[jlisenbe]

You are correct Vac, and it should be pointed out, again, that the upper 20% pay more than 85% of taxes.

[talaniman]

Talaniman: O.K., you are correct about transcending the politics of it all and keying-in on what is good for all people. I just don't think the broad-brush approach of hanging all our problems on the "RICH" is the correct approach. As jlisenbe has stated, most of the RICH got that way honestly...and if you have a problem with how they work their taxes, then we need to change laws: they are legally working with what the tax laws ALLOW them to work with and around in terms of loopholes.

I don't remember hanging the problems on the rich and pointed out the solution is in the tax code however yeah the rich are honest, but they have more influence on the tax code than the rest of us and that's just a fact and we are all dependent on not just their success, but benevolence as well and no way do you or should you ever thing they will lay you off or close your plant if that's for the good of the bottom line. That just a reality.

I mean come on only a supply sider would even consider a deficit funded tax cut top heavy loaded and permanent during a great business cycle, to simulate a great economy. GDP and wage growth didn't get stimulated and as a fact if states had not mandated a high minimum wage there would be no wage growth, and one time selective bonuses by a very few corporations don't count for much a year later do they?

I thought I was very specific pointing out a few changes in the code would still give rich guys MO'Money, just not as much, nor at the speedy current RATE. What are you guys suggesting they double, triple, or quadruple their profits at taxpayer expense? That, not even hard work and why can't they earn a profit instead of being given one? That's what they tell the workers, at least the ones they don't lay off and quiet as it's kept how would that look to you if after that tax cut they had even a small lay-off? Better wake up and google that because that is already happening.

So fellows we start thinking of transcending the politics. Think about that for a minute before we start a fight. Can't you even envision an economy built on 300M working people, buying stuff, or are you just a happy fat rat with half a potential achieved? The rich would still get richer, but you would be getting MO'MONEY too! EVERYBODY WOULD!

[jlisenbe]

I thought I was very specific pointing out a few changes in the code would still give rich guys MO'Money, just not as much, nor at the speedy current RATE

. If you have been specific about anything, I must have missed it. I'm particularly interested in two things.
1. How you plan on getting more money to the lower income folks so they can pay more taxes?
2. How you plan on raising a trillion extra dollars to balance the budget?

What are you guys suggesting they double, triple, or quadruple their profits at taxpayer expense?

Who suggested that? I guarantee you it was not me.

[talaniman]

. If you have been specific about anything, I must have missed it. I'm particularly interested in two things.
1. How you plan on getting more money to the lower income folks so they can pay more taxes?
2. How you plan on raising a trillion extra dollars to balance the budget?

Yeah I guess you did but I'll find it shortly or maybe you reread it. 1. Tweaking the tax code. 2. I honestly have not considered balancing the budget, but paying the debt is a no brainer with more than double the GDP, and an robust expanded macroeconomic in the long term. The key is the time frame and whats a reasonable debt plan that the economics dictates.

Who suggested that? I guarantee you it was not me.

Actually you did because you are touting the tax cuts as great. Over time the rich have indeed quadrupled there wealth and you have NOT. I guess you square that with how much taxes they pay as compared to everyone else, but my math says what I just stated. What does yours show? Either over time or the last few years is perfectly acceptable.

[jlisenbe]

Yeah I guess you did but I'll find it shortly or maybe you reread it.

1. Tweaking the tax code.

So by "tweaking" the tax code we can insure that everyone makes more money and everyone pays more taxes? Wow. Please go into detail on that tweak.

2. I honestly have not considered balancing the budget, but paying the debt is a no brainer with more than double the GDP, and an robust expanded macroeconomic in the long term. The key is the time frame and whats a reasonable debt plan that the economics dictates.

So we are going to double the GDP and pay off the national debt all by this tweaking of the tax code? You must explain this!! Details!

Actually you did because you are touting the tax cuts as great. Over time the rich have indeed quadrupled there wealth and you have NOT. I guess you square that with how much taxes they pay as compared to everyone else, but my math says what I just stated. What does yours show? Either over time or the last few years is perfectly acceptable.

OK. First of all, you have reverted back to your fantasy world where a reduction in income tax rates magically is transformed into a doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling of profits. That's ridiculous. I never said any such thing and that's all there is to it.

As to the rest, where is your documentation that the wealthy have quadrupled their wealth? How do you know that I have not?

[talaniman]

Over time the rich have indeed quadrupled their wealth and you have NOT. I guess you square that with how much taxes they pay as compared to everyone else, but my math says what I just stated. What does yours show? Either over time or the last few years is perfectly acceptable.

Waiting for you to do the math yourself. That's the only way to disprove my statement. Or verify it.

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman: I 100% agree with you that the RICH will close a plant and let people go if PROFITS AREN'T THERE...and us little guys will get hurt: THIS IS ALL TRUE. But we have a lot of GOOD RICH GUYS IN THE U.S...very innovative RICH create a lot of jobs...I would venture to say that the U.S. has the best of world's BUNCH OF RICH GUYS. I certainly want these RICH to make, as you put it so eloquently, MO' MONEY with the hope that they SHARE some of that "extra" cash...that's my hope....but, to be honest, I have never had real good luck in getting extra cash out of employers because they made extra profits. Unfortunately, that is all we have to go by, Talaniman: the hope that the rich business owners feel somewhat charitable to pass onto us extra compensation when they get it.

[paraclete]

there must be something very dysfunctional about your economy if you cannot balance a budget in good economic time, the Trump budget recognises this by making cuts in some programs

[talaniman]

Talaniman: I 100% agree with you that the RICH will close a plant and let people go if PROFITS AREN'T THERE...and us little guys will get hurt: THIS IS ALL TRUE. But we have a lot of GOOD RICH GUYS IN THE U.S...very innovative RICH create a lot of jobs...I would venture to say that the U.S. has the best of world's BUNCH OF RICH GUYS. I certainly want these RICH to make, as you put it so eloquently, MO' MONEY with the hope that they SHARE some of that "extra" cash...that's my hope....but, to be honest, I have never had real good luck in getting extra cash out of employers because they made extra profits. Unfortunately, that is all we have to go by, Talaniman: the hope that the rich business owners feel somewhat charitable to pass onto us extra compensation when they get it.

They may be good guys, and hope is always a good thing to have but I certainly would hold my breath. You know while I can see a good path forward and have hope it will be achieved, I honestly ain't holding my breath either Vac!

[jlisenbe]

Waiting for you to do the math yourself. That's the only way to disprove my statement. Or verify it.

So you want me to use math to verify a statement you have not made? OK. That certainly makes perfectly good sense.

Well, we'll just tweak the tax code and double the GDP. Yes indeed.

[talaniman]

there must be something very dysfunctional about your economy if you cannot balance a budget in good economic time, the Trump budget recognises this by making cuts in some programs

It's won't be cuts in rich guys stuff, just poor people stuff. Now dems like Clinton cut military stuff, but repubs restored it and ONLY cut poor people stuff. so yeah maybe dysfunctional is a good word but civil war is more accurate. Both sides would rather destroy each other than cooperate and relate. Just like on this forum.

I've seen a lot of budgets Clete, this is no different than others, and the last balanced budget led to the repubs letting big biz go crazy and not just blow the economy apart, but took the world with it. You think the dufus if he gets 4 more years won't do the same thing repubs have always done?

[talaniman]

So you want me to use math to verify a statement you have not made? OK. That certainly makes perfectly good sense.

Well, we'll just tweak the tax code and double the GDP. Yes indeed.

ONE STEP AT A TIME! Verify or disprove my statement and we can proceed with the rest. As facts we can agree on sink in, I'm sure you may be more receptive, and have positive input of your own which I would welcome.

[jlisenbe]

What statement are you referring to? You have made many vague statements but nothing that could be verified, so repeat your statement. The only one I can think of is your idea of "tweaking" the tax code so as to provide increased income for everyone and increased tax revenue. It is not possible to verify your "tweaking", and no person on the earth could apply math to it since there are no numbers, so perhaps you would give something more specific to look at?

[talaniman]

It's all laid out in post 86. Maybe you missed it.

[jlisenbe]

Over time the rich have indeed quadrupled their wealth and you have NOT. I guess you square that with how much taxes they pay as compared to everyone else, but my math says what I just stated. What does yours show? Either over time or the last few years is perfectly acceptable.

This? Over what period of time? Who do you define as the rich? Now if you want me to accept the "last few years", then are you saying that the rich have four times as much wealth now as compared, let's say, to five years ago?

[talaniman]

Do it any way you want JL, and if it's more than a factor of 4, then its worse than I thought. I tried using the most conservative figure but your methodology is yours to choose from.

[jlisenbe]

I tell you what. I'll make a deal with you. I won't ask you to verify my statements, and then you don't ask me to verify your statements, especially considering that I already verify mine, and this particular statement of yours is so ridiculously vague that it's hopeless anyway.

[talaniman]

No deal!

[jlisenbe]

There is for me. I am ALWAYS prepared to back up my statements. You should be as well.

[talaniman]

I asked for your input if you got nothing please just say so instead of your usual dodge dismissal and attack some more. The time you wasted you could have gotten the numbers done them and given your analysis.