The Sharpest Shooter Challenge
|
aFicIoNadoS
|
Posted 9:12 am, 08/04/2018
|
Home remodels and new home starts. It was either the NAHB or NAR. I don’t remember now which one for sure, I believe it was NAHB.
|
|
Harbinger
|
Posted 8:20 am, 08/04/2018
|
Fins, what is predicted to go up 7% in the first quarter of next year? And who predicted it?
|
|
aFicIoNadoS
|
Posted 7:44 am, 08/04/2018
|
Trump’s corporate tax cuts directly lead to many bonuses, raises, and companies expanding and hiring new employees. This also caused a higher confidence in the economy from the public which lead to people increasing the number of new homes being built and also increased the number of remodels. Another increase of 7% is predicated 1st Q next year. All of this has led to the lowest unemployment in 45 years and an economy that’s growing again.
|
|
Harbinger
|
Posted 6:09 am, 08/04/2018
|
Wow… Scotty… you wrote a lot of words… good for you… now can you answer my question? What do you mean by the phrase “will benefit” in your assertion. Do you mean the immediate, though minor, benefit of the tax cut itself or a net benefit based on multiple factors including how the tax cut affects the economy over time?
You were the one who wrote:
If you cannot refute the truth of my first point, ie that a majority of tax paying individuals and corporations will benefit from TRUMP's Tax Cuts and Reform Legislation, then we have to conclude you have not been following this issue at all and should not muddy the water with ignorant assertions to the contrary. My Quoting learned articles on the subject aren't (sic) going to help you get this truth any more clearly.
I merely want to respond to your statement. So please answer the question: what does “will benefit” mean?
|
|
jrscott295
|
Posted 12:52 am, 08/04/2018
|
The Founding Fathers would be leading a revolution today if they were alive (of course if they had lived the Federal government would never have expanded to its current size).
Trump is pretty fluid on most issues he is only solid on a few, border security, trade reciprocity and health care are only his really solid policy holds. If you read his books you'd know more about how he thinks, he was never going to be the Conservative the Koch brothers wanted. The one scary part is that the deficit and debt are not large issues to Trump, but they should be. However I could see him vetoing a budget bill if he believes it would help him with the electorate, I'd fully see that if the Congress is Democrat in 2020 and he's running for reelection, he'll veto any CR or omnibus bill I think unless it funds his wall. Keep in mind Trump is fine with the so call Dreamers being allowed to stay if Congress changes the law to allow them to but he does want that wall. However while the Democrats may take the House this election I don't think they'll take the Senate. Any control will be marginal though no more than maybe 10-15 member majority in the House and in the Senate it might be the opposite it is now with 51 democrats at best case for them, I think it's very possible the Senate may be split 50-50 with the President of the Senate (VP Mike Pence) casting many deciding votes.
|
|
aFicIoNadoS
|
Posted 12:10 am, 08/04/2018
|
Anyone that things government isn’t supposed to be efficient has clearly never read the constitution. The original design of our government was laid out in a simple form that was clearly intended to maximize efficiency of a self ruled system.
|
|
jrscott295
|
Posted 11:04 pm, 08/03/2018
|
Oh and Harbinger isn't a moderator here.
|
|
jrscott295
|
Posted 10:51 pm, 08/03/2018
|
We wouldn't have had 4% GDP growth last quarter without them. I suspect this quarter it will be around 3% growth.
However with tax cuts needs to come spending cuts. Doing tax cuts without the spending cuts just kicks the can down the road, which we've been doing for much of the last century (only the Harding and Coolidge administrations had positive budgets all years of their administrations, and the last president to actually have a positive year was Nixon....yeah I know Gingrich and Clinton claim they balanced the budget but the deficit increased every year Clinton was in office, they did it by moving some things off budget...try that with your electric bill see how long you keep electricity not paying it). There's been no serious effort to cut federal government spending since Eisenhower was president. Anytime Congress (either party) talks about cuts in the last 30 years its a cut in the growth of spending not actual cuts in spending.
Truth is until you fill out your taxes at the end of the year you will have little idea if this was good for you or not. Because in essence I know a lot of folks count on a big refund at the end of the year to support their lifestyles, but you are getting that now instead of later, which means next year might not be as good a year as you might expect.
|
|
sassy62
|
Posted 10:12 pm, 08/03/2018
|
I am with Fins. You boys are way out there. There is a middle ground that would suit all of us best.
|
|
Lurker2
|
Posted 5:56 pm, 08/03/2018
|
The notion that tax cuts stimulate the economy are predicated on the notion that the money when not run through Federal collection and distribution, would turn over in the economy rather than lie dormant as if under the mattress. The banking and investments sectors do not operate based on effieincey being the maximum turn over of dollars but on the maximum return to investors, save the maximum return to officers of the corporation.
