KillerMovies - Movies That Matter!

REGISTER HERE TO JOIN IN! - It's easy and it's free!
Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » Analysis of Trump''s Tax Plan

Analysis of Trump''s Tax Plan
Started by: Rockydonovang

Forum Jump:
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (12): « First ... « 6 7 [8] 9 10 » ... Last »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)








Dis my shit, right here.





Feels good, man.


__________________

Old Post Dec 23rd, 2017 10:51 PM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

FRANKENSTEIN STRIKES: More Companies Announce Bonuses, Wage Increases and Expansion, Thanks to Tax Reform

"If this destructive misery continues apace, I'm not sure there will be a single American still alive by the end of the holiday season. You've heard the terrible news about Boeing, Fifth Third Comcast, Wells Fargo, AT&T -- all of which are celebrating passage of the tax reform bill by some combination of paying out bonuses to non-executive employees, expanding their businesses, stepping up charitable investments, and raising their hourly wage. The Washington Post also chronicles CVS' pledge to hire 3,000 workers into permanent new jobs. But the devastation doesn't end there. Texas:

Rush Enterprises, Inc., which operates the largest network of commercial vehicle dealerships in North America, today announced that as a result of recent tax reform legislation, it will provide a one-time $1,000 gift to its approximately 6,600 employees in the United States. “We believe tax reform to be beneficial for Rush Enterprises, our communities and overall economic growth,” said W.M. “Rusty” Rush, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Rush Enterprises, Inc. “We are happy to take this step to invest in our employees and honor their important contributions to our company with this $1,000 gift,” he added. The $1,000 discretionary bonus will be paid to all Rush Enterprises, Inc. employees once the President signs the tax reform bill into law. "


__________________
"I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas

Old Post Dec 23rd, 2017 10:59 PM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Rockydonovang
freedom fighter

Gender: Male
Location:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Surtur
And yet, they seem to know nothing about a tax plan they hate, until another name is put on it lol. It's deeply sad.

Except that the tax plan they were presented with wasn't the republican tax plan, only part of it. So you don't have a point.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Surtur
And how is it any more or less misleading than the media who only talk about the nasty bits? I'd love for your response to this question to be "Surtur, it is indeed not any more or less misleading". [/B]

Blatantly not true. Every single provision listed inthe video has been mentioned and was included in virtually every main stream media outlet's overview of the bill.

Your deflection is both based on imagination. Maybe if you bothered to read past headlines, you'd stop misrepresenting what the media outlets you criticize say.

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 06:44 AM
Rockydonovang is currently offline Click here to Send Rockydonovang a Private Message Find more posts by Rockydonovang Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

But they had no clue of ANY of the details obviously lol, try again.

And yes, the media is doing the opposite, acting like this is the end of the world. It's not. It's not the best thing ever, nor is it the worst thing ever, period.


__________________
"I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 07:06 PM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Emperordmb
LSDMB

Gender: Male
Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan

I have to say the reactions to this bio have been frankly hysterical. “The evil rich people are stealing from the American citizens and getting handouts! This is Armageddon! There will be no more America after this. HOLY SHIT WE KILLED TINY TIM!!! TINY TIM IS DEAD AND WE KILLED HIM!!!”


__________________

“I am Darth Umbravon, and I am the darkness, I am the Shadow of the Sith!”

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 09:16 PM
Emperordmb is currently offline Click here to Send Emperordmb a Private Message Find more posts by Emperordmb Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Emperordmb
LSDMB

Gender: Male
Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan

Like when Trump got elected I was like “there’s no way he’s getting re-elected”, though watching a particular very public face of his opposition it’s hard to not think “wow these dumbasses are gonna get this guy elected again and they won’t even know it’s their fault.”


__________________

“I am Darth Umbravon, and I am the darkness, I am the Shadow of the Sith!”

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 09:19 PM
Emperordmb is currently offline Click here to Send Emperordmb a Private Message Find more posts by Emperordmb Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have to say the reactions to this bio have been frankly hysterical. “The evil rich people are stealing from the American citizens and getting handouts! This is Armageddon! There will be no more America after this. HOLY SHIT WE KILLED TINY TIM!!! TINY TIM IS DEAD AND WE KILLED HIM!!!”


