GOP 2016

[mmrmnhrm]

getting on the right side of the Laffer Curve by cutting taxes

Dear god, please tell me you don't honestly believe that Laffer Curve bullshit. Sure, the fundamental concept (that you can raise taxes only so far before you begin to kill the economy as a whole) is sound, but the corollary notion of trickle down and supply-side economics somehow being realistic(1) is just as disgusting as the Marxist-Leninist dogma of everyone selflessly working for the common good with no leadership and everyone sharing gloriously in the fruits of each person's labor.

 

Edit: This statement (and, indeed, the entire 'cut taxes' creed) assumes that we are already on the falling, "diminishing returns," portion of the curve. I personally do not believe this to be the case. Marginal tax rates in the 50s and 60s were insanely high compared to today (90% plus for top earners), and I just can't see how we fought Korea, Vietnam, sent people to the moon, and did all that other crap without running up a massive public debt, unless at the time we really were on the diminishing side, and have since overshot the "optimal" rate and are now on the rising edge.

 

(1) I have a very simple explanation of why supply-side doesn't work. Let's say I have a perfectly functional, absolutely beautiful, 80-inch television with 3D, a bazillion inputs, and whatever else I might dream of needing. Supply side advocates would have you believe that if they drop the price of a 70-inch television low enough, perhaps even below the cost of manufacturing it, that I'll rush out and get one. But I don't want one. I already have a television that's bigger and better in every way. You could even offer it to me for free, and I still wouldn't take it. Extend this to other (all?) segments of the economy, and you're churning millions of dollars off manufacturing lines that will never be purchased, let alone result in revenue (and thus, worker wages) for the company making them.

Edited August 19, 2015 by mmrmnhrm

[2highpsi]

http://www.isidewith.com/

 

I encourage you to take the test. Some of you may be surprised.

 

89% Rubio

 

Did not expect to be that high of a match with anyone

[Lauren]

90% Rubio and Ted Cruz and 89% Rand.

 

30% Sanders LOL

[kirks5oh]

Bush-95%

Rubio-92%

Trump-90%

 

I had to laugh, I was over 65% agreement with all but 3 candidates. Clinton, sanders, and Omalley. All were under 20%

[C-Mart]

Dear god, please tell me you don't honestly believe that Laffer Curve bullshit. Sure, the fundamental concept (that you can raise taxes only so far before you begin to kill the economy as a whole) is sound, but the corollary notion of trickle down and supply-side economics somehow being realistic(1) is just as disgusting as the Marxist-Leninist dogma of everyone selflessly working for the common good with no leadership and everyone sharing gloriously in the fruits of each person's labor.

 

Yes I believe in the Laffer curve. It isn't debatable, it simply states that for every amount of revenue amount collected by the government there are two tax rates they can collect to do so. At 0% and 100% they will collect $0 and everything in between.

 

Supply side is more of the economic belief and I believe in that too. It stimulates innovation just as socialism stimulates stagnation.

 

Edit: This statement (and, indeed, the entire 'cut taxes' creed) assumes that we are already on the falling, "diminishing returns," portion of the curve. I personally do not believe this to be the case. Marginal tax rates in the 50s and 60s were insanely high compared to today (90% plus for top earners), and I just can't see how we fought Korea, Vietnam, sent people to the moon, and did all that other crap without running up a massive public debt, unless at the time we really were on the diminishing side, and have since overshot the "optimal" rate and are now on the rising edge.

 

I will admittedly have to do some research on this, as I am a business consultant not an economist and my history isn't where it should be. I will say though that a rising tide lifts all boats. It is easy to look back at a time and say that it was good, but could it have been better? I can give you many examples of when cutting taxes drove the economy. I can give you many more of when socialism/communism killed economy, and tens of millions of men, women, and children.

 

(1) I have a very simple explanation of why supply-side doesn't work. Let's say I have a perfectly functional, absolutely beautiful, 80-inch television with 3D, a bazillion inputs, and whatever else I might dream of needing. Supply side advocates would have you believe that if they drop the price of a 70-inch television low enough, perhaps even below the cost of manufacturing it, that I'll rush out and get one. But I don't want one. I already have a television that's bigger and better in every way. You could even offer it to me for free, and I still wouldn't take it. Extend this to other (all?) segments of the economy, and you're churning millions of dollars off manufacturing lines that will never be purchased, let alone result in revenue (and thus, worker wages) for the company making them.

