Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[thedukeofearl]

How the US is destroying young people's future

In a scorching talk, marketing professor and podcaster Scott Galloway dissects the data showing that, by many measures, young people in the US are worse off financially than ever before. He unpacks the root causes and effects of this "great intergenerational theft," asking why we let it continue...

www.ted.com

High cost of living prices perhaps are a bit bothersome and responsible

Wages do not reflect the rising prices

Owning a home these days is beyond the reach of the average person

Of course, the billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank and beyond

 

[thedukeofearl]

We Are Entering the $40 for a Six-Pack of Corona Era of American History​

The threatened tariffs would affect large swaths of U.S. trade. Goods valued at more than $1.5 trillion move among the three North American nations, while the United States and China exchange about $600 billion worth. U.S. imports from Mexico include cars, machinery, electrical equipment, food and beer. Canada supplies oil and gas, machinery and parts and much else. The United States relies on China for electronics, particularly phones, along with toys, furniture and plastics. Economists warn that tariffs could affect grocery prices, which were a key election issue. Mexico supplied more than half of U.S. fresh fruit imports in 2022, according to the Agriculture Department.

The above is from my favorite political writer: Charles P Pierce

Drug Cartels will Not be affected by proposed Taffifs, but the cost of living will rise for certain

There will still be plenty of Fentanyl go around

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Regarding the estate tax, I would say that the issue is a bit more nuanced than a simple tax or no tax.

IMHO, the "Estate" should include the deceased and any nuclear family components, therefore (unless otherwise laid out in the will), moneys that go to spouse and/or children should be treated as if they were going to the deceased before he/she died. Much like liquidating an LLC, any "gains" should be taxed at the applicable capital gains rate, but money that already has been taxed should be left alone.

Same with giving your spouse a gift. IIRC, the IRS stipulates that a one-time gift up to a certain amount is not considered "income," but outside of that, any money or gifts above a certain value are considered taxable income. This is classic government overreach and over-taxation, and flies directly in the face of the "community property" definitions as applied to divorce settlements ("What's mine is yours...").

Regarding tariffs, as with the IRS and taxes, I'm certainly no expert, but I find the whole debate interesting.

Economists have a tendency to crunch numbers without taking into account variables - for example, cutting taxes results in "X" amount of lost revenue compared to "Y" amount of spending, resulting in a net financial impact.

Historically, however, administrations that cut taxes often triggered increased government revenue due to an expanding tax base (diminished tax burdens resulting in increased job growth and increased individual spending - ergo, increased number of people paying taxes and increased gains from sales taxes). Calculating lost revenue strictly by Xs and Os can be misleading. The Kennedy and Reagan administrations both cut income taxes, and tax revenues went up, not down. The problem is that our elected officials can't resist the temptation to concomitantly increase spending as well...

Yes, certainly in the short term, it would appear that tariffs would have a significant negative impact on consumer prices, essentially acting as a "tax." However, what if a short-term pain turns into a long-term gain? Both China and Mexico have a lot to lose if they play hardball and don't acquiesce. If tariffs force countries to stop currency manipulation, techo theft, undercutting prices by utilizing slave labor, etc., the end result of leveraging those tariffs could very well pay off big in the future, especially for an American labor force that isn't given a level playing field.

Also, we need to keep in mind that many of the goods (not all certainly) can be obtained at least temporarily from other countries with fairer trade practices, i.e., Taiwan, Korea, The Netherlands, Singapore and the Norwegian countries. Ramping up trade agreements with other countries, while working on regaining energy independence would put tremendous pressure on our current trade partners, China in particular.

 

[Westernhawk]

Regarding the estate tax, I would say that the issue is a bit more nuanced than a simple tax or no tax.

IMHO, the "Estate" should include the deceased and any nuclear family components, therefore (unless otherwise laid out in the will), moneys that go to spouse and/or children should be treated as if they were going to the deceased before he/she died. Much like liquidating an LLC, any "gains" should be taxed at the applicable capital gains rate, but money that already has been taxed should be left alone.

Same with giving your spouse a gift. IIRC, the IRS stipulates that a one-time gift up to a certain amount is not considered "income," but outside of that, any money or gifts above a certain value are considered taxable income. This is classic government overreach and over-taxation, and flies directly in the face of the "community property" definitions as applied to divorce settlements ("What's mine is yours...").

Regarding tariffs, as with the IRS and taxes, I'm certainly no expert, but I find the whole debate interesting.

Economists have a tendency to crunch numbers without taking into account variables - for example, cutting taxes results in "X" amount of lost revenue compared to "Y" amount of spending, resulting in a net financial impact.

Historically, however, administrations that cut taxes often triggered increased government revenue due to an expanding tax base (diminished tax burdens resulting in increased job growth and increased individual spending - ergo, increased number of people paying taxes and increased gains from sales taxes). Calculating lost revenue strictly by Xs and Os can be misleading. The Kennedy and Reagan administrations both cut income taxes, and tax revenues went up, not down. The problem is that our elected officials can't resist the temptation to concomitantly increase spending as well...

Yes, certainly in the short term, it would appear that tariffs would have a significant negative impact on consumer prices, essentially acting as a "tax." However, what if a short-term pain turns into a long-term gain? Both China and Mexico have a lot to lose if they play hardball and don't acquiesce. If tariffs force countries to stop currency manipulation, techo theft, undercutting prices by utilizing slave labor, etc., the end result of leveraging those tariffs could very well pay off big in the future, especially for an American labor force that isn't given a level playing field.

Also, we need to keep in mind that many of the goods (not all certainly) can be obtained at least temporarily from other countries with fairer trade practices, i.e., Taiwan, Korea, The Netherlands, Singapore and the Norwegian countries. Ramping up trade agreements with other countries, while working on regaining energy independence would put tremendous pressure on our current trade partners, China in particular.

Thanks for the great, thought-provoking post.
With regard to tariffs, I have not read that they were a "net positive" in any case, short-term or long-term. I appreciate that they could theoretically put pressure on trading partners in the long term, and I hope that is the case, given the fact that in the short term, consumer goods will definitely increase in cost.

The issue with tariffs is that they may affect the middle and lower classes more significantly, as they purchase many of the same consumer goods that the rich folks purchase. This seems to be counter to what people believed they were voting for this time around (cheaper groceries and commonly purchased items).
I chose a very right-leaning website to illustrate, here:
https://www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poor

Also, your comments about administrations that reduce taxes need context. Decreases in taxes across the board may stimulate growth and increase the overall tax base, but that isn't what the Trump administration plans to do, from what I read.

The new tax plan will be a big advantage for those making over $400,000 per year (the top 5%). It will benefit the top 1% even more. If you make a modest income, tax decreases will be very small or zero.

https://itep.org/a-distributional-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan-2024/

So, as I put the tax plan and the tariff plan together, it means that the very wealthy will continue to separate themselves from the common folk, and the middle class will continue to struggle with costs outpacing their net earnings. The very wealthy (like the guy running DOGE), know that this plan will work very well for that small group of people.

Lastly, I predict (not really that hard to predict with the tax breaks for the upper incomes), that the deficit will absolutely skyrocket in the coming four years. Both wings of big government probably have it wrong.

Read: Harris bad, Trump worse (for federal deficit). Here's a non-partisan link about this:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...d-increase-under-harris-but-surge-under-trump

 

[CP87]

Hard to disagree with much of anything in that video.

I think all of the messed up stuff he is talking about is why people gravitate towards Trump...in the hope that someone from outside of the system will shake things up. I think that is reasonable, except I think Trump is a shameless grifter (others obviously disagree).

 

[CP87]

Regarding the estate tax, I would say that the issue is a bit more nuanced than a simple tax or no tax.

IMHO, the "Estate" should include the deceased and any nuclear family components, therefore (unless otherwise laid out in the will), moneys that go to spouse and/or children should be treated as if they were going to the deceased before he/she died. Much like liquidating an LLC, any "gains" should be taxed at the applicable capital gains rate, but money that already has been taxed should be left alone.

Same with giving your spouse a gift. IIRC, the IRS stipulates that a one-time gift up to a certain amount is not considered "income," but outside of that, any money or gifts above a certain value are considered taxable income. This is classic government overreach and over-taxation, and flies directly in the face of the "community property" definitions as applied to divorce settlements ("What's mine is yours...").

Regarding tariffs, as with the IRS and taxes, I'm certainly no expert, but I find the whole debate interesting.

Economists have a tendency to crunch numbers without taking into account variables - for example, cutting taxes results in "X" amount of lost revenue compared to "Y" amount of spending, resulting in a net financial impact.

Historically, however, administrations that cut taxes often triggered increased government revenue due to an expanding tax base (diminished tax burdens resulting in increased job growth and increased individual spending - ergo, increased number of people paying taxes and increased gains from sales taxes). Calculating lost revenue strictly by Xs and Os can be misleading. The Kennedy and Reagan administrations both cut income taxes, and tax revenues went up, not down. The problem is that our elected officials can't resist the temptation to concomitantly increase spending as well...

Yes, certainly in the short term, it would appear that tariffs would have a significant negative impact on consumer prices, essentially acting as a "tax." However, what if a short-term pain turns into a long-term gain? Both China and Mexico have a lot to lose if they play hardball and don't acquiesce. If tariffs force countries to stop currency manipulation, techo theft, undercutting prices by utilizing slave labor, etc., the end result of leveraging those tariffs could very well pay off big in the future, especially for an American labor force that isn't given a level playing field.

Also, we need to keep in mind that many of the goods (not all certainly) can be obtained at least temporarily from other countries with fairer trade practices, i.e., Taiwan, Korea, The Netherlands, Singapore and the Norwegian countries. Ramping up trade agreements with other countries, while working on regaining energy independence would put tremendous pressure on our current trade partners, China in particular.

Oren Cass makes this argument:

Making The Case For Trump’s Tariffs

From tariffs to tax cuts, President-elect Donald Trump promises he'll revitalize the United States economy. Economist Oren Cass runs the conservative think tank American Compass, which aims to emphasize the importance of family, community and industry to the nation's prosperity and liberty. Cass...

www.pbs.org

 

[CP87]

Thanks for the great, thought-provoking post.
With regard to tariffs, I have not read that they were a "net positive" in any case, short-term or long-term. I appreciate that they could theoretically put pressure on trading partners in the long term, and I hope that is the case, given the fact that in the short term, consumer goods will definitely increase in cost.

The issue with tariffs is that they may affect the middle and lower classes more significantly, as they purchase many of the same consumer goods that the rich folks purchase. This seems to be counter to what people believed they were voting for this time around (cheaper groceries and commonly purchased items).
I chose a very right-leaning website to illustrate, here:
https://www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poor

Also, your comments about administrations that reduce taxes need context. Decreases in taxes across the board may stimulate growth and increase the overall tax base, but that isn't what the Trump administration plans to do, from what I read.

The new tax plan will be a big advantage for those making over $400,000 per year (the top 5%). It will benefit the top 1% even more. If you make a modest income, tax decreases will be very small or zero.

https://itep.org/a-distributional-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan-2024/

So, as I put the tax plan and the tariff plan together, it means that the very wealthy will continue to separate themselves from the common folk, and the middle class will continue to struggle with costs outpacing their net earnings. The very wealthy (like the guy running DOGE), know that this plan will work very well for that small group of people.

Lastly, I predict (not really that hard to predict with the tax breaks for the upper incomes), that the deficit will absolutely skyrocket in the coming four years. Both wings of big government probably have it wrong.

Read: Harris bad, Trump worse (for federal deficit). Here's a non-partisan link about this:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...d-increase-under-harris-but-surge-under-trump

If we give Trump enough credit to be playing 3D chess, greater income inequality is one of the best predictors of authoritarian movements, especially if you can seize control of the media apparatus to help demagogue "others" as the source of the problem. I don't give him that much credit, though.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Thanks for the great, thought-provoking post.
With regard to tariffs, I have not read that they were a "net positive" in any case, short-term or long-term. I appreciate that they could theoretically put pressure on trading partners in the long term, and I hope that is the case, given the fact that in the short term, consumer goods will definitely increase in cost.

The issue with tariffs is that they may affect the middle and lower classes more significantly, as they purchase many of the same consumer goods that the rich folks purchase. This seems to be counter to what people believed they were voting for this time around (cheaper groceries and commonly purchased items).
I chose a very right-leaning website to illustrate, here:
https://www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poor

Also, your comments about administrations that reduce taxes need context. Decreases in taxes across the board may stimulate growth and increase the overall tax base, but that isn't what the Trump administration plans to do, from what I read.

The new tax plan will be a big advantage for those making over $400,000 per year (the top 5%). It will benefit the top 1% even more. If you make a modest income, tax decreases will be very small or zero.

https://itep.org/a-distributional-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan-2024/

So, as I put the tax plan and the tariff plan together, it means that the very wealthy will continue to separate themselves from the common folk, and the middle class will continue to struggle with costs outpacing their net earnings. The very wealthy (like the guy running DOGE), know that this plan will work very well for that small group of people.

Lastly, I predict (not really that hard to predict with the tax breaks for the upper incomes), that the deficit will absolutely skyrocket in the coming four years. Both wings of big government probably have it wrong.

Read: Harris bad, Trump worse (for federal deficit). Here's a non-partisan link about this:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...d-increase-under-harris-but-surge-under-trump

It's definitely complicated and well above my knowledge and pay-grade.

Just as with any "non-progressive" tax structure, the "tax" effect of tariffs no doubt will disproportionately impact low and middle level wage earners that by definition spend a larger proportion of their income on basic necessities. I'm sure there are some creative ways to mitigate the impact but no measure will be perfect.

We'll see how it plays out, but if the end result is a fairer, more level, trade playing field, less American jobs being exported, increased domestic production of goods, intellectual property protections, etc., etc., those very same sectors may reap significant benefits. The question will be whether Trump can sell the American public on the concept of "no pain, no gain." We also have to keep in mind that's it's quite plausible that there is a significant bluff element to much of this, particular in regards to Canada.

I share the concern about the increased wealth gap, and view the expanding gap between CEO and front-worker incomes over the past several decades as an especially disturbing trend.

Tax codes will always be a precarious balance between maximizing government revenue in a fair fashion while incentivizing growth, entrepreneurship and spending. I haven't looked into the details of what Trump has planned but did find the concept of enacting selective tariffs intriguing, but only within the context of spending reductions and elimination of waste. While we're at it, the next steps should include barring of earmarks and institution of term limits.

You may find this article interesting. Many of the proposals in combination with tax cuts are interesting:

Tax reforms to raise revenue efficiently and equitably

In this analysis, Wendy Edelberg, Elizabeth Lee, Sara Estep, Madison Bober highligh a selection of policy proposals from The Hamilton Project’s 2020 book titled Tackling the Tax Code: Efficient and Equitable Ways to Raise Revenue.

www.brookings.edu

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

If we give Trump enough credit to be playing 3D chess, greater income inequality is one of the best predictors of authoritarian movements, especially if you can seize control of the media apparatus to help demagogue "others" as the source of the problem. I don't give him that much credit, though.

Sounds a little like what was happening the last four years in regards to the woke agenda.....

 

[PCHawk]

I think all of the messed up stuff he is talking about is why people gravitate towards Trump...in the hope that someone from outside of the system will shake things up. I think that is reasonable, except I think Trump is a shameless grifter (others obviously disagree).

I think it's entirely possible he's a shameless grifter. I just think there's no chance at all with someone the established politicians are ok with having in office, and it's abundantly clear they don't want Trump in. I will say with Mitch McConnell hanging around it's already unlikely Trump will be allowed to make a difference. I get how some people will view that take as an excuse for when Trump doesn't succeed, but we needed the momentum of a complete overhaul and got the exact opposite. If Trump really wants to fix Wahington, it won't be easy.