Politics Unfiltered

[the ollie reed fan club]

(06-12-2017 02:03 PM)Warlord Wrote:  You're quoting a source that says tax cuts (allowing people to keep more of their own money) are just another form of income redistribution (it isn't) and finishes by saying that "Republicans need to get over sucking Reagan's cock", and you're telling me it might be biased?

Here is the math. I don't argue with math. Let me know if you do, at least that way I can stop wasting my time.

Reagan's policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history, creating nearly 35 million jobs.

From 1973 to 1982, the U.S. averaged a paltry economic growth rate of 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom more than doubled that at 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990.

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.

Reagan’s economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history.


Compare that to Barack Obama:

Only president in history who failed to produce even a single year of 3% GDP growth.

Poverty increased 3.5 percent.

Real median household decreased 2.3 percent.

Americans on Food Stamps up 39.5 percent.

Americans who own homes: down 5.6 percent.

National debt — $10.63 trillion then vs. $20 trillion now – doubled!


Tell me honestly which economy you'd rather live under.

Greed is actually good.

[Imperius3]

Why can't tax cuts be considered another form of income redistribution? Tax cuts redistribute income from the government to taxpayers by definition--provided spending is not cut as well. All else equal, doesn't this result in higher GDP? This is why I've heard economists say that, "In a recession, all tax cuts are Keynesian."

Did you read that one link above? It looks like the other decades are comparable in terms of average GDP growth.

Real GDP growth rate from 1960-1970 was 4.27%. https://www.measuringworth.com/growth/gr...5D=REALGDP

If I change the years from 1961-1967, I get a figure of 5.34%. https://www.measuringworth.com/growth/gr...5D=REALGDP

Shit, how about the roaring 20's? The figure for this is 4.8%. https://www.measuringworth.com/growth/gr...5D=REALGDP

Or how about the New Deal? 8.46%. Was FDR an economic genius? https://www.measuringworth.com/growth/gr....php?begin[]=1933&end[]=1941&beginP[]=&endP[]=&US[]=REALGDP

I would obviously rather live under Reagan's economy than Obama's. But for that matter I would also rather live under the Clinton economy and the Kennedy-Johnson economy. Wasn't Clinton's record on job creation better than Reagan's?

This isn't an attack or anything, I'm only trying to get a better understanding on all of this. Your knowledge of the political world is impressive, and I respect it.

[the ollie reed fan club]

(06-12-2017 03:52 AM)blackbelt2003 Wrote:  Personally, I'm against the whole 'tax the rich to feed the poor' movement. Society is successful if the top earners are successful, simple as. Society is not successful if it is dominated by the plebeians/proletariat/working class. Of course they (I) are an important part of society...but trusting them with the economical success of the nation is paramount to trusting a paedophile with your babysitting duties.

It may seem 'fairer' to poor people to have rich people pay proportionally more tax than them, but how long can that go on for before the rich people just stop earning money to prop up the poor?



My missus has just refused a pay rise as it will push her over into the high earner's bracket. REFUSING MONEY. That's less money in the system, less in her pocket, less in the government's pocket, less in the markets, less in the entire system. Replicate that a billionfold all over the country and that's what happens when taxes go up for people earning more money.



Black

You are spot on with this. In NZ I am in the 1% of top income earners and would be classified as what one former Labour minister of finance labelled, 'a rich prick.' Having said that I'm hardly sitting in my bathtub washing myself in hundred dollar notes.

here's the thing about doing well. In order to do well you have to take risks, you have to work longer hours, you have to take on a whole lot of stress that others in low income jobs don't have to worry about. It doesn't matter what time of the day of what day it is, there is usually some part of me thinking about my job.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are many in low income jobs that work long hours and have stress making 'ends meet' but seriously what is the incentive for me to work like a dog so I can enjoy the privilege of paying more tax, simply because it is arbitrarily decided that I have more than my 'fair share?'

[blackbelt2003]

Exactly. If people are 'punished' for earning more...they won't do it!


OR...they'll find another economy to earn more money in. Either way the government loses out!



Black

[the ollie reed fan club]

(06-12-2017 05:46 PM)blackbelt2003 Wrote:  Exactly. If people are 'punished' for earning more...they won't do it!


OR...they'll find another economy to earn more money in. Either way the government loses out!



