Bad Economic Predictions

For stuff that is general.
User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45390
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby Leisher » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:11 pm

TheCatt wrote:Source of the post Chinese delegation leaving early.

And probably not because they made a ton of progress quickly.


I heard it was because the farmers (they were scheduled to visit) wouldn't reveal all of their methods and secrets in exchange for being able to sell their wares to China. :D
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby Vince » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:34 pm

Heheh
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45390
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby Leisher » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:40 pm

“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:11 am

US Manufacturing not great. Maybe has something to do with tariffs, who could know?

A gauge of U.S. manufacturing from the Institute for Supply Management showed the sector contracted to the lowest level in more than 10 years in September.

The ISM U.S. manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index fell to 47.8% in September, the lowest since June 2009. Any reading below 50% signals a contraction. The reading is down from 49.1% in Augus
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:09 am

Payroll growth is slowing

Private payrolls rose by 135,000 in September, ahead of Dow Jones estimates for 125,000, according to ADP and Moody’s Analytics.
That brought the monthly average for 2019 down to 145,000, compared to 214,000 for the same period last year.
Education and health services saw the fastest growth with 42,000 positions. Trade, transportation and utilities was next with 28,000.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:13 am

3rd set of bad economic news this week. Service sector, while still growing, more sluggish than expected

The Institute for Supply Management said its reading on the U.S. services sector fell last month to its lowest level level since August 2016. The ISM nonmanufacturing index came in at 52.6 for September. Economists polled by Dow Jones expected a print of 55.3.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby Vince » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:10 pm

If Trump loses the economy, he'll have only his likability to run on next year.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:16 pm

Vince wrote:Source of the post If Trump loses the economy, he'll have only his likability to run on next year.

Image
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby Vince » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:22 pm

Exactly
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:33 am

Billionaires pay lower tax rate than workers in US

It finds that in 2018 the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400 families in the country was 23 per cent, a full percentage point lower than the 24.2 per cent rate paid by the bottom half of American households.

In 1980, by contrast, the 400 richest had an effective tax rate of 47 per cent. In 1960, their tax rate was as high as 56 per cent. The effective tax rate paid by the bottom 50 per cent, by contrast, has changed little over time.

If policies like these don't lead to the rise of progressives, I'd be stunned.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45390
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby Leisher » Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:11 pm

Yeah, I'm not down with Bernie's "tax the rich until they're poor" bullshit, but stuff like the rich paying at a lower rate needs to be fixed.
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:29 am

Image
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45390
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby Leisher » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:34 am

Is this because of all the loopholes that the rich can take advantage of or actual policy that allows them a lower tax rate?

Would a flat tax completely eliminate the difference in the tax rates?
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 46511
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby GORDON » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:36 am

1. I thought the bottom 50% of people in this country didn't pay any income taxes at all.

2. It feels dishonest talking about a tax rate when a millionaire could actually pay 6 figures in taxes, even if the "rate" is lower than a middle class person paying $10k. I can see the argument on both sides. I like Thib's idea, one dollar = one vote.

3. Whenever I see the title of this thread, I chuckle to myself, "Does he mean predictions that are dire, or predictions that are just way off?"
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:55 am

Leisher wrote:Source of the post Is this because of all the loopholes that the rich can take advantage of or actual policy that allows them a lower tax rate?

It is both. For example, I am partially self-employed.
1 - Policy allows me to deduct 20% of that income before I pay any taxes.
2 - If I incorporated into a S-corp and changed my tax elections (see many book-writing politicians, except Bernie, iirc), I could pay myself a "salary" and take the rest of the income as dividends to lower my taxes, especially self employment taxes.
3 - SocSec (payroll) taxes cap at $132k/yr in 2019. So everyone below that pays either 6.2% (W2 jobs) or 12.4% (self employed). Beyond $132k, they pay no SocSec payroll taxes (but still pay Medicare/Medicaid, 1.45/2.9%).
4 - I can put a LARGE amount of my income into tax sheltered accounts due to my 2 separate jobs (more than the median US income). Mitt Romney was able to turn thousands of dollars of a self-directed Roth IRA into > $30 Million by creative accounting that was entirely legal.
5 - Roth IRAs phase out based on income. But, you can just contribute to a traditional, but non-deductible IRA, then roll that into a Roth IRA immediately to get the exact same benefit.
6 - Capital gains and Dividend taxes are super low, relative to the past 60 years. Rich people have lots of $$$ in investments.
7 - Lowering the estate tax.
8 - Gift reporting is elective. My wife was a CPA and after she quit, she learned of clients that kept separate books to avoid this reporting.

