The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
09-01-2018, 04:20 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
NM is a joke state.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.738b4cdd7966
FBI arrests five New Mexico compound suspects days after multiple charges were dropped | Fox News
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.738b4cdd7966
Two judges dismissed charges Wednesday against the defendants in the New Mexico compound case that has drawn headlines for weeks for its lurid and racially charged details, in a major blow to the prosecution.
Judge Emilio Chavez said that he had no choice but to release the three defendants, Lucas Morton, Hujrah Wahhaj and Subhannah A. Wahhaj, because the office of District Attorney Donald Gallegos failed to schedule a court hearing to prove they had probable cause for their arrest within 10 days, as state rules stipulate, according to court representatives and defense lawyers. Another judge later ordered the dropping of charges against the other two defendants, Siraj Wahhaj and Jany Leveille, according to Ryan Laughlin, a reporter for the local television station KOB, but the status of their potential release is less clear as they were immediately charged again with more severe offenses: child abuse resulting in death.
“For whatever reason, the state did not obtain a preliminary hearing date within 10 days,” Aleksander Kostich, a public defender representing Morton, told The Washington Post. “It’s absolutely bizarre.”
Judge Emilio Chavez said that he had no choice but to release the three defendants, Lucas Morton, Hujrah Wahhaj and Subhannah A. Wahhaj, because the office of District Attorney Donald Gallegos failed to schedule a court hearing to prove they had probable cause for their arrest within 10 days, as state rules stipulate, according to court representatives and defense lawyers. Another judge later ordered the dropping of charges against the other two defendants, Siraj Wahhaj and Jany Leveille, according to Ryan Laughlin, a reporter for the local television station KOB, but the status of their potential release is less clear as they were immediately charged again with more severe offenses: child abuse resulting in death.
“For whatever reason, the state did not obtain a preliminary hearing date within 10 days,” Aleksander Kostich, a public defender representing Morton, told The Washington Post. “It’s absolutely bizarre.”
he FBI announced Friday that it had arrested all five New Mexico compound suspects, days after multiple charges were dropped. The suspects were now being charged with violating federal firearms and conspiracy laws.
The announcement comes after local prosecutors dropped charges in the death of a 3-year-old boy at the compound site. Taos County District Attorney Donald Gallegos said Friday his office would now seek grand jury indictments involving the death. Gallegos said seeking indictments would allow more time to gather evidence.
The announcement comes after local prosecutors dropped charges in the death of a 3-year-old boy at the compound site. Taos County District Attorney Donald Gallegos said Friday his office would now seek grand jury indictments involving the death. Gallegos said seeking indictments would allow more time to gather evidence.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 05:28 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
That would be the way it works if economics was a zero-sum game. But it isn't. Reducing certain taxes (such as the one mentioned) actually increases revenues from those taxes because the earnings being taxed are increased due to economic growth and reinvestment. This is why countries with low tax burdens have stronger economic growth than those with high tax burdens. This is also why our economy flourishes and our tax revenues increased dramatically after tax cuts. See also: history.
I work for rich people. I sell machinery to rich people. When they both are allowed the freedom to keep more of their earnings then they have those additional funds to reinvest in growth of their businesses which then allows them to earn even more taxable income. And this additionally permits them the flexibility to hire additional middle class and lower class individuals and pay them higher wages than if they were on tighter margins and had less income. The answer to business growth is never to take money away from the businesses. It seems pretty counterintuitive to do so.
As for reducing taxes on the middle class, I am for that also. I am for reducing all taxes. But I don't think that the ones making the most money should pay an unfairly high percentage of their income to taxes. They are the ones who have the flexibility financially to spend more on goods and services and reinvest in their businesses which are all good things for the economy in whole.
What many who do not understand economics believe is that there are a finite number of bits of wealth in the world and if some have more than others have less. It is not the case. Wealth is generated and grown by productivity and work. If you create a good or service with your mind or your hands then you create something of value that did not exist previously and can trade it for other things of value. This is how wealth is created. This does not mean that you took wealth away from someone else or deprived some poor soul of food they would put in their mouth.
I work for rich people. I sell machinery to rich people. When they both are allowed the freedom to keep more of their earnings then they have those additional funds to reinvest in growth of their businesses which then allows them to earn even more taxable income. And this additionally permits them the flexibility to hire additional middle class and lower class individuals and pay them higher wages than if they were on tighter margins and had less income. The answer to business growth is never to take money away from the businesses. It seems pretty counterintuitive to do so.
As for reducing taxes on the middle class, I am for that also. I am for reducing all taxes. But I don't think that the ones making the most money should pay an unfairly high percentage of their income to taxes. They are the ones who have the flexibility financially to spend more on goods and services and reinvest in their businesses which are all good things for the economy in whole.
What many who do not understand economics believe is that there are a finite number of bits of wealth in the world and if some have more than others have less. It is not the case. Wealth is generated and grown by productivity and work. If you create a good or service with your mind or your hands then you create something of value that did not exist previously and can trade it for other things of value. This is how wealth is created. This does not mean that you took wealth away from someone else or deprived some poor soul of food they would put in their mouth.
1) Do you want to give $25 billion to low and medium income government workers (as promised)?
2) Do you want to give $100 billion to high income citizens?
He said no to the first one, citing costs, and said yes to the second one. The issue here is not cutting taxes, but specifically giving the rich more money while not wanting it to spend it on low and medium incomes. So the key question here is: If you want to grow the economy, where should you be cutting taxes? Trump apparently thinks you should be cutting taxes for the rich. However, this has been disproven - e.g. by the IMF:
Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels.
source: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...15/sdn1513.pdf
source: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...15/sdn1513.pdf
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 07:09 AM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,660
Total Cats: 3,011
There's a big difference between giving people money and not confiscating earnings. Your equivocation of the two assumes in a very socialist way that all things belong to the government and the earnings are not rightly the property of the earner. That perception is incorrect.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 08:34 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
There's a big difference between giving people money and not confiscating earnings. Your equivocation of the two assumes in a very socialist way that all things belong to the government and the earnings are not rightly the property of the earner. That perception is incorrect.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 08:47 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,604
Seems to me like they are practically the same. Are you saying that you would be OK with a 25 billion tax reduction for government workers, but are not OK with a 25 billion salary increase? The net effect is the same - the government has less money and that money is going towards a certain group of people.
Not relevant, just amusing.
Here's the difference: When you give money away, you are rewarding behavior in a manner which is not correlated with economic activity. This holds true whether we are talking about farm subsidies, welfare benefits, or student loan forgiveness. (All three of which ought to be done away with, FYI. In the latter case, I'm referring to the loans themselves, which are really a forum of subsidy to the university system, and the reason college tuition has gotten so outrageously expensive.)
When you decrease income taxes, you are rewarding behavior which is positively tied to economic activity. That's a good thing.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 08:53 AM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,660
Total Cats: 3,011
Seems to me like they are practically the same. Are you saying that you would be OK with a 25 billion tax reduction for government workers, but are not OK with a 25 billion salary increase? The net effect is the same - the government has less money and that money is going towards a certain group of people.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 09:02 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
It's interesting that you chose government workers as an example, as they tend not to be major contributors to economic growth.
Not relevant, just amusing.
Here's the difference: When you give money away, you are rewarding behavior in a manner which is not correlated with economic activity. This holds true whether we are talking about farm subsidies, welfare benefits, or student loan forgiveness. (All three of which ought to be done away with, FYI. In the latter case, I'm referring to the loans themselves, which are really a forum of subsidy to the university system, and the reason college tuition has gotten so outrageously expensive.)
When you decrease income taxes, you are rewarding behavior which is positively tied to economic activity. That's a good thing.
Not relevant, just amusing.
Here's the difference: When you give money away, you are rewarding behavior in a manner which is not correlated with economic activity. This holds true whether we are talking about farm subsidies, welfare benefits, or student loan forgiveness. (All three of which ought to be done away with, FYI. In the latter case, I'm referring to the loans themselves, which are really a forum of subsidy to the university system, and the reason college tuition has gotten so outrageously expensive.)
When you decrease income taxes, you are rewarding behavior which is positively tied to economic activity. That's a good thing.
Trickle down economics have basically been disproved. Income disparities have been shown to correlate with lesser gdp growth - also see the link in the post above. I'm not trying to say that reducing taxes is a bad thing - quite the opposite actually. However, reducing taxes for the rich only is downright absurd. A fixed reduction across all brackets, or just the lower brackets benefits all working citizens have shown to boost the economy more than just reducing taxes on the rich.
