Tax Plan Will Increase the Deficit

Not explicitly, no. But your rhetoric is without a doubt filled with references to what politicians since Reagan came to mean the welfare queen. So like I said, please provide proof.

I also want proof of these claims from earlier in the thread. Especially that gem right there at the beginning, which no black person alive today, never mind academic, would agree with.

I removed a whole bit that I thought was redundant. A stable home includes 2 parents so they can afford to be home, instead of 1 parent working 2 jobs. A stable home isn't about keeping someone's head above water.

Not talking about is ignoring corporate welfare. Stupid....learn basic English etc.

Just because you say I didn't mention means I'm ignoring it is false. Your dumb to think I support something If I didn't mention it. Again read my comments, I'm not in favor of giving money to the government.

You stated black people were doing better when there was explicitly more racism. Direct quote. That's a bigot talking. Sound like the Spencer guy from a white supremacist group actually. Pretty stupid.

Thats not bigoted. How is pointing out a fact bigoted? In the 60s... when there was more racism... half of black families lived in middle class... now 70% of mothers are single which is the single most largest factor in generational poverty... its definitely not racism now, thats why its a big bad boogy man that no one can actually point to real cases half the time.

Yeah I don't think you have the right to call anyone else stupid.

Says the person who thinks not talking about a specific thing on a forum means someone must inherently support it, and facts about a community are bigoted .

Thats because you guys keep attributed ideas to things I said.

1. Again, expansion. If you want more money, you need to expand, its forced expansion if money is your goal. Money, is the goal of corporations. How is that getting passed you?

2. Again.... heh... i feel im being repetitive at this point. Its not up for debate and you thinking you can counter economic historians and economists simply because you want to, makes people laugh at you. Especially, when im 100% certain you could not pass a fifth grade economics test and i know this because you dont even seem to grasp the basics.

Expansion is tax exempt, its something you reinvest in the business... thats how its been since the 40s. Meaning, corporations making tons of money already, are again........... A-FUCKING-GAIN since you don't grasp the utmost basics of this conversation........ theres incentive to expand. Not an opinion, historical fact and something weve always seen with corporations and higher taxes. You don't even understand tax rates on corporations and what those taxes cover... do you? Clearly you dont or you would not be bringing up these "points".

Maybe, just maybe, you should have a goddamn clue on this topic before trying to discuss any of it. Just a tip.

No a stable home does NOT require two parents. It requires someone who loves and nurtures the child. Not all parents are good parents. Some have drug and alcohol problems. Not good for children. Some are abusers. Not good for children. You don't seem to live in the real world but base your family life on 1950 sitcoms. There are many families TODAY because of conservative policies with TWO parents working that are barely keeping their heads above water. THAT is the reality. And if they need assistance is very selfish to say no.

Yes not mentioning corporate welfare while you are railing on individuals in need of assistance IS ignoring it. And FYI we spend MORE not less on corporate welfare.

As for last assertion that's just bullshit. Even years later minorities in this country are still trying to catch up. Today more black families are middle class than they were in the past. Ignorance at it's finest. And bigoted to boot.

I've brought up corporate welfare several times to you....and you STILL skirt the issue. And in a discussion over welfare it's disingenuous to ignore the corporate variety....but then you can't spew against minorities that way.

I'm literally using my white sister as an example, of someone who can't afford to get off welfare and is in far worse condition mentally because of that, because she WANTS to work. And my nieces being taught to look for the future, or that committed relationships are normal or even a good thing. Of course there are people that are welfare queens, but there are tons of good people that can't get off welfare or aren't making the right decisions for their future because of welfare.

I also want proof of these claims from earlier in the thread. Especially that gem right there at the beginning, which no black person alive today, never mind academic, would agree with.

Thats not true at all, Thomas Sowell would agree. There are hundreds of articles that talk about this issue... the problem is how quick people are to yelling racist... I'm assuming you and the other guy like everyone else don't understand racism/bigotry.

Academic is also in a leftist echo chamber. Their narratives are don't blame the victims regardless... and any time you do lets call you a racist. Regarldess of whether or not a community has genuinely bad culture, if they are black any criticism must be racist! Its not their fault because they are black!

Do you know how racist and belittling that is to black people?

@perfect_blue: It´s called personal responsibility. People have a easier time to see the wrong with people who directly cost the society money than seeing a problem with Rich using the law to their advantage.

The largest attributing factor to generational poverty would say otherwise.

