Trump's Tax Plan

[JustWinBaby]

(10-01-2017, 07:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know a lot of people tend to think that Keynesian theory is behind this, but in truth it hasn't been applied the way intended. Deficit spending in bad times, surpluses in good. They've just continued to spend spend spend instead of cutting and taxing, which is the other half of the equation that has been ignored.

Bravo.

I agree 100%.  That logic is indisputable and, arguably, fundamentally sound.  I was just reacting to what "Keynesian" means now which - as you said - is something different and something I fundamentally reject. So when you say "we need to get Keynesian", I say "no", not what Keynesian means as applied mainstream politically today.

But what I read and hear now - "Keynesian" means deficit spending, and increased deficit spending. I reject that view, and most economists not named Krugman wholeheartedly reject that.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2017, 07:33 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Bravo.

I agree 100%.  That logic is indisputable and, arguably, fundamentally sound.  I was just reacting to what "Keynesian" means now which - as you said - is something different and something I fundamentally reject. So when you say "we need to get Keynesian", I say "no", not what Keynesian means as applied mainstream politically today.

But what I read and hear now - "Keynesian" means deficit spending, and increased deficit spending. I reject that view, and most economists not named Krugman wholeheartedly reject that.

You forget, I actually have some foundational knowledge in these sorts of things.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-01-2017, 07:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You forget, I actually have some foundational knowledge in these sorts of things.

No, you're generally "on the nose".

[GMDino]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/gary-cohn-says-a-typical-american-family-earns-dollar100000-a-year%E2%80%94heres-how-much-they-really-make/ar-AAsAmVN?ocid=sf&ffid=gz

Quote:Gary Cohn says a typical American family earns $100,000 a year—here's how much they really make


Economic advisor Gary Cohn told reporters on Thursday that a typical four-person American family bringing in $100,000 a year would save $1,000 under the Republicans' proposed tax reform effort, which they could use to pay for a new car or a kitchen.

In actuality, the average American family makes $74,000 a year before taxes, or about $30,000 less than that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The median American family income is roughly half of Cohn's estimate, or only about $55,000.

Quote:[/url] Follow
Steve Herman 

@W7VOA
Economic adv. Gary Cohn: Typical family with 2 children earning $100,000 "can expect a tax cut of $1000." #TaxReform
2:50 PM - Sep 28, 2017 · Washington, DC

And some critics are seizing on Cohn's assertion that, with $1,000, a family "could renovate their kitchen, they could buy a new car." 

Quote:

 Follow
Judd Legum 

@JuddLegum
Uh, Gary Cohn (who is worth several hundred million dollars) thinks it costs $1000 to buy a new car (or renovate your kitchen)
3:04 PM - Sep 28, 2017

• 
  

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/petersagal]

 Follow
((((Peter Sagal)))) 

@petersagal
"If a family gets to keep $1K in taxes, they can buy a new car!" -- Gary Cohn, who apparently last bought a car in 1905.
2:56 PM - Sep 28, 2017

Cohn is also under fire for acknowledging that he "can't guarantee" taxes wouldn't go upfor some middle-class families.

The GOP plan is expected to primarily benefit corporations as well as the wealthiest Americans, which includes various members of the White House and the Cabinet. The estate tax repeal alone would save Trump $564 million, Wilbur Ross $545 million, Betsy DeVos' father-in-law Richard $900 million, and Linda McMahon $250 million, reports Bloomberg. In fact, in several ways, the President himself stands to benefit tremendously.

[BmorePat87]

(10-02-2017, 01:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/gary-cohn-says-a-typical-american-family-earns-dollar100000-a-year%E2%80%94heres-how-much-they-really-make/ar-AAsAmVN?ocid=sf&ffid=gz

The headline is misleading and was corrected in the original source. He said an average family that makes $100k, not that an average family does make that much.

However, the things he thinks $1000 gets you was amusing. An extra $1000 would be nice, but that's a third of my new roof. It's not helping me afford a car or a kitchen remodel. I could get myself a vacation, but that's for 2 of us. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2017, 02:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The headline is misleading and was corrected in the original source. He said an average family that makes $100k, not that an average family does make that much.

However, the things he thinks $1000 gets you was amusing. An extra $1000 would be nice, but that's a third of my new roof. It's not helping me afford a car or a kitchen remodel. I could get myself a vacation, but that's for 2 of us. 

1/3 of your new roof?  What do you live in a house made of Lincoln Logs?

[BmorePat87]

(10-02-2017, 02:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 1/3 of your new roof?  What do you live in a house made of Lincoln Logs?

Yea, I was surprised by the cost too. I live in a row home in Baltimore County, like a quarter of a mile outside the city line, so a lot like what you'd see in a city. 

My uncle is a real estate agent and this is his go to roofer, so I trust the craftsmanship. Just a great deal, I guess. Great warranty on the work too. 

[Luvnit2]

(10-02-2017, 02:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The headline is misleading and was corrected in the original source. He said an average family that makes $100k, not that an average family does make that much.

However, the things he thinks $1000 gets you was amusing. An extra $1000 would be nice, but that's a third of my new roof. It's not helping me afford a car or a kitchen remodel. I could get myself a vacation, but that's for 2 of us. 

The bigger argument to me should be either to do this or do nothing. Nothing (no tax revision) guarantees tax rates for the poor and middle class stay the same. Million sof people getting an extra $1000 a year for the next 10 years or getting nothing for the next 10 years, do the math and I take the $10,000 over the next 10 years.

[BmorePat87]

(10-02-2017, 02:50 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The bigger argument to me should be either to do this or do nothing. Nothing (no tax revision) guarantees tax rates for the poor and middle class stay the same. Million sof people getting an extra $1000 a year for the next 10 years or getting nothing for the next 10 years, do the math and I take the $10,000 over the next 10 years.

Assuming you do get it. Not saying $1000 isn't worth it, but I want to see from someone not working with the administration that it'll save me money. 

[Benton]

(10-02-2017, 02:50 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The bigger argument to me should be either to do this or do nothing. Nothing (no tax revision) guarantees tax rates for the poor and middle class stay the same. Million sof people getting an extra $1000 a year for the next 10 years or getting nothing for the next 10 years, do the math and I take the $10,000 over the next 10 years.

I'd go for option 3: we either raise taxes enough to pay for what is necessary, or reduce services to the point where we approve of what we pay.

As long as we stop living off credit.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-02-2017, 04:53 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd go for option 3: we either raise taxes enough to pay for what is necessary, or reduce services to the point where we approve of what we pay.

As long as we stop living off credit.

Sign me up for lowering spending to what is necessary.

The usual suspects like to mock "trickle down", but higher govt spending and higher debt are strongly correlated with slower economic growth (and the things that brings like lower employment, lower wages, etc...).

[Benton]

(10-02-2017, 06:25 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sign me up for lowering spending to what is necessary.

The usual suspects like to mock "trickle down", but higher govt spending and higher debt are strongly correlated with slower economic growth (and the things that brings like lower employment, lower wages, etc...).

I'm happy either way. 

Go full-on socialist, tax me 90%, but make sure I've got a 4,000 square foot house, healthcare, food, 16 weeks paid vacation and I can retire at 40. I'll spend my remaining 10% on George Orwell novels.

Or go the opposite way, let need take care of markets and only take the smallest part of my check to cover basic services (education, courts, roads, etc). 

But we're trying to take some of column A and some of column B and too often it's not working out.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-02-2017, 06:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Go full-on socialist, tax me 90%, but make sure I've got a 4,000 square foot house, healthcare, food, 16 weeks paid vacation and I can retire at 40. 

Ha!  That's the fantasy, and it's never going to happen....at least not until the fusion reactors kick in to keep the labor bots charged up.

Most people just don't get the economics, and I think it's intentionally obfuscated.  But I think the number I remember seeing is the 1% make something like $1.5T a year....which is only about 30% of the federal budget.

The NET WORTH of the 1% in the US - and people in that 2%-5% range are well off, but nobody is really calling them "rich" - around $11T....2-2.5 yrs of federal spending, or about 60% of ONE year's GDP.  

Or $33k for every US citizen, which is hardly chump change but is far from life changing (especially as a 1-time sum).  Or about $700 more each year of your roughly 45-yr working career.  Just to point that out since so many think it's the evil greedy rich 1%ers keeping them from making good money.

[Luvnit2]

(10-02-2017, 04:53 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd go for option 3: we either raise taxes enough to pay for what is necessary, or reduce services to the point where we approve of what we pay.

As long as we stop living off credit.

I agree any tax reductions need a mean's to pay for them. Obama Care hurt the middle class financially and added major dollars to the budget. I did not see those on the left worried about the added budget costs as they passed it. The left borrowed from social security and continued to add expenses they were never originally planned. Again, they stole from teh fund and now SS is in deep crap as a result and needs bailed out.

The reality is more tax dollars does not mean efficiency with spending when in reality our government continues to take more money and not be fiscally responsible. If the government spent wisely, I would have no issue giving them more tax dollars, but they have no clue and we all know it whether we want to admit it or not.

[Benton]

(10-03-2017, 01:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I agree any tax reductions need a mean's to pay for them. Obama Care hurt the middle class financially and added major dollars to the budget. I did not see those on the left worried about the added budget costs as they passed it. The left borrowed from social security and continued to add expenses they were never originally planned. Again, they stole from teh fund and now SS is in deep crap as a result and needs bailed out.

The reality is more tax dollars does not mean efficiency with spending when in reality our government continues to take more money and not be fiscally responsible. If the government spent wisely, I would have no issue giving them more tax dollars, but they have no clue and we all know it whether we want to admit it or not.

To the bold, that's a lot of political rhetoric that I'd just sum up: Congress needs to be more responsible with public money.

To the last, that's entirely subjective, and that's our problem. What one person calls irresponsible, another person lauds. I find it ridiculous to have an enormous military budget that involves lots of sizzle and no steak. Or to continue subsidizing healthcare without any healthcare cost controls. Or to spend tens of thousands of dollars to pass laws, knowing they will never be funded because there's no money.