The economic reason why tax cuts for the rich are so stupid

Steyers arguments are stupid - he shoots himself down in the first 30 sec when he says he loved investing because he could see the best route to take with his money, that wealthy people have the brains to invest wisely and profitably. So he wants to take more money from people who have proven they know what to invest in, and give that money to the govt, a govt more wasteful and corrupt than any corporation? Stupid.

Then he says investors care about long term growth, and so the govt should tax more to fund education. Of course, that's exactly what's been going on for decades, the govt pays more per student and the performance of students has declined. Give even more to the govt? Stupid.

Finally, he says he does not deserve a tax cut. LOL If Steyer is so moral, if he thinks he should pay more in taxes, then nothing prevents him from writing a big fat check to the US Treasury. But he does not, because he is a hypocrite. He knows he will always dodge the tax man, he will have loopholes and scams to avoid taxes, but he wants everyone else to pay more.

 

Just as much as you dreamed I said $100,000 is rich joker.

 

He didn't actually advocate for tax hikes for the rich, he is simply arguing that tax cuts for the rich and their rising incomes have been ineffective at doing much for ordinary Americans. I do think we need to reform how we are funding education and in my opinion we need to make education more job oriented and educate people for the jobs of the future in engineering, software, science, medicine, and much more. I think that if we are smart about it we don't even need to raise taxes and can just spend more wisely.

 

No tax taxes every dollar equally. For example gas taxes tax gas dollars and not others, sales taxes tax dollars spend on good (except food), property taxes tax only property dollars. All taxes have their thing they are taxing and often hit certain groups harder than others. Progressive income taxes are basically a tax on being rich and isn't any less moral than taxing having property, driving cars, or buying stuff. As long as everyone follows the same set of rules then if you do the things that falls under the focus of the tax you still can't call it unfair.

I see no logical reasons why taxes have to tax each dollar exactly the same and we should be free to adjust our policies to make the most effective taxes and still get the revenue. You have this moral that all dollars should tax dollars exactly the same but this moral results in bad policies and therefore isn't a good moral and should be abandoned.

There are many ways conflicting of equitability and we need to find the one that produces the best economic results and not just blindly follow just one:
Everyone pays the same amount.
Everyone pays the same percent and all dollars are taxed the same.
The tax has the same lifestyle impact on everyone.
The same rules apply to all people and we all follow the same set of rules.

 

Oh, so your post about $100,000 income was meaningless. My apologies then.
No hard feelings?

 

They all tax the same unit equally.

Gas taxes tax the unit of gallons purchased.
Sales taxes tax the unit of dollars spent.

The taxes don't apply differently to dollars coming from the pocket of individuals of lesser income. They are applied equally to the unit of measure

 

Within the product they are taxing like gas or sales, gas and sales taxes are consistent but even then sales taxes will leave out food items while taxing other items so not everything gets taxed by them equally and some products like alcohol and cigarettes get higher rates. I am saying that the tax by its nature is inconsistent since it only taxes certain products. Gas taxes will tax dollars spent on gas at certain rates but will not tax non-gas dollars at all which is not consistent.

You decry dollars not being taxed equally but dollars are just pieces of paper and you can't do any moral wrong to a piece of paper. What matters more is the impact of that tax on actual people. Gas taxes will hit certain people more than others and that is inequity that matter more than what dollar bills get hit harder.

Even if it is wrong that units are taxed at different rates then that means that taxing gas only when you go past $20 per week is somehow morally wrong or giving a dependent tax deduction is morally wrong since it skews the equal taxing of every dollar and helps make the income tax far more progressive than it already is. But your line of reasoning has led to republicans giving way more of tax cuts to the rich who need it the least and have been collecting most of the economic growth while the shrinking middle class gets none of it while blowing up deficits resulting in our children having to pay for these tax cuts for the rich. This is a lopsided morality that is harmful and should be abandoned.

 

Just as meaningless as yours.

 

The items are not taxed. The purchasers are taxed.

Every single person purchasing a taxable item has the tax applied equally by the same unit of measure.

Every item does not have to be taxable, but every purchaser of a taxable item is taxed equally

 

That was the point, I gave your silly post the silly response it deserved

 

True, in that video Steyer did not come right out and say "raise my taxes", but he certainly implied it. If tax cuts are bad, then tax increases must be good - and he certainly argues that the govt needs a bigger role in society. And Steyer has made the "raise my taxes" request many times before:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...ire-please-raise-my-taxes-20171005-story.html

And of course a billionaire who spends millions of $$ influencing politicians wants to expand the size and scope of government. The average person is voiceless, try contacting your congressman and see if you can get past the teenage intern assigned to answer the phone and deal with walk-ins. But Steyer can dump $1,000,000 into a congressman's lap.

And if the govt is so great, if Steyer honestly believed his argument, then why doesn't he write a $1Billion check to the govt? He would still be super rich.

Steyer is a hypocrite.

 

Tom Steyer is a alt-left globalist, so his arguments are filtered through the extremes prevalent in that perspective.

TS claims tax cuts from the 80's had a direct correlation to wage stagnation. Cut taxes to the rich, everyone else doesn't get a pay raise. I can't imagine a more disingenuous statement. Wage stagnation has many causes, but tax cuts to the rich has no relationship to it. To borrow TS's own words, "common sense" knows that to be a fact.

Further, appeals to emotion are rarely a sufficient substitute for rational argument. TS's proves that fact quite effectively. Rolling out talking points and ideological memes about financing tax cuts by "cutting" education, job training, and healthcare, is an outright lie.

Like most ideologically inspired propaganda, including statements that are elemental, like "successful societies are driven by
educated and skilled workers" and "when workers do well, we have a strong economy", he seeks to manipulate the viewer into thinking opponents don't agree with these fundamental truths.

Taxation, and the impact of it, has been fodder for argument since taxes were first levied against citizens. That will never change. The fatal flaw in TS's piece is to assume his tortured logic will sway anyone who doesn't share his ideological viewpoints.

 

Surely you never had a trophy wife they are expensive ..

 

As to education, I agree it needs to be reformed from kindergarten to universities. The first step is getting the govt out of education. Since 1957 when Sputnik shocked America, the govt has steadily increased its role in education, and education has gotten worse.

In fact, public education isn't even about education any longer, its about indoctrination. Things like transgender sensitivity in elementary school is more important than teaching kids to read.

Universities are even worse, but they are falling apart and wont last much longer. Too many students are idiots, too many professors don't teach or do research but play politics, while the universities live off of huge endowments and govt provided student aid.

Its not about spending more or more wisely, the entire function of "education" needs to be changed.

 

did you dream I said that joker?

 

Actually I saw that you posted nonsense in real life. Not surprised though

 

Critique is at the forefront of tertiary education success. Perhaps its openness that you really dislike?

 

I like how the assumption is that because a business gets massive tax breaks it will result in growth. Who's to say the CEO wouldn't just give himself a massive bonus?

 

Half of zero is still zero.

 

Business is already sitting on record piles of cash. Cutting their taxes will go to bigger dividends, share buybacks, and more acquistions with the accompanying job cuts. Business hires and invests on demand for the goods and services not because they have more cash.

 

LOL, projecting your situation?

 

Technically you'd need tax interfering with the profit motive decision (and also the assumption that the CEO is a profit maximiser, plus also the assumption that the textbook is consistent with reality). Tax, or tax relief, that impacts on economic rents won't be beneficial.

 

The MEDIAN GROSS INCOME in the USA today is $31,892 and it was $31,378 in the year 2000.We see that the MEDIAN INCOME has only increased by $514 in an 18 year period, and since we know CEO and Executive salaries have risen dramatically they are responsible for the vast majority of the $514 increase in the median salary.Rank and file workers have got next to nothing in the past 18 years.And since these figures are taken directly from the National Debt Clock Real Time, which is constantly updated, they reflect the Returdlicker so called tax cuts.