Yep, it's sad. It is why they aren't to be taken seriously. Some morons were protesting and shouting this tax plan was going to kill them lol.


__________________
"I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 09:20 PM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Flyattractor
Senior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: B.F.K

If only we could get that lucky.


__________________
Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
Happy Dance Happy Dance Happy Dance Happy Dance

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 09:23 PM
Flyattractor is currently offline Click here to Send Flyattractor a Private Message Find more posts by Flyattractor Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Rockydonovang
freedom fighter

Gender: Male
Location:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Surtur] But they had no clue of ANY of the details obviously lol, try again.

Please substantiate this claim that they had no clue about anything in the tax bill? You can't because aside from most of the interviewees not being quizzed for their knowledge of the bill's specifics, you also have no idea how many people were interviewed overall, and just how many of those people have responses similar to those interviewed.

Of course all of this is just a deflection from the main point in the post you originally responded to:

The source you cited tried to potray a group of people as stupid based on what a chest picked handful of them said regarding a [i]portion[/quote]of the plan.

It's rather hypocritical for someone who doesn't trust media for their misleading narratives to prop up media that blatantly misrepresents what a group of people say.

Your quest to call out hypocrisy is likely best started with yourself.
quote:

And yes, the media is doing the opposite,
Do tell Surt, which part of my post was this supposed to address? Please do be specific and quote me. Or are we deflecting again?
quote:
acting like this is the end of the world. It's not.
Do be specific. Which media source specifically called it the end of the world? Something doesn't have to be the end of the world to deserve heavy criticism. Not that you'd actually be able to determine how heavily the tax bill is being criticized since you only read headlines.
quote:
It's not the best thing ever, nor is it the worst thing ever, period.
Surt logic: Antifa is neither the worst thing in the world or the best thing in the world. Hence news that gives Antifa lopsidedly negative coverage is fake news.

Last edited by Rockydonovang on Dec 24th, 2017 at 09:39 PM

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 09:35 PM
Rockydonovang is currently offline Click here to Send Rockydonovang a Private Message Find more posts by Rockydonovang Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

Holy shit, are you retarded? They do not act like they are being told things they already know were in the tax bill. If they knew they were in the tax bill they would have known it wasn't Bernies plan.

And you said it's blatantly not true the media isn't doing the opposite, but they are IMO.

And I was using hyperbole, they are acting like this is the end of the world. Are you saying you truly didn't get that?

Your Antifa example makes no sense. Try harder. I never said negative coverage is fake news lol. I said people are getting hysterical. We had people protesting this saying they were going to die over this.

And btw the quoting system here doesn't always work. You should know that by now.


__________________
"I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas

Last edited by Surtur on Dec 24th, 2017 at 10:14 PM

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 10:11 PM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago


__________________
"I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 10:22 PM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

This bugs me too:

"As the Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin tweeted on Tuesday, 80 percent of households will get cuts in 2018, but only 17 percent in a WSJ poll believe they’re getting tax cuts"


__________________
"I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 10:24 PM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Rockydonovang
freedom fighter

Gender: Male
Location:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Surtur
Holy shit, are you retarded?

Someone's pissed his non sequitirs's have been exposed.

Surt, my post was talking about how the media has covered the parts of the tax bill the video included, you deflected onto some tangent about media hysteria which you've backed up by cherrypicking one or two articles, one of which wasn't actually about "hysteria".

Cherry picked interviewees don't really tell me much for the reasons I stated and you ignored.

I'm aware you were being hyperbolic. I made fun of your hyperbole because it doesn't tell me anything of substance because it's so exaggerated it doesn't remotely resemble the level of criticism that's been levied against Trump's bill by the vast majority of mainstream media outlets or mainstream "leftists". Naturally you usually make points with extreme hyperbole as then you don't have to actually represent what you're crtiticizing accurately.

It's easy to criticize "Trump is ending the world!" over "Trump's policy is bad".

I know the quote system doesn't always work, hence I made a request, not a demand. That doesn't mean you can't paraphrase the part of my post you were responding to.

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 10:38 PM
Rockydonovang is currently offline Click here to Send Rockydonovang a Private Message Find more posts by Rockydonovang Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

Lol, you literally asked me to substantiate my claim about the video. I did, and I pointed out it was a retarded thing to even ask. Which it was lol. If they knew those things were in the Republican tax plan they would have known it wasn't Bernie's. Now suddenly it is "well my point was really something else, despite specifically asking you about that as well".

And I never said the media never covered this stuff. I said that they pull similar shit by giving one side of the story or just not all the details. You can see what Morning Joe did as an example.

I already showed you hysterical reactions though, you can dismiss if you want, but then don't ask lol.

And exactly, it IS easy to criticize the hysteria. Because it is so very unnecessary. There is shit to criticize without doing so. People on the left have a history of taking a legitimate issue and taking it to its extreme.


__________________
"I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas

Last edited by Surtur on Dec 24th, 2017 at 10:53 PM

Old Post Dec 24th, 2017 10:48 PM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
lazybones
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
When I called the 10% drop dreary, I was referring to the fact that most of the reductions were happening before the War On Poverty was implemented.
Other then the 1996 cuts there has been no real drop on poverty there can be no substantial drop in poverty which can be attributed to the War on Poverty.
I still take issue with your decision to call the welfare reforms cuts. You have detailed ways in which they retrenched spending in the immediate to short term, but they did literally zero to reel in welfare spending in the medium-long term.

(please log in to view the image)

Indeed, I am surprised that any right winger would call them cuts, considering that your whole argument is that welfare spending has been rising and is out of control with no effects on poverty. Now, you are trying to pass the 1996 reforms off as a drastic reversal and a representation of your ideas in action, when it kept many welfare measures from New Deal and onwards intact.


quote:
You posted two graphics which illustrate a reduction in Elderly Poverty and Child Poverty.The first graphic demonstrated the fact that odious Social Security benefits and Medicare assistance do drop poverty. I do not think it is fair to say that these are the only mechanisms by which poverty can decrease. We can utilize the Personal Savings Rate to show how Social Security effected human action. To quote Forbes,
Are you really saying that a 7 point drop in savings is more significant of a change than a 30+ point drop in poverty among seniors? Because I'm sure that most would see that as a rather good tradeoff. Having almost half of seniors in poverty was a dreadful situation and one that would be inconceivable to go back to in exchange for a few percentage points more in savings. The poor and lower-middle class, who do not have the financial capacity to save significant amounts, would be utterly crushed if social security were abolished. And those over 30 who have been expecting to have their retirement savings buttressed by Social Security may need to, suddenly, start putting massive amounts of their income aside to ensure they won't retire with little-nothing. According to David Moratta, President of Marotta Wealth Management, those who start to save even at 30 have to put 20%+ away (> current payroll tax), and that only increases as you go on.

(please log in to view the image)

http://www.marottaonmoney.com/how-m...-starting-late/

And of course, that is utterly inconceivable for those who are on average or low incomes, who may still have low amounts of spare income to save even after tax cuts. After all, they pay very low effective rates so won't get much back.

(please log in to view the image)


quote:
The problem here, of course, is that lack of saving precipitates a slower economy. Saving creates more money to invest in capital goods. The Keynesian will usually rebut by claiming that spending makes up the most significant percentage of GDP. The great economist Mark Skousen calculated Gross Domestic Expenditures. He did this as GDP estimates leave out the intermediary steps, goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages that all go into bringing a product to market.
I'm not interested in debating an economist interpretation of economic output. Not the topic of this discussion. The topic is welfare and its reduction of poverty. And this looks to be a total rethink of economic output that is not the consensus.


quote:
This is imperative as it demonstrates why the working-age American poverty rate has been relatively stagnant ever since the War On Poverty began.
Source for graph? Because graph compiled by the CBPP does not show stagnant poverty rates.

(please log in to view the image)

Although I imagine this is the case of you using graphs and figures which totally discount the effect of transfer in the forms of welfare payments (and, by the way, the taxes that go along with them). In which case, this is a disagreement on the right sort of data to use.
quote:


This, of course, does not mention the effect of the Social Security Tax. The economist Andrew Biggs ran the numbers on poverty without the Social Security Tax and actual social security,

Biggs continued the analysis and applied it to the entire populous,

He also discusses the repercussions of the change in policy,

These results are astounding. The elimination of the Social Security Tax creates a far greater boost in income the EITC.
Okay then, let's replace the current system of payroll taxes. Let's bring Social Security under the purview of general taxation, and allow the government to use a more diverse range of tools to pay for it. A small sales tax on the national level, along with eliminating several deductions on income tax (most of which benefit the wealthy, particularly the mortgage/charitable deductions), could be but a few ways we could do this. We don't need to throw social security out, just change the way it is funded.

Indeed, a study by two economists at the Tax Policy Center (J.Nunns and J.Rosenberg), suggest that such an approach would lead to an effective tax decrease for every income quintile but the very highest. See page 29 for the breakdown. This isn't the only way to replace payroll taxes, but it is the most suggested and would seem to have good results.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publ...ayroll-tax/full



quote:
While I have more to say on this topic, I will save it for future responses. The second graphic expounds upon the reduction in child poverty. This graph merely proves my point. It indicates that the policies put in place by the government have failed in creating positive behavior. The only reason why so many citizens are not impoverished is due to government handouts. Self-sufficiency is a dying art. Here is a great podcast which discusses the culture which welfare inculcates:
Not true, I'm afraid. A team of economists from MIT and Harvard studied welfare systems in several countries, and concluded there there was "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...h-transfer-work

quote:
The second thing which your graph indicates is the success in the welfare reforms of 1996 in reducing child poverty. This assists my argument.
Well,no. Because your argument is that we should abolish welfare altogether. The 1996 reforms did not come even remotely close to doing this, and welfare spending continued to grow afterwards. My argument is that a disciplined welfare state is a good tool to reduce poverty, and the welfare reforms after 1996 show that is correct. You seem to be moving the goalposts here.

quote:
All of the way until 1996, child poverty was higher then it was when these programs were first established. If you were correct, then poverty should have increased after the reforms.
No, because I support the reforms. I don't support a welfare state that gives money in an irresponsible manner, and the '96 reforms fixed many of those problems. You are moving the goalposts and defending a set of reforms that doesn't even enshrine your beliefs of the welfare system into law, and actually done nothing to stop the rise in welfare spending that you right wingers so constantly decry.


quote:
The reforms replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. We can see the decrease in welfare receipts to single mothers. The peak year of welfare receipts was 1976. During that year, 71% of single mothers received AFDC benefits.
The AFDC was a truly flawed element of the pre-96 welfare system, so I'm not going to defend it. I'll simply point to other welfare programs which can alleviate poverty whilst still encouraging work, like the EITC.

quote:
But I would still it is disingenuous to place the majority of said boost on EITC expansion. Most states had switched a federal waiver program which was created to create more work and greater independence.
Well, that's exactly what happened. Here's the CBPP's analysis of results by Jeffrey Grogger.

(please log in to view the image)




quote:
Another indicator that '96 welfare reforms are responsible for the decrease in Welfare Receipts is the unmarried mother unemployment rate.

So, while it would be foolish to say that the expansion in Earned Income Tax Credit does not affect child poverty, I think the success falls more resoundingly on the 1996 reforms.
Except that actual studies on the matter found the expansion of the EITC almost as effective at alleviating single mother unemployment than welfare policies and labor market factors combined. See above graphic.


quote:
You are probably wondering, why I spent so much time analyzing these cuts. The main reason is that cutting welfare is the best way to eliminate child poverty and single motherhood.
Or reforming them to better encourage work, while still keeping welfare and welfare spending intact? Because that is what the '96 reforms did. Okay, cuts in the immediate to short term, but the biggest changes were in how welfare was distributed and the welfare to work incentives.

Last edited by lazybones on Jan 3rd, 2018 at 08:46 PM

Old Post Jan 3rd, 2018 08:37 PM
lazybones is currently offline Click here to Send lazybones a Private Message Find more posts by lazybones Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
lazybones
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location:

quote:
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I would have to have down syndrome to believe that welfare has not lifted people out of poverty. I, just, do not think it is the best method to achieve these results.

Well, then we're moving into the realm of hypotheticals. That's fine, but considering the powerful effects of welfare programs, there would need to be substantial assurances that poverty would not decrease afterwards. And economic analysis show that poverty could creep up to as high as 29% without welfare programs.


quote:
Welfare subsidizes poor behavior and does not encourage people to leave the poverty line as demonstrated by the Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure Before Taxes and Transfers.


Again, economists from MIT/Harvard have studied the effects of welfare payments and have concluded that they do not reduce work incentive. The Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure Before Taxes and Transfers is obviously flawed because it literally does not factor in the benefits of these programs. And considering the fact that inflation has outpaced wages in many years, it is likely that abolishing welfare will just push poor people further into poverty and make the climb upwards more difficult. After all, the EITC actually gives extra $ when you earn and work more. The phase out is probably too soon, but it is ultimately an incentive to work harder. By removing this and other benefits, you would actually dampen the rewards for working harder and throw about 70 million into poverty, or further into it, from which they will find it hard to ascend from due to those stagnating wages.

quote:
But if we want to do the math here, let's go for it. 4 million people lifted out of poverty due to SNAP. The problem with these analyses is that they do not assume that the tax burden without these programs would be drastically number. From, this point forward, we are going to be getting super speculative. The National Priorities Center has been kind enough to provide an estimated tax receipt. So, I will be using this to assume the amount of money the average American saves without these programs. I will also do this with low-income Americans using the payroll tax. So, the average American pays $14,051 in Federal Income Taxes. Out of that number 1,735.64 goes to Medicaid, $368.10 for SNAP (food stamps), $77.48 for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. These were all of the Federal Assistance Programs labeled. This adds up to $2181.22 in tax relief just in Federal Income Taxes alone.
The first problem I have is that the average American isn't the primary beneficiary of welfare programs, so we would expect them to pay in a little more than they get back.
But $2181 isn't that much. In fact, that's about $300 less than just the average EITC payment of $2477. Remember that Medicaid also shaves off about $1,500 off insurance costs for adults, which is almost as much as they pay in for that program by your calculations. So the net tax relief in terms of income tax for middle earners could drop to about $680 for some, which is trivial.

(please log in to view the image)


And that shouldn't be surprising, because in a progressive income tax system, the poor and lower-middle class pay a very low effective tax rate. And welfare payments are concentrated towards them, so they receive a net benefit and the average earners are slight net-cost, but not much. The notable issue with the current system is that the EITC is not expansive enough, and should cover more tax payers to ensure that people are always working towards a higher income and can get their money back in some way.

(please log in to view the image)


quote:
You may look at this and say isn't this great you've only made the rich richer. But this surge and income go beyond only the average middle-class American. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the lowest-income quintile — those making less than $19,000 a year — pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes.


Including state taxes in this seems somewhat misplaced considering that we are talking about mainly federal welfare programs (so if they were abolished, only federal taxes would be affected). And most of the taxes that lower income people pay are payroll taxes, which we could replace while still keeping welfare intact, as I have explained earlier citing the study by Nunn and Rosenberg.


quote:
So, that is another big boost in revenue. This is just for welfare programs, but the poor mainly pay their income in payroll taxes. If we wanted to get people out of poverty, we would just eliminate the social security tax. All of this far supersedes the grants provided by EITC and CTC.


Okay, I agree. Let's get rid of payroll tax. I simply believe that we should have the best of both worlds by replacing payroll tax with a more diverse and less punishing range of taxes. That way, we can still keep the welfare system in place while giving most people tax relief.


quote:
The average SNAP grant is 1,500 dollars a year. This grant is still less than the amount of money which would be gained from removing this program+social security.

So, all in all, the average American would receive huge tax relief, the poor would probably break even in tax relief when you include the CTC, and other federal programs.

The average American would potentially receive less in tax relief than the average EITC payment, and even less when you factor the benefits from Medicaid. And although it does get less rosy when you include payroll tax, we can always replace payroll tax, reduce it, or make it more progressive. And also as I explained earlier, abolishing Social Security would see people at the age of 30 with few-little retirement savings needing to put more than 20% of their income away to retire comfortably, which is lower than the tax relief they would receive from abolishing payroll tax. The result? Crippling senior poverty and a more squeezed middle class.



quote:
According to your data, real income among the poor has increased about 29% excluding benefits. In past years, such increases are synonymous with less impoverished citizens. Due to the excessive welfare expenditures, this trend has changed as illustrated by the Anchored Supplemental Poverty Rate Before Taxes and Transfers. So, while social programs have decreased poverty it is not clear that such decreases could not be achieved through other means.

Okay, but you need to explain what those other means are, and how they would alleviate poverty for about 70 million people like the current programs do. Eliminating payroll tax would indeed be a massive boost, but it would come at the cost of eliminating Social Security unless it was replaced with a sales tax. Social Security lifts millions of seniors out of poverty, and provides an essential safety net for poor people who cannot save and could not adequately save even with refunded payroll tax, so if you abolish it then you will certainly make things worse as far as poverty is concerned.


quote:
To continue on this notion, I will look at the work of the economist John C. Goodman. There are four ways to discourage poverty that are accepted by the economic community to reduce poverty. There was a well-known bipartisan study conducted by the Brookings Institute with the AEI that was designed to find the cures for poverty. It was administered by Jonathan Haidt. So, I would not say it is really all that partisan. They found four steps that severely limit poverty. The study found four steps which one can follow if they do not want to be impoverished.

Step one: Finish Highschool

Step two: Get a job,

Step three: Get married, and

Step four: Don’t have children until you get married.

Okay, but the recent social trends like the decline of religion make more unlikely for steps three and four to be achieved. I know it is difficult to accept, but this way of life is simply dying. Welfare or no welfare, we will continue to see the decline of marriage and the family because of less religiosity.

quote:
Goodman focused on point two first. How does welfare affect job rates? Goodman quotes a study which was conducted before the War on Poverty began,

More recent studies have found little correlation between welfare and work rates, because welfare is managed in a far more competent and smarter way now. I'm not sure if Goodman's findings really apply to contemporary society.



quote:
From the end of World War II until 1964 the poverty rate in this country was cut in half. Further, 94% of the change in the poverty rate over this period can be explained by changes in per capita income alone. Given all of the economic growth that has transpired between 1964 and today, poverty should be a non-factor.

(please log in to view the image)


That's a pretty absurd graph. You can't just take previous trends and baselessly extrapolate them. After all, you have no idea whether poverty rates would have continued to decline in the same way without welfare. You are just assuming they would, and that such decreases would follow quite a linear trend.

And of course, we actually do have studies that show that poverty would be around 29% still if it were not for the welfare payments, so we know that your graph represents an overoptimistic view. I'd also point to the fact that the post-war economic boom was coming to a close at the time the War on Poverty was implemented. And considering that economic growth is a massive factor on poverty, I would suggest that poverty rates would have stopped declining in the same way, because growth had slumped and there were more recessions.

Old Post Jan 3rd, 2018 08:42 PM
lazybones is currently offline Click here to Send lazybones a Private Message Find more posts by lazybones Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
lazybones
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Of course, I would never expect poverty to fall so sharply, mainly due to inflation, it does speak volumes. I, expect, you are going to counter be explanation the wage-productivity gap, but I will address that down below. To conclude, it is disingenuous to tout the CBPP's graph as evidence of the War on Poverty's success. It does not include all of the taxes which welfare levies on the populous and the negative social effects which have drastic effects on poverty.
The measure the CBPP uses is the Supplementary Poverty rate after transfers and taxes. So it does take into account the taxes, and we actually see a steeper decrease by that metric, which would suggest many net beneficiaries from these programs, which is hardly surprising given the low effective tax rate that poorer people pay.

(please log in to view the image)


quote:
I'll start off with the simple points. The inclusion of the benefits depends on the context of the discussion. I was pointing out that welfare has not changed behavior in a positive light. I have, amply, covered this above.
The whole point of this discussion was whether welfare has reduced poverty. And you have accepted that welfare has indeed done so after I provided the figure of about 70 million people being either lifted out of poverty or being made less poor. You can argue on the other effects on welfare and potential alternatives, but all that ultimately detracts from the fact that the welfare system is a powerful anti-poverty tool once you actually factor them in the statistics.



quote:
The wage-productivity gap is an economic myth. James Sherk did an excellent job addressing this concern, I will report his findings. There are three errors which the wage-productivity charts possess.
As I have said, point conceded on productivity vs wages. But inflation vs wages is still unaddressed. Yes, that is the problem of the Fed, but every major country has a central bank. It's not like we could ever get rid of it. Thus, we need to work around through welfare payments which top up the earnings of low-middle income earners.


quote: (post)
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The only economic return is giving people money. To quote Lao Tzu,



I have addressed all of the points in this post above. Moving on.
Yeah, not convinced that the words of a long-dead Chinese philosopher have any sort of relevance to a debate on modern welfare payments. And if your quote of him is meant as a suggestion that we could teach people to live without welfare, then that is simply ridiculous. After all, wages are being outpaced by inflation in many years, so it'll be extremely difficult for people to work their way up (as their pay increases will be shredded).


quote:
This is another economic myth. I have already addressed the fact that GDP does not include investment, but there are still more flaws to uncover. If you have taken any introductory macro class you know the formula for GDP.

GDP = C + I + G + NX,

C and I are consumption and private investment. G is government spending and NX is net expenditures. Even if we dismiss all of the difficulties that go into finding these figures it is still just accounting jargon, not actual economic theory. An increase in G is going to increase GDP, ceteris paribus. This issue here is that the argument rests on ceteris paribus. To quote the Austrian economist Bob Murphy,



Even if we assume that the decrease in G does not raise GDP, that still does not mean we should advocate government spending. 10 million dollars spent by a politician are less effective than 10 million dollars spent in the market. If the Keynesian multiplier was accurate, then the Sequester would have much more dire consequences. To quote Murphy,
This is interesting, but other studies on this have found that government spending cuts reduce growth, which would suggest that government spending increases would boost growth as long as they were well targeted. In particular the study done by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, its findings which you can find below.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/data-...1?r=US&IR=T

Although I suppose the multiplier effect was not as powerful as I first thought, so point conceded there. But there does seem to be at least a modest to moderate benefit from govt spending.

quote:
Point 1: The way we measure poverty has changed but it still indicates a decrease in impoverished citizens and the way we measure real income has not really changed at all. The decline of marriage rests on the shoulders of welfare.
Again, while I'm sure welfare takes some of the blame for the decline of marriage, I'd point to the decline of religiosity as the dominant factor here. After all, the decline of marriage is a trend that we are seeing across the West, despite Western countries have very different welfare systems. The only constant is the decline of religion, which has been happening everywhere.

quote:
Point 2: This is obviously not true as addressed above.
Except the evidence shows it to be absolutely true. Without welfare, the poverty rate would be around 29%, which was its rate in around 1947.

(please log in to view the image)

Although to be fair, the 'no government assistance' figures do not include taxes. But as the lower-middle income tax payers pay a low or negligible effective tax rate, I doubt that this would change the above findings too much.

quote:
Point 3: The economic boom of WW2 is another economic myth perpetuated by the neocons. Here is a video which details this myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71tPBjrTeJU
Eh, it's more of a consensus among economists and historians. Many 'economic miracles' occurred after WW2. The Marshall Plan turbocharged economic growth and lead to a prolonged era of prosperity, which ended in the 70s (which may explain why poverty rates were declining up until that point and also reinforces my point that such poverty rate declines would not have continued, because the economic boom times were over by that point).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%...nomic_expansion

Last edited by lazybones on Jan 3rd, 2018 at 08:53 PM

Old Post Jan 3rd, 2018 08:43 PM
lazybones is currently offline Click here to Send lazybones a Private Message Find more posts by lazybones Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
lazybones
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by lazybones


. And also as I explained earlier, abolishing Social Security would see people at the age of 30 with few-little retirement savings needing to put more than 20% of their income away to retire comfortably, which is higher than the tax relief they would receive from abolishing payroll tax. The result? Crippling senior poverty and a more squeezed middle class.

Correction:I meant higher, here, not lower. 20% is considerably higher than effective tax rate of lower-middle earners even after income+payroll.