Yes not mentioning corporate welfare while you are railing on individuals in need of assistance IS ignoring it. And FYI we spend MORE not less on corporate welfare.

Again not talking about it doesn't mean I'm ignoring it or in favor of it. It just wasn't something that needed to be talked about because the assertion was we need to take more from the rich + corporations to pay for entitlements which have had questionable consequences over the long term.

As for last assertion that's just bullshit. Even years later minorities in this country are still trying to catch up. Today more black families are middle class than they were in the past. Ignorance at it's finest. And bigoted to boot.

Which black people are we talking about? Immigrants? Or american blacks. Or the fact that there are more people in general so just saying more families.

I'm talking about black families that are american born. Which statistically 70% of mothers are single and that is the largerst factor in generational poverty. 13% of the population, and half of all murder victims in america, overwhelmingly murdered by other black people. Are you trying to suggest there isn't a problem? These statistics are all over the place...

I've brought up corporate welfare several times to you....and you STILL skirt the issue. And in a discussion over welfare it's disingenuous to ignore the corporate variety....but then you can't spew against minorities that way.

I'm not skirting the issue as I agreed the first time you pointed it out, I don't agree with corporate 'welfare'.. I'm not ignoring it I'm just didn't talk about it. You can apply the same logic I do to welfare.

Take 'predatory lending'. Its not a thing, the government created federal backing for high risk loans that people can't pay. Its working as intended. Someone gets a loan they can't afford... they can't pay it... their shit gets repoed.

Anecdotes aren't evidence. Even if they were, why would I believe some dude on the internet who may or may not be lying? You say yourself "of course there are people that are welfare queens", well if that's true please provide evidence or quit stalling lol. It's really not difficult...

Rest of your post is just gibberish lol what am I even reading. At least you and Sowell both have something in common - a crippling fear of "leftist" boogeymen and a boner for strawmen. And you end it up with the classic "I'm not racist, you are the racist for pointing out racism!" trope, classic stuff. You're just messing with me, right?

Why is adding an average of 150 billion a year to the deficit better than an average of 1.6 billion a year to the deficit? Did you make a typo or are you all about investing in the country over the long term?

Are you really going to ignore all my arguments because I said there probably are welfare queens? Its not like they don't exist, this myth came from somewhere... like my cousin who is on welfare but her bf pays all the bills working under the table with 3 children <- no incentive to get married because she'll lose single parent status.

Rest of your post is just gibberish lol what am I even reading. At least you and Sowell both have something in common - a crippling fear of "leftist" boogeymen. And you end it up with the classic "I'm not racist, you are the racist for pointing out racism!" trope, classic stuff. You're just messing with me, right?

Again not what I said. I'm not calling people racist because someone pointed out something racist. I'm calling people racist when they don't want to hold the black community to the same standard as whites when it comes to culture/behavior and personal responsibility. The problem is people like you think it must be racism if your critiquing someone's behavior and they are a different color. But I'm critiquing a particular behavior... that also largely effects the black community. That's not racism... and how welfare enables them to make poor choice. I don't think these people are lazy...

And this isn't new, the Moynihan report which again pointed out the failing family structure and black culture degrading was considered racist...

If you were black and kept sticking your hand in a fire. If I told you that was a dumb idea, would you call me racist? Thats the equivalent of what your doing now. This information is all over the place, the statistics surrounding black communities is insane.

And I'm not talking a leftist boogy man. I'm talking about leftist echo chambers where they yell racist if any one tries to critique their ideas.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/the_decline_of_the_africanamerican_family.html

https://www.city-journal.org/html/black-family-40-years-lies-12872.html

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/marriage/family-decline-the-findings-of-social-science.html

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672

http://yourblackworld.net/2013/03/02/the-black-family-is-worse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/

You cannot look at society in a microcosm. There are many reasons for generational poverty and it's not because those individuals have never tried. It's so foolish to tout that argument without looking at facts.

Yes dodging does exactly mean you are ignoring it. Why do you continue to do so? It's a bigger problem than social programs for the poor.

You haven't given any links to any of your suppositions. I would like to see some.

Predatory lending is exactly a "thing". Wow.

And I didnt, statistically thought single parenthood is the largest factor. Followed by making poor decisions.

I never said that people are lazy again, I said it enables bad behavior.

Safety nets are supposed to help people when they fail, not make failure an option.