Last edited by Skamba; 09-03-2018 at 09:03 AM. Reason: oops - typed agree when i meant disagree
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 09:09 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
The net effect is not the same. You say the government has less money in both cases. Not true. The government has significantly more money in its control in the case of a pay increase for workers, it just choses to spend it on obligating itself to them. The net revenue would require increasing to cover this obligation. And it would be a perpetual obligation. I would rather we eliminate 25% of those government jobs and do without some of the wasteful programs consuming the fruits of productive businesses and individuals.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 11:42 AM
When considering capital gains taxes, rather than beat the old tired leftist drum about "reducing taxes for the rich", why not see it as reducing taxes on capital investment so as to incent further growth. You do not have to be rich to be subject to capital gains taxation. Although, people in the lowest tax brackets usually don't have to pay any tax on long-term capital gains, anyone outside of the lowest would likely benefit from a reduction. Again, and has already been said, this is very different than taxing earned income.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 11:44 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
Our analysis suggests that the income distribution itself matters for growth as well. Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with
higher GDP growth.
higher GDP growth.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 11:48 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
When considering capital gains taxes, rather than beat the old tired leftist drum about "reducing taxes for the rich", why not see it as reducing taxes on capital investment so as to incent further growth. You do not have to be rich to be subject to capital gains taxation. Although, people in the lowest tax brackets usually don't have to pay any tax on long-term capital gains, anyone outside of the lowest would likely benefit from a reduction. Again, and has already been said, this is very different than taxing earned income.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 11:55 AM
So if the government wants to encourage and incent further capital investment, how better to do it? Should they just send out nicely written letters to poor people asking THEM to invest more?
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 12:08 PM
Like most I think lower taxes are great but not at the expense of one “class” or another.
The lowest bracket generally pay no taxes at all regardless of what the % is and they generally wouldn’t know a capital gains if it bit them in the ***. You can’t give back anything if there isn’t any taxes paid.
Last edited by bahurd; 09-03-2018 at 02:22 PM.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 12:39 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,604
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...xes-in-charts/
Source: https://www.sapling.com/8023998/perc...l-income-taxes
So, as a starting point, we are already taxing the upper 50% of US households at a disproportionately high rate. Tell me:
1: How is it unfair to slightly decrease the tax burden on the half of the country which is carrying the other half, and
2: To your other point, how can you possibly provide tax relief for a segment of the population which is already paying no tax at all?
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 12:39 PM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,660
Total Cats: 3,011
I disagree with the assertion that taxing top earners less hurts the economy (trickle down).
What you fail to note is that the vast majority of the top income reporters are actually businesses owned by sole proprietors and S-corporations forced to report as individuals due to our tax laws. Corporate earnings are reported as individuals for many businesses in the US, skewing the results. I have customers who fall in this category and do 3 to 10 million in revenue a year and net 300k to a million a year. It is quite common here. It's called a sole proprietorship.
When taxes are cut on sole proprietorships they reinvest in equipment, vehicles, people, improved technology, facilities, and occasionally personal consumer luxury items. It really spreads the wealth they have created through work and thought to so many others. When government seizes their earnings and wastes it in the unnecessary middle management of bureaucracies nothing additional is created. Government creates no wealth. Ever. It only consumes the work of others.
Regarding the linked International Monetary Fund article and the assertion that wealth disparities are negatively correlated to GDP, yes, that makes sense. In dictatorial societies with no opportunity to rise from the station in life into which you are born, private growth of wealth and business freedom are for the privileged elite members of the ruling class. Much like the party elites in the USSR.
Here's a 2013 chart of the most wealth disparate countries (GINI index):
When taxes are cut on sole proprietorships they reinvest in equipment, vehicles, people, improved technology, facilities, and occasionally personal consumer luxury items. It really spreads the wealth they have created through work and thought to so many others. When government seizes their earnings and wastes it in the unnecessary middle management of bureaucracies nothing additional is created. Government creates no wealth. Ever. It only consumes the work of others.
Regarding the linked International Monetary Fund article and the assertion that wealth disparities are negatively correlated to GDP, yes, that makes sense. In dictatorial societies with no opportunity to rise from the station in life into which you are born, private growth of wealth and business freedom are for the privileged elite members of the ruling class. Much like the party elites in the USSR.
Here's a 2013 chart of the most wealth disparate countries (GINI index):
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 01:45 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
I disagree with the assertion that taxing top earners less hurts the economy (trickle down).
What you fail to note is that the vast majority of the top income reporters are actually businesses owned by sole proprietors and S-corporations forced to report as individuals due to our tax laws. Corporate earnings are reported as individuals for many businesses in the US, skewing the results. I have customers who fall in this category and do 3 to 10 million in revenue a year and net 300k to a million a year. It is quite common here. It's called a sole proprietorship.
When taxes are cut on sole proprietorships they reinvest in equipment, vehicles, people, improved technology, facilities, and occasionally personal consumer luxury items. It really spreads the wealth they have created through work and thought to so many others. When government seizes their earnings and wastes it in the unnecessary middle management of bureaucracies nothing additional is created. Government creates no wealth. Ever. It only consumes the work of others.
Regarding the linked International Monetary Fund article and the assertion that wealth disparities are negatively correlated to GDP, yes, that makes sense. In dictatorial societies with no opportunity to rise from the station in life into which you are born, private growth of wealth and business freedom are for the privileged elite members of the ruling class. Much like the party elites in the USSR.
Here's a 2013 chart of the most wealth disparate countries (GINI index):
What you fail to note is that the vast majority of the top income reporters are actually businesses owned by sole proprietors and S-corporations forced to report as individuals due to our tax laws. Corporate earnings are reported as individuals for many businesses in the US, skewing the results. I have customers who fall in this category and do 3 to 10 million in revenue a year and net 300k to a million a year. It is quite common here. It's called a sole proprietorship.
When taxes are cut on sole proprietorships they reinvest in equipment, vehicles, people, improved technology, facilities, and occasionally personal consumer luxury items. It really spreads the wealth they have created through work and thought to so many others. When government seizes their earnings and wastes it in the unnecessary middle management of bureaucracies nothing additional is created. Government creates no wealth. Ever. It only consumes the work of others.
Regarding the linked International Monetary Fund article and the assertion that wealth disparities are negatively correlated to GDP, yes, that makes sense. In dictatorial societies with no opportunity to rise from the station in life into which you are born, private growth of wealth and business freedom are for the privileged elite members of the ruling class. Much like the party elites in the USSR.
Here's a 2013 chart of the most wealth disparate countries (GINI index):
Some other sources against trickle down / income inequality:
https://www.taxjustice.net/cms/uploa...ted_120722.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.a909a4f40bf1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05750X15002600
It's always hard to say for sure that it's not good for the US-specific situation, because as you mention, corrupt countries generally also have huge inequality. I guess it's a general problem for all economic studies, as the amount of variables is huge and the amount of data rather somewhat limited. But, at the very least, it seems that in general the opinion is that trickle down does not really work. At the very least, it seems to make sense to reduce taxes in an equal way.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 02:19 PM
The source I mentioned was a global source. If you have any source by a major economist stating that trickle down works, I'm more than interested in it.
Some other sources against trickle down / income inequality:
https://www.taxjustice.net/cms/uploa...ted_120722.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.a909a4f40bf1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05750X15002600
It's always hard to say for sure that it's not good for the US-specific situation, because as you mention, corrupt countries generally also have huge inequality. I guess it's a general problem for all economic studies, as the amount of variables is huge and the amount of data rather somewhat limited. But, at the very least, it seems that in general the opinion is that trickle down does not really work. At the very least, it seems to make sense to reduce taxes in an equal way.
Some other sources against trickle down / income inequality:
https://www.taxjustice.net/cms/uploa...ted_120722.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.a909a4f40bf1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05750X15002600
It's always hard to say for sure that it's not good for the US-specific situation, because as you mention, corrupt countries generally also have huge inequality. I guess it's a general problem for all economic studies, as the amount of variables is huge and the amount of data rather somewhat limited. But, at the very least, it seems that in general the opinion is that trickle down does not really work. At the very least, it seems to make sense to reduce taxes in an equal way.
To talk specifically about the proposal to index capital gains to inflation, it could be tweaked to actually help out lower earners if the sale of land and homes was also included. Even though they have exclusions to limit the exposure to gains, indexing to inflation would raise the base levels thereby helping out those in the middle to middle upper income levels. The current rules on primary homes, second homes & rental/income properties would need to be restructured as well because the typical single family home sold doesn't see a tax because of the nature of the sale.
Personally, I don't see lowering capital gains taxes on the sale of securities as being a net driver of the overall economy.
Last edited by bahurd; 09-03-2018 at 02:35 PM.
Reply
0
0
09-03-2018, 03:43 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
TRICKLE DOWN IS FALSE. We all know it's false, because the benefits to the middle/lower classes are IMMEDIATE. STOP CALLING IT TRICKLE DOWN -- it's supply side, and it's real, and it's spectacular.
Reply
0
0
