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.
People who think fossil fuels is a dying industry are completly detached from reality. This isn't the 70's anymore. We have more oil/ng than we know what to do with. Prices are low since supply is so high. Every year we hear about another "largest oil field ever" found and technology is at a point where we can access most fields safely.
Fossil Fuels are a non-renewable energy source with a finite amount left on this planet. That is a pure 100% fact.
Oil may currently be affordable, but that doesn't change the 100% true fact that we will run out of it someday. Maybe not in 2017 - but sooner than we'd all like to admit (or - it'll get so expensive as it runs out that it'll basically hijack the entire world). On the scale of time that is human civilization, this is an imminent threat (within a generation), and we need to start planning for this now.
What is with this "it isn't the 70's anymore" comeback to this point? I've been told this numerous times when I'm debating this point, and it always makes me scratch my head...
Do you think this changes the debate? We still are relying on a finite resource - it will be gone. We should recognize this and plan for the future. Humans are, generally, terrible at this kind of stuff (especially once you start letting people make money off of the cheap and easy, but worse, options)...but maybe we can break the pattern here?
The best time to get off of a resource and onto a new technology is when that old technology is still cheap and readily available. Let's take advantage of the fact that oil is cheap by using it to fuel (pun) our collective innovative minds...and once we surpass the capabilities of the old technology, we move on the next one.
I mean, there's also the climate change angle here - our world's weather has been effected by our carbon output, so we should want to change that habit. But considering we have people in power now that don't actually believe in this science, I'm not confident that this argument will work on them. The finite resource part, should, though!
We still do have a great opportunity to get on the renewable energy bandwagon now. Lead by example, show the world that we are still a leader innovation and modern/state-of-the-art manufacturing. I hope Trump pushes for this...although I don't see it happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
The only was to truely get off of fossil fuels is to builds hundreds of nuclear power plants across the nation, for some reason people who think we should stop using fossil fuel thinks this is a bad idea. The techonolgy to do this is decades old. They can even build reactors that burn old spent fuel rods reducing the previous nuclear waste.
Nuclear is OK - I don't like that it generates so much waste, and there's a large security/safety risk with it...but I'd be fine if we built a few more plants.
The path for future energy isn't going to come from (and shouldn't come from) a single source - it'll be a mixture of currently-existing (but refined/improved) technologies that we have now, and some other yet-to-be-built renewable energy technology (perhaps discovered, developed, and manufactured in the "rust belt"??? Wouldn't that be awesome!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
The vast majority of manufacturing isnt done by robots, FYI.
Not yet - And if you look at how many jobs used to exist before automation vs. now, I bet you'd find a staggering number of jobs lost just to automation.
Over time, the need for human interactions in most factories will go away.
And there's still the issue of the cost of making things here vs. elsewhere. Even with tariffs, I don't see how it's feasible/easy to do. What company would willingly bring jobs back here considering the cost of manufacturing here and the lack of a large supply chain in the US (sort of a bad feedback loop...as more things move over to China/elsewhere, the less support manufacturing plants have here for their materials).
I'm also very skeptical that the average American consumer will want to pay American-made prices on most of their consumer goods. I personally would - because I think it's a good thing to do - but I'm not like most Americans in this regard, I bet.
You want to talk about the crisis that has happened with manufacturing leaving the country...what do you think will happen when the millions of truck drivers are obsolete? It's just a matter of time on this...
Unless, of course, we revolt and ban self-driving vehicles...which I don't see happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
His headline are already a positive, generally. It will be easy to top Obama with his hallmark bill of Obamacare that drove up costs and made a crappy health care and job market even worse.
If you're talking about the Carrier deal - I mean, that's good to see for those people. I think he needs to do something more systemic, though - handling these things on a case-by-case basis is not sustainable or really beneficial to the entire country as a whole (I also think it kind of sets a terrible precedent).
But, again - good for those people in IN - and I'm happy to see him at least thinking about people of this part of the country (that are mostly ignored). I just fear they will be let down by his VERY lofty promises...
Obamacare wasn't really that bad - I know you're intrinsically against it because it comes from the evil side - but just watch what Trump proposes. It will basically still be Obamacare...you think he's going to abandon all of the things people like about the ACA? Yeah, not going to happen. There will probably be some differences, but much of the current Obamacare will remain intact.
I look forward to see if there's any improvement, either way.
Healthcare costs rising isn't necesarilly being caused by ACA - after all, we've been having healthcare cost increases for a long time. There's also a debate on whether the ACA has actually caused healthcare costs to go up less than they might have in its absence. Again, it'll be interesting to see what happens after Trump's version is passed. I suspect healthcare costs will still go up (unless something drastic is done - something like mandating/restricting costs...which I don't see happening).
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 12-05-2016 at 04:13 PM..
I tried to answer the questions, but I'm also wondering if you're asking me personally about my situation or asking about a certain 'group'? I tried to respond by saying yes of course not every professional is unmarried, childless, and a homeowner but that there are tons who are especially in the SF area.
I'd say the professional/managerial class averages well above $100k/year in the bay area. That's hardly controversial.
It's also a much bigger percentage of people in the bay area than in other parts of the country. Also hardly controversial.
I also never said EVERYONE'S taxes will go up, that's absurd. The working class and the rich will do just fine.
Those with high property values (and thus taxes), and living in high tax places (like CA/NY/NJ) making a professional salary will feel the brunt of it, and I posted about it not just to 'whine' but to point out the fact that not everyone will be better off financially with the GOP's plan, a point which I think is not well known. The plan was supposed to get rid of a lot of loopholes and obscure carve-outs people use, but what it really does is punish groups that happen to be politically oppositional to the House GOP. I expected either the rates to be cut much more, or the standard deduction to be much higher.
Ambiguity, ambiguity, ambiguity
Ok, since you're continuing to dance, let's revisit all the claims you've made.
Your thread starts off with ...GOP tax plan will be deadly for "single" tech and professionals in the Bay Area
Then you change your tune in your 2nd post and say...childless singles or couples, especially in tech and that the common salary in $150k-200k.
So which is it? Single or Couples? Please make up your mind. The information on both is vastly different.
Are you talking about "professionals" as you claim, or are you only talking about people that work for technology companies?
Then you go on to say "I'd say the professional/managerial class averages well above $100k/year in the bay area".
So is it $150k-200k or is it now over $100k
You then go on to say..."I also never said EVERYONE'S taxes will go up, that's absurd. The working class and the rich will do just fine."
Define "working class and rich" (income levels please)
Seriously, you're all over the map. And then you say to "look up the averages"?!
HEADSLAP!
Yeah, I'd love to look it up if only I knew what you wanted looked up (since you can't seem to make up your mind). When you want to clarify what you actually mean, maybe someone can actually have a logical conversation with you. But since this is the 3rd time you've been asked for specificity, I'm going to assume your ambiguity is intentional and that the whole point of your post was just to be able to scream the "sky is falling" without having to have any accountability for your claim. What else can anyone think at this point?
But rather than continue to watch you dodge, I'll just make a few points.
-This is a single tax plan that has nothing to do with the President-elect's tax plan, so hard to imagine he would just accept it and throw his in the garbage can (that hardly seems logical to me)
-The complete elimination of the mortgage interest deduction has been talked amount numerous times in the past, and never come to fruition. Why that would happen now is beyond me. I think too many of these politicians fear their jobs, and know this would be controversial to say the least
-Based on city data's own numbers, the households that make over $150k are roughly 1 in 4 in San Francisco. Clearly single people would not be that high a percentage. Last I checked, technology jobs only accounted for 6-7% of the jobs in San Francisco. As for professionals, that category is all encompassing (not just technology jobs) and varied on income levels (many not earning as much as you claim). The median household income in San Francisco is $84k. In addition, the bigger question to ask is how many homes in San Francisco actually have the type of mortgage you claim that would cause itemized deductions to be so high? If you bought in 2000 or before, your home would have been purchased for $500k or less. Your mortgage interest would not be that high, nor would your property tax.
Again, no one can really thoroughly address your post because it's intentionally vague and misleading. But I would say on the surface, it seems to be much ado about nothing. I'm not going to waste any more time on it. Enjoy your vague discussion.
I tried to answer the questions, but I'm also wondering if you're asking me personally about my situation or asking about a certain 'group'? I tried to respond by saying yes of course not every professional is unmarried, childless, and a homeowner but that there are tons who are especially in the SF area.
