You said invest somewhere else. I’m saying they just let it sit. That tax cut was a boon to the investor class. Nothing more nothing less. They just watched their portfolio’s expand. It was not steered back into the economy. It didn’t “juice” anything but the 1%’s bottom line. A giant give away to the donor class who will open up their pocket books come election time. I guess that is one thing it will stimulate. More dark money that will buy elections. Rinse repeat.

(07-30-2018 11:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You said invest somewhere else. I’m saying they just let it sit. That tax cut was a boon to the investor class. Nothing more nothing less. They just watched their portfolio’s expand. It was not steered back into the economy. It didn’t “juice” anything but the 1%’s bottom line. A giant give away to the donor class who will open up their pocket books come election time. I guess that is one thing it will stimulate. More dark money that will buy elections. Rinse repeat.

I can assure you they don't ket it sit. They put it somewhere that it will grow. That means investing in something. They invested in something in the first place when they bought the stock that got repurchased. They either invest it or consume with it. What they don't do is let it sit. Nobody does that.

Let’s say a corporation or a private investor owns Stock “A” It pays a dividend at 4.5%. If the dividend is higher than inflation. The stock price continues to go up with corporate buy backs. Why wouldn’t I continue to reinvest the dividend and continue to buy more stock. Individual investor and corporate? What I’m not going to do is invest in expansion and hire more people when I know a recession is around the corner. Hell if I do build it’s going to be automated.

This is why trickle down never works. You think you guys would have learned the lesson but it’s a continual zombie lie. Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy for the cost they infer on the treasury and our future generations.

(07-31-2018 12:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Let’s say a corporation or a private investor owns Stock “A” It pays a dividend at 4.5%. If the dividend is higher than inflation. The stock price continues to go up with corporate buy backs. Why wouldn’t I continue to reinvest the dividend and continue to buy more stock. Individual investor and corporate? What I’m not going to do is invest in expansion and hire more people when I know a recession is around the corner. Hell if I do build it’s going to be automated.
This is why trickle down never works. You think you guys would have learned the lesson but it’s a continual zombie lie. Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy for the cost they infer on the treasury and our future generations.

I'm fine saying that, "Trickle down is a zombie lie," because "trickle down" is not what happens. "Trickle down" says if you let me keep more of my money after taxes, I'm going to spend it and stimulate the economy. That is a misunderstanding that comes from thinking of the economy from the consumption side only. Supply side economics says that if you make investment attractive enough to me, I'm going to invest, and that is going to create high-paying jobs, and the people who take those jobs are going to do the consuming.

I can heat up an economy short term by using stimulus spending to spur consumption. But I can't make it last long-term without stimulating investment in the supply side too. If companies are doing stock buybacks instead of investing, that means that the expected ROI from investing is not high enough. We can't grow the numerator, so we are going to slash the denominator. Now, in the first year, it may simply mean that they didn't have any investment opportunities teed up and ready to go. But if it persists long-term, it's a problem. If so, we need to revisit our supply-side incentives.

(07-30-2018 07:21 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:16 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  and before those of you who can't form an intelligent thought want to just respond and call me a liberal, I'm a registered republican. However, I just happen to believe in being an actual conservative that lowers spending along with lowering taxes, not just 1 of the 2.

You may be a registered Republican, but the last Republicans who ran for President who were actually avowed, proven, and serious cutters of spending had last names ending in "Paul" and "Johnson". Their quick defeat says everything about the GOP on fiscal "conservatism": It's been a lie for some time now. As though we didn't learn that lesson before with Dubya and an all GOP government. Or now. I'm afraid if you're looking for real cutters, you're going to enjoy those nice "0 for (large number)" voting records that libertarians have in elections.

abso-f**king-lutely.

The current GOP for the most part is just as much for bigger government as democrats, they just want to go about it in a different way.

Hunh.

I'll bite. What "different way" do democrats want to go to bigger government? Coupled with, if I may, is whatever you propose the best route for America? Its people?

This should be fascinating.

(07-31-2018 01:38 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:21 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:16 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  and before those of you who can't form an intelligent thought want to just respond and call me a liberal, I'm a registered republican. However, I just happen to believe in being an actual conservative that lowers spending along with lowering taxes, not just 1 of the 2.

You may be a registered Republican, but the last Republicans who ran for President who were actually avowed, proven, and serious cutters of spending had last names ending in "Paul" and "Johnson". Their quick defeat says everything about the GOP on fiscal "conservatism": It's been a lie for some time now. As though we didn't learn that lesson before with Dubya and an all GOP government. Or now. I'm afraid if you're looking for real cutters, you're going to enjoy those nice "0 for (large number)" voting records that libertarians have in elections.

abso-f**king-lutely.
The current GOP for the most part is just as much for bigger government as democrats, they just want to go about it in a different way.

Hunh.
I'll bite. What "different way" do democrats want to go to bigger government? Coupled with, if I may, is whatever you propose the best route for America? Its people?
This should be fascinating.

