Tax reform

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

What minimal amount of money most people got from the tax cut will be gone in six months through inflationary price increases if it's not already been eaten up by the price of gas.  Just today:

Procter & Gamble Co. PG +0.15% said it was raising prices on some of its biggest brands, a strategy shift after the consumer-products giant reported another quarter of lackluster revenue growth.

After more than a year of trying to combat weak demand with lower prices on staples like Tide detergent and Gillette razors, executives said Tuesday the company was changing course and would seek to push through large price increases on Pampers diapers and Bounty paper towels.

P&G is just the latest big U.S. company raising prices amid a strong U.S. economy and healthy consumer spending. But unlike some manufacturers or food brands such as Coca-Cola Co., P&G didn’t highlight tariffs or trade disruptions for its shift. Rather, executives pointed to market dynamics.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/procter-gamble-reports-slightly-higher-sales-drop-in-prices-1533040191?ns=prod/accounts-wsj

[David Dennison 19439]

56 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

If that’s how you choose to rationalize it, I’m not one to interfere. I just hope everyone is taking advantage, it would be a shame to squander this great opportunity. 

It's not rationalized. It's fact. You can look it up.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

58 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

If that’s how you choose to rationalize it, I’m not one to interfere. I just hope everyone is taking advantage, it would be a shame to squander this great opportunity. 

Likewise - I'm glad the right can finally stop pretending the economy is bad and the numbers are fake now that Obama is out.   It will be a good lesson for when we need to recover from the havoc that the Trumpublican borrow/spend/tariff policies will wreak. 

[Biff Tannen 46060]

I think Chrispy has the perfect avatar for his online personality.

[Chrispy 132]

38 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Likewise - I'm glad the right can finally stop pretending the economy is bad and the numbers are fake now that Obama is out.   It will be a good lesson for when we need to recover from the havoc that the Trumpublican borrow/spend/tariff policies will wreak. 

That hatred’s going to eat you up inside Mojo, enjoy these good times, as the future is always uncertain. 

[Chrispy 132]

36 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think Chrispy has the perfect avatar for his online personality.

You know Biff, I almost used a picture of my beagle as my avatar. I suppose we’re not that different, you and I. 

[Biff Tannen 46060]

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

That hatred’s going to eat you up inside Mojo, enjoy these good times, as the future is always uncertain. 

Not sure what in that post you're trying to read as hatred.  I'm happy with the post-2008 economic recovery and the lessons we've learned about what works.  And it's nice that you and others on the right are free to enjoy it now. 

[David Dennison 19439]

5 hours ago, zork said:

Another blippity blip perhaps?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worker-pay-and-benefits-climbing-at-fastest-pace-in-10-years-eci-finds-2018-07-31

There was also discussion on indexing capital gains to inflation.(not done yet of course)

Counterpoint.

[Js1 86924]

Wait, you mean when unemployment goes down as more people have jobs, wages and benefits go up since companies have to offer better packages to lure workers from other companies because they can no longer offer peanuts when 100 overqualified engineers apply for 4 entry-level positions?  The article definitely doesn't say companies are handing out higher wages and better benefits to all of their current employees.

[zork 629]

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Wait, you mean when unemployment goes down as more people have jobs, wages and benefits go up since companies have to offer better packages to lure workers from other companies because they can no longer offer peanuts when 100 overqualified engineers apply for 4 entry-level positions?  The article definitely doesn't say companies are handing out higher wages and better benefits to all of their current employees.

So you are reading that as % increase to new employees only?  Not % increase to all employees?  I do think there is a, in general, more likely chance you get more if you move vs staying status quo and waiting for the next performance review.  If you are highly valued the firms should be taking care of you with those discussions taking place possibly outside the ears of most of the employees.(upper management talking to middle/lower management about their stars)

Or maybe you work where they give the same compensation/benefits/raises to everyone?(like they want to do in the bronx  /sarc)

 

Edit:  rechecked the linked article and found this:

Quote

The ECI reflects how much companies, governments and nonprofit institutions pay employees in wages and benefits.

Seems kind of all inclusive but sure the cost of new employees would be more to entice them to move.

Edited July 31, 2018 by zork

[this 107]

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Wait, you mean when unemployment goes down as more people have jobs, wages and benefits go up since companies have to offer better packages to lure workers from other companies because they can no longer offer peanuts when 100 overqualified engineers apply for 4 entry-level positions?  The article definitely doesn't say companies are handing out higher wages and better benefits to all of their current employees.

