GOP tax scam

Post Reply New Topic

3 questions:

How do you make sure that your objectivity is not an illusion?

What heuristics do you use to test this complete objectivity you assert?

Is it possible to be objective if you are unaware of your biases?

Objectivity is a thing you strive for if you wish to think independently. If you fail at this attempt while striving to achieve it, that doesn't negate your intended goal. As with many disciplines, striving to achieve being objetive can be a trial and error processes.

The sad thing is if I had joind the anti-trump bandwagon, which would have been a much easier, most probably the anti-trump brigade would think I was the cat's pajamas.

I simply give an analysis as a distant observer, somewhat isolated from the effects (assuming my country's right-wing government doesn't carbon-copy it).

tl;dr version, if most of your income comes from financial assets, interest, divideds or property investment, it's probably good news for you, if most of your income comes from working a job (or two, or three), it's probably bad news for you (provided that job isn't managing other people's financial assets). If the tax cuts are matched by "austerity" spending cuts to basic services, then it's bad news for almost all Americans.

If you live in a country that isn't the USA, but needs to borrow money in USD denominated debt, it's also likely bad news for you.

Now the long answer and my reasoning.
The tax cuts proposed, would in a normal economy, make all of you poorer (unless the direct benefit of the cuts to you personally, exceeds the benefit provided by the taxes [stay with me on this] and services they fund).

As to the benefit of taxes, the main purpose is to control inflation (literally removing demand to prevent the market "running out" of some resource or another), so the tax cut may create higher prices without necessarily higher take-home pay to compensate.

Typically, with deficit spending I would expect most of the inflation inside the US to be asset inflation (property, shares, and other "financial assets") and in countries outside the US to be wage-price inflation. This is based on the Obama stimulus packages, Bush tax cuts, effects of QE and recent Fed rate rises.

Wall street will see higher profits and dividends (post-tax), Main street renters will see higher rents, homeowners will be a mixed bag, with higher prices in some areas, but also higher mortgage repayments as the Fed raises rates a bit sooner. Workers might see slightly higher wages matched by slightly higher prices (barring wage suppression or financial crisis), but probably a smaller discretionary income due to aforementioned higher rents and/or mortgages.

If the tax cuts are combined with austerity in the form of cuts to basic services (e.g. social security, Medicare, public administration and research supporting it), then the indirect costs of the cuts are likely to exceed the "savings" created by them. These indirect costs will be born by regular citizens, the private and public sectors alike, and the loss of services also removes a means of redistribution between regions of boom and bust (important in e.g. farming areas with seasonal variability).
Employment and real wages would fall in most areas, due to reduced demand for labour.

As far as "trickle down" economics, it has simply been sold on false pretense. The original formulation is "if you give people easier access to financial capital, they will employ it to buy machinery/ build factories that can produce more stuff" (as this would be the most long-term profitable use), this will lead to excess production and in-turn, lead to abundance [In other words, it's stuff, not money, that trickles down].

An easy way to increase financial capital is to give rich people more money (as they save more of their income and in theory have the free time necessary to wisely invest it).

What trickle down does not do is give poor people more money, either directly or indirectly, but it might reduce inflation, also often omitted is the original theory assumes a social safety net (or else the majority population won't be able to afford the extra stuff so the rich will stop investing in producing it).

In short, it's a solution to a lack of industrial capital caused by a lack of financial capital. But what about an excess of capital? The 1930's Great Depression can be considered the result of too much capital, and lax financial regulation - - in other words, rich people with too much money and a government that didn't care what they did with it, much of the money finding its way into asset speculation, questionable loans, and other "get rich quick" schemes.

You may think you're coming to conclusions independently, but your arguments tend to be the exact same talking points found on hard right websites. That's why the question remains: are you aware of that or purposely using it as a rhetorical tool? At this point I've made up my mind that it's not innocuous because you're swimming in that famous river in North Africa without taking any kind of objective look at your own work which generally means there's purposeful intent. But since we're playing this game: I'm actually pretty moderate, I just think everything Obama did was spectacular, and all criticism about him were lies, I'm just calling it as I see it-- as a moderate with no bone to pick. If you're laughing at that statement, as you should, that means you can see the point being made.

You've got the gaslighting routine down to an expert level. You're quite good at luring me with various bait and reeling me in so you can continue screwing with me. Dance monkey dance and all that.

Don't blame me, I'm just a moderate calling it as I see it...

More baiting.

Gaw, why are you attacking me all the time? Am I a special interest of yours or something? I'm just trying to tell the facts from an independent, objective point of view, and you're constantly harassing me for it...

More baiting and gaslighting.

Haha you always find the best gifs.

Stop trying to bait and gaslight me, I know I'm an independent thinker, stop trying to convince me I'm not!

^^Point of that exercise was to demonstrate how annoying whining sounds. Also the fact that none of it is related whatsoever to the topic at hand, it's just a deflection tactic.