patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

this is rather inflationary, as when private investors buy government debt they're paying dollars, which takes this money out of the economy (until the revenue thereby raised is spent by the government).

That is the theory, but was QE inflationary, except for assets? The dollars aren't circulating. And banks purchase assets by conjuring money out of thin air continuously. Is that inflationary? When a $4 billion company acquisition occurs that is financed by debt, that money is conjured out of thin air. Is that inflationary?

marcus says

This will go down in history as the worst the working class has fucked themselves in an election, EVER.

there's no perfect solution. you can see below that the country's income is reliant upon the working class. at least a good portion of them now will have a 3% break.

Hmmm, even without the increased personal deduction, my federal taxes are around $1,000 a year less under Trump's proposed plan.

Also I'm not sure if people are confused about how the federal taxes work or are just outright attempting deception, but moving the first 9200 from 10% to 12% is of almost no consequence after factoring the new standard deduction. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe standard deduction plus personal exemption for a single filer in 2016 was $10,350. Under the new trump proposal its $15k. So under the trump proposal, someone making $10 an hour...and for a full time worker like a security guard or fast food employee that's about what they make...a little over $20k. So going off that number, under the trump proposal they will pay 12% on $5k of income...$600. Under the old system they would have paid $965. Someone making $10400 to $15k would have previously paid taxes and under trumps plan they would not.

Curses that dastardly Trump and his evil lowering of federal income tax on the poor.

Oh, and now that I look closer at the new deduction amounts, it seems I'll pay around $2200 less in federal income tax each year.

Fucking White Male says

Oh, and now that I look closer at the new deduction amounts, it seems I'll pay around $2200 less in federal income tax each year.

Percentage wise, a rich person will save more than you. Bush tax cuts caused a 3T structural deficit per decade and did not trickle down to middle class. What happened to your fiscally conservative principles?

Ironman says

Most people don't pay a million in their lifetime.

I have and you have not. Yet I care that this country is solvent while you want to bankrupt it. Which one of us is actually fiscally conservative? The answer is me.

Ironman says

Remember when you all were whining that Romney ONLY paid a tax rate of 15% (on capital gains) even though he's a millionaire. The REALITY was, he paid $2 MILLION in taxes that ONE year.

Why do you think this is a good argument ? IF He made say 13.4 million and paid 2 million in taxes, and some family that not able to save anything nor live the way they would like is paying a substantially higher percentage ?

GUESS WHAT ? WE DIDN't DO THIS SHIT BACK WHEN AMERICA WAS GREAT !!" Not in the 50s - 70s.

landtof says

at least a good portion of them now will have a 3% break.

IF that's true then it will be a problem, because he's surely going to increase spending too. Defense, infrastructure, corporate welfare (such as the carrier deal).

Where's it going to come from ? Maybe after a year, he says this isn't working and jacks up rates on the rich. If that happens I may stop bitching about him, or at least about his economic policies.

some ppl here know nothing about tax or they are really realllly bad at math.

almost everyone will pay less, although the richest got the biggest break.

the only group that will get screwed is single parents (mostly single moms). considering most 66% of divorces are filed by women, they deserve it. this is also a good loophole to close as many couple stay together and not get married for this bs deduction. also i hear a lot of black women are single moms...

Trump has the most business friendly tax plan i have ever seen, big or small. will see if this create enough jobs to offset the loss in revenue due to tax cuts.

for the tax experts who claim his tax policy will reduce GDP 20-30 years from now (Tax Policy Center), i say they are full of cow manure if they can predict GDP that far ahead.

Mark D says

Trump has the most business friendly tax plan i have ever seen, big or small. will see if this create enough jobs to offset the loss in revenue due to tax cuts.

Curious--why do you consider this business friendly and why do you think it will lead to more jobs?

joeyjojojunior says

Mark D says

Trump has the most business friendly tax plan i have ever seen, big or small. will see if this create enough jobs to offset the loss in revenue due to tax cuts.

Curious--why do you consider this business friendly and why do you think it will lead to more jobs?

Elementary my dear Joey.
The less the tax, more the profits
More the profits, more the investments
More the investments, more the jobs.
Therefore cutting taxes, creates more jobs.
Econ 101, chapter 1, page 1.

joeyjojojunior says

Mark D says

Trump has the most business friendly tax plan i have ever seen, big or small. will see if this create enough jobs to offset the loss in revenue due to tax cuts.

Curious--why do you consider this business friendly and why do you think it will lead to more jobs?

there are much better details of his tax plan on the net where you can see him giving more tax breaks to business owners than what have been posted here. your second question is another type of question i don't usually answer because it is politically motivated.

Strategist says

The less the tax, more the profits

More the profits, more the investments

More the investments, more the jobs.

Therefore cutting taxes, creates more jobs.

Econ 101, chapter 1, page 1.

I figured that would be the response, which is why I asked. More profits do NOT lead to more jobs. That is just plain wrong. The last 20 years should tell that story pretty well.

Companies hire when, and only when, they cannot meet demand. Giving a company 10MM dollars without any increase in demand would not lead to a single new job. That's Econ 101.

Mark D says

there are much better details of his tax plan on the net where you can see him giving more tax breaks to business owners than what have been posted here. your second question is another type of question i don't usually answer because it is politically motivated.

I just asked your opinion, not the details of his plan. My opinion is his plan will lead to fewer jobs as inequality becomes even worse and demand suffers further.

joeyjojojunior says

Strategist says

The less the tax, more the profits


More the profits, more the investments


More the investments, more the jobs.


