Oh really? How do you figure?
* pops popcorn *
Keynes advocated increased government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand and pull the global economy out of the depression. Subsequently, Keynesian economics was used to refer to the concept that optimal economic performance could be achieved -- and economic slumps prevented -- by influencing aggregate demand through activist stabilization and economic intervention policies by the government.
Taking on debt (by cutting taxes) to stimulate the economy (their projected economic benefit)...sounds a lot like ARRA, yet that was awful.
Supply-side economics also advocates lower tax rates and yet it is the ideological opposite of Keynesian economics. Lowering taxes is not an exclusively Keynesian position. Therefore, tax cuts cannot be classified as "Keynesian."
North Texas is 100% correct.
And there you have the biggest problem. The Trump voter will just delude themselves into believing they got a tax cut, because Jesus Donald Christ told them so. They swallowed the other 1600+ lies hook, line and sinker as well.
That is why I call it the Alternate Universe, he lies they believe every word. All in all , rather naive, and I am being kind using naive.
Yall realize that the tax reforms go into effect on January 1? That means paycheck withholding will decrease for 80% of Americans starting 12 days from now. In no more than 3 weeks, 52 million American households will have received their first paycheck with more take-home pay. The delusion is that you think this isn't happening.
Again, you're correct. For most working-class Americans (~$30k-$45k/year) it'll amount to no more than $50/paycheck (if that). That's a quantitative argument that you will win. There's a cost side of that ledger of bribery that you're arguing for with veiled principles that can be summarized in essence as "Mommy, you can't make me do that."
Well congratulations to the Republicans, I just had a meeting with our healthcare provider, they called the meeting to let us know what's coming down the pipeline in 2019....Right now our company of 28,000 employees (soon to be 35,000) is looking at a 20% rise in our healthcare costs, mostly due to uninsured patients after the mandate dies....If you do use ACA insurance, get ready, they are predicting a 40% rise in premiums in 2019.....So much winning......
And how are those health care cost increases the Republican's fault? Obamacare was passed with zero Republican votes. Democrats totally own it. Democrats promised families would save $2,500 per year but cost increases only accelerated. Democrats know Obamacare is toast, but Democratic Senators wouldn't vote for reforms they admit are necessary.
Meanwhile, Republicans promised more take-home pay and you'll get it before the milk in your refrigerator goes bad.
Is governance a sport to you where one team wins and the other loses? (I presume you care about the country?) "Democrats own Obamacare" . . . not sure what that means to you, but, as a typical Repub, you're all about retribution, not accountability.
Obamacare aside, the more relevant question to you is do you believe that health care is human right?
Also, you seem to have an advanced enough education of economics--do you not view wage levels as relative? Can you not at least posit reductions in tax rates depressing wages?
That's both rhetorical and practical nonsense. All of your taxes - federal, state, local - are paid from the same income sources. The practical impact of the tax reform is that your state & local taxes have less impact on your federal tax obligations. That's the way it should be.
No, we had that before the GOP set limits. Now there is double taxation. By setting the limits at 10,000 on state/local income and sales l tax deductions, they will be double taxing folks,. Especially those in high tax areas. This right here will be a high point of contention going forward. As due to the way the GOP rushed this Bill, folks outside of high tax areas will slowly get swept into this trap due to the index of inflation that will be used while all this "Growth" in incomes occurs.
Wrong dude. There is no fundamental reason why one taxing authority is obligated to credit taxes you have pay to another taxing authority. Both the federal and state governments could choose to assess income taxes against our full gross income. You would still be paying each tax authority one time.
Once again my colleague to the north (are you in a beauty pageant for the most popular almost-30 white guy with a grudge in Coppell? Can I send you my ballot?) is factually correct, and that's a good thing.
Unlimited SALT deductions have allowed those living in high-tax states to pay lower federal taxes than equivalent earners in low-tax states. That is fundamentally unfair because our rights & privileges don't vary by state of residence. We're all equally Americans whether we live in Texas, New York, or Wyoming. We should pay equal federal taxes whether we live in Texas, New York, or Wyoming.
Ha! So said one who argued for federalism and "equality." (The litmus test is whatever you think works for you, right?)
Pay your fair share to the federal government. If you think your state and local taxes are too high, then direct your frustration at your local government. It's remarkably easy to get involved in state & local politics and Republicans have just given you an incentive to do so.
Ha! So said an ideologue who can only view such issues from a dais of principle, with the determinant based solely upon his own benefit and circumstance.
So sad "SALT" is now an acronym that means "state and local taxes" as opposed to what it used to mean . . . "Strategic Arms Limitation Talks."
grievance do you have, Cowboy? Because you whine and whine like nobody's business.
I'm a fifth-generation Texan and suspect that you're probably a first-generationer, with deep Midwest roots (and I'm being generous). Is there any way we can get you dreamers out of the state? (DF also needs to get the f*ck out.) Maybe we can build a wall.