It's so weird that she got credit both for proposing it and capitalizing on it, then!

And I never said the Ivanka situation was "way worse" - I just heard for aaaaaaaages before the election about the corrupt Clintons and the pay for play with their charity, which was really just a bunch of conspiratorial allegations, and now we see the Trumps engaging in the very same shady looking arrangements with the very same nations he previously criticized. Trump said Hillary's foundation should not have taken money from oppressive ME regimes, straight up, and now look what they're doing - Trump is heaping praise upon them, Ivanka is soliciting donations for the World Bank! It's beautiful to watch everything the right thought they were getting (from someone they thought wasn't a normal politician) get destroyed.

I'm saying that monetary incentive isn't linear. If you took a poor person working 2 full time 8/hr jobs and offered them the choice of:

1 full time 50/hr job or

2 full time 50/hr jobs

most would take the one job.

When you give people things it takes away from their incentive. That's a principle conservatives seem to be able to get behind in all cases except when it comes to the rich.

Generally speaking, it might be true that as long as it holds that there is a positive relationship between incentive and reward, lowering the reward increases effort. If we take money away from the rich but still maintain a system featuring a decent relationship between aggressive investing and returns, we could, at least from one angle, optimize their positive contribution to our economy. Of course, we can't let them just set up shop in another country to readjust the scale. We need to reverse that.

Major terror attack in England with the terror threat level at it's highest point. Yet, CNNs spotlight is on the Trump investigation. What is wrong with you people?

Can't have 24-7 terror coverage. Gives the terrorist what they want. Sorry, daddy did some bad thing with russia and is going to get impeached.

So you know this for sure, do you dude?

Betting lines seem to peg it around even money.

The first part is not debatable. The second is, but I'm more optimistic than most. Yes I know we are dealing with GOP who has shown no willingness to stand up to trump. trump is acting more guilty every day.

If I were a better man, and I am, I wouldn't put on the guy who invited the Russians to Oval Office, gave them classified Intel, and told them hes glad he fired the nutjob FBI director and now the pressure is off him.

False tell imo.

The actually numbers don't matter. There were for illustrative purposes. The point is that increases in sales leads to increases in the work force.

Complaining about how employers have the upper hand currently in the low skilled labor market to me? You are preaching to the choir my friend. I am as excited as you are that we have a president that isn't going to intentionally slow down the economy to help employers increase their negotiation power anymore.

No, not every society believes that. Many societies believe that taking some from the rich to give to the poor is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean they are right or it is good for economic growth. In fact I challenge you to find an economist who believes taking more than we currently are from the rich will benefit society or the economy long term.

I fail to see how lowering a reward increases peoples efforts to get such reward no matter if they are rich or poor.

What is the plan when rich people/ companies continue to move to other countries w/ lower taxes? (I don't expect you to have an answer as obama didn't either.)

It's highly unlikely Trump will get impeached.

I'm in a win win situation. Either Trump doesn't get impeached or he does and Pence takes over which would be far worse for you people. I just rewatched the election night. I so love the devastated looks on the llibs faces. It gives me the chills.

The left is rooting for Trump to get impeached. The left is not intelligent enough to realize that it's better to keep him in office and hope he continues with his low approval rating. The only chance the Dems have of winning in 2020 is against Trump. This may not even happen if Trump follows through with the wall, tax reform, immigration reform etc.

Basically it's lose lose for you!

The level of cynicism in this is astounding.

Isn't it possible that some of these people care about things other than the next election? If Trump is the dangerous idiot that the left thinks he is, shouldn't they desperately want to get him out of office even if it means being hurt in 2020?

Nope! It's all about getting back into power. They've been trying to sabotage Trump since before he took office. They want Trump to screw up. They would prefer for things to go bad for our country so they get back into power.

They have been trying to remove him from office because they see him as legitimately mentally unfit to be president.

The problem isn't ideological like it is with Pence and it's not like they think he is just "dumb" in the way that they thought Bush was. They view trump as having serious mental deficiencies which makes it an unacceptable liability to have him remain in office.

If you offered liberals the option between Pence for the next 7 years or for Trump to finish out his term and they would be guaranteed a democrat in the White House for the next 4 years, the majority would snap accept Pence. (As terrible as they also think that he is)

If you follow the conversation back a few posts, that wasn't at all the point.

"What can a rich person do with his money if she is given a tax break that will not benefit the economy and therefore help the economy? "

My answer was consumption and i explained why only a fraction of consumption 'trickles down'. The jobs aren't worth anything close to the cost of producing luxury goods.

