|
Veskit posted:Trump came out with his new yuuuge and glorious tax plan and it looks dangerously appealing to everyone involved except the mega rich. However on paper it seems ok from a republican standpoint, how enforceable is this plan? If implemented would it increase governmental revenue since most taxes are paid by the top anyway? From a brief look it looks insanely unenforceable to expect that you can collect on it, and the lack of corporate taxes seems really dangerous. According to the website it's designed to be revenue neutral (which is the latest tax reform buzzword) so it wouldn't grow revenue. The repatriation rate is also ridiculous. e: also it would be very appealing to the mega-rich since it reduces the top tax rate from 39.6% to 25% and eliminates the estate tax. If it does away with the EITC poor people will lose money. Badger of Basra fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Sep 28, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Veskit posted:Also what the gently caress is a repatriation tax I can't even figure it out looking it up A lot of firms (especially Apple and Google I think) keep their earnings abroad - Ireland or the Caymans or wherever - because if they bring them into the US they would have to pay taxes on them. He's proposing lowering the rate to 10% as a one-time repatriation holiday to get the money back. This has been tried before in 2004 and wasn't very successful - most of the money was used to pay dividends, buy back shares, or complete mergers/acquisitions. quote:It's a weird republican plan for sure. It's not that weird. It's the standard conservative plan of late, except it also eliminates the carried interest loophole. That's the only novel thing about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Veskit posted:With interest rates as low as they are and a growing economy why should we care about the deficit that much when we can print free money to cover it and just debt our way to success? Such a policy has been labeled "unserious" in most of the developed world, so whether it would work or not is irrelevant because no one is going to do it. A lot of economists and policy people would agree that if your interest rates for debt are rock bottom you should be issuing more debt to take advantage, since it won't be any cheaper in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Has there ever been any situation where high interest rates have led to job growth? They might have existed at the same time but I doubt there's any mechanism where raising interest rates also decreases unemployment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So is it safe to say that it's nearly impossible to have good job growth without reasonably low interest rates? Not necessarily. Brazil had good job growth with like 11% interest rates, it just depends on what rates people are used to. If they've been at 10% of 20 years people get used to it, if you raise them up to 15% it will lead to job loss (probably).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Is there any interesting data on what inequality was like in advanced countries before 1945, say?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Veskit posted:Also somewhat related, if I wanted to keep up with the news, should I go with the economist weekly subscription or is there something better? Lets say it needs to be a 5/10 on the readability scale, and a 8/10 on the informative scale if at all possible. That depends on if you want to know the Very Serious Person angle on events. If you do then The Economist is what you're looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 22:38
|
|