Warhippy Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) Trickle down tax breaks work? Another link where someone smarter than hockey forum thinks that's wrong in real time https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-cuts-no-boost-us-economy-gdp-2020-1 Edited February 1, 2020 by Warhippy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) Lol he skips right over being made looking ridiculous and posts something about Trump. Edited February 1, 2020 by Ryan Strome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Lol shows a piece from an "opinion contributer" also doesn't read what he posts. US gdp growing more than Canada and Alberta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 22 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Lol shows a piece from an "opinion contributer" also doesn't read what he posts. US gdp growing more than Canada and Alberta I'm curious: Does this mean that you believe Supply Side Economics is a smart fiscal policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: Lol shows a piece from an "opinion contributer" also doesn't read what he posts. US gdp growing more than Canada and Alberta Doesn't note where the post says someone smarter THINKS trickle down and tax breaks are wrong. Has ignored dozens of papers, reports and examples as to why it doesn't work. Ignores the fact the US economy is dozens of times larger than ours and why in fact the current tax breaks are deemed a failure. But posts opinion pieces of his own as FACT to justify his stance and beliefs. Amusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said: I'm curious: Does this mean that you believe Supply Side Economics is a smart fiscal policy? Another yes or no question. Let's watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 The US economy is "dozens" of times bigger. Honestly this guy leads cdc for most ridiculous posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said: I'm curious: Does this mean that you believe Supply Side Economics is a smart fiscal policy? Lowering corporate taxes has proven time and time again to be a benefit and creates lots of jobs. Probably why the liberals and cpc believe in lowering corporate taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 44 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Lowering corporate taxes has proven time and time again to be a benefit and creates lots of jobs. Probably why the liberals and cpc believe in lowering corporate taxes. Cite your proof of this please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: The US economy is "dozens" of times bigger. Honestly this guy leads cdc for most ridiculous posts. Notice you can't refute anything else in my statement. At all. Why don't you just attack me again and ignore that basic fact. That sure fire go to always pays off for ya Edit*. From here on out I will end all our communications with that flag emoji. As you no longer desire to be Canadian and support breaking up the nation Edited February 2, 2020 by Warhippy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: Lowering corporate taxes has proven time and time again to be a benefit and creates lots of jobs. Probably why the liberals and cpc believe in lowering corporate taxes. So, I can take that as a "yes"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 19 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: So, I can take that as a "yes"? Well he didn't say "no" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 An oldie..... from Dec 2018 but still a goody.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 33 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: So, I can take that as a "yes"? Yes sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Just now, Ryan Strome said: Yes sir. Interesting....I've always seen it more as a "short term gain - long term pain" thing, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Sick of my federal taxes being used to bail out the dying Canadian petro/oil industry..... Just let it die. Time for Canada to invest in Green energy.../ technologies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said: Sick of my federal taxes being used to bail out the dying Canadian petro/oil industry..... Just let it die. Time for Canada to invest in Green energy.../ technologies... So you don't want your money invested in something that props up Canada and pays for so much in this country but you want it invested in something that has contributed nothing. Once private investors invest then I'm on board with the government investing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: Interesting....I've always seen it more as a "short term gain - long term pain" thing, myself. I'm not talking drop them to zero but in times of recession we need to help businesses, with out them we lose millions of jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: So you don't want your money invested in something that props up Canada and pays for so much in this country but you want it invested in something that has contributed nothing. Once private investors invest then I'm on board with the government investing as well. Don't want my taxes being spent ( propping up ) on dying industry's like tar sands oil / VCR cassettes / dial up modems..... Time for Canada to forward think and use our limited taxes on industries that are growing and have a bright future. Edited February 2, 2020 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Just now, Ryan Strome said: I'm not talking drop them to zero but in times of recession we need to help businesses, with out them we lose millions of jobs. Well, I'm hardly an expert, but I work with several and FWIW, they don't believe in Supply Side either. This blurb from Wiki spells it out better than I can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster-growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut and that tax cuts could in fact cause overall revenue to increase.[13] Some hold this was borne out during the 1980s when advocates of supply-side economics claim tax cuts ultimately led to an overall increase in government revenue due to stronger economic growth. However, some economists dispute this assertion pointing to the fact that revenue as a percentage of GDP declined during Reagan's term in office.[19] The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP and a corresponding increase in the deficit because spending did not fall relative to GDP. Total tax revenue from income tax receipts increased during Reagan's two terms, with the exception of 1982–1983.[20] The Treasury Department also studied the Reagan tax cuts and concluded they significantly reduced tax revenues relative to a baseline without them.[21] Some contemporary economists do not consider supply-side economics a tenable economic theory, with Alan Blinder calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 textbook.[22]Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[23]Mankiw wrote in June 2017: Tax cuts rarely pay for themselves. My reading of the academic literature leads me to believe that about one-third of the cost of a typical tax cut is recouped with faster economic growth.[24] In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review, James Tobin wrote: [The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule [...][25] The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts. —Karl Case and Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695[26] Supply side proponents Trabandt and Uhlig argue that "static scoring overestimates the revenue loss for labor and capital tax cuts" and that "dynamic scoring" is a better predictor for the effects of tax cuts.[27]To address these criticisms, in 2003 the Congressional Budget Office conducted a dynamic scoring analysis of tax cuts advocated by supply advocates. Two of the nine models used in the study predicted a large improvement in the deficit over the next ten years resulting from tax cuts and the other seven models did not.[28] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now