A coupla specific Q's about current tax cut proposal

In My Humble Opinion
1

Putting these questions here instead GQ 'cuz I’m pretty sure the responses will veer off into opinion but, at any rate:

  1. Isn’t the country close to “full employment?” If so, how will creating new jobs help?
  2. Isn’t economy growing quite well? Why would growing it more be beneficial?
2

Good questions/points. I’ll be interested in hearing responses from those more in the know.

3
  1. Still need to create net new jobs to keep up with population growth from immigration and/or birth rate that exceeds death rate.
  2. Creating even more new jobs means workers are in demand. That could place upward wage pressure on the market resulting in extra income for workers. More money in economy drives consumer goods sales which drives manufacturing.
4

everyone has jobs in the US?? When did that happen? And if so, Mr Trump must have done it!

5

Take yer pick.

  1. Anemic. The buzz word is anemic. Thing about slow recoveries is, if you wait a long time, you’re recovered.
6

Whether the GOP Tax Plan will do anything about jobs is debatable, at best. But keep in mind that:

  1. Many of the new jobs created since the end of The Great Recession are lower paying or not quite full time.

  2. We’re at about 3% growth now, but we were at more like 2.5% in 2016. This is meant to be a long term change, not a “quick fix”, so saying that the GDP growth is strong now kind of misses the point. I think Trump is saying he wants growth at 4% (which might be required to make hit the deficit targets in the tax plan).

N.B.: Not an endorsement of the tax plan; just trying to answer the OP’s questions.

7

to add to the OP …shouldn’t we actually try to increase the gov’t revenue/spending ratio now that it looks like we are sustaining a healthy economy? Wouldn’t that be the responsible thing to do? You know, in case another market crash happens we will have the means to deal with it?

8

No that’s the sort of thing Democrats do (cf. Bill Clinton). Republicans only want to make the rich richer and also make sure that their worthless heirs can continue to be worthless.

Incidentally, the low unemployment rate is to some extent misleading. A lot of people gave up even looking 8 or 9 years ago and the percentage of employed adults is somewhat less than it was then.

But trickle down economics has never worked and will not work now. Or as I like to say, a rising tide raises all yachts, but swamps all the rowboats.

9

Also, unemployment is lower…but wages have not risen. Adjusted for inflation, the working class if worse off than when the recession began. Joe the plumber has lost ground, while Jane in her penthouse is better off.

The end result of that kind of strategy is seen in places like Manila, with a small core of fabulous luxury, surrounded by a vast plain of aching poverty, and very little middle class at all. That situation is sustainable – it takes a lot of policemen to suppress discontent, but it can work. But it kills progress: you need a healthy middle class to support the kind of education system that produces inventors, scientists, researchers, developers, and – not least important by any means – educators!

10

Is there any historical support for the beneficial effects of trickle down economics? Phrased another way, do the advocates really believe in it? If so, why?

I only have one personal datapoint - my wealthy business-owner FIL (who is also a pathological liar and bigot.) He will aver up and down that trickle down is the best for the most - whereas the ONE thing I forsee as most certain is that he personally will benefit.

Coupla admissions - I’m WAY on the L end of the spectrum. Was briefly an econ major, before I concluded that on most issues 50% of economists believed 1 thing, 50% believed the opposite, and each was right about 50% of the time.