Which will voters remember more in 2024?

[SuperMatt]

Debt increased due to increased spending, not decreased revenue.

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalance.com

Again, do you ever read the articles you post? How tiresome.

• Tax cuts implemented by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump to drive economic growth further reduced revenues.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act cut taxes for corporations much more than it did for individuals. In 2015, corporations paid 11%, and income taxpayers paid 47%.

Also, if you look at the chart there, you could see that tax revenue from 2016-2020 was flat. The supposed economic growth that was supposed to actually “raise” revenue despite the tax cuts did not materialize.

Thanks for the laughs!

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Debt increased due to increased spending, not decreased revenue.

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalance.com

It might be a little too early for me to comprehend that article, or it doesn't explain it, but how do you both cut taxes and collect more taxes? I'm not saying those numbers are wrong. I'm just asking where does that growing tax revenue come from?

 

[Herdfan]

Again, do you ever read the articles you post? How tiresome.



Also, if you look at the chart there, you could see that tax revenue from 2016-2020 was flat. The supposed economic growth that was supposed to actually “raise” revenue despite the tax cuts did not materialize.

Thanks for the laughs!

My point was federal revenue did not decrease in spite of the tax cuts. I realize this is an inconvenient truth.

Did it increase as much as it would have without the tax cuts, maybe not. But the narrative that the Trump tax cuts reduced revenue is false.

 

[Herdfan]

It might be a little too early for me to comprehend that article, or it doesn't explain it, but how do you both cut taxes and collect more taxes? I'm not saying those numbers are wrong. I'm just asking where does that growing tax revenue come from?

In short, it is very complicated. ei. PhD in Economics complicated. But when you allow people/businesses to keep more money, they tend to spend it. Spending drives economic growth. It is called supply side economics, which the left hates.

Laffer Curve: History and Critique

The Laffer Curve displays the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue that's collected by governments. It's been the source of some political debate.

www.investopedia.com

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Democrats really handed the Republicans a gift with the separate infrastructure bill. A lot of Republican politicians were pissed that Trump didn’t introduce one, something wildly popular that they would support. But by not doing so and the Democrats introducing a separate infrastructure bill the Republicans can now say they want to do something for America and it’s the Democrats who are being the obstructionists.

 

[Herdfan]

Democrats really handed the Republicans a gift with the separate infrastructure bill. A lot of Republican politicians were pissed that Trump didn’t introduce one, something wildly popular that they would support. But by not doing so and the Democrats introducing a separate infrastructure bill the Republicans can now say they want to do something for America and it’s the Democrats who are being the obstructionists.

It is what happens when you hand a small minority of the caucus too much power. In this case, "The Squad". Without them, the smaller bill would have already been passed, but they are holding Pelosi hostage on it.

Not that it is only a Dem problem. The GOP has had the same issue in the past as well, but right now it is a Dem problem.

 

[User.168]

.

 

[Herdfan]

And here I thought it was the 2 Republican lizards masquerading as democrats that was the problem.

Your obsession with the squad is showing again.

It's not an obsession if it's true.

 

[User.168]

.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

It is what happens when you hand a small minority of the caucus too much power. In this case, "The Squad". Without them, the smaller bill would have already been passed, but they are holding Pelosi hostage on it.

Not that it is only a Dem problem. The GOP has had the same issue in the past as well, but right now it is a Dem problem.

There are far more progressive members of congress than just The Squad. Like you mentioned, there are also more corporate extremists in the Democrat congress than just Machin and Sinema. They’re just taking the media heat. The Squad is taking the heat for progressives.

We can thank the Tea Party for Trump. At least one former member, Joe Walsh, has repeatedly apologized for it and lost his daily radio show for spending the bulk of it railing against Trump. There’s no place in conservative radio for hosts who oppose Trump and Trumpism.