Yes dodging does exactly mean you are ignoring it. Why do you continue to do so? It's a bigger problem than social programs for the poor.

I didn't dodge it... stop being this stupid. I agreed the first time you brought it up, welfare is bad, corporate welfare is bad. Not talking about it is not ignoring it.

You haven't given any links to any of your suppositions. I would like to see some.

Neither have you... how is it only my responsibility to prove what I'm saying?

Predatory lending is exactly a "thing". Wow.

Again read the actual argument. Its a federally backed program that is intended to allow companies to do stupid things... like give a loan to a person to a person that can't pay it back. They are enabling companies to do bad things.

And whats worse... this is how its SUPPOSED to work. Its bad policy. How is this 'predatory'.

@waahahah: When questioned about your opinions I see you avoid any proof. I'm done. You're just stating opinions. Opinions based on zero information. Just talking points to sidestep.

I posted a bunch of things already, and again why are my opinions subject to proof but yours aren't?

You clearly are losing this argument trying to pull the racist card, trying to force a narrative that doesn't exist I'm ignoring corporate welfare when I explicitly agreed the first and every time after... I'm calling people on welfare lazy when I didn't.. I'm looking at one thing like its the only thing that matters when I've stated its the largest factor multiple times...

@waahahah: Because you made the initial assertions and I want to see you back them up. Only thing you presented as evidence was anecdotal evidence about your sister....which is pretty worthless really.

I didn't make the initial assertions. I responded to other assertions. If you don't like my arguments fine, but nobody is bringing facts except for me which I produced many articles about black families, all of which talk about statistics that are insane, and how welfare programs have enabled them to stay on this trajectory.

You haven't brought any facts dude.

neither have you... and there are facts on this page. Do I have to send them directly to you, are you incapable of reading, you interjected in this conversation but only want to pay attention to half of it? All the statistics I've mentioned are easy to find and I posted several articles about them interpreting the data. But since you can't prove those wrong your just going to claim I don't have facts.

Great. I won.

I looked through our entire discussion and not once have linked a thing. So don't be dishonestl

I responded to you and disagreed. Since you are making the assertions to me I want to see some evidence that backs your stance. If you don't have any.......just say that. Why would I link anything when I haven't anything to counter?

Dude look harder, there are several links on THIS page. Granted I have the default 50 pages per post.

I don't care what you want, if you disagree you equally responsible for facts. If you want facts.. produce facts. If my 70% single motherhood is wrong its likely easily disprovable with a google search. Same with largest attributing factor. Your just saying nuh uh. But those are facts not opinions.

Show me in our discussion where you provided any links. Because you didn't.

Don't move the goal post, I stated already that I linked articles that talk about these statistically in the whole of this conversation you interjected in. If you can't find them its not my problem. If don't like my facts which I'm basing my opinions off of, feel free to disprove them. You telling me I have to prove my facts while your counter opinions are completely fine basing them on nothing. **** off.

In a discussion you discuss. I'm not reading your other tangents with other people here. You're dishonest. Period.

There is little to no evidence that such tax cuts spur economic growth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

Their isn't even a strong correlation.

@waahahah: https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#6da3189227dd

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/03/real-welfare-problem-government-giveaways-corporate-1

http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/government-spends-more-on-corporate-welfare-subsidies-than-social-welfare-programs/

Are you talking general tax cuts or just Trump´s planned cuts?

Because if you talk in general even Obama´s report pointed out that a tax cut would grow the GDP, the problem was tho that they found it to be less than a 1 dollar opposite government spending that would raise the GDP by $1.57

That was disputed tho and some said a tax cut would be as much as $3 raise.

this is a terrible argument.

the simple question is why now? why cut taxes to stimulate the economy when we have 3% GDP growth, 17-year low unemployment and a stock market boom?

it makes ZERO sense beyond a simple money-grab. why put more debt on the credit card in times of plenty when you know you're going to need that card in times of famine??

OMFG how stupid are you. You won't let this go when i said I AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION ON CORPORATE WELFARE. The first time you mentioned it.

This has nothing to do with my other arguments...

Ok so if there is a group discussion, if its beneficial for you to ignore everyone to try to pin them down in a stupid way... and are unable to do what your asking others to do...

In fact your either obviously stupid or a troll. Seeing as the only links your trying to prove is against an opinion I don't even hold which you assumed because I didn't spend the extra time discussing everything I dislike about the government.

This is like me saying you must disagree with immigration because you didn't mention it. I have no idea.. you didn't mention it.

@waahahah: How stupid can YOU be. I'm showing you we don't spend that much on individual welfare.....which is MORE important than corporate welfare.

I'm not having a group discussion. I'm discussing with YOU. And you have in this discussion to show ANY links. Period. Failure.

Again my problems with welfare is it enables bad behavior and it has gotten worse over time, I don't care how much we spend on it, I don't think its money well spent, neither is corporate welfare. What your showing me is completely unrelated to my argument because you failed to try and understand my argument.

What your trying to say is its ok if we piss away money if its not that much?

I'm not having a group discussion. I'm discussing with YOU. And you have in this discussion to show ANY links. Period. Failure.

Its a group discussion, as I didn't start out talking to you, your are the tangent here. So don't be an asshole. Its a forum and I'm defending my point against multiple people there no point and constantly restating the same thing because you can't be bothered to read.

And that simple question is not that simple. Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. And the effects on the economy were different each time

They've been reductions most of the time, specifically for the rich and corporations, and we have an overall understanding of how badly its affected us, as a whole.

Again, there is one solution here. Increase corporate taxes significantly. When on average corporations are paying 12% with a quarter of them paying zero or getting refunds, thats a massive problem. We know tax cuts for the rich and corporations are not functioning the way people claim, we have far too much real world evidence of this.

Also the 17-year low unemployment doesn't include people that abandoned the workforce so its kind of misleading. I'd love to see a study that shows how much of that statement can be attributed to the amount of people that gave up.

And its a catch 22, if you want to expand you need money, there needs to be capitol available and thats generally through banks where rich people keep their money.

2. Again.... heh... i feel im being repetitive at this point. Its not up for debate and you thinking you can counter economic historians and economists simply because you want to, makes people laugh at you. Especially, when im 100% certain you could not pass a fifth grade economics test and i know this because you dont even seem to grasp the basics.

Your talking like there is 100% consensus on the issue... there isn't. I taken the opinion of the opposing view. This is a dumb argument on your behalf.

Expansion is tax exempt, its something you reinvest in the business... thats how its been since the 40s. Meaning, corporations making tons of money already, are again........... A-FUCKING-GAIN since you don't grasp the utmost basics of this conversation........ theres incentive to expand. Not an opinion, historical fact and something weve always seen with corporations and higher taxes. You don't even understand tax rates on corporations and what those taxes cover... do you? Clearly you dont or you would not be bringing up these "points".

Maybe, just maybe, you should have a goddamn clue on this topic before trying to discuss any of it. Just a tip

Considering the argument I'm having about cooperate 'welfare' that create these incentives... they don't always work the way you think they will.

Again your statements aren't that simple, growths with high taxes don't mean causation and again the biggest example people have is 1940s->1980 which was world wide phenomena that effected many countries regardless of tax rates. The science is still out because non of the examples are fixed on tax/growth rates. Its complicated. Like super complicated.

Why would you increase the corporate taxes when every economists says that it would just affect us badly and the currently high tax is diverting capital away from the U.S. corporate sector and toward noncorporate uses and other countries

But as to cutting taxes for the top income, you are correct there is no evidence to show that there is a correlation between tax cuts and growth and this is where i do not agree with Trump's plan.

The solution is to decrease the corporate tax and also build up toll walls against countries that are underpaying and having slave like conditions among their working force. Since that is unfair competition.

@Jacanuk: Deal with tax havens first. Nike has a deal with Netherland, or it is simply how Netherlands deal with it, where Netherlands thinks that Nike should be taxed in US for the profits they make, while US thinks they should be taxed in the country where it is made. Result is no tax for Nike.

As pointed out to the other person, America became the richest nation in the world because of those high corporate tax rates and no, not many economists suggest it would be a bad thing. You'll always find someone to disagree, but the vast majority of economists have gone over the data and recognize its a positive thing.

Its already at an average of 12% dude, and that's of the people who pay, which is roughly 75%. The other 25% don't pay at all or are getting refunds in the hundreds of millions, paid for by you. Why on earth would you suggest to reduce those taxes even more?

This is your plan... "Hey, lets give these billionaires even more money that they can stash and never put it back in the economy and then, we do something ridiculous to make up for those subsidies". What is the poin tin doing this? If you recognize that they wont grow... wtf is the point? Why would you want to simply give them more money instead of increasing their taxes and actually start solving some of our financial problems?