I'd say the professional/managerial class averages well above $100k/year in the bay area. That's hardly controversial.
It's also a much bigger percentage of people in the bay area than in other parts of the country. Also hardly controversial.
I also never said EVERYONE'S taxes will go up, that's absurd. The working class and the rich will do just fine.
Those with high property values (and thus taxes), and living in high tax places (like CA/NY/NJ) making a professional salary will feel the brunt of it, and I posted about it not just to 'whine' but to point out the fact that not everyone will be better off financially with the GOP's plan, a point which I think is not well known. The plan was supposed to get rid of a lot of loopholes and obscure carve-outs people use, but what it really does is punish groups that happen to be politically oppositional to the House GOP. I expected either the rates to be cut much more, or the standard deduction to be much higher.
Ambiguity, ambiguity, ambiguity
Ok, since you're continuing to dance, let's revisit all the claims you've made.
Your thread starts off with ...GOP tax plan will be deadly for "single" tech and professionals in the Bay Area
Then you change your tune in your 2nd post and say...childless singles or couples, especially in tech and that the common salary in $150k-200k.
So which is it? Single or Couples? Please make up your mind. The information on both is vastly different.
Are you talking about "professionals" as you claim, or are you only talking about people that work for technology companies?
Then you go on to say "I'd say the professional/managerial class averages well above $100k/year in the bay area".
So is it $150k-200k or is it now over $100k
You then go on to say..."I also never said EVERYONE'S taxes will go up, that's absurd. The working class and the rich will do just fine."
Define "working class and rich" (income levels please)
Seriously, you're all over the map. And then you say to "look up the averages"?!
Yeah, I'd love to look it up if only I knew what you wanted looked up (since you can't seem to make up your mind). When you want to clarify what you actually mean, maybe someone can actually have a logical conversation with you. But since this is the 3rd time you've been asked for specificity, I'm going to assume your ambiguity is intentional and that the whole point of your post was just to be able to scream the "sky is falling" without having to have any accountability for your claim. What else can anyone think at this point?
But rather than continue to watch you dodge, I'll just make a few points.
-This is a single tax plan that has nothing to do with the President-elect's tax plan, so hard to imagine he would just accept it and throw his in the garbage can (that hardly seems logical to me)
-The complete elimination of the mortgage interest deduction has been talked amount numerous times in the past, and never come to fruition. Why that would happen now is beyond me. I think too many of these politicians fear their jobs, and know this would be controversial to say the least
-Based on city data's own numbers, the households that make over $150k are roughly 1 in 4 in San Francisco. Clearly single people would not be that high a percentage. Last I checked, technology jobs only accounted for 6-7% of the jobs in San Francisco. As for professionals, that category is all encompassing (not just technology jobs) and varied on income levels (many not earning as much as you claim). The median household income in San Francisco is $84k. In addition, the bigger question to ask is how many homes in San Francisco actually have the type of mortgage you claim that would cause itemized deductions to be so high? If you bought in 2000 or before, your home would have been purchased for $500k or less. Your mortgage interest would not be that high, nor would your property tax.
Again, no one can really thoroughly address your post because it's intentionally vague and misleading. But I would say on the surface, it seems to be much ado about nothing. I'm not going to waste any more time on it. Enjoy your vague discussion.
Last edited by Independentthinking; 12-05-2016 at 05:13 PM..
Again, no one can really thoroughly address your post because it's intentionally vague and misleading. But I would say on the surface, it seems to be much ado about nothing. I'm not going to waste any more time on it. Enjoy your vague discussion.
I don't have the exact statistics on all of the above you mentioned, so yes I'm speaking ambiguously.
I thought we could all agree that professional salaries in the bay area are usually well over $100k, e.g. $150-200k with all compensation considered.
You also brought up removal of mortgage interest. That's not what I said, or what I'm talking about. The plan does NOT get rid of that deduction. It gets rid of state income tax and property tax deductions.
Let's take a two-income couple making $150k each and who have a $1.5 million house (that's an ok home these days in SF). They are probably paying $25k+ in CA income tax and $17k+ in property taxes. Under this plan they'd lose $42k+ in deductions (possibly another $30k would be left standing from mortgage interest) While the standard deduction for the married filing jointly would be doubling to $24k under the plan, that's still less than the remaining deduction so yes they'd still be itemizing, and it probably means they owe $18k or so more in taxes if the plan were to pass as is.
