| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/10/16 11:35 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Generally speaking, the Democratic platform has always been cut tax loopholes, add more regulations for businesses etc. It wasn't new for Bernie, Bernie just wanted to tax these people down to the middle class.  (That was totes a point Bernie for me during the primaries. ) Republicans actually believe in trickle down economics. That you give tax breaks to the wealthy, and that stimulates the economy. (Despite 50 years proving otherwise.)
|
The Dems would probably like you to believe this, but they create at least as many special interest tax breaks as the GOP. And no administration has closed as many loopholes as Ronald Reagan did. It's actually funny that a lot of "conservative" clowns like Cruz like to claim Reagan cut taxes, which he did in 1981, and he did cut rates, but he closed so many loopholes and eliminated so many tax breaks in '82, '84 and '86, that it was at least revenue neutral and he built in automatic increases that have raised them more over time. The 1982 and 1984 tax acts together represent the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is famous amount tax practioners for closing loopholes and eliminating deductions. It's the law that eliminated deductions for club memberships and a long laundry list of other junk like that.
So your sweeping generalization is factually incorrect. |
It's not a sweeping generalization. It's policy.
Second, Reagan closed tax loopholes because he had to, not out of his own policy. He originally made the biggest tax cut in history, then when revenues weren't where he wanted them to be, compromise was necessary, and he closed tax loopholes.
He didn't want to. It was a compromise, and Reagan was a Republican with bad policies, but still knew how to act like an adult and do what was likely best for the country.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/25/stephen-colbert/stephen-colbert-brings-ronald-reagans-tax-raising-/
So thus, my point stands. Even if Reagan closed tax loopholes and increased taxes later in his presidency, it wasn't his policy to do so.
BTW, despite the fact that Reagan started the trickle down economics bullshit, he'd probably be a Democrat today. Because once again, they're the only adults in the room. |
I don't know if you weren't born when Reagan was president, or were just asleep, but your characterization is simply wrong.
Reagan was a deficit hawk, first and foremost. (And then, because of his "let's spend the Soviet Union into oblivion" strategy, he actually increased the deficit anyhow.) And it was most definitely his policy to tremendously simplify the tax code by eliminating shelters and deductions.
You really shouldn't spout your fiction in the guise of fact.
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 10/10/16 11:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 11:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Generally speaking, the Democratic platform has always been cut tax loopholes, add more regulations for businesses etc. It wasn't new for Bernie, Bernie just wanted to tax these people down to the middle class. (That was totes a point Bernie for me during the primaries. ) Republicans actually believe in trickle down economics. That you give tax breaks to the wealthy, and that stimulates the economy. (Despite 50 years proving otherwise.)
|
The Dems would probably like you to believe this, but they create at least as many special interest tax breaks as the GOP. And no administration has closed as many loopholes as Ronald Reagan did. It's actually funny that a lot of "conservative" clowns like Cruz like to claim Reagan cut taxes, which he did in 1981, and he did cut rates, but he closed so many loopholes and eliminated so many tax breaks in '82, '84 and '86, that it was at least revenue neutral and he built in automatic increases that have raised them more over time. The 1982 and 1984 tax acts together represent the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is famous amount tax practioners for closing loopholes and eliminating deductions. It's the law that eliminated deductions for club memberships and a long laundry list of other junk like that.
So your sweeping generalization is factually incorrect. |
There is no doubt at all that the Democrats were complicit in the creation of these loopholes. Both sides bought into the whole "trickle down" economics sham, it was just a matter of degree and that the democrats also supported welfare programs to help the poor. And Regan, to his credit, did close down many of the more ridiculous loopholes that had been created. But it was only a drop in the bucket. The tax code remained unabashedly tilted towards the wealthy. And both parties accepted this.
But this is also 20-30 years ago. With the Bush tax cuts, the economic collapse, and income inequality rising the Democratic Party has shifted. The rise of Sanders, Warren, and Brown, the shift in party platform, and the way the old guard politicians like Clinton have changed their positions demonstrate that it is a whole new (or old, since it is a fairly Rooseveltian) ideology.
It is a concern about how committed Clinton really is to this shift. Part of the problem with telling people what they want to hear depending upon what group you are talking to (ie: speeches to Wall Street) is that no one really knows what the true belief is and what is just lip service. But we do know that Trump and the Republicans do not believe in it at all. Trump has put forward a plan to cut taxes even more than the Bush tax cuts which economists have said will benefit the wealthy greatly, the poor somewhat, and all the while increasing the burden on the middle classes. In other words, more of the same of what we have had, just to an even greater extent.
