Post New

Same press conference:
Trump said that the Presidential Medal of Freedom is “much better” because “everyone who gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they’re soldiers, they’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead.”
 Trump said that Miriam Adelson, one of his donors, was fortunate to get the Medal of Freedom during his presidency because, unlike injured or deceased soldiers, she “gets it and she’s a healthy beautiful woman.”

Mike, there’s still time to step away from this embarrassing jerk. He won’t secure the border. He won’t strengthen the economy. And he won’t win.

Mike, there’s still time to step away from this embarrassing jerk. He won’t secure the border. He won’t strengthen the economy. And he won’t win. - MisterFungi

===============

Trump may not make as much yardage as I would like but the alternative will run the ball in the opposite direction. You may be right, he won't win, and we will never know. So far, Trump has run a poor campaign, too many unforced errors and missed opportunities.

You may be right, he won't win, and we will never know.

When Trump loses, we will never know for sure what he would have done—-although if his first term is any guide, it would be precious little other than a few publicity stunts. But we will be able to see what a Harris/Walz admin does, and I suspect you’ll see some genuine progress on border security together with reforming antiquated policies that harm US economic growth. They’re no fools, in contrast to the MAGA boyz.

Trump may not make as much yardage as I would like but the alternative will run the ball in the opposite direction.

What's the opposite direction Mike? That the border gets taken care of in a humane way? That we slow the influx, but don't make huge internment camps, and families aren't torn apart?

He will "try" to reduce spending, and will reduce taxes. As a result, the deficit will grow substantially again. We have seen this movie so many times it gets boring.
Alan

But we will be able to see what a Harris/Walz admin does, and I suspect you’ll see some genuine progress on border security together with reforming antiquated policies that harm US economic growth

Harris in her one policy utterance gave away the game: price fixing. Please tell us you know exactly zero about the exconomy without telling us you know exactly zero about the economy, Madame Vice President.

>>Trump may not make as much yardage as I would like but the alternative will run the ball in the opposite direction.<<

What's the opposite direction Mike? - Lambo

==============

It is what you are seeing right now, an unlimited, unvetted influx that has overwhelmed our ability to care for them and exposes our county to severe security risks.

Harris in her one policy utterance gave away the game: price fixing. = Dope

============

Her latest policy idea is to provide a $25,000 credit for first time home buyers. No mention of where that money comes from but rest assured it will making them pay their fair share, and profit controls on rapacious corporations.

This is quite like the college tuition debacle. Just have the government (really the taxpayers) help pay for it and make sure the beneficiaries know it and vote for more.

Her latest policy idea is to provide a $25,000 credit for first time home buyers. No mention of where that money comes from …

If I’m not mistaken, and I seldom am, the money will come from the same place the trillions came from to pay for all the billionaire Trump tax cuts.

However, giving money to people who will spend it always benefits the economy more than giving it to billionaires.

If I’m not mistaken, and I seldom am, the money will come from the same place the trillions came from to pay for all the billionaire Trump tax cuts.

Or the "no tax on tips." Which is also a proposal that economists have slagged as being a poor choice based on policy. It "buys" you the voters you're trying to land, concentrating a benefit on them that has to be made up from other taxpayers, so it has economic benefits - but it makes little sense as an economic policy.

Yes, I know Harris also supported it. Doesn't make it any better. It's great politics, terrible policy.

Her latest policy idea is to provide a $25,000 credit for first time home buyers. No mention of where that money comes from but rest assured it will making them pay their fair share, and profit controls on rapacious corporations.

All this is going to do is just what the EV subsidies do: Raise the price of every house by $25k.

The democrats are 100% demagoguery, nothing more. Because no sane person who understands five minutes' worth of economics would pose this stuff.

Or the "no tax on tips." Which is also a proposal that economists have slagged as being a poor choice based on policy.

Nope. There's a vast difference between the two policies.

Republicans believe in the government not taking money it doesn't need from everyone in the first place. In other words, let people keep their own money.

That puts an obligation on the government to not spend what it doesn't have. Yes, yes, yes the government under Republicans has failed on the 2nd part repeatedly.

The democrats on the other hand firmly believe in redistributing other people's money to whatever group is currently in favor.

Republicans believe in the government not taking money it doesn't need from everyone in the first place. In other words, let people keep their own money.

But that's not what's going on with this specific policy. They're not letting people - generally - keep their own money. They're letting a very specific subset of people keep more of their money than any other subset of people. And since the Republicans do fail spectacularly on not spending what it doesn't have, that de facto means that allowing that specific subset of people pay fewer taxes means that other people will have to make up the difference.

Which means that this policy is just as much "redistributing other people's money to whatever group is currently in favor" in actual practice, just like you accuse the Democrats of doing. It's a election-cycle tactic to try to provide a special benefit to one discrete group of people and not others.

But that's not what's going on with this specific policy. They're not letting people - generally - keep their own money. They're letting a very specific subset of people keep more of their money than any other subset of people.

No, they're talking about taking an income classification and taxing it differently. The policy does not discriminate; it does raise some interesting questions of what constitutes a "tip". What if my drywall installer discounts his price by 90%...but I "tip" him the balance. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Which means that this policy is just as much "redistributing other people's money to whatever group is currently in favor" in actual practice, just like you accuse the Democrats of doing.

Not even close. There's no transaction involved where the government shifts money from one group to another or creates a scenario where prices rise because of the subsidy.

No, they're talking about taking an income classification and taxing it differently.

Which is a difference without a distinction. Some careers earn money through tipping; nearly all others don't. If you make one specific type of income classification tax-free, you're giving a benefit to the specific category of people that are in those jobs and not to others.

There's no transaction involved where the government shifts money from one group to another or creates a scenario where prices rise because of the subsidy.

Neither is there such a transaction with nearly all the Democratic programs that conservatives disdain. The EITC doesn't "shift money form one group to another" - it takes money out of the treasury and gives it to the recipients. Like No Tax on Tips, that money has to come from somewhere, which means that indirectly other people will have to pay more taxes to compensate for the preferential treatment given the benefited group. But there's no practical difference in how it operates.

Prices never rise with a subsidy. Subsidies distort markets by making prices lower than they would otherwise be.

But we will be able to see what a Harris/Walz admin does, and I suspect you’ll see some genuine progress on border security...

Only if we get the Speakership, also. If the Reps have it, they won't allow anything other than a messaging bill to the floor. The Executive can't do much without congressional action, because the laws (passed by Congress) are what they are today. Only they can change them.

It is what you are seeing right now, an unlimited, unvetted influx that has overwhelmed our ability to care for them and exposes our county to severe security risks.

You mean the Trump aided, abetted, and created unlimited, unvetted influx? Whatever influx there is now was created by Trump so he'd have a campaign issue. I still chuckle over Dope coming out here and saying - they're taking away his (Trump's) best issue. And Trump's floundering and stuttering Hannibal Lecter style - the only reason he went back to the wall was Anne Coulter kicked him in the nuts.

And I give Abbot credit, though his other policies seem to downgrade him. Make no mistake, Dems or libs who understand the problem want it dealt with on a better level than Trump allows - because he's running scared of prosecution.

There aren't going to be mass deportations. Have you seriously looked at the feasibility of deporting millions in a rapid period of time? I don't want to pay for that either. And they're talking about flying them out. We need to get down to brass tacks on how to effectively stem the tide. Remember, the cartels thought this was lucrative enough that they organized people coming up from Peru. Nicaragua cuts out part of the trip.

We can whittle down the eligible but we'll have to spend money to manage it humanely. I don't seriously entertain mass deportations. We'd screw that right up.

Yes, I know Harris also supported it. Doesn't make it any better. It's great politics, terrible policy.

Yep. Didn’t like it when Trump supported it and I still don’t like when Harris supported it.

Probably doesn’t have a chance in hell of making it through the House anyway, regardless of who controls it.

There aren't going to be mass deportations. Have you seriously looked at the feasibility of deporting millions in a rapid period of time? I don't want to pay for that either. And they're talking about flying them out.

That wouldn't be feasible.

It seems most people are thinking it's like the old days when "they" sneak in from Mexico, we catch them, send them back to Mexico. That was fine when they were Mexicans, and you just pile them into some buses and drive them across the border. But Mexico is under no obligation to take Costa Ricans, or Nicaraguans, or other nationalities. So we would have to fly them, which is very expensive. And most of what is coming across these days are not Mexicans.

And that's not even broaching the fact that -under current law and treaties-, asylum-seekers have the right to be here. Which, as we thoroughly discussed previously on this board, is a matter for Congress to change those laws.

Neither is there such a transaction with nearly all the Democratic programs that conservatives disdain.

Sure there is. Subsidies are indirect wealth transfers because the price of the good being subsidized...inevitably rises in accordance with the $ amount of the subsidy itself.

Let's look at EVs.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/business/ford-f-150....

When the Lightning first went on sale, the Pro version – the base model intended mostly as a simple work truck – cost about $40,000. Now it will cost about $47,000. More expensive versions of the truck have similar price increases, up to $8,500 for highly equipped extended range models. The Lightning is currently eligible for the $7,500 federal EV tax credit.

LOL, Ford jacked up the price MORE than the amount of the subsidy.

Prices never rise with a subsidy. Subsidies distort markets by making prices lower than they would otherwise be.

Nope. Depends on what it is. You'll see housing prices rise an average of ...$25,000 with Harris' proposal.

Sure there is. Subsidies are indirect wealth transfers because the price of the good being subsidized...inevitably rises in accordance with the $ amount of the subsidy itself.

If you subsidize the purchase of a good, the price net of the subsidy falls. If the subsidy is given to the producer, the nominal price falls; if it's given to the buyer, the nominal price might rise but the net price falls. So when Trump proposes subsidizing waiters and waitresses by making their tips tax free (for example), the price that employers have to pay for their labor will fall by some amount. The workers will sell their labor for a lower price, because the subsidy makes up for it.

LOL, Ford jacked up the price MORE than the amount of the subsidy.

The subsidy was there when it was priced at $40K. The subsidy was there when it was priced at $48.5K. So how did the subsidy raise the prices?

And that's not even broaching the fact that -under current law and treaties-, asylum-seekers have the right to be here.

No, they don't. We signed on to a treaty that in spirit is generous in this sort of thing...it's being abused beyond belief.

So we would have to fly them, which is very expensive. And most of what is coming across these days are not Mexicans.

Were you aware that Biden is actively flying people from other countries in to the US?

Or the "no tax on tips." Which is also a proposal that economists have slagged as being a poor choice based on policy. It "buys" you the voters you're trying to land, concentrating a benefit on them that has to be made up from other taxpayers, so it has economic benefits - but it makes little sense as an economic policy.

Agreed. It not only makes zero sense from an economic sense, it is very corrosive to the larger ecosystem around taxation. The whole point of taxes is that there are certain activities (police, courts, schools...) required for EVERYONE'S benefit that require funding to which all those benefiting have some conceptual obligation to contribute. Alternatively, there are some functions required in a civil society that will NOT be produced with sufficient quantity or quality via private enterprise and market incentives which also require funding to which all those benefiting have a conceptual obligation to contribute.

The idea of declaring that tip income should not be taxed seems both offensive and stupid. Offensive because such proposals are really saying "We know making $3.50/hour PLUS tips isn't enough for even one to eat off of, much less raise a family but instead of devising a way so that you earn an ACTUAL living wage, we're going to toss a fake benefit and let you not pay taxes on tips. You're still gonna starve and eat dog food three days a week but we'll all feel better about ourselves by saying you aren't paying any taxes on tips."

Here's what this scheme really means to the individual.

a) Make $3.50/hour in "wages" and collect $16/hour in taxable tips and net $ 19.50/hour or $39,000/year gross. At tax time, get a $14,600 deduction, leaving $24,400 in taxable income and pay 10% on the first $11,600 ($1160) and 12% on the rest ($12,800 x 0.12 = $1536) or a total of $2696 in taxes, leaving you with $36,304 to live on.

b) Make $3.50/hour in "wages", still collect $16/hour in tips and net $ 19.50/hour or $39,000/year gross. But at tax time, only $3.50 x 50 weeks x 40 hours or $7000 is taxable, that amount doesn't even exhaust the standard deductible and you wind up with zero taxable income.

In reality, in either of these scenarios, total income is WAY below the max threshold of eligibility of $63,698 for the Earned Income Tax Credit so no income taxes are being paid anyway and the EITC is likely putting an additional $2100-$2400 in the worker's pocket each year. Why not adjust the formula for that program to yield the desired incremental benefit rather than ELIMINATING taxes on an entire category of income and risk unanticipated after-effects?

The real picture here is that from an order of magnitude standpoint, the dollar value of the benefit being provided is quite small (though still material to those at this income level). On the other hand, implementing a new rule that EXCLUDES "tips" from any federal income tax seems to be waving a stadium sized red flag in front of the bull that is corporate America to trigger a mad dash to devise ways for CORPORATIONS to exploit such a rule. Maybe companies will figure out a way to claim bonuses paid to executives are "tips". Maybe companies will try to figure out a way to reclassify divident payments as tips so rich investors already only paying 15% income tax on dividends won't pay any tax. And certainly, a waiter working a restaurant serving $120 steaks to execs traveling on "bidness" is making enough that paying $0 on tips when they might be clearing $600 per shift isn't the best use of a tax break.

More importantly, any plan to eliminate taxes on tips further increases the perception of inequality in the tax system, seeminly pitting one category of worker against another based on how their income reaches their wallet. Is a waiter more deserving of a lower tax rate than a roofer? We don't need MORE discrimination in the tax system, we need LESS, ESPECIALLY at TOP tax brackets.


WTH

No, they don't.

Under current law, yes they do. The law may be being abused, but it's still the law until it's changed.

Were you aware that Biden is actively flying people from other countries in to the US?

Yes. But it's not as you are implying. Right-wing media is portraying it differently than reality (as usual). They have to have a sponsor, plus some other details.

So when Trump proposes subsidizing waiters and waitresses by making their tips tax free (for example

Except that's not a "subsidy". It's their money in the first place.
You're arguing that basically the government "subsidizes" its citizens by only taking some of what we earn. It's the other way around: we pay the government to provide certain services and everyone is taxed to some degree or other to fund those things...the money isn't the government's to begin with.

The subsidy was there when it was priced at $40K. The subsidy was there when it was priced at $48.5K. So how did the subsidy raise the prices?

Ford is taking a bath on its EVs and probably thought a lower introductory price would spur more demand. The broader question with EVs in general is, "What is the total addressable market (TAM)?"

Is the TAM limited to fans of electric vehicles or early adopters of new tech? Then the ceiling is 10-20% of the automotive ecosystem.
If the TAM could be considered to be most of the automotive industry, then the ceiling is much higher.

The point there is that Ford and others have to rationalize their product offerings with whatever the realistic TAM would be.

Except that's not a "subsidy". It's their money in the first place.

Economically it doesn't matter. There's no material difference between stroking someone a check for, say, 7% of the price of their new car or giving them an exemption from a 7% sales tax that would otherwise have to be paid. Money is fungible. There's no economic difference between receiving a payment and being relieved of an obligation in the same amount.

Relieving someone of a $100 tax liability has the same economic effect as sending them $100 - so it would have the same consequence on pricing.

Ford is taking a bath on its EVs and probably thought a lower introductory price would spur more demand. The broader question with EVs in general is, "What is the total addressable market (TAM)?"

That is an interesting question, but not what you said in your prior post. You had suggested the reason that Ford's prices went up was because of the subsidy. However, the subsidies were in place both at the lower and higher prices. So the subsidies couldn't have affected Ford's prices.

Or the "no tax on tips.

When I've traveled in New Zealand, Australia and most of Europe, it has been wonderful not to have to hassle with tipping for many things like food service.

Just pay people a decent wage and f the tipping. Instead it seems our culture of tipping is spreading elsewhere.

I agree. Pay them a living wage, and eliminate the expected tipping. Of course, you can still tip if you like. But today it is obligatory, and that's just messed up.

Tipping has its roots in racism, you know. When the laws forbade wage discrimination, they managed to get lower minimum wages for service people. So if your server was white, you could tip a lot. If they were black, not so much. Back-door wage discrimination.

I know a few places locally that now say they pay their people well, so tipping is entirely optional. When our daughter worked in a sandwich shop, they didn't even have a tip jar or the option to add a tip when running your credit card. You had to request to tip before they rung it up.

Economically it doesn't matter.
Depends on your view of the role of the government. It only matters if you think that 100% of earnings belong to them...and not the citizens.

Relieving someone of a $100 tax liability has the same economic effect as sending them $100 - so it would have the same consequence on pricing.

Nope. Relieving someone of a tax liability on income means they have more cash to spend on a variety of thing, whatever they want. Targeted subsidies only affect the thing being targeted. They're not the same, not at all.

Depends on your view of the role of the government. It only matters if you think that 100% of earnings belong to them...and not the citizens.

It doesn't matter in the context of what we're discussing. Government can subsidize things using different levers. They can just pay money directly to subsidize it, or they can relinquish a tax obligation in the same amount. Because money is fungible, it doesn't matter which they do - the impact on the product's market is the same.

Nope. Relieving someone of a tax liability on income means they have more cash to spend on a variety of thing, whatever they want. Targeted subsidies only affect the thing being targeted. They're not the same, not at all.

I thought it was clear from context that the 'sending them money' option would be under the same conditions as the 'relief from tax obligation.' For example, if you send someone $100 for doing a specific thing, it has the same effect as relieving them from a tax obligation on that specific thing (ie. sending them a check in the amount of sales tax on a car or waiving the sales tax on the car). Alternatively, there is also no difference between sending someone $100 with no strings attached and relieving them of a general tax obligation of $100 with no strings attached.

Again, money is fungible. So there is no economic difference between a subsidy that takes the form of relieving a tax obligation or one that involves a direct payment. If I decide to send all waitstaff a check in the amount of 9.2% of their tipped wages, or if I grant all service staff an exemption from their income taxes for their tipped wages in that same amount, it has the exact same effect on the waitstaff. And on all other taxpayers - I have to come up with that money somehow, and (since money is fungible) there's no difference to the Treasury whether the deficiency is styled as a $X expenditure or a $X reduction in revenue. Either way, I have to make up that money from somewhere - either taking money from other taxpayers or cutting services given to other taxpayers.

It doesn't matter in the context of what we're discussing. Government can subsidize things using different levers. They can just pay money directly to subsidize it, or they can relinquish a tax obligation in the same amount. Because money is fungible, it doesn't matter which they do - the impact on the product's market is the same.

Money is fungible with respect to a single party controlling his or her income or within a business attempting to make decisions with its cash on hand. Money IS NOT fungible in the context of independent actors making independent - and unrelated - decisions about where it is spent.

We don't have a centrally controlled economy and God Willing we never will.

However, giving money to people who will spend it always benefits the economy more than giving it to billionaires. - AW

--------------

No doubt there will be many who will be enticed to take on the mortgage debt only to be ill prepared later by the costs of maintenance, insurance and taxes.

BTW, if the economy still produces more or less the same amount of goods and services, then all that extra spending will manifest itself as inflation.

There aren't going to be mass deportations. Have you seriously looked at crimesthe feasibility of deporting millions in a rapid period of time? - Lambo

------------------

The priority will be the 50,000 or so who have committed heinous violent crimes, gangs, long rap sheets, etc. The vast majority of the immigrants are simple economic migrants looking for a better life, hard working, law abiding and no threat to anyone. There is no urgency or even necessity in deporting these immigrants.

Money is fungible with respect to a single party controlling his or her income or within a business attempting to make decisions with its cash on hand.

Still doesn't affect the point. Imagine the government offers me a subsidy to purchase EV's in the form of a tax credit of $1,000 - letting me keep $1,000 of my own money that would otherwise be paid in taxes if I buy a new EV. Now imagine that they switch from a tax credit to a direct payment - if I buy an EV they send me a $1,000 check. My purchasing decisions are exactly the same (barring some minor timing and friction points) - I'm indifferent between whether my subsidy takes the form of a $1,000 reduction in my taxes if I buy the EV or a $1,000 payment if I buy the EV.

It's still a subsidy. It has the same effect.

The priority will be the 50,000 or so who have committed heinous violent crimes, gangs, long rap sheets, etc

We've been doing that for a while in Latin America, Mike. That's how we inadvertently helped create MS-13.

Yes. But it's not as you are implying. Right-wing media is portraying it differently than reality (as usual). They have to have a sponsor, plus some other details. - 1pg

----------------

Administration of the program is so lax that when an audit was recently done it was discovered that the sponsors address on the paperwork was a vacant lot or abandoned warehouse. The same sponsor name and/or address would show up on scores of immigrants who had been flown in. Also I have heard these flown in immigrants are not counted in the various estimate of illegal crossings.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigrat...

Biden DHS halts immigration program amid fraud claims after admitting 500,000 migrants
.
.
.
Address fraud was also found to be widespread. Roughly 100 street addresses were listed on 19,000 applications and were often traced back to buildings that included a warehouse or storage unit.

In another example, 100 IP addresses used to access the internet (in other words, the connection from a particular phone, tablet, or computer) were used to apply in more than 51,133 instances.

Depends on your view of the role of the government. It only matters if you think that 100% of earnings belong to them...and not the citizens.

I’m fine with that idea … as long as those same people pay for the benefits the investments from taxes bring.

For instance, all roads in their area should be toll roads. That way there are no road taxes, and only the people who travel will pay for the roads. Commercial vehicles have to pay too, so that would be reflected in the cost of items on the shelves. So … higher prices but no taxes.

I’m hoping they’ll pony up to keep some kind of standing army, you know, just in case. Air Force, Navy, Marines too. So no taxes, but maybe somebody else takes over if they feel like it.

And of course we have to figure out some way to pay for police and fire services and other protections: where I am we pay for fire protection privately, and you don’t have to buy it at all. Of course if something happens they still have to put the fire out (to protect neighboring properties) and you have to pay for that service. If you pay to subscribe yearly then you don’t owe anything.

And I hope rural people are willing to pay the full cost of stringing expensive copper all that way, it’s not really fair to penalize some people who live densely packed for the benefit of those who want to be miles from neighbors, is it? Other utilities too, if appropriate. We wouldn’t want any hint of socialism, where some people help subsidize the costs of others, would we?

I don’t know if you think they should get the benefits of regulation that turned the stocks market from dark corners and conspiracies to a more open investing system, or the kind of thing that keeps their money in the bank safe, or even keeps poisons out of the food supply. And has changed the medicine business from snake oil to the abundant remedies we have available today. Of course it’s private industry that has done much of that, but it’s the oversight that’s kept them in line. And for working to get the education system to produce more research and more practicers in the industry. That seems to have been pretty important for developing the economy, but maybe it’s unnecessary and we can all grow tomatoes and rutabagas on the side yard.

And while I’m there, without the subsidies given smaller areas, the costs of keeping a hospital at the ready and airline service anywhere nearby will shoot up like a rocket. But those folks can use some of that 100% they’re keeping, so maybe they’re still OK. Unless they get sick, I guess.

Well, it’s true the list is long, and I suspect if I kept going I could reasonably argue that keeping that 100% maybe isn’t really such a deal after all. In fact, I’m pretty sure that if someone looked at the developed countries in the world that the US would be one of the lowest taxed on the list. Here’s a list to help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_st...

So anyway, when you find the place that lets you keep 100% and no taxes, I hope you’ll let the rest of us know. Although if it’s a place without any functioning government you know, Somalia or Antarctica I’ll probably skip it.

PS: You did say ‘100%’ didn’t you?

We've been doing that for a while in Latin America, Mike. That's how we inadvertently helped create MS-13.

-------------

I am not aware of our helping MS-13, Lap. Are you suggesting somehow we should not deport these predators/criminals?

I am not aware of our helping MS-13, Lap. Are you suggesting somehow we should not deport these predators/criminals?

No, Mike, I'm saying there are unforeseen consequences. MS-13 was much more threatening in Latin America than it was here, it just started on the streets of LA.

Tipping turns out to be a subsidy to the restaurant owners, who no longer have to pay a normal wages, but additionally have been excluded from paying SS and Medicare taxes on said wages, let alone any benefits.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.