to me there is no evidence to support that nonsense.
Now they want to repeal Obamacare mandate.But, while it will save the government money, wont it cost prices to skyrocket for people that have insurance, since many healthy people will no longer buy?
No because it will then allow the rest of Obamacare to be dealt with properly. The biggest roadblock was the CBO estimate of how many people will be uninsured due to any change. around 80-85% of it was due to mandate repeal. Once that is out of the way the numbers are much more workable. This is what I was saying in the Obamacare thread at the time.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15263.pdfControlling for observable worker characteristics, a one percent lower state tax rate is associated with a 0.36 percent higher union wage premium, suggesting that workers in a fully unionized firm capture roughly 54 percent of the benefits of low tax rates.http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp16003.pdfOur results indicate that workers bear about 40% of the total tax burden. https://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdfGiven those values, domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax. The domestic owners of capital bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden. Domestic landowners receive a small benefit.
Talking points... just studies with an agenda. All trying to make up a false narrative that lowering corporate taxes will bust wages, while the two have no direct causation or correlation . If they wanted the individual to have more money they should lower the individual taxes and we would have more money in our pockets! They are full of shit, I mean stuff.
Talking points... just studies with an agenda. All trying to make up a false narrative that lowering corporate taxes will bust wages, while the two have no direct causation or correlation . If they wanted the individual to have more money they should lower the individual taxes and we would have more money in our pockets!
If everything were just so simple and/or black and white...A good suggested read is: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/life-on-the-edge
On what basis are you saying this other than that you disagree? Do you have any source? The top one was written in part by the a Vice President at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the last is from the CBO.
Talking points... just (studies with) an agenda.
It is very simple. Anything which disagrees with what I want to true is full of @#*^%$&^#%$
I do not need to bring evidence to support a claim that the lowering corporate taxes wont increase wages. You need to present reasonable evidence to support this causation and you have not. Those studies to not prove this. If you can present a logical argument then there will be a requirement to submit evidence to debunk that logic. but that is not the case.
Why do these studies not prove it? You have not even mentioned any logic at all other than that we should accept your swear words.
You presented one study from over a decade ago from a budget office under a political agenda. You are far from proving your point.
Until you can come up with something other than that you do not like their findings and some swear words I am still miles closer than you. All three studies there present numbers as a basis to their findings. Do you have any basis to dispute them? Time is irrelevant and you have not shown any reason to believe that the CBO or the Fed was under a political agenda.
What point were you trying to make with this? I didn't get through the whole thing, but I skimmed, and it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.I'm always curious with you when you do this type of thing. Are you somehow truly only informed of one side of the discussion, or do you have a clearer picture than you let on, and you do things like this just to 'win' the argument with someone who may not be as versed as they should in their own side of the argument?
why do they assume that lower taxes for huge corporation will make wages higher... it just makes the rich richer!
Pence is directly saying it leads to wages and to me there is no evidence to support that nonsense.
He is so full of @^%$@%. saying it will better the small guy. It just makes the wealthy corporations have more money and power. which leads to aless adverse workforce.
Again, you are trying to prove a point that their is a connection and causation between two things. I do not need to disprove something illogical. Even if the studies were true and conducted without some sort of agenda or mandate it still does not prove that wages will be increase in the feature. By wages I do not mean the executives who are already making hundreds times over the average employee.
Of course there are two sides to this. That is exactly my point. I was responding to these statements of his.I responded that there is evidence that it is true. I understand that much has to do with how to interpret the evidence. Most likely is that it helps somewhat but not to the extent the Rs are making it but better than the Ds say. To just brush it aside with no basis at all is ridiculous.