Overall economic performance is notoriously difficult to predict that far out, but as of right now it certainly looks like we're in for a few years of good growth.
You write that as if this is something to be dreaded.
You believed that debt financed economic stimulus was basically AIDS under the Obama presidency, but now that Trump is president, it's become a pancea.
I wrote that line to set up the next line, which is that it would be both expected and wrong to attribute general expected growth to tax stimulus when the tax stimulus is expected to provide a relatively small bump in GDP growth. If the US experiences 3.3% GDP growth next year, I'm saying that Republican rhetoric will try to argue that this performance is a consequence of tax relief even though the reality would be that maybe .3% of that is tax relief. And that kind of growth doesn't pay for the loss of revenue. It's borrowing from future growth to pay for the present.
Chap wrote:It's the bolded part. Trump is trying to make (some) people feel good with a (for most people temporary) tax cut that may produce some growth in the short term, but which will ultimately greatly increase the deficit unless he economic equivalent of a unicorn appears.
It's borrowing money so taxpayers can temporarily pay less over the next few years but end up owing a lot more money then if they just keep paying the same taxes now. It's only being done to try and convince people to vote republican over the next two election cycles. But hey from what I understand the rich get a permanent tax cut. I'm sure they need it more then the middle class.
The reasons for cutting corporate taxes have nothing to do with who needs it more. You don't get to choose if corporations come to America to invest. You can drive them overseas with a high tax rate or you can attract them with lower tax rates. You actually get more in tax money when you have more businesses with more money being taxed at a lower rate.
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”
This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.
The reasons for cutting corporate taxes have nothing to do with who needs it more. You don't get to choose if corporations come to America to invest. You can drive them overseas with a high tax rate or you can attract them with lower tax rates. You actually get more in tax money when you have more businesses with more money being taxed at a lower rate.
Why is New York one of the most important centers of business in the world, but Alabama is not?
Why is New York one of the most important centers of business in the world, but Alabama is not?
I don't think it's because they have a higher state corporate tax rate. Why do you think this is?
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”
This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.
EAllusion wrote: I don't think that is a correct blanket statement. There's a mainstream predicted GDP growth boost between .3% and .7% of GDP in the next 2-3 years followed by a drop-off. The increased tax receipts from this aren't sufficient to cover for the cost. Not even close.
True, even Goldman's economists said, “note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative,”
Maxine Waters wrote: You can drive them overseas with a high tax rate or you can attract them with lower tax rates.
Do we really want to attract predatory corporations with low taxes? Bad corporations coming to the US can't possibly be a good thing, and good corporations like Costco will only get more competition. It's just common sense.
Income redistribution to the rich only benefits the rich. A buying spree by the rich coupled with new deregulations will inevitably result in another crash of our economy.
If the preponderance of the safety net is removed this year by the Republicans, times will be tough during the next crash plus there will be civil unrest.
Why is New York one of the most important centers of business in the world, but Alabama is not?
I don't think it's because they have a higher state corporate tax rate. Why do you think this is?
My point was that, contrary to what you said, businesses do not simply flock to where ever taxes are lowest. There are a variety of factors that influence business activity in a region. Some of those relate to the existing government services.
My point was that, contrary to what you said, businesses do not simply flock to where ever taxes are lowest. There are a variety of factors that influence business activity in a region. Some of those relate to the existing government services.
You are being simplistic to the point of wrong.
I certainly don't think lowering the corporate tax rate hurts the chances of businesses coming to the US and I don't see how you can deny that higher taxes doesn't drive some away and reduce the number of businesses you can tax at all.
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”
This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.