Deutsche Bank states the Trump policies could double GDP by 2018

[Boomboom521]

We already have a significant jobs problem in the United States, a significant GDP growth problem and you want to raise corporate taxes significantly. You do know that we already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, right? Liberals believe that corporations and rich people are evil. Who do you think creates jobs in this country? And I have yet to see a poor person create a job. When you tax things, you get less of them.

Obama raised taxes, raised spending, increased regulations that you your self advocate and we have an anemic economy. Reagan did the opposite and we had a booming economy. Trump plans to use the Reagan approach. We will see in 4 to 8 years which one approach is more prosperous for America.

Boom - bust.....I like putting my money on the tortoise. Jobs? We are at a point in history where a shift is needed, maybe we get some level of it back for a short period, but it isn't sustainable.

I hear debt, debt, debt from conservatives. I hear tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. I hear conservatives advocate for doing more militarily. BUILD THE DANG WALL! How does it all work? Drop spending on programs like Obamacare, welfare, food stamps. Create jobs in industries that hurt the environment to create more tax revenue. Right?

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom I'm on my mobile phone right now because my internet connection is undergoing some maintenance.

But before I get back to the computer, let's drill down on your assumptions.

On taxes, you said Democrats favor higher taxes on wealthier earners so they can expand middle class incomes and this is what happens when they do so?

Have you ever heard of something called the Laffer curve?

If so, can you explain how his economic measurements of taxation support your argument on what happens to revenues as taxes increase?

If you've never heard of it, when I get back to my PC I'll attempt to explain it.

I understand very little about it. Basically there is a point in which once taxes are raised higher it does not increase tax revenue? I do know that the theory is disputed by many economists. But I'm not saying raise taxes overall, I'm saying raise taxes on people that use their money to make money, and not substantially either. I also think taxes for middle class families should be lowered.

 

[WVPATX]

Boom - bust.....I like putting my money on the tortoise. Jobs? We are at a point in history where a shift is needed, maybe we get some level of it back for a short period, but it isn't sustainable.

I hear debt, debt, debt from conservatives. I hear tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. I hear conservatives advocate for doing more militarily. BUILD THE DANG WALL! How does it all work? Drop spending on programs like Obamacare, welfare, food stamps. Create jobs in industries that hurt the environment to create more tax revenue. Right?

Job creation is not sustainable? I don't understand that. At all.

We have to grow the economy again. Interest rates are going up and our interest burden on our debt of $20 trillion is going to go up and eat large chunks of our budget. We have to get GDP growth back to 3 to 3 1/2%.

Obama's policies failed to do so. Reagan's policies and succeeded. Trump is following Reagan's lead. Trump is going to lower taxes, lower regulations, repatriate overseas profits and increased military spending. All of them are stimulative tour of the economy.

Most economists believe that the programs adopted under Franklin Roosevelt did not bring us out of depression. What brought us out of depression is the spending required to support our military during World War II. You combine spending on the military with the additional stimulus of lower taxes and lower regulations, and you begin to dramatically increase GDP growth.

And with that growth comes lower deficits and increased jobs. You move people off of welfare and into earning income.

And please explain to me your thoughts on how raising taxes on the wealthy increases average median income?

 

[Boomboom521]

Job creation is not sustainable? I don't understand that. At all.

We have to grow the economy again. Interest rates are going up and our interest burden on our debt of $20 trillion is going to go up and eat large chunks of our budget. We have to get GDP growth back to 3 to 3 1/2%.

Obama's policies failed to do so. Reagan's policies and succeeded. Trump is following Reagan's lead. Trump is going to lower taxes, lower regulations, repatriate overseas profits and increased military spending. All of them are stimulative tour of the economy.

Most economists believe that the programs adopted under Franklin Roosevelt did not bring us out of depression. What brought us out of depression is the spending required to support our military during World War II. You combine spending on the military with the additional stimulus of lower taxes and lower regulations, and you begin to dramatically increase GDP growth.

And with that growth comes lower deficits and increased jobs. You move people off of welfare and into earning income.

And please explain to me your thoughts on how raising taxes on the wealthy increases average median income?

By providing college free tuition, or relocation assistance for people below poverty level, or incentives for taking lower paying jobs in education, healthcare, law in areas of public service or areas in need.

 

[atlkvb]

I understand very little about it. Basically there is a point in which once taxes are raised higher it does not increase tax revenue? I do know that the theory is disputed by many economists. But I'm not saying raise taxes overall, I'm saying raise taxes on people that use their money to make money, and not substantially either. I also think taxes for middle class families should be lowered.

You have the basics boomer. Laffer essentially argues human nature with his bell curve. The more money you take away from higher income earners, the less you'll eventually get from them because they change their behavior or wealth generating/earning ability as taxes on them increase. The reverse is true as you lower their rates.

Here's the theory explained in more detail http://www.laffercenter.com/the-laffer-center-2/the-laffer-curve/

So my question to you is given how wage earners react when taxes are raised on them, how does your plan to tax them more as their incomes rise work to stabilize incomes at lower levels? In other words if higher taxes on high wage earners is the solution to expanding the middle class, where does the wealth come from to pass the money down to expand it?

Or on a more personal level...let's say you earn 100 grand. Then you like that and set out to make your next 100 grand. What's your incentive under your tax the wealthy plan to work harder to earn that second 100K if 40% of it will be taken from you and given to someone else? (39.6% is the top marginal Fed income tax rate)

Add in your FICA, Medicare, and in some cases State income taxes and well over half of that first and second 100K you've just earned has been confiscated from you...it's not yours to keep! so you just earned an additional 100K and had just that much seized from you before you get to decide what to do with it.

So where is your incentive to climb that economic ladder to generate even more income for yourself if for every extra dollar you earn, 40-60% of it is denied? How do middle class incomes rise under that scenario?

 

[WVPATX]

By providing college free tuition, or relocation assistance for people below poverty level, or incentives for taking lower paying jobs in education, healthcare, law in areas of public service or areas in need.

Do a little research my friend and find out exactly how much those programs cost and then compare that to Revenues you will collect with a 1-2% increase in taxes on the wealthy and see what you come up with. The revenues you collect, if you can collect them, will be dwarfed by those expenses.

 

[Boomboom521]

Do a little research my friend and find out exactly how much those programs cost and then compare that to Revenues you will collect with a 1-2% increase in taxes on the wealthy and see what you come up with. The revenues you collect, if you can collect them, will be dwarfed by those expenses.

My friend, you asked or examples of how increasing tax revenue can help grow the Middle class

 

[atlkvb]

• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...omy-history-says-vote-democrat/?client=safari

On this boom I will have to defer to the Authors since I do not have the raw numbers they've compiled. I would have some questions about their analysis since the comparisons apparently do not include Obama's figures, nor GDP prior to the Great recession, but it is what it is.

I would question various economic assumptions stated in the article outlining their findings because I know history does not bear them out. For instance, JKF's tax cuts led to major economic expansion in the 60's and generated enough revenue to fund both the Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson as well as our Vietnam War escalation. JFK's economic message of the early 60's is anathema to most of the modern Left's Democrat party platform today.

Also, Democrats in general have resisted efforts to control spending or balance budgets. I can't think of one Democrat President who actually submitted budgets calling for less overall spending, though most of them ran on such promises. As I mentioned Republicans have been equally irresponsible with their budgets but every time serious efforts have been suggested by Republicans to reign in bulging deficits Democrats have resisted, or called only for increased taxes with very little or no commensurate spending cuts.

When I think of the rampant inflation under Carter, the runaway spending of Johnson and Clinton, and the explosion of deficits under Obama (not included in this survey) it's hard for me to believe that under Democrat administrations taxes and spending have all generally gone up while budgets, revenues and debt have all simultaneously decreased? All of this while personal incomes rose, and the economy expanded with higher incomes and increased investments? Flies in the face of all my economic history or learning when massive Government spending is introduced into the private economy as incomes are confiscated to pay for it all.

Again, I'd have to drill down deeper into their numbers to see if they hold up under all historical scenarios but my personal understanding of which factors are driving our deficits and our debt do not exclude Democrat party big spending and high taxation. I know those two toxic ingredients do not lead to either personal prosperity for wage earners or balanced budgets for Governments.

 

[WVPATX]

My friend, you asked or examples of how increasing tax revenue can help grow the Middle class

The point I'm making is that your tax increases come nowhere near paying for the things that you described in your post.

Jobs, good paying jobs are the key to advancing the middle class. And you don't create jobs by making it harder for businesses to be successful. You want to encourage the rich to take risks, to create wealth through creating new companies, new products and most of all creating new jobs.

Again we have had two models the Reagan model and the Obama model. One proved far more economically superior. Under Reagan, the middle class crew as did their incomes. Under Obama the middle class has shrunk as has their income.

Trump is going to use the Reagan model. In four years we will know if it works or not.

 

[Boomboom521]

The point I'm making is that your tax increases come nowhere near paying for the things that you described in your post.

Jobs, good paying jobs are the key to advancing the middle class. And you don't create jobs by making it harder for businesses to be successful. You want to encourage the rich to take risks, to create wealth through creating new companies, new products and most of all creating new jobs.

Again we have had two models the Reagan model and the Obama model. One proved far more economically superior. Under Reagan, the middle class crew as did their incomes. Under Obama the middle class has shrunk as has their income.

Trump is going to use the Reagan model. In four years we will know if it works or not.

And I think we have very different ideas about in what sectors those jobs are going to be in going forward. Gone are the days when a factory worker can make enough to support his/her family and live well in the middle class. Inflation, cost of living, healthcare costs and added business costs in the US have put an end to that. There might be another small expansion as we begin to produce new technologies, but in time businesses will move out of country. Trump can try to keep them here, and he will succeed in some attempts. But eventually, as the production of the new technologies (driver-less cars) gets perfected, those jobs will move out of country. Corporations will do what makes the most revenue. There is no way the US can compete with overseas production, unless the worker wages are much lower than they've been in the past or the government provides the displacement of cost in tax breaks. Maybe you think this is sustainable, I don't. I'd like to see a shift in the American workforce, more college- more jobs in the healthcare sector, the technology sector, and more flexibility in the worker.

 

[atlkvb]

Corporations will do what makes the most revenue. There is no way the US can compete with overseas production, unless the worker wages are much lower than they've been in the past or the government provides the displacement of cost in tax breaks. Maybe you think this is sustainable, I don't.

In this statement boombom521, as obviously smart as you often reveal you are, you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets or the dynamics of our free enterprise economy.

Free markets always emerge. People are not static. Government cannot direct human resources or talent.

Entrepreneurs innovate, new products and services and businesses are created every day. New wealth is generated every day as new technologies, goods and services are created in response to new market demands and conditions, new customers or newly created business opportunities.

America will always be the engine that drives this next generation of wealth creation as long as we remain Free. Free to seek our levels of comfort, and define our work.

Free people seek to find, develop, and offer goods and services that other free people need, want, and desire. America has never stopped filling those needs, or creating those desires, or failed to find different imaginative ways to meet that dynamic.

I believe you boomer when you say you want what is best for America...if you do (and I truly believe you do) then trust the people to create the very future you desire.

Trust our free market, free enterprise, Capitalist economy unlimited and unfettered by meddlesome Government central planners or Socialist "do gooders" who only know how to limit personal freedoms or who have nothing but contempt for Free people & individual private business entrepreneurs seeking to define their own limits of success without some bureaucrats' approval or permission.

 

[WVPATX]

And I think we have very different ideas about in what sectors those jobs are going to be in going forward. Gone are the days when a factory worker can make enough to support his/her family and live well in the middle class. Inflation, cost of living, healthcare costs and added business costs in the US have put an end to that. There might be another small expansion as we begin to produce new technologies, but in time businesses will move out of country. Trump can try to keep them here, and he will succeed in some attempts. But eventually, as the production of the new technologies (driver-less cars) gets perfected, those jobs will move out of country. Corporations will do what makes the most revenue. There is no way the US can compete with overseas production, unless the worker wages are much lower than they've been in the past or the government provides the displacement of cost in tax breaks. Maybe you think this is sustainable, I don't. I'd like to see a shift in the American workforce, more college- more jobs in the healthcare sector, the technology sector, and more flexibility in the worker.

Technology will certainly change our lives and change our jobs. But it doesn't mean jobs will go away. They will change. And the thought the everyone must go to college is simply a fallacy. We need technicians, plumbers, electricians, welders, carpenters, etc. Our energy needs are not going away any time soon and solar/wind is not an answer. We have enough energy resources to become virtually energy independent. Millions of new jobs.

