? What was it in 2008? What was it during the Reagan years? and what is it now? It might shock and scare you just a little. What happens when your personal dept to income ratio increases too much? You loose the ability to get loans and if it continues to rise you could end up bankrupt. It’s not specifically about the amount of dept you have because $10000.00 in credit card dept means different things to different income groups. You're welcome to sling insults and tell I’m off my rocker and have no clue all you want, but I have no intent on perticipating in insults. At the end of the day the proof will be “In the pudding” as the saying goes.
Thanks for "explain it like I'm 5" explination of the very basics of supply side economics that 99% of posters here already have a understanding of. Smartphones became a thing because of Moore's law and the natural progression of the fabrication process of nodes and their shrinking fabrication size which results in faster and more efficient performance. Tax breaks had nothing to do with it .It was a very natural progression that was predicted to happen decades ago. Moore's law is flattening out due to it's logarithmic trajectory. We are already pushing 10nm process and soon we are goin to be at a stone wall untill quantum computing becomes a tangible realistic endevor. Anyways, any massive surge of GDP growth from technology advancement wouldn't require a tax break as you suggest as the funders of industry will invest in said technology regardless of their tax savings or lack of it because demand for revolutionary technology is always there. I would say that public investment into programs like DARPA that started the baseline infrastructure for the modern WWW which requires tax revenue is more beneficial to society . Also, the defecit is directly correlated to the sovereign debt as the defecit is the annual debt and the total sovereign debt is the accumulation of annual deficits . You skipped the historical precident part. Historical precident has shown that the tax cuts for the wealthy doesn't increase GDP growth. Yacht manufacturing industry is going to do well however. If you work in that industry, you might see a boom. Also, your entire premise is about how the debt to GDP ratio has only gotten significantly worse under the Obama administration yet you are applauding a bill that adds 1.8 trillion to the annual defecit.... Hoping that something equivalent to a new technological revolution would offset the massive spike. We ain't China or India, with a massive population of untapped potential nor are we expected to see a massive spike trough technology advancement and even if we did, you are naive to think tax cuts are going to jump start it. So essentially your solution to the increase in debt to GDP ratio is advancing a bill that will severely inflate the debt based on a pure political promise of unprecedented growth... That's called being a sucker .
The Reagan administration pulled this country out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. I remember entire neighborhoods in foreclosure due to many decisions including mortgage rates that were around 15%. Trickle Down Economics is what people that don’t believe in Supply Side Economics refer to Supply Side Economics. It has been proven to work. So your in the camp that says corporations making less money is good for the current workforce and people trying to enter the workforce?
Didn't the debt to GDP ratio skyrocket throughout the entirety of Reagan's administration? Isn't the complete opposite of what you are claiming?
Let's review with a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers (and another recognized founder of Reaganomics): Source: https://www.thebalance.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569 To answer you other question (and btw, it is always a fail when you make up a false argument to prove your point... look up the definition of "straw dog").. "my camp (I have a camp now? Great... I love camping)" does not believe there is a direct correlation between corporate profits and hiring/wages. edit: btw, did you not read the post you responded to? David Stockman calls "supply-side economics" "trickle-down economics". Since the architect of Reaganomics calls to trickle-down economics and Reaganomics was the best know effort at supply-side economics, I guess its pretty safe for everyone to use the two terms interchangeably.
Absolutely it went up but it never got over 50%. In 2008 it was 67% but it was 1006% in 2016 . I believe the all time high was about 118% around WWII.
Yup. In a utopia capitalist society, corporate profits and holdings would be a accurate measurment of economic health but with corporate lobbying and campaign financing, a increase in public trading companies shares, worth can just mean nothing more than more revenue being saved because of corporate lobbying rather than actual health of the company and the demand of the products or services the company sells. It's why I was always irked when people pointed at the surging stock market for "health of the economy" towards the last year of Obama's admin.