How about this one: 

US. workers saw their annual wages and benefits rise in the second quarter at the fastest pace in nearly a decade, a sign that the low unemployment rate is forcing employers to raise pay to attract and keep workers.

Pay and benefits for all U.S. workers increased 2.8 percent in the April-June quarter from a year earlier, the most since the third quarter of 2008. Total compensation for private industry workers — which excludes state and local employees — rose 2.9 percent, the best since the second quarter of 2008.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-wage-growth-20180731-story.html

[Huckleberry 34404]

lulz at reading that and thinking it literally means all workers saw a 2.8 percent increase.

1,000 workers at Bob's Burgers make an average of $25,000 per year. 950 workers make $10,000 per year and 50 workers make $310,000 per year. All of a sudden the 50 workers who made $310,000 per year now make $324,500 per year. The 950 still make the same $25,000 per year.

Pay and benefits for all Bob's Burgers employees increased by 2.9 percent.

[zork 629]

Or 

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

lulz at reading that and thinking it literally means all workers saw a 2.8 percent increase.

1,000 workers at Bob's Burgers make an average of $25,000 per year. 950 workers make $10,000 per year and 50 workers make $310,000 per year. All of a sudden the 50 workers who made $310,000 per year now make $324,500 per year. The 950 still make the same $25,000 per year.

Pay and benefits for all Bob's Burgers employees increased by 2.9 percent.

Or that only new workers got 2.8% increase as well, right?  Who said it was all workers getting the same % increase(except my lame Bronx joke)(edit: and not in aggregate)?

Edited July 31, 2018 by zork

[Huckleberry 34404]

6 minutes ago, zork said:

Or 

Or that only new workers got 2.8% increase as well, right?  Who said it was all workers getting the same % increase(except my lame Bronx joke)?

You are correct. Another example would be:

1,000 workers at Bob's Burgers make an average of $25,000 per year. 950 workers make $10,000 per year and 50 workers make $310,000 per year. Bob's Burgers hires a CEO for a salary of $750,000 per year.

Pay and benefits for all Bob's Burgers employees increased by 2.9 percent.

Instead of one person at $750K it could also be 100 people at $33K. There are lots of ways for the pay and benefits of the overall group to go up by 2.9 percent while the vast majority see no increase.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Huckleberry

[this 107]

9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

lulz at reading that and thinking it literally means all workers saw a 2.8 percent increase.

1,000 workers at Bob's Burgers make an average of $25,000 per year. 950 workers make $10,000 per year and 50 workers make $310,000 per year. All of a sudden the 50 workers who made $310,000 per year now make $324,500 per year. The 950 still make the same $25,000 per year.

Pay and benefits for all Bob's Burgers employees increased by 2.9 percent.

lulz its obvious that you've never ran a business. I currently own restaurants and can tell you that people at the bottom like the ones making $25K are the most fluid and prone to leaving if offered a fifty cent/hour increase elsewhere. With unemployment hovering at around 3.9% it becomes imperative to keep them around in exchange for higher wages or match the wages of competing business if that's the reason they're leaving. 

Your theories work well on a message board, they're utterly impractical in the real world. 

lulz.

[Huckleberry 34404]

I'm sorry math is hard for you. You're the one who completely misread a simple sentence. Better luck next time.

[zork 629]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You are correct. Another example would be:

1,000 workers at Bob's Burgers make an average of $25,000 per year. 950 workers make $10,000 per year and 50 workers make $310,000 per year. Bob's Burgers hires a CEO for a salary of $750,000 per year.

Pay and benefits for all Bob's Burgers employees increased by 2.9 percent.

I have not checked the methodology of that stat as reported.  They might break it down on the ECI website as to the history beyond just the total.  I have not looked.

 

3 minutes ago, this said:

lulz its obvious that you've never ran a business. I currently own restaurants and can tell you that people at the bottom like the ones making $25K are the most fluid and prone to leaving if offered a fifty cent/hour increase elsewhere. With unemployment hovering at around 3.9% it becomes imperative to keep them around in exchange for higher wages or match the wages of competing business if that's the reason they're leaving. 

Your theories work well on a message board, they're utterly impractical in the real world. 

lulz.

Some you don't care about and are happy they left(low motor, low care about detail, etc, etc).  Some you care more about and are valued higher with perks, bonus, higher percentage raises, etc, etc.

[this 107]

10 minutes ago, zork said:

Or 

Or that only new workers got 2.8% increase as well, right?  Who said it was all workers getting the same % increase(except my lame Bronx joke)(edit: and not in aggregate)?

Or, the ones that are working get a demotion to ZERO dollars/hour and the new ones get a raise proportionately in the same amount so that these statistics can work. I mean you can make the Math work that way, but here back on Earth once the new workers show up and share how much they make compared to the existent ones(which happens all the time) the old ones are going to start looking if they're treated like that. And the business owner will struggle with hiring newer employees, at an even higher wage and then bear the cost of training new employees as well as the cost of putting out ads to find them. 

Not feasible.

[this 107]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm sorry math is hard for you. You're the one who completely misread a simple sentence. Better luck next time.

I'm sorry this life isn't working out for you because you can't save, sacrifice, take risks, work harder/smarter. Better luck next time.

[this 107]

7 minutes ago, zork said:

 

Some you don't care about and are happy they left(low motor, low care about detail, etc, etc).  Some you care more about and are valued higher with perks, bonus, higher percentage raises, etc, etc.

Again, not sure if this is how it works on a large scale but even if it did, what's wrong with keeping better employees offering them what they deserve and losing the ones that can't cut it?

[zork 629]

7 minutes ago, this said:

Or, the ones that are working get a demotion to ZERO dollars/hour and the new ones get a raise proportionately in the same amount so that these statistics can work. I mean you can make the Math work that way, but here back on Earth once the new workers show up and share how much they make compared to the existent ones(which happens all the time) the old ones are going to start looking if they're treated like that. And the business owner will struggle with hiring newer employees, at an even higher wage and then bear the cost of training new employees as well as the cost of putting out ads to find them. 

Not feasible.

JS1 said it was the new workers getting all that increase.(not sure if he was serious or not)  Huck said there are many ways to get to that aggregate total but not sure who he was arguing with.  It is just a stat.  One that is showing, in aggregate, that the price of labor for x amount of time period is rising at the fastest percentage in quite awhile.  So I am not disagreeing with you or Huck but was calling JS1 out a bit on it (if he was serious) and making a lame joke about it would be all the same if it were Socialist like bronx-y chica wants.(in theory of course)

 

6 minutes ago, this said:

Again, not sure if this is how it works on a large scale but even if it did, what's wrong with keeping better employees offering them what they deserve and losing the ones that can't cut it?

You are finding disagreement, somehow I guess, with  someone who is in general agreement with you.  Please read above.

[Washpark 176]

More of the obvious

The Republicans ravage America’s fiscal future
A party of Trump and Ryan cannot be trusted with the US’s finances
 

Quote

The size of the tax cut carries risks in both the short and long run. A fiscal boost at the time the US economy is already growing healthily is always likely to boost spending on imports and push up the dollar through higher interest rates. That runs directly counter to Mr Trump’s obsession with reducing the trade deficit.

In the longer term, the cut will further denude the US government of revenues at a time when an ageing population is pushing up the cost of Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office says the federal budget deficit over the next 10 years will average nearly 5 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with 3.5 per cent in 2017. Federal debt will rise to equal nearly 100 per cent of GDP, its highest since just after the second world war.

The Republicans’ profligacy is rash and partisan. Under Barack Obama’s presidency, the Republican Congress, pleading the need to return the country to solvency, pushed the US to the brink of default by creating dramas out of routine operations such as increasing the debt ceiling. This was sharply at odds with their willingness under the previous president, George W Bush, to support a huge unfunded spending commitment in the form of an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare, in addition to more tax cuts.

For some time now, a broad pattern has been clear. A Republican Congress or Republican president — Ronald Reagan, George W Bush — worsens the long-term US fiscal position before Democrats are elected and repair it. Even when the US desperately needed fiscal stimulus after the global financial crisis, Mr Obama gave it only a timely, temporary boost and later constrained spending growth.

There is almost no sign of similar responsibility being taken on the Republican side. The departing Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, is frequently touted as a fiscal policy wonk with a commitment to balanced budgets. He is not. Mr Ryan’s plans for combining tax cuts with control of the deficit only ever added up with unrealistic assumptions about the growth rates that would be unleashed by lower taxes, plus unspecified and improbable spending cuts.
 

 https://www.ft.com/content/9f61432a-94b8-11e8-b67b-b8205561c3fe

[sidis 9990]

18 hours ago, this said:

Again, not sure if this is how it works on a large scale but even if it did, what's wrong with keeping better employees offering them what they deserve and losing the ones that can't cut it? 

you aren't terribly bright and your reading comprehension is painfully bad.

[David Dennison 19439]

18 hours ago, this said:

Again, not sure if this is how it works on a large scale but even if it did, what's wrong with keeping better employees offering them what they deserve and losing the ones that can't cut it?

Regarding the ones who can't cut it (and we can all agree they exist), what do we as a society do about them and their children? Unless they are employed, we're going to pay for them one way or another. Or they'll be on the streets. 

Tough nut to crack.

[this 107]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Regarding the ones who can't cut it (and we can all agree they exist), what do we as a society do about them and their children? Unless they are employed, we're going to pay for them one way or another. Or they'll be on the streets. 

Tough nut to crack.

It indeed is a tough nut to crack. As a society we do take care of them, we have unemployment insurance, food banks, section 8 housing, welfare etc. In America you have to try hard to go hungry. What a lot of Dem Socialists want to do is make them even more comfortable despite intentionally slacking at work, the opponents disagree. 

We cannot continue penalizing(even more) the ones that do work hard for the ones that don't. In the AOC thread I did point out(with sources) how the bottom 50% only accounts for 2.75% of all the income tax generated while reeking in most of the benefit. Most of the ones that don't or can't cut it fall in this bucket. And by spending even more resources we invariably penalize the ones who make the right choices, right sacrifices and make good decisions. 

[Foosters 18221]

3 minutes ago, this said:

It indeed is a tough nut to crack. As a society we do take care of them, we have unemployment insurance, food banks, section 8 housing, welfare etc. In America you have to try hard to go hungry. What a lot of Dem Socialists want to do is make them even more comfortable despite intentionally slacking at work, the opponents disagree. 

We cannot continue penalizing(even more) the ones that do work hard for the ones that don't. In the AOC thread I did point out(with sources) how the bottom 50% only accounts for 2.75% of all the income tax generated while reeking in most of the benefit. Most of the ones that don't or can't cut it fall in this bucket. And by spending even more resources we invariably penalize the ones who make the right choices, right sacrifices and make good decisions. 

Link to this platform?

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Link to this platform?

I guess that's my general feeling based on an observation of demands like UBI, free college education, universal healthcare etc. 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

23 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It's not rationalized. It's fact. You can look it up.

Show your work. 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

The tax cuts are still only a fraction of my “middle class Obama tax”. AKA Obama care. So it’s nice to get back some of that 500% increase we enjoyed from the previous years. 

May rate hasn’t been raised once since Trump took office when I was averaging two a year. 

Amazing what happens when you let people decide what to do with their income. 

[Foosters 18221]

4 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The tax cuts are still only a fraction of my “middle class Obama tax”. AKA Obama care. So it’s nice to get back some of that 500% increase we enjoyed from the previous years. 

May rate hasn’t been raised once since Trump took office when I was averaging two a year. 

Amazing what happens when you let people decide what to do with their income. 

Last 10 years: OMG! The spending is out of control! Constitutional amendment!  Debt ceiling! Think of the country like a family with a credit card! We are bankrupting this nation!

Now: LOL. All is cool. Trump's tax cuts have saved me a few grand. Fuck the debt/deficit.

[David Dennison 19439]

7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Show your work. 

[wildcat09 29555]

23 minutes ago, this said:

It indeed is a tough nut to crack. As a society we do take care of them, we have unemployment insurance, food banks, section 8 housing, welfare etc. In America you have to try hard to go hungry. What a lot of Dem Socialists want to do is make them even more comfortable despite intentionally slacking at work, the opponents disagree. 

We cannot continue penalizing(even more) the ones that do work hard for the ones that don't. In the AOC thread I did point out(with sources) how the bottom 50% only accounts for 2.75% of all the income tax generated while reeking in most of the benefit. Most of the ones that don't or can't cut it fall in this bucket. And by spending even more resources we invariably penalize the ones who make the right choices, right sacrifices and make good decisions. 

I always get a kick out of guys posting from work bitching about other people slacking at work.

edit: also, reeking the benefit? Lulz

Edited August 1, 2018 by wildcat09

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I always get a kick out of guys posting from work bitching about other people slacking at work.

Yeah me too. Hypocritical no? 

[wildcat09 29555]

7 minutes ago, this said:

Yeah me too. Hypocritical no? 

For you, yes. For me, no. I'm not the one complaining about people slacking off at work. Slacking off at work is an American tradition.

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

For you, yes. For me, no. I'm not the one complaining about people slacking off at work. Slacking off at work is an American tradition.

But then you understand why I have no sympathy for someone who gets kicked off work for slacking and loses health insurance. 

Pull oneself by your bootstraps, also an American tradition. 

[David Dennison 19439]

1 hour ago, this said:

But then you understand why I have no sympathy for someone who gets kicked off work for slacking and loses health insurance. 

