The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
My Name is Barkley. I will love to share my testimony to all the people in the forum cos i never thought i will have my girlfriend back and she means so much to me..The girl i want to get marry to left me 4 weeks to our wedding for another man..,When i called her she never picked my calls,She deleted me on her facebook and she changed her facebook status from engage to Single…when i went to her place of work she told her boss she never want to see me..I lost my job as a result of this cos i cant get myself anymore,my life was upside down and everything did not go smooth with my life…I tried all i could do to have her back to all did not work out until i met a Man when i Travel to Africa to execute some business have been developing some years back..I told him my problem and all have passed through in getting her back and how i lost my job…he told me he gonna help me…i don’t believe that in the first place.but he swore he will help me out and he told me the reason why my girlfriend left me and also told me some hidden secrets.i was amazed when i heard that from him..he said he will cast a spell for me and i will see the results in the next couple of days..then i travel back to Germany the following day and i called him when i got home and he said he’s busy casting those spells and he has bought all the materials needed for the spells,he said am gonna see positive results in the next 2 days that is Thursday.My girlfriend called me at exactly 12:35pm on Thursday and apologies for all she had done ..she said,she never knew what she’s doing and her sudden behavior was not intentional and she promised not to do that again.it was like am dreaming when i heard that from her and when we ended the call,i called the man and told him my my girl friend called and he said i haven’t seen anything yet… he said i will also get my job back in 3 days time..and when its Sunday,they called me at my place of work that i should resume work on Monday and they gonna compensate me for the time limit i have spent at home without working..My life is back into shape,i have my girlfriend back and we are happily married now with a baby boy and i have my job back too.This man is really powerful..if we have up to 20 people like him in the world,the world would have been a better place..he has also helped many of my friends to solve many problems and they are all happy now..Am posting this to the forum for anybody that is interested in meeting the man for help.you can mail him to email@example.com, I cant give out his number cos he told me he don’t want to be disturbed by many people across the world..he said his email is okay and he also have a web site if you want to visit him there’ he will replied to any emails asap..hope he helped u out too..good luck. his web site is http://fadhilichausiku.webs.com/
HOW TO GET YOUR EX LOVER BACK URGENTLY AFTER BREAKUP/DIVORCE!.
I’m so excited! Thanks to Dr. Azeez for bringing back my Ex-husband and brought great joy to me today! Azeezabdulahi12@gmail.com is certainly the best spell caster online, if you need your Ex lover back fast! And his result is 100% guarantee….
After 12years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman. I felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. I tried to be strong just for the kids but I could not control the pain that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because I was really in love with my husband. Every day and night I think of him and always wish he would come back to me, I was really upset and I needed help, so I searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Azeez can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and I did it then he did a (Love spell) for me. 18 hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day, with lots of love and joy, and he apologized for his mistake, and for the pains he caused me and the kids. Then from that day, our Marriage was now stronger than how it was before, all thanks to Dr Azeez he is so powerful and I decided to share my story on the internet that Dr Azeez real and powerful spell caster who I will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need your Ex back or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now.
Here’s his contact: Email him at: Azeezabdulahi12@gmail.com
You can also call him or add him on what’s-app: +2348160153829
Comrade Truminoff assures us that the tax bill won't benefit him financially.
Right, and he also assured dupes that they would get a good education at Trump University.
This territorial and Baby Boomer selfish tax cut will have long-term consequences for younger generations. The individual tax cut put in place, if no action taken to overcome the phase out the tax levy will return to today’s rate or even higher ….which if life expectancy tables are accurate, most Baby Boomers will be dead by 2025. This contractionary policy is attempting to slow the economy and rate on inflation. The government reduced its discretionary spending to put more focus on entitlement spending to help support the baby boomers (e.x. SSRI, SSI, Medicare). Trump is trying to move businesses back into the U.S. by lowering the corporate tax rate by hoping for a market labor boom in the U.S. which will increase organization output and employment. This in turn will attempt to increase consumer spending and demand in the short-run. The long-run tax reform does not look good for millennials.
The government reduced its discretionary spending to put more focus on entitlement spending to help support the baby boomers (e.x. SSRI, SSI, Medicare).
And yet Ryan (at least) seems intent on "reforming" (i.e. slashing) entitlements. Including these.
Trump is trying to move businesses back into the U.S. by lowering the corporate tax rate
However as I understand it, the Trump Tax law also contains significant incentives to move business activity overseas. And keep the income from that activity out of the country as well. (Of course, you can plausibly argue the Trump was essentially uninvolved in any parts of the tax bill beyond those which impact his personal bottom line.)
"And yet Ryan (at least) seems intent on "reforming" (i.e. slashing) entitlements."
For those born after 1957 or so. How about, if we can't afford to do it indefinitely for everyone, we can't afford to do it now for anyone?
And allowing children to develop, keeping people healthy in working adulthood, and preventing the spread of infectious disease to prevent a devastating plague takes precedence over prolonging the inevitable at death?
BTW, in addition to cashing out the U.S. role as a reserve currency, and changing the climate, Generation Greed is using up all the antibiotics.
jouris, on the occasion of the 24th Dec, Merry Christmas to you. [I can say this "safely" to you without being trolled on by the creme de la creme of the bizarre on TE community board]. And best wishes for a healthy and happy New Year.
Merry Christmas to you as well, ashbird! Here's to a happy and prosperous New Year for us all.
I am convinced that a year from now millions who deplore this tax cut will be sending back their share to the treasury in protest. That'll show'em.
There was a time when the "rationalist" school of economics held that tax cuts/spending increases wouldn't stimulate the economy, because people would realize that the would be faced with tax increases/service cuts later.
And save enough to offset this.
Then you had Generation Greed, which figured out that if you were selfish enough for long enough, the long term consequences would accrue to someone you didn't care about. Like someone else's children, or even your own.
Bottom line -- I'm rational. I'll still be around, and for every $1 in tax cut today they'll the $2 taken out of my hide and $5 out of my children's hide later. So my money will go to try to offset this.
I don't blame workers for getting back some of their own money from the government, which could cut spending but doesn't even try, so if as you suggest you can save the future taxpayers a thousand dollars by sending the treasury two hundred today, be my guest. And why blame an entire generation for the greed of the top one percent? That's like calling all millennials snowflakes which is clearly not true.
You'll take a few extra dollars now at the expense of great harm (hopefully to someone else) later too, won't you?
In my city (New York), there as a big cut in the effective subway fare in the mid-to-late 1990s. Everybody (else) cheered. Party! As part of the same deals, there was a massive retroactive pension increase in 2000, tolls were cut, and state and local government tax support for the Metropolitan Transit Authority capital plan was cut to zero, with the agency told to borrow instead.
Today the MTA is $37 billion in debt and the subway is in a state of re-collapse. That's what this tax cut is like.
In NY, they are doing it for the second time, so it isn't a "mistake."
One positive thing about the bill is it requires New Yorkers, Californians, and others—mainly from blue states—to pay their fair share of taxes. These states have cities with high cost of living and high taxes. Prior to this bill, these states could deduct their high state and local taxes from federal taxes, which allowed them to experience the benefit of their paid taxes (roads, beaches, parks, etc.). Will there be a discussion about the one percent of people (from all different incomes, races, genders) that do not pay their fair share? In fact, I argue the amount of unpaid taxes from large cities is higher than the "fair share" the one percent is not paying.
The lion's share of money in a high-tax state or city goes to fund the lavish paychecks, benefits, and pensions of state and local employees, that are far above what is paid in the private sector. I've got nothing against government employees being compensated well, but the people at the state and local level don't deserve any discount on their federal income tax for being taxed to pay for it.
"One positive thing about the bill is it requires New Yorkers, Californians, and others—mainly from blue states—to pay their fair share of taxes."
THEIR FAIR SHARE??????
Do you REALLY want to get into the whole "Which states subsidize the others" discussion? For every $1 it sends in to the federal coffers, South Carolina gets back $4 in federal spending. Alabama? $1 nets them nearly $2.50. You want to look at % of FEDERAL AID making up a state's budget? MS, ID, LA, MT, TN, KY, MO, SD, GA- all red states, mind you- have anywhere between 41-38% of their state budget composed of Federal Aid.
If California didn't have to subsidize others and kept everything in-house, their GDP goes up significantly. If a place like Mississippi or Louisiana had to rely on only what it generated, it would not be able to power their traffic lights.
Much federal money going to red states is subsidizing blue voters in red states and much federal money goes for social security payments to blue-state retirees fleeing the blue states for red states. Also sanctuary cities are inflicting much damage to Americans and shouldn't receive another federal dime until they cooperate with the enforcement of the laws regarding illegal immigration. The high blue state taxes that subsidize extravagant retirements for blue state employees will no longer have federal backing and if you want to cut off aid to poor people in red states, remember that blue voters will suffer just as much or more.
Actually a big reason why taxes are higher in Blue States is because the federal government covers a much lower share of their Medicaid expenditures. The question is, will at least the remaining Republicans from the Blue States stand up and demand that the federal share of Medicaid in other states be cut?
Much federal money going to red states is subsidizing blue voters in red states
I'm not clear on how that would work. I mean, if you are living in a red state, how do you get to vote in a blue state? Seems like you generally pay taxes and vote where you live -- is there some clever scam that I just haven't picked up on? (Well except for Congressmen, but that's a pretty small exception.) And if you can, why would you vote to have higher state taxes to fund stuff that, since you don't live there, you will get no benefit from?
"Much federal money going to red states is subsidizing blue voters in red states and much federal money goes for social security payments to blue-state retirees fleeing the blue states for red states. "
Ah, Nos- another dispatch from the Prime Minister of Crackpotistan! In what universe does your entire sentence above even make sense? None....
jouris: '...if you are living in a red state how do you get to vote in a blue state?'
As everybody knows there are blue voters in red states and red voters in blue states. Doubtless you have seen a map showing the breakdown of states according to red and blue counties. So as I said federal money going to red states indeed does subsidize blue voters in red states. Elementary.
My apologies. I saw "blue voters" and read it as "blue state voters." Gotta work on my reading comprehension.
You say that red states get more from the fed than they pay in. But that money subsidizes blue voters in the red states, iow Democrats, as well as those deplorable red voters in red states. Since I know you are an intelligent person, I wonder why you don't want to acknowledge the fact that the money red states receive subsidizes all the people in the state not just red voters.
Also it must embarrass you to have to acknowledge that another reason for the imbalance of fed money between red and blue states is because many many blue state retirees take their Social Security and flee blue states for the warmer friendlier and cheaper climes of red states. Many of these retirees thanks to corrupt union influence in bue states also receive unduly fat blue-state pensions as well as Social Security and red states welcome them and their money gladly.
Thanks for your gracious response. Now if Nicky could only learn to stop splitting infinitives...
"But that money subsidizes blue voters in the red states, iow Democrats, as well as those deplorable red voters in red states. Since I know you are an intelligent person, I wonder why you don't want to acknowledge the fact that the money red states receive subsidizes all the people in the state not just red voters."
And you, The Most Honorable Prime Minister of Crackpotistan, seem to conveniently forget that that there are indeed red voters in blue states- whose $$$ indeed subsidizes all of those in the red states- making your attempt at a cogent argument utterly ineffectual and moot.
".Also it must embarrass you to have to acknowledge that another reason for the imbalance of fed money between red and blue states is because many many blue state retirees take their Social Security and flee blue states for the warmer friendlier and cheaper climes of red states."
If that was the case, then historical data would suggest that this imbalance between federal receipts in red v blue states would have shifted significantly in the last two decades or so due to the retiring baby boom generation, correct? You know, the TREND would show the share of what the reds were receiving should have been LESS in the last 15-20 years or so and gradually increasing because of this migration, right?
It doesn't. The red states have ALWAYS been the "takers", Nos.
Keep Trying- eventually you will get something correct....
"Now if Nicky could only learn to stop splitting infinitives..."
I'd rather split infinitives than be known as the resident crackpot spewing things like "Hillary the She-Beast" whose lips are surgically attached to Trump's ass...
You said that blue states subsidize red states. No argument. I then said that blue voters in red states benefit from that situation. Now you are saying that because there are red voters in blue states that my statement (blue voters in red states benefit from blue states subsidizing red states) is somehow invalid. False. Regardless of red voters being in blue states, blue voters in red states do benefit from blue states subsidizing red states, my original statement.
Also you suggest that the increasing number of blue state retirees coming to red states doesn't contribute to the imbalance of red and blue state contributions to the federal budget. False. Regardless of the longer term trend you suggest, the contribution of retirees from blue states moving to red states does add to the disparity you present.
It's not that you are challenged by logic, you're obviously a very fart smeller, it's just that your panties are so ideologically twisted around your vocal chords that you can't get a rational thought out straight. Relax.
"....it's just that your panties are so ideologically twisted around your vocal chords that you can't get a rational thought out straight. Relax."
You KNOW that one all has to do is click on your screenname and see your entire posting history, right? For YOU to call ANYONE "ideologically twisted" is Irony Writ Large. But I digress....
"Also you suggest that the increasing number of blue state retirees coming to red states doesn't contribute to the imbalance of red and blue state contributions to the federal budget. False. Regardless of the longer term trend you suggest, the contribution of retirees from blue states moving to red states does add to the disparity you present."
1) THE ENTIRE POINT of looking at the longer term trend would give us an idea of ANY impact said retirees would have, correct? Convenient of you to dismiss this, as we shall see.
2) Under your hypothesis - " much federal money goes for social security payments to blue-state retirees fleeing the blue states for red states." from your comment above.....means that these red states should see their share of Federal aid as a share of state budget INCREASE with the significant Baby Boom generation RETIRING (65yrs +) to said red states, correct????
3) Now, if we see which red states those retirees from the first half of the retiring baby boom generation (1945 = 72 yrs old, 1952= 65yrs old) are moving to (courtesy of the US Census Bureau), we can see that the top five RED STATES for such blue-state retiree migration over the last 7 years are AZ, SC, GA, NC, and FL.
4) So- again, if your assertions that " much federal money goes for social security payments to blue-state retirees fleeing the blue states for red states." AND "many many blue state retirees take their Social Security and flee blue states for the warmer friendlier and cheaper climes of red states." holds true, this retiree migration WOULD have such an impact on INCREASING their Federal Aid as a share of state revenue.....AND we would see this reflected in the historical changes between 2010 and 2017, correct????
5) AZ-> 2010 % = 46% vs 2017%= 39.8%
SC-> 2010 % = 33.1% vs 2017 = 32%
GA-> 2010 % = 43.7% vs 2017 = 34.3%
NC-> 2010 % = 34.8% vs 2017 = 31.8%
FL-> 2010 % = 35.5% vs 2017 = 32.7 %
6) In EVERY INSTANCE, Nos- % of State Revenue of Federal Aid DECREASES!
To paraphrase YOUR words above, 'the contribution of retirees from blue states moving to red states does add to the disparity you present'- only in the DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED WAY IN WHICH YOU SUGGEST!!!!!
Facts and numbers matter, Nos. But seeing as how you haven't let that affect you yet, please keep posting your demonstrably proven BS. We wouldn't know you any other way....
Of course we can't do a complete analysis without all the data, which you have cherry-picked to the point of meaninglessness as well as inexplicably have ignored the other elements of my argument, namely the effects of 1) blue sanctuary cities that drive up federal costs in many federal programs and 2) the benefits to blue voters in red states derived from contributions from blue states. Congress has decided to chastise the illegal sanctuary cities by reducing the deductibility of their property taxes. My red state is booming with all the money pouring in by way of blue state retirees cashing their SS and bulky blue state pensions in my red state, indeed, I am having trouble spending it, I am giving it away, throwing it out my car window as I do 70 down my new highway it's become so plentiful AND blue voters in my state are enjoying better benefits as a result. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You should be happy but since your only wish is to denigrate Trump and abase you humble correspondent, you aren't interested in the general welfare of the nation and have only your arm to bite for consolation. Heavy sigh.
So your mountain of blather collapses from lack of breadth among other defects. But that's ok! I am happy either way becauseTrump is winning big! Progressives are cratering across the land, America is Great Again. For proof, kindly refer to that nest of deplorableness, Drudge, for the 81 successes of Trump in his first year. Just imagine what he will do with his mandate after November '18. Hillary's head will be on a pike on top of the southern border wall in '20!!! As I am blissfully preparing for a long winter's nap, content with the efforts of the Orange Paragon, allow me you wish you Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!
"Of course we can't do a complete analysis without all the data, which you have cherry-picked to the point of meaninglessness "
I explained my methodology and noted the sources used therein. Even a simpleton such as yourself can recreate it, and you'll see that I did NOT cherry-pick any data whatsoever.
And as a rebuttal, you cite....Drudge. Really? Was the Breitbart site down?
I expected nothing less from you, Nos- an outright denial of demonstrable facts, significant deflection, and a good ol 'fashioned dose of raving tinfoil-hatted lunacy.
Merry Christmas, Nos. As a gift, we're setting up a GoFundMe page so you can finally get the other half of that lobotomy....
First, I bet you would agree with the ancient general's axiom 'Know you enemy'. So why do you dismiss so lightly Drudge and Breitbart and all the others that disagree with you? If you think you are so right and so smart that you won't benefit from studying your opponents sources and acknowledging that despite their partisanship which all media contain, they contain substantial truth, you are only revealing a weakness. Second allow me to say your persistence is amusing and you are a good fellow. But you have ignored my point. When someone presents you with a logical argument and you resort to what is at best a partial and really a specious response using statistics you only reveal that you can't cope with logic. If you want to pick apart a logical argument, which I presented, you must also use logic. But you couldn't because my argument was valid.
I reiterate my initial argument: As you stated and I agree, more fed money flows to red states than to blue states. But blue voters in red states do benefit from it. And blue states do create more expenses for Americans because of hosting illegal sanctuary cities. And retirees from blue states are bringing their federal retirement money to red states. In conclusion these sources are part of the reason that more federal money flows to red states than blue states. I make no claim for how much money that is or if or how much it offsets the overall imbalance. These facts you have not addressed because you can't without getting off your high horse.
"So why do you dismiss so lightly Drudge and Breitbart and all the others that disagree with you?"
Not dismissing every source that runs counter to my leanings- but Breitbart AND Drudge have been known to be less than, well....let's be polite and say "accurate"....or "factual"....or "grounded in reality"....or "unbiased".
"When someone presents you with a logical argument and you resort to what is at best a partial and really a specious response using statistics you only reveal that you can't cope with logic. "
Just to make sure: You mean that, when I responded with stats from unbiased sources that completely demolish your argument, I AM THE ONE WHO CAN'T COPE WITH LOGIC?????? Really????
Good Luck, Nos.
Most of this comment feels like half baked opinions in your own kooky head rather than backed up by proper data.
Of course breitbart or fox news might have shown something that supports it, but their data science and statistics departments are not really the examples on the basis of which policy should be formed.
What now? Republicans just passed onto my children, and their children, the destructive burden of spending their entire lives 'giving' a substantial proportion of their earnings to interest only repayments, let alone paying down the capital, of America's rapidly mounting massive debt. It has completely eased the burden on the wealthy but the working class average American is rapidly becoming a serf in feudalist American. These are not the principles our founding fathers established for this nation. The Republicans are the ultimate hypocrites and are destorying the fabric of America What now? Citizens who previously didn't vote are going to be energized to get out in elections are remove the Republican blight on American society.
The rank-and-file doesn't care about the national debt or the trade deficit debt. They just don't care. And perhaps for good reason. Japan, which has slower growth that the USA, has a debt-to-GDP ration of 234%. Ours is "only" 74%, which is lower than Japan's or the UK's, and only a little higher than Germany's:
It's never a GOOD idea to run debt up that high, but many countries are doing it, not just the USA.
"The rank-and-file doesn't care about the national debt or the trade deficit debt."
So we were only daydreaming when Trump made this a core message of his populist campaign AND the Red Hat Brigades ate it up and kept asking for more? I seem to remember plenty of things being spewed about China's trade policies being unfair and the debt being destructive for a good part of 2016's campaign season....
In Japan (and Italy) the high public debt is offset by lower private debt. "They owe it all to themselves." Not so here.
Debt is debt, whether it is public or private. And I am not sure that the Japanese do not have private debt. Does nobody in Japan ever take out a mortgage or buy a car on a payment plan?
He didn't "make it a core of his campaign." He said one time that he was going to "pay off the debt in eight or ten years." Then he moved on to other topics, like running the Illegals out of here and rescinding bad trade deals.
well, a lot lesser number of people in Japan, compared to America, run military grade sports trucks for 50 miles everyday just to reach office, or buy humongous homes with a huge energy footprint, waste as much food as they eat, or buy homes out of their means triggering a global recession.
If your question was "if exactly 0 people out of 200 million japanese ever take out a mortgage", then the answer is of course a "No". But the answer would also be a "No" for a much more kooky question, like "Is nobody in Japan watching a peep show right now where 3 women are urinating simultaneously".
For a country for 200 million, pretty all such inane questions will have an answer = "no".
Americans should prepare to pay more tax. Public debt will snowball. More interest payment. Americans will have to pay more tax. Sultan Trump wants to destroy America, acting on behalf of Russia. That's what he's doing.
Wrong, "Sultan Trump" is not trying to "destroy America"; what he wants is just money, and more money. His supporters are being used; eventually, they will be the ones to suffer from all this.
No doubt "eventually". And at that point, it will be too late to do anything about their own selves except to take to 140-character Social Media and Foxy Channel to cuss out all the dandruff-covered bookworms leftists socialists communists mentally ill "Liberals". It is so sad to countenance this future for Bigly America. As an aside, like you, I'll be paying more taxes, not less. But that's all right. It's fair. Plus I am not going to starve or freeze to death without a roof over my head or die of Oxycontin overdose or become a potato growing from a couch gawking at beauty pageants and prosperity gospel broadcast by " Mega-Churches".
Trump supporters seem to take it for granted that he will be re-elected. That is quite possible, but only if he is a candidate. It may be wishful thinking on my part (I tend to be optimistic), but I just can't believe that he will want a second term -- just too much work and too many headaches, and too many people who do not admire him, or not enough. Am I kidding myself? What do YOU think?
May the blessings of Christmas and a happy New Year be unto you and yours in peace and prosperity .
How will Trump supporters be 'the ones to suffer from all this'? If they are 'the ones' doesn't that exclude others?
How is that possible? What could affect Trump supporters adversely without injuring everybody?
They are 'the ones' who will lose their illusions; also 'the ones' to shoulder the blame for electing him, and 'the ones' to feel like fools, even if the rest of us are kind enough not to mention it.
Re: "Am I kidding myself? What do YOU think?"
I am not sure, really, Perrodin. My guess is this battle (if you can call it a battle) will take a while to see to its end. Trump is not doing anything for the country in the starting point of the policies he proposes. The entity he wants to make great again is himself and his clan of children and inlaws. No one else. Even his own party speaks not with one vocie. But his personal croonies go along, as they stand to get some crumbs in the fall out. In few governments of modern times has nepotism been so brazely played and played to the hilt. It is a strange time. The ascendence of ignorance over knowledge, utility over ideologuery, are, of course, the forces that voted him in. These 2 elements have merely begun to burn; it will be a while before they burn themselves out. Then there is the usurpation of "God" as the derivation of earthly power [even as what this "God" teaches and requires of man have a thousand and one versions; no man is "God", but there are many many "Man-Gods" in America, as you know - they quote the Bible just about every time they aim to do something injurious to a fellow human being, perfectly sanctimonious and straight-faced about it] as a smokescreen and sword and shield to justify all policies and infighting and outfighting. All of these present a scary prospect not only for the country, but the rest of the world. America is a mighty power on all counts by far - it is the richest, the militarily strongest; It is also abundantly endowned with natural resources and brainpower if only it will know how to utilize the latter. At the moment, all are squandered in the services of raising the greed level of its richest 1%. Quite a few educated "elite" (the other "deplorables") have already left the country, returning to where they came from. "Elite" are not stupid people, even as they may be pale-faces dandruffed bookworms. The brain-drain has begun even before Donald got to his orange throne. This is the beginning of the beginning of the end. But you can't convince his supporters (you'd be lucky if you are allowed to say it, first amendment right fashion, without being trolled by various "Godders" and TE community board's Famous Bizarros - vicious haters of un-yankies, pretend-can't-readers, whose aim in community forums is to sabotage all informed and intelligent exchange of ideas of others by offering up waterfalls of nonsequiturs as readily as natural incontinence demands. I don't know. I hope for the best but am prepared for the worst.