GORDON wrote:Source of the post I thought the bottom 50% of people in this country didn't pay any income taxes at all.

The above is total tax burden. Federal, state, and local (so I assume including property taxes, payroll taxes, etc). And is averaged across the 50%.

GORDON wrote:Source of the post It feels dishonest talking about a tax rate when a millionaire could actually pay 6 figures in taxes, even if the "rate" is lower than a middle class person paying $10k.

I do not understand why that would be considered dishonest? I'm not exactly "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," but I see no reason the billionaire should be paying of a share of their income than the poors.

GORDON wrote:Source of the post "Does he mean predictions that are dire, or predictions that are just way off?"

The latter. :)
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 46511
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby GORDON » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:14 am

It's dishonest because the argument, and the charts that represent it, show the "rate" for the rich to be much lower. This feels manipulative, when an individual billionaire pays a magnitude more in taxes than an individual code monkey. But that particular bar chart wouldn't be anywhere near as manipulative.

Hey, I get it. I'm all for taxing the rich at 80%, because I've come around to the idea of "fuck them, pay me." But I have no illusions that as an individual, they're paying way more than their nebulous and completely undefined "fair share," compared to everyone else.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:30 am

GORDON wrote:Source of the post It's dishonest because the argument, and the charts that represent it, show the "rate" for the rich to be much lower. This feels manipulative, when an individual billionaire pays a magnitude more in taxes than an individual code monkey. But that particular bar chart wouldn't be anywhere near as manipulative.

Hey, I get it. I'm all for taxing the rich at 80%, because I've come around to the idea of "fuck them, pay me." But I have no illusions that as an individual, they're paying way more than their nebulous and completely undefined "fair share," compared to everyone else.

I honestly don't know anyone making this argument but you, so it's novel to me. So the tax burden of the rich should be lower, cuz the absolute amount is higher? Huh. I would say the floor is everyone paying the same percentage, but again, I think in terms of disposable income, $ needs for necessities, etc, that's not 'fair'. So I would still advocate for a progressive system like we've mostly have until very recently.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 46511
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby GORDON » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:40 am

Federal income tax started in... the 1930s? Back then it was seen as "punishing success" measure. The argument is valid.

I know I'm not the first to make this argument. As individuals, paying a mill in taxes does not give you any more rights as a citizen than if you make money on earned income credit. You don't get more votes, you don't (officially) get any special treatment by the government, there aren't any additional rights given by the income threshold in the constitution. On it's face.... it's pretty unfair that one person pays a shitload more than the other, with no official benefit.

But as I said, I get it. If they are still making $2mill that year even after paying $8mill in taxes, I think they'll live. Give me that money, because I want it. But that feels way beyond "fair share," and I wont pretend otherwise just because I benefit from it.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37643
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby TheCatt » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:57 am

GORDON wrote:Source of the post Federal income tax started in... the 1930s? Back then it was seen as "punishing success" measure

Civil War, to pay for the war, but it lapsed shortly after.

Then in the late 1800s we create an estate tax to pay for Spanish-American war.

1913 - 16th amendment allowed income tax after it was found unconstitutional in late 1800s.

Here's the basis of what we have today
The Revenue Act of 1916 began the practice of adjusting tax rates and income scales. The original income tax was 1% for the bottom bracket, which was comprised of income up to $20,000, and 7% for the top bracket which was comprised of income over $500,000. Revenue Act of 1916 raised the top bracket to $2,000,000 and raised the rate for the bottom bracket to 2% and the top bracket rate to 25%.


Image

Rates over time.

GORDON wrote:Source of the post As individuals, paying a mill in taxes does not give you any more rights as a citizen that if you make money on earned income credit. You don't get more votes, you don't (officially) get any special treatment by the government, there aren't any additional rights given by the income threshold in the constitution. On it's face.... it's pretty unfair that one person pays a shitload more than the other, with no official benefit.

The benefit is a society that allowed you to create that wealth. It's not happening in a vacuum. You benefited more from property rights + law enforcement than others. And have more property to keep protected.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 46511
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Bad Economic Predictions

Postby GORDON » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:59 am

Yes, Obama's "You didn't build that" argument. I get it. Still not sure I agree with the morality of it, on principle.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.


Return to “General Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests