https://abcnews.go.com/Business/red-state-economies-surging-biden/story?id=107222293
Here’s the article referenced in the AM radio puff piece editorial you posted.
It’s growth in clean energy.
In red states.
And nice weather.
Always go to the study!
The disparity between red and blue states has little to do with anything Biden has done, experts interviewed by ABC News said, noting that federal policy typically holds minimal influence over state-by-state economic trends.
Instead, they added, the dynamic owes in large part to the appeal of warm weather states for workers and businesses, as well as the combination of company-friendly state policies and Democrat-leaning cities that attract young, educated workers.
Warm weather and Democrat-leaning cities are responsible for economic growth in red states.
Or on the flip side
"Dating back to when the president took office, he has enacted a set of historic legislative accomplishments that have very directly driven the historic labor market recovery and historic economic growth we’ve had,” Daniel Hornung, deputy director at the National Economic Council, a Biden administration group that advises the president, told ABC News.
Moreover, Hornung rebuked the notion that Biden’s policies have little to do with the particularly strong performances among red states, citing** legislative achievements that, in some cases, have disproportionately benefited red states. ** Biden’s legislative accomplishments are responsible for economic growth in red states.
OR, on even a third side, somehow…
“Presidents don’t really have a lot to do with state economic performance,” Terry Clower, a professor of public policy at George Mason University, told ABC News.
Instead, experts said that relatively strong red state performance results in part from business-friendly policies and attractive weather.
But George Mason University is basically a conservative school, so he would say something like that.
🦗
No clean energy is a minimal growth factor. The investment in manufacturing dwarfs the investment in clean energy.
Under President Biden, Texas has received about $120 billion in private sector investment in manufacturing, as well as $30 billion in public infrastructure and clean energy investment
Really sticking it to the libs. Good work, comrade.
17 of the top 25 states by GDP voted for Biden. 20% of US GDP is in just California and New York. So “whatever they’re doing must be working” huh?
You can’t make a political point by finding a random stat and assuming all the connective tissue to make it evidence of your political views being correct.
Yeah It’s working for California.
I love high taxes and still can’t hit your budget. Go California.
Fiscal responsibility is important.
You’re the one saying GDP is the measure of political success. If it’s not, and state by state political issues are the measure, then your post is meaningless.
I never made such a claim. I personally think gdp is meaningless value.
Fiscal responsibility is important.
Except when it comes to giving tax breaks to the rich.
Except when it comes to giving tax breaks to the rich
The wealthy pay more than their fair share. So yes, it’s fiscally responsible to give them a tax break.
The wealthy pay more than their fair share.
-
“In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.”
-
“Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.”
-
“The results are stark. According to Forbes, those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.”
-
“No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grandfatherly centibillionaire. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. According to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 billion between 2014 and 2018. Over those years, the data shows, Buffett reported paying $23.7 million in taxes. That works out to a true tax rate of 0.1%, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth.”
-
“Consider Bezos’ 2007, one of the years he paid zero in federal income taxes. Amazon’s stock more than doubled. Bezos’ fortune leapt $3.8 billion, according to Forbes, whose wealth estimates are widely cited. How did a person enjoying that sort of wealth explosion end up paying no income tax?”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/
I don’t know about you, but I sure as shit ain’t getting a near 0% tax rate.
So yes, it’s fiscally responsible to give them a tax break.
-
“Inequality has remained persistently high for decades, and a new report shows just how stark the divide is between the richest and poorest people on the planet.”
-
“The 2022 World Inequality Report, a huge undertaking coordinated by economic and inequality experts Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman, was the product of four years of research and produced an unprecedented data set on just how wealth is distributed.”
-
““The world is marked by a very high level of income inequality and an extreme level of wealth inequality,” the authors wrote.”
-
“The data serves as a complete rebuke of the trickle-down economic theory, which posits that cutting taxes on the rich will “trickle down” to those below, with the cuts eventually benefiting everyone. In America, trickle-down was exemplified by President Ronald Reagan’s tax slashes. It’s a theory that persists today, even though most research has shown that 50 years of tax cuts benefits the wealthy and worsens inequality.”"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/business-insider/
- “We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The size of the effect is substantial: on average, each major tax cut results in a rise of 0.8 percentage points in top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term. Turning our attention to economic performance, we find no significant effects of major tax cuts for the rich. More specifically, the trajectories of real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate are unaffected by significant reductions in taxes on the rich in both the short and medium term. Our results have important implications for current debates around the economic consequences of taxing the rich, as they provide causal evidence that supports the growing pool of evidence from correlational studies that cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance (Lee and Gordon, 2005; Piketty et al., 2014; Roine et al., 2009). They also align with the causal findings in Rubulino and Waldenstrom (2020), but provide stronger and more generalizable conclusions, as our approach allows us to move beyond looking at tax changes in only handful of selected countries. There are several potentially fruitful avenues for future research that come out of our analysis. While our choice of dependent variable (including both capital and labour income) makes it less likely the results are being driven by tax shifting or avoidance, we do not specifically test the mechanisms at work. Follow up research could therefore assess whether the macroeconomic effects we find are being driven by the mechanism outlined in Piketty et al. (2014), which is that lower taxes on top incomes induce the rich to bargain more aggressively to increase their own rewards, to the direct detriment of those lower down the income distribution. The analysis could also be extended outside of the OECD to see if the findings hold in countries with lower fiscal capacity. Lastly, from a policy perspective, it would also be important to understand more about the extent to which individuals’ attitudes to taxing the rich are influenced (or not) by the provision of new information about its economic consequence”
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf
TL;DR: Tax cuts for the rich are a failure, they hurt the average tax payer by increasing wealth disparity.
Why do you post articles that aren’t really relevant? Since you have a thing for Elon. Let’s use Elon.
What was Elon’s income in 2018? We pay taxes on income. Once you answer that, you’ll understand why he didn’t pay taxes.
Your article going on about stock increases which have zero to do with taxes. So who cares if he’s wealth went up? Silly argument that isn’t relevant since we tax income.
Tax cuts are needed for the rich since they overpay their share. The tax burden should be equal.
Why do you post articles that aren’t really relevant?
Looks like you didn’t actually read, otherwise you would have been able to understand the relevance. I highlighted the important bits and even that wasn’t enough for you to understand.
Since you have a thing for Elon. Let’s use Elon.
Why is it always with the insults and cherypicking with you? Grow the fuck up.
I read through what you posted and it’s talking about stock increases which has zero to do with income tax. As such I lost interest since it never talked about the topic.
So once again what was elons income for 2018 since your article said he paid no taxes. I know the answer and it’s pretty obvious. So what did he earn since that’s what we pay taxes on.
-
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