As someone said, I've never seen a plan that soaks the upper middle class more. I guess that'll be the new hated group.
And yes, Trump's plan doesn't get rid of those deductions, but it's hard to see how congress will let Trump's plan pass when it will massively increase budget deficits beyond imagination. Their idea is that they need to get back the lost revenue somewhere - and that somewhere is from professionals in states like CA, NY, and NJ.
I don't have the exact statistics on all of the above you mentioned, so yes I'm speaking ambiguously.
I thought we could all agree that professional salaries in the bay area are usually well over $100k, e.g. $150-200k with all compensation considered.
You also brought up removal of mortgage interest. That's not what I said, or what I'm talking about. The plan does NOT get rid of that deduction. It gets rid of state income tax and property tax deductions.
Let's take a two-income couple making $150k each and who have a $1.5 million house (that's an ok home these days in SF). They are probably paying $25k+ in CA income tax and $17k+ in property taxes. Under this plan they'd lose $42k+ in deductions (possibly another $30k would be left standing from mortgage interest) While the standard deduction for the married filing jointly would be doubling to $24k under the plan, that's still less than the remaining deduction so yes they'd still be itemizing, and it probably means they owe $18k or so more in taxes if the plan were to pass as is.
As someone said, I've never seen a plan that soaks the upper middle class more. I guess that'll be the new hated group.
And yes, Trump's plan doesn't get rid of those deductions, but it's hard to see how congress will let Trump's plan pass when it will massively increase budget deficits beyond imagination. Their idea is that they need to get back the lost revenue somewhere - and that somewhere is from professionals in states like CA, NY, and NJ.
I did mention property tax deductions...
"the bigger question to ask is how many homes in San Francisco actually have the type of mortgage you claim that would cause itemized deductions to be so high? If you bought in 2000 or before, your home would have been purchased for $500k or less. Your mortgage interest would not be that high, nor would your property tax."
The Republicans have been winning on that issue because their professed hostility to illegal immigration appeals to the working class, while their failure to seriously address the issue supports their wealthy supporters. Republicans have, since 1967, done nothing to reduce illegal immigration.
I think it would be more accurate to say our federal government hasn't done anything serious to reduce illegal immigration rather than to point at a single party. Legislation must pass both houses, be signed into law, be funded (inexplicably, a separate set of legislation), be litigated in the federal courts possibly all the way to the SCOTUS, and then be implemented. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
Bush did not restrict HB-1 visas (and talk to the hundreds of unemployed 40+ year-old programmers who can no longer get jobs in Silicon Valley and then get back to me about how there's supposed to be such a shortage of programmers in the USA that the HB-1 visa program is needed).
Over the course of my career, I've probably hired 600 to 750 or so engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley, many with H-1B visas, and many 40+ age groups. Mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, materials scientists, industrial engineers, software engineers, electrical engineers, software EEs, firmware engineers, applications engineers, solid state physicists, even some patent attorneys with engineering undergraduate degrees. I've hired lots of new graduates from college or grad school with no substantive experience, and lots of experienced hires at the manager and director level. And a couple mathematicians along the way, and even an anthropologist. Lots of product marketing engineers.
So that is my perspective.
You talk about 40+ year old unemployed programmers. First, for clarity of nomenclature, I draw a distinction between a programmer and a software engineer. Sometimes it is a distinction without a difference, but for the most I don't hire programmers -- people who typically work in an IT department of a company writing custom applications to help run the business or to provide management reports. I hire software engineers who are much closer to the silicon - people who've written compilers, etc.
There is indeed a huge shortage of engineering talent in the Bay Area. The humorous observation is that any engineer who accidentally drives into the wrong parking lot finds she's not only hired but already behind in her deliverables. Any 40+ year old engineer without terminal flaws (felony convictions, alcoholism, substance abuse, etc etc) who has remained current can find a good job.
There is little question our legal-immigration program works to the benefit of skilled US employees.
... A common salary is around $150-200k with bonuses/etc taken into account... Meanwhile the actual wealthy...
One of the great difficulties the high tech industry has is to convince middle-Americans in fly-over country who make do with $40k household income that there is a distinction between "$150-200k" and "actual wealthy."
That's incorrect. You're thinking of Trump's plan. I'm talking about the House GOP plan. Removal of all deductions other than mortgage interest and charitable.
The primary purpose of many such plans is to generate campaign contributions for elected representatives. This was a very expensive campaign season, so elected representatives of both parties are eager to refill their coffers. The National Association of Realtors is a very powerful lobby (one of the most powerful in DC) and will be spreading lots and lots of moolah around Congress
I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that the mortgage interest deduction survives.
It was a terrible idea, and how long do you expect taxpayers to sit back quietly and watch their money handed out by the millions and then have companies leave anyway? If we are going to pick winners and losers, as Trump did,then why not help truly local small businesses, why throw good money after bad? This was not first taxpayer bailout that Carrier received. Look at the financial report for the parent company of Carrier, they aren't exactly going broke...UTC Reports Full Year 2015 Results, Affirms 2016 Outlook | News Center | News | United Technologies
"Dell closed a North Carolina plant in 2009 just five years after receiving millions in state tax incentives to open it. Production then moved to Mexico".The bad economics of Trump's Carrier deal
the Indiana Economic Development Corporation — which Pence leads — has approved $24 million in incentives to 10 companies that sent work to foreign countries. Of those incentives, nearly $8.7 million has been paid out so far. During that same period, those companies terminated or announced layoffs of more than 3,800 Hoosier workers while shifting production to other countries, where labor tends to be far less expensive. Under Mike Pence, Indiana gave incentives to companies that offshored jobs
"In Charlotte, outsourcing firm Cognizant was awarded $5 million in incentives in 2014 in return for an expansion that would add 150 workers in Charlotte and 350 elsewhere in the state. The New Jersey-based firm, one of the nation’s largest users of H-1B visas, submitted 2,593 initial H-1B applications in Charlotte in fiscal 2015. That’s the most of any company that applied for visas in Charlotte that year."Foreign worker loophole concerns some NC lawmakers - | WBTV Charlotte
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Office Depot is packing up its corporate bags and shipping out of the Sunshine State, but not before scoring millions in state and local taxpayer incentives. Just 14 months ago, Office Depot was awarded a state and local government incentive package worth $5 million — roughly $3 million from the state that has not been paid out, $1.5 million from the city of Boca Raton and $500,000 from Palm Beach County. Now, the company is all but gone. Millions in taxpayer incentives later, Office Depot leaving business-friendly Florida - Watchdog.org
There are literally hundreds of similar stories..and you think this is a good use of taxpayer money? geezus..
Please note that tax preferences are standard around the world. What is not reported is how much did Mexico promise Carrier to relocate there? It was a pretty penny.
Let's take Intel Corporation as an example. Israel paid Intel $350 Million in cash for Intel to expand a wafer fab in Israel. (Note: the USA gives north of $5 Billion cash to Israel, of which $350 Million immediately went to Intel), and followed up with all manner of tax benefits. China, Ireland, Israel, Costa Rica -- the list goes on -- each of those foreign countries correctly see major corporate entities as a springboard for economic development and they are willing to pay handsomely.
In contrast, in the USA corporations are seen as sources of campaign contributions (I always had to "voluntarily" donate $1K to Barbara Boxer in order to talk to her, and afterwards I always felt dirty). Corporations are seen as environmental villains. Heck, Vietnam offered to move a river for Intel, and Intel took them up on the offer. Can you imagine what might happen in the USA if a corporation wanted a river moved???
China grants US corporations a 10-year tax holiday, free electricity, free water, etc -- packages worth tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. The USA, for many decades, competes by throwing up red tape and restricting expansion because of traffic jams, hypothetical environmental impacts, etc.
One of the great difficulties the high tech industry has is to convince middle-Americans in fly-over country who make do with $40k household income that there is a distinction between "$150-200k" and "actual wealthy."
But one the best things they do is call out horsecrap for what it is. Especially when people try to make false claims like a $300k household is "typical" of one in San Francisco with a median of mid $80k or that a "typical" professional makes $150k. Not to mention that technology jobs account for only 1 in 8 of all jobs in SF (and many of the other non-tech jobs have "professionals"). But I understand, for people that work in the field, they think there is no other world.
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.
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.
