ATT lays off hundreds before Christmas

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

No fiscal responsibility? I have to laugh....Washington has no responsibility what so ever, with high taxes or low taxes. <- That's true.

We got in debt with higher taxes, so what is really the difference?

That's literally not how it works. Like KG mentioned the debt quadrupled under Reaganomics.

Think of it as buying a tv on credit. Sure you have the tv now, and it's nice to have now, but you're going to pay for it in the long-run and you're going to pay more for it. The only problem is you keep buying crap on credit and the more you do it the less buying power you have later.

The federal government's solution to this is to increase our population, and devalue the dollar.

I did not see the last few administrations paying off our debt. If we give them more money, they will just spend it anyways.

Tax > Spend > Cut. It works, but you have to have a sense of morality to current and future generations.

According to two unnamed sources, Trump bragged to a table full of friends, at Mar-a-Lago, that "... you all got a lot richer!" just hours after he signed the tax bill. Normally I would say that's irresponsible, but Trump is so venal that adding 1.5T to the national debt is laughable to him.

I mean, you're free to complain about taxes, it's your right. And since you're in business for yourself (I assume you are based on the information you provided) you're free to discuss how taxation affects you personally, but I'm not sure it translates to the entirety of the US economy. The bottom line is our middle class isn't growing in relation to upper and lower classes. Those two are growing much more quickly, with the largest disparity in US history in real value as it translates to property ownership, liquidity, and long-term financial stability. That's just a fact; the hard numbers bear out.

And I can guarantee you that it isn't taxes that's shrinking the middle class. Everything has changed, and people like yourself and other workers on this forum are experiencing the stress of the US shifting to a natural order of few having most and most having little.

Trump, if the sources are true, literally gave you a glimpse at the private words the wealthy speak to one another. You can choose to keep giving them your cookies and fighting with the poor over what's left, or you can choose to create a system that, in the end, values your time more than they do.

- Doc

[_Markk]

[quote="Kevin Graham"

That's stupid rationalization that just shows how little you know.
[/quote]

It's a reality, Obama had 8 years to get us out of dept with higher taxes...yet we got further in debt...we gave more money and yet got further in debt. You can whim and wham all you like but that is a reality. Show me how higher or lower taxes has changed the debt rising Kevin. Right or Wrong...Congress has got to say no, and stop spending...but they do not, they spend more each year and those in office sign off on it.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-p ... nt-3306296

[_EAllusion]

Taxes were cut under Obama for most of his time, and when the Bush era cuts partially sunsetted, the deficit was reducing.

The debt increases at the outest of the Obama presidency were caused by three things. First, and most importantly, the Great Recession cut deeply into tax receipts. Second, TARP was very expensive. Those both predate Obama. Third, the stimulus bill, of which 1/3 was tax cuts, spiked the deficit. After that the deficit has gradually come down, though little progress has been made in cutting it to pre-Bush levels.

I do not like the "nobody really knows" radical skepticism. People do know, but you don't like the answer. One of the effects of the tax bill is to raise deficits higher than they otherwise would have been.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Markk,

I know you most likely won't like hearing this because it comes from Sanders, but this short interview is worth listening to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u1GHa2 ... tu.be&t=21

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

I don't think that's the point. The only real value you have to offer a corporation is your time. Without it, they can't function. At all. Your time is literally yours and their money.

...SNIP...

Life is a tough go. And the tough get goin'.

- Doc

Well stated, Doc. I'll second canpakes point that although it is a pretty cynical look at the relationship it is true more often than not, especially when dealing with large corporations. I had a boss, a VP at a large regional company, that I interned for who ending up teaching me a lot about this side of large corporations (mainly what I hated about it, but taught all the same).

I remember specifically one conversation where one of his managers was having trouble making the necessary cuts he needed to get his labor force within budget. When the manager was pressed on this issue he said something to the effect of "It is just difficult to let anyone go, they've had years of service and I feel like we owe them more than this" to which the VP replied, "Why? you paid them for last week, didn't you?"

I know it was anecdotal and an almost over the top response from the VP but it showed me something early on. I should expect to get paid, along with any expected benefits, exactly for the services I render and there is no guarantee of next week. Anything other than payment for that pay periods services was extra and I shouldn't give non-obligated work and expect some crazy reward or loyalty for my work.

[_Kevin Graham]

It's a reality, Obama had 8 years to get us out of dept with higher taxes...yet we got further in debt

The debt was skyrocketing as Obama was walking into the White House. You're an idiot if you think there could possibly be anything any President could do to completely wipe away a debt that large (nearly $12 trillion).

What he did was bring down the deficit to record lows, which is about the best thing you could ask of a President.

...we gave more money and yet got further in debt. You can whim and wham all you like but that is a reality.

The reality is you're an idiot who cannot think beyond the fallacy of correlation = causation.

Show me how higher or lower taxes has changed the debt rising Kevin.

History shows us this. All you have to do is pay minimal attention. Reagan slashed taxes and our annual deficits skyrocketed. Clinton raised taxes and we saw a surplus. Bush cut taxes and we got large annual deficits again. Were you living on the moon all this time?

It increased 200% over 8 years under Reagan. (TAX CUTS)

It increased 44% over 4 years of Bush.

It just 25% over eight years of Clinton. (TAX HIKE)

It increased 100% over 8 years of "W". (TAX CUTS)

It rose 64% over 8 years of Obama. (Bush Tax Cuts continued, funding two inherited wars, etc).

[_EAllusion]

If you raise taxes enough you will strangle commerce and yield diminished returns on tax collections. The idea that raising taxes causes revenue to increase is some mythical unproven concept is ludicrous and you are either over thinking it or way under thinking it.

It's better to stick with the argument that the federal government tends to over-spend it's collections regardless of its revenue size.

[_Kevin Graham]

If you raise taxes enough you will strangle commerce and yield diminished returns on tax collections. The idea that raising taxes causes revenue to increase is some mythical unproven concept is ludicrous and you are either over thinking it or way under thinking it.

It's better to stick with the argument that the federal government tends to over-spend it's collections regardless of its revenue size.

Unless I misread you somewhere, you agree that slashing taxes will reduce revenues and create deficits, but at the same time you're saying increased taxes do nothing to increase revenues (to minimize deficits). Flesh that out for me if you don't mind.

Because when Clinton increased taxes on corporations the revenue from corporate income taxes literally doubled over his two terms from $100 billion to $200 billion. By contrast, revenues from corporate taxes receipts averaged $65 billion between 1979-1980. Between 1981-1985 they averaged just $52 billion annually after Reagan slashed rates.

In 2000 revenues from corporate taxes receipts were over $200 billion, and then after the Bush tax cuts, plummeted to an averaged of $154 billion over the next four years. I know the recession had much to do with this, but certainly not all.

[_Bach]

And California is subsidizing Red States as a result.

And just when you think that Webster’s Dictionary could not improve on its definition of “IGNORANCE”!

I love this guy!!!!

[_EAllusion]

If you raise taxes enough you will strangle commerce and yield diminished returns on tax collections. The idea that raising taxes causes revenue to increase is some mythical unproven concept is ludicrous and you are either over thinking it or way under thinking it.

It's better to stick with the argument that the federal government tends to over-spend it's collections regardless of its revenue size.

Unless I misread you somewhere, you agree that slashing taxes will reduce revenues and create deficits, but at the same time you're saying increased taxes do nothing to increase revenues (to minimize deficits). Flesh that out for me if you don't mind.

Because when Clinton increased taxes on corporations the revenue from corporate income taxes literally doubled over his two terms from $100 billion to $200 billion. By contrast, revenues from corporate taxes receipts averaged $65 billion between 1979-1980. Between 1981-1985 they averaged just $52 billion annually after Reagan slashed rates.

In 2000 revenues from corporate taxes receipts were over $200 billion, and then after the Bush tax cuts, plummeted to an averaged of $154 billion over the next four years. I know the recession had much to do with this, but certainly not all.

I'm saying generally speaking that tax increases increase government revenues, but there are levels of taxes where you will get decreasing marginal gains from increases because they depress economic activity and, beyond that, you can collapse your tax receipts by strangling commerce. I then point out Markk's cynical know-nothingism is not helpful here because it actually isn't some confusing question as to whether tax increases will raise revenues. Either he's over-thinking it by misapplying complex laffer curve logic or he's under-thinking it by not appreciating that higher taxes in general equal more tax revenue outside of exotic cases.

Clinton also benefited greatly from the best boom economy in decades. You can't miss that as part of the picture.