Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-25-2017, 04:51 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
People on the left continue to forget that corporations are owned by people. Millions of people have invested in corporations. When corporations succeed, so do millions of stock holders.

Outside of labor union members - government and private sector - working class workers (below middle class income) own very little stock.

Corporations have been unfairly demonized by liberals; they actually pay their employees at least reasonably well. Ironically, Comcast customers might need a price break more than their workers need a pay bonus because many of their employees earn more than many of their customers. Now THAT would be an interesting data set to see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-25-2017, 04:53 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I'm not opposed to taxation. Just make it a flat tax rate. That eliminates the problem the economist noted in my post.

How do you collect $5,000 tax from someone with $0 income? Your system sounds like either a race to zero taxes or indentured servitude to collect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 05:00 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, it would.

Example, with a 10% flat federal income tax rate:

A $50,000 earner pays $5,000

A $500,000 earner pays $50,000

The latter is still paying MUCH more than the latter, for the exact same access to federal government services/benefits.

I have NO idea WHY the left balks at higher income earners paying more than others. It makes NO sense whatsoever.

You get it. But just look at how that very basic and true mathematical concept escapes many math-challenged lefties.

Gotta laugh, but it's just like Obama infamously claiming that the cost of health insurance premiums would drop by 3,000%. The entire audience of dipsh*t Obamaphiles applauded, not realizing what Obama said was mathematically impossible. That's the left, and their base. /SMH

Since it's a lot easier for a $5,000 earner to live on $5,000 net than on $4,500 net, the $5,000 earner needs to be able to minimize cost of living by owning a tiny hovel instead of paying rent. You agree?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 05:06 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather View Post
Wrong. Veto proof first. Even if Dems win some seats from Reps, it will not be enough to overcome a guaranteed veto. Second, why would people vote against their economic interests? And, it is a quantifiable fact this bill benefits most.

The bill benefits most in the first year, without regard for dynamic effects.

When the dynamic effects of the bill - like necessarily skyrocketing rents - are considered, millions will become worse off than they were before the tax cuts.

If you are a homeowner, you may have failed to consider the upcoming rent increases due to Homeowner Tunnel Syndrome. Because homeowners and renters live in different economic worlds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 05:09 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"lol, people actually think prices they pay in the store will be lower now."

Speak for yourself.

I don't know of a single reasonable person who believes that.

Lower taxes SPURS the economy which increases demand and companies have to hire MORE to supply the demand.

The additional employment and spending INCREASES the revenues the gov't collects.

Which means rents will necessarily skyrocket when hundreds of billions of dollars pour into consumer pockets, PLUS newly-hired workers move out of mommy's basement or their brother's attic and rent their own pad.

Many low-wage workers will be worse off within 24 months, and the minimum wage protesters will be marching in 2020.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 05:19 PM
 
1,768 posts, read 715,334 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Which means rents will necessarily skyrocket when hundreds of billions of dollars pour into consumer pockets, PLUS newly-hired workers move out of mommy's basement or their brother's attic and rent their own pad.

Many low-wage workers will be worse off within 24 months, and the minimum wage protesters will be marching in 2020.
and are we just to assume that new supply will not come online to meet demand?
Vacancies were up in the third quarter year over year in all areas of the country, particularly the west coast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 05:21 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather View Post
Anyone who has any kind of retirement plan, 401K, PENSION, (public or private), self-funded will benefits. Even companies buying back some stock - which will happen - will benefit anyone in the forgoing. Unsupportable idiocy to contend otherwise. But, go ahead, step off the curb into on-coming traffic.

That pretty much excludes most low-wage workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 05:39 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skezo View Post
and are we just to assume that new supply will not come online to meet demand?
Vacancies were up in the third quarter year over year in all areas of the country, particularly the west coast.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is PRECISELY how housing works today in most of the country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ever heard of NIMBY or slow/smart/no-growth or ballot-box zoning?

It is getting harder and more time-consuming and more expensive to build new housing in this country.

Because homeowners have vested financial and lifestyle interests in opposing new housing in their neighborhoods, and come out of the woodwork to oppose (often successfully) new housing when it is proposed.

While new housing is coming online in many cities, it is almost exclusively affordable only to those with higher incomes. e.g. Where I live, zoning and land-use rules make 2/3 of the city off-limits to apartments, making land for new apartment development very expensive.

While lower-quality units will filter down as their occupants move up the housing chain, pent-up demand - think of the millions of millennials still living with parents - cannot be met in the foreseeable future. A complicating factor is that the slow pace of new development has led many landlords to renovate older units with huge rent increases - with all the new and renovated pricey units going online, how much low-rent housing will be left for the peons? i.e. increasing vacancy while stubborn rents don't fall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 05:46 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
State and local tax deduction limit is the loophole closed.

No honesty.

Also the "section 1031 like-kind exchange tax deferral" rule was tightened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 05:49 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,449,790 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Pew is as biased as the day is long.

look at their methodology.

522 repubs polled
769 Dem/ind polled

When you poll a LOT MORE dems and ind then repubs the "results" will ALWAYS be the same.

With the repubs controlling a large majority of state legislatures, the WH, the Senate and the House of Representative's , how in the world can you poll LESS repubs than others and claim to be unbiased?

Sorry, PEW has NO credibility.
"
The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

I believe those numbers are consonant with the country as a whole - independent voters are now a plurality in a growing number of states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top