You and Obama can settle for this new normal of poor, low paying, part time jobs, but I'm not buying it and thankfully neither are Trump and the GOP. Yes, we have to make America more competitive. And your absurd notion of actually raising taxes on the jobs producers is the exactly wrong thing to do. Lower corporate taxes, which lowers corporate costs. Lower regulations which lowers corporate costs. Repatriate overseas profits which enhances capital formation for U.S. growth. Look at the technology invention called the internet. How many jobs have been created because of that disruptive technology? Millions upon millions. And not just high tech jobs, but non high tech jobs for electricians, repairmen, salesmen, etc. Lower individual taxes to stimulate consumption and savings which is great for economic growth.

And if companies move overseas and try and sell products back into the U.S. they will be taxed at a special rate which helps to defeat any move they may contemplate. All these moves makes the U.S. much, much more competitive.

All the ideas you came up with would cost enormous sums of money and your tax plan comes no where near paying for it. Not even close.

 

[Boomboom521]

In this statement boombom521, as obviously smart as you often reveal you are, you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets or the dynamics of our free enterprise economy.

Free markets always emerge. People are not static. Government cannot direct human resources or talent.

Entrepreneurs innovate, new products and services and businesses are created every day. New wealth is generated every day as new technologies, goods and services are created in response to new market demands and conditions, new customers or newly created business opportunities.

America will always be the engine that drives this next generation of wealth creation as long as we remain Free. Free to seek our levels of comfort, and define our work.

Free people seek to find, develop, and offer goods and services that other free people need, want, and desire. America has never stopped filling those needs, or creating those desires, or failed to find different imaginative ways to meet that dynamic.

I believe you boomer when you say you want what is best for America...if you do (and I truly believe you do) then trust the people to create the very future you desire.

Trust our free market, free enterprise, Capitalist economy unlimited and unfettered by meddlesome Government central planners or Socialist "do gooders" who only know how to limit personal freedoms or who have nothing but contempt for Free people & individual private business entrepreneurs seeking to define their own limits of success without some bureaucrats' approval or permission.

If it was free, more kids go to college and more people find their focus, and more people in the field innovate, discover and lead.

 

[Boomboom521]

Technology will certainly change our lives and change our jobs. But it doesn't mean jobs will go away. They will change. And the thought the everyone must go to college is simply a fallacy. We need technicians, plumbers, electricians, welders, carpenters, etc. Our energy needs are not going away any time soon and solar/wind is not an answer. We have enough energy resources to become virtually energy independent. Millions of new jobs.

You and Obama can settle for this new normal of poor, low paying, part time jobs, but I'm not buying it and thankfully neither are Trump and the GOP. Yes, we have to make America more competitive. And your absurd notion of actually raising taxes on the jobs producers is the exactly wrong thing to do. Lower corporate taxes, which lowers corporate costs. Lower regulations which lowers corporate costs. Repatriate overseas profits which enhances capital formation for U.S. growth. Look at the technology invention called the internet. How many jobs have been created because of that disruptive technology? Millions upon millions. And not just high tech jobs, but non high tech jobs for electricians, repairmen, salesmen, etc. Lower individual taxes to stimulate consumption and savings which is great for economic growth.

And if companies move overseas and try and sell products back into the U.S. they will be taxed at a special rate which helps to defeat any move they may contemplate. All these moves makes the U.S. much, much more competitive.

All the ideas you came up with would cost enormous sums of money and your tax plan comes no where near paying for it. Not even close.

I admit you obviously know more about business than I do, but haven't we been doing this? You want me to believe that corporations have been getting a raw deal here? They've had a louder voice in congress over the years than your middle America don't you think?

 

[atlkvb]

If it was free, more kids go to college and more people find their focus, and more people in the field innovate, discover and lead.

Nothing is "free" boom...not even Freedom. There is a cost for everything....money isn't always the payment...but a price for everything must be paid. If everything were "free", it wouldn't be worth much.

The higher the value on what's desired, the greater the cost and thus the higher the price that must be paid in order to possess it.

 

[Boomboom521]

Nothing is "free" boom...not even Freedom. There is a cost for everything....money isn't always the payment...but a price for everything mus be paid. If everything were "free", it wouldn't be worth much.

The higher the value on what's desired, the greater the price and thus the cost that must be paid in order to possess it.

The financial break on the middle class would be huge as well.

 

[atlkvb]

The financial break on the middle class would be huge as well.

Like PAX said boomer, your desire to make the "wealthy" pay for all of your admirable social desires would not even begin to fund half of what you want to be "free". If you really want what's best for lower and middle income workers, let wealth be generated so they can find meaningful work, and use that work to develop their skills & maybe eventually become wealthy themselves. They're quite capable of paying for College or anything else they desire as long as they understand the price that has to be paid for it and are willing to do what must be done in order to meet that price or fulfill that desire.

 

[Boomboom521]

Like PAX said boomer, your desire to make the "wealthy" pay for all of your admirable social desires would not even begin to fund half of what you want to be "free". If you really want what's best for lower and middle income workers, let wealth be generated so they can find meaningful work, and use that work to develop their skills & maybe eventually become wealthy themselves. They're quite capable of paying for College or anything else they desire as long as they understand the price that has to be paid for it and are willing to do what must be done in order to meet that price or fulfill that desire.

First: I'd love for all of those programs to be initiated, but they were examples of that I'd like the gov to try (one at a time).
Second: I know it wouldn't cover the cost, but it would help....redirect wealth (NOT REDISTRIBUTE). The costs of college, healthcare, shelter and even entertainment have risen and will continue to rise. We can't reverse time to the American sweet spot where $40,000/yr was enough for a family of four to live happily. We have to change.

 

[atlkvb]

First: I'd love for all of those programs to be initiated, but they were examples of that I'd like the gov to try (one at a time).
Second: I know it wouldn't cover the cost, but it would help....redirect wealth (NOT REDISTRIBUTE). The costs of college, healthcare, shelter and even entertainment have risen and will continue to rise. We can't reverse time to the American sweet spot where $40,000/yr was enough for a family of four to live happily. We have to change.

Yes boomer but wealth creation by definition my man means our standards of living increase. When our standards increase, we make more money. As more wealth is generated, it opens up more opportunities for more people, & wages go up when there is more demand for labor to meet new demands for newer and better goods and services.

That's the beauty of the free market and its essential dynamic and it never stops.

When Government tries to control all of that or ("redirect") those resources as you suggest... is when we get F'd. That is not the free market, and it doesn't work.

 

[Boomboom521]

Yes boomer but wealth creation by definition my man means our standards of living increase. When our standards increase, we make more money. As more wealth is generated, it opens up more opportunities for more people, & wages go up when there is more demand for labor to meet new demands for newer and better goods and services.

That's the beauty of the free market and its essential dynamic and it never stops.

When Government tries to control all of that or ("redirect") those resources as you suggest... is when we get F'd. That is not the free market, and it doesn't work.

This is a new age though. We must treat it as such. Or else we won't adapt properly.

 

[atlkvb]

This is a new age though. We must treat it as such. Or else we won't adapt properly.

It's the market boomer. We must learn to trust it. Nothing works better.

 

[Boomboom521]

It's the market boomer. We must learn to trust it. Nothing works better.

A global market now.

 

[atlkvb]

A global market now.

If all people are Free to participate...yes. Not one (market) controlled by the State...individual Nations acting freely in their own best interests for their free people, just like free individuals here in America do. It works just as well for Foreigners as it has for us....when we are all Free.

 

[Boomboom521]

If all people are Free to participate...yes. Not one (market) controlled by the State...individual Nations acting freely in their own best interests for their free people, just like free individuals here in America do. It works just as well for Foreigners as it has for us....when we are Free.

People aren't free in China, and they aren't protected like us in Mexico. It's a variable that changes a lot.

 

[atlkvb]

People aren't free in China, and they aren't protected like us in Mexico. It's a variable that changes a lot.

Exactly boomer! Neither scenario works. Freedom does. What frustrates me about our leadership in both parties is they do not trust or understand this fundamental underpinning of our economy.

They're constantly trying to reinvent that wheel through their own arrogance or belief that they know what's best for us beyond our ability to decide for ourselves what's best for us.

Disgusting.