ADVERTISEMENT

This is the Republican Party

Clong83a said:
Sigh... More Laffer optimum misconceptions.

It's true. Consider the extreme example of a flat tax rate at 99%, stifling economic development. One year, the government decides to cut the flat tax rate down to 98%. Now, you've just doubled the income of everyone in the country! People spend significantly more than they previously did with this new excess, and the economic output of the country grows, say by 50%. That 50% growth in the economy more than offsets the 1% drop in tax revenues, and the federal budget can actually grow by cuts.

This is the part you understand well as it has been parroted for decades by pretty much every politician that ever wanted to pass a tax cut.

But it is not a general truth. Consider the inverse. Taxes are a flat 1% on everyone. The government cuts taxes in half one year, down to 0.5%! The government has lost HALF of its income and cannot operate unless the economic output of the country quickly doubles. The everyday tax payer.... barely notices the change and had their take-home pay increase by less than 1%. Economic output actually suffers, because despite the fact that people have (slightly) more cash, things like underfunded schools and roads hurt productivity and the government enters a downward spiral of diminishing revenues.

Reality is there is no flat tax, and it is not so simple. But that's not convenient for people who want to pretend the tax code and economy are simple things. Most of the US tax code is pretty far below the Laffer optimum already to the point that cuts actually have an outsized negative effect and don't pay for themselves. Almsot every actual expert agrees with that.

I like a tax cut as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't pretend that any budget holes won't need to somehow be plugged, either by increasing revenues elsewhere, or program cuts. Doing so leaves us in a position with no choice but to incur massive debt and argue endlessly about whose fault it is.
Click to expand...
If you are a nation in debt & intend to get back to the black, why limit the amount of output the entire economy just because…without the government everybody dies? Or something? Lol

I look forward to all y’all’s hysteria when this happens:



“cuts” is putting it mildly.

Schedule F. The whole lot of them. Clearances, too. Lifetime bans.

jiq_21.gif
 
RIP represalia said:
If you are a nation in debt & intend to get back to the black, why limit the amount of output the entire economy just because…without the government everybody dies? Or something? Lol

I look forward to all y’all’s hysteria when this happens:

View embedded media


“cuts” is putting it mildly.

Schedule F. The whole lot of them. Clearances, too. Lifetime bans.

jiq_21.gif
Click to expand...
Great, another accountability and efficiency panel planning a big audit. Throw it on the pile, I am sure everyone involved in this massive audit of the entire government will work for free and it will pay for itself with all the fraud it finds, right?

It won't just add a new permanent watchdog that needs to be funded and creates ever more bloat and red tape and creates more paperwork and writings of justifications for every little expense which costs man hours, productivity, and ultimately is not cost-efficient and hurts morale, right?

I can assure you that the government already spends far more than most businesses trying to do this. Abuses exist and always will, but there comes a point where it is no longer cost effective to root it out because it is rare enough and the amount of effort it takes to get 100% compliance costs much more than the last 1% is worth.

I could give you a thousand examples of that, and if we ever meet in a bar, maybe I will. The point is, we already frequently spend $100 to save $10 in the name of accountability.

Since we are talking about the public sector, maybe that is an acceptable cost as government needs to be more transparent with taxpayer dollars than private industry. There's a bigger trust issue at play than with private industry, and trying to prevent fraud (at any cost) which might make the news does help to engender that trust. But I don't think we need more than we already have. Perhaps better communication of those efforts to the public would help.
 
Clong83a said:
Sigh... More Laffer optimum misconceptions.

It's true. Consider the extreme example of a flat tax rate at 99%, stifling economic development. One year, the government decides to cut the flat tax rate down to 98%. Now, you've just doubled the income of everyone in the country! People spend significantly more than they previously did with this new excess, and the economic output of the country grows, say by 50%. That 50% growth in the economy more than offsets the 1% drop in tax revenues, and the federal budget can actually grow by cuts.

This is the part you understand well as it has been parroted for decades by pretty much every politician that ever wanted to pass a tax cut.

But it is not a general truth. Consider the inverse. Taxes are a flat 1% on everyone. The government cuts taxes in half one year, down to 0.5%! The government has lost HALF of its income and cannot operate unless the economic output of the country quickly doubles. The everyday tax payer.... barely notices the change and had their take-home pay increase by less than 1%. Economic output actually suffers, because despite the fact that people have (slightly) more cash, things like underfunded schools and roads hurt productivity and the government enters a downward spiral of diminishing revenues.

Reality is there is no flat tax, and it is not so simple. But that's not convenient for people who want to pretend the tax code and economy are simple things. Most of the US tax code is pretty far below the Laffer optimum already to the point that cuts actually have an outsized negative effect and don't pay for themselves. Almsot every actual expert agrees with that.

