2 ms·

> At the end of the day, we (the citizenry) cannot afford to stay in debt. It makes our country weak. Are you then opposed to the administration’s proposed tax

> At the end of the day, we (the citizenry) cannot afford to stay in debt. It makes our country weak. Are you then opposed to the administration’s proposed tax cuts? Won’t that negatively impact the ability for the government to pay down its debt?

natch 2y ago
No to the second question. The theory is to the extent that tax cuts stimulate the economy, the continued and/or increased growth that enables is better than the alternative of a crash or stagnation. You may argue that all the cuts go to the wealthy, but this is false, and even if they did, which they do not, the stimulus effect is still real. Now you can buy that theory, or not. Some people may bet on flying pink unicorns, and it’s your right to bet against Milton Friedman if you wish. But the people in charge are going by the theory of people like Milton.
- hello_moto 2y ago
  Ah... The trickle down economy. That theory is what created Billionaires (and Oligarchs) that are rulling USA.
- api 2y ago
  My concern with these tax cuts is that they won’t stimulate the economy because they’re too biased toward people who won’t spend the money. A large tax cut on lower and middle classes would stimulate the economy since the money would be spent.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    It does seem to be a complicated calculus. At small scale, I come from a depressed Midwestern area. They lowered/cut property taxes but only for rich corporations like Amazon, to bring them in. End result was massive increase in employment (like going from cornfields to warehouses everywhere) and wealth for locals, in a way that cutting for the middle class would not have done. From an egalitarian standpoint I would prefer flattish taxes but from a practical perspective in my hometown regressive taxes have led to more prosperity. Although lots of billionaires are pure parasites, they're also often the ones making the largest capital investments and using tax and access to flow of capital to decide where to put it.
    - api 2y ago
      You’re describing targeted tax breaks and incentives as industrial development policy, which can work. I’m talking about broad tax cuts for the rich, including those in areas that do not have such problems. These tax cuts are apparently to be paid for by deficit spending, which is insane. There is no way you could cut enough from the US budget to pay for them without winding down the entire US military and cutting things like Medicare and social security that people have paid into their entire lives. That’s wrong, and will cause riots.
    - hello_moto 2y ago
      Quebec Amazon warehouse recently was about to form Union and Amazon decided to shutdown the facility, citing other random reasons. Suddenly 1700 jobs are lost. Amazon is known to have cutthroat model be it internal warehouse and delivery employees or third party (they monitor third party delivery like a hawk monitoring its lunch). I'm hoping there's a middle option where Government tax the super rich and stimulate local economies by creating infrastructure jobs.
- mahogany 2y ago
  > No to the second question. The theory.. You answered “no” but then postulated a theory. Asking earnestly - what is the evidence that tax cuts have led directly to debt decreases?
  - natch 2y ago
    Your weasel words (“directly”) indicate there’s no possibility of a satisfactory response for you so I’ll just note that it’s not so much debt decreases as decreases in the rate of debt growth, with the idea being that if the growth of the economy can outpace the growth of the debt, that’s better than the alternative. Let’s at least get the framing right.
    - mahogany 2y ago
      I used “directly” because I am looking for evidence supporting the cause and effect relationship between tax cuts, such as those proposed by the current administration, and net positive debt effects (or increased government revenue). It’s a theory I find plausible but it isn’t convincing if it’s not supported by evidence. I figured you might have some particular evidence or metrics that convinced you.
      - natch 2y ago
        If you're looking for examples in the real world, there are going to be multiple variables mixed in, such as spending cuts. If you want pure evidence, you could write a basic software simulation incorporating just the variables you earnestly want to understand the effects of.

natch 2y ago

No to the second question. The theory is to the extent that tax cuts stimulate the economy, the continued and/or increased growth that enables is better than the alternative of a crash or stagnation. You may argue that all the cuts go to the wealthy, but this is false, and even if they did, which they do not, the stimulus effect is still real. Now you can buy that theory, or not. Some people may bet on flying pink unicorns, and it’s your right to bet against Milton Friedman if you wish. But the people in charge are going by the theory of people like Milton.

hello_moto 2y ago
Ah... The trickle down economy. That theory is what created Billionaires (and Oligarchs) that are rulling USA.
api 2y ago
My concern with these tax cuts is that they won’t stimulate the economy because they’re too biased toward people who won’t spend the money. A large tax cut on lower and middle classes would stimulate the economy since the money would be spent.
- ty6853 2y ago
  It does seem to be a complicated calculus. At small scale, I come from a depressed Midwestern area. They lowered/cut property taxes but only for rich corporations like Amazon, to bring them in. End result was massive increase in employment (like going from cornfields to warehouses everywhere) and wealth for locals, in a way that cutting for the middle class would not have done. From an egalitarian standpoint I would prefer flattish taxes but from a practical perspective in my hometown regressive taxes have led to more prosperity. Although lots of billionaires are pure parasites, they're also often the ones making the largest capital investments and using tax and access to flow of capital to decide where to put it.
  - api 2y ago
    You’re describing targeted tax breaks and incentives as industrial development policy, which can work. I’m talking about broad tax cuts for the rich, including those in areas that do not have such problems. These tax cuts are apparently to be paid for by deficit spending, which is insane. There is no way you could cut enough from the US budget to pay for them without winding down the entire US military and cutting things like Medicare and social security that people have paid into their entire lives. That’s wrong, and will cause riots.
  - hello_moto 2y ago
    Quebec Amazon warehouse recently was about to form Union and Amazon decided to shutdown the facility, citing other random reasons. Suddenly 1700 jobs are lost. Amazon is known to have cutthroat model be it internal warehouse and delivery employees or third party (they monitor third party delivery like a hawk monitoring its lunch). I'm hoping there's a middle option where Government tax the super rich and stimulate local economies by creating infrastructure jobs.
mahogany 2y ago
> No to the second question. The theory.. You answered “no” but then postulated a theory. Asking earnestly - what is the evidence that tax cuts have led directly to debt decreases?
- natch 2y ago
  Your weasel words (“directly”) indicate there’s no possibility of a satisfactory response for you so I’ll just note that it’s not so much debt decreases as decreases in the rate of debt growth, with the idea being that if the growth of the economy can outpace the growth of the debt, that’s better than the alternative. Let’s at least get the framing right.
  - mahogany 2y ago
    I used “directly” because I am looking for evidence supporting the cause and effect relationship between tax cuts, such as those proposed by the current administration, and net positive debt effects (or increased government revenue). It’s a theory I find plausible but it isn’t convincing if it’s not supported by evidence. I figured you might have some particular evidence or metrics that convinced you.
    - natch 2y ago
      If you're looking for examples in the real world, there are going to be multiple variables mixed in, such as spending cuts. If you want pure evidence, you could write a basic software simulation incorporating just the variables you earnestly want to understand the effects of.