Economics Thread

sturg33 said:
I think we have to have a gradual change.

Older people not impacted.

Middle age people.may need to work longer

Young people can opt out, or can be bought out

The plan should be to do away with SS over a 20 year period
Click to expand...

How do you, or anyone else here, feel about making the political parties pay back the mountains of money they STOLE from the Social Security fund? If we did that they'd lock us up so fast and so far back scientists couldn't find us with the Hubbel.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
How do you, or anyone else here, feel about making the political parties pay back the mountains of money they STOLE from the Social Security fund? If we did that they'd lock us up so fast and so far back scientists couldn't find us with the Hubbel.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the political parties. It was the government. We keep electing the same parties bc Julio assures us all that libertarians are nothing but unicorns.

It's a really shame the government has decided it's OK to steal from generations yet to be born. There will be a day of reckoning. We have the Boomer class to thank for it, IMO
 
sturg33 said:
It wasn't the political parties. It was the government. We keep electing the same parties bc Julio assures us all that libertarians are nothing but unicorns.

It's a really shame the government has decided it's OK to steal from generations yet to be born. There will be a day of reckoning. We have the Boomer class to thank for it, IMO
Click to expand...

It would also seem that we're/they're stealing from generations already born and then when the system appears about to crash they call the system people pay into all their working lives an "entitlement". I realize the government, run by both political parties at one time or another is responsible for this but why is there not more outcry from everyone is beyond me. It would be nice to see some sort of documentation as to which presidents and members of Congress signed off on, voted for, and/or had a part in this travesty of so-called "public service". Come on you guys, you always have tons of statistical data for everything. Who can help me out here?
 
So, if we have this example of raising raising taxes on corporations being so disastrous, then wouldn't the logic be that lowering taxes on corps be a good thing?

I agree
 
Fundamental principle of public finance: tax things you want to discourage and do not tax (or tax lightly) things you want to encourage.

Work is clearly in the latter category. So taxes on work (including those on employers) need to be minimized. There are so many other things we can tax at higher rates to raise the revenues government needs. Fossil fuels being the most prominent. But there are also other taxes on social bads that are available. Taxes on using a car in areas with high traffic congestion for example. Junk food. The list is quite long.
 
nsacpi said:
Fundamental principle of public finance: tax things you want to discourage and do not tax (or tax lightly) things you want to encourage.

Work is clearly in the latter category. So taxes on work (including those on employers) need to be minimized. There are so many other things we can tax at higher rates to raise the revenues government needs. Fossil fuels being the most prominent. But there are also other taxes on social bads that are available. Taxes on using a car in areas with high traffic congestion for example. Junk food. The list is quite long.
Click to expand...

We can argue over the correct overall level of taxation, but IMO we definitely tax too much of the wrong things, and (even I would admit) too little of the right things.
 
So the last 12 months of real wage growth is flat and the projections for the next 12 are expecting only marginal improvements. I feel like this should be a meaty topic for our resident math whizzes and economics experts.
 
Indeed it should be... How would you like to start?

I wish youd similarly engage in other topics posted in this thread
 
Via WaPo:

“President Trump followed through Friday on his threat to crack down on China for its “very unfair” trade practices, imposing a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion in Chinese imports.
Beijing quickly responded. In a late-night statement, China’s Ministry of Commerce said it would impose trade barriers of the “same scale and the same strength.””

———

Well this should be good for everyone

*rolls eyes*
 
acesfull86 said:
Via WaPo:

“President Trump followed through Friday on his threat to crack down on China for its “very unfair” trade practices, imposing a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion in Chinese imports.
Beijing quickly responded. In a late-night statement, China’s Ministry of Commerce said it would impose trade barriers of the “same scale and the same strength.””

———

Well this should be good for everyone

*rolls eyes*
Click to expand...

Yeah... So stupid. But at least the Bernie Bros should be happy
 
Sen Sanders got knocked out in the first round ?

something about having your cake and eating it too
 
scratching the surface

the " prominent researcher " used as source for the "data"
is actually a lobbying firm that represents " restaurant, hotel, alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries "

Wonder what their interest would be in higher minimum wage ?
In effect, your "data" is an ad campaign extolling the virtues of a neutral min wage

C'mon Grasshopper -- you can do better than this
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top