Therefore cutting taxes, creates more jobs.


Econ 101, chapter 1, page 1.

I figured that would be the response, which is why I asked. More profits do NOT lead to more jobs. That is just plain wrong. The last 20 years should tell that story pretty well.

Companies hire when, and only when, they cannot meet demand. Giving a company 10MM dollars without any increase in demand would not lead to a single new job. That's Econ 101.

The tax breaks the middle class will get will lead to higher demand. Our propensity to save is dismal.
Econ 101

Strategist says

The tax breaks the middle class will get will lead to higher demand. Our propensity to save is dismal.

Econ 101

Oh, so now you're a Keynesian!! I would have never guessed!!

joeyjojojunior says

Strategist says

The tax breaks the middle class will get will lead to higher demand. Our propensity to save is dismal.


Econ 101

Oh, so now you're a Keynesian!! I would have never guessed!!

Also, the tax breaks will encourage more jobs to stay in the country.
A penny saved is a penny earned. A job saved is a job earned.

marcus says

This will go down in history as the worst the working class has fucked themselves in an election, EVER.

Trump -- surprisingly to me -- got the same level of support from the evangelicals as Romney and Bush, ~80%.

it was the age 40+ white upper middle class that made the difference in the swing states, and maybe they'll be doing OK next decade.

it's the 47% that are fucked going forward.

then again if the House gets its SSA wishlist passed -- full retirement moved from 67 to 69, weaker inflation raises, means testing -- then all wage earners voting for Trump really fucked themselves.

Then again the way the average trumper thinks, if the people below them get hurt more, then we'll be great again.

Strategist says

Our propensity to save is dismal.

savings is overrated. Just ask the Japanese.

when you save -- not spend -- money you're taking food off some wage earner's table.

the only way to "save" for the future is to make sure we collectively produce more than we can consume.

we're not there yet, alas.

Ironman says

and Dollar wise, a rich person will pay MILLIONS more than you

Why do poor losers care about the rich? Idiotism?

Ironman says

I highly doubt it.

Why? Dual income households making 500K+ a year in bay area are paying close to 200K in taxes (including social security and medicare). It's not that uncommon here.

Ironman says

Then why aren't you bitching on how much money the country spends/wastes every year? Here's a hint, if the COUNTRY was fiscally conservative, everyone would be paying LESS taxes to support it, and you wouldn't be having this conversation.

I do bitch about waste with plenty of my posts over the last 11 years proving it. However 2/3 of the federal budget is social security and medicare; that's not waste. Trump wants to increase deficit and debt substantially, that's not fiscally conservative.

Ironman says

I don't see you saying much about the debt being doubled the last 8 years.

I have said plenty about debt growth. As I mentioned earlier 3T of debt piled on during Obama are the Bush tax cuts from 2001. I have made plenty of posts about this issue and being mad at Obama for not letting them expire in 2010.

BayArea says

my understanding is he's raising the standard deduction ($15k single, $30k joint)

So this doesn't help very many people who itemize, unless I am misunderstanding something.

tr6 says

Trump wants to increase deficit and debt substantially, that's not fiscally conservative.

Trump's plan also includes more Americans working and working at higher wages, that's how he is going to make up the difference (and then some).

tr6 says

However 2/3 of the federal budget is social security and medicare; that's not waste.

You can raise social security eligibility age a little, plus once good manufacturing jobs become plentiful in the US for people with little or no skills, the social security "disability" rolls can be cut in half.

Ironman says

marcus says

GUESS WHAT ? WE DIDN't DO THIS SHIT BACK WHEN AMERICA WAS GREAT !

Guess what, we also didn't have a president that DOUBLED the debt during his term either!!!

You're making my argument for me. Regardless of how much is truly attributable to Obama (you know the facts).

But you are making my argument for me. Taxes are too low relative to spending. Just like in real life, if you actually pay your bills (rather than living on debt), only then will you find a way to spend less.

So here's the back and forth:

Marcus: We used to have much higher tax rates on higher increments of income (i.e. back when America was great)

Ironman: Well we also used to not run huge deficits.

Marcus: Exactly, thank you very much.

Suffice it to say, when taxes were higher, we lived within our means. It would happen again, if the rich paid more, because they are also the ones that have the most influence on government. They would be watching what the other guy gets, instead of saying "you get your piece as long as I get mine."

joeyjojojunior says

why do you consider this business friendly

that's what you asked and that's my answer, you can look up the details of his tax plan for the reasons why it is business friendly.

so did you look? tell us why it is not business friendly.

"that's what you asked and that's my answer, you can look up the details of his tax plan for the reasons why it is business friendly.
so did you look? tell us why it is not business friendly."

Of course it's business friendly. Or more specifically, it's business owner friendly. But, it won't create any jobs.

Quigley says

I think another bracket should be created for million+ earners at 40%. Then we could call it good.

Agreed

Tenpoundbass says

Trump is ver reactionary, he listens to his constituency.

Yes, he does. It just so happens that his constituency consists of billionaires.

tr6 says

with no trickle down happening.

Trickle down economics worked great, it's just that it all tricked down to Mexico, China, etc.

tr6 says

Why, I am paying into it,

Legally mandated ponzi scheme.

tr6 says

I don't want to wait till 70 to start taking money out.

Neither does anyone else, but we all can't retire at 50 or we will end up like Greece.