The big differences that I see are that democrats are "tax and spend" advocates who've never met a spending program they didn't like, and whose game is to take from producers and redistribute to people who will vote for ever bigger handouts. Republicans on the other hand are "deficit and spend" advocates, who are okay with the democrats' programs, as long as we spend somewhat less on those programs and keep taxes low.

Fiscal responsibility starts with a balanced budget. What I'd like to see republicans do come up with different approaches, rather than simply going along with democrat programs, only spending less on them. And balancing the budget will require more tax revenues. But get them in ways that minimize the harm to society and the economy.

(07-30-2018 05:21 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....

except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?

oh god.....you listen to way too much rhetoric.....

if I net 100k when I sell a stock, and the amt. I give to the gov't is lowered, how does that not put more cash flow in movement relative to the economy?

you'll have to help me out why this isn't a good move if you believe in capitalism and incentive to work.....

well seeing as how american ownership in stock has gone down over the last 10 years, probably due to baby boomers wrecking the economy, I'd rather see wages go up across the country, which would affect every working citizen, versus something that only helps 50 percent of the country.

But that's just me.

Awww, your teen angst is showing, puddin. If you aren't a teen you should have outgrown that angst by now, let it go. One day your generation will get blamed for everything too so there is that.

(07-30-2018 11:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You said invest somewhere else. I’m saying they just let it sit. That tax cut was a boon to the investor class. Nothing more nothing less. They just watched their portfolio’s expand. It was not steered back into the economy. It didn’t “juice” anything but the 1%’s bottom line. A giant give away to the donor class who will open up their pocket books come election time. I guess that is one thing it will stimulate. More dark money that will buy elections. Rinse repeat.

Investing in financial instruments is a good thing overall, because it makes money available to the capital markets for reinvestment in physical assets. To your point, those who trade shares of stock in the market - which is the secondary market - may be trading among themselves and it appears that all they are doing is trading within a closed environment. However, not all of that money is continuously reinvested in just stocks. The money has to be parked somewhere - usually at a bank of some sort (likely investment banks). That money is put to work by other institutions - like banks who make loans to others off the deposits for example - or capital to underwrite new IPOs.

My 401k and IRAs are with Vanguard. When I do payroll deductions, my money isn't simply going into a giant vault on Vangaurd's premises. That money is being put to work elsewhere on the supply side curve of the economy. It's analogous to the velocity of money on the demand side.

Personal capital gains that are not re-invested within 12 months need to be taxed as income, if re-invested, no tax.

(07-31-2018 08:17 AM)BobL Wrote:  Personal capital gains that are not re-invested within 12 months need to be taxed as income, if re-invested, no tax.

Why?

(07-31-2018 08:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:17 AM)BobL Wrote:  Personal capital gains that are not re-invested within 12 months need to be taxed as income, if re-invested, no tax.

Why?

You ask questions that have the most obvious answers...why? I am certain you know why.

Increased demand will spark investment. We’re doing nothing to put more disposable income in the hands of spenders. The tax cut disproportionately went to corporations and the top brackets. Wages are down and expenses are up.

(07-31-2018 08:37 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:17 AM)BobL Wrote:  Personal capital gains that are not re-invested within 12 months need to be taxed as income, if re-invested, no tax.

Why?

You ask questions that have the most obvious answers...why? I am certain you know why.

I know a political why. Let's screw the 1% to buy the votes of the rest. After all, they've got plenty of money. But I don't know another why. Do you?

(07-31-2018 08:38 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Increased demand will spark investment. We’re doing nothing to put more disposable income in the hands of spenders. The tax cut disproportionately went to corporations and the top brackets. Wages are down and expenses are up.

If you're fine with spenders going to Wal-Mart to buy stuff made in China, good plan. But if you want stuff to be made here, and provide good paying jobs in the process, then you need to address the supply side. Stimulating demand without addressing supply sends supply overseas, or haven't you noticed.

We've had no economic policy but to stimulate consumption for the better part of the last 90 years. We are now the leading debtor nation in the world, the leading net importer, and our citizens consume more of their disposable income and save less than any other developed country. Those data points say t's not the demand side that's the problem.

Europe provides a more comprehensive welfare safety net than we do, and a more tax efficient return for investors. They have to, because they don't have our geographic and demographic advantages. We would do well to learn from them. If we could adapt what they know to what we have, we'd be pretty well fixed for a while.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...hemselves/

(07-30-2018 05:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:25 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....

except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?

Wrong. Please provide a link that shows ALL WAGE EARNER WAGES ARE DOWN, or retract and disavow.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...or-workers

https://www.payscale.com/career-news/201...industries

these work for you?

