No one is talking about expatriation. Where did you even get that? Once your money is duly taxed, you can legally bank anywhere you choose. That is not the typical tax avoidance scheme, of transferring money, say into a foreign property, than realizing gain, and hiding the gains. We are merely talking about the avoidance of having said capital taxed twice. Only the upper middle class pays the death tax, had you been following the conversation you might have picked up on that point. And trickle down, sadly for you is the way the world works. No poor man is going to give you a job. Capital creates Jobs. Private Capital. Private Capital, and or Personal initiative alone (which then of course creates Private Capital). There really is no third alternative. And to differentiate, for you the difference between the way the world actually works And what you deem unsound tax policy...it might help if you understood what it actually means. . There are 5 points on the curve A,B,C,D,E. Point A is 100% taxation. No Incentive to work, hence no tax revenue. Point B. 0% taxation, plenty of incentive to work, no tax revenue. Point C Some level of taxation, less than 100% some incentive to work, some tax revenue Point D. Some level of taxation, more than 0, less incentive to work, but some tax revenue. POINT E That point where there is the least amount of taxation and regulation (disincentive) that yields the most revenue. Not an overly complex idea. Laffer exampled it on a cocktail napkin.
Actually the Estate Tax was set up for the very reason I specified. It was setup about a decade after Teddy Roosevelt broke the tax-free trusts and it was designed to further prevent wealth accumulating at the top of society. Go look up trust-busting. Then you'll understand what was involved.
Trust busting was an act against monopolistic tendencies (See Std.Oil) and Roosevelts reaction to the non enforcement of the Sherman Anti Trust act. (1890). I don't recall Royalty coming into that equation, and while as an adjective, I could sort of get your point, I generally use Oligarchy in Economic/Political terms to describe the same effect, unqualified in a simple sentence you can see how misleading it reads... The Vanderbilts.. [ The Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, and Morgan families, are still scions of countless wealth, Trust busting was in fact a response to the failure to enforce the Sherman anti-trust act of 1890, aimed at certain monopolistic businesses. I don't recall royalty being part of the equation. Though one could ensconce it in those terms, but it reads poorly. Though I am just as guilty,(I tend to use the phrase oligarchy...slightly more accurate, but it also relies on the reader sharing your context) The Rockefellers was too large to list, but you get the point. Even the last of the Morgan family, is worth over 100Mil.
Trickle down is a theory that is still dependent on human behavior. You can argue that human self interest has not behaved in manner that is conducive towards the desired impact of the theory, but that is different than arguing the theory is flawed. If behavior is conducted in a manner conducive with the theory, it will work as stated. it's not a fairy tale at all. unfortunately the same can't be said about the liberal policies that not continue to screw the middle class deliberately. health care policies skyrocketing private health care costs that prevent the middle class from being able to afford it as well as destroyed jobs connected to health care. The upper class can afford these increases and aren't impacted. That's working very well. education policies that deteriorate public schools for the middle class while the upper class sends their kids to private schools. These are initiatives that are directly driven towards screwing the middle class. there is no outside factor coming into play that is interfering with them. clearly you are arguing that the middle class shouldn't be so delusional as to support a party not working for their interests, but that applies much more to the Dems whose policies deliberately target the middle class as opposed to the policies simply being interfered with by human behavior.
And, if in almost 40 years since, we still haven't been able to hit the magic sweet spot, what does that tell you about the theory? Maybe that in practice it just doesn't ever work? Or something else? By the way, "exampled" is not a word. If you had an understanding of the English language, you might know that.
There is no actual magic sweet spot, there is a moving target and as Kasich will fondly tell you he hit it 4 times with Clinton. Code simplified, Revenue up,Job Growth, Deficit reduction. They got there during the Reagan years, but through those 12 years in order to deal, money got spent. Budgeting in a macroeconomic process is always a matter of massaging the margins. What the real issue is, is the over complication of the tax code, which is what interferes with that process.
Your English teacher called. She wants you to write 'Past Participle' on the board 500 times. Snark is amusing, when it's not illiterate. You should know that.lol
I said it reduces the PIT by about 1.2T. Since the vast majority of the lost money is from the PIT, the 1.2T figure isn't off by much. It was easier to list 1.2T than make up a slightly less figure, and it doesn't change my point. Which is that the resulting economic growth will not come close to making that budget revenue neutral. The funny thing is I support tax cuts when done judiciously as long as you don't claim they're revenue neutral when they aren't. Anyway, if you want the last word, you can have it. I'm not posting on political threads anymore, not because of posters like you who want to have productive discussions, but because of the nastiness from other assclowns here (again, not you).
This article covers the projected bi-weekly take home pay differences if each candidates projected tax plan were to become a reality. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2016-ra...lary-clinton-bernie-sanders-tax-plans-impact/ I mean I already disliked Bernie, but now he can really SMD.
I feel like you don't understand the word "deliberately"... Or is it just something the kids are doing now like misusing "literally"? Like I literally just died reading that you think democratic politicians sit around tables trying to figure out the best way to literally screw the middle class. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... Literally.
From that same article: With Trump, of course, it's going to benefit the wealthy the most, so as you go up, your paycheck will increase drastically, which would benefit him as well," Cole explained on "CBS This Morning" Friday. But this comes at a cost -- a $9.5 trillion federal deficit over the next decade, which would require drastic reductions in federal spending to help pay for the tax breaks.
From the article: On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders would also raise the federal deficit with his tax plan, which Cole said was "more extreme" than Trump's. The senator vows to raise taxes regardless of your income, with the highest earners paying over 40 percent, for a "trade off" for funding free government programs, including college and health care. "Unless you need health care, then Bernie Sanders is not going to do a lot for you," Cole said. Cuz there's so few people that need healthcare.
