Economics Thread

Armageddon ?

You don't know that because there is no model save the reaction to the Great Depression.

And suppose the rates do go up --- so what ?
I like bridges and being able to turn on the tap for a drink of water.

Are you old enough to remember when Lake Erie was on fire ?
I like clean air , I think investment in greening the economy is just that, an investment.
Which it is my understanding was the context of AOC's statement.

Again, what is the purpose of hoarding wealth ?
Who needs over $10M per year.
****, who needs over $1M per year ?

And why is that over $10M sacred?

Why would anyone not of the hoarder class defend the right of the hoarder class to pile up more riches
That baffles me

Unless we come back to the elephant in the room
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
Armageddon ?

You don't know that because there is no model save the reaction to the Great Depression.

And suppose the rates do go up --- so what ?
I like bridges and being able to turn on the tap for a drink of water.

Are you old enough to remember when Lake Erie was on fire ?
I like clean air , I think investment in greening the economy is just that, an investment.
Which it is my understanding was the context of AOC's statement.

Again, what is the purpose of hoarding wealth ?
Who needs over $10M per year.
****, who needs over $1M per year ?

And why is that over $10M sacred?

Why would anyone not of the hoarder class defend the right of the hoarder class to pile up more riches
That baffles me

Unless we come back to the elephant in the room
Click to expand...

Who need over 100K? See where this goes? You can't just tax the rich and expect to pay for these social programs. Our system has created tremendous amounts of wealth and opportunity. Why would I defend it? Because I hope my hard work gets me there one day. Thats the plan.
 
Sturg, I guess you didn’t read the Matt Bruenig article about I posted about how Blahous’s 40% figure is wrong—it’s addresing precisely that issue. He uses that figure in his abstract as a sleight-of-hand, but it’s nowhere derived from the actual figures in the study.

As for the pretzel logic of capitalists being party to corruption through rational acts within a framework designed and executed by capitalists, but such exercises not being called “capitalism,” I’m still scratching my head. Your only rationale is that it isn’t capitalism because the market isn’t a “free market.” So, do please tell me where a free market exists, if not here?
 
thethe said:
Who need over 100K? See where this goes? You can't just tax the rich and expect to pay for these social programs. Our system has created tremendous amounts of wealth and opportunity. Why would I defend it? Because I hope my hard work gets me there one day. Thats the plan.
Click to expand...

The Gomez Addams theory of skydiving. Long held as an Economic Factum.
As you dive each time using a smaller parachute. You would eventually not need a parachute at all

So should we raise the rates to 70% on money made over $10M. (Raising 3/4 Trillion $$$ over 10 years) by your logic using Mr Addams theory we would eventually all pay 100% rate? As Mr Addams would be jumping out of an airplane sans parachute



thethe, you are being silly and shortsighted
 
Last edited:
goldfly said:
actually that is exactly how every other western country does it
Click to expand...

In a shocking turn of events, you and 57 have no understanding of anything with regards to math.

The middle class is the only way to pay for this garbage. There's not enough money to steal from the top.

And since you and julio are so obsessed with what other countries do, let's take a look.

There is a reason that other nations in the Anglosphere do not have anything close to such a tax — even as they spend in a way that would appeal to Ocasio-Cortez — and that is that such taxes do not really do much good. Most people who make tens of millions of dollars rarely derive the lion’s share of their money from traditional income — and, should such a bracket be added to the books, the few who do would quickly restructure. The top tax rates in comparable Anglosphere countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are 45 percent, 33 percent (federal), 45 percent, and 33 percent respectively. There is no 70 percent rate in any of those countries — on millionaires, on billionaires, or otherwise. Hell, there is no 50 percent rate, either.

This is not to say that there is no difference between the way that those nations operate and the United States operates. On the contrary: Unlike the United States, those nations do have much higher taxes — on their middle classes.

Why? Well, because that’s where the money is. The U.K.’s 40 percent tax rate kicks in at just $59,178 (I’ve adjusted for U.S. dollars, here and below), and its 45 percent rate starts at just $191,521. In addition, Britain has a 20 percent value-added tax that makes pretty much everything annoyingly expensive. Australia charges 32.5 percent at $26,377, 37 percent at $64,162, and 45 percent at $128,324. New Zealand’s top rate of 33 percent is levied on earnings above $47,319, while Canada charges 26 percent after $69,794, and 33 percent after $154,153 (this is on top of considerable provincial income taxes).

If the Democratic party wants the United States to be more like its Anglosphere cousins, it needs to stop talking stupidly about “the rich,” and begin making the case for the considerably higher middle-class taxes that will be needed to pay for the considerably higher social spending it covets. Thus far, Democrats have done no such thing. Instead, Democratic aspirants point excitedly at the health-care systems and family-leave policies of Britain or Canada, while promising not to raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 or less per year. This is an impossible, unsustainable combination.
Click to expand...

As noted above, AOC's proposal does nothing for revenue generation. 57 says it'll raise $720B over 10 year... that will cover 1% of AOC's policy suggestions, and that's with extremely generous budget projections to her cause.

As thethe pointed out, much more will be needed and it's not going to come from ultra-rich people.

Sorry about all the math.
 
Found 57 on twitter.

DwUzxzFUwAAlFGZ.jpg:large
 
Julio3000 said:
Sturg, I guess you didn’t read the Matt Bruenig article about I posted about how Blahous’s 40% figure is wrong—it’s addresing precisely that issue. He uses that figure in his abstract as a sleight-of-hand, but it’s nowhere derived from the actual figures in the study.

As for the pretzel logic of capitalists being party to corruption through rational acts within a framework designed and executed by capitalists, but such exercises not being called “capitalism,” I’m still scratching my head. Your only rationale is that it isn’t capitalism because the market isn’t a “free market.” So, do please tell me where a free market exists, if not here?
Click to expand...

You cite me to a study and I quote words directly from the author himself. He explains the 40% and where it comes from and why it is cited.

You've yet to comment on the fact that hospitals lose money on medicare patients. Do you care to?

You've yet to answer my question about whether I can steal from my rich neighbor because he's too rich.
 
thethe said:
Oh yeah - I'm sure its going to stop there once they realize that it only pays for a small fraction of her outrageous proposals.
Click to expand...

Yes the person who is pushing an economic system that has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths at the hand of the government can lecture us about morality...

while still getting all the facts wrong.

and then getting mad about it when called on it.

and then playing the victim card when told why her complaint is wrong.

she's unraveling on twitter today. She can dunk on people when the criticize her for nonsense, but she is completely out of her depths when challenged on her policies.
 
sturg33 said:
In a shocking turn of events, you and 57 have no understanding of anything with regards to math.

The middle class is the only way to pay for this garbage. There's not enough money to steal from the top.

And since you and julio are so obsessed with what other countries do, let's take a look.



As noted above, AOC's proposal does nothing for revenue generation. 57 says it'll raise $720B over 10 year... that will cover 1% of AOC's policy suggestions, and that's with extremely generous budget projections to her cause.

As thethe pointed out, much more will be needed and it's not going to come from ultra-rich people.

Sorry about all the math.
Click to expand...

what legislation is on the table ?


her policies ?
she has been a Fr Congresswoman 4 days

you do a lot of talking about her, or hadnt you noticed
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
You cite me to a study and I quote words directly from the author himself. He explains the 40% and where it comes from and why it is cited.

You've yet to comment on the fact that hospitals lose money on medicare patients. Do you care to?

You've yet to answer my question about whether I can steal from my rich neighbor because he's too rich.
Click to expand...

Let's also remember that medicare is already facing a $6 trillion shortfall in next decade, and $40T over next 30 years... that's before you magically expand it to everyone and tell me how easy it is.
 
then why are you against raising revenues ?
the bill is coming due and you are refusing a raise

oh cause one day you might be ...
grow up
 
Last edited:
your point?

had it raised revenues to any significance (R) would have run on them rather than away from them
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
In a shocking turn of events, you and 57 have no understanding of anything with regards to math.

The middle class is the only way to pay for this garbage. There's not enough money to steal from the top.

And since you and julio are so obsessed with what other countries do, let's take a look.



As noted above, AOC's proposal does nothing for revenue generation. 57 says it'll raise $720B over 10 year... that will cover 1% of AOC's policy suggestions, and that's with extremely generous budget projections to her cause.

As thethe pointed out, much more will be needed and it's not going to come from ultra-rich people.

Sorry about all the math.
Click to expand...

He will disappear for a month and never comment on his absolute stupidity.
 
57Brave said:
you answered a question with a question
Click to expand...

Your deflection skills are elite...

And the reason the Republcians didn't run on them is because unfortunately people are too dumb to understand how the tax cuts helped them. Its a much easier playbook and message to say Rich people got most of the tax cut that the left spouts with endless favorable media coverage. However, its very clear the economic performance the last two years are an indication that the tax cuts were extremely positive. Notice how nobody on the left talks about jobs not coming back to America?
 
oh

of those dumb people no doubt is the
secretary Paul Ryan referenced a year ago

no doubt


the list goes on
 
57Brave said:
oh

of those dumb people no doubt is the
secretary Paul Ryan referenced a year ago

no doubt


the list goes on
Click to expand...

Yeah - You know those wage growth numbers? What about unemployment for minorities? How about people re-entering the labor force? Highest amount of sales on Christmas shopping in 6 years?

You think that was sheer circumstance?

Open your eyes and see the world for what it is and not the pie in sky of what you think it should be. Tax cuts and deregulation worked. End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top