Bull market, how long for?

Carrieanne

If you want to splinter society and ruin communities then take a wrecking ball to the traditional family structure. It's been so successful that today most babies are born outside wedlock. Replacing fathers with benefit payments has worked a treat.

economic

IanManc wrote: »

Who paid for your school? Who paid for the NHS care that you had from when you were born? etc etc etc

Your attitude is laughably blinkered.

My parents did. They came to this country as immigrants and have worked hard and paid their taxes. I then paid taxes (after uni) and during my 10 years of work, i have paid more taxes then most people would in their lifetimes.

iro

Completely agree 12 children by 12 different fathers is not uncommon, the 'State' does considerable evil in its attempt to virtue signal and appeal to 'virtue signallers' and their journalistic accomplices..

talexuser

Back on track for the thread I think the question is how long the Trump cuts can be maintained if they add another 1.5 trillion $ to the US debt over the next decade. After all Reagan cut taxes and tripled the US debt (you could argue it was a price worth paying to bury communism, if it actually did, considering how Russia is run today) but left problems in balancing the budget.

iro

economic wrote: »

My parents did. They came to this country as immigrants and have worked hard and paid their taxes. I then paid taxes (after uni) and during my 10 years of work, i have paid more taxes then most people would in their lifetimes.

Respect to you.

The 'strivers' create wealth and bring up their children to strive; the 'bien pensant' confiscate wealth because they 'care' then rip society apart by incentivising single parenthood often with multiple partner dysfunctionality added on.

iro

talexuser wrote: »

Back on track for the thread I think the question is how long the Trump cuts can be maintained if they add another 1.5 trillion $ to the US debt over the next decade. After all Reagan cut taxes and tripled the US debt (you could argue it was a price worth paying to bury communism, if it actually did, considering how Russia is run today) but left problems in balancing the budget.

The structural reforms of Reagan arguably led to the Clinton surplus on the public deficit. In addition the welfare reforms which Clinton was obliged to sign off on (facing a Republican House and Senate) incentivised work and productivity.

In many ways this is comparable to Trump's initiative, it is a flscal stimulus that benefits those who provide work (US domiciled firms) and those who work but not those who do not.

talexuser

iro wrote: »

The structural reforms of Reagan arguably led to the Clinton surplus on the public deficit.

Absolute rubbish, Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

iro

This Trump tax cut focuses on Corporations and lower earners not the high earning individuals Clinton chose so not comparable, the radical (and personally much appreciated) de-regulation of financial markets allowed a stock market rise that benefited the Public purse which led to the surplus as indeed your link confirms.

So the Reagan structural reforms DID lead to a Clinton surplus.

talexuser

iro wrote: »

So the Reagan structural reforms DID lead to a Clinton surplus.

Only if you don't read the link.

iro

talexuser wrote: »

Only if you don't read the link.

'An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets,'

rest my case.

Hope this happens again!