|
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. One thing it is likely there is going to a greatly increased deficit from the plan even has populist elements, cutting the top rate to 25% and increasing the tax threshold substantially is going to have a genuine issues. That said, Bush's plan is probably even worse. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Sep 28, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted: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. The lowest bracket does start at 25k which certainly be a difference, even if there is now way is plan could pay for it. Basically, it sort of gives everything to everyone and hopes carried interest taxation and tax holidays would pay for it. The problem with every Republican plan is they pretend the deficit isn't an issue before a proposal and then every cut needs to be made to balance the budget after it. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
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? The issue isn't the actual mechanics, but the politics, which is always austerity without question. The US could sustain a higher deficit than it does now without ill effect especially since if anything the dollar is way too strong at the moment but everyone knows at this point where the way leads.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Veskit posted:I was legitimately hoping Trump would be one of the few to actually come out with a plan or idea that taxes the rich more. Sad because the rest of the tax brackets are crazy low, and no taxes on 25k and under is substantial. I mean at the end of the day Trump is running for the Republican nomination and that means a pretty limited political window, that said he is tacking in more of a European style populist direction which is generally xenophobic but economically more to the center.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Veskit posted:What's the middle income trap? Basically, that there is a intrinsic difficulty for "middle income" states (12-30k GDP per capita PPP ish) to move to higher income status for a variety of reasons. One of them is simply the cut throat nature of manufacturing where usually the lowest wages win and thus investment will flow to stable low income states such as India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. Anyway, Taiwan/South Korea/Japan all have the similarity of being US allies that heavily invested in electronics manufacturing during the post-war period. However, this doesn't seem to be an immediate path to success that is easy to copy especially since electronics manufacturing has become far more globalized over time. That said, there are plenty of things that went wrong in Brazil, Argentina, and Russia and there isn't a whole lot to fix it. Hell, it even looks like Chinese growth is slowing long just as they reached middle income status. Ultimately, I think Taiwan/South Korea/Japan grew during a "goldilocks" zone from 1945-1997 when global competition was limited, and there was gigantic ROI in manufacturing, especially for the US market. Admittedly, stability helped as well as an successful invested strategy, and a open and prosperous potential market.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
tekz posted:Can you go into more detail about this? I was under the impression that it was protectionism, and pretty heavy-handed protectionism at that, which allowed places like Taiwan, Korea and Japan to get to where they did. In that case though they found a ready export market to the US, so they had the best of both worlds. Basically, Taiwan/South Korea found something to export and Latin America didn't at least to the same extent. South Korea and Taiwan were both rather corrupt dictatorships of various forms for quite a while as well, so institutionally they really weren't that different. I guess the question is why South Korea and Taiwan did so well at electronics manufacturing, and why the US was so open in allowing market access. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Oct 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think kreuger might suspect that a $15 minimum wage would make the poor better off, but doesn't support a $15 national minimum wage for a few reasons. Basically he feels that a $15 national wage is untested territory, especially in states with significantly different costs of living. Ultimately, the solution would probably be having a $15 minimum approached over a longer time span and then maybe giving states the opportunity to approach it slower than others.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Meanwhile in New York a panel appointed by the governor just recommended the implementation of a $15 minimum wage, phased in faster in New York City but eventually covering the entire state. It in some ways it seems to ultimately end up too much of a political challenge to ignore. That said, politicians won't actively try to fix it beyond it reaches a point where the public will actively vote against them. That said, even if some of the progress that is being made, if you look at the rising cost of housing in many cities, it is often rising far higher than even optimistic increases in the minimum wage. In Portland, rent prices are rising 15-20% a year and ultimately the question is can you find a minimum wage to take that into account. In many ways it delved deeper into the problem where, while a national/state minimum wage needs to be far higher there are limits to its utility especially when you get to severe but localized cost of living issues. San Francisco for example raised its minimum wage to $15 a hour, but looking at the often sky-high amounts of rent being charged, it may have to be even higher or simply another solution needs to be found.