When it comes to your workout, there's a good reason not to go it alone. Check out the benefits of exercise buddies.

Reply
Trusted Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
194
Views

Re: What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

194 Views
Message 21 of 22

Centristsin2010: .  Shouldn't we, as a country, be smarter than that?

 

 

Yes we should. The problem is conservatives are inherently greedy and without scruples, so they consistently lie about what they're trying to do. The other part of that is that a chunk of the electorate is more than willing to swallow those lies which enables those in power to carry out their scams.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
194
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
194
Views
21
Replies

What's Wrong With Being Conservative?

194 Views
Message 22 of 22

Ok...got your attention with the headline, but it's a real question.

 

First, note it doesn't say "What's Wrong With Being A Conservative?"  That could be an interesting topic but this one is about the tax plan.

 

Secondly, let's get on the same page about the corporate tax rate.  It is, as many know, high at 35%.  Should the richest country in the world pay a high corp rate or a low rate?

 

According to Forbes Magazine, "Among profitable large companies, 19.5% paid no federal income taxes. The average effective tax rate among the profitable large corporations was 16.1%." 

 

AND.....

 

When we compare the US tax rate with the tax rate of other countries, do we understand that it's an unfair comparison?  Tax rates should be compared in relation to the size of the economy of the countries.  Do you agree?  If you do agree, then it may interest you to know that we are no where near the highest and fall into the middle of the pack.  If you don't agree that it's relevant, here's an informative and SHORT, article which may be enlightening:

 

Actual U.S. Corporate Tax Rates Are in Line with Comparable Countries

 

 

Additionally, Americans are being asked to swallow the narrative that corporate tax rate cuts WILL stimulate job growth AND wages, though may studies show it's not necessarily true.  In fact, we could agree (maybe) that the last "YUGE" tax cut was Bush's and it was soon followed by record setting job LOSSES and steepest decline in GDP since the depression.

 

Effects of Income Tax Changes on Economic Growth

 

 

 

Bush gave everyone a tax credit thinking it was going to stimulate the economy....people would spend more.  It didn't work.  80% of Americans said they paid down their debts vs. going out and purchasing something.  Most economists agree the US didn't get the bang for the buck. 

 

Did the 2008 Tax Rebates Stimulate Spending?

 

 

We also know one political party consistently expresses concern about the National Debt  Agreed?  

 

We could probably all agree that our debt today is obscene; over $20 trillion and counting...  Agree?

 

Now, that same party who constantly expresses concern of the debt, is now telling us that the debt really doesn't matter that much and it will decrease as the economy grows.  Sounds good, in theory, BUT, as indicated above it has proven to be the case.  Tax cuts under Reagan did indeed create job growth but there was a significant pent up demand at the time.  Tax  cuts DIDN'T stimulate job growth OR wage growth under Bush.....or grow much at all, previously prior to Reagan.

 

So, why aren't we addressing this issue in a more conservative (meaning cautious) manner?  Why aren't we dropping the corporate rate slowly to determine it's impact each year?  Why aren't we linking, on an annual basis, following year tax cuts based on this years impact?  In other words, suppose we reduce corporate tax rates by 5% and say we expect GDP of "X", job growth of "Y" and wage growth of "Z" and wait one OR two years and if the goals are achieved or exceeded, the following year the corporate tax rate will be cut another 5% (or whatever) or raised if necessary keeping in mind the current average rate is already under 20%?  Tie future tax rates, both corporate and individual based on current indicators.  Does that make any sense?  It works pretty well for the COLA.  We can adjust the indicators when necessary, as we should be doing with the COLA, understanding they will be adjusted differently by whomever has control of the WH and Congress at the time (elections have consequences). But just taking such a HUGE leap and making very important predictions of results has proven to be foolish many times in the past.  Isn't that "Washington as usual"?  Why is anything related to tax revenue permanent?  Shouldn't it be based on current needs, economic conditions?  If it was tied to these factors, we could mitigate all the political wrangling about whose going to be taxed higher, whose going to be taxed less, who gets this tax break, etc.

 

Wouldn't it make far more sense to take a "conservative" approach and not just believe the Conservatives?  Doesn't it?  Because if the economy doesn't grow as advertised, the debt will grow "Yugely"  Why make anything "permanent" and just hope based on a theory that's shown not to be accurate more often than not?  Many companies are saying they'll take their savings and pay it to share holders.  Not a bad business strategy, but it's not the effect Conservatives are selling.  Shouldn't we, as a country, be smarter than that?


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
194
Views
21
Replies