You would probably like his new podcast, White Flag. Each week he has a guest who he disagrees with on policy. First guest was Andrew Yang, bold move for a Libertarian. The goal isn’t to yell at each other over their differences to declare one side victorious. The goal is to listen to each other and figure out where they can find common ground. With Yang they agreed on rank choice voting and term limits. With a gun control activist they agreed on expanded background checks. He also had a Hollywood actor on (don’t remember who but they were in Pretty in Pink) and they didn’t come to a policy agreement, but Joe learned not all Hollywood is liberal and there are even Hollywood liberals who don’t agree with Democrats on everything. This actor flipped to Independent when he saw the Democrats starting to lean heavy on identity politics. He also sees Hollywood as super hypocritical given their long and recent history filled with racism and sexism. Highly recommend you (or anybody) check it out.

 

[Yoused]

In short, it is very complicated. ei. PhD in Economics complicated. But when you allow people/businesses to keep more money, they tend to spend it. Spending drives economic growth. It is called supply side economics, which the left hates.

Laffer Curve: History and Critique

The Laffer Curve displays the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue that's collected by governments. It's been the source of some political debate.

www.investopedia.com

From your link

The first presentation of the Laffer Curve was performed on a paper napkin back in 1974 when its author was speaking with senior staff members of President Gerald Ford’s administration …​

Investopedia even identifies the Laffer Curve as cocktail napkin economics.

The most important issue here is that the "graph" describes assessed taxes as a gross value. The profile of revised taxation is a non-trivial aspect of the overall dynamic. In general, supply side economics favors top-heavy tax reduction based on the idea that producers will produce more if they can retain more revenue, but history has shown this to be the opposite of what happens in the real world.

Money becomes a plaything to the wealthy, and more of it means more play, not more work. Our consumer-based economy derives its fuel from consumers, which means that cutting taxes at the top is not a net gain. In fact, giving wealthy people more money simply seems to lead them toward developing more elaborate strategies to extract money from less wealthy people, which has fed this ever increasing economic stratification that is destabilizing our system.

The tax cuts that the Republican-controlled Congress put in place did have the upward bias, so, realistically, they did little to "grow" the economy, and most likely made it worse (as evidenced by the current "labor shortage"). This, of course, is assuming that economic growth is a desirable thing. Right now, with issues like climate change getting pushed to the fore, one might infer that growing the economy should not be a priority, when growth itself has brought us to this pass.

 

[Herdfan]

There are far more progressive members of congress than just The Squad. Like you mentioned, there are also more corporate extremists in the Democrat congress than just Machin and Sinema. They’re just taking the media heat. The Squad is taking the heat for progressives.

True, but it is The Squad who is on record holding it up. But as you mentioned, they are giving cover to some others. Just like Manchin and Sinema are,

Money becomes a plaything to the wealthy, and more of it means more play, not more work. Our consumer-based economy derives its fuel from consumers, which means that cutting taxes at the top is not a net gain. In fact, giving wealthy people more money simply seems to lead them toward developing more elaborate strategies to extract money from less wealthy people, which has fed this ever increasing economic stratification that is destabilizing our system.

I don't disagree. But where do we draw the line? A single guy making $100K who drives a 10 year old car and saves 60% of his salary is not helping the economy as much as a married couple making $500K, but spending most of it on stuff they don't need. Yet the couple is the one targeted by tax increases, so if they have to pay an extra $25K in taxes, that is money not going back into the economy. Yes, the government is putting it back in, but it is not the same.

I have always wondered how an investment tax would work. Get it on the front end, not the back. So that guy making $100 putting $60K in mutual funds pays 10%, so his $60K, gets him $54K invested. It can't be so high it would keep people from investing though. And his basis stays at $60K.

The problem is to someone making $35K, that person making $100K is rich so tax the hell out of them. And on and on.

And do we need to tax based on location. Where I live, I guess I would be considered, rich, or at least very well off. Move me to Manhattan or The Bay Area and I would probably be middle middle. So taking an extra 10% of my income won't hurt as bad where I live vs someone who is spending 70% of their income on housing.

Here is the one caveat to a lot of this, rich people have better accountants than the government. Now whether or not these loopholes are put in on purpose, or simply just poor legislation I don't know, but the rich can exploit them. And they do. I mean Bezos, or Musk or Zuckerberg can sell $2B worth of their stock, pay $400M in taxes and live off the remaining $1.6B for the rest of their lives and not pay another cent in taxes.

 

[SuperMatt]

It is what happens when you hand a small minority of the caucus too much power. In this case, "The Squad". Without them, the smaller bill would have already been passed, but they are holding Pelosi hostage on it.

Not that it is only a Dem problem. The GOP has had the same issue in the past as well, but right now it is a Dem problem.

Manchin and Sinema are the problem. The House PASSED their legislation, with the “Squad” voting for it.

But really, I think we should get more parties. The current 2-party system is broken. One party is openly trying to destroy the government (and bragging about it), and opposing everything the other party tries to accomplish, just in hopes of making them look bad.

Representatives should all be working together to do what’s best for America. That hasn’t been happening for decades.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

True, but it is The Squad who is on record holding it up. But as you mentioned, they are giving cover to some others. Just like Manchin and Sinema are,



I don't disagree. But where do we draw the line? A single guy making $100K who drives a 10 year old car and saves 60% of his salary is not helping the economy as much as a married couple making $500K, but spending most of it on stuff they don't need. Yet the couple is the one targeted by tax increases, so if they have to pay an extra $25K in taxes, that is money not going back into the economy. Yes, the government is putting it back in, but it is not the same.

I have always wondered how an investment tax would work. Get it on the front end, not the back. So that guy making $100 putting $60K in mutual funds pays 10%, so his $60K, gets him $54K invested. It can't be so high it would keep people from investing though. And his basis stays at $60K.

The problem is to someone making $35K, that person making $100K is rich so tax the hell out of them. And on and on.

And do we need to tax based on location. Where I live, I guess I would be considered, rich, or at least very well off. Move me to Manhattan or The Bay Area and I would probably be middle middle. So taking an extra 10% of my income won't hurt as bad where I live vs someone who is spending 70% of their income on housing.

Here is the one caveat to a lot of this, rich people have better accountants than the government. Now whether or not these loopholes are put in on purpose, or simply just poor legislation I don't know, but the rich can exploit them. And they do. I mean Bezos, or Musk or Zuckerberg can sell $2B worth of their stock, pay $400M in taxes and live off the remaining $1.6B for the rest of their lives and not pay another cent in taxes.

We wouldn't even be talking about more taxes and government assistance programs if employers stopped paying people just the least amount they will tolerate. Most companies big and small don't give a damn about their employee's quality of life. They think they are heroes just for paying them anything to do something.

 

[SuperMatt]

We wouldn't even be talking about more taxes and government assistance programs if employers stopped paying people just the least amount they will tolerate. Most companies big and small don't give a damn about their employee's quality of life. They think they are heroes just for paying them anything to do something.

People are acting on their own instead of waiting for the government. 4.3 million people quitting jobs in one month?

The GOP response to this has been extremely informative. They say they don’t want government interfering, so shouldn’t they be happy that the “free market” is working to get workers higher wages?

Nope.

“The Biden Admin has created a culture that fosters unemployment.” -Yes, that is what Republicans are saying about this. Not that wages are too low, or that people are thinking about work/life balance… nope. This worker backlash against low wages, unpredictable hours, and no benefits is all because Biden is creating a “culture” of unemployment? Utter nonsense. People don’t quit their job because of some imaginary “culture” created by a president in office less than a year. They quit because the money isn’t enough for them to continue at a job they dislike. The labor market is finally tipping towards workers instead of companies, and Republicans are angry about it. They care only about the rich.

 

[Yoused]

I don't disagree. But where do we draw the line? A single guy making $100K who drives a 10 year old car and saves 60% of his salary is not helping the economy as much as a married couple making $500K, but spending most of it on stuff they don't need. Yet the couple is the one targeted by tax increases, so if they have to pay an extra $25K in taxes, that is money not going back into the economy. Yes, the government is putting it back in, but it is not the same.

One idea that has vaguely been floated is a graduated asset tax. The sub-middle-class person you mentioned, making $35K would probably not have much in the way of residual wealth, stocks or property, so they would not be affected much, but the billionaires who have billions of dollars in stuff would have to pay taxes on that stuff. There are, of course, downsides, but there are downsides to everything, including downsides to not having an asset tax.

I have always wondered how an investment tax would work. Get it on the front end, not the back. So that guy making $100 putting $60K in mutual funds pays 10%, so his $60K, gets him $54K invested. It can't be so high it would keep people from investing though. And his basis stays at $60K.

Back in the 1930s, Franky got Congress to balance the budget with a 0.5% tax on instrument trades. That is, if you sell a stock or future or other instrument, a tax was assessed on the value of the transaction. A literal sales tax on the stock market.

The trading tax can be immensely beneficial in more than just revenue. Taxing trades puts a throttle on the market, which is almost always a good thing. Having cash slosh wildly around can have a destabilizing effect on the economy, creating ridiculous fad-based bubbles. Tamping that down and getting money into the treasury at the same time is a major net positive.

 

[Herdfan]

Manchin and Sinema are the problem. The House PASSED their legislation, with the “Squad” voting for it.

But really, I think we should get more parties. The current 2-party system is broken. One party is openly trying to destroy the government (and bragging about it), and opposing everything the other party tries to accomplish, just in hopes of making them look bad.

Representatives should all be working together to do what’s best for America. That hasn’t been happening for decades.

For the BIG package yes. For the smaller $1.5T package, the Squad is the problem.

Would love to see more parties. At least one big one where the middle 60% could tell the 20% on both the fringes to go pound sand.

 

[SuperMatt]

For the BIG package yes. For the smaller $1.5T package, the Squad is the problem.

I strongly disagree. If they let the roads/bridges plan pass on its own, the big package wouldn’t even be in the news now. It would have died a long time ago.

 

[ronntaylor]

Too many stupid voters of all stripes. "Voting against their best interests" is used to describe GOP/Rethugican voters. But it often applies to Dem voters, especially newer and first time voters. They either vote for extremists or they vote and disappear. That partially explains the Tea Party bloodbath for Obama's first midterms. I keep repeating my friend Bernie's adage for 2008-2010: Democrats voted, won and went home. Republicans voted, lost and went to work. Obama was too much of a lightweight that worried too much about his legacy. And I think he also worried too much about "not doing stupid shit." He should have attacked McConnell and the GOP when they showed him who they were. He played too nice. Dems generally play fair and hope for reciprocity.

It's way too late to bring a butter knife to a gun fight. They need to respond in kind to McConnell, McCarthy and Mango. It's war and they're playing too fucking nice.

Should they survive next week (looks like Murphy will win in New Jersey, and I think Youngkin's running from Mango will hurt him with early voting looking good for Dems even though the GOP is trying their best to get Republicans to early vote despite their "Steal the Vote" rhetoric) and then next year's midterms, they should clean house. That includes the insane, unrealistic "progressives" and blue-dog dummies that may as well join the GOP. Some of the current Dem leadership needs to also step aside even if they are in the majority come January 2023.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Too many stupid voters of all stripes. "Voting against their best interests" is used to describe GOP/Rethugican voters. But it often applies to Dem voters, especially newer and first time voters. They either vote for extremists or they vote and disappear. That partially explains the Tea Party bloodbath for Obama's first midterms. I keep repeating my friend Bernie's adage for 2008-2010: Democrats voted, won and went home. Republicans voted, lost and went to work. Obama was too much of a lightweight that worried too much about his legacy. And I think he also worried too much about "not doing stupid shit." He should have attacked McConnell and the GOP when they showed him who they were. He played too nice. Dems generally play fair and hope for reciprocity.

It's way too late to bring a butter knife to a gun fight. They need to respond in kind to McConnell, McCarthy and Mango. It's war and they're playing too fucking nice.

Should they survive next week (looks like Murphy will win in New Jersey, and I think Youngkin's running from Mango will hurt him with early voting looking good for Dems even though the GOP is trying their best to get Republicans to early vote despite their "Steal the Vote" rhetoric) and then next year's midterms, they should clean house. That includes the insane, unrealistic "progressives" and blue-dog dummies that may as well join the GOP. Some of the current Dem leadership needs to also step aside even if they are in the majority come January 2023.

I feel like history is going to look back at this time as when Democrats nice guyed themselves into irrelevancy. They were hugging babies while getting crushed legislatively going all the way back to Clinton.