The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair
- Thread starter Interrobang
- Start date
prizrak
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
- Messages
- 21,574
- Location
- No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
- Car(s)
- 11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
FDR increased taxes across the board not only on the 1%, top effective income tax rate in 1937 was 15.7% vs today it is 20.1%. All those tax increases were expected to add $1.1Bn to the budget (which was $7.6Bn in 1935 prior to the increase), which, if my math is correct was a roughly 14% increase of the federal budget.
Your own stats (which you have yet to address in any way shape or form btw) state that if we were to double today's effective income tax rate on the 1% we would only bring in $500Bn vs a budget of around $4Trn today, which amounts to around 12.5% increase in the federal budget. So you are talking about a 2.6x jump from New Deal taxes to get a noticeably smaller increase in the total budget.
This isn't even getting into the fact that a lot of US economic recovery had to do with WW2 and the state of the world after.
You have also not bothered to address the problems of waste and overspending. US gov't spends a ridiculous amount of money, much of which is simply wasted, yet your suggestions don't go beyond "tax people".
Your own stats (which you have yet to address in any way shape or form btw) state that if we were to double today's effective income tax rate on the 1% we would only bring in $500Bn vs a budget of around $4Trn today, which amounts to around 12.5% increase in the federal budget. So you are talking about a 2.6x jump from New Deal taxes to get a noticeably smaller increase in the total budget.
This isn't even getting into the fact that a lot of US economic recovery had to do with WW2 and the state of the world after.
You have also not bothered to address the problems of waste and overspending. US gov't spends a ridiculous amount of money, much of which is simply wasted, yet your suggestions don't go beyond "tax people".
GRtak
Forum Addict
Taxes are a starting point, not the end. There are also tax loopholes that need to be closed.
Roosevelt was not around after after WWII, he died before the end of the war.
Much of that waste is on military expenditures.
Roosevelt was not around after after WWII, he died before the end of the war.
Much of that waste is on military expenditures.
NecroJoe
Stool Chef
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,818
- Location
- San Francisco area, CA, USA
- Car(s)
- 2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
I may have missed a mention here, but while I often see "taxes" as a way of evening things out, are there any theories on how it could work the other way: like, after high certain milestones are meant, more money goes back into the company/its staff? Perhaps something like compulsory profit sharing? Perhaps this is worse than taxes, but just a fleeting thought I had, which I'm sure isn't original in any way, and is probably debunked in any 100 level economics class...
Last edited:
Because wasteful spending is a different issue to wealth and income inequality.
Wealth inequality is as bad as it was before the great depression.
The growth in the economy during and after WWII was actually fairly well distributed. Today, however, we have suffered a "Lost Decade" with stagnant wage growth; corporations and the super-rich gain more and more ground while the middle class is slipping into poverty.
The fact is that this money and investment is being concentrated in rich companies and individuals, not being reinvested into the labor market. Trump's tax cuts to the wealthy have done nothing to create long term investment; instead the super rich have doubled down on their savings and corporate holdings, companies have primarily used the tax cuts to buy back their own stock. This has seen a rise in stock prices, but has done next to nothing for those who are losing ground to inflation. The government shutdown demonstrated how many people in historically good paying jobs are living paycheck to paycheck. Consumer debt is at an all time high and rising - the last numbers I could find put it on pace to hit over $4 Trillion this quarter while consumer savings are down.
Why? Because companies are not sharing profits with workers, are not offering raises, and are not being forced to do so through regulation. The super wealthy continue to employ people in sub-human conditions (looking at you, Bezos) for slave wages while hoarding more money than they could possibly spend and giving a tiny fraction of it to charities that attempt to address the very problem created by billionaires in the first place.
Let's put it in perspective. If I made a dollar per second, it would take me 11 days to become a millionaire; it would take me 31 years to become a billionaire. The amount of money these people have is simply unfathomable. Today being a millionaire is simply "comfortable and financially stable" it's actually what many money managers advise their middle-class clients to aim for in retirement. We need a drastic change and one of the things we can do is start leveling the playing field. I could take $130 billion dollars from someone like Bezos and he would still have more money than he could spend in a lifetime; that money could be used to fund education, social programs, healthcare, a Green New Deal, or any other of the many things that could help the working poor become financially stable and independent.
Wealth inequality is as bad as it was before the great depression.
The growth in the economy during and after WWII was actually fairly well distributed. Today, however, we have suffered a "Lost Decade" with stagnant wage growth; corporations and the super-rich gain more and more ground while the middle class is slipping into poverty.
The fact is that this money and investment is being concentrated in rich companies and individuals, not being reinvested into the labor market. Trump's tax cuts to the wealthy have done nothing to create long term investment; instead the super rich have doubled down on their savings and corporate holdings, companies have primarily used the tax cuts to buy back their own stock. This has seen a rise in stock prices, but has done next to nothing for those who are losing ground to inflation. The government shutdown demonstrated how many people in historically good paying jobs are living paycheck to paycheck. Consumer debt is at an all time high and rising - the last numbers I could find put it on pace to hit over $4 Trillion this quarter while consumer savings are down.
Why? Because companies are not sharing profits with workers, are not offering raises, and are not being forced to do so through regulation. The super wealthy continue to employ people in sub-human conditions (looking at you, Bezos) for slave wages while hoarding more money than they could possibly spend and giving a tiny fraction of it to charities that attempt to address the very problem created by billionaires in the first place.
Let's put it in perspective. If I made a dollar per second, it would take me 11 days to become a millionaire; it would take me 31 years to become a billionaire. The amount of money these people have is simply unfathomable. Today being a millionaire is simply "comfortable and financially stable" it's actually what many money managers advise their middle-class clients to aim for in retirement. We need a drastic change and one of the things we can do is start leveling the playing field. I could take $130 billion dollars from someone like Bezos and he would still have more money than he could spend in a lifetime; that money could be used to fund education, social programs, healthcare, a Green New Deal, or any other of the many things that could help the working poor become financially stable and independent.
prizrak
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
- Messages
- 21,574
- Location
- No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
- Car(s)
- 11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
If taxation helps with inequality than why do NY, CA and CT have a greater income inequality than the national average? These states have the highest taxes in the country? And while I can't speak to CA or CT I can tell you that NY has absolutely shittastic infrastructure especially in NYC that levies it's own income tax and has a fairly high sales tax.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...e-not-enough-to-stop-inequality/#2f3e25285b96
Additionally wage stagnation is something that is happening in all of the developed world regardless of their taxation scheme suggesting that it's not the problem of the rich being too rich.
Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/...n-canada-jobs-developed-countries_a_23477970/
You are also overlooking the fact that we are currently undergoing a mini industrial revolution with automation taking over more and more jobs thus requiring less and less workers.
Another thing that you seem to be overlooking is that the way money is earned has changed considerably since the 50s and 60s. Biggest returns are not in products but rather in markets. This nearly single handedly explains the acceleration of inequality as people with more money to invest can exponentially increase their wealth.
I would also point out that you have yet to show how income inequality is harmful in an off itself. And while wage stagnation is certainly a big problem it is not clear how taxation would help. US already has some of the highest corporate tax rates (higher than say the Nordics, which are held up as the golden standard of "democratic socialism"). It would also be logical to assume that all these companies would simply raise their prices or stagnate wages even further to offset the tax burden.
Lastly, while I would never defend Bezos, I have already tried to point out to you that neither him nor the rest of the .01% "have" the money that they are *worth*. While I'm sure their bank accounts are rather sizable what you see shown as their worth is really the worth of the assets that they can liquidate relatively quickly. In JB's case it would likely be mostly Amazon stock and if he tried to sell off a large enough amount would completely tank the price of the stock making him worth significantly less.
P.S. I disagree that wasteful spending has nothing to do with taxation and income inequality, if your end goal is to give the middle class a break, one of the best would be to decrease their effective tax rate, which could be achieved by decreasing spending.
P.P.S. I don't disagree with the idea of increasing taxation or closing loopholes, however in this particular case I simply don't see how it would help.
P.P.P.S. It is rather funny that you use JB as an example of evil rich, as he is also an example of an American success story.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...e-not-enough-to-stop-inequality/#2f3e25285b96
Additionally wage stagnation is something that is happening in all of the developed world regardless of their taxation scheme suggesting that it's not the problem of the rich being too rich.
Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/...n-canada-jobs-developed-countries_a_23477970/
You are also overlooking the fact that we are currently undergoing a mini industrial revolution with automation taking over more and more jobs thus requiring less and less workers.
Another thing that you seem to be overlooking is that the way money is earned has changed considerably since the 50s and 60s. Biggest returns are not in products but rather in markets. This nearly single handedly explains the acceleration of inequality as people with more money to invest can exponentially increase their wealth.
I would also point out that you have yet to show how income inequality is harmful in an off itself. And while wage stagnation is certainly a big problem it is not clear how taxation would help. US already has some of the highest corporate tax rates (higher than say the Nordics, which are held up as the golden standard of "democratic socialism"). It would also be logical to assume that all these companies would simply raise their prices or stagnate wages even further to offset the tax burden.
Lastly, while I would never defend Bezos, I have already tried to point out to you that neither him nor the rest of the .01% "have" the money that they are *worth*. While I'm sure their bank accounts are rather sizable what you see shown as their worth is really the worth of the assets that they can liquidate relatively quickly. In JB's case it would likely be mostly Amazon stock and if he tried to sell off a large enough amount would completely tank the price of the stock making him worth significantly less.
P.S. I disagree that wasteful spending has nothing to do with taxation and income inequality, if your end goal is to give the middle class a break, one of the best would be to decrease their effective tax rate, which could be achieved by decreasing spending.
P.P.S. I don't disagree with the idea of increasing taxation or closing loopholes, however in this particular case I simply don't see how it would help.
P.P.P.S. It is rather funny that you use JB as an example of evil rich, as he is also an example of an American success story.
GRtak
Forum Addict
marcos_eirik
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 4,178
- Location
- Oslo, Norway
- Car(s)
- Mostly my feet, occasionally a Tesla
So it's officially Schroedinger's wall. It's being built, and torn down, both existing and not existing at the same time.
How is it possible for the Donald to live so deep in an alternate reality, that he doesn't even realize that he is constantly contradicting himself?
Punisher Bass
He who drives a Buick
Truly, no one has ever worked harder or gotten more accomplished in less time than cheetolini has!
splinternews.com
Trump Spent 60% of His Schedule Since Midterms in ‘Executive Time’
Donald Trump has long since proven he’s like no other president in U.S. history, and that’s not a good thing. Now, presidential schedules leaked to Axios by a White House official show Trump has spent 60% of his scheduled time in “Executive Time,” a term invented especially for him by former...
splinternews.com
avanti
Forum Addict
This is more of a general observation than a specific comment on Trumps work ethic...Truly, no one has ever worked harder or gotten more accomplished in less time than cheetolini has!
Trump Spent 60% of His Schedule Since Midterms in ‘Executive Time’
Donald Trump has long since proven he’s like no other president in U.S. history, and that’s not a good thing. Now, presidential schedules leaked to Axios by a White House official show Trump has spent 60% of his scheduled time in “Executive Time,” a term invented especially for him by former...
There are 10 federal/public holidays in the US, I don't know if the president has some responsibilities on those days, but if he has 5 of those free + 52 Saturdays + 52 Sundays (53 in 2017) a year = 109 days a year x 2 = 218 days in 2 years.
Does the president have a 5 day work week like everybody else or is he expected to stay at the office 6-7 days a week?
If the has a 5 day week, does it matter where he spends the weekend...?
GRtak
Forum Addict
Remember that one of Trump's criticisms of Obama was how much time he took off, and playing golf.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/us/politics/donald-trump-golf-obama.html
I get that the President still needs time off, but the article that PB posted makes it sound like Trump avoids the basics of the job.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/us/politics/donald-trump-golf-obama.html
I get that the President still needs time off, but the article that PB posted makes it sound like Trump avoids the basics of the job.
prizrak
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
- Messages
- 21,574
- Location
- No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
- Car(s)
- 11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
POTUS (or really any government official in a similar capacity) doesn't have any kind of set hours, they are required to be reachable at all times and are generally work ridiculous hours. Also as GRtak noted, he used to criticize Obama for all his "vacation time"
avanti
Forum Addict
As I opened with, it was a general observation, not a defense of anyone, of course I know he criticized Obama.
I also know being potus isn't like working the day-shift at a 7/11, but no one should get this worked up about someone basically spending their weekends playing golf, and as every other CEO playing golf I am sure both Obama and Trump are reachable on the course as well...
I also know being potus isn't like working the day-shift at a 7/11, but no one should get this worked up about someone basically spending their weekends playing golf, and as every other CEO playing golf I am sure both Obama and Trump are reachable on the course as well...
Yeah, Trumps a turd but to jump on the hours he works is silly. Can we focus on more important stuff?
The hours seems like it is rather important. If I only took one client session a day, I'd be fired. There are certain expectations for getting the job done; you can't say that there isn't enough to do as President to fill the hours.
Trump's work hours betrays his work ethic, he's never had to work for anything and because of that, he's out of touch with people -- and reality. He genuinely thinks that he earned what he has despite his daddy orchestrating a massive transfer of wealth to him through various business deals.
Trump's work hours betrays his work ethic, he's never had to work for anything and because of that, he's out of touch with people -- and reality. He genuinely thinks that he earned what he has despite his daddy orchestrating a massive transfer of wealth to him through various business deals.
prizrak
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
- Messages
- 21,574
- Location
- No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
- Car(s)
- 11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
It would have been fine if he had a lot of accomplished but...
OTOH: Would you really want him to be hard working and get shit done?
OTOH: Would you really want him to be hard working and get shit done?
That's why I don't want him impeached, "President Pence" is fucking terrifying; he's a religious zealot but not as incompetent as Trump. Honestly, I think the Democrats should wait until they are both out of office so Pence can't pardon Trump.
