Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

The Great Republican Tax Cut Backfire

https://www.yahoo.com/news/great-rep...130919145.html

In a sublime case of poetic justice, the so-called Tax Cut and Jobs Act is backfiring on the Republicans big time. Most voters are unimpressed, and Republicans themselves are ceasing to emphasize it in their campaign material.

In the March 13 special election for the Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, where Democrat Conor Lamb narrowly beat Republican Rick Saccone, Republicans actually pulled ads that bragged about the tax act, because their polls showed that it was more of a target than an achievement.

Republican strategists who wanted President Donald Trump to emphasize the tax cut this spring were initially annoyed that he was talking about trade, immigration and Korea instead. Now they realize that Trump may be onto something.

Even better, Democrats are sensing that the tax issue can be turned against the Republicans in the 2018 and 2020 elections. This outcome is the result of Republican overreach, opportunism, and sheer greed.

Previous Republican tax cuts, under Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, were also tilted to the top, but made sure to include some real benefits for regular people. But this bill was so heavily skewed to the wealthy that most people won’t see any benefits at all in their paychecks.

Oh, right. Folks aren't seeing the effects at all. Here's where your op-ed meets my op-ed. I'm sure you'll hate it, though, and simply dismiss it without reading it, since one of the authors is none other than Art Laffer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/so-long...ork-1524611900

Since 2007 Texas and Florida (with no income tax) have gained 1.4 million and 850,000 residents, respectively, from other states. California and New York have jointly lost more than 2.2 million residents. Our analysis of IRS data on tax returns shows that in the past three years alone, Texas and Florida have gained a net $50 billion in income and purchasing power from other states, while California and New York have surrendered a net $23 billion.

Now that the SALT subsidy is gone, how bad will it get for high-tax blue states? Very bad. We estimate, based on the historical relationship between tax rates and migration patterns, that both California and New York will lose on net about 800,000 residents over the next three years—roughly twice the number that left from 2014-16. Our calculations suggest that Connecticut, New Jersey and Minnesota combined will hemorrhage another roughly 500,000 people in the same period.

Just a note, I did read your Mother Jones sourced rant disguised as an op-ed. It was good for a laugh, seeing the same talking points recycled yet again.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Just a note, I did read your Mother Jones sourced rant disguised as an op-ed. It was good for a laugh, seeing the same talking points recycled yet again.

Mother Jones is every bit as credible on matters economic as Art Laffer, and the notion of using Laffer as an expert on the benefits of supply-side economics is laughable on its face (it's kinda like using Alex Jones as an expert on pizzeria child sex rings). Laffer has never provided empirical evidence to support the validity of his model in the real world (and real world experience have dispelled it time and again). He has never been able to pinpoint where we are on the Laffer Curve, nor at what point on the curve maximum revenue is realized. He's an economic charlatan, plain and simple.

Your article only shows that people generally prefer low income tax to high income tax. No shit, Sherlock. It fails, however, to account for sales taxes and taxes on real estate and personal property which are frequently much higher in states with low or no income taxes. State governments need to get their money from somewhere. They can't just print it or run deficits like the Federal government does.

[finnbow]

Here's a real world example of supply-side economics in Arizona (also true in Kansas, West Virginia and Oklahoma):

Tens of thousands of teachers are walking out of their schools in Arizona on Thursday. Arizona is the latest conservative state with protesters demanding an increase in teacher salaries and more resources for students. In this video op-ed, four conservative teachers lament the conditions in their classrooms and, in turn, wrestle with their political beliefs.

“I’m a die-hard Republican, and I’m dying inside,” says Allison Ryal-Bagley, an elementary school substitute teacher. “Republicans aren’t taking care of our kids.”

Over the last decade, Arizona has had the greatest decrease in per-student spending in the country — a 36.6 percent drop since 2008 — making it 48th in the nation. Arizona also ranks 43rd in teacher pay, at nearly $11,000 less than the national average, according to the National Education Association.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/o...er-strike.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Mother Jones is every bit as credible on matters economic as Art Laffer, and the notion of using Laffer as an expert on the benefits of supply-side economics is laughable on its face (it's kinda like using Alex Jones as an expert on pizzeria child sex rings). [B]Laffer has never provided empirical evidence to support the validity of his model in the real world (and real world experience have dispelled it time and again). [/IB He has never been able to pinpoint where we are on the Laffer Curve, nor at what point on the curve maximum revenue is realized. He's an economic charlatan, plain and simple.

Your article only shows that people generally prefer low income tax to high income tax. No shit, Sherlock. It fails, however, to account for sales taxes and taxes on real estate and personal property which are frequently much higher in states with low or no income taxes. State governments need to get their money from somewhere. They can't just print it or run deficits like the Federal government does.

