Larry Kudlow will be Trump’s next top economic adviser

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,526
2,087
743
Where else but Stillwater
#21
Well known truism, the ultra wealthy pay more taxes than everyone else combined and that’s before accounting for the taxes they generate through the tens of millions they employ.
Also what does that picture mean, are you claiming Hamm and or contres pays no taxes, if that’s your claim, that’s absurd.
NO, you know everybody, including the poor have to pay sales taxes.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,956
16,326
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#22
Yeah, for all I know poor people in 3rd world countries don't have the luxury of busy overpasses, like in OKC to get under and beg for money and sleep there during the warm months.
Or they pay $20 for a roll of toilet paper, that is when there’s a store that has it on the shelf.
The US and each state has an untold number of agencies to aid those who want help. That used to be done, more efficiently and kinder, by non gvt entities but since we vote for politicians and they saw a means to generate dependency (incumbency) they took it over. Now we have bloated bureaucracies and that keeps the politicians, those who are dependent on the handouts and those in the agencies who provide the handouts, feeding off of one and other.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,956
16,326
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#23
NO, you know everybody, including the poor have to pay sales taxes.
Negative income tax is real (it exists today) if you pay in $4k and through credits and deductions you get back $8k then you have generated a negative income tax, that happens for roughly 40% or so of the taxpaying US population and to a large extent it negates other taxes that are paid.
What boggles my mind is that something that the middle and lower class have to have and can least afford an increase to is energy, specifically oil, so what did they do in Ca we raised the tax and now the working poor are screaming foul, so what do they want to do in Ok, increase the cost to the supply chain which will have the effect of increasing consumer prices, the same as raising taxes did in Ca. and again who can afford that least?
To paraphrase my dad, it’s not mankind I don’t understand, it’s people I don’t get.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,513
30,891
1,743
oklahoma city
#24
Or they pay $20 for a roll of toilet paper, that is when there’s a store that has it on the shelf.
The US and each state has an untold number of agencies to aid those who want help. That used to be done, more efficiently and kinder, by non gvt entities but since we vote for politicians and they saw a means to generate dependency (incumbency) they took it over. Now we have bloated bureaucracies and that keeps the politicians, those who are dependent on the handouts and those in the agencies who provide the handouts, feeding off of one and other.
Negative income tax is real (it exists today) if you pay in $4k and through credits and deductions you get back $8k then you have generated a negative income tax, that happens for roughly 40% or so of the taxpaying US population and to a large extent it negates other taxes that are paid.
What boggles my mind is that something that the middle and lower class have to have and can least afford an increase to is energy, specifically oil, so what did they do in Ca we raised the tax and now the working poor are screaming foul, so what do they want to do in Ok, increase the cost to the supply chain which will have the effect of increasing consumer prices, the same as raising taxes did in Ca. and again who can afford that least?
To paraphrase my dad, it’s not mankind I don’t understand, it’s people I don’t get.
As Friedman was mentioning, I would like to see negative income taxes expanded with a minimization of other prove-you-are-worthy-to-the-bureaucrat programs to help the poor.
 

John C

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
972
1,743
643
63
#25
Sure you can:
PS the second video, when he talks about a negative income tax for a $0 earner of $1500, that was 1968 and would be $10,700 today.

Except that in Econ we refer to the “negative income tax” as a transfer payment, rather than a tax. With a tax, you pay the government. With a transfer payment, the government pays you. It may seem like semantics, but that distinction to me is as important as the difference between a vein and an artery is to you.
 

John C

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
972
1,743
643
63
#26
Yes, further more, poor people pay sales taxes and very seldom do such taxes get cut. So Oklahoma Republicans have to resort to attacking the war on poverty from the opposite approach. So they reduce food stamps for poor and disabled singles from $16 to $8 a month. Also plans are moving along to cut the number of families eligible for Medicaid. No doubt, Republicans want to get the poor and disabled weaned off government. It's also intended as a way to find more money to fund education. So the poor and disabled need to move from Oklahoma even worse than teachers. And it works to fight the war on poverty in Oklahoma. Shape up or ship out!

Who knows what the economy is going to do in 2019? If things have turned from bad to worse in 2020, we'll see if Trump will insist upon looking like a profound idiot by babbling his new "Keep America Great!" campaign slogan. But better that Trump do that, rather than be idiotic enough to start nuclear war.


What does any of this blather have to do with your Marxist/Socialist/Pot head attack on a non-existing theory of Economics; a “theory” people of your ilk made up so they can justify their desires to tax the hell out of everyone.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,956
16,326
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#27
As Friedman was mentioning, I would like to see negative income taxes expanded with a minimization of other prove-you-are-worthy-to-the-bureaucrat programs to help the poor.
I'm not a proponent but I think we have to address the situation and since eliminating handouts is off the table (it is simply not going to happen and to some extent, based on circumstances, it probably shouldn't be abolished entirely, either individual or corporate) then it has to be addressed in a different way. In no way am I saying you / MF (no pun intended) are wrong or that this is a terrible idea, just that I'm not a proponent of that approach.
The way it is now is already similar to a universal or basic (iyl) income, roughly speaking, a family of 4 makes $48k they pay in $8k and they get a return of $12-16K so in essence the gvt is giving them $4-8K in many states they also qualify for other assistance so the number is even larger, is that the best way, don't think so but don't know, currently it's 'the' way and it isn't working. I do think we need to try something else and if that doesn't work try something else and so on, sitting where we are has generated a +$200T bill for the US taxpayer and that's not sustainable.
I would have to spend way more time, than I'm going to, to come up with a rationale plan but my head says writing people a check every 2-4 weeks won't wean them off the gvt it will fatten them up, creating more of a pavlov's dog effect.
 
Last edited: