Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Sky High]

Well, you are correct. I have not seen the income brackets for each % ether. But I can safely assume that if you are making less then 6 figures a year as a couple, you will be paying 12% tax rate. Middle class family. On taxable income that is. He is also offering a couple to be able to deduct all their child care costs for more tax savings.

remains to be seen, I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't share the same optimism.

[alexw]

Advocating less of a transfer from the wealth to the poor is empathetically not a transfer from the poor to the wealthy. Claiming that it is is a complete inversion of any normal understanding of property rights. I guess you could make some sort of argument that taking less from the wealthy is "anti-poor", but I'm skeptical of the claim there; it's at least closer to right, but still plays fast and loose with any intuitive understanding of how transfers work; this relies starting point being that the transferred money from fiscal year X is owed in equal percentages to the party receiving transfers in year X+1.

Again, this isn't a commentary on whether such a policy change is a good idea, I'm just irritated by the rhetoric. A tax cut will inherently be more of a financial gain for the people that actually pay significant amounts of taxes. This is pretty obvious on its face.

To take from the rich to help the poor is a transfer. To take it back from the poor and give it back to the wealthy is to transfer it back. And it certainly does end up being anti-poor. They will be worse off, there isn't really any doubt about that. Most people don't understand this process of transfers though, which is why politicians get away with it.

[Deleted]

I've come to the conclusion that I actually agree with Gary Johnson a whole lot more than I do with Trump, but a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote thrown away, so Trump it still is anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

To take from the rich to help the poor is a transfer. To take it back from the poor and give it back to the wealthy is to transfer it back. And it certainly does end up being anti-poor. They will be worse off, there isn't really any doubt about that. Most people don't understand this process of transfers though, which is why politicians get away with it.

But it's not like you're taking anything actually belonging to the poor per se, the money never belonged to them in the first place. I think that's what he's trying to say.

[Ghostpanther]

remains to be seen, I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't share the same optimism.

So true. But I do not think ether of us have to be concerned about it. Not looking too good for him at the moment.

[Spectral]

To take from the rich to help the poor is a transfer. To take it back from the poor and give it back to the wealthy is to transfer it back. And it certainly does end up being anti-poor. They will be worse off, there isn't really any doubt about that. Most people don't understand this process of transfers though, which is why politicians get away with it.

The bolded is the linguistic flip that I'm referring to. No one's suggesting taking anything from the poor - they're suggesting taking less from the rich going forward. There is no basic right to continue receiving the same transfer on an ongoing basis.

[Nadiru]

poor and middle class maybe. anyone who has moderate wealth or higher won't behave the same.

If the wealthy used their excess wealth to stimulate the economy and create jobs for everyone then there would never be a jobs problem. Just stop and consider how much wealth is concentrated right now among a small number of people. If them having extra money solved any problems then why do we even have problems in the first place?

Yeah, that's oversimplifying both the tax system and the macroeconomic mechanisms which determine where savings flows into.

Tax rates across all income ranges are at all time lows, with an astounding decline for the bottom two quintiles.
The real answer is that everybody gets a tax hike!

[alexw]

I've come to the conclusion that I actually agree with Gary Johnson a whole lot more than I do with Trump, but a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote thrown away, so Trump it still is anyway.

- - - Updated - - -



But it's not like you're taking anything actually belonging to the poor per se, the money never belonged to them in the first place. I think that's what he's trying to say.

Mmmmm that is kindof arguable to be honest though what you say is true on a superficial level. So if we organize and create a society where the majority of wealth flows to a tiny fraction of society then does it really belong to that tiny fraction? Conversely if we organize and create a society where wealth and income is broadly shared does it belong to them or not? So does the 1960's where the middle class prospered and the elites took a much smaller share of the pie reflect the true distribution of reward, or does the gilded age 1920's and 2000's reflect it?

[Nadiru]

Mmmmm that is kindof arguable to be honest though what you say is true on a superficial level. So if we organize and create a society where the majority of wealth flows to a tiny fraction of society then does it really belong to that tiny fraction? Conversely if we organize and create a society where wealth and income is broadly shared does it belong to them or not? So does the 1960's where the middle class prospered and the elites took a much smaller share of the pie reflect the true distribution of reward, or does the gilded age 1920's and 2000's reflect it?

That's a bad argument. The question isn't whether you organize a society to allow wealth concentrating into increasingly smaller hands, it's how that society reacts when that system invariably implodes, because that system does not work in perpetuity. It works as long as the credit system allows it to.

[Deleted]

Mmmmm that is kindof arguable to be honest though what you say is true on a superficial level. So if we organize and create a society where the majority of wealth flows to a tiny fraction of society then does it really belong to that tiny fraction? Conversely if we organize and create a society where wealth and income is broadly shared does it belong to them or not? So does the 1960's where the middle class prospered and the elites took a much smaller share of the pie reflect the true distribution of reward, or does the gilded age 1920's and 2000's reflect it?

Well, strictly speaking the only money you're entitled to is what you're actually worth.

Of course this kind of predatory capitalism isn't a good thing, but yeah.

In reality, the only thing that should be granted to the downtrodden is the very bare minimum (shelter/food/water), it may be rough but it's fundamentally fair. And let's be real, we entitle people to way more than just that. Because we're nice and all.

[Nadiru]

Well, strictly speaking the only money you're entitled to is what you're actually worth.

Of course this kind of predatory capitalism isn't a good thing, but yeah.

In reality, the only thing that should be granted to the downtrodden is the very bare minimum, it may be rough but it's fundamentally fair.

"Should" is too strong a word, since in actual reality nobody "should" get anything that they do get; reality is not deterministic in that way. That said, there are significant upsides for the social system as a whole for a pretty robust set of programs designed to reduce mandatory or "cost-of-business" costs to households.

[alexw]

That's a bad argument. The question isn't whether you organize a society to allow wealth concentrating into increasingly smaller hands, it's how that society reacts when that system invariably implodes, because that system does not work in perpetuity. It works as long as the credit system allows it to.

Well yes it will implode but I'm talking from a moral standpoint not an economic one. Obviously from an economic standpoint the 1960's and 70's distribution of wealth and income is the one to have. Its a no-brainer for multiple reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, strictly speaking the only money you're entitled to is what you're actually worth.

Of course this kind of predatory capitalism isn't a good thing, but yeah.

In reality, the only thing that should be granted to the downtrodden is the very bare minimum (shelter/food/water), it may be rough but it's fundamentally fair. And let's be real, we entitle people to way more than just that. Because we're nice and all.

But what are you actually worth? Lets say we organized society so that it had the same distribution of incomes and wealth by decile as it did in the 1970's. Well the downtrodden would have wages around $20 an hour and billionaires would be multimillionaires instead of billionaires. Were the poor massively overpaid in the 1970's? Or are they massively underpaid now?

[Nadiru]

Well yes it will implode but I'm talking from a moral standpoint not an economic one. Obviously from an economic standpoint the 1960's and 70's distribution of wealth and income is the one to have. Its a no-brainer for multiple reasons.

Stagflation was awful, don't kid yourself. There is no "magic bullet" for macroeconomic stances, because in an open economy, your macroeconomic stance is contingent on the stance of other countries. With globalization this gets impossible to understand, simply because trade stops being settled bilaterally, and I suspect this inability to be the master of your economic destiny adds political tension in a globalized environment, not diminishes it as many people believe.

[Deleted]

Well yes it will implode but I'm talking from a moral standpoint not an economic one. Obviously from an economic standpoint the 1960's and 70's distribution of wealth and income is the one to have. Its a no-brainer for multiple reasons.

- - - Updated - - -



But what are you actually worth? Lets say we organized society so that it had the same distribution of incomes and wealth by decile as it did in the 1970's. Well the downtrodden would have wages around $20 an hour and billionaires would be multimillionaires instead of billionaires. Were the poor massively overpaid in the 1970's? Or are they massively underpaid now?

You're worth as much as your employer deems you to be, essentially. You want more? Become worth more.

The government interfering and having ridicilous minimum wages (as in the 70s) is just that.. interfering. Of course we do need a minimum wage, but yeah.

[alexw]

Stagflation was awful, don't kid yourself. There is no "magic bullet" for macroeconomic stances, because in an open economy, your macroeconomic stance is contingent on the stance of other countries. With globalization this gets impossible to understand, simply because trade stops being settled bilaterally, and I suspect this inability to be the master of your economic destiny adds political tension in a globalized environment, not diminishes it as many people believe.

The 70's stagflation was not due to the income distribution of that time. The primary driver was the oil shock. And yes the setup of your economy is affected by and affects that of other nations. Just look at the effect Germany and its surplus fetish has had on the rest of Europe. But given that Scandinavian nations have managed to keep pretty equal distribution of incomes (relative to the US) despite being even more open and more dependent on external trade, I can't see why we can't do that also. Where there's a will there's a way.

[Nadiru]

The 70's stagflation was not due to the income distribution of that time. The primary driver was the oil shock. And yes the setup of your economy is affected by and affects that of other nations. Just look at the effect Germany and its surplus fetish has had on the rest of Europe. But given that Scandinavian nations have managed to keep pretty equal distribution of incomes (relative to the US) despite being even more open and more dependent on external trade, I can't see why we can't do that also. Where there's a will there's a way.

Scandinavian economies are comparable in size to Georgia or Kentucky or Sri Lanka, whereas the US economy really is without equal. Small economies can get away with having macroeconomic "golden positions" because their position is irrelevant to the global system, but that isn't the case with larger economies because trade becomes so important. Put it to you this way: New York City produced as much GDP than all of Scandinavia did in the same timeframe. That is how irrelevant Scandinavia is in the macroeconomic scheme of things.

[alexw]

You're worth as much as your employer deems you to be, essentially. You want more? Become worth more.

The government interfering and having ridicilous minimum wages (as in the 70s) is just that.. interfering. Of course we do need a minimum wage, but yeah.

No that is not what I mean. What you are paid is dependent on all sorts of macroeconomic factors outside of the control of individual employers. In fact on a system wide level those are the primary determinant of wages rather than any individual decision by employers. The most obvious one people talk about now is immigration but it goes way way further than that. So for example the FED could prioritize employment over inflation control and react much slower than it does to inflation. That would mean a much tighter labor market such as the US had under Bill Clinton. And guess when the last time real wages for the bottom 80% of society was increasing in real terms.... yes you got it in the 1990's under Bill Clinton because of that much tighter labor market.

So no you are categorically not worth what your employer deems you to be worth. You are worth what the system is set up to deem you to be worth, which is of course why the billionaire class have bought the political class so they can get to decide how the system is set up, and thus make sure it deems you to be worth less than it used to.

[alexw]

Scandinavian economies are comparable in size to Georgia or Kentucky or Sri Lanka, whereas the US economy really is without equal. Small economies can get away with having macroeconomic "golden positions" because their position is irrelevant to the global system, but that isn't the case with larger economies because trade becomes so important. Put it to you this way: New York City produced as much GDP than all of Scandinavia did in the same timeframe. That is how irrelevant Scandinavia is in the macroeconomic scheme of things.

You are ignoring the point. Scandinavian nations precisely because of their small size are vastly more affected by trade vis a vis other nations, meaning that if having relatively equal income distributions had strong negative effects on trade they would not be able to get away with having relatively equal income distributions. That means the US which is far less trade dependent and in which most goods/services are circulation internally, should have little to no problem on a macro-economic level with having relatively equal income distributions also. Indeed it should be far far easier for that to be so, so the reason it doesn't happen isn't because of trade issues but because powerful groups don't want it to be so.

[cubby]

I agree. The New York Times is out to discredit Trump in any way possible. If he releases his tax returns ( which he shouldn't ) his opponents will pounce on the least little thing and try to make it a huge issue. And it may not be him personally who is in debt, but some company he is involved with. Which could be a indication of just how bad the economy really is in the US. And what if he is 650 million in debt when the country itself is soon to be 20 trillion in debt? :P

I disagree with your implied vendetta re The New York Times trying to discredit Trump in any way possible, but we can agree to disagree. However, I'm curious why you think Trump shouldn't release his tax returns.

[Nadiru]

You are ignoring the point. Scandinavian nations precisely because of their small size are vastly more affected by trade vis a vis other nations, meaning that if having relatively equal income distributions had strong negative effects on trade they would not be able to get away with having relatively equal income distributions. That means the US which is far less trade dependent and in which most goods/services are circulation internally, should have little to no problem on a macro-economic level with having relatively equal income distributions also. Indeed it should be far far easier for that to be so, so the reason it doesn't happen isn't because of trade issues but because powerful groups don't want it to be so.

Well, in the case of Norway, they periodically devalue and revalue their currency to maintain market share. Sweden can't do that at present because of the Euro, but luckily, Sweden was already an export-oriented economy and was on the "right side" of the Eurocoin's effect on European growth rates. Of course, if the US were to decide to shift back to an export-oriented model, the shifts involved would be so massive (to the tune of about 2 trillion dollars USD) that it would completely collapse German, Japanese, and Chinese manufacturing. Whereas if Sweden decides to orient even further into exports, the world can easily absorb the ~20 billion USD swing that it would muster. It's all about scale.

Income distribution is actually very boring on a macro level, because it's a problem of excess savings. Rich households save more income relative to poor households, so a larger "rich household" share of the economic pie ends up bumping savings rates up. It's kind of insulting that you think the US today is not trade dependent, though: the US has explicitly shifted its historic economic base to China, Japan, Mexico, and Canada. That the US could fairly easily produce the things which it trades for today is irrelevant; most Scandinavian countries can also do that, if they are willing to bear the price bump (for tropical fruits, it would be a significant bump indeed.)

[Finith]

I disagree with your implied vendetta re The New York Times trying to discredit Trump in any way possible, but we can agree to disagree. However, I'm curious why you think Trump shouldn't release his tax returns.

I can't imagine he's holding out for a good reason. Of course, he also implied he was being audited because Obama targets hard working christians....so.... He's not wrong to suggest that the releasing of the taxes is really just pageantry, though the utter irony of the 'personal responsibility and economic integrity' republican candidate balking at this request should be lost on no one.