Black

Agreed. Socialists/liberals need to accept the fact that altruism isn't a universal human instinct. Some people are prepared to work harder and take risks because they want more while others are prepared to sit on their arse and earn a minimum benefit because they prepare a more sedentary lifestyle. Time and time and time again many of these bottom dwellers are offered opportunities that they simply don't want to take because it requires effort. A little while back the govt started an initiative to offer businesses tax breaks if they would hire people on the dole and help them back to work. This initiative collapsed fairly quickly as many of those offered an opportunity to get back into the workforce would turn up for a few days and the disappear or not even turn up at all, or regularly fail drug tests. Yet for my endeavours socialists would like to tax me more so i can improve their 'lifestyle.' Ummmmmmm..............................no, just no.

[lloyd mayflower]

I dont believ for one second that we should be improving the kives of those on benefits. But should there be a benefits system? Absolutely there should. I dont want to live in a country where one wrong turn can leave me in the gutter. But must always pay more than no work. Benefits received should never exceed the minimum wage. Although I believe that rarely happens here despite the sensationalised headlines we often see.

Also, Black and his Mrs are rich. Who knew.... I guess I just always associate that Brum accent with cider and sports direct....

[blackbelt2003]

Hahaha I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. She earns more than me (officially, at least).

One of the hallmarks of a civilised society is welfare for those who need it. But when people become DEPENDANT on it, then we decivilise ourselves.

The best system would be an absolute basic income for every citizen regardless of status or position....barely enough for rent, water and food. You can survive on it and that's it. You want more than the absolute basic? You work for it. If you can't work...at least you can survive enough until you can work, and you can't rape the system in the meantime.

If living on benefits becomes a more attractive proposition than going out and earning money, the system is fucked.


Black

[Warlord]

(06-12-2017 05:17 PM)Imperius3 Wrote:  Why can't tax cuts be considered another form of income redistribution?

Because you are making the same fatal mistakes that all Leftists make -- you are assuming that this money rightfully belongs to the government. Do you understand that the money government raises in taxes comes from the citizen?

To survive, government must take money that was created and earned by private citizens in the free market. It's not theirs. They didn't earn it and they don't deserve it.

It is completely illogical to say that allowing me to keep my money is "income redistribution." A tax cut means I get to keep more of my money. It was never the government's money to begin with.

Quote:Tax cuts redistribute income from the government to taxpayers by definition

Absolutely incorrect. This kind of thinking is the product of diseased minds. Tax cuts mean the public gets to keep more of their own money. The government isn't giving us anything. They are just taking less from us than before.

Quote:All else equal, doesn't this result in higher GDP?

No.

Quote:This is why I've heard economists say that, "In a recession, all tax cuts are Keynesian."

No. And I don't know why, but it is people who don't have a clue about economics who most often use the term "Keynesian." Not talking about you here, just about people in general.

Quote:Did you read that one link above? It looks like the other decades are comparable in terms of average GDP growth.

Real GDP growth rate from 1960-1970 was 4.27%. https://www.measuringworth.com/growth/gr...5D=REALGDP

If I change the years from 1961-1967, I get a figure of 5.34%. https://www.measuringworth.com/growth/gr...5D=REALGDP

Shit, how about the roaring 20's? The figure for this is 4.8%. https://www.measuringworth.com/growth/gr...5D=REALGDP

Or how about the New Deal? 8.46%. Was FDR an economic genius? https://www.measuringworth.com/growth/gr....php?begin[]=1933&end[]=1941&beginP[]=&endP[]=&US[]=REALGDP

I would obviously rather live under Reagan's economy than Obama's. But for that matter I would also rather live under the Clinton economy and the Kennedy-Johnson economy. Wasn't Clinton's record on job creation better than Reagan's?

This isn't an attack or anything, I'm only trying to get a better understanding on all of this. Your knowledge of the political world is impressive, and I respect it.

I'm sorry to say what you've been reading is bunk. I'll address the "New Deal" specifically, as it's one of the most famous myths that continue to get propagated by the Left. As I said previously, I don't argue with math. And this is the math:

U.S. unemployment averaged a rate of 18 percent during Roosevelt’s first eight years in office.

In the decade of the 1930s, U.S. industrial production and national income fell by about almost one-third.

In 1940, after year eight years of the New Deal, unemployment was still at 14.6 percent. That's double what it is now, and people now of course will honestly tell you this is a shitty fucking economy we're living in. Raising tax rates to nearly 80 percent on the rich didn't help the economy, it stalled it.

