Oh, you mean this?
The envy of the world | Oct 19th 2024 | The Economist
The envy of the world – Weekly edition of The Economist for Oct 19th 2024. You've seen the news, now discover the story.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump has a degree in economics, but does he have a Nobel Prize?
- Thread starter Pogo
- Start date
He's got a proven track record of fraud and defamation. And generating more bankruptcies. Your flaw is wearing blinders and ignoring the negative data. That makes you a poor thinker.
Not having suffered any bankruptcies? That's a good prize.
Ya know, your opposition to war -- along with your total support for Vladimir Putin who started and continues to pursue a war -- really do make you seem at least a little bit, shall we say "inauthentic?"
Last edited:
As reported on MSNBC, October 24, 2024. All paraphrasing done by me.
So we are all aware that 23 U.S. recipients of the prestigious Nobel Prize for Economics have signed a letter serving as a stamp of approval for Harris' economic agenda. According to the group, the Vice President's agenda will improve the overall health of the economy, while Trump's policies will have the opposite effect.
Former Treasury official and "MorningJjoe" economic analyst, Steve Rattner takes us through yet one more survey of economists, to show why economists feel as strongly as they do. "Wall Street Journal" surveyed 39 economists. What they found was this, a lot of support for many of Harris' key plans:
In a study done by Bloomberg Economics, they found that Harris' plan did not have much change in either of the GDP or inflation, which in a sense is a good thing at this point. But they found that Trump's plan would would cut the GDP by 8.9%. Let me put that in perspective for you. This is roughly twice the amount that the GDP went down during the financial crisis.We would be looking at something between a recession and a depression. Interestingly, the tariffs would cause certainly a part of this.
But the biggest cause, actually, of the drop are the mass deportations that Trump is talking about. He would take huge pieces of our labor force out of the country, send them back or send them somewhere else, and the result would be business wouldn't have labor. They wouldn't be able to produce things. You'd have this enormous economic contraction. This is something we've never seen before in terms of scoring a set of policy proposals from a presidential candidate.
One of the most important things in the two plans are the differences in their tax proposals. Harris' tax proposal would raise incomes for people at the bottom 20%, and for people in the 20% to 40%, by a fairly significant amount. She would raise taxes for people at the higher incomes in the 99 to 100 and the 95 to 99%.
Trump does the opposite. He raises after tax incomes for people at the highest incomes, up here, and believe it or not, if you're at the bottom, Trump's tax plan would increase your taxes slightly. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
It’s about time people started figuring out these kinds of differences and changing their view of her economic plan versus Trump's economic plan, because right now, they’ve got it backwards.
I have not analyzed the rest of the presentation, but it is worth watching, never-the-less.
So we are all aware that 23 U.S. recipients of the prestigious Nobel Prize for Economics have signed a letter serving as a stamp of approval for Harris' economic agenda. According to the group, the Vice President's agenda will improve the overall health of the economy, while Trump's policies will have the opposite effect.
Former Treasury official and "MorningJjoe" economic analyst, Steve Rattner takes us through yet one more survey of economists, to show why economists feel as strongly as they do. "Wall Street Journal" surveyed 39 economists. What they found was this, a lot of support for many of Harris' key plans:
- 74% support for her tax credit of $6,000 for new babies
- 59% support for raising the corporate tax rate
- 64% for capping insulin prices at $35 for everyone
- And 46%, roughly 50/50, for capping out of pocket spending on prescription drugs.
- There was less support for a couple other things: 8% for $25,000 for first-time home buyers and penalizing price gouging.
- 8% support from economists for making tax cuts permanent.
- Zero support for his tariffs of 20%.
- 5% support for eliminating taxes on social security benefits.
In a study done by Bloomberg Economics, they found that Harris' plan did not have much change in either of the GDP or inflation, which in a sense is a good thing at this point. But they found that Trump's plan would would cut the GDP by 8.9%. Let me put that in perspective for you. This is roughly twice the amount that the GDP went down during the financial crisis.We would be looking at something between a recession and a depression. Interestingly, the tariffs would cause certainly a part of this.
But the biggest cause, actually, of the drop are the mass deportations that Trump is talking about. He would take huge pieces of our labor force out of the country, send them back or send them somewhere else, and the result would be business wouldn't have labor. They wouldn't be able to produce things. You'd have this enormous economic contraction. This is something we've never seen before in terms of scoring a set of policy proposals from a presidential candidate.
One of the most important things in the two plans are the differences in their tax proposals. Harris' tax proposal would raise incomes for people at the bottom 20%, and for people in the 20% to 40%, by a fairly significant amount. She would raise taxes for people at the higher incomes in the 99 to 100 and the 95 to 99%.
Trump does the opposite. He raises after tax incomes for people at the highest incomes, up here, and believe it or not, if you're at the bottom, Trump's tax plan would increase your taxes slightly. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
It’s about time people started figuring out these kinds of differences and changing their view of her economic plan versus Trump's economic plan, because right now, they’ve got it backwards.
I have not analyzed the rest of the presentation, but it is worth watching, never-the-less.
Last edited:
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
They are all 'pro-growth' capitalists so I automatically dismiss their opinion. Don't get me wrong, I do not support the Orange One, but invoking the praise of mainstream economists does not impress me in the least.
Is this about raising the tax rate,
or increasing the tax cut?
What happens if $35 isn't enuf to justify manufacturing it?
Is this a prohibition against consumers spending that much?
Or price regulation?
"Price gouging" smacks of government creating shortages,
just as Carter did with gasoline in the 70s. It sucked.
Trump's tax policies involved some cuts & some increases.
Federal income tax revenue actually increased.
That claim doesn't mean much without details.
Paying income tax on money that I paid as
tax, & is now being returned to me stinks.
My error -- corrected.
What's your opinion about corporations paying tax
on income, & then disbursing what remains to
shareholders, who then pay income tax on it again?
She'd raise both tax rates.
I'm skeptical that this is conducive to strong business
competitiveness. Yet economists appear to be in favor
of raising taxes across the board. I wonder if they see
any limit to the extent that taxes should increase?
Paul Krugman doesn't seem to.
Reminds me of this form, which I copied, & put
copies in with the real ones in an IRS office...back
when you could physically go to one.
I remember the 1040 form. Ha Ha.What's your opinion about corporations paying tax
on income, & then disbursing what remains to
shareholders, who then pay income tax on it again?
She'd raise both tax rates.
I'm skeptical that this is conducive to strong business
competitiveness. Yet economists appear to be in favor
of raising taxes across the board. I wonder if they see
any limit to the extent that taxes should increase?
Paul Krugman doesn't seem to.
Reminds me of this form, which I copied, & put
copies in with the real ones in an IRS office...back
when you could physically go to one.
Your question is too big for me. Where I live, I'm taxed on my income. Part of what I'm left with, I spend on things I want and need -- and on some of those I pay tax sales taxes, so I'm taxed again.
On the other hand, my spine surgery was 100% free. When my partner suffered Guillaine-Barre Syndrome, his 8 1/2 months in hospital and all the treatments (you know we're well over $1million now), plus follow-up home care for another year was likewise free. We would have been bankrupted, otherwise.
As a senior citizen, I pay $100.00 for all the prescription drugs I may need in a year -- the $100.00 being the deductible. I get my eyes checked every 18 months for free. I have a smallish government pension, supplemented by Old Age Security benefit -- even though I'm still earning (and paying taxes, of course). Thus, I'm able to continue adding to, rather than depleting, my savings, which are in tax-deferred plans so that I pay no taxes on interest until I start to draw it down.
You may understand that I am much less an enemy of taxes (though not Texas) than many conservative and libertarian Americans.
Sales taxes aren't income taxes though.
Shareholders pay income tax on corporate profit,
& then pay income tax on (profit minus income taxes),
& then they (as do you) pay sales taxes.
That doesn't address the issue of paying income tax
on profit, & then paying it again on what's left after
paying the first income tax.
Is this an argument that any tax increase,
& even double income taxation is good?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ah, so only how much money one has is all that matters to you? That explains a lot.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
It turns out though that being wealthy has little to do with being knowledgeable about macroeconomics.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I doubt there are over 40 nobel prize winner economists. At least alive ones...
Like I said, it's too big an issue for me. Tax freedom day in Canada is 2 months later than in the US. Is that worth not going bankrupt for being unfortunate enough to have a terrible illness, or require major surgery? I can only assess that for myself, and my answer, given my partner's and my experiences, is "yes." I've no doubt lots of people would say, "I'd rather have the cash and take my chances."
And of course, Canadian corporations pay taxes on their profits, and their shareholders pay taxes on dividends. I believe that to be true in most first-world countries, so it seems to be a decision made by governments, many of which answer to their electorates.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I still can't find any names of these alleged 40 Nobel prize winning economists the article is talking about. It's behind a registration wall.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Txs. Now I can do a little research.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
So what is your anti-growth alternative? I think we may well need one and maybe soon, but what is it?
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
I have great yet inexpensive health care.
Not free though....except for vaccinations.
BTW, @Wirey & I once compared tax burdens.
They were quite similar.
You like it there.
I like it here.