I'm also not sure how long this discussion can continue given that we are operating from different premises, datasets, measurements, outlook on the economy/society, expert opinions etc... I don't mind going for a little longer, but I doubt there is going to be much movement here in terms of stances.

Last edited by lazybones on Jan 4th, 2018 at 12:53 PM

Old Post Jan 4th, 2018 12:39 PM
lazybones is currently offline Click here to Send lazybones a Private Message Find more posts by lazybones Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

Multiple airlines now are giving raises due to this. American and Southwest I think.


__________________
"I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas

Old Post Jan 4th, 2018 03:43 PM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Robtard
KMC's #1 Rated Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: Captain's Chair, CA

Remember this:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe an extra $1000 is "nothing" to you, but not to everyone. And it's a win pretty much within 24 hours lol. Like Trump jr. says: love it.

And this is why I love these stories. Leftists will bend over backwards to downplay them and will just come off as petty sore losers. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't(because not screeching about this will lose a Dem credibility), which is a position Trump is usually put in. The optics: love it smile

I predict similar responses to every single story about this tax plan that paints Trump in a good light.


quote: (post)
Originally posted by Surtur
O to the P to the T I C S

Comcast announces $1,000 bonuses after passage of tax bill


And now, this:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...usands-of-jobs/

"The firings happened around December 15. On December 20, Comcast announced that, because of the pending tax cut and recent repeal of net neutrality rules, it would give "special bonuses" of $1,000 to more than 100,000 employees and invest more than $50 billion in infrastructure over the next five years.

"With these investments, we expect to add thousands of new direct and indirect jobs," Comcast said at the time."


It must be nice to be an ISP in the US. You're basically a super villain with immunity.

The $50 billion in investment to infrastructure takes into account their regular maintenance costs from what I can tell and they've already been given over $300 billion to invest by the government that they've pocketed.

Anybody who trusts an ISP to regulate itself is a flat out idiot. They'd sacrifice human beings if it was legal and earned them more profit. I did my undergrad COOP at a Telecom company before I knew better and was hypnotized by money. The people working there are borderline sociopathic when it comes to the bottom line and bonuses. And this was in Canada.

They made the employees they fired sign NDA's. Smh.

"The firings happened around December 15. On December 20, Comcast announced that, because of the pending tax cut and recent repeal of net neutrality rules, it would give "special bonuses" of $1,000 to more than 100,000 employees and invest more than $50 billion in infrastructure over the next five years.

"With these investments, we expect to add thousands of new direct and indirect jobs," Comcast said at the time.

We examined Comcast's investment claims in an article on December 21. As it turns out, Comcast's annual investments already soared during the two-plus years that net neutrality rules were on the books, and the $50 billion amount could be achieved if those investments simply continued increasing by a modest amount.

Comcast was one of the most active companies lobbying for lower corporate tax rates in 2017, Vox reported shortly before the tax changes passed in December."


Snake oil salesmen. Assume anything a large corporation fees you in the press is partially if not fully false. In capitalism, a corporation exists to maximize only profit, they'll lie, cheat and steal to do this. This is a fact.

"Comcast isn't the only company whose actions contradict statements that workers would benefit from the corporate tax cut. AT&T claimed that it would invest another $1 billion because of the tax cut and said that "research tells us that every $1 billion in capital invested in telecom creates about 7,000 good jobs for the middle class."

But as we wrote yesterday, AT&T is now laying off thousands of employees and is facing a lawsuit from a workers' union that is trying to stop the mass layoffs."


Surtur's Smugphaggotry
Dec 21st 2017 - Jan 4th 2018
R.I.P.


__________________


You've Just Been Kirked To The Curb

Old Post Jan 9th, 2018 06:19 PM
Robtard is currently offline Click here to Send Robtard a Private Message Find more posts by Robtard Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
All times are UTC. The time now is 08:14 AM.
Pages (12): « First ... « 6 7 [8] 9 10 » ... Last »   Last Thread   Next Thread

Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » Analysis of Trump''s Tax Plan

Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread
   Post New Thread  Post A Reply

Forum Jump:
Search by user:
 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON

Text-only version
 

< - KillerMovies.com - Forum Archive - Forum Rules >


© Copyright 2000-2006, KillerMovies.com. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by: vBulletin, copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.