So when Clinton rails against the fact that Trump has paid no taxes, it is not hypocritical to her stated goals. Heck even if she paid no taxes it wouldn't be. I think it is a losing argument to expect people to pay more than they have to, and other than the people already well in Clinton's camp it's not going to be that big of a deal. The argument, rather, is that one candidate claims to want to work to keep that from happening, while the other wants to double down on it. I think Clinton needs to make that argument clearer. I mean, come out with a barbed allowance for Trump personally, but still hit him hard on his tax plan.
I would say something like "Since it is the law, Donald was well within his rights to turn his numerous failed business enterprises into paying no personal federal income taxes even though he remained a very wealthy man. But what we want to do is create a system where this isn't a legal option, where billionaires don't pay less in taxes than their secretaries. Donald wants to make sure he and his friends will continue to be able to exploit the workers of this country for their own personal gain, to continue to be able to pay no taxes at the expense of the middle class."
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Last edited by justintyme on 10/10/16 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9669
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 11:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Trump appeared to me to be describing a "groupie" type situation, not unwanted advances, with regard to "being a star and they LET you do anything". |
No. He described sexual assault.
|
It depends on the meaning of "let". You can let someone do something because you want them to do it, or you let them do something even though you don't want them to do it. I thought Trump was describing star struck women, but in looking at the transcript, he said it after mentioning his attraction to beautiful (women). So it wasn't the "groupie" type situation I thought it was.
| Quote: |
The attitude he described is at the heart of just about every case of date rape out there. There is an assumption of "wanting it" of them "letting" him do it because they didn't stop him. |
I assume that in order for it to be date rape, the man has to be given some signal - either verbal or physical - that the woman doesn't want to have sex. That is not "letting".
| Quote: |
And it is consistent with the complaints that have been made the entire time of things he has done to women. Unwanted kissing, running hands up thighs and under skirts. Sexual assault. |
It is certainly consistent with the claims and lawsuit of Jill Harth. I am surprised she hasn't been mentioned by Clinton. Much more damaging than the unverifiable Alicia Machado charges.
Last edited by tfan on 10/10/16 11:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9669
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 11:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Both sides bought into the whole "trickle down" economics sham |
But tax deductions (one man's loophole is another man's deduction) pre-date trickle down economics.
Last edited by tfan on 10/10/16 12:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19789
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 11:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Generally speaking, the Democratic platform has always been cut tax loopholes, add more regulations for businesses etc. It wasn't new for Bernie, Bernie just wanted to tax these people down to the middle class. (That was totes a point Bernie for me during the primaries. ) Republicans actually believe in trickle down economics. That you give tax breaks to the wealthy, and that stimulates the economy. (Despite 50 years proving otherwise.)
|
The Dems would probably like you to believe this, but they create at least as many special interest tax breaks as the GOP. And no administration has closed as many loopholes as Ronald Reagan did. It's actually funny that a lot of "conservative" clowns like Cruz like to claim Reagan cut taxes, which he did in 1981, and he did cut rates, but he closed so many loopholes and eliminated so many tax breaks in '82, '84 and '86, that it was at least revenue neutral and he built in automatic increases that have raised them more over time. The 1982 and 1984 tax acts together represent the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is famous amount tax practioners for closing loopholes and eliminating deductions. It's the law that eliminated deductions for club memberships and a long laundry list of other junk like that.
So your sweeping generalization is factually incorrect. |
It's not a sweeping generalization. It's policy.
Second, Reagan closed tax loopholes because he had to, not out of his own policy. He originally made the biggest tax cut in history, then when revenues weren't where he wanted them to be, compromise was necessary, and he closed tax loopholes.
He didn't want to. It was a compromise, and Reagan was a Republican with bad policies, but still knew how to act like an adult and do what was likely best for the country.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/25/stephen-colbert/stephen-colbert-brings-ronald-reagans-tax-raising-/
So thus, my point stands. Even if Reagan closed tax loopholes and increased taxes later in his presidency, it wasn't his policy to do so.
BTW, despite the fact that Reagan started the trickle down economics bullshit, he'd probably be a Democrat today. Because once again, they're the only adults in the room. |
I don't know if you weren't born when Reagan was president, or were just asleep, but your characterization is simply wrong.
