Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Politicians and Salespeople

Over here (G2A Why People Support Trump) we were discussing how politicians keep promising free things, and how us silly voters keep believing them.
 
  • Be it Bernie promising healthcare and college benefits that will cost tax payers little.
  • Or Trump, Cruz, etal promising big tax cuts that will not increase the national debt or cut "necessary" services.
I have to ask, are we tax payers that gullible and naive?  Thoughts?
""Ted Cruz, for instance, has a tax plan that would trim federal revenue by $860B annually, but he has only specified $50B annually in spending cuts." Sean

And yes I have heard the GOP silliness that one cuts taxes to raise revenues. Unfortunately Reagan and Bush showed that it did not work.

Zfacts Reagan Bush Tax Cuts " G2A
""And yes I have heard the GOP silliness that one cuts taxes to raise revenues. Unfortunately Reagan and Bush showed that it did not work." -- John

Such statements are common when you read left-wing sources. The fact is, the Reagan (and I believe) Bush tax cuts DID increase federal revenues. The debt exploded because Congress failed to curb (or even control) spending, which rose faster. Just like MN, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem. Trump's simple diagnosis, that "we have stupid people in Washington" may not point to a cure, but it sure resonates with people who believe the same thing. And why shouldn't they? Any fool knows that when you get deep in debt the first thing you do is cut up your credit cards, and then start figuring out what you can cut out of your budget." Jerry

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

In just glancing at his website, Trump is not making the usual Republican promises about tax cuts. What he seems to be suggesting is that the middle class tax cuts most politicians of all parties are willing to promise would be paid for by the elimination of tax loopholes for wealthy, a de facto tax increase. It's very much a wealth redistributionist scheme. I don't think this is a problem for him politically. The polls usually suggest that the rich pay too little in taxes, which is more in line with the Democratic Party position. The problem Democrats have is not so much with the position itself but rather a belief by many, many voters, that any Democratic tax increases on the wealthy will be passed on through tax loopholes and the like to the poor and middle class. I believe that for many, Trump as a newcomer, has more credibility with voters on this.

--Hiram

Sean said...

"In just glancing at his website, Trump is not making the usual Republican promises about tax cuts."

That's his "genius", I suppose, because his tax plan -- once you talk about all of the provisions instead of the few that are favorable to the middle-class -- is the same old giveaway to the rich that GOP candidates always favor. This is why, incidentally, GOP candidates haven't attacked him for brazenly lying about his tax plans -- because it would expose just how terrible their tax plans are for the middle class. Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders won't have any hesitation to point that out.

Under the Trump proposal, for instance, the top 0.1 percent would see their after-tax incomes increase by about 18%, while the bottom 20% would see their after-tax incomes increase by about 2%.

John said...

Sean, Source?

Sean said...

Tax Policy Center [PDF]

Anonymous said...

If they really thought tax cuts increased revenue, Republicans would oppose them and Democrats would favor them.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Trump is a businessman and accustomed to being successful in a very high tax environment. I am sure he doesn't like taxes, but I also think he very much likes what taxes pay for, which in New York tends to make his properties more valuable.

--Hiram

John said...

Maybe we try a source that is a bit less biased.

Tax Plan Comparison

John said...

Fact Checker Is Trump's Plan Revenue Neutral?

John said...

As I said in the original post. I have no doubt that the Conservatives are promising tax cuts that will drive the national debt up. And the Democrats are promising services and programs that will drive the national debt up, or will stall our economy.


The question is why so many voters think they can get something for nothing?

Laurie Wagner said...

I think Hillary would be mostly deficit neutral. She has plans to raise taxes on the wealthy a little bit, which I believe would fund her new spending proposals.

AN ANALYSIS OF HILLARY CLINTON’S TAX PROPOSALS

I think a knowledgeable fiscal conservative should logically support Hillary, if they don't want the deficit to blowup (unless they hate her too much)

John said...

I like this simpler chart. The Tax Policy Center seems to ignore the impacts to our economy. Maybe they think that people will not behave differently as taxes change...

A Different Comparison

John said...

More Detailed Analysis

By the way, given the choice of Clinton, Trump and Cruz... I will need to do some serious research before making my vote.

Laurie said...

to me it seems that taking a bit more money from the rich and spending it a various things would lead to a small level of economic growth. the economy usually does better when we have a democratic president. supply side economics does not work.

jerrye92002 said...

"If they really thought tax cuts increased revenue, Republicans would oppose them and Democrats would favor them." --Hiram

Hiram, I think you've hit the problem squarely on the head. What makes you think that Congresscritters of either party actually THINK?

jerrye92002 said...

"to me it seems that taking a bit more money from the rich and spending it a various things would lead to a small level of economic growth. the economy usually does better when we have a democratic president. supply side economics does not work." -- Laurie

Laurie, you could confiscate the entire income of the top 0.1% and it wouldn't even pay for this year's deficit spending.

And you will have to explain to me how taking money from some of us to give away to others of us increases total economic activity. Seems to me that "supply side," where people spend their own money buying goods and services from others, has to work better as a matter of simple math. (total economy - wealth from the 1% + wealth from the 1% - government overhead = negative wealth; total economy minus wealth from the 1% + amount spent in the economy + the value of goods and services produced = positive wealth).

And the economy does better under Democrats? Ever heard of President Obama?

jerrye92002 said...

Probably out of place, but at least we have an authoritative source.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/15/self-sufficiency-not-government-spending-should-be-the-measure-of-antipoverty-progress/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonu6jIdu%2FhmjTEU5z16u0tXaWyhYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcdlN7DYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Sometime you will have to teach me how to post a link.

Laurie said...

there is just a little bit of code to memorize to make a hyper link. Even I learned it quite easily.


how to make a hyperlink


when I tried to explain it, my example of code kept turning into a link

John said...

DS Anti-Poverty Progress

How to Create a Link