Clearly not anything close to what i said, has nothing to do with the discussion, and sounds like what you're suggesting isn't even internally consistent.

a) Can you name ONE modern country that doesn't have a social safety net?

b) You won't find consensus from economists about what marginal income tax rates should be, partly because they disagree about data/estimates, but also because wrapped into that is dissent over HOW we should tax. What you would find in most cases they support lowering income taxes and significantly raising consumption taxes. The issue of how progressive you want these things to be holistically is a separate issue entirely.

Even still, if you want an example, there's the obvious choice of peter diamond (nobel prize winner in econ) and emmanuel saez who came up with rough estimates of what they thought the optimal top tax bracket should be given how the system currently works. A lot of people have written critiques estimating that it should be higher than it is now, but still lower than their estimate. And plenty of others are against any form of progressive tax whatsoever.

I don't know how you would have gotten the idea that there's broad consensus on the issue.

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/st...27806413811712

mongidig truly doing the Lords work here today.

Why do you believe a poor person consuming the extra money is better for economic growth than a rich person using some on consumption but also some on sitting money at the bank, hiring someone else, investing in a small business or loaning the money out?

No, not with doing some research and even then I don't think I'll find one.

I agree there won't be a consensus on the effects a tax cut will have just like there isn't a consensus on the effects of us going green on different projects will have. However, you won't find many who believe raising taxes higher and giving more money to the poor will help the economy grow. That isn't to say no safety net is best either.

I read a paragraph that diamond wrote about a top rate of 73%, but it just said that he thought that was the optimal number to maximize tax receipts. Unless I see where he said otherwise I don't think he believes a 73% top rate is optimal in any economy for growing the economy or what is best for society the economy long-term. I'm not sure if he is dumb, trying to get attention/gets funding from liberals and this is a good way to increase that funding or he is just misunderstood.

Lol no, how am I supposed to find your thesis on why Trump won using the search function? The keywords I would use for that will turn up a massive amount of posts.

I don't really care if you answer all my questions but if you have a grand thesis on Trump's election please share it.

Yes, and it isn't close.

That's insane.

I think religion is irrational, and while I have no problem with people practicing it in their personal lives I do not want it informing the policies of my government.

Yes, I support impeachment. I think there are any number of crimes that you could use to impeach him (obstruction of justice being the most obvious) but I don't even particularly care if he's committed it or not. I just think he is dangerously incompetent and I want him out of office. I would prefer his cabinet just removed him for being unfit for office. Would you support that?

I would like to see healthcare as an entitlement and eventually a universal basic income. I don't think the work = living system is sustainable in a the long run unless a lot of people start doing a lot of pointless busy work, and you would need the government to pay for that as well.

All, but if I had to rank them I'd say:
1. Ignorant
2. Fearful
3. Hateful
4. Unintelligent

This is insane. Maybe the outcome with Hillary would've been similar in some very limited aspects but Hillary >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>> Trump.

No, see, this is ldo not the correct question. The dollar is not being created from nothing, and the question to ask is

Will giving the dollar to the rich person help the economy more than giving it to the government?

Like, obviously if the choice is just give the dollar to the rich person vs. light the dollar on fire, then we should give it to the rich person.

I mean, it's fairly obvious that this will happen in some cases. If you raise my hourly wage to $1 billion per hour, do you think I will work more or less for the rest of my life than I would at my current wage?

Not following this.. how does wealth inequality cause low interest rates?

As usual this is practically in "not even wrong" territory but, um, the statement "To date the avg. rich person has helped the economy more than the avg. poor person" implies that a unit of time is better in the hands of a rich person vs. a poor person, not a unit of money. The money the rich person has is money that has been extracted from the economy as compensation for the value they've created

Because consumer spending drives economic growth.


Right, it doesn't mean they, as a person aren't helping the economy but it does mean that all of that money they aren't spending is having a lower impact on economic growth than it would if it were in the hands of someone who was spending it.

Well, there would be less crime for one.

In the bank.

Again, ldo, the money doesn't "hurt" the economy when it is stashed in the bank, it just helps it less than it would if it were spent.


Yes, at some boundary points. Like, in any coherent theory of how much people will work given a certain hourly reward, there is going to be a sizable middle portion where work increases with hourly reward, as you would expect.

But!

There are, and this is fairly obvious imo, going to be regions on the far left (i.e. extremely low hourly rate) and far right (extremely high hourly rate) of this graph where work decreases with increasing hourly reward.

Yeah, dude, this is an argument against all of the other things you said. Like, yes, this is why we want dollars in the hands of people who will spend them!

Lol, you literally think removing minimum wage laws decreases the negotiating leverage of employers.

CBO finally scores Trumpcare, they think it would cause 23 million people to lose health insurance in the next 10 years. lol Trump, lol "we're gonna cover everyone", lol campaign promises

I'd imagine something like 12-13 million of those people are in states Trump won.

Us Patriots shouldn't have to pay for you people treat your liberalism. No Siree Bob.