JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

服務提示
《天命2》將於明日暫時離線,以進行預計維修。請持續關注@BungieHelp,以獲取更多消息。

雜七雜八

瀏覽大量隨機討論串。
由Archangel編輯: 10/16/2016 6:42:29 AM
28

Trump Proposes Trickle-Down Economics On Steroids

http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/trump-tax-plan_us_57fd3e8be4b07b9b8752f2ed The economic myth that refuses to die, Trickle-Down Economics, forms the basis of Donald Trump's "New and Improved" tax plan. Trump's previous plan according to think tanks would've added upwards of $11 trillion in debt over the decade. According to TaxPolicyCenter a non partisan think tank, this would add $7.2 trillion to the national debt over the decade. [quote]Trump’s tax plan would eliminate the tax on multimillion-dollar inheritances, cap all business taxes at 15 percent and reduce income taxes across the board. But the Tax Policy Center found the plan to be heavily weighted in favor of the super-rich. The top 1 percent of households would receive an average tax cut of $214,690 in just the first year of the plan’s implementation, while the top 0.1 percent would save a whopping $1.1 million. Middle-income households would receive a tax cut of just $1,010, while the lowest-income taxpayers would get $110. Nearly half of the decline in federal revenues caused by Trump’s tax changes would flow to the top 1 percent, and roughly one-fourth would go to the top 0.1 percent.[/quote] In contrast, the Bush tax cuts have added $2.8 trillion to the debt over their first decade. According to the Don, this would, as often argued despite historical evidence, these cuts would "unleash the beast of the economy and create more jobs and everyone will have more money and pay more into tax!" Okay, so by completely ignoring the laws of mathematics and by substantially cutting revenues, it somehow will mean even more revenue? And we're meant to take this word from someone who has had 6 bankruptcies, lawsuits over over a so called "university" and uses a "charity" as his own slush fund by purchasing a 6ft tall picture of himself? What could possibly go wrong?

文章張貼語言:

 

以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

檢視完整主題
  • Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. [spoiler]Not at all a bias article- not something you really want when you're trying to disprove an economic theory[/spoiler] The funny thing about academics especially economists is that they pretend like they have discovered the answer to these questions such as what exactly is the government spending multiplier, how much do people rely on the 'animal spirits' to spur investment, the liquidity trap, etc. but the reality is no one knows the answer because if they did, well the field would cease to exist. The two foundations for economic thought have essentially been thrown away- classical failed with the long recovery of the Great Depression and Keynes failed with stagflation. There are pros and cons to leaning one side or the other and it's best to weigh those pros and cons rather than pretend like there is a right answer.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

    3 回覆
    你無權檢閱此內容
    ;
    preload icon
    preload icon
    preload icon