Here's another
https://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax-...ses-879800

Link 1 - Fake News. The author even admits "Official data for the second quarter isn’t available yet"

Link 2 - A Fake News link mentioned in Link1. Nowhere does it say, backed by data, that wages for everyone went down. Instead, they are cherry picking a subset. Even the article admits that there are so few workers for certain jobs that their wages are increasing. The reason wages went DOWN for a subset group of hourly employees is because business started hiring like mad for entry level work, which led to MORE WORKERS. When averaging their salary in, it brings down the AVERAGE for that group, because you have an influx of low paying workers entering the market. The correct way to measure wages going up ad down would be to compare only the workers who worked in Q1, and compare those to the same workers in Q2. That would show wages up.

Link 3 doesnt even report facts, but instead base their analysis on a "study." A study in which their methodology page reports was created in 2017, PRIOR TO THE TAX CUTS GOING INTO EFFECT.

Again, nowhere did you show a link that showed actual data where the actual reported salaries for all workers went down.

And, in another episode of where something shouldnt have been posted until the actual real data came in - Wages INCREASED in 2Q.

US workers see biggest pay, benefit increase in 10 years
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-w...n-10-years

(07-31-2018 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:38 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Increased demand will spark investment. We’re doing nothing to put more disposable income in the hands of spenders. The tax cut disproportionately went to corporations and the top brackets. Wages are down and expenses are up.

If you're fine with spenders going to Wal-Mart to buy stuff made in China, good plan. But if you want stuff to be made here, and provide good paying jobs in the process, then you need to address the supply side. Stimulating demand without addressing supply sends supply overseas, or haven't you noticed.

We've had no economic policy but to stimulate consumption for the better part of the last 90 years. We are now the leading debtor nation in the world, the leading net importer, and our citizens consume more of their disposable income and save less than any other developed country. Those data points say t's not the demand side that's the problem.

Europe provides a more comprehensive welfare safety net than we do, and a more tax efficient return for investors. They have to, because they don't have our geographic and demographic advantages. We would do well to learn from them. If we could adapt what they know to what we have, we'd be pretty well fixed for a while.

Prior to the latest tax cuts, Americans had one of the lowest tax liabilities in the western world.

European countries provide more because they tax more.

(07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....

except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?

You say wages are down, but mine are up.


When others gained healthcare services through ObamaCare that was (supposedly) a good thing even though I lost services and had to pay a higher price.

So if a policy is positive for a few and negative for others, we should all be OK. Right?

(07-31-2018 04:46 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:38 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Increased demand will spark investment. We’re doing nothing to put more disposable income in the hands of spenders. The tax cut disproportionately went to corporations and the top brackets. Wages are down and expenses are up.

If you're fine with spenders going to Wal-Mart to buy stuff made in China, good plan. But if you want stuff to be made here, and provide good paying jobs in the process, then you need to address the supply side. Stimulating demand without addressing supply sends supply overseas, or haven't you noticed.
We've had no economic policy but to stimulate consumption for the better part of the last 90 years. We are now the leading debtor nation in the world, the leading net importer, and our citizens consume more of their disposable income and save less than any other developed country. Those data points say t's not the demand side that's the problem.
Europe provides a more comprehensive welfare safety net than we do, and a more tax efficient return for investors. They have to, because they don't have our geographic and demographic advantages. We would do well to learn from them. If we could adapt what they know to what we have, we'd be pretty well fixed for a while.

Prior to the latest tax cuts, Americans had one of the lowest tax liabilities in the western world.
European countries provide more because they tax more.

Which is true but irrelevant, because the critical point is not how much the total tax burden is, but how that tax burden is structured. Every European country taxed corporations at lower rates than we do prior to the 2017 tax reform, and many still do. The "wealthy" pay a lower percentage of the total tax bill in most of Europe than they do here. The lower and middle classes pay a much larger share of the total tax bill than they do here, primarily because up to 30% of total tax revenues come from "regressive" consumption taxes. On the flip side, most welfare benefits are not "means tested" so the middle class (and quite frankly the "rich") receive for more social welfare benefits that here.

It's a different conceptual approach. Rather than "progressive" income taxes and "means tested" benefits to make the system highly redistributionist, it's more of an "everybody benefits and everybody pays" approach. It's more about a safety net than about redistribution.

Google the the OECD Tax Database pages and take a look around. Very interesting. What is particularly interesting is that they have historic data dating back to 1981 or so. You can take a look at how their philosophy has changed in that time frame. Most of Europe (and indeed most other developed countries) have lowered and flattened income tax rates (both personal and corporate) significantly, while increasing reliance on consumption taxes. As I have said before, with this approach Europe is able to offer both a more comprehensive welfare safety net for those at the bottom and a more tax efficient ROI for investors.

Not sure how seriously to take the Wharton School, since they've shown they'll grant a degree to an absolute blithering idiot and his moronic offspring, but here's their analysis:

http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/eco...-inflation

Takeaway is that 63 percent of the benefit will go to those making 7.31 million or more (top 0.1 percent) and another 23 percent to those making 1.48 million and up (the next 0.9 percent).

That's not a whole lot of pockets feeling more coins in them.