Will he be elected again? He may. It is now up to the stars, I think. America, in my humble and honest opinion, deserves better.
PS: Perrodin, I only reply to you with regard to your specfic Q. I decline otherwise to reply anyone else, folks I deem to be unfriendly fire - an assortment of profound idiots, plausibly brain-damaged, congenitally or after-birth, and/or apparent 24-7 watchers of Fox News. Wilfully ignorant, stupid and rude. They annoy me. They make me ill. I have no obligation not to ignore them. They can bait. I do not bite. They more they bait, the more they reveal the level of idiocy and hate that saturates their entire mental status. Confessions are for priests. I am not a priest.
Likewise to you.
But isn't the loss of illusion the road to reality and therefore on balance a good thing? If Trump is causing people to shed their illusions isn't that good?
I normally enjoy the Economist's analysis, but this article misses the mark...
First, you misspelled "reform." The correct spelling is "corruption."
Second, you are misreading the politics. Fifty-seven percent of Americans already hate this President in a way that no American political figure in recent memory has been hated. And with each passing day, as more and more people come to the realization that they have been scammed, that number grows.
In the words of the immortal Bob Marley, "You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all of the time." Come November, the American people are going to stand up for their rights. (And then we're going to impeach this bastard.)
Not Marley's words---nor Lincoln's, to whom they are frequently attributed: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/12/11/cannot-fool/
A "pleasant surprise" indeed. When you take heroin, it's amazing how good you feel. For a while. When it wears off, you feel worse than you've ever felt in your life. That's going to be the nature of Trump's "pleasant surprise" for anyone but the richest of the rich.
And then, the reaction from those who have been scammed is likely to generate some seriously unpleasant surprises for the super rich. Indeed, it won't be amazing if they end up far worse off (although still extremely rich) than they would have been without this-- net loss for them, and not a small one. Surprise!
I hope you're right -- short of bloody revolution, that is. I'd love to feel optimistic, but it does get depressing, seeing how easily ignorant people are led around by their emotions and prejudices, convinced to vote for all the wrong things. It's pretty obvious why Republicans want to undermine education in this country.
My favorite scary statistic of late: by 2050 (or so) 70% of Americans will live in the 15 most populous states. What this means is that 70% of the population will be represented by 30 senators, and 30% of the population will be represented by 70 senators.
Hmmm. Mr Trump is winning and TE is not happy.
Imagine, TE hates Trump so much that it now renounces the fundamental economic principle that tax reductions benefit the overall economy and provides for a wider social net.
The « Economist » needs a new name.
The "Truth Teller," maybe? We've tried tax reductions as a way to benefit the overall economy and guess what?
Good day, Mr Tooth!
I am more than a tad uncertain how the gift of 1.5 trillion in national debt "benefit[s] the overall economy and provides a wider social net", especial when also given is the removal of a number of present welfare programs.
I am, however, quite certain you are eager to enlighten my ignorance. I eagerly await your gracious illumination.
Many thanks in advance, and best wishes for a blessed and happy Christmas!
Tax reductions financed by increased deficit spending do not benefit the economy in the long run. To think otherwise is selfish and craven.
"....the fundamental economic principle that tax reductions benefit the overall economy and provides for a wider social net."
If ANYONE ever asks you a question on economics, please politely decline on the grounds that you have no f'ing clue. Yes, tax reductions CAN benefit the overall economy- BUT it certainly depends on HOW MUCH and WHERE those tax cuts go, genius. Let's keep this simple in deference to your capability for critical thought: If your doctor tells you that you need to lose 50lbs and you weigh 300? Yes- certainly healthy advice.....If your doctor tells you that you need to lose the same 50lbs and you only weigh 125? Get another doctor.
Also, where do you think the funding for that "wider social net" comes from? The first step is to cut taxes, and the next in the "Starve The Beast" approach is to note how much less revenue there is, so things need to be cut- like those very social net elements you somehow believe will be strengthened!
Good Luck, Saber.....
If ANYONE ever asks you a question on economics, please politely decline on the grounds that you have no f'ing clue.
Well, it's a "fundamental economic principle" if your only economic textbook was Atlas Shrugged. Which is where he (and Paul Ryan) seem to be coming from.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
- John Rogers
Definitely one of the most cogent quotes on politics of the past quarter century (at least).
Debt reduction isn’t interesting when a great big wad of cash is dropped in some people’s laps. Who or what shall they lend it to?
I am just wondering if you had a same concern on our economic health when Obama ran up the deficit of over trillion annually, so by the time he left office the total bill was 10 trillions, doubling the national debts in just 8 years. The economic growth during his tenure as president was on average 1.7% and his cadres argued this was a new normal for the country. Never mind, his tax increase and excessive welfare spending (anyone remembers ever expanding food stamp program? Or asphyxiating government control through EPA and other federal agencies?). The anticipation of corporate tax cut and deregulation alone increased economic activities, which I feel and see in my neighhood for the first time in years, to the tune of 3% annual growth. I calculated my effective federal income tax rate to decrease by 3-4% for 2018, and still about 10% higher than Obama’s 2015 tax (the last one I am aware of) when I believe my income must be about a quarter of his, and almost double of Buffet’s. We needed tax reform for a long time, and, despite imperfection of it, I welcome what we’re going to have. And with the doubling the national economic growth, we may be able to pay for the deficit expected from the new tax to be enacted in the coming years. Let’s not to be too partisan here. As Warren Buffet says, the tax reform should have been done years ago, but Democrats, and Obama in particular, have been more interested in redistribution during his presidency and consequently the national economic health was in a moribund state. Trump, whom I don’t support, and Republican Congress have done a spectacular job Democrats would never dare to do, in my opinion.
Thank you for your reply. I did not reply concerning any of Obama's actions in his second term since I was not posting on TE then. Trust me, please. If he does something that piques TE's attention and I have a comment, you shall see it here.
