Biden's Tax Plan
- Thread starter JazzMan4Life
- Start date
Beer
Well-Known Member
lmao
This is deeply depressing in away. Also hilarious.
Overall taxes didn’t go up because the rich were paying more.
tax revenue went up from 2.2 to 3.3 trillion under obama
then up to 3.7 trillion under trump, a lower rate of increase.
Under trump, the rich are paying less. Middle class are paying more due to economic expansion under both Obama and Trump.
I think he is entirely sincere. He brings in information and processes it by what we would consider a faulty filter, but he's still doing his best. Insulting him like that just causes the Backfire effect, and diminishes you.
latin jazz
Well-Known Member
You obviously know nothing about Macroeconomics or fiscal policy (or are unwilling to listen). You don't need to carry out an in-depth study: you can read academic journals, books or listen to people who know more than you about fiscal policy. This doesn't take a lot of time (but it needs a curious mind).
Lol at the money reference. Some inferiority complex right there. Well, I'm busy enjoying life and educating myself. Shouldn't waste more time in trying to explain basic economic concepts to you.
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
yeah I completely disagree. He’s ignorant, dishonest, and is a waste of time to argue with. Those who do this should be called out, not treated and respected as honest posters and valid arguments.
and it looks like I’m not the only one to see this:
@One Brow it might be worth reevaluating your opinion of Joe.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I can’t believe the amount of time I’ve wasted debatingJoe. I think the break point came a few summers ago when he was being incredibly dishonest about Ukraine. It was clear he wasn’t arguing in good faith and just wanted to troll no matter the data.
latin jazz
Well-Known Member
Hi Thriller. Don't know him enough to tell whether he is trolling or he is just simpled minded. My gut tells me it's the latter. He seems to be really opinionated (we all are at some degree) and simpled minded. He has this crazy ideas and statements and then refuses to see others' point of view, even when shown facts and proved wrong. Reminds me of jom2003. But yeah, he doesn't seem to engage in good faith. Not sure if that's enough to call him a troll (although that "I'm busy making money" comment could be interpreted as trollish, immature, narcissistic or just plain stupid). What I'm sure about though, is that I'm not gonna waste my time on him.
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
You're good man. No problem. And you can obviously chat with whoever you want. He might just be simple minded and woefully uninformed. Who knows? But his jabs certainly have given me the impression that he’s a troll. He comes here just to be contrarian.
I just wanted to stress the importance of lowering the expectations. Seeing him post nonsense like you just said, “too busy making money” can be obnoxious and frustrating. Especially if you invest real time and thought in writing fact filled posts.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Guys, be patient with each other.
There were many a conversation over the last 12-15 years (?) on here where I had a shortsighted view on things due to a lack of critical thinking and arrogance borne from not knowing what I didn’t know, quite frankly. I had some old timers that I had fun banter with that soured over time due to my inability to truly consider other viewpoints. Oh, yes, they could have been more tolerant and respectful as well, but it didn’t help that I was a guy in my 30s who thought he knew everything - and could be a hardheaded jerk about it.
Bachelors and masters degrees later, coupled with yet another divorce, a ruined relationship with one of my children, a 350% increase in income and countless other things that broadened my experience and worldview, plus finally realizing how little I actually know, has changed me quite a bit.
I commend One Brow. We don’t always agree, but he is respectful and presents his arguments with logic and reason. We could all stand to emulate his manner a little more.
I’m not the same person I was years ago. And neither will Joe, Beer, Bellfor3, and others years from now.
Babe is a hopeless case though.
There were many a conversation over the last 12-15 years (?) on here where I had a shortsighted view on things due to a lack of critical thinking and arrogance borne from not knowing what I didn’t know, quite frankly. I had some old timers that I had fun banter with that soured over time due to my inability to truly consider other viewpoints. Oh, yes, they could have been more tolerant and respectful as well, but it didn’t help that I was a guy in my 30s who thought he knew everything - and could be a hardheaded jerk about it.
Bachelors and masters degrees later, coupled with yet another divorce, a ruined relationship with one of my children, a 350% increase in income and countless other things that broadened my experience and worldview, plus finally realizing how little I actually know, has changed me quite a bit.
I commend One Brow. We don’t always agree, but he is respectful and presents his arguments with logic and reason. We could all stand to emulate his manner a little more.
I’m not the same person I was years ago. And neither will Joe, Beer, Bellfor3, and others years from now.
Babe is a hopeless case though.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
You seem to be insinuating that TCJA had zero stimulating effect, and essentially that the economy has very static characteristics. Or, I could take your statement to infer that TCJA likely countered a faultering economy, even if it didn't accellerate it much beyond the prior rate of expansion.
To everyone complaining about corporate tax rates and the wealthy, well, we all benefit from the communal "wealth effect". The burden of proof is on you to show that stimulus doesn't stimulate. It's a backwards notion that's being held up as some undisputed truth. A more enlightening discussion would focus on to what level of benifit, as @latin jazz attempted to get into.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
There’s also the question of what exactly is being stimulated. An economy is defined by more than just quantities of wealth. For example, you could study an economy by looking at its dominant concepts, affects, or the way it reorients peoples’ perceptions. It’s for these reasons that it’s fair to question whether we all benefit from the “wealth effect”—and, if we do, for how long.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
In addition...
Which is better (or even possibly a thing), trickle up or trickle down?
I didn't see anything in latin jazz's opinion that contradicted what I said, nor in his later follow-up.
It seems to me it accelerated an already growing economy. I disagree with "picked up" because the economy was already up.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
And what exactly is trickling?
I can tell you one thing that has DEFINITELY trickled down during the era of Trickle Down Economics: the feeling that certain things (Money, in particular) are SCARCE. Various conceptions of scarcity have trickled down into us all in one way or another, and justified certain kinds of rules.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I would bet that I know a lot more about economics than you think I do. We clearly see things differently, though. People who are suggesting I said that revenue went up because rich people were paying more weren't paying any attention. As for the money reference, it was a dumb comment but the reality is that I don't really have the time to argue this stuff in detail. I think it's pretty obvious that the tax cuts were very effective in stimulating the economy. Those of you who claim they weren't have to go through some pretty complicated gyrations to explain what happened subsequent to the cuts.