What started America on the road to recovery was World War II, ironically, and a new "new deal." As the war started, economic output surged, and unemployment fell. You're going to see a huge dent in the unemployment rate when nearly 12 million men joined the military, and their wives went to work helping in part to build ships, tanks, aircraft, bombs, ammunition, and so on.

What the Left won't tell you is that after the war, FDR created a new "New Deal", which did nearly the exact opposite of what he'd been doing. Government spending collapsed, from 41 percent of GDP in 1945 to 24 percent in 1946, then to under 15 percent by 1947.

This was by far the biggest cut in government spending in U.S. history. He also did one other thing. He CUT taxes. And then the economy took off, as it always does. Personal consumption grew by 6.2 percent in 1945 and 12.4 percent in 1946, even as government spending crashed. Private investment spending grew by 28.6 percent. And unemployment eventually dropped to just under 4%.

Of course the Left will never mention this in the history books because, as always, when facts get in the way of their ideology, they just choose to sweep it under the rug.

You can go through and find the truth in any of these narratives. Take Clinton for example. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was actually triggered by the Republican tax cut of that year. This tax cut saw the largest capital gains tax cut in U.S. history

You see, it was a Republican senate, led by Newt Gingrich, who actually got the economy going through a series of reforms that included tax cuts, welfare reform, balancing the budget and actually creating a surplus, etc... They also managed to shut down some of the Clinton's stupider ideas, such as Hillarycare, the precursor to Obamacare.

But, again, you'll never read about this in a college text book because it gets in the way of the narrative.

Anyway, that's it. Like I said, everything you posted was bunk. The 20's roared because of tax cuts as well, but I'm too exhausted to type anymore right now.

The math is all there and it doesn't lie. Believe it or not.

If you could tax your way into prosperity the graveyard of history wouldn't be filled with the corpses of failed socialist states, and free market economies wouldn't be dominating the world.

---

(06-12-2017 06:52 PM)the ollie reed fan club Wrote:  Agreed. Socialists/liberals need to accept the fact that altruism isn't a universal human instinct. Some people are prepared to work harder and take risks because they want more while others are prepared to sit on their arse and earn a minimum benefit because they prepare a more sedentary lifestyle. Time and time and time again many of these bottom dwellers are offered opportunities that they simply don't want to take because it requires effort. A little while back the govt started an initiative to offer businesses tax breaks if they would hire people on the dole and help them back to work. This initiative collapsed fairly quickly as many of those offered an opportunity to get back into the workforce would turn up for a few days and the disappear or not even turn up at all, or regularly fail drug tests. Yet for my endeavours socialists would like to tax me more so i can improve their 'lifestyle.' Ummmmmmm..............................no, just no.

The ironic thing is altruism is actually a built-in component of capitalism. Capitalism forces business to offer a product that people need or desire at a price they can afford.

I'll type more late when I feel like it (burned out right now from my previous reply), but that's the basic idea.

There's a great video from Prager Univeristy about this (only 5 minutes long. Watch it, everyone.)

[Spyder]

(06-13-2017 03:08 AM)lloyd mayflower Wrote:  I dont believ for one second that we should be improving the kives of those on benefits. But should there be a benefits system? Absolutely there should. I dont want to live in a country where one wrong turn can leave me in the gutter. But must always pay more than no work. Benefits received should never exceed the minimum wage. Although I believe that rarely happens here despite the sensationalised headlines we often see.

Also, Black and his Mrs are rich. Who knew.... I guess I just always associate that Brum accent with cider and sports direct....

The benefits system that you talk about as a glowing, compassionate helping hand is anything but that. It is instead one of the cruelest things that anyone could do to free people.

There are generations of families that live their entire lives on government benefits, so called cradle-to-grave. No jobs, no ambition for betterment, and an expectation that the money the government gives them is theirs. "They better give me my money." The more kids they bring into this situation, the more money they receive. So it incentivizes them to have more kids and grow their dependency. It continues from one generation to the next, taught and accepted that this is how to live.

To most reasonable people, this would be considered abuse of the system that the left likes to call a "safety net". It is instead a form of indentured servitude. A voter-base farm, designed to keep those that are ensnared in their net to stay dependent, and continue casting votes for the people that are actually their captors.

The whole thing is disgusting, and I know that most that support it do so without knowledge of the damage that it causes.

[Spyder]

The left is keeping it classy...

https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/14/ins...-thus-far/