Trump on Coming Debt Crisis: "Yeah, but I won’t be here,”

This is absolutely key. The modern circumstances allow people to move money across the world more easier than ever. An income tax rate of 91% may work when Europe and Japan are in ruins and 1/4 of the world is either under communist rule or in the midst of communist revolution. It's not going to work with the scourge of communism now dead, the wider world embracing markets and free trade, estate freezing, tax havens, equity swaps, shell companies, incorporating personal brands, deferred compensation plans, buying a yacht, or donating to charity.

The more money you have, the more of these options are available to you, but rich people know better than anyone there are no free lunches. There are trade offs to not paying your taxes. They would rather just pay their taxes, and they will if rates are low enough

Even based on the GOP's original rationale for claiming that tax cuts would increase revenue, what you've warped it into is nonsense and has zero theoretical or empirical backing.

Part of empiricism is applying knowledge to the real world. Instead of spouting myopic garbage like this..

shape and magnitude of the graph is going to vary heavily based on complex variables not accounted for such as what is taxed, the method of taxation, the taxation distribution, and public sentiment/culture.

Try actually applying some of those variables, and the argument is not in your favor.

Which of the three data points on the Laffer Curve are you disputing? The current situation, the theoretical 0% situation, or the theoretical 100% situation?

Except that the world has not embraced the sort of free trade you are talking about, it has been systematically imposed on countries over the past fifty years and almost everywhere it's been imposed it's led to massive unrest, revolts, failed governments, coups, democratic backsliding, and massive graft.

LOL @ you talking about empiricism while embracing a Friedmanite worldview. At no point in hitory have Friedmanites embraced empiricism.

Except that Medicare is fully funded for the foreseeable future. Saying that any Medicare spending is new spending is completely disingenuous, because medicare has its own revenue source and general fund which has been carefully managed by the federal government in order to address future funding needs. Saying that the federal government spent Medicare funds is like saying you saved money for retirement and then used that money to retire, that's the entire point to begin with. Medicaid is different, but it's still a hugely effective program. It has a massively positive impact on U.S. health, and is fiscally sound due to the fact that it pays care providers lower prices, thus reducing costs. I think that's what your real problem is with it, not that it's not fiscally sound but that it makes complete fiscal sense, just not for you and the people you shill for. You'd like to see higher costs for medical care because it means more money for the only people you care about: corporations.

Speaking of corporations, if the deficit is such a problem then why did the Republican Party launch a costly and ill-advised war, then contract out most of the work giving no-bid contracts to government-connected insiders? Maybe we should just make Haliburton and Boeing pay back all the money they cost the U.S. government through opaque processes that led to record windfalls for them at the taxpayers' expense?

@Damedius said:

@blackballs said:

Says the alt with 200 posts.

Yeah the alt that created his account over 8 years ago....

The

the alt that created an account 8 years ago, but got his new account banned so he had to use his old one...

The funny thing about the cons and Republicans is that they were out there begging for handouts during the great recession and now complain about the deficit being so high in liberals time. They we're all to happy to partake in order to keep their jobs and feed their families when sht hit the fan, but now act tough

I personally would have preferred a hard reset, and let things spiral out of control.

...And you have the audacity to call others "NPC."

The world also needs more tax deals across nations to avoid companies paying zero tax.

And that is what is necessary. Companies won't relocate if they have to pay tax elsewhere. Though they could just agree to tax any money made in their respective countries. Then those companies are paying taxes everywhere.

I don't think he addressed anything in your post. Most of it seems like more sound bites.

the first article gives VERY little real information and sound like it was written by a high schooler and is useless. graph doesn't even account for population growth. the US added over 100M people during that time period... don't you think maybe tens of millions of more workers would add to gross tax receipts??

the second link says nothing about the actual effects of the bills passage. useless for discussion

the last doesn't give any real-world data either. though does have this which is interesting

"David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director during his first administration and one of the early proponents of supply-side economics, was concerned that the administration did not pay enough attention to cutting government spending. He maintained that the Laffer curve was not to be taken literally—at least not in the economic environment of the 1980s United States. In The Triumph of Politics, he writes: "[T]he whole California gang had taken [the Laffer curve] literally (and primitively). The way they talked, they seemed to expect that once the supply-side tax cut was in effect, additional revenue would start to fall, manna-like, from the heavens. Since January, I had been explaining that there is no literal Laffer curve."^[38] Stockman also said that "Laffer wasn't wrong, he just didn't go far enough" (in paying attention to government spending)."

in any case, as far as the laffer curve goes.. where is the peak located for the US economy?

so far, a year in on trumps cut's do not look promising either. what a shock.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/business/trump-tax-cuts-revenue.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-14/tax-cuts-are-costing-the-u-s-treasury-money

@HoolaHoopMan: Yeah, there wasn't anything there, so I attempted to refocus.

here's one that follows the same premise... so where should we tax??

@comp_atkins: Exactly! We don't know the actual shape of the Laffer Curve. We have three data points.

@Lach0121: That's what you sound like... an NPC. .

It looks like the joke went over your head.

Yeah, vlad's entire argument is basically "rich people are going to avoid paying taxes, so let's not tax them at all," instead of, ya know, let's make an effort to make them actually pay what they owe. It's like saying "bank robbers are going to rob banks regardless, so let's get rid of safes and security guards."

@blackhairedhero: No, it's a stupid saying that actually applies more to you than I.

However, you are just a confirmed waste of time, so I am just moving on. Go bother someone else.

@Lach0121: You're in a daily Trump bashing thread here at gamespot bashing Trump. It absolutely applies to you, ya dunce!

Now go join a rally and argue in chants and slogans.

@blackhairedhero: Applies far more to the trump supporters like you. You twit. Now stop replying to me.

@Lach0121: Except I'm not even a blind Trump supporter. He was a neccessary evil to combat pathetic dweebs like yourself.

Only pathetic clowns think he was necessary.

I don't see why no such deals has been made already.

First thing a dem congress should do is repeal these tax cuts. So incredibly irresponsible.