by "Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing." (granfury)
Published 11/30/2017 at 13:51
by "Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing." (granfury)
Published 11/30/2017 at 13:51
No Tags
STARS: 2
If the republican tax plan is supposed to lower taxes to create job growth, and we’re already at near record low levels of unemployment, who is going to fill all of these newly created jobs? Does this mean we have to let more immigrants in to fill the new positions? (or the ones that were vacated?)
Somehow I don’t think they’d be terribly interested in that...
"EL_ULY" (uly)
11/30/2017 at 13:57, STARS: 16
Billionaire helping out his millionaire/billionaire compadres....
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 13:57, STARS: 5
I’m NOT endorsing this plan in any way, shape, or form, however...
The reason we want to create more jobs is because a) a lot of people are underemployed and need full-time, higher paying jobs; and b) a lot of people have left the workforce- - some of whom have just given up looking for work. If jobs were more plentiful, they would start looking again (in theory).
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
11/30/2017 at 13:58, STARS: 4
Well, I’m estimating about $200 in higher taxes under the plan, so I guess that plan to hire a housekeeper twice a year is out the window. Job creation my ass.
"Biggus Dickus (RevsBro)" (NKlein)
11/30/2017 at 13:59, STARS: 3
The unemployment rated often quoted does not include the “unemployed but not looking for work” category of people which can greatly skew the statistic as it messes with the denominator of the function greatly.
In effect, people gave up looking for jobs and therefore they are no longer part of the workforce.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
11/30/2017 at 14:00, STARS: 9
All of the journalists being fired need to work somewhere
"Azrek" (azrek)
11/30/2017 at 14:00, STARS: 9
Oh, I figured we all were going to need all this new money with Net Neutrality going away and having to pay extra to do shit online.
"Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing." (granfury)
11/30/2017 at 14:01, STARS: 13
I understand what you’re saying, but the cynic in me wonders if it is so that everyone can have two low-paying jobs instead of one high-paying job...
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 14:02, STARS: 3
Oh believe me, I think it’s all a load of horseshit.
"random001" (random001)
11/30/2017 at 14:03, STARS: 0
Millenials. Duh.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 14:04, STARS: 15
They’ll have to find careers in a field where sexual harassment is tolerated still.
So I guess we’ll have to create more jobs in Congress.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 14:07, STARS: 0
Stupid question - I’ve seen a few people who say they’ve calculated the impact it’ll have on them, is there a way to do that online?
Just curious as to what the impact will be on me-
"phenotyp" (phenotyp)
11/30/2017 at 14:08, STARS: 2
Don’t think too hard. It’s not going to create jobs.
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
11/30/2017 at 14:08, STARS: 3
In addition to the 49 percent who said they opposed the Republican tax bill, 29 percent said they supported it and 22 percent said they “don’t know,” according to the Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll of 1,257 adults conducted from Thursday to Monday.
When asked “who stands to benefit most” from the plan, more than half of all American adults surveyed selected either the wealthy or large U.S. corporations. Fourteen percent chose “all Americans,” 6 percent picked the middle class and 2 percent chose lower-income Americans.
No one likes this, but yet we will probably get it because GOP.
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
11/30/2017 at 14:12, STARS: 2
If your situation is easy, I’m sure there are tax blogs out there with estimates.
Mine is a 10-year-old Excel calculator I’ve developed and it’s more tailored (Homeowner, landlord, lots of charity, kids, etc).
If you don’t already itemize, it’s pretty easy math if you just look at the new brackets and massive standard deduction. That should help a lot of people, but as usual most of the monetary benefit is at the top by sheer scale alone.
"Party-vi" (party-vi)
11/30/2017 at 14:13, STARS: 2
I want to have a strong opinion on this, but am stupid and therefore cannot.
"Tristan" (casselts)
11/30/2017 at 14:15, STARS: 4
The labor force participation rate is 62.7%. This means that 37.3% of working-age Americans are not even attempting to gain employment. Displaced workers (those working outside their areas of expertise in jobs they were forced to take after losing jobs in their careers of choice) make up about 16% of the labor force.
Errr... I mean... RePuBlIcAnZ r AlLlWaYs StOoPiD
"E92M3" (E46M3)
11/30/2017 at 14:16, STARS: 3
In theory the more jobs, the more they have to pay to attract/keep decent workers. Otherwise people will jump ship for a raise someplace else.
I think corporations will just squander the savings on higher pay for executives. So many are willing to pay a CEO running the company into the ground millions, and give them a huge bonus. Doesn’t sound like they need a tax cut to me. If they get one it should be used towards paying for the healthcare of the employees.
