President Trump

[Fast Eddie B]

There's a serious error in both scenarios. In A, it is incorrect to assume that a rich person will actually spend an incremental boost to his/her income. As an extreme example, giving Gates a $1 mil tax break won't make a damn bit of difference in his spending habits. Even in a consumer society there's only so much that one can spend.

Perhaps, but he will have to do something with his money. Unless he keeps it in a mattress. Invest in municipal bonds and it may help to build a hospital or a power plant. Buy a CD and it may allow a bank to make more loans to low income families. Or, in the case of Gates, set up a foundation where the spending will be focused on altruistic causes.

The general idea is that whether "better" spent or not, Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" remains an efficient way to allocate resources. To a certain point, that is.

 

[Stacko]

Flynn took money from Putin & Erdoğan and he broke important INFOSEC laws & regulations.

Flynn broke rules he thought were stupid. He once told me about a*period he spent assigned to a C.I.A. station in Iraq, when he would sometimes sneak out of the compound without the “insane” required approval from C.I.A. headquarters, in Langley, Virginia. He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden. There was also the time he gave classified information to NATO allies without approval, an incident which prompted an investigation, and a warning from superiors. During his stint as Mullen’s intelligence chief, Flynn would often write “This is ********!” in the margins of classified papers he was obliged to pass on to his boss, someone who saw these papers told me.

With the importance of cyber in the new administration, I expect that he'll be terminated from his advisor capacity and not hypocritically kept on.

 

[alfaniner]

This is one of the four or five major things I was concerned about when this guy won.
trump_advisor_says_administration_will_eliminate_ NASA_climate_research
Theoritically to "de-politicize science". The disconnect here is unbelieveable.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/11/23/trump_advisor_says_administration_will_eliminate_nasa_climate_research.html

 

[Craig4]

Trump will get my respect when (if) he earns it. Until then, since it is well established that he has, in fact, engaged in various cons over the years, "Don the Con" seems a way to keep one of his major faults front and center.

He did admit to defrauding the students at his university.

 

[Stacko]

He did admit to defrauding the students at his university.

He wasn't required to do that as part of the settlement. He just had to pay the fines for running a fake school and pay the eight figure settlement. There was no admission of wrong doing as part of the settlement that makes it very clear there was substantial wrong doing. Much like his settlement for racial discrimination in renting apartments, he can say he didn't admit wrong and not be lying.

 

[Craig4]

He wasn't required to do that as part of the settlement. He just had to pay the fines for running a fake school and pay the eight figure settlement. There was no admission of wrong doing as part of the settlement that makes it very clear there was substantial wrong doing. Much like his settlement for racial discrimination in renting apartments, he can say he didn't admit wrong and not be lying.

Well as Kelly Ann Conway put it about Bill Clinton's settlement, it doesn't matter that he didn't admit wrong doing if he settled.

 

[newyorkguy]

...
Scenario A: Cut taxes on the rich, and they spend that money.
Scenario B: Raise taxes on the rich, give it to the poor, and they spend the money...

The trouble is, scenario B isn't really something anyone is talking about, is it? Raising taxes on the big earners and giving the money to "the poor?"

1. I think one of the primary ideas is rebuilding America's infrastructure and to do it we need more money.
   
2. Another idea that both Clinton and Sanders had was to make higher education more widely available for families of moderate means through government subsidies or low-interest loans. To do that the government needs more money.
   
3. Another idea was, for the very wealthy to pay a lower income tax rate than working class people is patently unfair.

None of these three ideas -- rebuild the infrastructure, make college more affordable, those who earn more pay more taxes or at least as much as everyone else -- could be described as "giving money to the poor." And No. 3 would provide the means for paying for 1 and 2.

 

[The Don]

Well as Kelly Ann Conway put it about Bill Clinton's settlement, it doesn't matter that he didn't admit wrong doing if he settled.

That's completely different, Bill's was a Democratic Party President and his wife was running as a candidate for the Democratic Party, ergo:

settlement = guilt
accusation = guilt
accusation investigated to death by Ken Starr and nothing found = guilt

 

[Bob001]

....
For example, if you raise marginal income tax rates, productive people will work less.
....

