Tax Cuts: Good or Nah?

[pat]

@zecarlo

Anyway, what I’m getting at is they can cut taxes as much as they want and people will still be angry, miserable, and broke.

This would be the case no matter what. If you raise taxes and give people entitlements out the ass, this will still be true. Money isn’t a ‘happiness maker’ it’s a misery breaker. In otherwords, if you have financial problems and influx of cash will give you relief. But you can still be pissed, bitter and miserable.

[thunderbolt23]

@countingbeans

They receive capital gains from the investments, the same gains LPs

Do the LPs provide management services re: the assets they’re invested in? Yes or no?

@countingbeans

You understand the situation enough to push a talking point, not to actually represent it fairly.

Sure thing.

[thunderbolt23]

@Tyler23

@thunderbolt23

But let’s be clear, this tax bill is being sold on the threadbare theology of supply-side Magic. It’s the tired sales pitch that if we reduce these taxes, there will be an explosion of investment in productivity, and so the public interest is served by rewarding the private interests of the largest businesses in the world. It won’t happen…

Trump, GOP Tax Plan: Gary Cohn Has Awkward Moment With CEOs

The moderator then asked those in attendance whether they were planning to increase their business investment if the tax bill became law. The CEOs in attendance did not seem to be on the same wavelength as Cohn.

While there was a smattering of raised hands in the auditorium, it was clearly not as many as Cohn would have liked.

“Why aren’t the other hands up?” Cohn asked before moving on to another question.

Of course they aren’t. They have plenty of capital right now to build new factories, train employees, expand service lines, and fund R&D. They have epic amounts of cash on hand, and interest rates remain low. More cash isn’t going to unleash a bunch of investment-side spending - theres no current pent-up “demand” for capital projects going unmet because of inadequate capital to fund.

More cash for these guys means more generous dividends or more financial engineering. Which may be fine, by some people’s lights - but that isn’t what the policy is being sold on.

[NickViar]

@thunderbolt23

Humans receive public services, and its absolutely fair they pay for them, and taxation is a perfectly fair way to do it. Doesn’t mean all taxes are fair as structured, but the notion of taxation as unfair conceptually is nonsense.

It seems you want to argue that taxes could, conceptually, be mere payments while retaining the name “tax.” That’s fine, and I will agree that would be fair.

[thunderbolt23]

@NickViar

It seems you want to argue that taxes could, conceptually, be mere payments while retaining the name “tax.” That’s fine, and I will agree that would be fair.

No, I’m arguing that taxation should be defined as taxation as that term is commonly understood, meaning monies that citizens are legally obligated to pay to fund public services.

[countingbeans]

@thunderbolt23

Do the LPs provide management services re: the assets they’re invested in? Yes or no?

I’ve already answered this question multiple times, in multiple ways.

That you’re continuing to conflate reality with talking points is why changing these laws is so complex, and not something that is likely to work if written by congress.

You want to make a sweeping and drastic change in the way income in treated. (Personally I don’t have issue with that desire, rather I know what the outcome will be). This can’t be done, or intelligently addressed if you’re unwilling or unable to understand the fundamental details of what is actually happening.

We can’t make changes to something, and have those changes be effective without understanding what is actually happening, and you’re perspective is placing you in the “my resolution will not actually work” camp.

[countingbeans]

@thunderbolt23

Sure thing.

Okay:

When do we change the character then? What form does it appear on? And do we change everything? Just LTCG’s? All dividends?

How about losses? Do they get to offset the gains still or no?

What about Portfolio expenses? Do those become ordinary now too? Why or why not?

[NickViar]

I have no argument with that.

[zecarlo]

@NickViar

It seems the only thing you believe should be considered is the ability of one to take from another. Nice.

Not exactly and that is where ethics come in. However, the reality is that fair is a matter of perspective and enforcing and implementing “fairness” is a matter of power. Hence why we need ethics and probably disregard the entire question of fairness. I find it sort of childish to whine about what is or isn’t fair.

[zecarlo]

@NickViar

That has nothing to with a customer deriving value from his purchase.

But is that the sole indicator of value? If it were then child porn would be legal.

[zecarlo]

@anon50325502

In other words, the majority of the collective use force to coerce a portion of the same collective into paying for what the majority judges to be necessary, which is not often the case.

Force, or reason?

[NickViar]

@zecarlo

But is that the sole indicator of value? If it were then child porn would be legal.

Huh?

[zecarlo]

Exactly. If someone’s happiness is tied to how much they pay in taxes, or how much someone else pays, then they will never be happy unless they pay none at all.

[countingbeans]

@NickViar

Huh?

You guys are missing his point. I have a post on it, but I’m too busy being triggered by the carry talk.

[zecarlo]

If someone values child porn it doesn’t matter, society sees no value in it and in fact sees it as “costing” too much. Thus it is illegal. So which is it? Is it valuable or not?

[anon50325502]

@zecarlo

@anon50325502

In other words, the majority of the collective use force to coerce a portion of the same collective into paying for what the majority judges to be necessary, which is not often the case.

Force, or reason?

Do you write a check to the IRS because you want to or because you have to?

Keep in mind, I support a progressive income tax. I personally think a federal sales tax in lieu of an income tax would be better, but that’s another thread.

[pat]

They won’t be happy even then. This is a bit more a zen conversation than just the hard numbers and facts. Having a lot of money will not make you happy. Not having a lot of money will not make you unhappy. Not having a lot of money, but having a lot of debt makes you miserable.
Having money, being in the black is nice. Not having money and being in the red is most definitely a misery index measurement. Paying zero taxes will not make you happy, owing taxes when you do not have money will make you utterly miserable.

[countingbeans]

@anon50325502

I personally think a federal sales tax in lieu of an income tax would be better, but that’s another thread.

You and TB want me to have an aneurism today don’t you?

[zecarlo]

@anon50325502

Do you write a check to the IRS because you want to or because you have to?

Keep in mind, I support a progressive income tax. I personally think a federal sales tax in lieu of an income tax would be better, but that’s another thread.

It should be reason. People should say, “yes, I want this or that from the government and I don’t expect them to just print money to pay for it.”

[zecarlo]

I think it isn’t so much how much someone pays but how much the other guy is paying, or not paying. I don’t care that that person on welfare pays nothing because of what it “costs” him to be in that situation in the first place.