"Dru" (therealkennyd)
11/30/2017 at 14:17, STARS: 1
I’m curious...if these droves of folks stopped looking for work altogether, and we haven’t seen a mass growth in homeless folks to my knowledge, what are they doing to sustain themselves?
"fintail" (fintail)
11/30/2017 at 14:18, STARS: 4
Doesn’t matter, not gonna happen.
Trickle down style garbage is perhaps the greatest con in modern history. Its record over the past 35 years speaks for itself.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 14:19, STARS: 1
For better or for worse, my situation is anything but easy- -we itemize, and have to deal with everything you’re dealing with, plus a few more curveballs on top of that. It would take some kind of Excel model to figure it out.
I actually have an expert that I should ask, now that I think about it. Thanks!
"Dru" (therealkennyd)
11/30/2017 at 14:21, STARS: 8
I mean...trying trickle down economics for the hundredth time is kind of...stupid.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
11/30/2017 at 14:21, STARS: 3
Real answer: a mixture of going on Social Security disability and working under the table to supplement their disability money.
"marshknute" (marshknute)
11/30/2017 at 14:21, STARS: 0
Obviously they’re throwing out buzz words to appeal to people over an unpopular bill. But it seems that 60%ish of the population will get a tax cut of some amount (big or small).
$200 isn’t enough to hire a housekeeper, but it is enough to buy an item of furniture, cookware, tools, jewelry, etc. And if several million middle class people buy random shit, it adds up and results in those companies hiring more people to expand production. In theory, anyway.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 14:22, STARS: 1
That’s a question that gets a lot of debate, actually. Some of these people have retired, some are working odd jobs for cash/consulting etc, some have moved in with family, others may be couples where 1 is supporting the other. These people get ‘lost’ when they stop looking so it’s hard to track, and it gets political when you try to make broad generalizations about these people, because the assumption is that you’re trying to fit them to your narrative on the economy.
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
11/30/2017 at 14:25, STARS: 1
Ahhh, yeah — fwiw, the new standard deduction might make life easier on you, but YMMV. It’s larger than most filers’ previously itemized lists, so my bigger concern is the effect on homeownership, charity, etc. It’s not easy to unwind the social engineering aspect of the tax code...
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
11/30/2017 at 14:27, STARS: 2
Note I said higher taxes, not a higher refund ;)
If a Republican plan hurts me, I guess that makes me poor. Which is what I keep telling my wife.
"LimitedTimeOnly @ opposite-lock.com" (limitedtimeonly)
11/30/2017 at 14:37, STARS: 1
Of that 37.3% not attempting to gain employment, I wonder how many are child-rearing, or caring for elderly parents, or students (i.e. college, most likely)?
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 14:38, STARS: 5
If only being stupid actually was a deterrent to people having a strong opinion...
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
11/30/2017 at 14:39, STARS: 4
It’s so disgustingly obvious that everything they are doing boils down to cronyism (and not strictly with this tax plan). They are working on making themselves and their rich friends richer. In NO WORLD does it make sense for example to start treating tuition waivers for grad and doctorate students as earned income, forcing them to pay taxes on something like the equivalent of $80k, money they actually never ever see in their bank accounts. It would destroy innovation in this country. And that’s only the latest of infuriating examples I’ve heard of why this tax plan is a disaster in the making.
"Tristan" (casselts)
11/30/2017 at 14:41, STARS: 1
A good amount, no doubt, but 37.3% is still a massive chunk of the population. Also, as a full-time college student and full-time employee, I can’t fathom why work and school are always portrayed as mutually exclusive.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
11/30/2017 at 14:52, STARS: 2
...it adds up and results in those companies hiring more people to expand production. In theory, anyway.
Such a theory is hilarious nowadays. A large company I am no longer affiliated with publishes losses and gains publicly on their site (the page is buried under hundreds of layers, of course).
The data is painfully obvious. The company bought out another company in 2013 and lost some huge money on it. The result? They stopped giving workers raises, reduced vacation time, laid off hundreds (entire departments), then nixed some other benefits.
The company then tried again the year after and screwed up even worse, nixing even more employee benefits. Did those in charge of those decisions lose anything? Nope, not at all. The losses were socialized through the lower employees instead of through the guys at the top (the guys who made both mistakes to begin with). Logically then, when 2017 turned out to be a record year those employees would see their benefits and such return, right, right? Haha, no.
"functionoverfashion" (functionoverfashion)
11/30/2017 at 14:59, STARS: 0
What scares me far more than the actual policy, the subtleties of which I am not versed in, is how Trump will ignore any factual analyses of the bill and say whatever he wants to say in order to rally support for it. If someone reports to the contrary he’ll just say it’s fake news.