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:pictured: no fundamental economic problem preventing growth: It doesn't help that Japan has more or less maximized the utility of monetary and fiscal intervention, and broader social progress "the third arrow" has been quite limited. While Japan has been cited as especially xenophobic, they aren't the only country out there with similar urges either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Isn't it more important how much each person has rather than how much growth each country has? Much of it is about demographics, specifically you need young people to consume (providing a domestic market) and hopefully work (feeding tax revenue back into the system). Ultimately, they need some time of income for this to work and yes, while growth is only part of the equation, you do want a expanding economy. (Sidenote: MMT falls apart when you get to issue of trade balances and exterior purchasing. Sadly enough Venezuela kind of killed MMT.) Basically, much of it is balancing act between income growth, economic growth, stable demographics, and inflation. The Asian tigers for the most part were able to keep their system moving forward through stable population growth and a booming export market while actual income growth usually lagged and inflation often was quite high. However, this in part required a political alliance that wasn't necessarily easily replicated. India on the other hand had long been blasted for its "Hindu level of growth" during the Cold War, usually blamed on "red tape" but usually its non-aligned status and ambiguous trade relationship with both Comecon and Western countries is ignored. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Japan hosed up its response to the early 90s bubble, IIRC. Even then it sort of recovered and had decent (2%-ish) growth for a while from the late 90s to 2008. The demographic impact is mostly being felt in its failure to recover from 2008 The demographic impact if anything may have started in the late 90s/early 2000s since Japanese population growth really started to decline in the early 80s. That said, quite simply the realities for Japanese growth simply couldn't meet the (unacceptable) expectations of it. By the early 1980s it had maximized its export policy and its domestic infrastructure policy was getting progressively less returns. They swelled one of the biggest housing bubbles in history to counter it and flooded corporations with cheap money, and only continued to flood they after the property market collapsed. If anything they did almost everything Keynesians would expect of them, even pressing that to its limits and yet it still wasn't enough. One other issue that wasn't been mentioned is simply wages, and while Japan always has had a very protectionist trade policy, but it also been affected by globalization. If anything the Japan car companies (ironically enough) have moved some manufacturing back to the US because of cheap labor, not to mention China and the rest of Asia. They maximized their returns from trade, gave corporations and banks every yen they could want, and built every piece of infrastructure they could think of it and it still wasn't enough. As for their future, I guess can say it would still take quite a while for them to fully collapse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
It goes back to the old question in the minimum wage thread about how close you can get to a median wage without it having adverse effects. At this point, Danish and Swedish (unionized) minimum wages around around $16.5 to 17 a hour. Of course both countries have a higher cost of living but certainly there is wiggle around there especially if you live in a coastal city or state in the US. A living wage in San Francisco at this point is probably closer to $20 a hour. I think the big worry is regional cost of living differences, and in the US the differences have gotten quite huge. $15 in San Francisco doesn't go the way it goes in rural Mississippi. That said, critics of a $15 minimum wage haven't come up with much of a solution either than simply keeping it universally low and hoping the problem fixes itself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:To be clear young workers save at a higher percentage than older citizens. An aging demographic increases demand relative to the workforce because they're not working and thus spending down savings on average (not to mention healthcare spending and government benefit payouts etc). https://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=...0,d.bGg&cad=rjt Usually consumption goes down as the older one gets not higher. Certain services (such as health care) goes up, but in Japan those prices are very strictly managed. In most cases, older people simply purchase less consumer goods because their needs and attitudes are different when they are younger. As far as savings versus income this is also unclear, but ultimately the issue is spending itself. To be honest, I never heard that assumption though. Cicero posted:We could always tie it to the median income by state/county, possibly with an absolute floor and absolute ceiling. Well to be honest I doubt we would ever see a wage ceiling in the US even if you didn't cap "compensation." Nevertheless, the big take away is wages often need to be local but that the federal government needs to make sure that certain localities aren't "left behind." I think the answer would still have a federal minimum but allow some flexibility by a small a locality as possible, this may include even have a wage lower than the minimum in certain states/counties by at the cost of a higher minimum in certain states/counties. Also, there may be some headroom for localities to press it a bit further if they so choose. That said, looking at many heavily unionized Scandinavian states, many places in the US could probably sustain a wage even higher than $15 and that local minimum versus median wages can be quite high even in the .75 - .80 range. France is around .73-.75. That more or less correlates to a national wage of $12.5 (2013-2015 wages) and $14.5 to $15 in a state like California. Krueger wants wages (like the Democrats in the House) for wages to more or less to go to $12 a house by 2020, which in all honestly may still be too conservative. He his hewing to the UK as an example, while the French/Scandinavian examples show mildly more assertive approach is possible. That said, it might be true that a national wage of $15 is untested (and he his skeptical of suggesting it) but either a $12.5 wage today or a $14-$14.5 wage by 2020 should be doable. Certain states should already have a $15 dollar minimum wage. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No one in economics thinks a national $15 minimum wage is a good idea for a range of reasons based on real life research perhaps combined with a little bit of reason (this includes people like Kruger and Piketty). Anyway, that obscures the fact that many if not most economists want a significantly higher minimum wage just not exactly a national $15 one. If anything most would probably be fairly happy with a $12-13 dollar national wage and a higher local wages on top of that. In many ways, it is less about a $15 wage being that unrealistic as a concept, just applying it nationally to what are now extremely different costs of living. If anything how most of the world approaches national minimum wages is fairly broken. asdf32 posted:Well relative to supply. When older people leave the workforce they stop producing (or produce less) but keep consuming. In the context of say China, where people like to point to their economy being unbalanced in terms of domestic consumption, an aging population could be a balancing factor by moving people from the the producer category to the consumer category. But it's true that this obviously shouldn't increase overall GDP. But it does something akin to stimulus from the perspective of the remaining workforce. I think you are trying to say older people leaving the workforce will allow younger people employment and thus a greater ability spend? The problem though is they need everyone to constantly consume as much as possible, while older people no longer compete for the same jobs they also simply spend less that they once did at the same time. In addition, the population overall in China is simply constricted by their own spending power, they simply don't make the wages needed to buy enough goods to keep China's massive factories running. Old people retiring puts more pressure on those factories because as their spending declines, there is simply less domestic spending out there to chase. China used up its exterior markets and its internal market was no where in the shape to handle the transition.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Bryter posted:This doesn't necessarily show "support" from those who disagree, but... Yeah, if anything there probably isn't a strong consensus on either side simply because most of the data isn't there. Politically however it makes absolute sense to maximize your demands and end up with something that is probably somewhere in between. A good example of this is Oregon where the strong $15 MW movement has put a lot of pressure on the legislature to move the minimum wage to at least $12. It may be possible a $15 dollar MW would actually cost some issues in rural Oregon, but ultimately the state (especially the GOP) by forbidding cities (ie Portland) from instituting their own wages created the dilemma in the first place. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm Anyway according to the BLS weekly median wages is $803 for Q2 2015 (latest date). If you divide this by 40 you get $20.08. If you multiply that by .75 (the share of median wages versus minimum union wages in Scandinavian countries) you get $15.06. France and New Zealand are around .6 at this point which leads to $12 but in 2015 terms. If anything I think $12 by 2020 is a too conservative especially since there are examples of countries that are relatively successful with higher wages than that. Of course the issue is that is a median of the entire country (which I think much of the disagree is about). Nevertheless the question is should you fight to push to the edge of industrialized states for a minimum wage or simply put yourself in the middle of the pack? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok. Most economists want it higher. Almost none want it at $15. Data shown above shows there is actually a lack of consensus on that fact at least on its effect on unemployment. I do think there is a wide band of opinions on the subject and a lot of it seems to be exactly which countries do they feel present better models. Krueger seems to prefer the UK and Krugman/Reich prefer a more Scandinavian direction. quote:On you're next point you understand that GDP is money spent on goods AND money earned by people in the economy? So by definition they collectively have the earnings to consume their production. On top of that they also have huge financial reserves which could be used to consume if they had to be. Who is the "they"? Consumers or the government? I wouldn't conflate the two. quote:The "problem", is that savings rate. They simply chose not to consume as much as they currently produce (thus relying on foreigners to make up the gap). Though note that in the long term, unless they represent a new breed of human, they're probably going to flip that switch at some point (otherwise they're essentially packaging and shipping us iphones for free). Well it is already in danger of reduced growth, and their exports period are already beginning to stagnant. It is happening in real time. quote:EDIT: quote:Population aging and the resultant reduction in workforce, consumption expenditure and investment will lead to the fall in potential growth rate in the end. The OECD estimates that Korea’s potential growth rate, which stands at 3.4 percent in 2012, will fall to 2.4 percent in 2016-2026 along with the rapid population aging, and drop further to the 1-percent range in 2031-2050, the lowest level among its 34 member countries. This is the quote that goes under that image. Anyway one issue is of growth, Korea is that population growth has been pretty constant through that period, young people generally replaced the old. While the fertility rate wasn't that different, Korea simply had a significantly faster growing population. From 1990 to 2010 South Korea's population grew 15%, Japan's grew 3%. While South Korea's population is still growing, Japan's is shrinking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Carson: I'm going to balance the budget, lower taxes, build a missile defense system and buff out the military, and not cut any programs people like. It is a bit terrifying in how many of the candidates don't really seem even give a poo poo about basic details of what they intend to do at this point. He wants a flat tax but has a hard time even coming with a general ballpark number.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 20:04
|
|
