Tax Plan Will Increase the Deficit

@waahahah: @kod: If I understand it right, corporate tax is a kind of a wealth tax that is based on the value of the company?

@horgen: Corporate tax is based on the income or capital.

You gave me an opinion piece devoid of any actual data or academic citations, written by someone with a journalism degree, not finance, not economics and not business. I hate to repeat jokes here, but you gave me jack shit and jack left town. Now if you like, on page two i gave Yale and Harvard Business peer reviews on the subject, if you'd like to see what academic proof looks like.

I did this for almost a decade, how long did you do corporate finances?

You might or might not like this, but i am more qualified on this topic than the woman who wrote that opinion piece you gave.

Yes you did. You very clearly stated i was wrong for the "risk" reasons you went on to list. The problem is you knew nothing on the subject and didnt know the things you were listing, were not affected by tax rates. You're so ignorant on the topic you literally had no idea what was or was not a potential business risk of higher taxes, so you just threw some bullshit out there because its how you feel or you just repeated someone who knew nothing on the topic.

Lastly id like to remind you that you've completely dropped those bullshit reasons you gave and its all because you got schooled on this topic, but for some reason you cant shut the **** up and simply accept that someone knows more than you on the issue.

I gave you quotes from a business owner explaining the exact same situation I described, one thats created by high taxes / lots of tax write offs.

Its a pretty trivial concept. Tax breaks for spending money can be reversely perceived as penalties for saving money. Its the same thing depending on a businesses situation.

I did this for almost a decade, how long did you do corporate finances?

You might or might not like this, but i am more qualified on this topic than the woman who wrote that opinion piece you gave.

I don't care about the journalist, I care about the business owners opinion which understand his finances better than you or me and pointed out the exact scenario I laid out.

Yes you did. You very clearly stated i was wrong for the "risk" reasons you went on to list. The problem is you knew nothing on the subject and didnt know the things you were listing, were not affected by tax rates. You're so ignorant on the topic you literally had no idea what was or was not a potential business risk of higher taxes, so you just threw some bullshit out there because its how you feel or you just repeated someone who knew nothing on the topic.

Lastly id like to remind you that you've completely dropped those bullshit reasons you gave and its all because you got schooled on this topic, but for some reason you cant shut the **** up and simply accept that someone knows more than you on the issue.

I'm saying your wrong that this situation doesn't exist. It exists. Its a trade off for incentive's expansion/spending because it creates a system where businesses are more aggressive and have higher risks.

So yes you told me about how the current system works when I was talking about tradeoffs of the current system. You used that information to tell me I'm wrong about the tradeoffs when it was pretty clear to see the trade offs, and I used an opinion piece where she was using a business owners that laid out the exact issue I described.

And its EXACTLY the same scenario you described. Tax breaks lead to continuous expansion. The trade off being if you can't really afford it, its higher risk... <- business owner explains this. Any one with high school diploma can see this trade off here.

Take a moment and understand that your explanation does not disprove my point. Or if you just have to pay for something that's an associated risk with doing business.

Correct but his policies made it worse.

Obama doubled the deficit with not tax cut. In fact the Democrats have not cut taxes in fifty years.

No reputable economist thinks this. The current US economy that's keeping Trump's approval rating from tanking below 30% is all thanks to Obama.

You know we're under his economy right now?

That is funny , do you even get how a president really impacts the economy. Not to mention Obama used plans Bush made.

i'm dizzy from all the spin

Which caused inflation to spike up, while working wages stagnated.

Dems will say that this is Obama's economy right up until we get another inflation spike. Then it's going to be blamed on Trump.

No we are not his regulations kept the economy down. Once Trump started getting rid of his regulations business started to take off. The GDP has doubled and will only go higher once the tax plan is made law.

Hahaha.......oh man you are funny. Spin spin spin.

@comp_atkins: Well good for you

But just incase you are in doubt try expanding your horizont and read up on some of the plans bush had for the auto industry for one. A plan obama later implemented.

No his regulations protected humans and environment. They didn't keep business down and we are under Obama's economy. There has been ZERO policies enacted by the orange dumb ass...........which is a positive.

I never know if I should take you seriously or not... This time I think not.

@JimB: @vl4d_l3nin: ”Which caused inflation to spike up, while working wages stagnated."

"The GDP has doubled"

The trick to lying is to be believable and not easily disproven.

@mattbbpl: Even liberals agree that minimum wage vs. inflation is an issue

Nearly seven years after the federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25 an hour from $6.55, it has remained stagnant despite the increasingly heated debate over better pay and worker protections....

...Despite periodic increases, the buying power of the federal minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data show that in 1968, the federal minimum was equivalent to $10.90 in 2015 dollars, nearly $4 higher than today's rate.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/21/adjusted-for-inflation-the-federal-minimum-wage-is-worth-less-than-50-years-ago.html

@vl4d_l3nin: I was referring your statement that inflation spiked. Inflation has been stubbornly below target rates since the recession.

@vl4d_l3nin: But if you want to argue that the minimum wage sould be increased to account for inflation levels (or better yet, productivity levels), I can get on board.

The party in power, however, will not.

and what happens to the debt/deficits when the next major recession hits and the safety nets kick in?

List them.

@drunk_pi: The glaring elephant in the room is the assertion that GDP has doubled.

Same here vl4d_l3nin. If you want to raise the minimum wage I will absolutely join you.

Thanks Obama.

But JimB said Trump removing regulations improved the economy. What I want to know is what regulations he's talking about, their removal and how they impacted the economy.

lol the deficit Obama had in 2009 was substantially higher than when he left office (mostly due to economic factors from the recession, stimulus, etc). As a percentage of GDP it shrank from 9.8% to 2.5%. If you want to argue if current rates are good for future prospects, yeah I agree that it needs to adjust. But this idea that he ballooned the deficit under his watch is patently false.

When Obama took office the deficit was ten trillion dollars when he left office the deficit was close to twenty trillion dollars and the average household income dropped by four thousand dollars. Those are the facts.

That's debt, not deficit you moron. Put on the dunce cap and sit in the corner.

When Obama took office, the deficit was 10 trillion. The economy right before he took over, revenue from taxes was not enough to cover the normal spending budget for various programs. Millions of people were unemployed and not able to feed themselves, and not able to find a job. This meant that social programs had to be expanded to help these people out in a crap economy. On top of that, to fix the economy...obama bailed out banks and other institutions, helped other companies avoid bankruptcy--key companies such as General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Tesla, etc etc etc. If these companies failed, the ripple effect on the economy would have been massive and led to even worse bleeding. The economy was massively collapsing in 2008-2009, the worst economic crisis since the great depression. The republicans were of course just politicizing the whole thing, and idiots like you bought it hook line and sinker.

Time to face facts buddy....republicans or democrats...they would have made the same decisions during the 2008 recession. Every single bail out package, every social program, all the pork spendings, everything that democrats did, the republicans would have done the same damn thing.

Cutting spending during a recession is like cutting the blood supply to an emergency patient. It would have sent the US back to the stone age. The real question is why the republicans who are the recipients of a BOOMING economy --thanks to president Obama, are cutting taxes during this time. They should be increasing taxes on the wealthy AND cutting social programs in order to pay off the deficit.

Why does any of that matter? You can't praise trump so you've gone back to Bush.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-budget-deficit-up-sharply-in-october/

The start of Trump's first fiscal year in office isn't off to the best start.

@HoolaHoopMan: Don't worry, tax cuts will bring that deficit down.

2nd phase, the individual mandate will be repealed causing uninsured rates to rise along with premiums.

You're not thinking like a conservative yet.

"the individual mandate will be repealed causing uninsured rates to rise unprecedented freedom along with [falling] premiums [because we'll no longer be subsidizing the dregs of society]."

I'm at the point where I don't think GOP voters will ever realize the harm they continually inflict upon themselves.

It's acceptable so long as you have global hegemony.