Pull oneself by your bootstraps, also an American tradition. 

A tradition that is largely myth, like everything else Americans hold dear.

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

A tradition that is largely myth, like everything else Americans hold dear.

Agreed but failures call it a myth and use it as a shield as much as successful ones use it as a weapon. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[David Dennison 19439]

6 minutes ago, this said:

Agreed but failures call it a myth and use it as a shield as much as successful ones use it as a weapon. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

The truth of the matter is success and failure have little to do with how hard you work in America.

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The truth of the matter is success and failure have little to do with how hard you work in America.

LOL. Disagree. 

The only truth of the matter is even if you fail miserably in America, over and over, you will still fall amongst top 20% of world's population. Whatever else you've convinced yourself is a manifestation of your own biases. Stop.

[RandomIdoit 739]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The truth of the matter is success and failure have little to do with how hard you work in America.

I don't this is true for everyone. Define what you mean by "how hard you work".

[David Dennison 19439]

6 minutes ago, this said:

LOL. Disagree. 

The only truth of the matter is even if you fail miserably in America, over and over, you will still fall amongst top 20% of world's population. Whatever else you've convinced yourself is a manifestation of your own biases. Stop.

You can disagree all you want. Luck plays the biggest role in success or failure in this country. Hard work matters, but not as much as we like to tell ourselves. Your parents are much more important.

[this 107]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You can disagree all you want. Luck plays the biggest role in success or failure in this country. Hard work matters, but not as much as we like to tell ourselves. Your parents are much more important.

So can you. You can succeed as long as YOU want to succeed. If you want to do the bare minimum, fuck up at every chance you get and want to sacrifice nothing then you'll fail. And by fail I mean you'll still end up as a top 20% statistic in this world. 

Yeah, America sucks. LOL.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Obama proposes a trillion dollars in spending to get us out of the worst recession since the depression. Republicans, who largely created the near depression, go apeshit and form the tea party. 

8 years later after the economy has stabilized and is doing well, Republicans take over and blow a trillion dollar hole in the deficit by cutting taxes to stimulate an economy that doesn’t need it. Then take all the credit for the good economy they inherited. 

Meanwhile dumbasses (mainly trolls) on this board think we should all be happy with a 2 percent increase in wages. Despite the ticking time bomb of out of control deficits. 

Am I missing anything? 

 

[this 107]

23 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I don't this is true for everyone. Define what you mean by "how hard you work".

He means 30-40 hours/week with high school or liberal arts college degree and still wants to see a doctor's compensation. Watch him avoid specifics, because as soon as you start talking in specifics he starts responding in one word answers.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Why the fuck is anybody engaging this shit? It’s not germane to the topic, it’s not substantial from either an economic policy or sociological standpoint, and it’s not a serious take on anything.

I don’t know who’s sock this is, but it’s worthless and doesn’t deserve engagement.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

We cannot continue penalizing(even more) the ones that do work hard for the ones that don't. In the AOC thread I did point out(with sources) how the bottom 50% only accounts for 2.75% of all the income tax generated while reeking in most of the benefit. Most of the ones that don't or can't cut it fall in this bucket. And by spending even more resources we invariably penalize the ones who make the right choices, right sacrifices and make good decisions. 

By the way, as much as I hate to engage, the above is one of those ludicrous statements that college sophomore YCTs make until they get out of college and real life whips their ass for the next 40 years.

 

Let me tell you something- speaking as a hard-working person who managed to put myself in a position to be relatively affluent- we are not “penalized”, and we have been getting a progressively better deal over the last 20 years while those in the middle have gotten squeezed, no matter how “hard they worked”.

 

Thanks for your concern, but the penalty you speak of is about as real as the war on Christmas. And if you are a real person you will find all this out in due time.

 

 

 

[this 107]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

By the way, as much as I hate to engage, the above is one of those ludicrous statements that college sophomore YCTs make until they get out of college and real life whips their ass for the next 40 years.

 

Let me tell you something- speaking as a hard-working person who managed to put myself in a position to be relatively affluent- we are not “penalized”, and we have been getting a progressively better deal over the last 20 years while those in the middle have gotten squeezed, no matter how “hard they worked”.

 

Thanks for your concern, but the penalty you speak of is about as real as the war on Christmas. And if you are a real person you will find all this out in due time.

 

 

 

Relatively affluent? Quantify that for me will ya? What was your average effective tax rate for the last 3 years? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Fart noise

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Fart noise

I thought so, now run along.