EPTIf you haven't seen the bill, vote no on it. If it still passes, apparently it doesn't matter to congress what is actually in the bills that they vote for, as long as the right people say they should vote for it. At that point, the voters should better get rid of their representatives who don't do their job. (Though it might actually be representative of the average voter to vote for stuff without having any idea what it means, so there is that.)
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9373
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11960 Posts
If you haven't seen the bill, vote no on it. If it still passes, apparently it doesn't matter to congress what is actually in the bills that they vote for, as long as the right people say they should vote for it. At that point, the voters should better get rid of their representatives who don't do their job. (Though it might actually be representative of the average voter to vote for stuff without having any idea what it means, so there is that.) | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On December 01 2017 07:43 TheYango wrote: My impression is that most of the dominant innovation that drove major shifts in society and personal quality of life were from the moderately well-off who became wealthy through their innovations. It's true that they were enriched by their work, but a large motivator is the aspirational component of the moderately well-off to become wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't have the same drive to innovate because the marginal utility of becoming even wealthier is much smaller--they're much more interested in keeping what they have. It would seem to me that if your goal is to drive innovation, the idea wealth distribution would be a large middle class with a high degree of upward social mobility--i.e. there are paths to become wealthy that encourage innovation and enterprise. "Large middle class" implies low income inequality because it implies more people near the median household income and less toward the extremes. This is always going to be at odds with the ultra-wealthy because "old money" aristocracy has always historically opposed the rise of "new money" even though "new money" is where the innovation and enterprise that you ascribe to wealth has come from. I don't think anyone is arguing that the ultra-wealthy themselves are innovating. The ultra-wealthy merely want the best return on their investment. The innovation still comes from the middle class, but is brought to market with capital provided by the ultra-wealthy. Redistribution limits this pipeline in two ways. First, due to how finance works in the human world, the ultra-wealthy are more likely to invest large amounts of capital into the most productive innovations (because you and I are too worried about an entrepreneur losing our retirement funds, while Bill Gates doesn't have that concern). On the other side, redistribution affects the riskiest and most productive most negatively. If my returns are hypothetically capped at 1%, and there's a risk-free investment returning 1%, there's no incentive for my to invest in anything that would have produced a higher than 1% return (i.e. higher growth). The fairest counterarguments I've seen so far that GDP isn't necessarily the best proxy for utility, as GDP favors the wealthy's utility (basically Kwark's argument), and that if inequality were to reach a point where potential innovators are being precluded from innovation (lack of education or useful industry experience) then that will negatively affect growth as well. The second point is mitigated (possibly dominated depending on the specifics?) by the fact that higher inequality leads to greater availability of capital though. On December 01 2017 08:28 IgnE wrote: well, calculations of marginal wealth utility are such an insignificant factor when it comes to what really motivates people to innovate that discussions like this are basically counterproductive. we should just stop entertaining this economic incentives story all together While I don't agree this is true from the innovator's perspective, it's certainly not true from the investor's perspective. To them, the economic incentive is all that matters. See my point above. You can't create wealth without capital. If you hamstring returns from the capital perspective, you simply won't have growth. Unless you can start magically creating utopian communist comrades to create your own country with that is. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:35 Saryph wrote: Looks like a no to that post Plansix. This is democracy in action folks. Governance by the party of fiscal responsibility and management. Fucking clown show. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: As long as it forces graduate students at private institutions to take out loans to pay taxes they seem to be happy with the tax bill. Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:47 KlaCkoN wrote: Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. It helps the middle class by taxing the shit out of their kids trying to better themselves, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: As long as it forces graduate students at private institutions to take out loans to pay taxes they seem to be happy with the tax bill. surely the universities would figure something out. that is just the stupidest thing. who is responsible for coming up with that idea? the only defensible version of that tax is taxing people for tuition when it is provided as compensation for a taxpayers dependent: as when parents working at a university get free tuition for their family members | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:49 IgnE wrote: surely the universities would figure something out. that is just the stupidest thing. who is responsible for coming up with that idea? the only defensible version of that tax is taxing people for tuition when it is provided as compensation for a taxpayers dependent: as when parents working at a university get free tuition for their family members Even then that does not make sense. Shit I know a guy who went to USC only because his dad was a janitor there (only way that guy was ever going to be able to afford a school of that level) It is not like only rich administrators get there kids in for free, sometimes its an amazing option for a poor working class family to give their kids a huge leg up they would not have had otherwise. So taxing even that is a dick fucking move so you can lower top income tax | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24298 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:47 KlaCkoN wrote: Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. During the CNN debate Ted Cruz and Tim Scott halfheartedly promised they wouldn't vote for it with the grad student thing in it. Said the senate version doesn't have it and so on. When Trump says this tax plan is bad for him personally even Danglars knows he's