The quickest way to stimulate an economy is to give money to poor people to buy consumable goods such as food and clothing. Stimulus long term is neither necessary or appropriate. Cutting taxes to the point that important services are not being funded or that some other instability is created is not appropriate or necessary. For my family the "tax cut" we received was more than soaked up by the change to college tuition deductibility. So in essence we go a $2,000 increase. Had may additional $2000 gone to the poor or less fortunate, that would be fine, instead about 80% of that went to wealthy people who don't need it. Yes I know the wealthy hire the less wealthy but what is bled off aggregated in the hands of the wealthy, not the middle or lower class.
Libertarians who live in an economic fantasy world of early 19th Century America want the lowest taxes based on the idea that individuals are best to spend their own money. And they are if their money is a tool only for themselves. However to live in the modern world, you have to spend part of what you earn for the purposes of social stability so that you don't have to hire private security, install your own water treatment, and use a helicopter to get around. Those who complain about government waste forget that the purpose of government is not the be efficient but to be effective and equitable. Government does not destroy dollars, they may spend on something that you think is stupid, but that money still turns over in the economy be it a secretary at HUD, an M-1 tank, or direct transfer to Grandma via social security.
Trumps tax cuts are counterproductive at this time because they are not needed and will exacerbate our debt without addressing the simple need to increase SS withholding past $120K for example. It also takes a tax cut off the table as a stimulus tool for when the economy slows down. His tax cut is like revving the engine of a car when it's going down the mountain and no extra gas is needed. Like so many things Trump, his mouth and actions are the shiny object that obscured the lagging bill. The bill will come, but in most cases Trump has scooted down the road.
In general, people are not really helped by a few more dollars in their pocket each pay check. The marginal value of that is so small as compared to the potential marginal impact of something that is done with pooled money such as the construction of a new road, new school, etc., etc.
I just hate to see bottom three deciles of people crapped on and them not even know what happened or why.
|
|
jack rip her
|
Posted 5:45 pm, 08/03/2018
|
Sharpie you are up!
While we are waiting on Sharpie I would like to point out to hair brain that the the word cut as in tax cut means to reduce. The word Increase used in tax increase means higher.
|
|
Frugal
|
Posted 4:20 pm, 08/03/2018
|
Because this site has lacked significant action lately wonder if the Moderator is not posting these diatribes to stir the natives...I posted three times yesterday a link to harbinger challenger and Jason would not submit...Hits equal income to Jason and I hope he does well. Deception however is not good.
Google or search engine harbinger challenge to see what appears.
|
|
aFicIoNadoS
|
Posted 4:08 pm, 08/03/2018
|
Think I’ll pop some popcorn and watch this one from the sidelines. Someone find my bourbon
|
|
Harbinger
|
Posted 3:15 pm, 08/03/2018
|
Are the Donald Trump tax cuts beneficial?
In a previous thread, The Harbinger Challenge, I asked for a defense of the Trump presidency. I got what you might expect: mainly clutter disguised as argument. There was however one post, a counter-challenge of sorts, that does require a response.
Sharpestshooterswin posts referring to me:
If you cannot refute the truth of my first point, ie that a majority of tax paying individuals and corporations will benefit from TRUMP's Tax Cuts and Reform Legislation, then we have to conclude you have not been following this issue at all and should not muddy the water with ignorant assertions to the contrary. My Quoting learned articles on the subject aren't (sic) going to help you get this truth any more clearly.
So let’s give it a try.
First off, he seems to be confused concerning the burden of proof. As the one making a claim it is his responsibility to back it up, not mine. But no matter, I’ll bite…
Can I refute the following assertion: a majority of tax paying individuals and corporations will benefit from TRUMP's Tax Cuts and Reform Legislation?
Before I can answer I need to know what he means by “will benefit.” Exactly what benefits is he referring to? If by “benefit” he means whatever savings one gets from the tax cut, I suppose he can make a case that most taxpayers “benefit.” I suggest, however, that the benefits in question should be net benefits not gross and are contingent on whether the tax policy creates a healthy economy or causes economic hardship. The Bible famously asks “what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?” In the same vein one might ask defenders of Trump tax policy: what does it profit a family to gain a few hundred bucks a year and lose a house or a car or a kid’s college fund?
Does he mean the minor, immediate benefits? And if so, should those benefits be weighed against the long term consequences �" a ballooning national debt, for instance.
So the meaning of phrase “will benefit” does make a difference.
So Sharpshooter, if you happen to stumble upon this post, please specify what you mean by the phrase in question.
|
|
|
