[justinzollars]

I think you are economically clueless. Reading may help you.

Rather than raising taxes and cutting spending, our leaders, including Democrats and the Fed have printed enormous amounts of money to help the poor. The average American family last year received over $50,000 in COVID related support including the Child Tax Credit, expanded SNAP benefits, Unemployment insurance and ability to wave loans including student debt and mortgages.

What is the point of tax increases when we have exactly the same result printing money?

Ironically, the primary driver of inequality, that you complain about is the FED's purchases of bonds which suppresses interest rates on the long end - and holding interest rates down on the short end. This makes stocks appear to be cheap. The stock market is correlated with the FED's balance sheet. Adjusting income taxes, will do little or nothing to address wealth inequality.

[scotu]

Buddy, this thread is about the long running art of "vote for me, I'll cut taxes for the rich. What you say? You are not rich? No worries, the rich will make sure those cuts help you out as well" and whoever believes it. It makes no logical sense, but people believe it. The article at the top seems to point to those cuts not trickling down.

It's funny because it's not even about increasing taxes, it's just about the CUTS. You are going to be ok, don't be scared...

[justinzollars]

I see what is happening here. I'm talking about economics and you are talking about political slogans from the 1990's. That doesn't sound very fun - its like talking with a church person. Your point sounds like, no tax cuts because my slogan says so. My point is, it doesn't make a difference either way. The Fed's balance sheet drives wealth inequality. Hard stop. No one is helped or hurt by cuts or increases because we simply printed the money, with no loss or gain.

[scotu]

If it makes no difference either way, then let's finally stop those tax cuts and prove that it doesn't make any difference! Love me some common ground.

Just one thing tho:

> Your point sounds like, no tax cuts because my slogan says so

ehm, nope. I don't have a slogan, I have some research (the original post https://academic.oup.com/ser/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ser... ) that contradicts the 90s slogan that still is used today to justify cutting taxes. So hopefully this and more peer reviewed studies will put the practice justified by the 90s slogan to rest.

[justinzollars]

Yeah good luck with that. The Democrats hold the House, Senate and Presidency and decided against the policy you argue for (austerity), in favor of debt monetization and liquidity. But they went even further, In the BBB bill, they favored tax cuts for the rich through bringing back the State and Local Tax deduction (SALT). I'm not sure who will enact your punitive tax increases. Any ideas? AOC and Warren represent a very small minority.

[scotu]

Current policy discussion doesn't change the result presented in the article, the only thing I've been discussing.

> your punitive tax increases

again, never even talked bout INCREASES, only stopping cuts. Do you know the difference between not cutting and increasing? If you do are you just trying your hand at fearmongering? Nah... you seem the kinda folk who would only argue in good faith.

[justinzollars]

Well I'm certainly for tax cuts. Especially in California - a high tax/very low service state. I mean just walk outside of your apartment dude. If you see that as a success story something is wrong with you. I'd never look at SF or California government and say "Keep doing that".