Reagan was a deficit hawk, first and foremost. (And then, because of his "let's spend the Soviet Union into oblivion" strategy, he actually increased the deficit anyhow.) And it was most definitely his policy to tremendously simplify the tax code by eliminating shelters and deductions.
You really shouldn't spout your fiction in the guise of fact. |
*supplies source*
"that's fiction..here is what really happened.."
okay, Artbest.
You can be a deficit Hawk and still have failed policies to reduce the deficit. In fact, it doesn't even contradict with the story I cited.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19789
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 11:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Trump appeared to me to be describing a "groupie" type situation, not unwanted advances, with regard to "being a star and they LET you do anything". |
No. He described sexual assault.
|
It depends on the meaning of "let". You can let someone do something because you want them to do it, or you let them do something even though you don't want them to do it. I thought Trump was describing star struck women, but in looking at the transcript, he said it after mentioning his attraction to beautiful (women). So it wasn't the "groupie" type situation I thought it was.
| Quote: |
The attitude he described is at the heart of just about every case of date rape out there. There is an assumption of "wanting it" of them "letting" him do it because they didn't stop him. |
I assume that in order for it to be date rape, the man has to be given some signal - either verbal or physical - that the woman doesn't want to have sex. That is not "letting".
| Quote: |
And it is consistent with the complaints that have been made the entire time of things he has done to women. Unwanted kissing, running hands up thighs and under skirts. Sexual assault. |
It is certainly consistent with the claims and lawsuit of Jill Harth. I am surprised she hasn't been mentioned by Clinton. Much more damaging than the unverifiable Alicia Machado charges. |
Letting most certainly can be sexual assault.
Donald Trump is a wealthy powerful man, who is also very large. There are an number of reasons for a woman to not fight back when Trump just helps himself that have nothing do with the woman actually wanting him to grab her.
The important aspect here, is that Trump abuses his power and does what he wants. There is no consent. He literally described textbook sexual assault.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 12:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| Both sides bought into the whole "trickle down" economics sham |
Tax deductions (one man's loophole is another man's deduction) pre-date trickle down economics. |
This is correct.
My statement was to push it even further, as both created loopholes for their respective interests, but both also bought into trickle down. While there was a difference in degree, the basic economic ideology of the country shifted strongly to the right at that time. Other than degree the main difference was on the building of the welfare state. The democrats were for it, and the Republicans against. Which, of course, is a major cause of our increased debt. One side was demanding fewer taxes on the wealthy and corporations and the other side was demanding stronger social programs. To get what they wanted, they would compromise and we would end up with both. So we spent more and took in less. And they felt okay doing it because they bought into the sham and it was supposed to create this massive amount of growth.
What they ignored, and what we are now finding out, is that the middle class is what drives growth more than any other. And they were the ones ignored by both parties at the time. The wealthy got their breaks, and the poor were kept from starving, but the middle classes lost ground and the welfare programs weren't strong enough to move the poor into the middle class.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Last edited by justintyme on 10/10/16 12:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67015
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 12:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This is also true.
The concept definitely existed before. But I was under the impression that tfan was setting the timeline of "trickle down" for when it became the supported economic policy of the country. If that is the case, his statement is also true.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 12:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
[quo
But this is also 20-30 years ago. With the Bush tax cuts, the economic collapse, and income inequality rising the Democratic Party has shifted. The rise of Sanders, Warren, and Brown, the shift in party platform, and the way the old guard politicians like Clinton have changed their positions demonstrate that it is a whole new (or old, since it is a fairly Rooseveltian) ideology.
|
This is hilarious. It all just a question of which special interests you're trying to pander to with tax breaks.
"WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today introduced legislation to spur investment in a new energy technology being developed in Athens County. The bill will benefit companies – like Sunpower Inc., located in Athens – that have developed a promising new form of energy generation called “linear generation” by allowing these companies to access an investment tax credit that will help them scale their product to market.". I'm sure his constituent Sunpower will be thrilled to get their very own specialized tax break. This is of course exactly how the Tax Code became the abomination it is. I'm glad to hear the Dems don't do this any more.
And Bernie isn't even a Democrat, so I'm not sure how he represents anything about the Democratic party. ( Don't believe me? Check his Senate website. He still calls himself an Independent, indeed " the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history.")
It's business as usual in Congress. And that includes the Democrats. There is no "change" and I really hope you're not suggesting Hillary's an agent of change. Out of the twenty people or more who made themselves candidates this election, she may be the very most "business as usual" of the bunch, either party.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67015
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
This is also true.
The concept definitely existed before. But I was under the impression that tfan was setting the timeline of "trickle down" for when it became the supported economic policy of the country. If that is the case, his statement is also true. |
Well, no, it was government policy Bryan was railing against. Our government, like all governments, has always been controlled by the wealthy and used primarily for their benefit.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 12:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
[quo
But this is also 20-30 years ago. With the Bush tax cuts, the economic collapse, and income inequality rising the Democratic Party has shifted. The rise of Sanders, Warren, and Brown, the shift in party platform, and the way the old guard politicians like Clinton have changed their positions demonstrate that it is a whole new (or old, since it is a fairly Rooseveltian) ideology.
|
This is hilarious. It all just a question of which special interests you're trying to pander to with tax breaks.
"WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today introduced legislation to spur investment in a new energy technology being developed in Athens County. The bill will benefit companies – like Sunpower Inc., located in Athens – that have developed a promising new form of energy generation called “linear generation” by allowing these companies to access an investment tax credit that will help them scale their product to market.". I'm sure his constituent Sunpower will be thrilled to get their very own specialized tax break. This is of course exactly how the Tax Code became the abomination it is. I'm glad to hear the Dems don't do this any more.
And Bernie isn't even a Democrat, so I'm not sure how he represents anything about the Democratic party. ( Don't believe me? Check his Senate website. He still calls himself an Independent, indeed " the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history.")
It's business as usual in Congress. And that includes the Democrats. There is no "change" and I really hope you're not suggesting Hillary's an agent of change. Out of the twenty people or more who made themselves candidates this election, she may be the very most "business as usual" of the bunch, either party. |
There is nothing wrong with pointed tax breaks to help an actual industry take root. That is different from across the board breaks, or breaks to already well established industries like Big Oil.
Sanders calls himself an independent, but also caucuses with the Democrats. He has shifted the base to the left and changed the party platform. As I said, it is more than fair to question just how committed Clinton is to this sort of change, but at least she claims that she is. With the shift of her base it is very likely that no matter how she personally feels, she will be held to it or face strong opposition from the left. But even if she is an unknown, or doesn't put much effort into the issue, what is the alternative? We know exactly where Trump and the Republican party stands. We know for a fact that none of this happens if they are elected. So go with the one who might, or the one who won't for sure?
What is clear is that if she doesn't, she will be left behind in her own party. And I think she is too much of a politician to allow that to happen. For better or worse, one of her talents is the ability to shift when needed. And this election should have made it clear to her that this shift is required.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 12:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
This is also true.
The concept definitely existed before. But I was under the impression that tfan was setting the timeline of "trickle down" for when it became the supported economic policy of the country. If that is the case, his statement is also true. |
Well, no, it was government policy Bryan was railing against. Our government, like all governments, has always been controlled by the wealthy and used primarily for their benefit. |
This speech was at the height of the era of the Robber Baron and Roosevelt's anti-trust fight. After this the country's economic ideology shifted to a consumer and worker side model with strong unions and social programs. This continued until the shift to what became known as "trickle down economics". Here the economic ideology shifted strongly to the right where even our "liberal" party was center-right economically.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 1:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
There is nothing wrong with pointed tax breaks to help an actual industry take root. That is different from across the board breaks, or breaks to already well established industries like Big Oil.
. |
Every tax loophole ever adopted has been "justified" by similar bullshit. Those tax breaks for oil companies are justified as promoting exploration and refining in order to keep prices low for consumers and to promote domestic production for national security. There's always an excuse. But they're all just tax expenditures. Handouts to constituents, local employers, or contributers. You may personally like some of the recipients better than others, but that doesn't change what's happening. And the person next to you will have a different set of favorites that are "justified" while feeling yours are complete scams. They're all the same.
| justintyme wrote: |
Sanders calls himself an independent, but also caucuses with the Democrats. He has shifted the base to the left and changed the party platform. As I said, it is more than fair to question just how committed Clinton is to this sort of change, but at least she claims that she is. With the shift of her base it is very likely that no matter how she personally feels, she will be held to it or face strong opposition from the left. But even if she is an unknown, or doesn't put much effort into the issue, what is the alternative? We know exactly where Trump and the Republican party stands. We know for a fact that none of this happens if they are elected. So go with the one who might, or the one who won't for sure?
