Gray Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 On 12/2/2017 at 8:53 PM, Darren10 said: I know (but not as disastrous as you may think). https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/06/07/the-great-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/#5ab2be635508
thesometimesaint Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 Darren10: You need to stop wasting your money on Booze, movies, and women. SEE https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017468981
Stargazer Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 There's so much disinformation out there that I have virtually zero confidence that this bill is as bad as some say it is. I mean, the rhetoric and downright hissy-fit screeching is deafening. Look, when a democrat president is elected, the first thing the right does is go out and buy guns because the dems will take them away. Poppycock, but it helps keep the firearms manufacturers in business. And when the a republican president is elected, the first thing the left does is go out and ... well, I'm not sure what they do, but they sure moan and groan like it's the end of the world, hollering "Tax Cuts for the Rich!". And both sides scream and holler that the president needs to be impeached -- when no impeachable offense has been committed. It's sad. I'll bet that in the end we'll get a crappy tax law, like the crappy tax law we have already, and someone's ox will get gored, just like someone's ox is being gored right this minute. It will just be different oxen. Same gore, different ox. I'm sick of listening to it. And don't tell me how much it's going to hurt you, because you don't know. 1
Darren10 Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Darren10: You need to stop wasting your money on Booze, movies, and women. SEE https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017468981 What Grassley said was almost as bad as a Trump tweet...almost.
The Nehor Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: There's so much disinformation out there that I have virtually zero confidence that this bill is as bad as some say it is. I mean, the rhetoric and downright hissy-fit screeching is deafening. Look, when a democrat president is elected, the first thing the right does is go out and buy guns because the dems will take them away. Poppycock, but it helps keep the firearms manufacturers in business. And when the a republican president is elected, the first thing the left does is go out and ... well, I'm not sure what they do, but they sure moan and groan like it's the end of the world, hollering "Tax Cuts for the Rich!". And both sides scream and holler that the president needs to be impeached -- when no impeachable offense has been committed. It's sad. I'll bet that in the end we'll get a crappy tax law, like the crappy tax law we have already, and someone's ox will get gored, just like someone's ox is being gored right this minute. It will just be different oxen. Same gore, different ox. I'm sick of listening to it. And don't tell me how much it's going to hurt you, because you don't know. I believe it is bad policy, meant primarily as a love letter to the right’s donors, and is a bad idea in general. If I have given indication that I believe it will be disastrous, crash the economy, and usher in the end of days than I apologize.
Stargazer Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 16 hours ago, The Nehor said: I believe it is bad policy, meant primarily as a love letter to the right’s donors, and is a bad idea in general. If I have given indication that I believe it will be disastrous, crash the economy, and usher in the end of days than I apologize. It's not you, necessarily. And I look at my retirement income and wonder if I will get hosed more than I'm getting now, and I don't know what's going to happen, ultimately, so it worries me, too. The problem with assuming that it's a love letter to anyone, is that saying so sounds suspiciously like someone is repeating talking points, and not analyzing actual data. And finding substantive fault with a bill that hasn't yet been passed, where there will be multitudes of amendments made before it does finally get signed by the President, is somewhat ridiculous. Have you actual knowledge of the bill passed by the Senate the other day, know what its important provisions are, and how they will affect people? I sure don't know. I don't think most of the Senate Democrats know, either, but they sure talk like the end of world was just announced (see this HuffPo article). And then we come to the problem of unintended consequences. Do you remember 1990, when the Democrats passed a luxury tax, where one of the provisions was to heavily tax (10%) new-built yachts? Read about it here. Yeah, said the Dems, let's soak the rich! They can afford it, and we'll increase revenue! What the law actually did, because rich people aren't stupid, was damage the yacht-building industry. This was because the rich avoided taxation for new yachts by largely abandoning the purchase of new yachts, and either chose not to buy them, or instead bought used ones! Although I'm not sure if the tax covered used yachts, too! Many yacht-builders went out of business or into bankruptcy, their workers were thrown onto the unemployment rolls, and the ones that survived had to lay off workers. And because of this, the new tax brought in far less revenue than ever before from that source. That wasn't the intent, but it was the result. Because I don't think that politicians, in general, understand economics, and the Democrats are particularly ignorant in this regard (but don't think most Republican politicians are Einsteins on this matter, either). Of course, part of the problem with some Democrats is that they think the goal of taxation is to beat up on those who succeed by economic activity -- not realizing that the goal of taxation is actually to fund government activities. Who knew? Well, it's sure lots of fun watching this all happen!
thesometimesaint Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 Right now there is no bill ready to sign. But what proposed will drop a 1-4 Trillion dollar hole in our debt. While giving the Ultra-rich a tax cut.
Gray Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 20 hours ago, Stargazer said: There's so much disinformation out there that I have virtually zero confidence that this bill is as bad as some say it is. I mean, the rhetoric and downright hissy-fit screeching is deafening. Look, when a democrat president is elected, the first thing the right does is go out and buy guns because the dems will take them away. Poppycock, but it helps keep the firearms manufacturers in business. And when the a republican president is elected, the first thing the left does is go out and ... well, I'm not sure what they do, but they sure moan and groan like it's the end of the world, hollering "Tax Cuts for the Rich!". And both sides scream and holler that the president needs to be impeached -- when no impeachable offense has been committed. It's sad. I'll bet that in the end we'll get a crappy tax law, like the crappy tax law we have already, and someone's ox will get gored, just like someone's ox is being gored right this minute. It will just be different oxen. Same gore, different ox. I'm sick of listening to it. And don't tell me how much it's going to hurt you, because you don't know. It's not just partisan hackery. Economists have not endorsed the plan either.
Stargazer Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 On 12/5/2017 at 5:21 PM, Gray said: It's not just partisan hackery. Economists have not endorsed the plan either. OK, which "economists" have said it won't work, and why do they think that? And have any "economists" endorsed it? In the question of dueling "economists", who would you trust? Karl Marx or Milton Friedman? Are we cherry-picking economists here? Yes, yes, I know that both Karl and Milton are dead and cannot comment on the Republican tax plan. But you know as well as I do that neither one of them would have approved of it, had they seen it, but for entirely different reasons. Karl would have disapproved it because he believed that the means of production must needs be the property of the Proletariat, as expressed in the person of the State, and as the embodiment of the Proletariat the State owns everything, the State can take what it likes; thus the Republican tax plan fails, among other reasons, because it doesn't confiscate the property of the bourgeoisie. Milton would have disapproved it because he would have seen it as confiscatory, unfair, and fails the purpose of taxation, which is to fund the legitimate functions of government; second, the US government is funding too many programs which the government has no business even being involved in. You see, you're citing an anonymous or amorphous, poorly defined source, just like the newspapers like to do. One of the great logical fallacies: the appeal to anonymous authorities. "Scientists say: Expect a late spring!" Or was that Punxsutawney Phil, prognosticator of prognosticators? 1
Stargazer Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 On 12/5/2017 at 5:21 PM, Gray said: It's not just partisan hackery. Economists have not endorsed the plan either. Note please, that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the details of the tax plan, and thus I don't necessarily approve of it. However, the reaction of the Congressional Democrats is so over-the-top about the plan being an apocalypse, and that it will destroy the United States, that I suspect the plan won't be at all bad, and may actually end up being a positive good. I can never remember whether the Washington Post is left- or right-leaning, but I think it says something that they seem to believe the Dems are overreacting: Senate Democrats falsely claim GOP tax plan will raise taxes for most working-class families Just in case you were wondering, I am not in favor of income tax. I am a Fair Taxer. I'm also a libertarian, so I think the government is doing too much and is costing too much.
Gray Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: OK, which "economists" have said it won't work, and why do they think that? And have any "economists" endorsed it? In the question of dueling "economists", who would you trust? Karl Marx or Milton Friedman? Are we cherry-picking economists here? Yes, yes, I know that both Karl and Milton are dead and cannot comment on the Republican tax plan. But you know as well as I do that neither one of them would have approved of it, had they seen it, but for entirely different reasons. Karl would have disapproved it because he believed that the means of production must needs be the property of the Proletariat, as expressed in the person of the State, and as the embodiment of the Proletariat the State owns everything, the State can take what it likes; thus the Republican tax plan fails, among other reasons, because it doesn't confiscate the property of the bourgeoisie. Milton would have disapproved it because he would have seen it as confiscatory, unfair, and fails the purpose of taxation, which is to fund the legitimate functions of government; second, the US government is funding too many programs which the government has no business even being involved in. You see, you're citing an anonymous or amorphous, poorly defined source, just like the newspapers like to do. One of the great logical fallacies: the appeal to anonymous authorities. "Scientists say: Expect a late spring!" Or was that Punxsutawney Phil, prognosticator of prognosticators? Knock yourself out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/12/02/economists-say-the-trump-tax-plan-will-have-disastrous-consequences/#7b99adf44209 http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2
oremites Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 37 minutes ago, Gray said: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/12/02/economists-say-the-trump-tax-plan-will-have-disastrous-consequences/#7b99adf44209 Here's an article from before the election: Economists: A Trump win would tank the market https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-wall-street-effect-markets-230164 Where are the economists that, before the election, correctly predicted how great the economy would be doing a year after President Trump's election? Maybe we should get their opinion about the tax reform. Anyway, look at the bright side. If the tax reform is as bad as you think, the effects will become obvious to the voters resulting in President Trump and the Republicans being swept out of office. Kind of like the Democrats with Obamacare.
