I already conceded that point due to your unwilingness to accept the assasination of huey long for what it was. I will not allow you to disprespect the names of others who have fought for some power to control whether people can afford basic necessities such as a car repair or health care. Listen to the podcast if youre truly undecided and are without an agenda. You seem to hover around a lot of trump threads based on your post history. Just the first 15 minutes...
So, give everyone money and inflation occurs. Pay for this subsidy in part by bringing in a value added tax and therefore further drive up the costs of goods as manufacturers and vendors pass on these taxes. If you have spent your entire life responsibly saving, your savings will be worth less. And, if you are starting out your life, you will get 1k a month in your pocket but everything will cost a lot more. Interesting plan.
Did inflation occur when we handed out trillions of dollars to bail out the mortgage, auto, and insurance industries? We cut checks to the elite, that is fine? You’re thinking at a very small level if you believe inflation will occur. We Americans believe in our dollar and we value it way too much to ever let it collapse. That fear of inflation is probably going to make people rich overnight. Here is what’s going to happen, Amazon and tech companies are going to get hit the hardest by the automation taxes. They will have no choice but to raise their fees and sellers will raise their prices. Then you will see people opening up businesses locally selling stuff sold on Amazon like car stereos for the same price. It will result in people buying local because they would rather get it today then wait two days. If you’re not smart enough to realize that’s what’s going to happen then that’s on you buddy. I will admit that the cost of labor and minimum wage will go up. These low-paying jobs need to pay more anyways. it’s not right to pay people the low salaries they are making with the high hours they are working with no health insurance. People just won’t take those jobs if they don’t pay more.
So, you are saying automation won't take away jobs because the prices from the tech giants will foster mom and pop shops. Hmmmm.
Not only mom and pop shops, specialty stores, and huge electronic stores. Fry’s is about to shut down. How many people are going to lose their jobs if they can’t make it? Sears is already shutting down.
Yes, Millennials were dealt this hand by Boomers (largely speaking, I'm glad you helped your kids out) ... this shouldn't be hard to understand... Boomers have largely run all levels of government and the economy since the 1990's... since then we've seen an explosion in the cost of education, the growth of a massive federal debt and the development of a wholly unafforable housing market... how exactly can the Boomers escape responsibility for those things?
You are giving boomers way too much credit if you think they are capable of messing things up this much. You can teach a 12 year old how to plug in y = mx + b into a Ti-83 in less than 5 minutes. Want to teach that to a boomer? Say goodbye to the rest of your evening. No offense to any boomers reading this, you are the exception. Tired of seeing millenials and boomers blaming each other for the economy. People want to blame for no reason. Technology created jobs and technology taketh jobs.
Lol, they lied and i lied. These types of threads always attract the hardcore conservatives. Was looking up some statistics and sigh. Andrew yang is tweeting some facts btw.
Wow, I figured you were young but I had no idea you were this young. You have a lot to learn about life. At your age you have all the confidence in the world and think you have everything figured out. As you get older life will teach you many valuable lessons and you will come to realize you do not know as much as you think you do right now. We all went through this stage.
Unfortunately many people believe personal experience means a better understanding of macroeconomics.
This is such a weird thread. Usually these things devolve to two camps that endlessly snipe at each other. Here, it seems like everyone has a unique point of view. It's almost refreshing. So, your expectation is that "they" (they being the voters, meaning us) are going to come for me in the end. Remind me again why middle class voters will vote from a 70% tax rate on middle class taxpayers? You describe a slippery slope that ain't going to happen. We don't live with a capricious and rapacious dictator who takes what money he wants from people. We live with voters who elect representatives to make laws on our behalf. Even manipulated by those with power, wealth, and influence that @TheresTheDagger fears so much, those representatives will not be passing a 70% tax rate on middle class incomes and expect to still show up to work the next day. Yes, corporations are very clever about optimizing their tax burden. We need to be clever about recognizing how tax law will change behavior and architect the tax law in a way that people and companies pay what we deem to be fair. Part of Trump's tax reform bill was about making the tax regime 'territorial' to end the incentive of US companies to stash money abroad. I don't think we're done with these reforms and we'll continue to tighten the system to keep cash from leaking overseas. It's a good deal more sophisticated than raising rates. Go ahead and roll over then. I don't really think this is a big concern for me. I prefer to dare the rich to impose exile on themselves. It, one, sucks on a personal level. And two, it comes with its own set of risks. I don't expect a bunch of capital flight from the USA when we see the opposite right now. What I like about the concept of UBI is that the distress costs of poverty can be very debilitating to all aspects of people's productivity. By avoiding the distress, workers can focus on their work, focus on their development, etc. There will still be variability in people's talent, but you can bring up the bottom. I'm sure it'll sound condescending for me to say that explains the naivete. But, you're also smart for 16. Smarter than some here. Millennials just haven't had the opportunity yet to screw over future generations. Don't worry, it's going to happen. So, $1,000 in a poor man's pocket will cause inflation, but that same $1,000 in a rich man's pocket will not? I think the inflation argument is a boogieman.
Yea, maybe, idk TBD. We know what the Boomers have done. The Boomers giving me the old, "Golly gee willikers HTM what are you talking about" is played out. I hear millenniels being given sh*t by Boomers all the time. Boomers could put themselves through college with earnings from a summer job and could afford to buy a house in the suburbs with even a modest income. That doesn't exist anymore. It's a totally different (and sh**tier circumstance for millenials). Then you have the 22 trillion federal debt, and all types of state debts, Boomer legislators have allowed to come into existence, the Boomers have really done a number on the millennials future.
Yeah, some boomers have screwed stuff up. I won't disagree. I don't really like this generational construct that people talk in. This generation is like this and that generation is like that. This generation did X and that one did Y. Generations don't have agency, people do. Boomers didn't screw everything up so much as most of the recent decisionmakers happened to be Boomers. I don't think the cohort you were born with matters. My second complaint about the construct is that we mostly focus on the bad decisions of Boomers because they were the ones dominating decisionmaking since I was born. But, people made bad decisions long before Boomers were born. Boomers inherited the legacy of the Cold War and post-colonialism and Jim Crow. Somebody else made those. Boomers are not magically bad at public policy, humanity is. Gen Xers are bad too, but there aren't as many of us. But Millennials, they're the biggest generation now. They are starting to fill the decisionmaker shoes. Many more bad decisions are yet to be made, and the plurality will be made by the largest generation. In my old age, I'll be complaining about Millennials, but then I'll be dead. It'll be my grandchildren who can rail their whole lives about the legacy they inherited.
Well they do "represent" us, but do they always perfectly follow what "we" want? Indeed, do "we" want them to always do what "we" want? Further, do "we" (the people) even agree on what "we" want? Of course the answer to that is "no," we don't agree. I think it's happened many times that some program is created, and the legislation says the funding will come from a particular source....then lo and behold, that source didn't bring in the tax revenue that "they" (the representatives) thought that it would, so then "they" look at other funding mechanisms and sources. For example, I used to get so frustrated with the telephone bill. It seemed that politicians would keep adding and burying new taxes in the phone bill, and it seems like there was nothing anyone could do to stop it -- until people just started getting rid of their landline-phones. So, yes, the powers can be can often sneak in new taxes; they do it all the time. And no, not everyone approves of them doing so.
"Generations" are composed of people. Most important decision makers are folks between 45 - 65. Almost every decision maker of import in the 2000's was a Boomer. Most decision makers of import in the 1990's were Boomers. Those folks decisions led to a 22 trillion dollar deficit the next generations are inheriting. Additionally, under the Boomers watch the cost of education sky rocketed astronomically and home ownership became largely out of reach for the next generation. If Boomers want to blame the generation before them for the bad sh*t that they inherited based on their policy and decision making, that would be fair. Instead of the mental gymnastics to escape accountability, if my generation largely f&&ks over the next generation I'll be the first to raise my hand and say, "Yea, we oversaw that and we f**ked that up."
Of course, this is right in general. Our government, for example, might end up spending $50 billion on a wall the consensus doesn't want. But, you're if you're talking about a 70% tax rate on a middle class income, you're talking about something that would be so unpopular that you can't argue from the general to the specific. 90% of the US earns less than $100k. It wouldn't be too hard to build a political constituency when you represent the economic self-interest of 90% of the country. Maybe that constituency isn't of one mind on how to fund public schools, but I think they will mostly agree on not taxing themselves at 70% (when they can make the super-rich pay more ).
