The GOP tax bill would be very bad for the economy.

You cherry-picked. The context was:

"If it cost us $1 to add only 70 cents to the GDP, does that mean we risk losing 30 cents for every dollar we spend on unemployment?

As we discovered from talking to a couple of economists, that's not what the numbers mean and spending money on unemployment benefits in the current economic situation isn't as dumb as the numbers might look to those of us who struggle to balance our checkbooks.

Here's why.

When you give $1 to people who have lost their jobs and they have run out of savings, those dollars get spent. So Mary gives it to Mike down the street to buy some of his fruits and vegetables. Mike, who relies on customers like Mary, might put 25 cents in the bank but use the rest to buy seed and fertilizer from Tom's store in town. Tom might save a dime of the 75 cents he got from Mike but use the remaining 60 cents for a new pair of glasses.

When economists calculate the gross domestic product, they add up all those transactions (excluding the amount set aside in savings and money that ends up overseas if you buy foreign goods). In this limited example, Mary's $1 has added $2.35 ($1 plus 75 cents plus 60 cents) to the gross domestic product. Yes, it's still just $1, but by passing it along it has helped three people

As we discovered from talking to a couple of economists, that's not what the numbers mean and spending money on unemployment benefits in the current economic situation isn't as dumb as the numbers might look to those of us who struggle to balance our checkbooks.

Here's why.

When you give $1 to people who have lost their jobs and they have run out of savings, those dollars get spent. So Mary gives it to Mike down the street to buy some of his fruits and vegetables. Mike, who relies on customers like Mary, might put 25 cents in the bank but use the rest to buy seed and fertilizer from Tom's store in town. Tom might save a dime of the 75 cents he got from Mike but use the remaining 60 cents for a new pair of glasses.

When economists calculate the gross domestic product, they add up all those transactions (excluding the amount set aside in savings and money that ends up overseas if you buy foreign goods). In this limited example, Mary's $1 has added $2.35 ($1 plus 75 cents plus 60 cents) to the gross domestic product. Yes, it's still just $1, but by passing it along it has helped three people."​

And again, this isn't a claim that U.C. is better for the economy than a job. That seems to be what you are implying that I have claimed, but it isn't. Only you have tried to float such a bogus comparison.

The bottom line remains the same, unchanged bottom line, and that is that U.C. is not a net drain on the economy and something to be stopped or cut, and that U.C. is stimulative in nature. Is it MORE stimulative than a job? No.

 

What does that have to do with the study you posted and don't know anything about?

 

Takes from one and gives to another minus gov overhead

 

And all I've been pointing out to you is that it adds nothing to the economy, it only applies a partial offset to the loss of the economy while those who become unemployed seek new employment.
Quite often people become unemployed as a result of improved efficiency brought about through new technology resulting in the same or greater production by a smaller work force. And like I said, U.C. at most enable the unemployed to pay their debt bills which come due, and Mary's spending shown in the example would probably not occur as after paying her mandatory debt bills there would be nothing left over to spend on things which were not absolute necessities, eliminating such spending until she was able to find new employment once again. As best I've been able to find U.C. runs a little under $500 per month, which may not even pay the rent, much less fruits and vegetables from Mike down the street.
And also like I said, U.C. is funded via a mechanism similar to Social Security and Medicare, meaning it is a source of revenue provided government for a specific spending purpose when the need arises, although it is spent as it is acquired leaving a debt owed by government to be added to the debt of the public when it becomes used.

 

Ok, then there's no changing you with facts and studies, or even logic because it's obvious that as the Politifact article said, a dollar of U.C. in the hands of an unemployed person will be spent, and that affects demand, and the one receiving the dollar will also spend it in most cases and so the benefit goes on, creating demand for what is bought and increasing production to replace that which was bought in each step. But you can't see this as it's just a bit complicated. So I see no point in us continuing the discussion.

 

When Mary pays her mortgage, the interest is used to pay the costs of the personnel who administer the loan and process it, and some is used to create other loans which pay for other things. And all of that creates demand and the money keeps circulating. Without U.C. the mortgage may not get paid and damage is done to the economy.

 

You're making an awful lot of assumptions.
When Mary makes her mortgage payment, part of the payment is applied to the principal and part to the interest, while some of that money may or may not be needed/used to pay bank personnel, that which isn't spent could be used to make new loans IF people are borrowing, which may or may not be happening. Just because a bank has money to loan does not create a demand for people to borrow, even if they reduce loan interest rates. However, with or without U.C. the mortgage may not get paid and the unemployed person may have to sell their house or go into foreclosure. And while that may result in damage to the unemployed person, it may present an opportunity to a more stable employed person who may then be able to afford the house due to a price deduction allowing them to acquire a loan and benefit the economy.
You seem to refuse to accept the fact that there simply is no one answer fits all situations.