Gray Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, oremites said: Here's an article from before the election: Economists: A Trump win would tank the market https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-wall-street-effect-markets-230164 Where are the economists that, before the election, correctly predicted how great the economy would be doing a year after President Trump's election? Maybe we should get their opinion about the tax reform. Anyway, look at the bright side. If the tax reform is as bad as you think, the effects will become obvious to the voters resulting in President Trump and the Republicans being swept out of office. Kind of like the Democrats with Obamacare. Trump hasn't had any major legislation passed yet - we're really just coasting on Obama's legacy. 1
Jeanne Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 On 11/30/2017 at 10:37 PM, Darren10 said: Then let the relatives keep it. But, since the government takes it no matter what they decide what they want to do with it, you’re correct, it’s fundamentally treated as not their money. I’m related to rich folk too. We have thay in common. Well...you guys are related to rich folk...meet your new sister..
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: Well...you guys are related to rich folk...meet your new sister.. I already have too many siblings to split the inheritance with. Edited December 7, 2017 by The Nehor
Jeanne Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I already have too many siblings to split the inheritance with. Can't blame a woman for trying...
Stargazer Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 On 12/7/2017 at 3:31 PM, Gray said: Knock yourself out: Thanks! On 12/7/2017 at 3:31 PM, Gray said: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/12/02/economists-say-the-trump-tax-plan-will-have-disastrous-consequences/#7b99adf44209 I liked the "Gop’s List of Economists Backing Tax Cut Includes Ghosts, Office Assistants, Ex-felons, and a Sprinkling of Real Economists"! What does Casper think? Heh. On 12/7/2017 at 3:31 PM, Gray said: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2 Nice. I do appreciate the substantive response, Gray! As I said, my preferred tax policy is the Fair Tax. Or even go back to what the US government used to rely upon, which was excise and import taxes (but I'm not sure that's feasible, even if politically possible, which it isn't). 2
Darren10 Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 Say, look at what the super rich friends of the GOP stand to get! The Taxman Cometh: Senate Bill’s Marginal Rates Could Top 100% for Some This is the result of class warfare involved with by both arties if you ask me.
Darren10 Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/7/2017 at 10:21 AM, Gray said: Trump hasn't had any major legislation passed yet - we're really just coasting on Obama's legacy. No doubt! Sarah Sanders: Can't Make It Up, Obama Wants Credit for Booming Trump Economy Sander's cited Tweets are correct and in addition to that I offer the anecdotal story of my picking up an economist from a Bjork concert. As she and I began to speak I had to ask her her take on Trump's election and the economy. I specified to not get political but she insisted to declare that she was a "far left Progressive". I said "good for you...I'm at the exact opposite end of you but, good for you!". She said no doubt investment confidence has soared since Trump was elected and this was only about a month or two into his presidency. What she told me confirmed what I have been hearing from several news sources up until that point. This lady works for Goldman Sachs and as soon as I told her that Ted Cruz was my guy in the 2016 election until the very end (his very end) she was elated saying that she works for Heidi Cruz and that Heidi is the most intelligent and fun woman she has ever worked for. When I asked how close she worked with Heidi she said daily. She reports directly to Heidi on the economy.
Darren10 Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/5/2017 at 11:21 AM, Gray said: It's not just partisan hackery. Economists have not endorsed the plan either. On 12/7/2017 at 5:38 AM, Stargazer said: OK, which "economists" have said it won't work, and why do they think that? And have any "economists" endorsed it? In the question of dueling "economists", who would you trust? Karl Marx or Milton Friedman? Are we cherry-picking economists here? Yes, yes, I know that both Karl and Milton are dead and cannot comment on the Republican tax plan. But you know as well as I do that neither one of them would have approved of it, had they seen it, but for entirely different reasons. Karl would have disapproved it because he believed that the means of production must needs be the property of the Proletariat, as expressed in the person of the State, and as the embodiment of the Proletariat the State owns everything, the State can take what it likes; thus the Republican tax plan fails, among other reasons, because it doesn't confiscate the property of the bourgeoisie. Milton would have disapproved it because he would have seen it as confiscatory, unfair, and fails the purpose of taxation, which is to fund the legitimate functions of government; second, the US government is funding too many programs which the government has no business even being involved in. You see, you're citing an anonymous or amorphous, poorly defined source, just like the newspapers like to do. One of the great logical fallacies: the appeal to anonymous authorities. "Scientists say: Expect a late spring!" Or was that Punxsutawney Phil, prognosticator of prognosticators? On 12/7/2017 at 9:31 AM, Gray said: Knock yourself out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/12/02/economists-say-the-trump-tax-plan-will-have-disastrous-consequences/#7b99adf44209 http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2 On Trump's philosophy: Krugman: Trump is 'right' on taxes, economics Larry Kudlow on Trump's Tax Plan: I Really Like It The Senate and House bills follow Trump's philosophy on key components but, according to Darren, fall short on meriting endorsement.
Gray Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 49 minutes ago, Darren10 said: On Trump's philosophy: Krugman: Trump is 'right' on taxes, economics Larry Kudlow on Trump's Tax Plan: I Really Like It The Senate and House bills follow Trump's philosophy on key components but, according to Darren, fall short on meriting endorsement. Trump campaigned as a populist, but that was dropped pretty quickly after he was elected. Not that populism is great either.
Gray Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: No doubt! Sarah Sanders: Can't Make It Up, Obama Wants Credit for Booming Trump Economy Sander's cited Tweets are correct and in addition to that I offer the anecdotal story of my picking up an economist from a Bjork concert. As she and I began to speak I had to ask her her take on Trump's election and the economy. I specified to not get political but she insisted to declare that she was a "far left Progressive". I said "good for you...I'm at the exact opposite end of you but, good for you!". She said no doubt investment confidence has soared since Trump was elected and this was only about a month or two into his presidency. What she told me confirmed what I have been hearing from several news sources up until that point. This lady works for Goldman Sachs and as soon as I told her that Ted Cruz was my guy in the 2016 election until the very end (his very end) she was elated saying that she works for Heidi Cruz and that Heidi is the most intelligent and fun woman she has ever worked for. When I asked how close she worked with Heidi she said daily. She reports directly to Heidi on the economy. Oh yes, investor confidence is up. Rome may be burning, but when investors smell business tax cuts in the air, they get bullish.
The Nehor Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 4 hours ago, Darren10 said: Say, look at what the super rich friends of the GOP stand to get! The Taxman Cometh: Senate Bill’s Marginal Rates Could Top 100% for Some This is the result of class warfare involved with by both arties if you ask me. Did you intentionally pick an article behind a paywall? Maybe it changed or are you just going off the headline and did not actually read the article? I never understood why the GOP decided to label efforts to cope with income inequality class warfare. Are they suggesting there is some kind of warfare the GOP will not get behind? 1
Darren10 Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Did you intentionally pick an article behind a paywall? Maybe it changed or are you just going off the headline and did not actually read the article? I never understood why the GOP decided to label efforts to cope with income inequality class warfare. Are they suggesting there is some kind of warfare the GOP will not get behind? Hey, if you can find another article which speaks about the GOP Senate tax plan taxing some people at 100%, feel free to link it. Many in the GOP believe in paying for tax cuts. They do so by proposing tax increases but they should do so by spending cuts. But spending cuts triggers revolts so they won't do it. I think this in large part is a result of class warfare. Now, if you're still around, Nehor, my CFR please.
The Nehor Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 5 hours ago, Darren10 said: Hey, if you can find another article which speaks about the GOP Senate tax plan taxing some people at 100%, feel free to link it. Many in the GOP believe in paying for tax cuts. They do so by proposing tax increases but they should do so by spending cuts. But spending cuts triggers revolts so they won't do it. I think this in large part is a result of class warfare. Now, if you're still around, Nehor, my CFR please. You realize how insane it is to push an article you have not read based on the headline as proof and then ask other people to look it up for you. That is incredibly lazy. Don’t worry. The Republicans have already announced a slew of planned spending cuts (contravening Trump promises not to touch Medicaid). The malicious part of me hopes it passes. I think it is incredibly bad policy but myself and most of the people I know and care about will be largely unaffected. The demographics that will lose out neatly sync up with the demographics that voted for Trump. It might make me a bad person but reading articles and watching news reports crying over how horrible it is and how much harder life is now when they literally chose it will bring joy and laughter to my shriveled and blackened heart. As to your CFR I believe these links will clear it up: http://www.witchcraftandwitches.com/history_medieval.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601092158.htm http://fairfieldproject.wikidot.com/azathoth-discussion And finally, a short video that may help crystallize what I am saying:
Recommended Posts