Rado_N
Yaaas Broncos!
Trickle down economics, seriously?!
If my memory serves me right, he suggested that instead of a secular government, Pakistani people need a government based on Islam, but in the post I replied to, he mentioned that he doesn't like politics and religion to mix. It can't be both waysIsn't that how it is now?
I wonder if he’ll change the name if DC or PR get statehood?Some comic relief...
Until today I had no idea why the polling site 538 was named. Never cares enough to google it either.
The Jeb link a few pages back gave me an embarrassing lightbulb moment.
FML
They said they wouldn’t!I wonder if he’ll change the name if DC or PR get statehood?
Some comic relief...
Until today I had no idea why the polling site 538 was named. Never cares enough to google it either.
The Jeb link a few pages back gave me an embarrassing lightbulb moment.
FML
It works short term because if you give massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, they tend to spend more money on hiring and other ventures. Within five years or so the whole thing implodes and those jobs disappear while the former employers have already made many millions. Rinse repeat.Trickle down economics works, the theory isn't flawed.
Some comic relief...
Until today I had no idea why the polling site 538 was named. Never cares enough to google it either.
The Jeb link a few pages back gave me an embarrassing lightbulb moment.
FML
Trickle down economics, seriously?!
Covid made him bisexual.Trump's use of YMCA at his rallies is very confusing.
Does it mean that he's dumb as a rock and doesn't understand what the song actually is about, or is he sending a signal to the gays that he actually loves and admires them very bigly and also wants to hook up with men at his local YMCA? Or maybe he refers to his use of the song to troll his assumingly above average homofobe fans when he claims that no-one has ever done more for the LGTB community than him?
I really don't get it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm wondering if the crowd change the lyrics to M.A.G.A when they're singing? If they haven't thought of that then they really are morons.Trump's use of YMCA at his rallies is very confusing.
Does it mean that he's dumb as a rock and doesn't understand what the song actually is about, or is he sending a signal to the gays that he actually loves and admires them very bigly and also wants to hook up with men at his local YMCA? Or maybe he refers to his use of the song to troll his assumingly above average homofobe fans when he claims that no-one has ever done more for the LGTB community than him?
I really don't get it.
It does work to a point.Do you have some actual evidence to support this, because everything I’ve seen says the opposite.
It would only work in a closed economy. But with globalisation and the easy flow of money, self-interest kicks in and with that, failure of the concept.It works short term because if you give massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, they tend to spend more money on hiring and other ventures. Within five years or so the whole thing implodes and those jobs disappear while the former employers have already made many millions. Rinse repeat.
It's very flawed.
In this particular case, it's not completely wrong: costs do tend to "trickle down". It's profits that basically never do.Ahh yes, the myth of trickle down economics.
Maybe he has been exposed to the same chemicals that turned the frogs gay?
The issue here is the rich will still look to trickle their wealth upwards even at the best of times. Heck, Kansas experimented with extreme Laffer style tax cuts not too long ago and it resulted in the state going completely broke with the wealth being hoarded by the richest Kansans. It doesn't matter how much you try and incentivise the elites, their inclination will be always to hoard and contain whatever wealth they accumulate, as has pretty much been consistently proven over decades.Trickle down economics works, the theory isn't flawed.
What's flawed is that the US manufactures chose to trickle their wealth somewhere else, everywhere else but the US. In order for jobs to go back to US the whole Marginal Cost have to be lower than their foreign competitors.
So all those rich people tax cut aren't doing the poor naught, but a free incentive for the rich.
It’s not. The gap is about 120k right now with Dems expecting mail from Monday pushing it to 130-135k. Dems are hoping they score at least 39% of white votes and a 10+ edge with NPAs and the electorate ends up no bigger than R+2 (which translates roughly to 250k more R votes than D votes on the day).In other words, if that is a correct-ish estimate then Trump would have to make up 600k votes on the day. Doesn't seem very likely?
I don't think this is the decisive factor on this particular issue.I'm wondering if the crowd change the lyrics to M.A.G.A when they're singing? If they haven't thought of that then they really are morons.
Not super bright red, but red nonetheless.Guessing your state is bright red tomorrow?
No they won't actually build a plant in the US, at best they'll create some bogus "marketing department consisting of out sourced forces" to tick the "bring back jobs to the US" quota for a tax cut. Put a building with several medium level management staff and voila. And for that several tens of extra good paying job the Government is subsidizing billions in tax cut. They'd just rather build a state owned phone co and subsidize it by only hiring US residents.It works short term because if you give massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, they tend to spend more money on hiring and other ventures. Within five years or so the whole thing implodes and those jobs disappear while the former employers have already made many millions. Rinse repeat.
It's very flawed.
I've always been curious as to why there's a mild partisan divide between the two Carolinas. Is that down mostly to demographics?Not super bright red, but red nonetheless.
In that case than the fault lies in the "targets of the tax cut"The issue here is the rich will still look to trickle their wealth upwards even at the best of times. Heck, Kansas experimented with extreme Laffer style tax cuts not too long ago and it resulted in the state going completely broke with the wealth being hoarded by the richest Kansans. It doesn't matter how much you try and incentivise the elites, their inclination will be always to hoard and contain whatever wealth they accumulate, as has pretty much been consistently proven over decades.
35% of respondents were over the age of 65 and 56% of them were women. I'd take this poll with a massive pound of salt.3 point lead for Biden or Trump ?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Didn’t scroll this far before replying myself.I wonder if he’ll change the name if DC or PR get statehood?
Damn it, I need to read further down before replying.They said they wouldn’t!
The principle needed to evolve aggressively.The issue here is the rich will still look to trickle their wealth upwards even at the best of times. Heck, Kansas experimented with extreme Laffer style tax cuts not too long ago and it resulted in the state going completely broke with the wealth being hoarded by the richest Kansans. It doesn't matter how much you try and incentivise the elites, their inclination will be always to hoard and contain whatever wealth they accumulate, as has pretty much been consistently proven over decades.
Bigger population, more of a college culture, and research triangle etc. Most states with large population centers are gradually drifting blue, so the presence of Charlotte will continue to move NC further in that direction.I've always been curious as to why there's a mild partisan divide between the two Carolinas. Is that down mostly to demographics?
Nice one.Bigger population, more of a college culture, and research triangle etc. Most states with large population centers are gradually drifting blue, so the presence of Charlotte will continue to move NC further in that direction.
The problem with this is exemplified by the Gates Foundation. Don’t get me wrong, they are amazing when it comes to infectious disease funding, but that is the inherent problem. The NIH will fund basic non sexy research because there is no altruistic honcho directing where the money flows (well congress does ear mark some of it). Many of the breakthroughs that are driven by the work of philanthropic groups like the GF are based completely on the basic science that must come before it.I sat next to a guy at a private auction viewing once. The point of view of the super rich is I think as follows:
they support tax increase, but also feel they do more good to society when contributing through their own vehicles than the federal government taking them. Yes he might have a $200m art collection, which is obscene by our standards, but he countered this with how much he donates each year to the homeless far eclipses that. The government aid is often attached to conditions x y z which just perpetuate situations. The other issue is, it’s impossible for him to lose money. However much he gives, he gets wealthier each year. This is a systemic problem that can’t be solved by tax.
Yeah because "the rich" all give more that 200M each year to the homeless. It's obviously not an exemple you can generalize.I sat next to a guy at a private auction viewing once. The point of view of the super rich is I think as follows:
they support tax increase, but also feel they do more good to society when contributing through their own vehicles than the federal government taking them. Yes he might have a $200m art collection, which is obscene by our standards, but he countered this with how much he donates each year to the homeless far eclipses that. The government aid is often attached to conditions x y z which just perpetuate situations. The other issue is, it’s impossible for him to lose money. However much he gives, he gets wealthier each year. This is a systemic problem that can’t be solved by tax.
Not in a Taliban or ayatollah format. I want a Pakistani government to have Islamic principles - not religious tyranny.I've read previously that you want the Pakistani government based on Islam. Apologies if it was someone else
Im not that wounded. It’s rare to ever see the number anywhere.
Embarrassingly the same. My moment was when someone asked Nate Silver on his podcast if they would rename 538 if PR and DC became states.
You sat next to an exploitive piece of shit to be fair.I sat next to a guy at a private auction viewing once. The point of view of the super rich is I think as follows:
they support tax increase, but also feel they do more good to society when contributing through their own vehicles than the federal government taking them. Yes he might have a $200m art collection, which is obscene by our standards, but he countered this with how much he donates each year to the homeless far eclipses that. The government aid is often attached to conditions x y z which just perpetuate situations. The other issue is, it’s impossible for him to lose money. However much he gives, he gets wealthier each year. This is a systemic problem that can’t be solved by tax.
Also : I guarantee that most decent people here donated a higher % of their personal wealth to ‘causes’ in the last year than Bezos. Be that to a guy at a subway station, a family member, charity, or a product of their own time.Yeah because "the rich" all give more that 200M each year to the homeless. It's obviously not an exemple you can generalize.
You definitely need some sort of balance. You couldn't say "Oh CA's homeless don't need government/taxes now because Buffett will cover it," but being able to come in fast and hard as an individual to address holes in the safety net is quite valuable. Obviously the ideal solution is to eliminate homelessness entirely, which should be the goal, but in the absence of that it's valuable.The problem with this is exemplified by the Gates Foundation. Don’t get me wrong, they are amazing when it comes to infectious disease funding, but that is the inherent problem. The NIH will fund basic non sexy research because there is no altruistic honcho directing where the money flows (well congress does ear mark some of it). Many of the breakthroughs that are driven by the work of philanthropic groups like the GF are based completely on the basic science that must come before it.
All that adds up to though is 'rich guy more likely to give his staff more money if he has plenty' which sadly doesn't actually reflect the reality of the business world. Also you are putting your fingers on the scale in your example, by talking about 'a fair amount'. Who exactly gets to decide what a fair amount is, the business owner?It does work to a point.
If the system is honest and small, and not subject to external forces, it can work.
A business owner; Barber Shop, Greengrocer etc, is far more likely to pay his staff better if he is taxed a fair amount for premises, profits, etc.
With a minimum wage in place, there is very little room to squeeze downwards, and what room there is should already have been squeezed simply by good business practices. This is where a large part of the myth comes from. Businesses do not have the freedom to simply cut staff at will, staff are an essential part of the operation in the first place. If you can cut staff without damaging your productivity (and thus your profit margin) then you should have done that already regardless of any tax considerations.The owner wears the risk and should be rewarded for creating a business. If you squeeze him, he squeezes downwards.
Where do you get the idea that big businesses are struggling?I support a progressive tax plan and taxing the rich, but most business big and small are struggling right now levying more taxes doesn't sound like the best idea tbh.
Yup.I have a very limited grasp of economics but arent you supposed to decrease taxes during downturns to increase spending?
I support a progressive tax plan and taxing the rich, but most business big and small are struggling right now levying more taxes doesn't sound like the best idea tbh. Biden should ideally wait for the economy to recover before implementing his tax plan.