President-Elect Donald Trump: The Thread

[Chisoxfn]

Get outa here with your trumped up trickle down talk. Nobody named me was proposing that.

 

If i understand the brackets correctly, the top % of wage-earners currently pay 40%? That's a s*** ton if true. Curious what the Bernieites and Hillaryans think it should go up to to make it a "fair share". 50-60%? And these aren't even the rich people of America. These are the doctors, lawyers, athletes & entertainers...who all donate tons of money. But they aren't the rich. I mean rich enough but not the smart super rich running businesses (the charitable corporate bastards). I'm not saying lower it, just wondering how high becomes too high.

 

I'm not saying privatize research either caulfield...because i didn't say that. I'm just saying if you go after the semi-rich mentioned above, which is a super popular talking point to rally the "revolution of the young people", you're not only removing the incentive for those young people to go to school for 10 years, but you're also going to remove 100s of millions, maybe billions, of yearly charitable donations. Uncle Sam will get it instead of child leukemia etc.

 

You really think Uncle Sam can better direct the use of $10M than the rich guy who's kid died from leukemia, who wants to prevent other kids from the same fate. I don't buy it. I feel like $10M is a piece of dust to Uncle Sam, lost in the redtape of some wasteful govt program developing canine soldiers or something.

One thing to remember is, that is the amount taxed on ordinary income. The wealthier you are, the less likely your income is "ordinary"...it is far more likely to be in the vein of capital gains, etc....which have a significantly lower tax rate, which is ultimately why the effective tax rates of the wealthy can be much lower then expected. The people who actually have an effective tax rate closer to that 40% rate, are going to be more the people who are making close to those income levels (say 500K / yr)...so maybe a doctor or a good lawyer or a finance executive, strong sales guy, higher up engineers / IT people, etc. Those people are less likely to have anything they can deduct and they'll pay the most (even though at that income level, while they are certainly well off...they aren't what you would consider the ultra wealthy or anything along those lines).

[Brian]

Trump tweeting about getting more nukes already. Sweet.

[StrangeSox]

Something a lot of people don't understand, including sometimes will off lawyers or doctors, is how marginal tax rates actually work. If you're in the top bracket which is 38℅ iirc, you don't pay that percentage on all of your income. Just the income that's in that top bracket.

[StrangeSox]

Trump tweeting about getting more nukes already. Sweet.

 

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

That is... Wow.

[GoSox05]

Lmao. Don't we have like 7,000 warheads or something like that.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

I think we all are going to have to accept that Drumpf is all about using the presidential office to acquire and consolidate power for himself and whoever is in his circle. If the US benefits from it, well, thats fine.

[Balta1701]

Lmao. Don't we have like 7,000 warheads or something like that.

Correct.

 

Probably worth noting that yesterday Mr. Putin in a speech talked about expanding Russia's arsenal as well.

[RockRaines]

One thing to remember is, that is the amount taxed on ordinary income. The wealthier you are, the less likely your income is "ordinary"...it is far more likely to be in the vein of capital gains, etc....which have a significantly lower tax rate, which is ultimately why the effective tax rates of the wealthy can be much lower then expected. The people who actually have an effective tax rate closer to that 40% rate, are going to be more the people who are making close to those income levels (say 500K / yr)...so maybe a doctor or a good lawyer or a finance executive, strong sales guy, higher up engineers / IT people, etc. Those people are less likely to have anything they can deduct and they'll pay the most (even though at that income level, while they are certainly well off...they aren't what you would consider the ultra wealthy or anything along those lines).

This is an awesome post. So accurate.

[StrangeSox]

Trump winery applies to hire more foreign workers

 

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/8119...src=twsrc%5Etfw

[caulfield12]

Lmao. Don't we have like 7,000 warheads or something like that.

 

At one point during the height of the Cold War, it was 29000 for Russia and around 20000 for the US.

 

 

[caulfield12]

One thing to remember is, that is the amount taxed on ordinary income. The wealthier you are, the less likely your income is "ordinary"...it is far more likely to be in the vein of capital gains, etc....which have a significantly lower tax rate, which is ultimately why the effective tax rates of the wealthy can be much lower then expected. The people who actually have an effective tax rate closer to that 40% rate, are going to be more the people who are making close to those income levels (say 500K / yr)...so maybe a doctor or a good lawyer or a finance executive, strong sales guy, higher up engineers / IT people, etc. Those people are less likely to have anything they can deduct and they'll pay the most (even though at that income level, while they are certainly well off...they aren't what you would consider the ultra wealthy or anything along those lines).

 

 

Even then, how many professional who average thst type of salary for 20+ year don't end up with a net worth in the $2.5-3 million range, at least?

 

They might not be true 1%ers....but they're still generating most of their retirement income from investments (many shielded from taxes) and real estate.

 

You don't have to run a hedge fund or work for one of the big banks to fall into this category.

 

There was an article weeks ago asserting the average benefit to the 1% would be $300,000 while the average middle class tax payer would get $900 back. With inflation expected to rise eventually, a good chunk of that will be completely wiped out...the deficit will grow to $25 trillion...and those families will still vote for Trump because he "saved" a handful of jobs at Carrier and put a 5% import tax on Chinese and Mexican goods which further wiped out the remaining tax cut benefits by passing added costs onto consumers.

 

It's also a consistent GOP talking point to claim that the estate tax kills numerous small businesses (forcing them to be sold or split up) and small American farms, but that's also been determined to be the case only 3% of the time. But slap the label of death tax and death panels on it...the majority will buy will buy that narrative. The same argument is buried here...those who are being taxed too highly are "good Americans" and hard-working people like everyone else with upper middle class (not elite) values.

Edited December 22, 2016 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/201...gender-equality

 

President-elect Donald Trump's transition team has asked the State Department to list its workers who focus on gender equality and ending violence against women, in what's being seen as an echo of an earlier request for the Energy Department to list employees who work on climate change.

 

 

[Jerksticks]

One thing to remember is, that is the amount taxed on ordinary income. The wealthier you are, the less likely your income is "ordinary"...it is far more likely to be in the vein of capital gains, etc....which have a significantly lower tax rate, which is ultimately why the effective tax rates of the wealthy can be much lower then expected. The people who actually have an effective tax rate closer to that 40% rate, are going to be more the people who are making close to those income levels (say 500K / yr)...so maybe a doctor or a good lawyer or a finance executive, strong sales guy, higher up engineers / IT people, etc. Those people are less likely to have anything they can deduct and they'll pay the most (even though at that income level, while they are certainly well off...they aren't what you would consider the ultra wealthy or anything along those lines).

 

Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. When Hillary says "pay their fair share" she's really just screwing over the highly educated & the entertainers. Warren Buffett and other corporate fatkats, who the young and poor love to hate, still walk away unscathed.

 

I will say this, the proposed 15% corporate tax rate would really help small business. Especialy cook county suburbs. Those mom & pop shops are going to be absolutely crushed by the minimum wage hike. We're talking complete decimation. 15% would help many stay alive.

[caulfield12]

Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. When Hillary says "pay their fair share" she's really just screwing over the highly educated & the entertainers. Warren Buffett and other corporate fatkats, who the young and poor love to hate, still walk away unscathed.

 

I will say this, the proposed 15% corporate tax rate would really help small business. Especialy cook county suburbs. Those mom & pop shops are going to be absolutely crushed by the minimum wage hike. We're talking complete decimation. 15% would help many stay alive.

 

Most small businesses in that position will first try to implement more automation (like Amazon Go) to save on salaries...and the majority will simply ask/expect the workers who are getting "raises" to the new minimum wage level to work 50% harder, or they will cut down from 4 workers to 3, etc.

 

There are numerous studies out there ACTUALLY demonstrating that unemployment hasn't risen in those states with minimum wage hikes (recent years)....and a number of studies are also looking at a guaranteed "universal basic income" which amounts to roughly $2,000 per month for most lower-cost of living states.

 

Let's say you earned $7.50 per hour, that would essentially project to a salary of $15,000 per year. You wouldn't pay any taxes on that salary (other than SS and Medicare/Medicaid) and the government would subsidize that family with an extra $750 per month (tax free). Once again, there are tons of studies supporting the idea that this "found" money is plugged right back into the economy, and not primarily on drugs/alcohol/cigarettes as many conservative assert.

 

https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

Minimum Wage Mythbuster

Edited December 23, 2016 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

And relying on random wealthy people having a particular tragedy befall them is an extremely poor and unreliable way of funding medical research. The NIH on the other hand has a pretty solid record.

Unfortunately, the NIH can be extremely biased on who gets the grants. It's the good ol' boys network. Get in and get one and you go to the top of the list to get another one. It's really tough to get in that group.

[Jerksticks]

Most small businesses in that position will first try to implement more automation (like Amazon Go) to save on salaries...and the majority will simply ask/expect the workers who are getting "raises" to the new minimum wage level to work 50% harder, or they will cut down from 4 workers to 3, etc.

 

There are numerous studies out there ACTUALLY demonstrating that unemployment hasn't risen in those states with minimum wage hikes (recent years)....and a number of studies are also looking at a guaranteed "universal basic income" which amounts to roughly $2,000 per month for most lower-cost of living states.

 

Let's say you earned $7.50 per hour, that would essentially project to a salary of $15,000 per year. You wouldn't pay any taxes on that salary (other than SS and Medicare/Medicaid) and the government would subsidize that family with an extra $750 per month (tax free). Once again, there are tons of studies supporting the idea that this "found" money is plugged right back into the economy, and not primarily on drugs/alcohol/cigarettes as many conservative assert.

 

https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

Minimum Wage Mythbuster

 

Automation isn't so simple for all businesses. I did pizza shop last time, let's look at a bakery this time:

 

6 Counter girls up front - $8 minimum wage

1 Manager for storefront - $15

8 Bakers - $25

2 cleanup guys - $8 minimum wage

 

 

What happens when min wage goes up to $13:

 

Counter girls up front - $13 minimum wage

Manager for storefront, gotta up that pay- $20

Bakers, gotta up the pay - $30

Cleanup guys - $13

 

I did the math. So for one day that costs the owner an additional $680 per day for the same labor force. That comes out to an additional $4080.00 per week! This doesn't factor in the fact that ALL of the raw product like eggs, sugar, flour etc are going to be more expensive because those suppliers will also be hit with increased labor costs.

 

How does a mom n pop shop generate that additional 5+k per week (including raw material increase)? There is only one way. Raise the s*** out of prices. Of course the big chains like Jewel & Walmart can absorb the hit so their cakes etc will be way cheaper. Will the neighborhoods be able to pay $2 for a frickin donut? $50 for a lil birthday cake?

 

Using your advice caulfield, the business could automate. Not sure how. They could fire all neighborhood ladies working up front and use self checkout. They could fire some bakers and make the remaining guys work harder.

 

Any way you slice it...prices go up & jobs go away. You can apply this model to nearly any mom n pop shop. People making a living in the public sector don't understand this crap and keep voting for it. The poor will become poorer, not richer, with minimum wage hikes. Less jobs and more expensive products. Walmart will be all that's left. Drive through any small town.

[Soxbadger]

Your model is far too simplistic and doesnt account for the fact that with people making more money they will have more money to spend.

 

Also some of your assumptions are faulty, just because the lowest wage earner was given a raise, doesnt mean everyone else gets a raise. If jobs are scarce, then people who may have been normally paid $25 may have to settle for $17 or else be replaced by a cheaper option.

 

That being said, in general increasing price not based on demand/supply usually ends in some sort of inefficiency. But the real problem is restricting immigration which has a much worse impact. But for some reason that is the boogeyman of the economy.

[caulfield12]

Yeah, I'm not quite following how all the other jobs are going to increase 17-25%...what is that based upon?

 

In the example you gave, most of the cost increases are coming from non-minimum wage positions.

 

Fwiw, I think I should have been a baker if 8 guys are making $60,000 per year in that position when I've never made over $44,000 with two Master's degrees.

 

How do Dunkin' Donuts franchises do so well with this type of math? It doesn't add up.

 

As far as Wal-Mart destroying small towns...customers vote with their wallets, right? Isn't the free market supposed to reward the most efficient allocation of capital/resources/factors of production? Unless you have an amazing product, there's almost no way for specialty shops to compete with Wal Mart unless they provide a superior value...or significantly better customer service/expertise.

 

By the argument raised here, those small businesses should be giving up if they can't compete and developing a more value-added product with a more profitable business model. It's why business moves so fast here in China...you come up with an idea or innovation, you'll have 5-10 rival companies copying and then doing it better than you in the span of weeks or even days. Survival of the fittest...corporate Darwinism.

 

Of course, the obvious issue is whether Trump wants to revisit the economies of scale argument and force Wal Marts that closed (after becoming virtual monopolies or oligopolies) to stay open indefinitely and continue to serve those smaller communities that are hollowing out, becoming less and less profitable.

[ptatc]

Yeah, I'm not quite following how all the other jobs are going to increase 17-25%...what is that based upon?

 

In the example you gave, most of the cost increases are coming from non-minimum wage positions.

 

Fwiw, I think I should have been a baker if 8 guys are making $60,000 per year in that position when I've never made over $44,000 with two Master's degrees.

 

How do Dunkin' Donuts franchises do so well with this type of math? It doesn't add up.

 

As far as Wal-Mart destroying small towns...customers vote with their wallets, right? Isn't the free market supposed to reward the most efficient allocation of capital/resources/factors of production? Unless you have an amazing product, there's almost no way for specialty shops to compete with Wal Mart unless they provide a superior value...or significantly better customer service/expertise.

 

By the argument raised here, those small businesses should be giving up if they can't compete and developing a more value-added product with a more profitable business model. It's why business moves so fast here in China...you come up with an idea or innovation, you'll have 5-10 rival companies copying and then doing it better than you in the span of weeks or even days. Survival of the fittest...corporate Darwinism.

 

Of course, the obvious issue is whether Trump wants to revisit the economies of scale argument and force Wal Marts that closed (after becoming virtual monopolies or oligopolies) to stay open indefinitely and continue to serve those smaller communities that are hollowing out, becoming less and less profitable.

You should know the general rule of college education. The more degrees you have the less you make. I have 2 masters and a doc. I make half of what my wife does with only an undergrad degree. We stayed in school and never got the revenue generating jobs so we don't make as much.

[StrangeSox]

Your model is far too simplistic and doesnt account for the fact that with people making more money they will have more money to spend.

 

Also some of your assumptions are faulty, just because the lowest wage earner was given a raise, doesnt mean everyone else gets a raise. If jobs are scarce, then people who may have been normally paid $25 may have to settle for $17 or else be replaced by a cheaper option.

 

That being said, in general increasing price not based on demand/supply usually ends in some sort of inefficiency. But the real problem is restricting immigration which has a much worse impact. But for some reason that is the boogeyman of the economy.

Apparently it's impossible to do anything but pay most people less and give tax cuts to the rich otherwise the economy will collapse.

[StrangeSox]

Trump: "let it be an arms race"

 

https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/81226...src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Chicago White Sox]

Trump: "let it be an arms race"

 

https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/81226...src=twsrc%5Etfw

While I don't think you can allow Russia to have superior nuclear technology, this highlights probably my greatest fear with Trump as president, the fact he may do something stupid or drive other countries to do something stupid.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Chicago White Sox

[Brian]

Just remember, when the bombs come, Duck and Cover.

[knightni]

Does this German bank debt cause any issues for Trump?

[bmags]

You know saying something that dangerous is the exact sort of thing that people warned of with Trump, and were met with claims of exaggerating Trump's danger.

 

People are just too far removed from the 1930s and 40s and for some reason think stuff like this can't happen again. But it wasn't happening again because those citizens post WWII valued that peace and stability, and it's clear many are taking it for granted.

 

Boy, the book "the end of history" really had a short shelf life.