May yours be a blessed Christmas and your New Year a very happy one!
Mr Eh, May your Christmas be so. It’s a pleasure to see you post as always.
Parents, you can now get even with your kids for all the trouble they caused you. They will be paying for your tax saving.
It will be interesting to see what the government has done this time next year at tax time. The debt won't likely be lower but it's a victory so they say. Just wait and see.
Not really. But only because the kids of the only folks seeing a tax savings in the long run also got a big jump in how much they can inherit tax-free. The parents whose kids will pay are mostly getting just the (temporary) good feeling that is the conman's stock in trade.
Here is what's infuriating. When the Republicans vote (once again) to absolutely guarantee all current old age benefits for those age 60 and over, and dramatically slash them for those born later (who paid more over their lives in payroll taxes, having had their whole career take place since the 1983 increases), those celebrating today won't say "in your face I hope you all suffer and die young losers!"
No, they'll rationalize. "We just wanted to put less in and take more out, not leave anyone else worse off." "It's due to circumstances beyond our control." "What do you mean! That didn't happen!" "The immigrants did it!" "The Chinese did it!" "The libtrads did it!"
Nope, if you are in Generation Greed, you did it. You have left future generations worse off in every way save information technology, and if you could have sucked all of that up too you probably would have.
Proposals by leading Democrat thinkers make your screed against the Republicans re entitlements look very foolish. One party is focused on reigning them in, the other aims to expand them further.
I assume you would not be surprised that when I write about how unjust all those retroactive pension increases for public employees were, people allegedly on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum but in reality all the same respond with the same nonsense. They say I'm a Trumpeter, funded by the Koch brothers, who hates teachers and the middle class.
Whatever the government is going to provide, it should be paid for, and if we can't afford to do it indefinitely for everyone, we cannot afford to do it for anyone RIGHT NOW. The proposal to make an absolute contract all old benefits for privileged older generations was an actual Republican proposal. Could you imagine anyone proposing the opposite -- guaranteed benefits for those under 60 by slash them for current beneficiaries and those soon to be? And yet for Generation Greed, the opposite is the most natural thing in the world.
Again, don't tell your children "that wasn't me that wanted this." You see my proposal below. It would be up to them, or your neighbors, if you died in a nursing home or in the gutter.
You'll need to check your history. Social Security was created by FDR and Medicare/caid was created by LBJ. But again, attack the one party who's proposing changes because they aren't what you'd design and ignore that the other is trying to make it actively worse by your own measure. It's very revealing.
Proposing changes for those who have "time to adjust."
We saw the same thing elsewhere. All the "small government" cuts are only for the less well off young, and Generation Greed seniors take more.
Let's say Medicare ended at age 80. That would be the same for Generation Greed as for those after. But increase the age of eligibility in the hopes that people would die before becoming eligible, and whom does the affect?
Right now no one wants to hire those over age 55 because they don't want older people on their health insurance, but amazingly 65-year-olds are employable. So when do you want OTHER PEOPLE to receive Medicare? Age 67? Age 69? Never?
It's all so typical.
You can either removing the payroll tax cap, or start means-testing social security recipients right now. Problem is, doing one will make doing the other very very difficult down the road.
Both are worth doing. So the sensible thing to do would be to package both together.
Unlikely to get either one through the current Congress, however.
Doing one will make it a bona fide tax, doing the other will make it a bona fide welfare. Doing both is raising tax to pay welfare. ie, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his wantings", difficult to sustain.
I suppose that you could characterize means testing as "to each according to his needs" (the accurate quote; and just as well since "wants" can be far higher).
But the payroll cap makes the tax seriously regressive. And nobody (that I have heard anyway) is suggesting making the percentage higher on higher incomes, which would be "from each according to his abilities." Even though those with higher incomes (e.g. me) would never miss it . . . except maybe philosophically.
Actually, I think there is something to be said for applying the tax to all income, not just to wages and salaries. But that would require admitting the truth that neither Social Security nor Medicare are really insurance or an annuity. They are, in fact, just another government benefit (enticement) paid for by income taxes. Probably way too many people invested in the fiction for that to happen however.
The problem with means testing is that it would reward improvident spenders (the kind who 'charge it' the moment they see something they like), and punish those who saved for their retirement. It would also pave the way for all sorts of artificial-impoverishment schemes (the kind that already exist to make sure one qualifies for nursing-home care under Medicaid).
That is, indeed, a concern. On the other hand, lack of means testing means we are spending money on folks who don't need it.
I'm not sure what the solution is, although I'm pretty sure it will be an imperfect one. Perhaps we just set the threshold high enough that even those who made moderate provision for their own retirement still see some; with just those who got (or were born) really rich don't. In some ways, even a gesture at means testing would go a long way towards avoiding the kind of drastically progressive redistribution backlash that I believe we are otherwise looking at if Ryan realizes his dream to slash entitlements.
I think you are right: there is no perfect solution. Still, as a taxpayer and a retiree, I would not mind paying more taxes, but I would resent being means-tested out of part of my Social Security pension, even though being means-tested would probably cost me much less. I see it as a question of fairness.
I lived in France until age 32. Family allowances were the same for all families, irrespective of how much the parents earned. I never thought it was unfair; people with higher salaries just paid more taxes, that evened things out. Means-testing, in my opinion, would encourage cheating, i.e. it would lead to more corruption.
Well if we had universal coverage, separate from employers, it would make employees free to move to any job or re-educate without a loss of coverage, in addition to eliminating this economicly based discrimination against age.
If the US brought its medical overhead in line with the rest of the developed world our workers would be 8ntrinsically more competitive.
Blind faith in the market place to produce the best possible circumstance, is simply the excuse of weak minds. All a working market can do is simply optimize its operating criteria, not invent optimal criteria.
Means testing can quickly become a tremendous overhead. Income is income. Interest income. Labor income. It should all be taxed the same and contribute to the security of all, in the same way.
I’d suggest that most wouldn’t even think about that way, since all the benefits of productivity have been funneled upward, its getting a slice of missing wage increases.
I agree with Perrodin. Means testing is too easily turned into a game to play it. The idea of a universal income being toyed is another example of a simplifying measure. Dealing with its consequences might be much easier than trying to out think millions of people given an incentive to game the system.
Just add in universal basic income instead? I confess that alternative had not occurred to me. I'll want to think on that a bit, but at first glance it does appear that it might answer....
Perrodin, this is off-topic. I don't know which greeting is agreeable to you. So I'll say the generic - Warmest greetings of the Season and best wishes for a healthy and happy New Year. Thanks for all the fun in exchanging thoughts and sentiments with you.
teacup, Season's greetings! May the coming year be a more agreeable one to us common folks for whom health is of paramount importance - physical, mental and ideological (and if I may add, spiritual and moral).
jouris, an on topic thought - regardless of what the "solution" or "better scheme" is, don't forget the factor that is *cost* in adminstering the scheme. The more complicated the scheme, the more loopholes for gaming the system. And on that count, as usual, folks with means beat out folks without means or with less and lesser means. Already that is proven in the criminal justice system. No money no cracker-jack representation. The days of Gideon's Trumpet (Gideon v. Wainwright) are over. What remains is nominal.
Merry Christmas to you (doesn't mean you have to go to church) and a Happy and Prosperous New Year (it looks a lot more festive with initial capitals). 'See' you next year.
UBI can definitely work. It's not ideal, but it might be easier to accomplish than the systemic reforms you'd need to do otherwise.
And to you ash!
Trump just signed the Tax Bill. It's the greatest act of liberation since King John signed the Magna Carta.
Freedom from responsibility. I don't see any related cuts in public services and benefits for today's seniors. I see plenty of ways in which things are worse off for those coming after.
And they voted for this. I can only hope they won't slink off the planet before having their Harvey Weinstein moment, and facing a reckoning. At least a few years living in the country they are leaving to those to follow.
Freedom from responsibility.
Yep! Just like GenXcess and GenYners - the Beavis and Butthead Generations.
Just keep on borrowing and consuming.
When the next crash comes, they will be the loudest whining in the media and
on Social Moron Media about all of the debt they have, and no job.
Benefits for seniors: Growth in IRA and 401(k) from higher stock prices and dividends. Seems like a pretty good benefit considering most folks do not have enough saved for retirement.
We were taxing people's income, taxing people's property, and taxing people's way of life. And that ain't nothing but old-fashioned communism.
The day of reckoning will surely come, but it is not wise to personalize it. Social Security was enacted in 1934 and Medicare in 1964 by people who are long since dead and buried. Not a single Boomer was old enough to cast a vote when these programs were enacted.
Benefits for seniors: Growth in IRA and 401(k) from higher stock prices and dividends. Seems like a pretty good benefit considering most folks do not have enough saved for retirement.
The thing is, most of those without enough saved have minimal investments in stocks. So higher dividends or (temporarily) higher stock prices aren't going to do them much good.
"Trump just signed the Tax Bill. It's the greatest act of liberation since King John signed the Magna Carta."
If Trump ever comes to a sudden stop, it will take a team of Clydesdales pulling with all their might to remove your lips from his backside...Wait- is your real name Mike Pence????
And if one of the Clydesdales dies, it'll be you they hitch up to the beer wagon! Merry Christmas, and a blessed new year.
So the founding fathers were communists. They put the provision to tax on Congress.
Your remark has got to be one of the nuttiest I’ve seen of late.
The rich also tax everyone else. It’s called interest. Some 30-40% of a product’s price services it. Inflation is another tax levied by interest.
We can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!
well meet again, don’t know where don’t know when...
You're fooling yourself if you think this will benefit most Americans. Essentially, it advances money to corporations, and the rich, at the expense of the avg American and future generations. There is scant empirical evidence supporting the ill-conceived notion that these schemes result in net gains, over time. Corp's are sitting on the biggest piles of unencumbered cash, in history. Post-2008, there is no appetite to change that. We won't see the huge uptick in R&D the Repubs are promising. Indeed, if anything, we'll see more money put into automating and digitization, to decrease workforces, and we'll see the biggest stock buy-backs ever. Moreover, we will see an, increasingly, activist corp community that will strategize to roll-back the increases in worker, consumer and environmental protections we saw under the last Administration and through the 80's and 90's. The result? We all lose.
'We won't see the huge uptick in R&D the Repubs are promising. Indeed, if anything, we'll see more money put into automating and digitization,'
You couldn't write a better parody intentionally.
You are correct - many corporations are sitting on piles of cash that are overseas due to the horrible tax treatment the US had for many years; however, that is all going to change now as firms can repatriate profits at much lower rate, pouring the cash into R&D, dividends, bonuses and much more. Hopefully, you are an American citizen so you get to watch the economy take off.
LOL, companies will only repatriate if it pays to do so. They may have lots of other reasons to keep it abroad.
Business has been awash in cheap capital. QE has done nothing but inflate stocks and property.
They only do R&D if they see a need to.
Dividends yeh. Share buy backs, sure.
But where is the business case for more R&D? Why bother when you can aquire competitors and simply reducce the pressure to compete?
The final calculation will be the bottom line of any pay cheque. What you gain in a tax reduction could very well be offset by the increase in health insurance, leaving the money in the bank more or less the same.
TE: " John McCain of Arizona, who is suffering from brain cancer, was not available to vote."
TS: I feel for the guy and his family, but if he's not able to perform his role should he not retire?
Good point. What is the standard for senators/congressmen in poor health? I suspect that any delayed resignation has political implications.
C'mon, we are talking Washington.
They only "retire" after getting caught sexual harassing/sexual assaulting.
Unless one is the President.
Trump calls this a Christmas gift to the working class. As it increases the deficit I would expect that it will bear interest. So why not call it a loan from the next generation?
They tried that with the Obamacare welfare program, but the media said they were idiots for doing so. Why would it be smart to do so now?
"As a result, firms will no longer pay taxes on their overseas profits. At home, the corporate tax rate will fall from 35% to 21% in 2018. Workers will benefit from across-the-board cuts in income taxes until 2025, after which, if Congress takes no further action, most levies for individuals will return to today’s levels or even rise." How does this bring jobs back to America? Am I missing something?
Allows capital to return tax free thereby increasing business investment which in turn increases worker productivity, which in turn increases wages.