 

There are several flaws in your argument. It isn't just about 80" TVs and 70" TVs, but nokia brick phones and iPhone 6s - things people never thought they could need, want, or could even exist. Yet, you don't just need to compete with the best and greatest. Your personal example of not wanting a free 70" TV doesn't hold water, even if true, considering 99% of the population would take a 70" TV - even if they didn't NEED it they would find a use for it if cheap enough. A large problem with your thought process is that there is no such thing as equilibrium. Things are constantly changing and we have no way to know what is coming next. How many less jobs would there be without the iPhone, beats headphones, turbochargers, etc, etc, aka things the normal person, even the smartest of people, could never think of or expect to be invented? Things that would never exist in socialism or in an economy where people didn't take chances.

 

Wealth can be created. It is not a 0 sum game IE when one person wins that does not mean someone else loses.

[Ben]

If this last recession (where a lot of companies had lots of unspent cash but weren't hiring) should have taught us anything it is that demand drives economies. The widget factory doesn't hire people when it gets a tax break or its CEO gets a tax break. It hires people when it needs to make more fucking widgets. Demand for widgets only increases when people are buying stuff and people buy stuff only when the two factors come together in potential consumers: (1) want/need and (2) money.

 

So let's look at the three typical classes of Americans:

1.) Rich people have pretty much everything they want or need already.

2.) Middle class people have everything they need but not everything they want.

3.) Poor people do not have everything they need or want.

 

Multiple choice question one: Out of those three classes of people, in whose hands should money be placed in order to drive demand?

 

Multiple choice question two: If you just cut personal income tax, to whose pockets will money flow?

 

Multiple choice question three: If you increase income tax, reduce sales tax, and raise wages into whose hands will money flow?

 

If I hear another chucklehead start talking about how if we just lowered income taxes a bit more to stimulate the economy I am seriously going to lose it. It is simply a flawed premise and the last few decades have amply proven that.

[Ben]

Also, I don't know who will make the next best President. I plan to listen, read, and think about it before making a decision.

 

But I'm pretty sure it isn't someone whose life is a damn spectacle, who inherited a giant pile of money, and yet expects everyone to worship him as the Second Coming crossbred with Andrew Carnegie.

 

I'm also pretty sure it isn't the imbecile who ran HP into the ground and merged HP with the only computer company less successful that it was before being ignominiously shit-canned.

 

I'm pretty sure it isn't anyone who thinks that it is legitimate for the government of the United States, a constitutional republic of supposedly limited powers, to tell a woman what she ought to do with her vagina.

 

I'm pretty sure it isn't anyone who thinks that the First Amendment can be construed to allow governance according to the literal and often contradictory edicts of Bible. I mean heck, should we be loving our neighbors or pillaging non-believers and collecting foreskins? Which is it man?

 

I'm pretty sure it isn't anyone who rejects evidence and science in making decisions.

 

And I am really very sure it isn't anyone who was in upper management of any of the financial firms who ran our frigging economy into the ground less than a decade ago. I mean, we couldn't be so stupid as to elect someone with intimate ties to Lehman Bros to the Presidency could we? Could we?

[Exodus]

Trump: On the conspiracy note, I believe trump is just a fall guy implanted by the left to make the GOP look bad. However, I do appreciate his ability to stick to what he says and not get swayed by the public no matter how bad it is.

 

Carson: I think he is pretty intelligent.

 

Clinton: She has more skeletons in her closet than anyone else on the ballot.

 

Rand: I appreciate his libertarian tendencies.

 

Sanders: No. Just no. Absolutely not.

 

I can't say I honestly believe the system isn't rigged and that our presidents aren't chosen for us. If they are not, I'm sure they are all at least controlled.

[C-Mart]

If this last recession (where a lot of companies had lots of unspent cash but weren't hiring) should have taught us anything it is that demand drives economies. The widget factory doesn't hire people when it gets a tax break or its CEO gets a tax break. It hires people when it needs to make more fucking widgets. Demand for widgets only increases when people are buying stuff and people buy stuff only when the two factors come together in potential consumers: (1) want/need and (2) money.

 

So let's look at the three typical classes of Americans:

1.) Rich people have pretty much everything they want or need already.

2.) Middle class people have everything they need but not everything they want.

3.) Poor people do not have everything they need or want.

 

Multiple choice question one: Out of those three classes of people, in whose hands should money be placed in order to drive demand?

 

Multiple choice question two: If you just cut personal income tax, to whose pockets will money flow?

 

Multiple choice question three: If you increase income tax, reduce sales tax, and raise wages into whose hands will money flow?

 

If I hear another chucklehead start talking about how if we just lowered income taxes a bit more to stimulate the economy I am seriously going to lose it. It is simply a flawed premise and the last few decades have amply proven that.

 

U mad?

 

It is obvious your mind is made so arguing as rather pointless.

 

I'll say this before bowing out and relying on PM for questions...

 

You are taking one of the most complex problems that we have been trying to solve for several millennia and trying to solve it with a basic example. People much smarter than you and I have landed on each side of the fence.

 

It isn't just lowering taxes it is lowering government restrictions of all kind. Socialism has never worked and it never, for prolonged time, will. Capitalism has done in 200 years what others weren't able to do in 1000s despite being true capitalism.

 

"So let's look at the three typical classes of Americans:

1.) Rich people have pretty much everything they want or need already.

2.) Middle class people have everything they need but not everything they want.

3.) Poor people do not have everything they need or want."

 

Besides the fact this isn't close to accurate, it isn't just about rich people. Small business (not corporate CEOs), without structure, stockholders they are legally liable for, and the ability to change quickly, are the ones spurring most of the innovation.

 

Off the top of my head...

 

Multiple choice question one: Out of those three classes of people, in whose hands should money be placed in order to drive demand? -

Demand is driven by supply (since wealth can be created and people work harder if they want something) so there should be an environment that allows people to take chances on new innovation. Though my initial answer is the upper/middle class, once poor people are working, which is something missing in the current economy, the poor wouldn't exist, or would be able to create things of their own.

 

Multiple choice question two: If you just cut personal income tax, to whose pockets will money flow?

The money would flow to the people who have proven they can create/sustain wealth (upper/middle class) instead of giving it away to people who cannot. These people will create products and drive economy.

 

Multiple choice question three: If you increase income tax, reduce sales tax, and raise wages into whose hands will money flow?

Initially money will REDISTRIBUTE form the rich (who have proven they can create and sustain wealth - again remember this isn't a 0 sum game) and go to the poor. Money redistributed to the poor does not solve anything as we see far too often in the case of lottery winners. Instead of GIVING which is a short term answer to a long term problem we should show people that hard work pays off - whether in this generation or the next.

[unfunnyryan]

I did the isidewith.com thing and got a three way tie (78%) with Trump, Clinton, and Sanders.

 

edit: and Rubio 75%. My politics must be all over.

[Ben]

U mad?

 

It is obvious your mind is made so arguing as rather pointless.

 

I'll say this before bowing out and relying on PM for questions...

 

You are taking one of the most complex problems that we have been trying to solve for several millennia and trying to solve it with a basic example. People much smarter than you and I have landed on each side of the fence.

 

It isn't just lowering taxes it is lowering government restrictions of all kind. Socialism has never worked and it never, for prolonged time, will. Capitalism has done in 200 years what others weren't able to do in 1000s despite being true capitalism.

 

"So let's look at the three typical classes of Americans:

1.) Rich people have pretty much everything they want or need already.

2.) Middle class people have everything they need but not everything they want.

3.) Poor people do not have everything they need or want."

 

Besides the fact this isn't close to accurate, it isn't just about rich people. Small business (not corporate CEOs), without structure, stockholders they are legally liable for, and the ability to change quickly, are the ones spurring most of the innovation.

 

Off the top of my head...

 

Multiple choice question one: Out of those three classes of people, in whose hands should money be placed in order to drive demand? -

Demand is driven by supply (since wealth can be created and people work harder if they want something) so there should be an environment that allows people to take chances on new innovation. Though my initial answer is the upper/middle class, once poor people are working, which is something missing in the current economy, the poor wouldn't exist, or would be able to create things of their own.

 

Multiple choice question two: If you just cut personal income tax, to whose pockets will money flow?

The money would flow to the people who have proven they can create/sustain wealth (upper/middle class) instead of giving it away to people who cannot. These people will create products and drive economy.

 

Multiple choice question three: If you increase income tax, reduce sales tax, and raise wages into whose hands will money flow?

Initially money will REDISTRIBUTE form the rich (who have proven they can create and sustain wealth - again remember this isn't a 0 sum game) and go to the poor. Money redistributed to the poor does not solve anything as we see far too often in the case of lottery winners. Instead of GIVING which is a short term answer to a long term problem we should show people that hard work pays off - whether in this generation or the next.

 

Yes, I am mad. Why aren't you? Our economy is still struggling. A tiny percentage of Americans have grabbed a huge portion of wealth for themselves and have attempted a de facto coup by buying and gerrymandering elections and people like you defend the very regime that disenfranchises you, me, and anyone worth less than 100 mil. Wake up! These people aren't on your side.

 

To respond to your specific points:

 

Many poor people do work and are still poor. That is precisely the problem.

 

Supply only drives demand in an econ 101 class. The real world doen't work that way. You can supply as many betamax video tapes as you want. You won't create demand for them.

 

Cutting income tax will actually have relatively little effect on the middle to upper middle. If you make 50k you will only see a couple of grand from even a huge tax decrease. In fact such a decrease would disproportionately put money into the hands of a relatively small number of persons each of whom is already so inordinately wealthy that their spending patterns will change little in response to almost any amount of income growth.

 

You correctly note that multiple choice three would shift wealth to the poorer segments of society. But you fail to take into account what those people do with it-to wit, they spend it. Or, in other words, they become consumers driving demand, fueling business growth, creating the need for workers, funding jobs, creating more consumers, etc.

 

History teaches that unrestrained undisciplined capitalism creates bubbles and crashes. Responsible regulated capitalism creates prosperity. I wasn't advocating socialism, just responsible economic policy. There is not and has never been a viable socialist party in America. Socialism is merely the scare word for people who have run out of excuses for why supply-side trickle down garbage is not working and never has worked.

 

And yes, my argument is simple. Most good ones are.

[mmrmnhrm]

Yes I believe in the Laffer curve. It isn't debatable, it simply states that for every amount of revenue amount collected by the government there are two tax rates they can collect to do so. At 0% and 100% they will collect $0 and everything in between.

This much I'll give you. Anything beyond that, including the fact that it was nothing more than stating the obvious to Rumsfeld and Cheney, back when they weren't neo-con warmongers, is bumpkis.

 

Supply side is more of the economic belief and I believe in that too. It stimulates innovation just as socialism stimulates stagnation.

Supply side does not "stimulate innovation" as you put it. I could come up with something tomorrow that allows mules to carry 50x their current capacity, price it for a penny each, and you know what? Nobody would give a rat's ass, because we've moved on to pick-up trucks, front loaders, and ice cold Budweiser. At best, you could make the argument that SS allows companies to throw random shit at the wall just to see what will stick (and, to be honest, Japanese electronics companies are masters at this), but without demand, it doesn't matter what you're offering, it isn't going to sell.

 

I will say though that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Ahh, yes, that wonderful quote, and it's less amusing partner, "A receding tide lets you see who's been swimming naked." I seem to recall the 'rising tide' comment being especially prevalent just before the stock crash of 2000-01, and the housing crash of 2008....

I can give you many more of when socialism/communism killed economy, and tens of millions of men, women, and children.

I'm going to give you a pass on Godwin... but others may call you this discussion's "loser" for the thinly veiled reference to fascism.

 

There are several flaws in your argument. It isn't just about 80" TVs and 70" TVs, but nokia brick phones and iPhone 6s - .....

I use televisions merely as an example, and it's rather clear you missed my point. If I don't want a television, I don't want a television. It doesn't matter if you give it to me for free. Or you can take it to the other extreme... where I have a serviceable 24" screen, but live in an tenth floor walk-up apartment that isn't much more than a bed, stove, and shower. I would absolutely love to have a 100" 4k screen, but where would I put it? Again, you'd be attempting to supply me with something that I can't use.

 

Wealth can be created. It is not a 0 sum game IE when one person wins that does not mean someone else loses.

Indeed, but the blind reverence given to tax cuts and trickle-down has been disasterous to the middle and working classes over the last 30+ years. Even the God of the Republican Party, The Man Who Can Do No Wrong, Ronald Reagan himself, agreed to roll back some of his own tax cuts (gasp!!). But guess what... deficits under Reagan were double those of previous administrations. On the flip side, when JFK (dirty rotten liberal that he was) cut the top tax rate from 91% to 65%, his goal was a bottom-up stimulus, not a trickle-down one (and it worked!)

