no man that means liberal entitlements zapped their desire to work hard get with it lazy commielib
no man that means liberal entitlements zapped their desire to work hard get with it lazy commielib
Something else to consider: pretty much all economic growth in advanced economies at this point is coming from technology-based productivity gains. Populations in rich countries are stabilizing are even falling, which eliminates one primary source of economic growth (no new customers or workers). Capital stock is not increasing very much, probably because value is now held in computers, not steel mills. The next big boost in productivity is going to be driven by robots and AI. What happens to our society when self-driving cars and trucks happen?
I'll tell you what: a socio-political tsunami.
At the absolute height of coal mining, way back in 1923, there were 863,000 coal miners. in 1985 there were 175,000 or so, and now there are 65,000, so in recent memory 100,000 jobs were lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_m..._1985-2015.png That was enough to decimate an entire state's economy and flip it from Democrat to Republican, not to mention create the epicenter of opioid addiction and disability fraud. Politicians obsess over coal miners and the plight of the coal miner was a significant reason behind the election of one Donald J. Trump. In other words, those 100,000 jobs are a big effing deal.
Well there are 8,700,000 trucking-related jobs in the US. 3.5 million people, mostly men, drive trucks for a living. Another million or so people drive taxis and ubers.https://medium.com/basic-income/self...k-b8507d9c5961
What are we going to do with 3 or 4 million unemployed men, who have no skills other than the ability to drive, and who are going to be totally unwilling and unequipped to take on jobs in the major growth industries (healthcare and tech)?
This is going to start hitting us right about the time these tax cuts have cranked the deficit to 100% of GDP and, I'm guessing, we're struggling to get out of the next recession.
Even assuming that all the rosy trickle down predictions are true this time unlike all the other times, does anybody thing that the jobs that are going to be created are going to be low-skill jobs that a few million uneducated drivers can jump right into?
I would suggest the US government keep its powder dry and its revenues plentiful, because this shit is coming and it is going to be a wild ride.
I don't know, 923. But you can blame that tax and spend liberal President [insert next Dem President here] for it.
glad Im in IT and working directly with automation of manufacturing. just hoping carpal tunnel doesn't get me
To your question, not really, it is not a linear relationship, there are a plethora of variables involved, most notably in this case the relative cost of offshore production. That said, to my earlier point, it is everyone's best interest for the market to continue to do well. We tried SS as the primary retirement vehicle and it has eroded itself. When it became clear that it was not sustainable as the primary method, most people shifted to market-based alternatives. Whether the bottom 80% owns 8% or 0.8% is generally irrelevant to its critical nature as the primary retirement vehicle for the population; the value of whatever that percentage is needs to grow for it to work. And the good news is that aligns perfectly with whatever the other 20% want to have happen with their 92% or 99.2%.Originally Posted by warak
The other component is that Trump's proposed reform is apples to oranges as compared with Regan/Bush reform. The offshore profit and pass through provisions are different than any other strategies to date, and the expansion of the personal exemptions in lieu of itemizing is also something that hasn't been done. So to use historical generalizations (whether right or wrong) to criticize the current proposal simply because of the elected party of the president proposing them is pretty intellectually lazy, as the commielibs like saying.
Last edited by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz; 09-29-2017 at 02:32 PM.
All by itself it just eroded?
someone once said...
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
we could, dare to say, try something that has worked in the past? novel idea, i get it.
Last edited by warak; 09-29-2017 at 02:44 PM.
Good post 923 (as usual).
I don't see how Republicans can say they care about the deficit but still propose huge cuts. It's certainly not a fiscally conservative way of doing things. All those morons reps riding Trumps train who ran on their ability to go to Washington and "balance the checkbook" are instead maxing their credit card, to continue the idiotic household analogy they brought up.
Obviously voters these days are dumb as hell and don't care to keep up with the inconsistencies in the arguments.
Basically. It's own math never worked without the assumptions of perpetually increasing birth rates and stagnant life expectancy, which were incorrect assumptions.
this is true
Agree wholeheartedly on the use of LLCs as opposed to LPs, but not for tax scrutiny purposes - I don't think there is a bit of difference on that front. We like the LLC form for simplicity of one entity, rather than a second entity for the GP. I guess we use FLP colloquially to mean any tax partnership, rather than the state law structure.
If a conservative wants to explain why the Kansas experiment was a failure but doing the same thing but bigger won't be, I'll be willing to listen to tax cuts for 1%.
I'm open to reform or scrapping it all together, but it would need to be replaced with something that captures unrealized gains (whether at death or some other time). I just don't think you should be able to inherit a gazillion dollars worth of Coke stock that you never plan to sell from your father who inherited it from his mother who inherited it from her father (etc.) and never tax that appreciation. Edit to add that I realize the estate tax in its current form doesn't do that, but it functions as a substitute.
Right, you know that as a professional, but Palma isn't going to be able to correctly handle that himself from reading a few articles on Google and downloading some garbage from Legalzoom.
I'll just leave this here. https://www.theatlantic.com/business...t-rich/541584/
We have now gone full post-factual in the tax policy realm, such that the President and Treasury Secretary expressly claim that their plan is the exact opposite of what it really is. So we're going to get trumped-up trickle down, but the rubes will be told it's nothing of the sort, and they'll probably believe it.
ETA: I'm guessing this part applies to most posters over the age of 30, and probably the great majority of Wake grads. Welcome to your Trump tax increase.
Many upper-middle-class households would not benefit from Trump’s proposal at all, and many would see their taxes go up. By 2027, about one in three taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $150,000 a year would be paying more, as would about 60 percent of families making between $150,000 and $300,000 a year. That is in part because the plan, as written, would replace personal exemptions that are indexed to inflation with credits for children and other dependents that are not, and because the plan would get rid of the state and local tax deduction.
I don't know that facepalm is correct here. What he said is basically true, we all need the market to continue to do well.
The ~50% without money in the market would probably prefer higher wages.
Somehow trump is going to barley cut middle class and poor people's taxes, so little it's a rounding error but gives the talking point that they were cut, to pay for that the taxes get raised on people that poor people think are rich the college educated 200-400,000 crowd and over that gets the real tax cut.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