Whether you agree with the policies or not, this should scare everyone.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 15:06, STARS: 0
It’s not easy to unwind the social engineering aspect of the tax code...
How true- and also true that much our tax code amounts to social engineering, for better or for worse...
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
11/30/2017 at 15:09, STARS: 1
I’m currently in the process of leaving one very large multinational company for another. Both are doing pretty well and have been in business over 100 yrs. One of the CEO’s sat on the Manufacturing Advisory Council before the Charolettesville thing. Both have roughly the same stance:
They’d love to see lower taxes and less of a penalty for bringing money back into the US that is made abroad. As it is now, most of the money made abroad, stays abroad. That means that if they make more money abroad, they continue to invest that money abroad or stick it in a bank abroad, rather than bringing it back to the US and expanding here. That’s all because of the tax penalty. They pay taxes in the country where it’s sold, and then pay more tax when that money comes back to the US. They want that gone.
So, they’re all for the Republicans lowering the corporate tax rate. They’re jazzed about the way the stock market is performing. However they want all the trade rules to stay in place. They think breaking up NAFTA would be really, really stupid.
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
11/30/2017 at 15:11, STARS: 2
One year isn’t usually enough to move the needle. If they can go 5-7 years while making good money, then they may start to change things. Downward slides happen fast, but upward momentum comes slow.
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
11/30/2017 at 15:12, STARS: 1
Yep...what is pitched with intentions to create a stable society that rewards community-building behaviors quicky turns into pork barrel loopholes benefiting the people who honestly need it least. The legal tax cheating is far worse then the illegal kind.
Wow, I sound like a dirty liberal! ;)
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
11/30/2017 at 15:27, STARS: 2
We tried that in Kansas, hell, went all in for trickle down. Note that it was a complete and utter failure.
"loki03xlh" (loki03xlh)
11/30/2017 at 15:32, STARS: 3
I can’t wait for these tax cuts so that the entire nation will prosper just like Kansas did when Gov. Brownback and the GOP legislature enacted the similar cuts in the Jayhawk state. #MAGA!!!
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
11/30/2017 at 15:46, STARS: 2
Adding jobs will not impact the labor force participation rate without other changes.
Those not participating by and large fall into a few categories : withdrawn by choice, unstable living situation, and unequiped to work.
Just adding jobs has almost no impact on those falling into these categories. If you want people to go back to work, you need to enable the marginalized to work, through public assistance and training. The stuff this bill cuts.
"KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs" (kusabisensei)
11/30/2017 at 16:04, STARS: 0
The unemployment rate is dependent upon the labor force participation rate. That’s why when there were so many people laid off in the financial crisis, the unemployment numbers started looking better, but I bet you knew people who just could not find *anything*.
The high point of the labor force participation rate is approximately 67% (2/3s of eligible population is either employed or actively looking for work). We are currently at 63%. In 2008 before the crisis, we were at 66%. That meant a lot of people who were looking for work gave up and stopped looking. As soon as that happens, you no longer count under U3 unemployment (although you do count under U6 definition).
The thinking is that the tax plan will spur enough investment to get people who stopped looking for work, but who are of working age, to start looking for work again and get them being productive.
The check for this would be that if it is successful, the labor force participation rate will increase, even if U3 unemployment slightly rises (because it would when all these people start looking for work en masse, and before all the jobs are filled)
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
11/30/2017 at 16:05, STARS: 0
It’s easy: Are you filthy rich?
Like, secretly-bankroll-several-lawsuits-in-order-to-take-down-a-media-company-over-a-decade-long-grudge rich?
Or maybe billionaire-but-still-charging-the-American-public-for-your-private-plane-flights-as-a-public-official rich?
Or even Grab-those-79-golf-games-since-Inauguration-Day-by-the-pussy rich?
If you’re any of those kinds of rich, then this tax plan will be a huge boon for you. However, if you’re more like I-have-a-little-of-my-paycheck-leftover-after-paying-all-my-bills-each-month-but-I-still-have-to-watch-my-spending-and-God-forbid-anyone-in-my-family-gets-a-catastrophic-or-chronic-illness rich, then you are fuckity fuck fucked.
And you should be angry.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/30/2017 at 16:55, STARS: 0
People on both sides of the aisle say that - when it comes to projects that don’ benefit them-
"Rico" (ricorich)
11/30/2017 at 18:49, STARS: 0
I think that they give the CEO that’s running a company into the ground Millions to give people on the outside the illusion of stability and growth.
"Rico" (ricorich)
11/30/2017 at 18:59, STARS: 1
Agreed, there needs to be more incentive to bring all that money back in. I’d rather the US get some of it than none of it. Fact is they will never, ever pay 35%. It should be 20% at most.