• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

Disgusting. Who is making $100k and has $11 million in an estate?

plenty of rubes out there making 75K figuring that one day they'll crack $100K and finally be able to start saving and then they'll die AND THE GUMMINT WILL TAKE ALL THEIR MILLIONS AND THEIR KIDS WILL STARVE
 
Grassley also asserted, as did Paul Ryan this morning, that if this tax bill will just create something like 3/4 of a percentage point of extra growth it will pay for itself. The Joint Committee on Taxation analysis found a growth increase of 0.8% which still creates a $1 Trillion deficit increase, and that's assuming Congress actually allows all the middle class cuts to sunset (which Ryan argues they will not). So even with rosy economic projections, Grassley and Ryan are way off base and frankly just lying to the American people. I hope voters see through this bullshit.

There is a way to fix our headline corporate tax rate to make it competitive in the OECD without giving away trillions to the wealthiest americans, raising taxes on approximately 1/3 of non-wealthy Americans, and blowing up the deficit. The current bill is not that way.
 
my favorite part of Shark tank is when the pitch guy/gal says "if we just get 1/10th of the market we'll be trillionairesl!@" and the Sharks laugh and tell them to go fuck themselves
 
 
Grassley also asserted, as did Paul Ryan this morning, that if this tax bill will just create something like 3/4 of a percentage point of extra growth it will pay for itself. The Joint Committee on Taxation analysis found a growth increase of 0.8% which still creates a $1 Trillion deficit increase, and that's assuming Congress actually allows all the middle class cuts to sunset (which Ryan argues they will not). So even with rosy economic projections, Grassley and Ryan are way off base and frankly just lying to the American people. I hope voters see through this bullshit.

There is a way to fix our headline corporate tax rate to make it competitive in the OECD without giving away trillions to the wealthiest americans, raising taxes on approximately 1/3 of non-wealthy Americans, and blowing up the deficit. The current bill is not that way.

To put these numbers another way, for the tax cut to pay for itself, it needed to generate, at minimum 0.4% growth per year (at least according to conservatives, some analyses suggest higher). The JCT estimated that it will generate 0.08% per year on average. Pubs spoke of 4% annual GDP growth as a goal, which would translate to an economy that is 12.9% larger on average over 10 years. The JCT suggested that number is 0.8%, not 12.9%. It's not just that they were off. They are comically, delusionally off.

Also keep in mind that these deficit projections take into account the tax cuts expiring in 8 years, which republicans insist won't happen. The actual deficit implications are much worse.
 
To put these numbers another way, for the tax cut to pay for itself, it needed to generate, at minimum 0.4% growth per year (at least according to conservatives, some analyses suggest higher). The JCT estimated that it will generate 0.08% per year on average. Pubs spoke of 4% annual GDP growth as a goal, which would translate to an economy that is 12.9% larger on average over 10 years. The JCT suggested that number is 0.8%, not 12.9%. It's not just that they were off. They are comically, delusionally off.

Also keep in mind that these deficit projections take into account the tax cuts expiring in 8 years, which republicans insist won't happen. The actual deficit implications are much worse.

Thanks, that is much more clear (and accurate) than my post.

For historical perspective, the last time the US economy saw 4% growth was the 90s, when the internet was new, gas was cheap, and the geopolitical spectrum were very stable compared with now. https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 Oh and also, taxes on the rich were plenty high and government borrowing was at much lower levels.
 
Last edited:
DP-VrVFW0AAMx9n.jpg:large
 

When will the Steve Schmidt wing regain control of the party? Can they?

Right now it looks like there is nobody from that wing in office right now.
 
Here's a pretty good timely article I came across today which paints a different cause to the income inequality/wealth distribution, and opens the possibility of a different solution.

http://review.chicagobooth.edu/econ...er-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent

Basically it argues that

1) Most of the uber-wealthy are self-made, and not inherited wealth
2) There isn't a significant rise in income share by most of the top 1% ( or say People who make $300-$1MM/yr), but rather the growth is all coming from the top .01%.
3) Its all technology driven, and perhaps impossible or foolish to try to reverse. The example being Babe Ruth's Salary today would be $1.1MM, which is the minimum salary of any baseball player now. Athletes that make it aren't making it by holding down the amateur athletes, Its that technology allows the super powerful to scale and generate more profits. Now they're watched by 50 million people rather than 50 thousand.

So when 100 years ago there were 10,000 rich storefront owners, now there's 1 super rich Jeff Bezos that's skills are worth more than the storefront owners of yesteryear, so simple supply and demand warrants that the Jeff Bezos's of the world will earn more share of the income. Same with the best coders, or best of anything in their field. Technology and Scale means those people can earn infinite more profits, and therefore someone, whether its stockholders or their bosses will pay them infinitely more to earn those profits.

Lastly, taxing or re-distributing Jeff Bezos's income to others in the world isn't the best solution as then he'd just go innovate in China. Inequality isn't necessarily getting worse, 30 years ago, the world bank estimated 35% of the world lives in extreme poverty, versus 11% today. Presumaby technology is what makes everyone have running water and power and reduced the extreme poverty, and its inevitiable it will create some income inequality. The solution isn't raising Tesla's corporate tax rate.

It suggests you don't need to take money from the rich to give to the poor, but you do need to train the poor to do something useful. I.E., no more Tribble kids.

I see your point. But the technology is also there for there to be 100,000 rich storefront owners on the internet.

Where does the money come from to train the poor? The rich complain that workers aren't trained but don't want to pay taxes to support public education.
 
I see your point. But the technology is also there for there to be 100,000 rich storefront owners on the internet.

Where does the money come from to train the poor? The rich complain that workers aren't trained but don't want to pay taxes to support public education.

I think what happens in practice is the 100 smartest people on the internet eat the other 99,900.

To your second question, I mean we aren't too far off from people being able to learn entirely from their computers, online training courses, reading Wikipedia, etc. I'm infinitely more knowledgeable about so many different subjects than I was 20 years ago just from googling shit. So the answer is, technology will make that education very inexpensive, and should break down most barriers between the haves and have nots.

Is the best way to learn physics really to listen to 50 minute lectures given by the Braskys of the world? No, it will be listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson videos.
 
I think what happens in practice is the 100 smartest people on the internet eat the other 99,900.

To your second question, I mean we aren't too far off from people being able to learn entirely from their computers, online training courses, reading Wikipedia, etc. I'm infinitely more knowledgeable about so many different subjects than I was 20 years ago just from googling shit. So the answer is, technology will make that education very inexpensive, and should break down most barriers between the haves and have nots.

Is the best way to learn physics really to listen to 50 minute lectures given by the Braskys of the world? No, it will be listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson videos.

i don't think this is accurate
 
They bought Collins by putting the SALT deduction back in.
 
That's because NDT is an expert in astrophysics.

It's a breadth/depth issue. Sure, using technology to "make you more knowledgeable" about more things can increase the breadth of your knowledge.

However, we have a finite amount of attention to devote to education - and technology isn't the dominant variable in depth of knowledge - research and application is.

Plama's technocapitalist population is knowledgeable about everything, and thus knowledgeable about nothing.
 
if stocks keep falling (-120 after an hour) after teh Flynn information, what will happen to the tax bill that only 28% of American agree with?
 
"is anyone here a doctor? this man is having a heart attack!

"step aside: I read the wiki entry and a fascinating Dr. Oz article on heart surgery"
 
Back
Top