Why invest in the U.S. when its people are getting poorer?
The reason for low investment is on the sales side. Having successfully cut wages down, they have no one to sell to anymore, aside from those going deeper and deeper into debt.
'Why invest in the U.S. when its people are getting poorer?'
As I said, you need to change your name to WTF? Economist. Wages are going up and now workers keep more of their paychecks.
"Allows capital to return tax free..."
Tax free? Did you read about a repatriation tax holiday buried somewhere in the bill?
"...thereby increasing business investment...:
According to these guys/gals, (https://ceocouncil.wsj.com/membership/#members) most aren't planning to invest. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4693075/hands-up. If Siri can tell you why the other hands aren't up, shoot Gary Cohn an e-mail.
"...increases worker productivity, which in turn increases wages."
By definition, increasing worker productivity works in opposition to increasing wages. An increase in productivity means a business is getting more goods/services/output for the same labor costs or paying less for the same amount of labor output. If capital has been invested to boost productivity, why would a business reduce the return on that investment (and productivity) by increasing labor costs? Check in with Alexa and get back to us.
Future earnings, anecdotes don't overrule the laws of economics, the only way workers earn more is if they are more productive, this is immutable. All in all, total fail.
Wages are, for a quarter or two, increasing faster than inflation. After falling relative to inflation, over the business cycle, for four decades. Despite soaring productivity.
Compare 2017 with 2007 and 2000 and 1987, not with 2016. Perhaps 2018 will be comparable with 2008.
Production is way up, wages have been flat for most of the last three decades.
Competition for capital has grown immensely these past few decades and the markets have become extremely liquid. With demand up, relative to labor, its share of return increased. This isn’t a bad thing mind you. It’s the reason why world poverty has plummeted during the same time. Mankind benefits from the efficient allocation of capital on a global level. The challenge is to make your country a more attractive destination.
Why invest in the U.S. when its people are getting poorer?
Then how can its people afford monthly smartphone bills of $100 per family member
and a cable/cord cut bill over $100/month?
Total Household Debt Increases, Delinquency Rates of Several Debt Types Continue Rising
Here's a nice chart.
It's their own damn fault for digging a hole they will never get out of.
Back to you question...
A. Because the US consumer will continue to borrow and consume until the
next credit crunch.
So invest that temporary household tax cut into your 401(k) and IRA/Roth
so you can make money off of those stupid people.
Then again, be a mope and spend it.
I really don't care what others do.
Remember, no one gives a rat's @$$ about me - especially here.
"...the *ONLY* way workers earn more is if they are more productive, this is immutable..." (emphasis added)
Wages/compensation increase when there is competition for workers. This can happen for many reasons, many which have nothing to do with increases in productivity. Businesses love one-time investments in technologies and consultants to develop/implement processes that increase efficiency specifically because they keep wages/compensation (total labor costs) low. This is basic stuff.
You're so cute, when Alexa leads you astray.
Nice that you are willing to disregard the stated intention of c-suite occupants of the country's top businesses. Yep, that's just anecdotal. Earnings calls are just anecdotal too, why bother with them?
Now what about that "tax-free" stuff you were going on about? Was there anything about a tax-holiday on repatriated profits in the bill, or you just making stuff up?
"Next time address the [issue] instead of ignoring it."
"All in all, total fail."
LOL!!! You've lost a step, bro. Sad. I was expecting better.
You're arguing over the shares of the current crop (at the expense of future crops I might add). I'm saying the only way they can expand future crops is to become more productive. Again, this is immutable. Ironically, you attack increased productivity in the next breath.
So you'll ignore economic law in favor of anecdotes? Good to know. So how about the billions promised in increased investment by a multitude of companies following the bill's passage or do those not apply?
There's a 15% tax on all current overseas profits and no further US taxes on those going forward. Read up on the bill, you don't know what you are talking about.
As I said, total fail.
You're not so naive as to believe that, are you?
Naive? Or just needing to believe in the merits of what benefits him personally?
"You're arguing over the shares of the current crop..."
Nope. I refuted your absurd claim asserting that the "only way workers earn more is if they are more productive." In case Siri didn't tell you, increasing output, without increasing labor cost, is a thing. You can keep saying empty terms all day long ("economic law", "immutable") and you'll still be wrong here.
"So you'll ignore economic law in favor of anecdotes?"
Save the false dilemmas for the kiddies.
"There's a 15% tax on all current overseas profits..."
So when you say "tax free", what you mean is that there's only a 15% tax on the trillions in profits from the last decade? In your mind 15% of trillions equals zero? Did you forget to install Alexa's basic arithmetic skill? You do realize that "tax free" means "no tax," which means "tax amount equals zero," which means "profits multiplied by 0%," right? I'm guessing you'll try to pawn this off on my poor "comprehension" rather than acknowledging a complete failure of articulation.
Like I said, you've lost a step. Sad. Probably best to leave the tougher questions to the folks on the other shifts.
you mean because the economy was improving.. but then the dollar is weaker, making exports more competitive.
I said it allows capital to return tax free. Does this bill allow capital to return tax free? Yes. Does it also require current overseas profits be taxed at 15%? Yes. It's not a failure of articulation, it's a willful misreading on your behalf.
Well well they got it through, At least its going to Americans and not Iraqis, I think we could have used the money for better things like infrastructure or maybe train our unskilled workforce or maybe handle this opiode epidemic we have which probably rivals the Chinese crisis in the past. But our corporate tax rate was ridiculously high compared to other countries and should re patriot some of there earnings back to us. The deficit on the other hand is unacceptable and we should not continue to burden our kids with this.
The effective rate was about average. If there was a need to cut the headline rate, the least they could have done is eliminate a bunch of market-distorting deductions as well. Instead, a bunch of new ways to game the tax system got added. Great if you're a tax lawyer or tax accountant, though -- gonna be boom times for them.
Actually, a lot of tax accountants are rather angry at this. For smaller businesses, it potentially costs their clients a lot more in tax, especially alongside the Republican party's plans to remove important regulations like Dodd-Frank.
But that kind of concern, for the good of their clients rather than exclusively for the good of their own wallet, is utterly foreign to folks like Ryan. And much of his caucus.
That's certainly the case yeah.