just outright lying right? EDIT: I need to know that you aren't delusional enough to think Trump is being honest when he says this tax bill will be bad for him and other billionaires (unless this is 57d chess and he's clairvoyantly pointing out passing this will end with their heads in buckets.) | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:49 IgnE wrote: surely the universities would figure something out. that is just the stupidest thing. who is responsible for coming up with that idea? the only defensible version of that tax is taxing people for tuition when it is provided as compensation for a taxpayers dependent: as when parents working at a university get free tuition for their family members I'm sure they will try to figure out something but it's not entirely trivial. As I understand it it wouldn't even be legal for state school to selectively waive tuition for certain classes of students for example. I doubt it was even intentional, it was probably just a consequence of a general drive to remove "deductions". Coincidentally it also fucks people who have to work to support themselves during undergrad. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 01 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote: The easy federal money and subsidies for higher education is precisely what has made higher education so damned unaffordable in the first place. Why do we want to perpetuate that cycle? It needs to be dismantled. "federal money and subsidies" are not the same as loans. dont attack tuition grants if you have a problems w the availability of loans. your position makes no sense and doesnt even appear as if you understand the issues | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:41 mozoku wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that the ultra-wealthy themselves are innovating. The ultra-wealthy merely want the best return on their investment. The innovation still comes from the middle class, but is brought to market with capital provided by the ultra-wealthy. Redistribution limits this pipeline in two ways. First, due to how finance works in the human world, the ultra-wealthy are more likely to invest large amounts of capital into the most productive innovations (because you and I are too worried about an entrepreneur losing our retirement funds, while Bill Gates doesn't have that concern). On the other side, redistribution affects the riskiest and most productive most negatively. If my returns are hypothetically capped at 1%, and there's a risk-free investment returning 1%, there's no incentive for my to invest in anything that would have produced a higher than 1% return (i.e. higher growth). The fairest counterarguments I've seen so far that GDP isn't necessarily the best proxy for utility, as GDP favors the wealthy's utility (basically Kwark's argument), and that if inequality were to reach a point where potential innovators are being precluded from innovation (lack of education or useful industry experience) then that will negatively affect growth as well. The second point is mitigated (possibly dominated depending on the specifics?) by the fact that higher inequality leads to greater availability of capital though. While I don't agree this is true from the innovator's perspective, it's certainly not true from the investor's perspective. To them, the economic incentive is all that matters. See my point above. You can't create wealth without capital. If you hamstring returns from the capital perspective, you simply won't have growth. Unless you can start magically creating utopian communist comrades to create your own country with that is. Is it actually true that the rich invest more in 'riskier' assets? This came up before but I couldn't find anything on it after some mild poking around. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 01 2017 09:03 IgnE wrote: "federal money and subsidies" are not the same as loans. dont attack tuition grants if you have a problems w the availability of loans. your position makes no sense and doesnt even appear as if you understand the issues How would you describe FAFSA? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 01 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote: The easy federal money and subsidies for higher education is precisely what has made higher education so damned unaffordable in the first place. Why do we want to perpetuate that cycle? It needs to be dismantled. Student debt that can't be discharged or denied is the real reason for that inflation. This is just a tax break for people who are doing research or gaining skills while living on a shoe string budget. Its mostly PHDs doing PHD things. I have a bunch of friends got their PHDs in genetics while researching the cause of autism. That is definitely a form that someone can fill out. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24298 Posts
On December 01 2017 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Is it actually true that the rich invest more in 'riskier' assets? This came up before but I couldn't find anything on it after some mild poking around. From what I've seen the "more risky" stuff they invest in always has someone (with much less) who invested everything they had into before them. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On December 01 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote: The easy federal money and subsidies for higher education is precisely what has made higher education so damned unaffordable in the first place. Why do we want to perpetuate that cycle? It needs to be dismantled. Clearly the way to fix health care in america is to make employer provided health care a taxable benefit xp. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On December 01 2017 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Is it actually true that the rich invest more in 'riskier' assets? This came up before but I couldn't find anything on it after some mild poking around. First Google hit for me says it in the first paragraph It's basic finance. Risk tolerance grows with excess. If you're rich enough to buy a yacht and not feel it, you can certainly afford to invest that yacht's worth of capital in an ultra-high risk investment and expect a higher return than you would investing the yacht's worth of capital into treasuries. The same principle is why you have to be an accredited investor to invest in hedge funds. The government is trying to save people from their own financial stupidity. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 01 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote: The easy federal money and subsidies for higher education is precisely what has made higher education so damned unaffordable in the first place. Why do we want to perpetuate that cycle? It needs to be dismantled. Federal money is the only reason I was able to go to college. So, pros and cons. At this point, I am a cash cow for the government. I was a good investment. | ||
| ||
