[Pain] HUGE, self-inflicted Recession incoming due to Trump/Musk

Why do you believe this? Tax cuts will pay for themselves?

BTW Trump wants Powell gone because he needs a scape goat to blame his tariff/economic failures on. Can you imagine Trump making Fed calls? like every other day to win the 24 hour news cycle? Be very careful what you wish for.

 

I don’t think he has much to gain or lose financially whether this bill passes or not.

 

Except access to other billionaires paying for judges and congress people he wants.....other than that.

DD

 

He being the poster. And he has no access to that.

 

I know a 1/2 % cut would really help the building industry. People with money that build apartment complexes are only building what they have too to keep their key employees employed. Drop interest rates 1/ to 1 % and they will start investing even more money.

 

Seems like you really only care about certain people. Not that Trump will give you the outcome you desire anyways.

 

I care about people who build things having jobs.

In fact I care about all people having jobs. I was just showing how Powell for no good reason is stopping job creation growth. Probably something you can't comprehend.

 

You know what man, out of all the conservatives I have talked to on here, I think you might be the only one who isnt too far gone. I dont think you're dumb or anything. But I do think that your emotions hold you back from thinking clearly.

 

We have lived through 40 years of trickle down economics. It hasn’t worked as was promised then and it won’t now. What happens instead is capital flows to where it is most profitable (China, India, Vietnam, tariffs no tariffs, Doesn’t Matter) and the Capitalist class moves the production line to those countries because they can pay substantially lower wages or ignore regulatory concerns like environmental protections or in the case of China making things at scale for cheap.

All of the offshoring during the 80s, 90s, and 2000s was not because the workers like yourself were bad but because the CEOs are legally obligated to increase value for thr shareholders and if that means moving manufacturing overseas then it gets moved overseas.

When corporations have lower taxes, the retained money doesn’t get passed to workers nor does it lead to lower prices. It leads to stock buybacks and bigger checks for the administrative class. And when the administrative class makes more money, they don’t then use more labor they just buy more capital.

 

What was in my post is true and I don't agree with everything either side does.

 

Investing? Sounds like borrowing

 

Yeah the boomers ****ed us over.

 

^^^
This post is an prime example of why you should go to college and spend at least some time studying economics and finance. Because if you do not, then you'll end up like Ubiquitin and literally have your thoughts be a compilation of bumper sticker slogans Frankenstein'd together to form one long incoherent thought. It's a cautionary tale. Don't go through life this way!


GOOD DAY

 

We haven't had 40 yrs of trickle down economics. What we have had is 40 yrs of Ivy Leaguers running the country.

But the difference is the tariffs will disincentivize shipping jobs overseas.

 

?

 

It's a sinking ship that cant be fixed, hoard money , take care of your self and loved one ,this budget reflects that sentiment

 

Don't be a dick, TJ. Supply side economic policies like those in this bill (e.g. tax cuts) disproportionately benefit those with high tax bills (e.g. high income earners), not the low-wage earning masses. Low-wage earners tend to have a greater impact on overall economic growth due to increased spending and demand, while high-earners tend to drive investment and capital gains. Low-wage earners benefit from stimuluses and increased benefits.

Rates from CATO and incomes from Census:

If the effective tax rate for the bottom 50%-tile of earners is 8% and preserving the tax cuts bring it to 7%, and the median US income is $50,000, a 1% tax savings is about $500.
If the effective tax rate for the top 5% to 1% is 27% and preserving the tax cuts bring it to 25%, and the US income at that level is roughly $450,000, a 2% tax savings is about $9000.
For the billionaire class, if the rate goes from 24% to 23%, and the income level is $85,000,000, a 1% savings is about $850,000.

Some articles for those interested.

The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315
Abstract
The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across the advanced democracies. There is still fervent debate in both political and academic circles, however, about the economic consequences of this sweeping change in tax policy. This article contributes to this debate by utilizing a newly constructed indicator of taxes on the rich to identify all instances of major tax reductions on the rich in 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries between 1965 and 2015. We then estimate the average effects of these major tax reforms on key macroeconomic aggregates. We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.


Offshore outsourcing of services: An evolutionary perspective
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925527309001133

Abstract
Offshore outsourcing is gaining increasing importance and attention in both theory and practice. The purpose of this research is to use nine in-depth case studies to analyze the evolution of offshore services outsourcing with regard to how expectations and governance structures change over time. Five testable propositions are presented, building on institutional theory, transaction cost, and resource-based perspectives. The cases demonstrate that offshore outsourcing is initiated because of increasing internal and external pressure to conform and reduce costs. Moreover, companies “chase” efficiency improvements in other geographic locations. But after reducing costs, companies discover more strategic benefits such as the potential to increase quality and market share. Importantly, as buyer–supplier relationships move from tactical to more strategic, expectations and governance structures change.

or

Effects of Income Tax Changes on Economic Growth
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...Tax_Changes_Economic_Growth_Gale_Samwick_.pdf

This paper examines how changes to the individual income tax affect long-term
economic growth. The structure and financing of a tax change are critical to achieving economic
growth. Tax rate cuts may encourage individuals to work, save, and invest, but if the tax cuts are
not financed by immediate spending cuts, they will likely also result in an increased federal
budget deficit, which in the long-term will reduce national saving and raise interest rates. The
net impact on growth is uncertain, but many estimates suggest it is either small or negative.
Base-broadening measures can eliminate the effect of tax rate cuts on budget deficits, but at the
same time, they reduce the impact on labor supply, saving, and investment and thus reduce the
direct impact on growth. They may also reallocate resources across sectors toward their highest-
value economic use, resulting in increased efficiency and potentially raising the overall size of
the economy. Results in the literature suggest that not all tax changes will have the same impact
on growth. Reforms that improve incentives, reduce existing distortionary subsidies, avoid
windfall gains, and avoid deficit financing will have more auspicious effects on the long-term
size of the economy, but may also create trade-offs between equity and efficiency.

or

https://www.nber.org/papers/w17616
Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities
This paper presents a model of optimal labor income taxation where top incomes respond to marginal tax rates through three channels: (1) standard labor supply, (2) tax avoidance, (3) compensation bargaining. We derive the optimal top tax rate formula as a function of the three corresponding behavioral elasticities. The first elasticity (labor supply) is the sole real factor limiting optimal top tax rates. The optimal tax system should be designed to minimize the second elasticity (avoidance) through tax enforcement and tax neutrality across income forms. The optimal top tax rate increases with the third elasticity (bargaining) as bargaining efforts are zero-sum in aggregate. We provide evidence using cross-country times series macro-evidence and CEO pay micro-evidence. The macro-evidence from 18 OECD countries shows that there is a strong negative correlation between top tax rates and top 1% income shares since 1960, implying that the overall elasticity is large. However, top income share increases have not translated into higher economic growth. US CEO pay evidence shows that pay for luck is quantitatively more important when top tax rates are low. International CEO pay evidence shows that CEO pay is strongly negatively correlated with top tax rates even controlling for firm characteristics and performance, and this correlation is stronger in firms with poor governance. These results are consistent with bargaining effects playing a role in the link between top incomes and top tax rates. If bargaining effects in fact exist, optimal tax rates should be higher than commonly assumed.