Page 8 of 129 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131858108 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 2572

Thread: Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

  1. #141
    no man that means liberal entitlements zapped their desire to work hard get with it lazy commielib

  2. #142
    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.

  3. #143
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    103,001
    I don't know, 923. But you can blame that tax and spend liberal President [insert next Dem President here] for it.

  4. #144
    glad Im in IT and working directly with automation of manufacturing. just hoping carpal tunnel doesn't get me

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by warak View Post
    I am not sure of the correlation between my 401k spending and corporate profits and adding a tax cut. is the idea that the stock market will continue to climb? certain publications indicate "As of 2013, the 10 percent of households with the highest wealth owned more than 80 percent of all stock shares. The bottom 80 percent of all households owned just 8 percent." all i can say is thank you Obama for 7 years of a bull market (without the tax cuts). more and more for the rich!

    but answer this...why are middle class (and lower) wages falling as corporate profits are rising? in your example they should be growing linearly?


    i found this interesting:

    "It is no coincidence the market nearly tripled under President Bill Clinton and again under President Barack Obama while it declined under President George W. Bush and nearly crashed (Black Monday) toward the end of the trickle-down-economics of the Reagan era.

    The stock market rises and falls with return on investment of its constituents.The Democrat increases benefits to the poor and reduces taxes on the middle class. The poor are able to buy food, clothing and education for their children, and the middle class are able to buy better computers, automobiles and housing. With more customers, business prospers. The stock market and retirement plans go up.

    The Republican reduces taxes on the rich and reduces benefits to the poor. The rich already have all the houses, cars and computers money can buy. The only thing the rich man can do is invest his excess money in the stock market. With increased investment and fewer customers, return on investment falls. The stock market and retirement plans go down."
    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%.

    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.

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    We tried SS as the primary retirement vehicle and it has eroded itself.
    All by itself it just eroded?

  7. #147
    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.

  8. #148
    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.

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeandBake View Post
    All by itself it just eroded?
    Basically. It's own math never worked without the assumptions of perpetually increasing birth rates and stagnant life expectancy, which were incorrect assumptions.

  10. #150

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    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

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    I think you ready my post wrong regarding ILITs, ILITs get used for sure (hence why I referenced drafting one in the next sentence). But I wouldn't go near an FLP at this point in time. Can get generally the same effect with an LLC structure that doesn't draw the same level of tax-avoidance scrutiny.
    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.

  13. #153
    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%.

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    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%.

  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    So then why keep it? It is a big topic for theoretical arguments with minimal logic behind it and minimal fiscal impact, that causes major heartburn and planning expense for people who likely will never need it but have to act like they will. It isn't worth the trouble of defending it, hence why plenty of states (NC included, thanks gridlock Obama and commielib Bev Perdue) got rid of it at the state level.
    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.

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakelaw2006 View Post
    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.
    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.

  17. #157
    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.

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by MHBDemon View Post
    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.

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by 06deacon View Post
    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.

  20. #160

    Next Up: Tax Reform

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •