Trump calls for dramatic tax cuts for individuals and businesses

[Stoked]

More that they'll keep raising the age of retirement. I don't plan on working until I'm 6 feet under.

They are raising the "full" retirement age. You can still draw a check at 62. It's just reduced.

 

[colton]

Wow ok, so everyone over 65 currently gets social security? That's cool. Do you need to spend a certain amount of time in the country to get that or do you get it no matter what?


Like in NZ, you need to spend at least 6 months here in a year to be eligible.

Not sure about a minimum time. I do know the amount you receive depends on the number of years you worked, and how much you paid into the system. Also, the age at which you collect is gray... if you wait longer you can get a larger monthly payment. But at any rate it's not a large amount and anyone who has half a brain won't depend on it completely but rather will set up an additional retirement account on their own.

There is also a health insurance program for people over 65, called Medicare.

 

[Stoked]

Not sure about a minimum time. I do know the amount you receive depends on the number of years you worked, and how much you paid into the system. Also, the age at which you collect is gray... if you wait longer you can get a larger monthly payment. But at any rate it's not a large amount and anyone who has half a brain won't depend on it completely but rather will set up an additional retirement account on their own.

There is also a health insurance program for people over 65, called Medicare.

Someone needs 40 "quarters of coverage" (QCs). You can earn up to 4 a year and it takes about 1,400 to earn a QC. So roughly 10 years of work. Now there are always exceptions like drawing off a spouse or becoming disabled before age 22 and drawing from a retired parent for example.

As for Medicare, there are actually 3 ways to get it. Age 65, like you said, end stage renal disease (ESRD) or 24 months from your date of initial entitlement to Social Security Disability. Furthermore the SSI program is a needs based program and usually leads to Medicaid. There are scenarios where someone will qualify for both and end up with Medicare and Medicaid. At which point people can possibly qualify for a program called QMB. That is where Medicaid (the state) pays the Medicare part B premium ($134 this year).

Also, it was never intended to be someone's sole form of retirement income. Those that rely on it solely are indeed foolish.

 

[The Midnight]

Not sure about a minimum time. I do know the amount you receive depends on the number of years you worked, and how much you paid into the system. Also, the age at which you collect is gray... if you wait longer you can get a larger monthly payment. But at any rate it's not a large amount and anyone who has half a brain won't depend on it completely but rather will set up an additional retirement account on their own.

There is also a health insurance program for people over 65, called Medicare.

I see. That sounds quite a bit different to the system here then. More or less once you hit 65 everyone under the sun gets pension irregardless of income, how much you've worked, etc. But you do need to be here at least 6 months of the year to be entitled to it. It is a decent amount so it is enough to live on. This probably needs to change soon though, not sure we can afford it much longer going foward.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

This policy I guess really relies on the 'trickle down' economics, whereby the rich gets a tax cut and spends more money and hopefully that benefits those who make less.


The problem to me is the rich sometimes don't spend nearly as much as the poor (they tend to save and invest instead). It's the less well off that tends to spend almost all of what they earn.


Tax cut to businesses is a nice to have, but how much of those are going into hiring more staff and expanding, and how much of those are going into owner's pockets? As a business owner if you get a tax cut do you hire the extra staff straight away, or do you use it to pay down your home mortgage?

There's hope for you yet. Tax cuts for small businesses are fine. Tax cuts for big business is why anyone in the middle class voting republican is a sucker, and it's been that way for a while now. The republican party has been fooling people into voting against their own interests for years. Not that dems haven't become corrupt over recent years, but trickle down economics have always been the emperor's new clothes, and yet dedicated republicans are still swearing he's wearing the finest silk. oi

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Apparently this tax plan really benefits Trump himself, as he is removing the stuff that he's had to pay.

Don't kid yourself. There's a reason why he doesn't release his tax returns. Dude has been paying less taxes than working folks like you and me for as long as he's had a social security card.

Trump cutting taxes on the rich is about helping his rich buddies, who in turn, return the favor in one way or another. It's the most disgusting display of fat, white guys scratching each other's backs until they are both buried in piles of cash.

'Murica!

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

How the heck did you get your 30% figure?

Don't ask questions when you know you don't want to know the answer.

<what's that smell?>

 

[Harambe]

First SS payouts aren't going away. It would be political suicide. The Republicans would cease to exist as a political party if they did that.

2 Payroll taxes are a tax on the workforce. The whole reason why SS is funded this way is so that the rich would be ensured that they wouldn't end up paying for the program. So No I don't think it's a capitalist dream.

I see a lot of think.. not a lot of running through the actual numbers. I can appreciate a lot of think, but I need a little more to be convinced.

What's the model looking like?

 

[LogGrad98]

Don't ask questions when you know you don't want to know the answer.

<what's that smell?>

Does this mean the 30% number is just pulled out of a random ***?

Just followed that up. The answer appears to be yes.

 

[moevillini]

interesting this entire discussion on Social Security and retirement from just two months ago...

at any rate, this seems to make some sense to me - Don't Underestimate Trump

(possibly subtitled - Don't OVERESTIMATE American Intelligence)

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/05/02/berkeley-author-george-lakoff-says-dont-underestimate-trump/

...And over time, complexes of neural circuits create a frame through which we view the world. “The problem is, that frame is unconscious,” (George) Lakoff said. “You aren’t aware of it because you don’t have access to your neural circuits.” So what happens when you hear facts that don’t fit in your worldview is that you can’t process them: you might ignore them, or reject or attack them, or literally not hear them.

This theory explains why even college-educated Trump voters could ignore so many facts about their candidate. And it also explains why progressives have been ignoring Lakoff’s findings for more than two decades. Progressives are still living in the world of Descartes and the Enlightenment, Lakoff said, a neat world governed by the rules of logic. Descartes said, “I think therefore I am,” but Lakoff claims that we are embodied beings and that 98 percent of thought is unconscious.

Our thoughts are chemical in nature, and occur within the confines of a physical body: we are not 100 percent rational beings.

So if you are going to craft a message that can reach people who disagree with you, you have to understand their subconscious worldview. Lakoff calls this worldview a “frame,” and claims that Republicans have done a much better job with framing over the past 30 or 40 years. Republicans understand the narrative that governs many people in this country, and they target their message directly to that worldview. Democrats, on the other hand, ignore the worldview and focus instead on rationality, facts and policies.

“What George (Lakoff) has done is tie the question of political belief to cognitive science,” said Lawrence Rosenthal, chair and lead researcher of the UC Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies. “He understands that the way to get at people’s political opinions is by talking about values, rather than specific arguments about specific issues. He believes conservatives are much better at this than liberals and have been for a very long time. They have a much better track record of crafting political appeals by way of the appropriate value statements for their audience.”

The reason Democrats have such a hard time with Lakoff’s message, Rosenthal said, “is because George is going up against something very deep-rooted, something that goes back to the Enlightenment. He would argue that the Enlightenment approach to political persuasion was never appropriate… Every time I hear a political candidate say the word ‘percent,’ I think of ‘Oh God, they haven’t read George’.”

Lakoff gave a talk recently at the Center for Right-Wing Studies and pointed out that students who become Democratic operatives tend to study political studies and statistics and demographics in college. “Students who lean Republican study marketing. “And that’s his point,” Rosenthal said. “It’s a very different way of thinking.”

Lakoff’s core finding revolves around the metaphor of family. He claims there are two core beliefs about the role of families in society, and the belief one holds determines whether one is conservative or liberal. Moderates are people in the middle who are able to hold some ideas from both sides, and being able to understand and persuade them is crucial to winning any election.

it's pretty interesting - simplistic in some regards, but seems to fit an overall pattern

 

[The Thriller]

interesting this entire discussion on Social Security and retirement from just two months ago...

at any rate, this seems to make some sense to me - Don't Underestimate Trump

(possibly subtitled - Don't OVERESTIMATE American Intelligence)

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/05/02/berkeley-author-george-lakoff-says-dont-underestimate-trump/





it's pretty interesting - simplistic in some regards, but seems to fit an overall pattern

Saw this posted by Robert Reich on Facebook today and thought it to be a fascinating read.

That's one of the majo problems with liberals/democrats today. They aren't a unified party and think too much. Facts and discussion get in the way of action. They don't have the support structure like republicans do. Sorry, but Bill Maher and MSNBC aren't Michael savage, rush Limbaugh, Sean hannity, The Blaze, Fox News, Brietbart, Heritage, Cato, or Americans for prosperity. As demonized as George Soros is, he's nothing compared to the power and influence of he Kochs, Adamsons, Falwells, or James Dobsons.

Unlike regressives/republicans today, who'll gladly put facts, grandma, or country away to serve party. I mean seriously, how many senate repubs know that Trumpcare is a lemon that merely serves the likes of the kochs and trumps at the expense of the most vulnerable but will go along with it because of party?

The GOP has a simple unified narrative and goal. It is clear, reactionary, and highly effective at soliciting emotional responses. Even college educated people will forget how to critically think and go along with the fact free regressive narrative.

It is well structured by am radio, Fox News, and well funded by organizations like Heritage and Americans for Prosperity. Democrats? Don't have that.

Even if trump is impeached and even if democrats retake the congress in the next few years, the brainwashed masses who voted for trump aren't going anywhere. This regressive fascist movement won't die until its supporting structure is abolished. That won't happen as long as the Kochs, Limbaugh, or Fox News is still around.

 

[The Midnight]

Saw this on twitter today... LOL ...

 

[DutchJazzer]

lol the swamp is fighting tax cuts

 

[The Thriller]

I’m reading that th we cuts will add $1.5-$1.7 trillion to the national debt over a decade. And that some in the middle class will actually see their taxes increase. 80 percent of the tax cut will go to The top 1 percent. This isn’t a tax cut. It’s redistribution of wealth to those who already have an abundance.

No Thanks.

 

[franklin]

There's hope for you yet. Tax cuts for small businesses are fine. Tax cuts for big business is why anyone in the middle class voting republican is a sucker, and it's been that way for a while now. The republican party has been fooling people into voting against their own interests for years. Not that dems haven't become corrupt over recent years, but trickle down economics have always been the emperor's new clothes, and yet dedicated republicans are still swearing he's wearing the finest silk. oi

Anytime I hear or read anyone using the term "trickle down" in a derogatory manner I instantly write them of off as illiterate in economics, and thus not having an opinion worth reading.

There is undoubtedly an environment where trickle down is the correct prescription, if done right. At full employment and virtually no inflation, this is definitely not that environment.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I’m reading that th we cuts will add $1.5-$1.7 trillion to the national debt over a decade. And that some in the middle class will actually see their taxes increase. 80 percent of the tax cut will go to The top 1 percent. This isn’t a tax cut. It’s redistribution of wealth to those who already have an abundance.

No Thanks.

so you are only ok with redistribution of wealth if it goes your way!

i am not ok with any kind of redistribution at gunpoint!

 

[LogGrad98]

Anytime I hear or read anyone using the term "trickle down" in a derogatory manner I instantly write them of off as illiterate in economics, and thus not having an opinion worth reading.

There is undoubtedly an environment where trickle down is the correct prescription, if done right. At full employment and virtually no inflation, this is definitely not that environment.

You should know the internet well enough by now to realize that everything is either GOOD, or EVIL. Context and degrees are imaginary concepts, like unicorns and eskimos.

 

[NAOS]

Anytime I hear or read anyone using the term "trickle down" in a derogatory manner I instantly write them of off as illiterate in economics, and thus not having an opinion worth reading.

There is undoubtedly an environment where trickle down is the correct prescription, if done right. At full employment and virtually no inflation, this is definitely not that environment.

I like this post because it disarms some boilerplate nonsense. But your perspective isn't without its own problematic assumptions like, e.g., the ameliorative power of innovation, pick-your-teleology-of-growth (all of which are univocal about growth being good), and lower prices are good, period (when really there's no such thing as a free meal). And, it immediately opens up problems of macroeconomic management that tips power away from local rule.

But, yeah, I definitely agree that this isn't the right environment for any version of 'trickle down'.

BTW, [MENTION=2530]♪alt13[/MENTION] killing it in this thread, imo.

 

[Harambe]

Anytime I hear or read anyone using the term "trickle down" in a derogatory manner I instantly write them of off as illiterate in economics, and thus not having an opinion worth reading.

There is undoubtedly an environment where trickle down is the correct prescription, if done right. At full employment and virtually no inflation, this is definitely not that environment.

All medicines are used for something. Some used for many. Do you think it's an metformin, or a Methotrexate?

--Happily from your ignore list
Harambe

 

[franklin]

I like this post because it disarms some boilerplate nonsense. But your perspective isn't without its own problematic assumptions like, e.g., the ameliorative power of innovation, pick-your-teleology-of-growth (all of which are univocal about growth being good), and lower prices are good, period (when really there's no such thing as a free meal). And, it immediately opens up problems of macroeconomic management that tips power away from local rule.

But, yeah, I definitely agree that this isn't the right environment for any version of 'trickle down'.

BTW, [MENTION=2530]♪alt13[/MENTION] killing it in this thread, imo.

What you and [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] write about this aren't lost on me but I'm more of a one day at a time type (shout out to Ty Corbin). I don't worry much about stagnation or stalled growth and think the world will figure that problem out if/when it comes. I think we'll adjust one way or another, as we always have.

The biggest futuristic concern I have is running out of potash mines and no longer being able to feed billions of people. This will be an issue within 100 years, and if we don't find an alternative (vs. the old tradition of refining wood ash) then we won't be able to feed 90% of the globe.