What's new
By:

Biden's Tax Plan

One Brow said:
It seems to me it accelerated an already growing economy. I disagree with "picked up" because the economy was already up.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I assumed you knew there wasn't much acceleration, at least nothing a. statistically significant relative to the past 10-20 year q.o.q or y.o.y growth, and b. if there was acceleration (over Obama Era), it was nothing more than a brief blip. (There isn't much of a multiplier effect from giving money to people or entities that already have more than they want to spend. Hence the buybacks).
 
FAILED STATE said:
There’s also the question of what exactly is being stimulated. An economy is defined by more than just quantities of wealth. For example, you could study an economy by looking at its dominant concepts, affects, or the way it reorients peoples’ perceptions. It’s for these reasons that it’s fair to question whether we all benefit from the “wealth effect”—and, if we do, for how long.
Click to expand...

I was using wealth effect in the classical sense - the effect on aggregate demand.
 
Something that I'm really excited for is the Biden 401k proposal. I've viewed the current 401k treatment as massively inequitable ever since I was I was enough to get one, most specifically how they are by and large an employer match.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Something that I'm really excited for is the Biden 401k proposal. I've viewed the current 401k treatment as massively inequitable ever since I was I was enough to get one, most specifically how they are by and large an employer match.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of who your employer is determining how much you can save for retirement and how good your healthcare is seems asinine to me. It makes no sense.
 
Beer said:
The whole idea of who your employer is determining how much you can save for retirement and how good your healthcare is seems asinine to me. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...
The fact that your degree of wealth determines your access to even the most basic of health care is unbelievably ridiculous in the extreme, in any modern developed country especially.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The fact that your degree of wealth determines your access to even the most basic of health care is unbelievably ridiculous in the extreme, in any modern developed country especially.
Click to expand...
Capitalism!!!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Beer said:
The whole idea of who your employer is determining how much you can save for retirement and how good your healthcare is seems asinine to me. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't see that issue. Anyone can get a roth 401k easy enough. My issue is the regressive nature of it all. Too poor to save? No match. Don't make much and can't contribute maximum? Lower tax break today.
 
General comment here:

I’m not sure whether I should be surprised that nobody on the right or center-right in this thread has acknowledged that it’s possible to overheat a strong economy.

And, to that point, there’s a long history of strong-man leaders who throw off the advice of the experts and overheat the economy with the hopes of securing their power in the short-term.

The praise Trump is given and the praise Trump receives on the economy is wildly overstated across the board.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Eh, I don't see that issue. Anyone can get a roth 401k easy enough. My issue is the regressive nature of it all. Too poor to save? No match. Don't make much and can't contribute maximum? Lower tax break today.
Click to expand...
To be fair..,not everyone can get a Roth 401k easy enough.
Some employers don’t offer 401ks at all.
Some people make too much money to contribute to Roth anything.
And the differences between levels of employer match from company to company are pretty huge.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Eh, I don't see that issue. Anyone can get a roth 401k easy enough. My issue is the regressive nature of it all. Too poor to save? No match. Don't make much and can't contribute maximum? Lower tax break today.
Click to expand...

I mean say I am able to donate 6% of my salary to my my 401k, and then just based of the company that hired me the next guy gets a 2% match, and another company the guy gets a 3%, and the next random company the guy gets a full 6% match. That ads up to a lot in the end. It's really weird.

Even more absurd with health insurance. One guy has a $800 a month premium and a $10,000 deductible, but the next guys is $400 a month and a $1,500, and next guys is fully covered and $0 deductible. All based off the chance they randomly get hired at a random place with random plans.

It is just as stupid as @The Thriller and @babe are.
 
FAILED STATE said:
General comment here:

I’m not sure whether I should be surprised that nobody on the right or center-right in this thread has acknowledged that it’s possible to overheat a strong economy.

And, to that point, there’s a long history of strong-man leaders who throw off the advice of the experts and overheat the economy with the hopes of securing their power in the short-term.

The praise Trump is given and the praise Trump receives on the economy is wildly overstated across the board.
Click to expand...

Why worry about something that's not remotely concerning?
 
Beer said:
I mean say I am able to donate 6% of my salary to my my 401k, and then just based of the company that hired me the next guy gets a 2% match, and another company the guy gets a 3%, and the next random company the guy gets a full 6% match. That ads up to a lot in the end. It's really weird.

Even more absurd with health insurance. One guy has a $800 a month premium and a $10,000 deductible, but the next guys is $400 a month and a $1,500, and next guys is fully covered and $0 deductible. All based off the chance they randomly get hired at a random place with random plans.

It is just as stupid as @The Thriller and @babe are.
Click to expand...

Isn’t it the company matching?
 
finance.yahoo.com

Why Carly Fiorina backs Joe Biden’s tax hikes

The former GOP presidential candidate is one of many Republicans breaking with the party to support Joe Biden.
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com



Biden is proposing a range of new programs on affordable housing, health care, climate change, infrastructure and child care. He’d pass around $2.4 trillion in new tax hikes over a decade to help pay for his agenda. He’d raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, and raise income taxes on households earning more than $400,000 per year, among other things.
Some business operators worry that higher taxes would cut into growth and hiring. But the corporate tax rate was 35% from 1993 to 2017, a period that included the boom of the late 1990s and the recovery from the Great Recession starting in 2009. The corporate rate fell to 21% in the tax-cut law President Trump signed at the end of 2017.

Economists question whether Biden’s tax hikes would be appropriate with the economy in a recession, or just barely out of one. Biden, in response, has signaled he wouldn’t pursue that part of his agenda until the second or maybe even third year of his presidency, when the economy is on more stable footing.

Investors seem comfortable with a Biden win, even if it brings tax hikes down the road. Biden would be more likely than Trump to pass a huge stimulus bill early in 2021, especially if his fellow Democrats retake the Senate, giving them full control of Congress. Gary Cohn, Trump’s chief economic advisor in 2017 and 2018, said at the All Markets Summit, that he too would be comfortable with Biden’s higher tax rate on businesses. “To me, 28% is probably a good number to land on,” he said.
 
FAILED STATE said:
Trump gets false praise for his economic track record. That’s the principle point. You can’t take a strong economy, dump gas on it (tax cuts to your constituents and/or deregulate things such that your constituents can create weird little values and bubbles) and then flex. It’s ********.
Click to expand...

Trump took a functioning economy (granted with plenty of underlying problems but functioning nonetheless) and pumped steroids into it. Insane top heavy tax cuts, politicized the fed which led to unwarranted interest rates cuts, quantitative easing of the overnight lending markets - which started BEFORE the pandemic when we weren't even in a recession......we were headed for the mother of all bubbles.
 
candrew said:
Trump took a functioning economy (granted with plenty of underlying problems but functioning nonetheless) and pumped steroids into it. Insane top heavy tax cuts, politicized the fed which led to unwarranted interest rates cuts, quantitative easing of the overnight lending markets - which started BEFORE the pandemic when we weren't even in a recession......we were headed for the mother of all bubbles.
Click to expand...
This is far from accurate. Trump tried to politicize the Fed and failed. They were raising rates for no economic reasons whatsoever, but because of preconceived notion/belief that we must get back to "normal", and because nobody has a ****ing clue what full employment is anymore. They tried to get in front of impending wage inflation, err FAILED STATE's theoretical overheating. What wage inflation, what full employment, what overheating? They didn't begin cutting until after causing unnecessary economic harm and wisening up, and in this case Trump was 100% correct about their folly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top