Supply-Side Economics

[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

[Rajoo]

We Are Republican Teachers Striking in Arizona. It’s Time to Raise Taxes.

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.

How is not educating the people good for the country?
Yet AZ elected a Trumpista this week for the House.

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.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Pfffftt. Suggested reading for you, Skippy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Maybe you should order the poster and mount it in your cubicle, Mike.

I just might post it. It'll remind me of your idiotic posts every time I look at it.

[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

[barbara]

I do see more money in my paycheck but I am not gullible enough to believe the few extra dollars I get offsets the amount of money big business corporations gain from the tax bill.

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

I do see more money in my paycheck but I am not gullible enough to believe the few extra dollars I get offsets the amount of money big business corporations gain from the tax bill.

Why should the reduction in your payroll tax rate / withholding be related to, or be a function of, the business tax rate?