Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump's Tax Plan Serves Corporate Donors u0026 The Ultra-Rich" video.

Remember when 155 Americans earned over $200,000 in 1967 paid $0 in federal taxes? What do you think lead to the Tax Reform Act of 1969?
3
Eh, not really. KS, with their limited resources, are around average in GDP growth. Other states such as TX and ND have done the same thing and have excelled. Connecticut tried to raise taxes and saw economic hardship. The state of Washington, including Seattle, has low taxes, especially on the rich, and they have been doing well economically.
3
KS was around average in GDP growth despite their limited resources. Ask Connecticut how their economy is doing. Or ask Seattle with low taxes how their economy is doing.
2
Jace Solomon KS has lower cost of living.
2
Tony, there is a lot to the economy. You may say that the middle class drives the economy, but if there isn't anyone to offer jobs and/or products, than the middle class is screwed. Sure, if they have money they may buy. But if there is nothing to buy, what does it matter? If you take money from those who invest than the economy will have its growth hindered. The rich are rich because they are smart with their money. They invest it to grow wealth for all of society. Not saying the middle class isn't, but around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt. Also, the fact they are so quick to spend their nearly gained money as opposed to saving it tells me they are not wise with their money. Is wasting money like that good for the economy.
2
Dan Ryan, I was replying to Robert whose story is also anecdotal. But of course you won't call him out.
2
bryan s, your mindset on economics is poor. There is always demand for better goods and services. People want better things and in the competitive market businesses will invest in it. When the car was first created no one could afford it, but it was still built because rich people demanded it. Eventually it because available to all and better. It wasn't because people had money, it was because when you run a company you can gain an advantage by introducing better goods and services in the market. You can give the middle class all of this money, but if there isn't anything to buy than it doesn't matter. I have a computer with a 1 TB external hard drive not because I was given money, but because a company found a way to develop that product and make mass amounts of it to lower the price. " you can bet your last dollar every time that new or existing business will cater to this demand. " If there isn't any money from them to invest than they can't. And if no one is willing to work than they can't. You can't consume what you don't produce. Why don't I own a 1,000,000 TB hard drive? Because they don't exist. You can give me millions of dollars and I still won't be able to have it as it does not exist. You can give people millions of dollars to buy that and they won't because no company can build it. Demand can go way up but the product simply won't exist. In fact a computer in 1960 cost over a million dollars. How many middle class citizens could afford that? Zero. But a company built it anyway. And eventually it expanded to where we are at now. "And the amount of middle class people who are sensible and frugal is not disproved by some lottery statistic." It does correlate. Also, you are saying that if we give the middle class more money than they will quickly spend it increasing demand. Why not save it? Why not save it, have it grow and invest it in something larger? I see that as poor money management skills.
2
sprybug, I can stand by my comment. The fact that is the only way you can attack me and can't give an rebuttal on what I said shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Keep trying to smear me, I won't back down and it just shows that I do understand this issue more than you.
2
Dan Ryan, that's it. Keep name calling me. It just shows how much I understand about this topic and you don't.
2
"Yes there is always some demand for better goods for people that can buy them." You get people to buy them by creating more of them. Higher supply means lower prices. If people have more money but supply is low than prices go up. Again, you can't consume what you don't produce. That is why Henry Ford did so well, he developed a business model to build more cars faster to lower the price. More people bought them and he had more profits. When I worked for Amazon Distribution Center we had to move product at a certain rate. That way we can deliver more products to people. "And again, these new creative products do not depend on giving the already wealthy more money." Who said anything about giving the wealthy money? We want them to keep what they earned so they can invest it as they please. They are smart with their money, maybe they should be the one keeping it and investing it. "And again, a new computer or something doesn't drive the economy as a whole the same way as having a strong middle class does." It does because it makes my life easier and increases productivity. New technology does that. The cotton gin was designed to increase cotton productivity. The creator of it did not have the idea of the middle class buying it but instead farmers. That was their target consumer. The farmer wanted to buy it to produce more cotton so they can lower prices and sell more thus generating more profit. Lowering prices is going off of the idea that people don't have money but want cotton. If people had money but more cotton was not being produce than prices will go up. "You're suffering from this fantasy that somehow we are short, or in danger of being short, of people with money to invest" We are. Where is the incentive to work hard if you are going to have your money taken away? If you restrict businesses how will they grow? Also, if you give people money for doing nothing that money has no value. They have not produced anything, thus prices go up. Producing is good, not spending. We have to increase production which drives down prices. "And again, it doesn't get invented by giving the rich tax breaks. You're not understanding that a strong economy ultimately depends on a healthy middle class, whether they're buying everyday goods or the latest iPhone. " They goods won't exist if no one is producing them. If the government is going to give me money why should I work harder? Thus there will be less productivity. "Btw, the basics of computer technology was built by government research." Perhaps so, but what it is today is from the private sector. That is the norm. The government created the post office, Fed Ex created tracking numbers. "I'm saying that the middle and especially lower class will quickly spend much of their money on basic needs." Which they already have as they are alive. Also, that is not how you grow the economy. You grow the economy by having investors invest in ways to build more apartments to drive down rent, or invest in a way to drive down the price of food. We need to produce. If you give people more money without increasing the amount of apartments available then rent goes up.
2
On overhead, companies spend money to save money such as fraud prevention and disease awareness. With disease awareness the government has the CDC for that. Also, there are multiple reasons why the US system is expensive, and it is not all bad. Look past the talking points and think for yourself.
2
VitalVampyr, a company invests to save money. Most companies work on thin profit margins. They spend that overhead to lower cost of healthcare. They are not the government that can just throw money at something and raise the debt ceiling. An insurance company actually go bankrupt (however, with how our federal government work I wouldn't be surprised if they can get bailed out). Single payer won't save money as you are increasing the demand for healthcare dramatically without increasing supply. It will force healthcare providers to raise prices. They can lower prices but that will mean lower quality. I noticed that Bernie and his supporters never talk about that. To them they want to save money, never improve quality. That is a short term goal for them.
2
TX and ND did similar things and excelled. Connecticut did higher taxes and have economic hardships. The state of Washington, and Seattle, have low taxes, especially on the rich and are doing great. KS is average in GDP growth despite their limited resources. LA and MS have a large minority population that are less educated mainly because democrats allow them to play the victim card. That holds the economy back. CA has high taxes and have cities going bankrupt.
1
Mainly because things are not that bad overall. Yes, we have problems. But we can bitch about them online.
1
Jace Solomon, CT had 0.2% GDP growth, KS had 1.9%. Seattle and the state of Washington has low taxes for the rich http://www.businessinsider.com/states-best-tax-rates-for-the-wealthy-2013-2#1-washington-10 https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-taxes-among-nations-kindest-to-the-rich-and-harshest-to-the-poor/ You were saying?
1
Jace, you are wrong. The purchasing power of the dollar is higher there.
1
Jessman9000, it is not a last ditch effort. CA has the highest poverty rate due to its high cost of living. That is what happens when you keep raising taxes.
1
Mickey G, if you include cost of living CA is number 1 in poverty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate If you go by Gini Coefficient CA is up there as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient Look at GDP growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_economic_growth_rate CA is very low. With lowest poverty rate, none of the top 10 are New England states. However, NY is in the top 10 in highest poverty rate. There are also other factors as well. But for people to point to KS and make the claims they do is highly ignorant. Other states with leftist policies have problems as well.
1
Mickey G, TX and FL, like CA, are near the top because of their large Hispanic population. That plays a large role. The same is with NV. Midwestern states have limited resources but also have low cost of living. People keep bashing KS but when you run through the numbers KS is doing pretty well. Also, one can point at Seattle as an example of what happens when you have low taxes on the rich. They are a tax friendly state for the rich and they are doing well economically. Overall, people screaming "trickle down economics" are economic illiterates to me. They are ripping on Trump's plan but can't justify it at all.
1
Geeky_Tranny How is this tax plan equal to Kansas? Also, why do you ignore other evidence I give?
1
Geeky_Tranny, there are several areas of the country that have cut taxes for the rich. I gave examples and their economy is strong There is more to the economy than taxes. Also, what are the rates. You are screaming "tax cuts". But let me give you some numbers. If State A cut taxes for the rich from say 40% to 35%, and State B raises taxes on the rich from 15% to 20%, State B still has lower taxes. You have to be specific. A: GDP per capita is not the only indicator. WV is near the bottom of GDP per capita but is number 1 in home ownership rate. Cost of living is low there, that plays a role. B: I have read the evidence, and I have gave my counter points in earlier comments. Also, I can give you that KS is not doing well if you want. But what about other states and cities that have low taxes on the rich and are doing well? Why do you ignore that? Or Connecticut who have high taxes and are not doing well? C: KS is around average in GDP growth.
1
Tony Bruno, you point to KS and I gave you multiple states for opposing examples.
1
Robert, I have friends and relatives in KS, they are doing fine. If you life in Johnson County, KS chances are you are just stuck up.
1
Kyle, there are more to the economy than taxes and deregulation. Also, the "boom/bust cycle" is not bad. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. If the federal government would not tried to spend our way out of a recession we would have recovered. Instead, like we did in the Great Depression, we had massive spending. That lead to a slow recover. To give an example of why boom/bust cycles are not bad, Ethiopia haven't had a recession in around 14 years, is that the economic model you want to follow?
1