The Absurdity Of The Tax Bill

[bilby]

So if we make more people poor now, rich people will benefit in the future?

You have to strike a balance. Your side wants as much as possible directed to consumption--good now, bad in the future. In the long run the saver comes out ahead of the spender.

Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is a straw man that only reveals your bias. And the 3rd sentence ignores the basic reality that in the long run, both the saver and the spender are dead.

It's also worth remembering that the less you have, the larger proportion of it you must spend just to survive - so the saver by definition starts out ahead of the spender on average, merely by dint of having something left over to choose to save.

Also, hard work often pays off over time, but laziness ALWAYS pays off, RIGHT NOW.

 

[Copernicus]

You want to encourage saving in a strong economy, but not in a weak one. People need to spend money to cure the weakness. So mild inflation is usually thought to be a good thing, because it discourages too much hoarding of cash. When people spend money, that represents income to other people. When they stop spending money, businesses stop expanding to meet demand. So it is only when the inflation rate heats up too much that the government should try to slow down spending. Hence, there is no balance, but there are reasons to prefer the economy to tilt one way or the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if we make more people poor now, rich people will benefit in the future?

You have to strike a balance. Your side wants as much as possible directed to consumption--good now, bad in the future. In the long run the saver comes out ahead of the spender.

Yeah, except saving rates are in the basement, college and health care costs are through the roof. It is very hard to keep things upright without two workers in the house. Saving is great, it is wonderful. One shouldn't squander money. Of course, there are no proles that don't have estates worth $11 million because of booze and women.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You want to encourage saving in a strong economy, but not in a weak one. People need to spend money to cure the weakness. So mild inflation is usually thought to be a good thing, because it discourages too much hoarding of cash. When people spend money, that represents income to other people. When they stop spending money, businesses stop expanding to meet demand. So it is only when the inflation rate heats up too much that the government should try to slow down spending. Hence, there is no balance, but there are reasons to prefer the economy to tilt one way or the other.

It bears pointing out that not all rising prices are considered inflationary.

One result of income inequality is asset inflation(since the wealthy invest their money), especially real estate. So a mortgage is more expensive, and so are taxes and insurance.

We're headed towards neofuedalism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've heard that MBA's are also in style and there are many different branches, which to me, it sounds like a firewall is being developed that'll prevent a college degree meaning as much as it used to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is a straw man that only reveals your bias. And the 3rd sentence ignores the basic reality that in the long run, both the saver and the spender are dead.

It's also worth remembering that the less you have, the larger proportion of it you must spend just to survive - so the saver by definition starts out ahead of the spender on average, merely by dint of having something left over to choose to save.

Also, hard work often pays off over time, but laziness ALWAYS pays off, RIGHT NOW.

I see far more effects from the spending side of things than the income side.

 

[ZiprHead]

GOP’S LIST OF ECONOMISTS BACKING TAX CUT INCLUDES GHOSTS, OFFICE ASSISTANTS, EX-FELONS, AND A SPRINKLING OF REAL ECONOMISTS

TOUTING SUPPORT FOR their tax cut legislation, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, released a letter this week signed by 137 economists who say they strongly endorse the Republican legislation before Congress. President Donald Trump on Friday afternoon tweeted a short video featuring the list of 137 economists.

But a review of the economists listed on the letter reveals a number of discrepancies, including economists that are supposedly still academics but are actually retired, and others who have never been employed as economists. One might not even exist.

 

[bilby]

Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is a straw man that only reveals your bias. And the 3rd sentence ignores the basic reality that in the long run, both the saver and the spender are dead.

It's also worth remembering that the less you have, the larger proportion of it you must spend just to survive - so the saver by definition starts out ahead of the spender on average, merely by dint of having something left over to choose to save.

Also, hard work often pays off over time, but laziness ALWAYS pays off, RIGHT NOW.

I see far more effects from the spending side of things than the income side.

That's because your income is less that double your expenses. Duh.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see far more effects from the spending side of things than the income side.

That's because your income is less that double your expenses. Duh.

I'm talking about the people I see with money trouble. They're always people who spend rather than save, some have quite good incomes.

 

[bilby]

I see far more effects from the spending side of things than the income side.

That's because your income is less that double your expenses. Duh.

I'm talking about the people I see with money trouble. They're always people who spend rather than save, some have quite good incomes.

I see. And you decided that anecdotal evidence was not worthless, because it agrees with your preexisting beliefs.

That's lovely for you; but it does nothing to help anyone else, and it has no connection to reality.

 

[laughing dog]

I see far more effects from the spending side of things than the income side.

That's because your income is less that double your expenses. Duh.

I'm talking about the people I see with money trouble. They're always people who spend rather than save, some have quite good incomes.

Which has no real connection to macroeconomics and whether more spending or more saving will help the US economy at this point.

 

[funinspace]

Ah, evidence is already arriving on how the Rupug Wealth Tax Reduction Plan is already bearing fruit, just from the steamy excitement of their exertion. Think of all the new quality jobs this action by BAC will bare...MAGA at work!

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...es-2017-12-06?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Bank of America on Tuesday said it would increase the amount of common stock it repurchases by $5 billion.

The Number-two American bank said that’s on top of the $12.9 billion it announced in June, when the Federal Reserve gave the okay after Bank of America BAC, -0.80% passed its annual stress test.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ah, evidence is already arriving on how the Rupug Wealth Tax Reduction Plan is already bearing fruit, just from the steamy excitement of their exertion. Think of all the new quality jobs this action by BAC will bare...MAGA at work!

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...es-2017-12-06?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Bank of America on Tuesday said it would increase the amount of common stock it repurchases by $5 billion.

The Number-two American bank said that’s on top of the $12.9 billion it announced in June, when the Federal Reserve gave the okay after Bank of America BAC, -0.80% passed its annual stress test.

The article misspelled, "payroll".

 

[funinspace]

Ah, evidence is already arriving on how the Rupug Wealth Tax Reduction Plan is already bearing fruit, just from the steamy excitement of their exertion. Think of all the new quality jobs this action by BAC will bare...MAGA at work!

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...es-2017-12-06?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Bank of America on Tuesday said it would increase the amount of common stock it repurchases by $5 billion.

The Number-two American bank said that’s on top of the $12.9 billion it announced in June, when the Federal Reserve gave the okay after Bank of America BAC, -0.80% passed its annual stress test.

The article misspelled, "payroll".

That's cuz you can't read good; the word was "payola"

 

[Elixir]

The article misspelled, "payroll".

That's cuz you can't read good; the word was "payola"

Let's see if they suddenly start lending Cheato money again.

 

[ZiprHead]

More absurdity...

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/362796-analysis-more-than-6000-lobbyists-have-worked-on

 

[funinspace]

The Wealth Tax Reduction Plan sounds like it could even be worse than some of the first readings. And of course the red bleed from tax revenue sounds like it will be significantly worse than advertised.

Detailed 35 page PDF article: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3084187


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...nk-2017-12-12?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Using corporations as tax shelters. Individuals could create personal corporations to shelter labor income, investment income and even retirement income from the highest individual tax rates.

Pass-through eligibility games. Workers could shelter their labor income by forming pass-through businesses that provide services to their current employer.
<snip>
International business tax games. The tax-cut plans would create a partial territorial tax system for businesses, but provisions designed to reduce the incentive to shift profits would have the perverse effect of increasing those incentives. It would encourage U.S. businesses to locate real assets (and jobs) overseas, or to set up phony round-trip exchanges with their foreign subsidiaries. It might even make sense to sell unfinished goods to foreign manufacturers who would then complete the work and import those goods into the United States. It would “tax the item we want to favor (exports) more onerously than the item we want to disfavor (foreign intangible income),” the study concluded.

Tax arbitrage. The variety of tax rates, delays and sunsets would encourage a number of tax-arbitrage games. One provision would actually encourage companies to borrow heavily to purchase equipment in 2018 and sell that same equipment in 2019.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Wealth Tax Reduction Plan sounds like it could even be worse than some of the first readings. And of course the red bleed from tax revenue sounds like it will be significantly worse than advertised.

Detailed 35 page PDF article: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3084187


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...nk-2017-12-12?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Using corporations as tax shelters. Individuals could create personal corporations to shelter labor income, investment income and even retirement income from the highest individual tax rates.

Pass-through eligibility games. Workers could shelter their labor income by forming pass-through businesses that provide services to their current employer.
<snip>
International business tax games. The tax-cut plans would create a partial territorial tax system for businesses, but provisions designed to reduce the incentive to shift profits would have the perverse effect of increasing those incentives. It would encourage U.S. businesses to locate real assets (and jobs) overseas, or to set up phony round-trip exchanges with their foreign subsidiaries. It might even make sense to sell unfinished goods to foreign manufacturers who would then complete the work and import those goods into the United States. It would “tax the item we want to favor (exports) more onerously than the item we want to disfavor (foreign intangible income),” the study concluded.

Tax arbitrage. The variety of tax rates, delays and sunsets would encourage a number of tax-arbitrage games. One provision would actually encourage companies to borrow heavily to purchase equipment in 2018 and sell that same equipment in 2019.

Yup. This bill will reduce the effective large corporate tax rate to 0%.