What's new
By:
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.

Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Even the Usual Suspects aren't falling for it this time:

President Trump will unveil Wednesday a proposal to slash the corporate tax rate from 35 to 15 percent—a change that would balloon the federal deficit by an estimated $2 trillion dollars over a decade. The plan will reportedly include additional cuts to the income tax rate paid by high earners and a tax credit for child care that would mostly benefit the wealthy, at further cost to the federal budget.

While some Republican lawmakers cheerfully echoed to TPM the White House line that the tax cuts will “pay for themselves” by spurring massive economic growth, both official government analyses and conservative economists are much more skeptical.

“There’s no pure tax cut that pays for itself,” Alan Cole, an economist at the right-leaning Tax Foundation, told the Associated Press.

Len Burman, the co-founder of the Tax Policy Center think tank, characterized it as “wishful thinking.” Bruce Bartlett, an economist who advised the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, has likened these calculations to “using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize Republican ideology into the budget process.” George Callas, who serves as senior tax counsel to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), dismissed the framework as a “magic unicorn” whose main impact would be akin to “dropping cash out of helicopters on corporate headquarters.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I don't think there is. Purdue is not a diploma mill.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Purdon't is not, but a former arm of Kaplan (since sold off) has a history of being one. Plus, everyone ought to be suspicious of for-profit universities to begin with, even if they are accredited.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Well yes, but I am guessing Joe was trying to make fun of Purdue. Otherwise there's even less of a joke. Or I'm just very confused about the whole thing.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Well yes, but I am guessing Joe was trying to make fun of Purdue. Otherwise there's even less of a joke. Or I'm just very confused about the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Purdon't is a STEM school. STEM grads are needed to keep mills/machines running. Kaplan was/is a diploma mill.

Har har. Get it? :p
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

joecct said:
I believe in the days of the Titanic, economy was called "steerage".

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...ach-family-booted-Delta-flight-421258184.html
Click to expand...

Some of us still call it "steerage" from time to time. ;)

If the child's boarding pass says "Infant in Arms", that means you did not pay for another seat, so you're expected to hold the kid. While it's technically correct that they paid for the seat for their older son, it's also correct that since he took an earlier flight, and therefore was a "no show" at the gate for their flight, Delta was within their rights to cancel his reservation, and give someone else that seat. It's not overbooking, they just didn't want to hold the kid for 6 hours, to which I say "Tough".

EDIT: This is a lot like the United story that came out a week or two ago about the couple who tried to "upgrade" themselves to Econ+ on a flight that wasn't full, then whined when they were kicked off the aircraft.

There's a difference between the assault that happened to the doctor (or "Pee-gate", if you want a Delta example), and passengers who just want to bend the rules. Yes, flying in economy sucks, we all know it. Tough.
 
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Some of us still call it "steerage" from time to time. ;)

If the child's boarding pass says "Infant in Arms", that means you did not pay for another seat, so you're expected to hold the kid. While it's technically correct that they paid for the seat for their older son, it's also correct that since he took an earlier flight, and therefore was a "no show" at the gate for their flight, Delta was within their rights to cancel his reservation, and give someone else that seat. It's not overbooking, they just didn't want to hold the kid for 6 hours, to which I say "Tough".

EDIT: This is a lot like the United story that came out a week or two ago about the couple who tried to "upgrade" themselves to Econ+ on a flight that wasn't full, then whined when they were kicked off the aircraft.

There's a difference between the assault that happened to the doctor (or "Pee-gate", if you want a Delta example), and passengers who just want to bend the rules. Yes, flying in economy sucks, we all know it. Tough.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. If you pay for nosebleeds, you don't get to go sit in a box just because you spot an empty seat.

Edit: it's not clear from the article, though, if the teenager paid again for his earlier flight or if he changed his existing reservation. If the family paid for 5 total seats ( one on early flight, four on later flight), then I am confused as to what I think....
 
Last edited:
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

LynahFan said:
Agree 100%. If you pay for nosebleeds, you don't get to go sit in a box just because you spot an empty seat.
Click to expand...

Meh. By the third inning / takeoff, I think it's yours.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

joecct said:
Plus a small gratuity to the usher and it's usually not a problem.
Click to expand...

You obviously never went to Shea. They'd break your arm for trying to get to the lower deck.
 
Kepler said:
You obviously never went to Shea. They'd break your arm for trying to get to the lower deck.
Click to expand...

We had company box seats (mezzanine) at Yankee Stadium. Dad would buy box seats for Shea, though we sat in the RF nosebleeds for the 69 WS.

Memorial Stadium was very friendly to moving on up.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Kepler said:
Meh. By the third inning / takeoff, I think it's yours.
Click to expand...

Once you are in the air and the seatbelt sign is off, it is generally OK to switch seats, or move to another open seat, within the same class of service. I see it all the time when there's space in the exit rows.

That is obviously not what happened here.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

LynahFan said:
Agree 100%. If you pay for nosebleeds, you don't get to go sit in a box just because you spot an empty seat.

Edit: it's not clear from the article, though, if the teenager paid again for his earlier flight or if he changed his existing reservation. If the family paid for 5 total seats ( one on early flight, four on later flight), then I am confused as to what I think....
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be confusing at all. Airline tickets are non-transferable, period. You can't buy a ticket for your wife and then decide to give your mother the seat. If you want a seat for a passenger without a ticket, the only way to get it is to buy them a ticket.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

There was an interesting column recently in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on a subject Kepler has touched on, briefly, in some of his past posts. The idea that at some point technology will largely eliminate the idea of work, the need people will have for a guaranteed income, and how do we get there.

It won't happen in the decade, tops, I'll be getting up and heading off to the salt mine in the morning, but posters younger than me will have to struggle with this transition.

For those interested. http://www.startribune.com/lee-scha...is-it-time-for-a-guaranteed-income/421479323/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top