What is clear is that if she doesn't, she will be left behind in her own party. And I think she is too much of a politician to allow that to happen. For better or worse, one of her talents is the ability to shift when needed. And this election should have made it clear to her that this shift is required. |
Sanders doesn't represent anything about the party, which is why the entire party establishment opposed him and supported her. Remind me again about the distribution of superdelegate votes. Oh yeah.
There's no being "left behind" because on November 9 Bernie will be back to being his normal irrelevant maverick self and Hillary and the party will go about their merry way.
I have no idea why anyone would consider Clinton an agent of change. As it turns out, Obama, who might have been, clearly wasn't either, to the major disappointment of many people who supported him. And she's a hell of a lot more "status quo ante" than he ever was.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67015
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 1:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
This is also true.
The concept definitely existed before. But I was under the impression that tfan was setting the timeline of "trickle down" for when it became the supported economic policy of the country. If that is the case, his statement is also true. |
Well, no, it was government policy Bryan was railing against. Our government, like all governments, has always been controlled by the wealthy and used primarily for their benefit. |
This speech was at the height of the era of the Robber Baron and Roosevelt's anti-trust fight. After this the country's economic ideology shifted to a consumer and worker side model with strong unions and social programs. This continued until the shift to what became known as "trickle down economics". Here the economic ideology shifted strongly to the right where even our "liberal" party was center-right economically. |
Sure, things run in cycles, but the wealthy always come out OK.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 1:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Every tax loophole ever adopted has been "justified" by similar bullshit. Those tax breaks for oil companies are justified as promoting exploration and refining in order to keep prices low for consumers and to promote domestic production for national security. There's always an excuse. But they're all just tax expenditures. Handouts to constituents, local employers, or contributers. You may personally like some of the recipients better than others, but that doesn't change what's happening. And the person next to you will have a different set of favorites that are "justified" while feeling yours are complete scams. They're all the same.
|
Of course that's true. But that is why you want to elect people who have the same views and goals as you do. Tax breaks are not inherently bad. If I want to see clean, renewable energy make it in the market, then I want someone willing to give that specific industry benefits. Perhaps someone else wants to increase the breaks of oil companies to keep the prices down and drive domestic production, if I don't agree with that position, I don't vote for the person who wants it. Tax breaks and loopholes need to be examined to see who they benefit, whether they are effective, and if there are any unintended consequences (are they being abused).
That being said, there is a difference between these targeted breaks and economic ideology. If a candidate is setting out a tax plan that seeks to reduce corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy across the board, that is a non-starter. That is supply side economics that has proven ineffective and detrimental to the middle class and thus overall growth.
None of this happens in a vacuum. What you want to do is make sure that these breaks are reasonable and the goal is worthy. And that the candidate has an economic ideology consistent with your views.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 1:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
This is also true.
The concept definitely existed before. But I was under the impression that tfan was setting the timeline of "trickle down" for when it became the supported economic policy of the country. If that is the case, his statement is also true. |
Well, no, it was government policy Bryan was railing against. Our government, like all governments, has always been controlled by the wealthy and used primarily for their benefit. |
This speech was at the height of the era of the Robber Baron and Roosevelt's anti-trust fight. After this the country's economic ideology shifted to a consumer and worker side model with strong unions and social programs. This continued until the shift to what became known as "trickle down economics". Here the economic ideology shifted strongly to the right where even our "liberal" party was center-right economically. |
Sure, things run in cycles, but the wealthy always come out OK. |
Of course. Money buys power. For as long as money exists and is desired this will always be the case. But that doesn't mean all policy is equal.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8237
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 1:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
The Rich are exempt, the Average Joe is not.
|
Just using this quote to remind folks of some simple tax revenue facts:
-- 45% of American households pay no federal tax.
-- The bottom 50% wealthiest taxpayers pay 2.8% of all federal tax revenue.
From these two data, we can see that the "average Joe" pays essentially nothing in federal income taxes.
-- The top 1% wealthiest taxpayers pay 38%, and the top 5% pay 59%, of all federal tax revenue.
-- High income taxpayers (after taking all their deductions and legal "loopholes') pay the highest average tax rates, and the average tax rate payment slope is smoothly progressive along the various income levels (as it is intended to be).
These percentages change from year to year but very little.
As a voter, the important issue to me is how Clinton's and Trump's tax plans affect this percentage distribution of tax revenue, and I care not whit about how much income tax either of the candidates paid in 1996, 2015 or any other year. Nonetheless, as a tax LL.M. from NYU myself, I have examined their available tax returns, and those of the Clinton Foundation, and may post something about that later. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 1:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Tax breaks are not inherently bad. If I want to see clean, renewable energy make it in the market, then I want someone willing to give that specific industry benefits. |
Yes, actually they are, because they're hidden from public view. When they write a deduction for a particular type of transaction occurring between Oct 8 and Oct 10, 2016 ( and believe me, some loopholes are just that narrow and intended to cover exactly one deal) there's no visbility, there's no scrutiny, there's no hearings, there's no vote, and only a handful of people know the identity of the beneficiary.
If you want to subsidize a particular industry or activity, then pass a law providing for that benefit and write them a check. The problem is, no one would vote for that waste of money if it came up for a vote. So instead they hide it as a tax credit. Exactly the same economic outcome but voters will never know about it.
That is exactly how the Tax Code grew into today's mess.
If you're from a agricultural state, you get agricultural tax breaks. If you're from Texas or Oklahoma, you get oil industry tax breaks. If you're a recipient of largess from homebuilder lobbyists, you get tax breaks for home buyers. If your constituent builds yachts, you get boats included in the home mortgage interest deduction. If a local company wants to build plastic garbage cans, you get a tax break for people who buy new p!astic garbage cans. It's just another way of handing out pork in order to generate contributions and maintain your job security.
There are no good tax loopholes, only people who think think that tax loopholes favoring their causes are good and that all others are bad.
They're all bad.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 2:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| If you want to subsidize a particular industry or activity, then pass a law providing for that benefit and write them a check. The problem is, no one would vote for that waste of money if it came up for a vote. So instead they hide it as a tax credit. Exactly the same economic outcome but voters will never know about it. |
Isn't that exactly what Brown was trying to do? Pass a law that subsidizes alternative energy though a tax credit? If that is not the case, then I would not support that specific tax break.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 2:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| If you want to subsidize a particular industry or activity, then pass a law providing for that benefit and write them a check. The problem is, no one would vote for that waste of money if it came up for a vote. So instead they hide it as a tax credit. Exactly the same economic outcome but voters will never know about it. |
Isn't that exactly what Brown was trying to do? Pass a law that subsidizes alternative energy though a tax credit? If that is not the case, then I would not support that specific tax break. |
He was just trying to get pork for one company, justifying it with some high- sounding rhetoric about alternative energy.
Want to subsidize alternative energy? Hold a hearing, prioritize all of our "alternative energy" projects and needs, decide how much money we have to spend on alternative energy projects ( if any), and write a check to the worthy projects. This is just pork and avoids all of that. The likelihood that Sunpower would get a handout if it actually had to be independantly considered and voted on by Congress is probably pretty close to zero.
The tax code should be for raising revenue, not a means of pork barrel spending. That how the public loses respect for the tax system.
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 10/10/16 2:32 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19789
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 2:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
There is no doubt at all that the Democrats were complicit in the creation of these loopholes. Both sides bought into the whole "trickle down" economics sham, it was just a matter of degree and that the democrats also supported welfare programs to help the poor. And Regan, to his credit, did close down many of the more ridiculous loopholes that had been created. But it was only a drop in the bucket. The tax code remained unabashedly tilted towards the wealthy. And both parties accepted this.
But this is also 20-30 years ago. With the Bush tax cuts, the economic collapse, and income inequality rising the Democratic Party has shifted. The rise of Sanders, Warren, and Brown, the shift in party platform, and the way the old guard politicians like Clinton have changed their positions demonstrate that it is a whole new (or old, since it is a fairly Rooseveltian) ideology.
It is a concern about how committed Clinton really is to this shift. Part of the problem with telling people what they want to hear depending upon what group you are talking to (ie: speeches to Wall Street) is that no one really knows what the true belief is and what is just lip service. But we do know that Trump and the Republicans do not believe in it at all. Trump has put forward a plan to cut taxes even more than the Bush tax cuts which economists have said will benefit the wealthy greatly, the poor somewhat, and all the while increasing the burden on the middle classes. In other words, more of the same of what we have had, just to an even greater extent.
|
I think it's a concern for every politician. (That they'll do what they'll say.) But I do struggle with the concept of Bernie/Warren branch gets credit for every liberal platform by the Democrats. Democrats have been the "regulate + tax the wealthy" economic plan (in general purposes) for decades now.
Here is Hillary's history on taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2015/04/13/what-hillary-clintons-voting-record-reveals-about-her-tax-plan/#519f842b1962
It showed up in Clinton and Obama's 2008 primary race. (Here is Obama's plan, Clinton's plan is in the link)
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-obama-and-mccain-tax-plans-how-do-they-compare
Here is Kerry's plan, it's more focused on tax cuts for the middle class, but it's clear that he's in favor of taxing the wealthy.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Kerry_Tax_Reform.htm
Gore's is essentially the same thing (his tax cuts are actually really interesting in other ways..we probably really REALLY missed out here..). Lower taxes on middle class and poor families, put burden more on the wealthy.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Tax_Reform.htm
Bill Clinton's tax plan..once again, increased tax burden on the wealthy, decrease it on the middle and poor classes. (In fact, there are plenty of conservative sources scrambling to suggest that Clinton's tax cuts, and not his tax hikes created the economic boom in the 90s.)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Tax_Reform.htm
Jimmy Carter's plan is even more to the left of Gore, Clinton's, and Kerry's.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Jimmy_Carter_Tax_Reform.htm
The Democratic platform has been Keynesian in platform for a while. (Honestly, probably since FDR). The question has always been "to what extent" because Reaganomics won the public perception.
So yes, Warren, Bernie etc.. would go even further in that direction, it's not like they brought it back or that they were responsible for it being a part of the platform in the Democratic party.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 2:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
So yes, Warren, Bernie etc.. would go even further in that direction, it's not like they brought it back or that they were responsible for it being a part of the platform in the Democratic party. |
As I said, we are talking about degree. The Sanders/Warren move was to push it further. Not just incrementally shifting it back to Regan era levels, but New Deal levels .
Both parties shifted right in their basic ideology. The Democrats also accepted some of the basic tenets of supply side econonics. They just felt the Republicans went too far and didn't provide enough for the saftey net. Compare the "liberal" tax plans in the US versus the ones in Europe. Our entire ideology shifted so that the Democrats represented a right-of-center position.
Sanders/Warren has pushed them to a center position with their left-of-center ideology. That is why they are given credit.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 3:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
While you're citing op eds from Tony Nitti, you should probably include his recent one mocking the people who are making up nonsense about Trump's taxes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/10/04/defending-trumps-tax-losses-the-real-estate-professional-exception-is-not-a-loophole/#71a5781b73cc
In part:
" Well, earlier this week, someone released three pages of one of Trump’s tax returns from 20 years ago, a violation of privacy which aside from angering Trump, had the unexpected effect of transforming the overwhelming majority of Americans into experts on the tax law.
That’s right; armed with just three pages — none of which even came from his federal income tax return, mind you… — people with less understanding of tax policy than a sleep-deprived monkey suddenly morphed into Agatha Christie (timely reference!), deducing exactly where Trump’s losses came from and how he gamed the system to make them happen, before then calling for immediate (and illogical) tax reform.
The cause of the hysteria was the size of the loss: $915 million. And while that is certainly noteworthy, lost in the outcry was the fact that we have no idea where the loss came from. Sure we can speculate, and speculate everyone has, subscribing to the age-old adage: never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8237
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/16 3:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
While you're citing op eds from Tony Nitti, you should probably include his recent one mocking the people who are making up nonsense about Trump's taxes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/10/04/defending-trumps-tax-losses-the-real-estate-professional-exception-is-not-a-loophole/#71a5781b73cc
In part:
" Well, earlier this week, someone released three pages of one of Trump’s tax returns from 20 years ago, a violation of privacy which aside from angering Trump, had the unexpected effect of transforming the overwhelming majority of Americans into experts on the tax law.
That’s right; armed with just three pages — none of which even came from his federal income tax return, mind you… — people with less understanding of tax policy than a sleep-deprived monkey suddenly morphed into Agatha Christie (timely reference!), deducing exactly where Trump’s losses came from and how he gamed the system to make them happen, before then calling for immediate (and illogical) tax reform.
The cause of the hysteria was the size of the loss: $915 million. And while that is certainly noteworthy, lost in the outcry was the fact that we have no idea where the loss came from. Sure we can speculate, and speculate everyone has, subscribing to the age-old adage: never let the truth get in the way of a good story." |
The reactions are mostly nonsense and do demonstrate a lack of understanding, not only of tax policy, but of simple business administration and elementary economics.
I'll post about Trump's tax return first when I have a chance. |
|
|
|