I like a tax cut as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't pretend that any budget holes won't need to somehow be plugged, either by increasing revenues elsewhere, or program cuts. Doing so leaves us in a position with no choice but to incur massive debt and argue endlessly about whose fault it is.
Click to expand...
isn't it better to have people working, purchasing goods, and paying taxes. instead of living off the gov.
 
Last edited:
Clong83a said:
Great, another accountability and efficiency panel planning a big audit. Throw it on the pile, I am sure everyone involved in this massive audit of the entire government will work for free and it will pay for itself with all the fraud it finds, right?

It won't just add a new permanent watchdog that needs to be funded and creates ever more bloat and red tape and creates more paperwork and writings of justifications for every little expense which costs man hours, productivity, and ultimately is not cost-efficient and hurts morale, right?

I can assure you that the government already spends far more than most businesses trying to do this. Abuses exist and always will, but there comes a point where it is no longer cost effective to root it out because it is rare enough and the amount of effort it takes to get 100% compliance costs much more than the last 1% is worth.

I could give you a thousand examples of that, and if we ever meet in a bar, maybe I will. The point is, we already frequently spend $100 to save $10 in the name of accountability.

Since we are talking about the public sector, maybe that is an acceptable cost as government needs to be more transparent with taxpayer dollars than private industry. There's a bigger trust issue at play than with private industry, and trying to prevent fraud (at any cost) which might make the news does help to engender that trust. But I don't think we need more than we already have. Perhaps better communication of those efforts to the public would help.
Click to expand...
Besides that, we need another guru who is always over budget and behind schedule, to tell us how to save $10 while he costs us $100. Go get um mr bankruptcy boss. He always points out the intelligence of those who endorse him. Sorry for your feelings of inadequacy Mr Trump.
 
Was Trump born after 1980 when interest rates and inflation were multiples of what they are today? Somehow we got from there to where we are now without having a dictator. But at least after nine years of planning, he has "concepts of a plan" for health care. What could do wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
watu05 said:
Was Trump born after 1980 when interest rates and inflation were multiples of what they are today? Somehow we got from there to where we are now without having a dictator. But at least after nine years of planning, he has "concepts of a plan" for health care. What could do wrong?
Click to expand...
There’s a big difference today when everyone has residential and commercial loans in the 3s. We also weren’t servicing $36T in debt. Not sure how relevant the 80s are to our $2T yearly interest payments. Regardless who the next President is they better have a plan to reign in these deficits.
 
lawpoke87 said:
There’s a big difference today when everyone has residential and commercial loans in the 3s. We also weren’t servicing $36T in debt. Not sure how relevant the 80s are to our $2T yearly interest payments. Regardless who the next President is they better have a plan to reign in these deficits.
Click to expand...
You are dealing with two different things here. Interest and inflation that affects the consumer, which both candidates are talking about bettering. Trump is talking about it being the worst it's ever been, when it was worse in the late 70's. The thing you are talking about is the deficit(s) under high interest and high inflation. Neither candidate is going to attempt to fix this. So Trump's argument doesn't hold any water for what he is addressing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
Inflation has moderated and interest rates are not that high. I for one am much better off than four years ago.

We have our problems including our debt and deficit. But as you say, neither candidate has a serious plan.

All things considered, I have to pick the stereotypical, evasive politician over the thin skinned dictator wannabe. It is a harm reduction strategy. Like nicotine gum.
 
drboobay said:
Inflation has moderated and interest rates are not that high. I for one am much better off than four years ago.

We have our problems including our debt and deficit. But as you say, neither candidate has a serious plan.

All things considered, I have to pick the stereotypical, evasive politician over the thin skinned dictator wannabe. It is a harm reduction strategy. Like nicotine gum.
Click to expand...
Trump is saying typical political nonsense. I was speaking of the real consequences of current interest rates and debt service. I do agree that neither candidate has a plan nor the political will to address the pending debt crisis.

Congrats on being better off today than 4 years ago. You’re one of the few people I know who can say as much. Rapidly rising housing and food costs have really taken a toll on middle America. Wages simply haven’t kept up.

In a round about way I do believe Harris might be better for inflation as long as there’s a Pub House or Senate to control her “give aways”. Raising capital gains tax rates in aggregate to over 50% should significantly affect investment and growth….especially in the short term. Thus slowing economic growth and in turn inflation.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Trump is saying typical political nonsense. I was speaking of the real consequences of current interest rates and debt service. I do agree that neither candidate has a plan nor the political will to address the pending debt crisis.

Congrats on being better off today than 4 years ago. You’re one of the few people I know who can say as much. Rapidly rising housing and food costs have really taken a toll on middle America. Wages simply haven’t kept up.

In a round about way I do believe Harris might be better for inflation as long as there’s a Pub House or Senate to control her “give aways”. Raising capital gains tax rates in aggregate to over 50% should significantly affect investment and growth….especially in the short term. Thus slowing economic growth and in turn inflation.
Click to expand...
I would say that I’m better off than I was 4 years ago. I had years of stagnation professionally in the oil industry under Trump and I saw only modest wage increases. Under Biden my salary has increased ~120% since late 2020.

(Though I also think that had to do somewhat with talent and work ethic)

At least this economic environment allowed for some upward mobility of talented individuals. I feel like the Trump years were good if you were already established, but crappy if you were trying to get a break.
 
astonmartin708 said:
I would say that I’m better off than I was 4 years ago. I had years of stagnation professionally in the oil industry under Trump and I saw only modest wage increases. Under Biden my salary has increased ~120% since late 2020.

(Though I also think that had to do somewhat with talent and work ethic)

At least this economic environment allowed for some upward mobility of talented individuals. I feel like the Trump years were good if you were already established, but crappy if you were trying to get a break.
Click to expand...
it had to, everything cost 20% more so your buying power is just even with what it was 4 years ago
 
lawpoke87 said:
Trump is saying typical political nonsense. I was speaking of the real consequences of current interest rates and debt service. I do agree that neither candidate has a plan nor the political will to address the pending debt crisis.

Congrats on being better off today than 4 years ago. You’re one of the few people I know who can say as much. Rapidly rising housing and food costs have really taken a toll on middle America. Wages simply haven’t kept up.

In a round about way I do believe Harris might be better for inflation as long as there’s a Pub House or Senate to control her “give aways”. Raising capital gains tax rates in aggregate to over 50% should significantly affect investment and growth….especially in the short term. Thus slowing economic growth and in turn inflation.
Click to expand...
My biggest point is that I really think he is an existential threat. Even if I were worse off I could never vote for him. He has shown who he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a
aTUfan said:
it had to, everything cost 20% more so your buying power is just even with what it was 4 years ago
Click to expand...
Ok, if I go from making $4K a month to $10K a month and I was paying $500 for groceries, but I'm now paying $750 for groceries. Even with a 50% increase in food prices, food went from representing 12% of monthly expenses to 7.5%

Now I understand that's not the same case for people on a semi-fixed income like SS or who lack upward mobility. It's not the same everywhere.... but some people are doing quite well.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Ok, if I go from making $4K a month to $10K a month and I was paying $500 for groceries, but I'm now paying $750 for groceries. Even with a 50% increase in food prices, food went from representing 12% of monthly expenses to 7.5%

Now I understand that's not the same case for people on a semi-fixed income like SS or who lack upward mobility. It's not the same everywhere.... but some people are doing quite well.
Click to expand...
some people always do well, but the majority aren't
Her solution to fix Biden-Harris-Dem inflation, is to Take more from some and Give it to others.

NOT up to the gov to make sure I have enough money, it IS up to the gov that I have an opportunity to earn
 
Last edited:
aTUfan said:
some people always do well, but the majority aren't
Her solution to fix Biden-Harris-Dem inflation, is to Take more from some and Give it to others.

NOT up to the gov to make sure I have enough money, it IS up to the gov that I have an opportunity to earn
Click to expand...
Point of order: Year over year food price inflation in January 2021 when Trump left office was already at 6.2%. Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_02102021.pdf

Not saying that Biden handled it perfectly, but let's not pretend there was no brewing storm and that suddenly, by sheer force of fiscal incompetence, Biden managed to send it soaring all by his lonesome across the entire planet. Inflation happened worldwide, and it was already starting by January 2021.
 
  • Like
Reactions: astonmartin708
aTUfan said:
world-inflation has happened before, without us
Click to expand...
It's not like there wasn't a new, unusual, and external cause, that affected us and the world, as far as inflation was concerned, this time. It happened that way because of a monumental event in world history, and due to mismanagement by both parties. The past inflationary problems before it became a global economy were for Hungary and Germany following WWII, because they were on the losing side, and that affected their economy after the war. Then there was the past inflationary problems of Venezuela and Argentina due to political instability and mismanagement by dictators and the like.

There has never been a serious problem with world inflation that did not affect the US. Even after WWII we had a brief problem with inflation at a pretty darn serious 18% during 1946. Then we entered a boom period that destroyed inflationary problems with great speed. Quit throwing out false gobbled gook, because you think it's true, when you have nothing to back it up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R

If a presidential candidate can’t stand up to public scrutiny, they can’t stand up to our adversaries

Replies
7
Views
267
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
R

Elon / Trump highlights

Replies
0
Views
413
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
W

What to Republican's do now?

Replies
10
Views
507
Crossfire
Clong83a
C
W

No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people

Replies
18
Views
2K
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
R

This post is the hope of USMNT vs true apathetic reality

Replies
24
Views
762
TU Soccer / Other Sports
drboobay
D
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back