What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 8: Bezos Takes Over the World

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 8: Bezos Takes Over the World

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Excuse me I was told that the tax cuts would unleash a torrent of investment. <a href="https://t.co/oDoqSBpKIY">https://t.co/oDoqSBpKIY</a></p>— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) <a href="https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1204095538423115776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 8: Bezos Takes Over the World

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Excuse me I was told that the tax cuts would unleash a torrent of investment. <a href="https://t.co/oDoqSBpKIY">https://t.co/oDoqSBpKIY</a></p>— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) <a href="https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1204095538423115776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

2017 is not 2020. this drezner is a stupid
 
Re: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 8: Bezos Takes Over the World

Democrats seem to be pushing the SALT cap repeal in 2020. Here's my question. Who does it hurt the most?

Is a SALT cap repeal regressive? Seems like studies (and common sense) show that a repeal would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. On the other hand, it was a clear attack on the high-tax blue states. So what should the push be? Help the states but benefit the rich disproportionately?

I know this isn't an entirely binary decision here. We should push to remove the cap and raise taxes on the rich. But that's almost out of the question with the GOP in control of the Senate and White House.

Edit: I suppose, RTFM, dummy.

https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily...ossible-in-house-before-end-of-year-democrats

"The bill would be paid for by raising the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 37%..."

There's also this:
"One option would be to raise the cap to $15,000 or $20,000 for three years, Pascrell said. The measure will also fix the SALT marriage penalty, he said. Under the law, a single person is subject to the same deduction cap as a married couple, while unmarried couples filing separately can each deduct up to $10,000. "

WHich should be fixed regardless. How ****ing stupid is that? Just bad law.
 
Last edited:
Re: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 8: Bezos Takes Over the World

Democrats seem to be pushing the SALT cap repeal in 2020. Here's my question. Who does it hurt the most?

Is a SALT cap repeal regressive? Seems like studies (and common sense) show that a repeal would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. On the other hand, it was a clear attack on the high-tax blue states. So what should the push be? Help the states but benefit the rich disproportionately?

I know this isn't an entirely binary decision here. We should push to remove the cap and raise taxes on the rich. But that's almost out of the question with the GOP in control of the Senate and White House.

Edit: I suppose, RTFM, dummy.

https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily...ossible-in-house-before-end-of-year-democrats

"The bill would be paid for by raising the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 37%..."

There's also this:
"One option would be to raise the cap to $15,000 or $20,000 for three years, Pascrell said. The measure will also fix the SALT marriage penalty, he said. Under the law, a single person is subject to the same deduction cap as a married couple, while unmarried couples filing separately can each deduct up to $10,000. "

WHich should be fixed regardless. How ****ing stupid is that? Just bad law.

The entire tax code is bad law. It needs to be torn all the way down and brought back up again. Snowballs have better chances surviving in hell.
 
Re: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 8: Bezos Takes Over the World

As a non wealthy person in a blue state, yes SALT should be fixed. Don’t punish me for not wanting to live in a red state hellhole
 
Re: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 8: Bezos Takes Over the World

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump’s China deal:<br><br>China agrees to buy $50b of ag products next year.<br><br>That's a gain of $29b from before Trump tariffs.<br><br>Trump tariffs have cost US farmers $11b. <br><br>U.S. taxpayers have spent $28b on emergency payouts to farmers.<br><br>So loss to US is $39b.<br><br>You do the math.</p>— Robert Reich (@RBReich) <a href="https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1205528959267401728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 8: Bezos Takes Over the World

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump’s China deal:<br><br>China agrees to buy $50b of ag products next year.<br><br>That's a gain of $29b from before Trump tariffs.<br><br>Trump tariffs have cost US farmers $11b. <br><br>U.S. taxpayers have spent $28b on emergency payouts to farmers.<br><br>So loss to US is $39b.<br><br>You do the math.</p>— Robert Reich (@RBReich) <a href="https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1205528959267401728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"Trade wars are easy to win."
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump’s China deal:<br><br>China agrees to buy $50b of ag products next year.<br><br>That's a gain of $29b from before Trump tariffs.<br><br>Trump tariffs have cost US farmers $11b. <br><br>U.S. taxpayers have spent $28b on emergency payouts to farmers.<br><br>So loss to US is $39b.<br><br>You do the math.</p>— Robert Reich (@RBReich) <a href="https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1205528959267401728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Ummmm. Did he just add 28&11 there? That math doesn’t make sense
 
Ummmm. Did he just add 28&11 there? That math doesn’t make sense

We've lost 39 billion in lost revenue to farmers, and paying them taxpayer money to compensate.

Trump's new trade deal increases(maybe) our sales to China by 29 billion.

Still 10 billion in the hole. Trade wars are easy to win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top