 

Again, my argument is not that the Laffer curve is outright wrong, but rather that we are NOT on the right-hand side as tax cutters would like us to believe, but rather on the left-hand side.

[acklac7]

Absolutely cannot stand Hillary or Trump. Im riding with Biden

 

Honestly I like some of the things he (Trump) says, but the thought of him running the country is downright chilling.

[o0n8]

http://www.isidewith.com/

 

I encourage you to take the test. Some of you may be surprised.

 

#feelthebern :lolguy:

 

91% - Sanders

90% - Clinton

71% O'Malley (I don't know who he is)

43% - Jeb & Rand

[airwg2189]

http://www.isidewith.com/

 

I encourage you to take the test. Some of you may be surprised.

 

Rubio, but he won't get the nod.

[mmrmnhrm]

#feelthebern :lolguy:

 

91% - Sanders

90% - Clinton

71% O'Malley (I don't know who he is)

43% - Jeb & Rand

 

Fairly close myself, and I'm like "Uhh, I don't think so." When I went through their "why," it seemed like the site was over-weighting my environmental views in relation to those on individual liberty and immigration (where I'm in pretty strong agreement with Trump, but whom the site assigned me an 18% overall score)

[o0n8]

Rubio, but he won't get the nod.

It doesn't help when you hit kids in face with a football.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/08/18/marcorubio.gif

 

Fairly close myself, and I'm like "Uhh, I don't think so." When I went through their "why," it seemed like the site was over-weighting my environmental views in relation to those on individual liberty and immigration (where I'm in pretty strong agreement with Trump, but whom the site assigned me an 18% overall score)

 

Yea, I know I'm more liberal leaning but 91% for Bernie seems a little much.

[2 Sweet]

Bush-95%

Rubio-92%

Trump-90%

 

I had to laugh, I was over 65% agreement with all but 3 candidates. Clinton, sanders, and Omalley. All were under 20%

 

Same, my numbers were extremely similar to yours and had Clinton/Sanders/O'Malley wayyy at the bottom

[airwg2189]

Side note, I know this would never happen, but how cool would it be if instead of voting for names, you voted for issues, and the machines made your vote for you ala isidewith.com?

[mmrmnhrm]

Side note, I know this would never happen, but how cool would it be if instead of voting for names, you voted for issues, and the machines made your vote for you ala isidewith.com?

 

I'd love to be able to vote issues, but if isidewith is the mechanism, forget it. As noted by a couple of us, the weightings/rankings just don't seem to match. It's the same reason I hate using this site when it comes time to vote for the CSM in EVE Online.

 

I also had one of those fun, random, "what if" thoughts on the way in this morning. With Trump starting to create a gap between himself and the GOP establishment, and the coronation of Hillary on the left suddenly uncertain, what would the 2016 election look like if we ended up with Trump v Sanders?

[Geeto67]

Side note, I know this would never happen, but how cool would it be if instead of voting for names, you voted for issues, and the machines made your vote for you ala isidewith.com?

 

If this was implemented there would be a lot of hair splitting discussion about how issues are interpreted, how biased is the ranking, etc....plus it doesn't hold anybody really accountable.

[AngryBMW]

Kasich/Rubio would get my vote.

-Marc

[Exodus]

http://i59.tinypic.com/m8llyo.png

[unfunnyryan]

Fuck it, I'm voting DEEZ NUTS

 

http://www.wtoc.com/story/29834533/surprise-independent-nuts-gets-9-percent-in-presidential-poll

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/19/presidential-candidate-deez-nuts-does-not-exist.html

[Orion]

Fairly close myself, and I'm like "Uhh, I don't think so." When I went through their "why," it seemed like the site was over-weighting my environmental views in relation to those on individual liberty and immigration (where I'm in pretty strong agreement with Trump, but whom the site assigned me an 18% overall score)

 

On the left side of the questions, you can choose how important an individual question/issue is to you. Also, be sure to click all of the "See x more questions" at the bottom of each "section". Try again with that knowledge, see if ti doesn't change (I had to go back and take it again the first time I used it as well).