Which is kinda the point, though I suspect you'd miss it. I posted this in response to Chicklet's op-ed, the premise of that piece of propaganda being that the folks aren't noticing the tax cuts. Well of course they are, and the of course folks generally prefer lower taxes.

In this case, folks are leaving states with higher taxes - and taking their wealth, spending and taxable incomes with them - for lower tax states. Raise taxes enough and what you get is lower tax revenue because folks are leaving. States like CA, NY and others are moving past the point of diminishing returns on tax increases and their seeing the results as folks exit the state. What's the proposition of supply side? Reduce the cost of something and you get more of it. The inverse is also true - raise the cost of something and you get less of it. CA, NY and other states are providing the evidence.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Which is kinda the point, though I suspect you'd miss it. I posted this in response to Chicklet's op-ed, the premise of that piece of propaganda being that the folks aren't noticing the tax cuts. Well of course they are, and the of course folks generally prefer lower taxes.

Survey after survey have shown exactly that. Why do you think that the GOP is now foregoing campaigning on the tax cuts in favor of Hillary bashing?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Survey after survey have shown exactly that. Why do you think that the GOP is now foregoing campaigning on the tax cuts in favor of Hillary bashing?

Survey after survey had Hillary as Prez in 2016.

And I don't know what you're listening to about "foregoing campaigning on tax cuts". If you care to look, got the the RNC's web page. Front and center is an animated link stating "GOP Tax Cuts mean more money on your pocket", and if you care to you can click on the link to read more. Debbie Lesko, who just won in AZ, campaigned stating the recent tax cuts didn't go far enough.

We'll see what happens btw now and this fall, but I suspect we'll hear GOP candidates speaking supportively about the recent tax cuts.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Survey after survey had Hillary as Prez in 2016.

And I don't know what you're listening to about "foregoing campaigning on tax cuts". If you care to look, got the the RNC's web page. Front and center is an animated link stating "GOP Tax Cuts mean more money on your pocket", and if you care to you can click on the link to read more. Debbie Lesko, who just won in AZ, campaigned stating the recent tax cuts didn't go far enough.

We'll see what happens btw now and this fall, but I suspect we'll hear GOP candidates speaking supportively about the recent tax cuts.

I wouldn't crow too much about Lesko's 'win' if I were you. She barely eked out a 5% win in a deeply Red ~+25% district.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

And I don't know what you're listening to about "foregoing campaigning on tax cuts".

You need to get out of your wingnut bubble on occasion. How about these statistics about the recent special election in Pennsylvania.

For the weeks of Feb. 4 and Feb. 11, roughly two-thirds of the broadcast television ads from Saccone’s campaign, the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC and the National Republican Congressional Committee mentioned taxes, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from Advertising Analytics. For the week of Feb. 18, that dropped to 36 percent, and to 14 percent the week after. Since the beginning of March, tax ads have been essentially nonexistent.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...blicans-458276

And this:

Just 27 percent of Americans believe the GOP tax overhaul was a good idea, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Even among Republican voters, the tax cuts are not exactly thunderously popular: A little more than half (56 percent) say they were a good idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1ee_story.html

And this:

More than three months after the passage of the GOP’s tax-cut law, new surveys suggest that many people don’t think they are getting bigger paychecks, which could cut into support for Republicans in this fall’s midterm elections.

A CNBC poll this week stated that just 32 percent of working adults reported having more take-home pay due to the new law, a problem for Republicans hoping to run on the measure and the health of the economy in November.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/38...ge-hits-a-snag

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You need to get out of your wingnut bubble on occasion. How about these statistics about the recent special election in Pennsylvania.

For the weeks of Feb. 4 and Feb. 11, roughly two-thirds of the broadcast television ads from Saccone’s campaign, the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC and the National Republican Congressional Committee mentioned taxes, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from Advertising Analytics. For the week of Feb. 18, that dropped to 36 percent, and to 14 percent the week after. Since the beginning of March, tax ads have been essentially nonexistent.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...blicans-458276

And this:

Just 27 percent of Americans believe the GOP tax overhaul was a good idea, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Even among Republican voters, the tax cuts are not exactly thunderously popular: A little more than half (56 percent) say they were a good idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1ee_story.html

And this:

More than three months after the passage of the GOP’s tax-cut law, new surveys suggest that many people don’t think they are getting bigger paychecks, which could cut into support for Republicans in this fall’s midterm elections.

A CNBC poll this week stated that just 32 percent of working adults reported having more take-home pay due to the new law, a problem for Republicans hoping to run on the measure and the health of the economy in November.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/38...ge-hits-a-snag

Polling again? We know how reliable that polling is.

Can't comment on the advertising decisions, but its pretty hard - IMHO - to make the case that Repubs aren't going to be campaigning on tax cuts in APRIL when the election is in NOVEMBER. But I'm glad to hear you're worried about what the Repub's campaign strategy looks like.