tailgater wrote:The intent of the tax cut is to stimulate spending and investing within the private sector.
You say it has to come from somewhere, but you failed to include a more bigly economy in your scenario.
I'm not saying this will happen. I'm just pointing out the obvious hole in your argument.
Its only a hole if you have faith that the stimulated spending in the private sector will be taxed sufficiently to add that money back in.
If you reduce your tax income by 200$, that 200$ needs to stimulate sufficient spending that the government will get it back.... ie about 600$ worth of spending (assuming the gov't is able to efficiently collect 30% of the spending).
I don't have a ton of faith that this will happen, and you don't either given that you hedged your statement with "I'm not saying it will happen". If you aren't saying it will happen, then you aren't pointing out an "obvious hole in your argument". You're pointing out a potential hole.
Quote:
Were you in favor of Obama's "stimulus" plan?
$1Trillion on bogus shovel-ready jobs?
Money taken from working people, given to government employees so they could distribute it to other government employees?
I am ambivalent about it. Obama never marketed his actions as trying to accomplish anything other than what it was, government stimulus plans. And republicans advertised it as giving money away for votes. Now they do the same thing.... As phil says above, the money in the obama plan was going to the consumers with the intent of driving demand, rather than the producers with the idea that would create jobs.
Quote:
Both ideas are based on the trickle down theory.
In my opinion, I think a private sector boost (Trump tax plan) is a better concept than a public sector stimulus (Obama).
Neither is really of any value. Why do you assume I have to like one or the other?
you usually are
Quote:
But I know that a tax cut isn't "money given to me".
So I've got that going for me.
Money that was going to be taken from you based on agreements you are involved in, which the intended recipient decides you may keep, is substantially equivalent to giving someone money.
Let's say you were going to buy your wife a necklace. Retail price is 20,000$. You decide you are going to buy it. You have committed to paying 20,000$ for said necklace. During the sales transaction, the jeweler tells you they will give you the return customer discount of 20%.
They have now given you $4,000.
Sure it was your money originally. But it was earmarked to be spent on jewelry. Now it isn't.
Alternatively, they could have kept that 20% return customer discount, and spent it themselves.
Or they could have not given you the return customer discount and given it to a poor person sitting outside the store. (that would be what the dems are accused of)
Or they could have kept that 20% return customer discount and given you 2% of it back and given 18% of it to a different customer. (this is closer to what the tax cuts is turning into)
Of course you prefer the scenario where they give you 4k.
But for years I've been watching unimaginative morons (drafter) talk about how all the democrats do is give away money to the poor to get votes. Well. Now the republicans are giving money for votes. They're taking it from somewhere, because they haven't actually reduced spending.