That's not a catch 22. Again, we are not talking about small businesses, we are talking about corporations and corporate taxes. These companies have to bring in a certain amount in order to qualify for such a thing... again.... yet again.. . you dont know anything on this subject do you?

Let me go ahead and quickly explain how corporate taxes work since i think im done with you on this topic as youve demonstrated you don't know anything. When we say corporate taxes being 36%, 70%, whatever percentage it is, this is in reference to profits. Not cost of operation.... which includes expansion. Its not a catch 22, you simply don't know wtf youre talking about.

Well. there's a 100% consensus with the data.... 99% with economic historians... so where do you want to go with that asinine statement?

The rest of this i cant even respond to. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and simply repeating talking points you've heard. Which is why ive done nothing but contradict your points and your only response is "well ya but...." and then you make up some bullshit to try to pretend you understand these things.

So if you can't afford to expand you have to pay taxes on the profit you making... Do you see the issue in your logic yet? In order to get the capitol to expand you first need profits. In order to overcome taxes you have to have an excess of profits to expand to be able to write it off.

Well. there's a 100% consensus with the data.... 99% with economic historians... so where do you want to go with that asinine statement?

The rest of this i cant even respond to. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and simply repeating talking points you've heard. Which is why ive done nothing but contradict your points and your only response is "well ya but...." and then you make up some bullshit to try to pretend you understand these things.

Oh its 99% of historians now... are you sure? Do you want to change it again?

I'm repeating points I've heard because they make sense, like your repeating points you've heard. I'm taking the opinion of people that have taking a broader view of the economy at different times, and your taking the opinions of people that take a more narrow viewed approach to analyzing the data.

And when one of the LARGEST growths in history around the world seem to be unaffected by taxes it makes more sense to consider more variables in how high taxes affected growth. Not to mention the people who hold your opinion generally oversimplify complex problems... like this.

Im done. Take an economics or business 101 class.

@kod said:

@waahahah said:

So if you can't afford to expand you have to pay taxes on the profit you making... Do you see the issue in your logic yet? In order to get the capitol to expand you first need profits. In order to overcome taxes you have to have an excess of profits to expand to be able to write it off.

Dude how hard of a concept is its only a write off if you can afford to expand.

Go back and read what i said at least twice now. Everything you just brought up, ive covered already. So either you cant grasp it or you need to work on your reading comprehension.

No you didn't cover it. You said if they expand they can write it off because its operating costs. But if its profit they pay taxes on it. So if you can't afford to expand than you literally can't build capitol as fast because you'll be paying taxes.

I dont know what to tell you man, if you cant work these things out than you shouldnt be having these conversations. All i can recommend is you take a economics or business class because its not my job to hand feed you information that you should know before even thinking about having these conversations.

ill give you a hint actually. Your issue would not be with taxes.

Well, that is the biggest problem with the EU. Ireland and Holland have massive tax laws that are unfair to the rest of the EU.

Not to mention Ireland have a tendency to not collect enough, Apple got a huge fine from the EU because of it´s underpayment in Ireland.

Dude do you even understand what you said? Your making the assumption if they make too much money a business owner will say **** it and stop, and that expansion isn't taxed so everyone should be able to magically afford to do it.

You idea only works if its explicitly affecting companies like walmart an no one else and that the incentives completely workout the way you believe they'll workout.

That's not even remotely close to what i said.

As i said before, your issue is not with taxes and "my idea" is not "my idea", its literally how the united states became the richest country in the world. This equation is unquestionable, you, simply seem to have a very hard time grasping it. Which again, if you cant even grasp the basics, you should not be discussing it.

Yes, America may have become the Richest nation in a time where globalization was less apparent and it was not as easy to move goods across the world. And if you check most harvard and Yale economists they are pretty much in consensus about a corporate tax reform. As they say “lower rates, broaden the base.” where you lower the statutory rate from 35%. Which is the form the economists favor. Another thing economists say is not allowing deducting of interest payments. Not to forget the biggest problem us companies who hold their profits overseas. So again where US is the only country that fully taxes overseas earnings, it would be smart to cut that and by that get more money back into the us.

No, i am not just saying hey let´s give billionaires more money, i am saying the best thing would be to lowering the tax so that we get more money back into the US and also at the same time penalize the companies like Apple who manufactures all their shit in China where they can pay slave like wages and shit on the environment.

Do you feel the same way about corporate welfare?