Originally posted by BackFire
Funny to see the repubs using the same argument for this unpopular tax plan as the dems did for their unpopular obamacare - "People will like it once they experience it".Time will tell how it works out for the GOP and this tax plan.
Kind of like how the Demo's break out the usual Lies about Hate and Fear every time a Tax Cut comes up.
Ahh Politics.
This bull run has been going for almost an unprecedented amount of time. At one point, we went 109 days without a 1% decline in the S&P. It's lunacy. Junk bonds are valued as prime securities, corporations are buying back their shares at record pace (This simulates growth, pushing price up) and expanding by accumulating debt at a ridiculous level. I am a firm believer in EROI being tied to the market ROI and the deeper you dig into the current trends and compare it to past market data, the more you feel like chicken little with a hard hat.
Clear ALL your debt. Live frugally. Save every penny and don't attach your money into any high beta securities. This shit is coming down hard. I just hope it won't be for another 5 years so I can get all my shit in order.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
That's.....nothing. It's so insignificant to the overall economy particularly the money they save on taxes and the wealth they've accumulated so far. Particularly Fargo and AT&T. Have you seen their earnings report for the last 5 years? They've made a lot of people money over the years but they're the worst example of capitalism run unchecked.It's the equivalent of a local government where every member is obese on fine food giving out a quarter of a single grain of rice to about 1000 people each in an imporvished community only for the people to be grateful.
Don't fall for it. Do some fundamental analysis, all information can be found on google.
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 🙂
I predict similar responses to every single story about this tax plan that paints Trump in a good light.
O to the P to the T I C S
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. .
The left LOVES Govt, when the govt has a new plan to give money to a group they love it (they expect the money from the well to do.) Now there is money being given out and all of a sudden it's a problem because of how it is being dispersed or why.
Originally posted by snowdragon
The left LOVES Govt, when the govt has a new plan to give money to a group they love it (they expect the money from the well to do.) Now there is money being given out and all of a sudden it's a problem because of how it is being dispersed or why.
The hysteria is just crazy. A lunatic leftist took off her top protesting at congress lol. She still had a bra on, but people were going nuts.
"NBC News released footage via Twitter of a group of people shouting “kill the bill, don’t kill us” on repeat at one point. The Speaker was forced to call the Sargent at Arms and have the people removed."
They do not care about having a dialogue, they wanna shout slogans like imbeciles.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
That's.....nothing. It's so insignificant to the overall economy particularly the money they save on taxes and the wealth they've accumulated so far. Particularly Fargo and AT&T. Have you seen their earnings report for the last 5 years? They've made a lot of people money over the years but they're the worst example of capitalism run unchecked.It's the equivalent of a local government where every member is obese on fine food giving out a quarter of a single grain of rice to about 1000 people each in an imporvished community only for the people to be grateful.
Don't fall for it. Do some fundamental analysis, all information can be found on google.
^ This guy understands Bread and Circuses
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 🙂
I predict similar responses to every single story about this tax plan that paints Trump in a good light.
^ This guy's too busy being a smugphag to see the Forest for The Trees
Originally posted by Robtard
^ This guy understands Bread and Circuses^ This guy's too busy being a smugphag to see the Forest for The Trees
Yeah it's probably way WORSE then the cash for clunkers program...lulz.
The money that these people will get will more then likely greatly improve their christmas experience, in addition it will get thrown back into the economy in the form of consumerism plus taxes.
So in the bigger picture what do you expect from a tax bill in a culture that thrives on FB headlines to feed their news experience?
I recall in 2001 when GW Bush signed his tax cut bill and people received their $300-$600 dollar checks, the mentally then was similar "people will use that to fuel the economy".
I recall in 2008 when GW Bush signed the 'Economic Stimulus Act of 2008' and people again received their checks... I think you know what happened to the economy 2008-9, it was too late by then
The bigger picture will be seen in (or begin to be) in 2-3ish years with the economy and this new Tax Reform. Hopefully it works and everyone benefits, I certainly don't want another crash/recession, but it's coming, imo
edit: I'm sure you recall the 2008 act, but in case you don't recall the 2001, here you go: Bush signs $1.3 trillion tax cut bill / $300-$600 rebate checks start going out next month
Originally posted by Robtard
I recall in 2001 when GW Bush signed his tax cut bill and people received their $300-$600 dollar checks, the mentally then was similar "people will use that to fuel the economy".I recall in 2008 when GW Bush signed the 'Economic Stimulus Act of 2008' and people again received their checks... I think you know what happened to the economy 2008-9.
The bigger picture will be seen in (or begin to be) in 2-3ish years with the economy and this new Tax Reform.
I think that's a very myopic view and my view is shared by:
FactCheckReviewsEconomicDownfall
In my opinion, if you want to look at legislation that led to the economic fallout it was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2k, republican congress wrote it and signed by Bill Clinton.
Originally posted by Robtard
It was a buildup, but ignoring all the pieces that lead to it is sillyThat aside, do you actually believe Trump's words that this Tax Reform bill isn't going to help the wealthiest people at all or not much at all?
Percentages generally favor bigger numbers, they have the most to gain for sure.
That said wtf do people cry the most about wealthy people when lower income people are still benefiting.
I don't have the website now but I was reading that on average many folks that earned from 27k to 30k are going to pay around 500$ less in taxes. I know the companies paying that one time bonus isn't worl changing but imagine if you had a kid and were making that income and all of a sudden you are going to see extra money.
You wouldn't be sitting at the coffee table thinking about legislation and world politics when you were struggling to feed your families or give them gifts.
And you could very well be right in the next 2-3 years we could see a downfall, at the very least with your crystal ball you will know when to short your trades and win still 😛
As an aside, I don't normally take Trumps words as honest ones.
Alright, cool. Was just curious if you were delusional like some here, you seem to be more grounded. Trump was lying though, the rich will absolutely benefit.
The concern is usually because when it comes around to pay the piper, it's not the wealthy that pay, they make out on both sides. Who made out and who ended up paying in the last crash/recession? It wasn't the mega corps, Wall Street, the 1% etc.
As I said, it's very nice that some companies are giving some of their employees a nice little check, but when you factor in the percentage incoming coming from a 14% tax deduction to these corps, it's really spitting on people and telling them it's raining.
Fore sure and that's why the small gestures work, more people live in the now.
If only I had one, but it's mostly just looking at what's came before.
Originally posted by Robtard
The concern is usually because when it comes around to pay the piper, it's not the wealthy that pay, they make out on both sides. Who made out and who ended up paying in the last crash/recession? It wasn't the mega corps, Wall Street, the 1% etc..
You are 1000% right there. I was a broker years ago working in employee benefits, sold my business because a bank wanted me to build their system. The crash came and even though I wasn't in the banking side I was still required to participate in classes, monitor calls periodically for certain standards because of my title. It's the only time I lost sleep because of work. They wrecked lives and I'm ashamed to even have worked at the bank because of that.
While the Govt should providing a general blanket to provide some protection they are in bed with large corporations and the publis best interest is generally at best glossed over, by both parties.
Lol holy shit:
CNN Gives Dem Forum to Slam GOP 'Scrooges' Hurting '9 Million Tiny Tims'
Stop going full retard.
Ahh Taxes.
Originally posted by lazybones
[B]A ten point drop in poverty is dreary? I'd say that's quite a good result, especially when you break it down further. Poverty among the elderly, for instance, plummeted from around 48% to 16%. Child poverty also experienced a notable decline after the 1996 welfare reforms, although progress in that area is more patchy.
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. 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,
The Personal Savings Rate (which is calculated as a percent of disposable income) has fallen by more than half since 1967 (from 12.2% to 5.6%).
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.
To quote his findings,
I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure—which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE—consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.
This is the principle of Say's Law a law which is repeatedly misunderstood by Keynesians. Wealth is created from production, not consumption. Thus the decrease and savings drastically affect domestical economic flourishing. 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,
If Social Security taxes were also eliminated – which would make sense, since there would be no Social Security benefits to pay for – then working-age households’ wage earnings would rise by about 6 percent. (The reason: employers generally offset the cost of their payroll tax obligations though lower wages to their employees.) Very roughly, this would reduce the number of Americans aged 18-64 in poverty by about 7 million. If you’re going to run a highly unrealistic numerical exercise, you might as well run it all the way through.
This is imperative as it demonstrates why the working-age American poverty rate has been relatively stagnant ever since the War On Poverty began.
Biggs continued the analysis and applied it to the entire populous,
If we wanted to make things slightly more realistic, we could factor in the effect of lower payroll taxes on households’ labor supply and earnings. Eliminating the 12.4 percent Social Security tax would be like doubling the Earned Income Tax Credit and applying it to every low-income household, not merely the single women with children who are the EITC’s principal beneficiaries. As other CBPP publications have correctly pointed out, “The EITC significantly increases recipients’ work effort, according to substantial research over the past two decades.” Research cited by the CBPP finds that the higher work participation encouraged by the EITC doubles the program’s static effects in reducing poverty. So the 7[which is apparently 10] million figure cited above might plausibly rise to 14[or 20] million.
He also discusses the repercussions of the change in policy,
Likewise, with higher take-home pay providing greater ability to save and the elimination of Social Security benefits providing (much!) greater incentive to save, we could expect that at least some of today’s poor would choose to save more for retirement. The poor by and large save little, but they don’t save anything. So again, this would reduce the number of retirees in poverty relative to the CBPP’s worst-case scenario.
These results are astounding. The elimination of the Social Security Tax creates a far greater boost in income the EITC. 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: https://tomwoods.com/ep-644-how-not-to-help-the-worlds-poor/ The second thing which your graph indicates is the success in the welfare reforms of 1996 in reducing child poverty. This assists my argument.
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. 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.
Then in 1995, welfare receipt began what would become an unprecedented decline. In four years it fell 24 percentage points to a new historic low (going back at least to 1962). TANF receipt continued to fall after that, reaching 17 to 18% in 2008.** The 1996 legislation did indeed end welfare as we knew it.
Here is a graph which corroborates these claims.
To quote the Harvard Economist Scott Winship,
True, the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit in 1993 and the fall in unemployment might have accounted for the decline in welfare receipt to 50% in 1996. But that would have put it at a level not seen since 1969. The subsequent drop has no precedent, and if you cover with your hand the post-1996 years in Figure 1 of this study of mine, you will see that no one would never have predicted what happened.
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. 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. 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. Lazybones would like you to believe the 1996 cuts weren't cuts at all. Let's detail exactly what the bill did.
Congress is cutting food stamps by $24 billion over six years, with $3 billion more cut by banning food stamps to legal immigrants. No food stamps for unemployed workers not raising children - no hardship exemptions.Congress banned the states from using Federal dollars to give the poor non-cash vouchers to families that exceed the five-year limit on cash assistance.It replaced the Depression-born program of Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) with fixed annual grants to states for Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF) for six years, ending on September 30, 2002. It
imposed a citizenship requirement for many benefits. It reduced spending on
food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), child nutrition, and the
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG).At the time of passage, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that
the law would cut mandatory federal spending by a net total of $54.1 billion
over 6 years.