That's not a real good report. It does however give the FED cover to continue to cut. Lets fire up the printer get this show on the road!
The next president inherits a remarkable economy
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
You a pro-means testing kinda guy?
I lean pro even as I've made more money over the years. Not that I make enough to get nothing but ahh shit i don't know. I don't want to "take" something that somebody has worked to earn but Social Security goes to people who put 100% of it into savings and I'm not sure how to feel about that.
Aloha is right. There were income limits in place.
Calculating the Economic Impact Payment | Internal Revenue Service
FS-2020-07, May 2020 — Eligible individuals who filed a tax return for tax years 2018 or 2019 or who are not required to file a tax return for those years but receive Social Security retirement, survivor or disability benefits (SSDI), Railroad Retirement benefits, Supplemental Security Income...
I stand corrected. I'm not sure why I received the stimulus during the Trump year's, unless it's because of the kiddos?We got no check. The amount was reduced with higher income and at a certain income level it went to zero. We were above that level so got $0.
Calculating the Economic Impact Payment | Internal Revenue Service
FS-2020-07, May 2020 — Eligible individuals who filed a tax return for tax years 2018 or 2019 or who are not required to file a tax return for those years but receive Social Security retirement, survivor or disability benefits (SSDI), Railroad Retirement benefits, Supplemental Security Income...www.irs.gov
Stimulus Checks: How Much You'll Get, and When - SmartAsset
Congress has approved new stimulus checks. How much will they pay, when will you get yours, and how do they compare to the first stimulus checks?smartasset.com
Always wrong always revised. Always in the same direction. Just like the polling misses or fake news stories that the media later retracts.
The tax code is supposed to set up a country for success by making higher income earners pay a higher percentage of their income to subsidize government. There are debates about what should count as income (e.g., cap gains), how progressive the code should be, etc.
Why does it make more sense to look at the world in dollar terms vs. percentage? That $1M (assuming AGI for this context) person paid a shit ton more of tax in dollars, so we should focus on reducing his rate vs. the $50K person, right?
The discretionary benefit is significantly higher for the first individual, even if the dollar terms are different. Their lifestyle, spending habits, etc. should not be ignored.
Because the only thing relevant to the ability of a person to participate in a market is the amount of money they have relative to everyone else.
That's a regional thing. Nationally, restaurant sales are up. Not a ton but they are up. Do you know what's down though at restaurants nationally? Alcohol sales. Damn kids aren't drinking! We are failing our youth! Drink more beer and get you kids to as well you assholes!!!
Every eastern European I know, and I know a lot living in NW Indiana, hates the Russians.
We are probably viewing this situation different, but I suppose I don't get why dismissing relativity is sensible. The additional cash the lower income earner earns or spends has a materially larger benefit vs. a higher dollar quantity of the higher earner. If that lower income individual can provide higher quality food, buy things for the family, etc.
Are you thinking more along the lines of - there is a larger discretionary figure, of which some will be spent on incremental items that benefit the economy as a whole more since even if half of that figure gets spent vs. saved, it has a larger dollar impact on the economy (GDP, job creation, etc.)?
I’d like to means test Social Security Benefits. But to those disqualified I’d allow them to get their half they paid plus an average interest rate. I would give social security tax paid by self employed both halves of the money they paid.
JDB, your post reminded me how the wealthy and the less affluent think differently while at the same time dependimg on each other.
The wealthy think about their investments and expanding their wealth while relying on the less affluent to spend their hard earned income and show up for work each day.
The less affluent rely on the wealthy to provide jobs and finance the industries which provide the goods and services they purchase. The goods and services which give them pleasure.
Somewhat. It's really twofold...
1. Even if a person receives an increase in discretionary income, how long they are able to provide better food, housing, ect. is relative to what everyone else receives.
Almost everyone got a stimulus. How long were they able to buy better food and housing?
Edit: It is necessarily the case that the person that received the $1500 tax cut is not in a better position. Period.
2. In the larger scheme of things, there is a balance between capital and labor. To your point, the lower someone is on the tax bracket, the more likely the extra money is spent on consumption. Conversely, the higher someone is, it is most likely invested. We are investing in this country far more than consuming. That’s what is creating bubbles. And why the fed has to keep bailing us out. This balance is directly connected to the tax code.
The last time I went on one of these rants, I said the top marginal tax rate was 92%, when America was great, and the middle class was thriving. Twenty pointed out that no one paid that as an effective rate. My response was... exactly. When the top marginal rate was 92% people avoided paying taxes by purchasing equipment and hiring more people. The effective rate was still higher than it is today, and that the government spent those dollars on roads, schools, and bridges. In either case, aggregate demand for goods and for labor was artificially increased. Thus, helping the labor market, thus helping the middle class.
Edit: Today those dollars are invested and there is less aggregate demand as a result.
Last edited:
It's according to what it is. For example, I'm not for means testing SS. But the stimulus checks should have been directed to the people who really need it and not blasting it out to everyone(except income limits) who was not really affected by the pandemic as far as income.
He was being a dick last week for no reason. I told him he had a reckoning coming. I saw the opening with the uninformed economic drivel he shared above. If that’s your idea of thoughtful we have a lot to teach you as well.
Hopefully he will have learned something.
Why was my post deleted? I’m not retyping all that. And now I will have to expose Digressions ignorance another time.
It was some of the better economic analysis I’ve done and I believe the worst thing in there was “shit for brains” iirc.
@UncleMark @TheOriginalHappyGoat
Is debunking Keynesian nonsense now deletion worthy?
It was some of the better economic analysis I’ve done and I believe the worst thing in there was “shit for brains” iirc.
@UncleMark @TheOriginalHappyGoat
Is debunking Keynesian nonsense now deletion worthy?
Are you sure it’s Keynesian? It seems even sillier than Keynes.
Last edited:
Neither Goat or I deleted your post. That should tell you something.
Don't get too wound up or you'll have to use another one of those handles you've got banked.
"While some newspapers refused to back a presidential candidate this year, today The Economist is endorsing Kamala Harris,” Economist editors wrote in the endorsement published early Thursday. “Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take a calculated risk that in office his worst instincts would be constrained.
If Trump were to win the election, "Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace."
If Trump were to win the election, "Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace."
Was there an original thought in the post? And did he answer the question?
Last edited:
