patrick.net

finehoe says

Why Marco Rubio is insisting that his massive tax cuts will pay for themselves, explained: On Tuesday, Marco Rubio told CNBC's John Harwood that his massive tax cuts — which estimates have found would blow a roughly $4 trillion to $5 trillion hole in the deficit — creates a surplus "within the 10-year window."

It is worth slowing down to make clear exactly what Rubio said there. Rubio's plan cuts corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on the rich, taxes on the middle class — it cuts taxes on everyone. The cuts are so large that the New York Times called it "the puppies and rainbows plan." And what Rubio is saying is that his massive tax cut is actually going to mean more tax revenue for the government — that two minus one will equal four. ...

Worked with Reagan.

Strategist says

Worked with Reagan

And by worked, you mean he took a $10Billion yearly surplus and turned it into a $235Billion yearly deficit.

Laffer curve, indeed.

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

Worked with Reagan

And by worked, you mean it took a $10Billion yearly surplus and turned it into a $235Billion yearly deficit.

Laffer curve, indeed.

There was no surplus when Reagan came in.
Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28%, which initially created a large deficit, but set the stage for budget surpluses from higher GDP down the road.

Strategist says

There was no surplus when Reagan came in.

Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28%, which initially created a large deficit, but set the stage for budget surpluses from higher GDP down the road.

You're right--the source I looked up must have been incorrect. Here's where I pulled from:

http://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/index.html

Regardless, his tax cuts and spending tripled the deficit. What does "setting the stage mean"? Clinton came in and balanced the budget.

Rubio the preppy school boy. I see an interview of his and he has a fake smile ready and Donald has his scowl!.

Ironman says

But Bernie's tax cuts will completely eliminate the deficit and the debt!!

Oh wait...

Clearly you don't know Bernie's tax plan at all. Here's some reading for you:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Tax_Reform.htm

Rather than lowering taxes on the super rich, he actually proposes (gasp) raising them! Your masters don't like that, I know.

Ironman says

you could take 100% from the super rich, and it won't even make a dent in paying off the debt.

So what? Is that supposed to be an argument for not raising them at all?

Ironman says

Except, it's been proven over and over, that you could take 100% from the super rich, and it won't even make a dent in paying off the debt...

But, keep drinking the socialist kool-aid!

Is that an argument? So, rather than reducing the deficit, you're in favor of making it much worse? And then complaining about the federal debt?

That sounds about right for a Republican.

It took a long time to build this much debt, and it's going to take a long time to pay it down. The first step is to start running a surplus rather than a deficit. The second step is to get money back into the hands of people that spend it so we can get a dose of inflation to reduce the real value of the debt.

bgamall4 says

There are many trillions of dollars sloshing around in offshore funds and that money should be taxed.

Agreed. And I think it's Dan's idea here to put a tax on commodity/stock trades. Tax the hell out of the speculators and day traders. They add no value to the US economy. They're a cancer.

Strategist says

Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28%, which initially created a large deficit, but set the stage for budget surpluses from higher GDP down the road

Well that should be easy enough to verify. Would expect GDP growth to be higher in the 1980s than 1970s then? Would expect GDP growth to be lower in the 90s than 80s? Would expect GDP growth to be higher in the 00s, but tank since Obama raised taxes.

Right??

tatupu70 says

Tax the hell out of the speculators and day traders. They add no value to the US economy. They're a cancer.

This might not be the stupidest thing I've heard on Pat.net, but it's up there. This implies that you don't believe in markets at all. Making "trading" too cost prohibitive for most people that want to be involved in that type of speculative buying and selling would only result in gross profits for the "market makers" that need to exist, that wouldn't have any competition. They would easily manipulate markets, which traders can't do now, at least not without excessive risk, because of all of the other traders keeping them honest. (so to speak).

What do you think it is that makes the spread between the bid and the offer so small in most liquid markets ? Do you not understand why this is a good thing ? It's called liquidity.

But I don't even care to argue why speculation is a good thing, why do you say it's a bad thing ? A cancer ? Seriously ? I'm a liberal, but I totally part ways with this kind of off the charts ignorance based on nothing more than emotion. I guess the assholes are sometimes right about liberals. They're just envious. I've got news for you. You need not be so envious, speculative (short term) trading is tough. Most people fail at it.

But hey, on the bright side you've finally found a topic that you can agree with captain10pound about.

THe Laffer curve suggests that there is an optimal level of taxes, relative to tax revenues. This is obviously true. Taxes being high enough at some point will cause tax revenues to the government to be lower than they would be at lower tax levels. But we're nowhere close to that level.

The idea that marginal rates on high increments of income are too high now, that is, above the optimal level, is insane. Even taking in to account capital formation and any other nonsensical bs they want to throw at us, let's face it, the congress is owned by the plutocrats who have as their highest priority keeping taxes low. They will destroy this country given the chance. I think a growing percentage of the business community republicans understand this, but go along with it because of mixed feelings about those tax rates affect their family's finances.

bgamall4 says

tatupu70 says

s that an argument? So, rather than reducing the deficit, you're in favor of making it much worse? And then complaining about the federal debt?

That sounds about right for a Republican.

There are many trillions of dollars sloshing around in offshore funds and that money should be taxed.

There are trillions in profits sloshing around in offshore funds? Really? Trillions. Like trillions with a T. Where did you get this information? You do realize you don't tax principal only the gains don't you?

tatupu70 says

Regardless, his tax cuts and spending tripled the deficit. What does "setting the stage mean"? Clinton came in and balanced the budget.

When Reagan cut the ridiculous taxes to 28%, and raised interest rates sky high to wring out inflation from our economy, his goal was to set the American economy on a path of growth. His strategy, coordinated with Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve Chairman at that time, worked like magic. It was a long term strategy, which eventually set us on a course of high growth, low inflation , and low unemployment for years to come. Clinton ended up the beneficiary of that strategy as most of the gains came during his Presidency. Don't get me wrong, I love Clinton.
When Bush came in, the deficits came back and continued to increase. I don't blame Bush for the deficits, I solely blame 911, which cost us an arm and a leg.

bob2356 says

Really? Trillions. Like trillions with a T

That was in the news yesterday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-usa-tax-offshore-idUSKCN0S008U20151006

Actually I think much of it is profits that hasn't been taxed here yet, or would be if brought back. But I'm not sure they don't have a legit argument for keeping it offshore - that is if it's profit from multinationals that has already been taxed elsewhere. I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion.

If this (quote below) is true ? THey should be paying some taxes on it here.

Fifty-seven of the companies disclosed that they would expect to pay a combined $184.4 billion in additional U.S. taxes if their profits were not held offshore. Their filings indicated they were paying about 6 percent in taxes overseas, compared to a 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate, it said.

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

Rather than lowering taxes on the super rich, he actually proposes (gasp) raising them!

Except, it's been proven over and over, that you could take 100% from the super rich, and it won't even make a dent in paying off the debt...

Because the super rich income is only a tiny tiny tiny portion of the taxes collected. Try telling that to people like Jazz and Dan who think taking everything from the super rich will enable the rest of the population, including the homeless to all have Malibu mansions facing the Pacific.

Ironman says

Strategist says

Because the super rich income is only a tiny tiny tiny portion of the taxes collected.

You know that, I know that, but Tatty thinks that will completely solve the wealth inequality issue and allow tons of dollars to flow down to the little people.

Cuba took everything from the filthy rich, and look what they ended up with.....$20.00 per month. No thanks, I'll take the $7.00 minimum wages any day.

Strategist says

Because the super rich income is only a tiny tiny tiny portion of the taxes collected

That's my point. Let's change that so it's not a tiny, tiny, tiny portion.

Ironman says

You know that, I know that, but Tatty thinks that will completely solve the wealth inequality issue and allow tons of dollars to flow down to the little people.

And the idiot chimes in again. Please don't try to post what I believe. You are too dim to understand 99.9% of the time.

marcus says

This might not be the stupidest thing I've heard on Pat.net, but it's up there. This implies that you don't believe in markets at all.

If so, it's only because you need a primer on economics. We have a sales tax on virtually everything good and service in the economy. Does that stop the market?? You can disagree, but to call it the stupidest thing you've heard on here is ridiculous.

marcus says

Making "trading" too cost prohibitive for most people that want to be involved in that type of speculative buying and selling would only result in gross profits for the "market makers" that need to exist, that wouldn't have any competition. They would easily manipulate markets, which traders can't do now, at least not without excessive risk, because of all of the other traders keeping them honest. (so to speak).

Would a 10 cent/trade tax made it prohibitive? I find that argument extremely lacking.

marcus says

But I don't even care to argue why speculation is a good thing, why do you say it's a bad thing ? A cancer ? Seriously ? I'm a liberal, but I totally part ways with this kind of off the charts ignorance based on nothing more than emotion. I guess the assholes are sometimes right about liberals. They're just envious. I've got news for you. You need not be so envious, speculative (short term) trading is tough. Most people fail at it.

It's not ignorance. Short term trading is just legal gambling. It adds nothing to the economy. Commodity trading should be about hedging risk--not gambling.

I prefer to promote activities that add value to the overall economy. Gambling is not one of them.

Ironman says

If either of you idiots think there's ANY chance this will be paid down, you need to share with us whatever it is you're drinking or smoking!!

What difference does it make if it's paid down or not?

SBH in drag??

strategery5 says

Well

obama is taking care of this with his foreign strategy.
eventually russia will shoot down our planes and we will shoot down theirs.
WWIII will occur, and afterwards all world debt will reset based on the new order.

tatupu70 says

It took a long time to build this much debt, and it's going to take a long time to pay it down.

When were school officials declared non-profit??

bob2356 says

You do realize you don't tax principal

libbies only calculate cause and effect in real time. whoever's in office when whatever occurs gets the blame/praise. no such thing as 'long term strategy' with the left...

Strategist says

It was a long term strategy,

so you don't think the massive transfer of 401k stockpiles to the indian reservations is adding value to the economy?
better for it to be passed down through the generations languishing in savings at 0.9%?

tatupu70 says

I prefer to promote activities that add value to the overall economy. Gambling is not one of them.

SoftShell says

so you don't think the massive transfer of 401k stockpiles to the indian reservations is adding value to the economy?

better for it to be passed down through the generations languishing in savings at 0.9%?

Make Indian reservations immune to the transaction tax--the reservation could be the new Wall St. That'd be OK.

marcus says

bob2356 says

Really? Trillions. Like trillions with a T

That was in the news yesterday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-usa-tax-offshore-idUSKCN0S008U20151006

Actually I think much of it is profits that hasn't been taxed here yet, or would be if brought back. But I'm not sure they don't have a legit argument for keeping it offshore - that is if it's profit from multinationals that has already been taxed elsewhere. I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion.

You missed the words offshore funds. Bgmal4 said offshore funds, not offshore subsidiaries. Totally different subjects. A big chunk of the corporate profits being held offshore are sitting in the good old USA anyway. http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323301104578255663224471212

SoftShell says

When were school officials declared non-profit??

bob2356 says

You do realize you don't tax principal

Cute. The grammar and spelling nazi has been heard from. Considering most of your posts have grammar that is barely recognizable as english sentences, I wouldn't be too quick to jump on other people if I were you.

bob2356 says

You missed the words offshore funds. Bgmal4 said offshore funds, not offshore subsidiaries.

I didn't miss anything. Did you read this ?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-usa-tax-offshore-idUSKCN0S008U20151006

Ironman says

And, when you have an idiot like Marcus calling you out, you know you've finally reached the bottom!

lol--I have much bigger idiots like you, indig, strat, et. al calling me out on things all the time. The thing is--I'm right and they're/you're wrong.

Calling out is one thing--actually knowing what they're/you're talking about is another. That's where you and your friends fail.

marcus says

bob2356 says

You missed the words offshore funds. Bgmal4 said offshore funds, not offshore subsidiaries.

I didn't miss anything. Did you read this ?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-usa-tax-offshore-idUSKCN0S008U20151006

Go to the end of the second paragraph and hunt for the word subsidiaries. I assure you it's there. An offshore fund and an offshore subsidiary business are far different things from both an operational and tax perspective.

Did you bother to read my link that explains how most of the profits being held in offshore subsidiaries is actually in the US already anyway? What isn't be "held" offshore is being used for loans and stock buybacks (in effect a loan) allowing multinationals to not pay taxes but use the revenue for US operations anyway.

