T Nation

The GOP: Brilliant SOB's!

Definitely would be nice…

But I’m not holding my breath.


So far the PR payments are solid. Long term? Doubt it, but I’d hope they shove my doubt in my face.

I want a merry Christmas for all of the US.

They are virtually cradle to grave nanny states. So can you clarify your statement.

Well unless you mean the US supporting most of Europe’s Defense costs entitlement - hehe.

1 Like

I too would like this clarification @pfury.

1 Like


I don’t necessarily agree with all of this article’s author & conclusions drawn from it.


I think it should be taken a step further. What are corporate subsidies if not national level welfare designed to boost the bottom lines of companies in the hope (or sometimes requirement) that some of it is passed along to the consumer.

Context? You alleged:

Tax cuts were passed and over the next 7 years:
GDP up,
growth up,
unemployment down,
real wages Up,
inflation down,
interest rates down,
federal tax receipts up,
rich people pay a larger share of taxes

Now correlation does not imply causation. We could get dozens of economists from Chicago, Harvard, Yale etc… who would all disagree on what caused the booming 80’s recovery. Maybe it was cocaine sales or Madonna albums, not being an economist I couldn’t prove it one way or another, half of economists would disagree with me even if I did.

But I can say that the Reagan tax cuts did indeed not cause the USA to “suffer a pretty big one”. That is demonstrably false. Tax cuts were passed and then after that nearly every metric we care about got measurably better.

1 Like

I’d add it is one study, but on Corporate subsidies you and I are on all fours economically. They are a bottom line subsidy. I reflexively detest subsidies. I’d only subsidize a corporation to save a community, not per se.

It is complicated, though. I am concerned that this may be beyond my skill as a debater, and as such, I cannot continue with confidence.

Merry Christmas, friend, but this one may be beyond my ken.

Edit: my post may be a bit confused, apologies if so.


During Reagan’s first year in office, unemployment was over 10%, the federal funds rate was 20%, and the top tax rate was nearly double what it is now. Cutting taxes then made sense. Currently, we have 4% unemployment, nil interest rates, scant inflation and companies sitting on mountains of cash.

Several major companies have already said they have no intention of expanding. They’ll divvy out the cash to shareholders or spend it on stock buybacks. The top guys are going to reap the rewards here, not the middle class.


Except they doubled the standard deduction (good for working poor and middle income w2 folks) and the child tax credit. They also simplified filing and lowered rates for small businesses. Per CNN. And again, there’s nothing stopping low/middle income people from owning stocks. It’s actually encouraged by 401k and IRA programs.

All they did with the corporate rates and territorial tax system is mirror the other g20 nations. Naturally the EU is pissed

Do you feel we should pay higher tax rates than the rest of the g20? If so why?

Lack of money does.

As I said earlier upthread, I was in favor of corporate tax reform provided they close the loopholes that most corps take advantage of (average large company pays somewhere around 15% now). I have no faith that this hastily thrown-together bill did that. I might be wrong, but I have a feeling we’re going finding out about a lot of oversights and added pork over the coming months.

Bottom line is, the GOP sold this as a “middle class tax cut”. That is a steaming pile of bullshit.

Also, no comment on the metrics Reagan was dealing with at the start of his tenure and the part they played in his success?

Your point is Ronny inherited a horrible economy from peanut, and then things got better?

So because things aren’t quite as bad now we should pay more taxes than the rest of the world?

Strange logic.

Imo, reflections of an economy swinging back up. I also don’t give Obama a shitload of credit for the economy turning around.

Tax revenues were actually down at first

I would. It caused generations of Americans to believe so wholeheartedly in trickle down economics that it strongly influences a large portion of the population to vote in favor of it while it doesn’t actually work.

1 Like

No, you’re missing the point. The economy was completely different then. Tax cuts aren’t a panacea; they don’t always work to stimulate the economy. Look at Kansas & Louisiana.


I am still waiting for why we should pay more than than the other industrialized nations. More than Russia FFS. Former commies pay less than us. Globalism is real, and taxes matter.

Are the economies of Kansas and Louisiana as dynamic as that of the entire US? How much do they compete globally?

The United States’ corporate tax ranks relatively high on all three measures. The U.S. has the highest statutory rate (39.1 percent), the third highest average effective tax rate (29 percent), and the fourth highest marginal effective tax rate (18.6 percent).

Once GDP growth happened tax receipts went up. Sorry it isn’t like flicking on a switch.

You can prove that? How exactly? I don’t understand lefties. You want our corps and rich people to pay more taxes than the rest of the world, because reasons. Then you moan and bitch because they move jobs, cash and HQ elsewhere.

Damn corporations, how dare they create products and services for consumers, earn returns for shareholders and employ people in the process. Bastards.

I don’t bitch about it. It’s a natural byproduct of capitalism and varying standards of living.

Flat corp tax rate of 20% and zero breaks of any kind and I’m happy as a clam. Doesn’t have to be in a literal sense, but get rid of subsidies and tax breaks directed at specific industries. Keep basic all encompassing shit like depr&amort etcetc.

My problem isn’t with “companies wanting to compete.” It’s with these bills they have the power to remove the ways that big companies will abuse it, and choose not to. If you’re going to fix something, fix something.

1 Like

So now this is about fairness?

Dude, they are the closest indicators we have right now, in this economy, to see how these tax cuts will play out. They are not immaterial.

What countries are your referring to? Western countries? I thought those were socialist cesspools that rape their citizenry in taxes. Oh… you mentioned Russia earlier. Should we be more like them? I hear they treat their (wealthy) people really well over there.


Look at the data posted on g20 nations. That’s the largest 20 economies. Posted again for clarity. Not about fairness. It’s a competition. Land of the free indeed.

Correct, because in that time frame, we had:

  1. Ordinary snapback in recovery from a recession
  2. Interest rate reduction after very restrictive highs
  3. Actual tax increases at one point (Reagan and Congress actually raised taxes in 82 and 84, described by some as the largest peacetime tax raises)
  4. Large scale government spending

Trying to reduce tax cuts down to the driving force behind the economic growth of the era is mythmaking. It might as well be referred to the “Volcker boom” because of the interest rate strategy of the Fed to defeat aggregate-demand hampering inflation and then drastically easing the cost of credit.

I’m not saying the tax cuts had no effect, but there’s just no reason to pin the growth on that variable.


And this is instructive on the myth of the Reagan tax cuts because Obama was in charge as the country moved out of a recession. Economies typically rebound all on their own, independent of policy. Those rebounds can be imperfect or slow, but there is always some level of “organic” growth. Presidents and Congresses may help a recovery through action (and in 2008, I was all in favor of a stimulus), but no tax cut or stimulus package can be credited with all the gains coming out of a recession.