This thread appeared to be about the GOP tax bill, and I didn't know there was such a bill ready for President Trumps signature yet. Bit now I'm curious, have you seen something in the bill reducing/eliminating unemployment benefits?

It's another much overcomplicated program involving both Federal and State government which could probably be greatly simplified increasing efficiency and reducing costs and waste with minimal government involvement. But that would be more appropriately discussed in a thread of its own, especially if its not something in the GOP tax bill.

 

You didn't "get" my point. I was too subtle. The point is that trade, commerce, . . . . -all economic activity, increases economic activity. Every time you make a purchase, you affect demand. Every dollar you spend on goods and services has an effect on demand.

Shutting down economic activity ...... wait for it . . . . . . . . . . . shuts down economic activity...... -and demand with it.

You want a robust economy? Then add to economic activity. You want to shut down economic activity? Then cut services to the needy, cut S.S. and Medicare, cut unemployment, and reduce spending in general.

 

the study you can't describe?

 

The facts you ignore.

 

we got from stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions, not thanks to welfare entitlements . Further growth will come from more new inventions. You have learned this 134 times. Shall we go for 135?

 

You haven't told any yet.
Maybe you'll read it tonight?

 

Every dollar you take from someone is a dollar that can't be spent on goods and services and affects demand.

 

Simplistic would be a better descriptive word.

How utterly simplistic. Based on your reasoning, the recent purchase of a da Vinci painting for $450.3 million has resulted in nearly $725 million of economic activity.

Now you're just being childish. Of course shutting down economic activity does exactly that, and as a result would simply ignore demand, not eliminate it.

A "robust economy" would be one in which all members were participating in both the production and consumption and living within their means.

How Statist!

 

I'll ignore that.

What happened to the money? Did it evaporate?

Yup. Shuts it down. Reduces it. Decreases it.

That would be your personal and faulty definition. By it, we would have to conclude that there has never been a robust economy. Obviously nonsensical.

 

That seems to be your normal response.

It simply changed hands, do you feel that the recipient went on a major spending spree as a result, or simply invested the money into stocks or bonds or some other interest bearing security?

So you would then agree that if government were to shut down the sale of food, it would eliminate peoples demand to eat?

I think it's a very proper definition of what a truly robust economy is and should be. All one could rationally conclude is that some economies are, have been, and will be more or less robust as a result of the actions of those who comprise them.
Much more nonsensical is the belief that perpetual increasing debt and inflation is the means of creating a robust economy that can exist in perpetuity.

 

And I'll ignore that from any person who has no good answers to anything.

Did he put it under his mattress? He probably put it in the bank where it became a loan for someone to buy something. That is money in circulation, boosting the economy.

That is quite a strange distortion of what I said. It's the right who thinks that if we shut down benefits for the needy that it will eliminate the needy as it will force all those lazy people to get a job. Only the right can think such crazy thoughts.

You said "a 'robust economy' would be one in which all members were participating in both the production and consumption...".
The problem is with your use of the word "all", of course. It renders the statement false. Why didn't you notice that?

Yes, I would agree with that. Your problem is that you believe somebody suggested that.

 

And I'll accept that to mean that for you a 'good' answer doesn't have to be a correct answer.

I clearly stated what he may have done with the money, and take note that the money he used to make the purchase was probably taken out of a bank to make the purchase, and possibly even taken out of the same bank that the seller will make the deposit from the sale. So no 'new' money would be produced, and new or additional spending would have been made available as the money was available for circulation both before and after the transaction, simply now being in the account of a different person.

I simply responded to your claim that shutting down economic activity would shut down demand. I said nothing at all about the needy, or lazy people, and am wondering why you feel a need to introduce such into the discussion?

If you're going to make a claim, at least try to provide some rational evidence to back it up.

Not only was it suggested, but it was also implemented back in 1913 with the Federal Reserve act.

 

When the economy has a "goal" the only goal it has is to deliver rulership.

"A robust economy that delivers for all".
You will not rule here.

That is all.

My economy is not yours to manipulate.
It's not ours, it's not the nations, it's not yours.

It has no purpose, no goal and no direction. It simply is... none of your business.
Try not to make it so.


Trumps tax reforms seem well received in the UK financial press.
For me I sort of see it as Clint Eastwood becoming mayor to get his restaurent lisenced.

 

cutting corporate tax to remove the idiotic huge liberal incentive to move out of the country makes perfect sense. Only Trump could do this!! Thank God for Trump !!

 

The tax bill passed, didn't it? How long do we have before the sky falls?

 

top 1% pay 42% of all federal taxes poor pay nothing so there is no danger of skewed toward poor or sky falling. Do you understand?

 

How can anyone understand run-on sentences with punctuation lacking?

 

The effective corporate tax rate was about 24-26% before the tax bill. The effective tax rate of most European countries is about 26%. Your assertion is completely bogus. Do you understand?

 

Ok, so do you know of one month in the past 100 years when all "members" were "participating" in production? Just show me one month in which unemployment was zero.