Bgmal4 specifically said funds. I don't believe for a second there are trillions in untaxed income and/or gains sitting in offshore funds. The government desperately wants you to believe that. The government desperately wants you to believe ALL money offshore is untaxed income and/or gains. The US government hates having its citizens with funds outside of the US governments control. The US government hates having ANY money not under it's control. So the government create a boogeyman (money offshore = tax evasion) to scare the sheeple into not paying attention when they draconian laws to make having money offshore as difficult as possible and to give the US even more control of the world financial system. Think fatca as the biggest of the bunch. The public was sold a bill of goods and bought it hook, line, and sinker. The cost of implementing and running fatca is going to exceed any revenue from discovering tax evaders. Fatca exists to give the US government the ability to control every single foreign bank and to some degree foreign governments as well as any US citizen with money offshore. That's why fincen has gone after a couple small potato banks for doing much less wrong than citibank does every day. To make the point, in case anyone missed it, that the US government controls the world financial system and can do anything it wants to do.

Gimme Gimme Gimme GreenCard Rubio is toast!

PCGyver says

If you really want to see this economy take off get the money into the hand of the 99% instead of letting it stagnate at the top 1%

That's where we run into trouble. A lot of that money would go towards buying Bud Lite, and cheap Chinese junk, instead of investing it towards innovation and production.
I have literally witnessed blue collar workers buy lots of beer from 7-11, when there was an Albertsons selling the same Bud Lite for half the price.
I am mostly talking about the bottom 30%

tatupu70 says

It's not ignorance. Short term trading is just legal gambling. It adds nothing to the economy. Commodity trading should be about hedging risk--not gambling.

I prefer to promote activities that add value to the overall economy. Gambling is not one of them

You're wrong. Let's say you're right that commodity trading should be about hedging. Okay. Right. But how do you think the market for those that would hedge exists, without the gamblers (traders) ? I say you have no clue what you are talking about. (And you are making me ashamed to be a liberal, because too many liberals are equally clueless).

Let me boil it way down for you with an oversimplified example. Say we're looking at the corn futures market. And suppose in one particulr 3 day period, the only really significant big hedgers (your real participants) are Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) laying off some risk, selling futures in chicago because of all the farmers that have locked in prices with them (so they are selling 50,000 contracts starting on Tuesday), because ADM fears the price could be going lower exposing them to too much risk. Meanwhile, not until Thursday is there a really significant buyer, General Mills locking in a price on some corn for their products based on whatever assessments they have made about risks of higher prices or the quantities they need to buy.

Who is supposed to buy the futures from ADM on Tuesday ? There is a reasonable price range at which they are trading, but some people are going to have to take on the risk of buying them at current prices (or a little below) until one of your hedgers gets there to buy. What the hell man, these are some of the most basic principals behind the idea of trading that have been going on for thousands of years.

If some guy in the import export business is in asia has an opportunity to buy 50K worth of envelopes at a price that he thinks he can make a 20% profit on back in the U.S. is that gambling ? (maybe it is).

How is it different (other than the fact that the profit margin is way bigger for the guy with the envelopes) than the guy trading on the exchange ? IS it because the futures contracts are traded on a centralized exchange and that somehow makes it seem just too easy for someone with capital to buy and sell ? I won't dispute that ultimately it is gambling (in a sense). But you are extremely ignorant if you can not understand that there is a service to the market performed by all of the speculators.

Again, this has gone on in various forms for many thousands of years. It's an integral part of capitalism. It's one of the parts that works.

bob2356 says

Go to the end of the second paragraph and hunt for the word subsidiaries.

Okay. THat word is there. But these are subsidiaries located in tax havens.

If we were talking aabout a subsiciary of P&G in France, that sells soap in France, and pays taxes on profits in France, then that would be one thing.

But I don't know. I think these may be subsidiaries set up in tax havens for the sole purpose of not paying taxes on profits made in the U.S. (not because the profits are actually made in the locations of the subsidiaries).

marcus says

Okay. THat word is there. But these are subsidiaries located in tax havens.

If we were talking aabout a subsiciary of P&G in France, that sells soap in France, and pays taxes on profits in France, then that would be one thing.

But I don't know. I think these may be subsidiaries set up in tax havens for the sole purpose of not paying taxes on profits made in the U.S. (not because the profits are actually made in the locations of the subsidiaries).

No they are not tax havens for profits made in the U.S. Profits made in the U.S. have corporate taxes paid. Read your own article. Ireland, Luxembourg, and Belgium are some of the tax havens mentioned. Hardly third world countries. As much as the US government hates it the US can only collect taxes what the money is in it's borders. Until companies bring the profits back then the US government can't have it. Allowing loans and stock buybacks with profits held offshore should be illegal.

What does any of this have to do with offshore funds?

marcus says

Okay. Right. But how do you think the market for those that would hedge exists, without the gamblers (traders) ?

First of all--I'm not saying to eliminate gamblers. That would be impractical. Just to tax them.

But to answer your question--it typically goes like this. A farmer wants to hedge corn prices because he wants a guaranteed price so he can reduce risk, and plan for next year. He hedges the sales price. Any food producer of your choice (General Mills, etc.) that uses a great deal of corn in their product wants to guarantee their raw material costs so they hedge the purchase price. That's both sides of the trade with no gamblers.

marcus says

And suppose in one particulr 3 day period, the only really significant big hedgers (your real participants) are Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) laying off some risk, selling futures in chicago because of all the farmers that have locked in prices with them (so they are selling 50,000 contracts starting on Tuesday), because ADM fears the price could be going lower exposing them to too much risk. Meanwhile, not until Thursday is there a really significant buyer, General Mills locking in a price on some corn for their products based on whatever assessments they have made about risks of higher prices or the quantities they need to buy.

This isn't really hedging--more like unhedging. If General Mills has contracts with the corn producers there is no risk to them if the price falls. They were happy signing the contract so that price should be OK to them. They still have the same contracts. Hedging is when they don't have contracts, but want to lock in a future price.

marcus says

Who is supposed to buy the futures from ADM on Tuesday ? There is a reasonable price range at which they are trading, but some people are going to have to take on the risk of buying them at current prices (or a little below) until one of your hedgers gets there to buy. What the hell man, these are some of the most basic principals behind the idea of trading that have been going on for thousands of years.

Anyone can buy or sell--but that is gambling. They are basically betting on the future based on whatever almanac or algorithm they think predicts the future. Yes, people have been gambling for thousands of years. So what? We have huge taxes on other forms of legal gambling-why not this one too?

marcus says

If some guy in the import export business is in asia has an opportunity to buy 50K worth of envelopes at a price that he thinks he can make a 20% profit on back in the U.S. is that gambling ? (maybe it is).

Nope--if he plans on taking possession and reselling the envelopes, that's not gambling (in my mind). If he is buying and selling those same envelopes 25 times a day with a goal of making 1/16 point profit on each trade with no chance that he ever takes possession of any envelopes? That's gambling.

marcus says

How is it different (other than the fact that the profit margin is way bigger for the guy with the envelopes) than the guy trading on the exchange ? IS it because the futures contracts are traded on a centralized exchange and that somehow makes it seem just too easy for someone with capital to buy and sell ? I won't dispute that ultimately it is gambling (in a sense). But you are extremely ignorant if you can not understand that there is a service to the market performed by all of the speculators.

I'm not even sure what you are asking here. If your point is that market makers/speculators increase liquidity--studies have actually found that they only increase liquidity when it's not needed. When liquidity is needed during turbulent times--they are nowhere to be found. I find their "service" to be vastly overrated.

Regardless--as I said--I'm not advocating banning them. Just adding a tax.

bob2356 says

What does any of this have to do with offshore funds?

Forgetting whether you were right or wrong about the meaning of offshore funds (I don't care really), there is a lot of money essentially being parked in accounts (hows that - not funds).

If foreign profits of U.S. companies are parked in accounts because they are going to be reinvested in the same overseas businesses that made the profits then that would be one thing. But if it is monies (I'm trying really hard not to say funds) that are parked in places like Ireland or Bermuda only for the purpose of not paying U.S. taxes, then that's questionable.

I don't know what the answer is, but there is a question here.

Strategist says

It was a long term strategy, which eventually set us on a course of high growth, low inflation , and low unemployment for years to come. Clinton ended up the beneficiary of that strategy as most of the gains came during his Presidency.

Again, you should investigate the before & after, the cause and effect, the facts, before you make a statement like this. Was unemploymnet higher or lower in the 20 years after the tax cuts, vs. before? Was real GDP growth higher or lower in the 20 years after?