Prove it. That's another Repub meme without a basis. Nobody is talking about 100 percent taxation, or 90 percent -- the top rate during the Eisenhower administration -- or 70 percent -- the top rate when Nixon left office. Do you really think the average doctor or corporate exec will cut back his hours if the top rate goes from 39 to, say, 46 percent? A salaried employee is expected to satisfy his employer's requirements under all circumstances; he doesn't get to say "My taxes are up, so I'll just work less." And the truly wealthy don't work for money; they work for personal satisfaction, or they don't work at all and just live on their investments. By your logic, productivity would be infinite if taxes were zero. Prove it.

 

[steve s]

Bill's taxes are lower, maybe he builds a factory in Mississippi that employs 1,000 people,

Bill's not going to build a new factory just because he got some more money in his pocket. He's going to build a factory when the demand for his product exceeds what his current facilities can handle. And the best way to increase that demand is to get more money into the hands of middle-class consumers.

Steve S

 

[Bob001]

Pres. Trump gets to appoint the NLRB officials who will be considering hotel owner Trump's union-busting in Vegas:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...and_and_las_vegas_a_tale_of_unionization.html

 

[steve s]

This is one of the four or five major things I was concerned about when this guy won.
trump_advisor_says_administration_will_eliminate_ NASA_climate_research
Theoritically to "de-politicize science". The disconnect here is unbelieveable.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/11/23/trump_advisor_says_administration_will_eliminate_nasa_climate_research.html

I mentioned in another thread that NASA's 1958 charter specifically calls for it to study the earth's atmosphere. It's (c)1 in the link below...

http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html

 

[sunmaster14]

The trouble is, scenario B isn't really something anyone is talking about, is it? Raising taxes on the big earners and giving the money to "the poor?"

1. I think one of the primary ideas is rebuilding America's infrastructure and to do it we need more money.
   
2. Another idea that both Clinton and Sanders had was to make higher education more widely available for families of moderate means through government subsidies or low-interest loans. To do that the government needs more money.
   
3. Another idea was, for the very wealthy to pay a lower income tax rate than working class people is patently unfair.

The federal government does not need money to do things, as it can create it ex nihilo. The purpose of taxes is to provide demand for that money and thereby keep inflation in check. As long as there is slack in the economy (which there is), taxes do not need to be raised in order to increase spending without causing an undesirable level of inflation.

As for the progressivity of tax rates, it is not patently unfair that the wealthy pay lower marginal tax rates than working class people. At least it is not patent to me. Even with lower marginal tax rates, the wealthy still pay vastly more in taxes than the working class. In any case, the US income tax is already extremely progressive relative to other developed countries. In order for a wealthy person to have a low tax rate, he has to arrange his affairs in such a way where he is paying some of his taxes implicitly rather than explicitly. For example, if you buy a tax-exempt bond (e.g. municipal bonds), the interest rate you earn will be much lower than for a taxable bond of similar duration, credit quality, and liquidity. The tax exemption is granted for a legitimate public purpose - to lower the funding costs for local and state public projects. The interest foregone by tax-exempt bond investors is effectively an implicit tax that is remitted to state and local governments.

 

[Belz...]

The federal government does not need money to do things, as it can create it ex nihilo. The purpose of taxes is to provide demand for that money and thereby keep inflation in check.

No, the purpose of taxes is to fund the state. Creating money ex-nihilo to fund your government is a tremendously bad idea.

 

[Craig B]

As for the progressivity of tax rates, it is not patently unfair that the wealthy pay lower marginal tax rates than working class people. At least it is not patent to me. Even with lower marginal tax rates, the wealthy still pay vastly more in taxes than the working class. In any case, the US income tax is already extremely progressive relative to other developed countries. In order for a wealthy person to have a low tax rate, he has to arrange his affairs in such a way where he is paying some of his taxes implicitly rather than explicitly. For example, if you buy a tax-exempt bond (e.g. municipal bonds), the interest rate you earn will be much lower than for a taxable bond of similar duration, credit quality, and liquidity. The tax exemption is granted for a legitimate public purpose - to lower the funding costs for local and state public projects. The interest foregone by tax-exempt bond investors is effectively an implicit tax that is remitted to state and local governments.

Is that how Trump's been doing it? Low interest municipal bonds? It's a wonder he's not so proud of that he's letting the public have a look at his tax returns! Hiding his light under a bushel. What remarkable modesty. I would never have expected it from him.

 

[phiwum]

Prove it. That's another Repub meme without a basis. Nobody is talking about 100 percent taxation, or 90 percent -- the top rate during the Eisenhower administration -- or 70 percent -- the top rate when Nixon left office. Do you really think the average doctor or corporate exec will cut back his hours if the top rate goes from 39 to, say, 46 percent? A salaried employee is expected to satisfy his employer's requirements under all circumstances; he doesn't get to say "My taxes are up, so I'll just work less." And the truly wealthy don't work for money; they work for personal satisfaction, or they don't work at all and just live on their investments. By your logic, productivity would be infinite if taxes were zero. Prove it.

You got a bit loose there at the end.

To say that productivity decreases as taxes increase does not commit one to the statement that productivity is infinite if taxes are abolished.

 

[sunmaster14]

You got a bit loose there at the end.

That's far more charitable than I would have been. He starts with a demand to prove something that is in virtually every introductory microeconomics textbook, proceeds to attack a strawman (that there may be people who don't cut back their hours in response to higher tax rates, or even people who work harder in response), misleads about historical marginal tax rates, and then concludes with an absurd reductio ad absurdum.

To say that productivity decreases as taxes increase does not commit one to the statement that productivity is infinite if taxes are abolished.

Of course. And it also doesn't mean that the productivity of every single person will decrease as tax rates increase. I was referring to averages across the whole economy. Every dynamic economic model assumes the claim I made. In any case, I can say with certainty that higher marginal tax rates make me work less. I definitely cut back in response to the rise in tax rates in 2013. I also do some uneconomic things to shield some of my income that I wouldn't do if tax rates were 10 percentage points lower.

I strongly believe that income tax rates are way too high. I believed that they were too high even after the Bush tax cuts. They are considerably higher today. Any cuts at all would help the economy.

 

[surrogate]

That's far more charitable than I would have been. He starts with a demand to prove something that is in virtually every introductory microeconomics textbook, proceeds to attack a strawman (that there may be people who don't cut back their hours in response to higher tax rates, or even people who work harder in response), misleads about historical marginal tax rates, and then concludes with an absurd reductio ad absurdum.



Of course. And it also doesn't mean that the productivity of every single person will decrease as tax rates increase. I was referring to averages across the whole economy. Every dynamic economic model assumes the claim I made. In any case, I can say with certainty that higher marginal tax rates make me work less. I definitely cut back in response to the rise in tax rates in 2013. I also do some uneconomic things to shield some of my income that I wouldn't do if tax rates were 10 percentage points lower.

I strongly believe that income tax rates are way too high. I believed that they were too high even after the Bush tax cuts. They are considerably higher today. Any cuts at all would help the economy.

I don't know what you do or where you work, but if I tried to tell my boss that I wasn't going to work as much because taxes were too high, I would get laughed at or fired.

 

[Bob001]

....
I strongly believe that income tax rates are way too high. I believed that they were too high even after the Bush tax cuts. They are considerably higher today. Any cuts at all would help the economy.

And yet, the economy collapsed in 2007-8, when taxes were lower, and it's booming today, after the Bush cuts ended. The economy soared through '60s, when rates were extortionate by current standards, and lagged during the '70s, after rates dropped. The point is that people and businesses make economic decisions based on numerous factors other than the tax rates.

 

[Bob001]

That's far more charitable than I would have been. He starts with a demand to prove something that is in virtually every introductory microeconomics textbook,
....

An alternate view:

As this paper outlines, recent economic research suggests that past reductions in top marginal individual income tax rates have had a statistically insignificant impact on growth and its driving factors—labor supply, savings, investment, and productivity growth. However, they have discernibly widened structural budget deficits and exacerbated income inequality.

http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-income-taxes/