NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Lebbo73 said:
You and your SRP crew believe that welfare is the driver of prosperity for the poor. Trump and normal people believe that an economic environment that provides people with productive jobs with low taxes drives prosperity.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
I hardly post on SRP for a start, and trickle down economics is one of the most well-debunked economic theories.
 
Mofra said:
I'm not surprised that when pressed to do anything beyond mindless cheerleading, you fail to understand.
Click to expand...

LOL dude your 'Orange man bad' source was a John Podesta think tank.

www.americanprogress.org

John Podesta

www.americanprogress.org www.americanprogress.org

If that is a credible source in your mind then I can't help you.

You're either trolling or just dumb.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
And who do you think their shareholders are mate... the middle class.
Click to expand...
Certainly not in the US - the wealth inequality is far more pronounced than in Australia (shamefully so). Anecdotally, 1 in 7 US adults requires food stamps. I'm not sure we appreciate how lucky we are in Australia to be honest.

Even in Australia, with significant superannuation holdings, the top 20% overwhelmingly own the majority of ASX listed stocks.

As best as I can find, the bottom 90% of US households by income own roughly 11% of US listed shares.
42% of US listed stock is owned by foreign investors.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

EasternTiger said:
LOL dude your 'Orange man bad' source was a John Podesta think tank.

www.americanprogress.org

John Podesta

www.americanprogress.org www.americanprogress.org

If that is a credible source in your mind then I can't help you.

You're either trolling or just dumb.
Click to expand...
Ah Ad hominems - cult members really can't control their emotions, can they?

Trickle-down has failed.
Trump's tax cuts, when accounting for state taxes and healthcare effects (which some try to ignore to skew the data) overwhelmingly favoured the already well-off.

It also failed to deliver any sort of economic stimulus.

In addition to these and other flaws,[25] recent research from economists at the Treasury and the Federal Reserve found no evidence that the deduction provided any boost in economic activity in the two years following the deduction’s enactment — no additional investment, jobs, or higher wages for employees of pass-through businesses.[26]
Click to expand...
www.cbpp.org

After Decades of Costly, Regressive, and Ineffective Tax Cuts, a New Course Is Needed | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this morning at this important hearing. I am Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax...
www.cbpp.org

1721599799747.png

Lucky for the elites, the useful idiots for the 1% vote on ideology rather than facts. Hence the GOP are happy to fan the flames of CTs/misinformation.
 
As for the Dems nom, there is some (small sample size) polling around which will be largely irrelevant as the Dems will focus almost entirely on the swing states.


These voters are also more likely to support an alternative Democrat against Trump than they are to choose Biden. In hypothetical matchups, they break 47% for Harris to 34% for Trump, 42% for Newsom to 36% for Trump, and 42% for Buttigieg to 35% for Trump.

The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from June 28-30 among a random national sample of 1,274 adults drawn from a probability-based panel, including 1,045 registered voters.
Click to expand...
 
Mofra said:
Incorrect.
I hardly post on SRP for a start, and trickle down economics is one of the most well-debunked economic theories.
Click to expand...
Trickle down economics is when you give money to the ones at the top in the hope that it’ll make it to the bottom. Getting rid of theft via income tax is not trickle down economics.
 
Mofra said:
Certainly not in the US - the wealth inequality is far more pronounced than in Australia (shamefully so). Anecdotally, 1 in 7 US adults requires food stamps. I'm not sure we appreciate how lucky we are in Australia to be honest.

Even in Australia, with significant superannuation holdings, the top 20% overwhelmingly own the majority of ASX listed stocks.

As best as I can find, the bottom 90% of US households by income own roughly 11% of US listed shares.
42% of US listed stock is owned by foreign investors.
Click to expand...
This gap keeps widening under your preferred welfare State. Why is this so?
 
Mofra said:
Certainly not in the US - the wealth inequality is far more pronounced than in Australia (shamefully so). Anecdotally, 1 in 7 US adults requires food stamps. I'm not sure we appreciate how lucky we are in Australia to be honest.

Even in Australia, with significant superannuation holdings, the top 20% overwhelmingly own the majority of ASX listed stocks.

As best as I can find, the bottom 90% of US households by income own roughly 11% of US listed shares.
42% of US listed stock is owned by foreign investors.
Click to expand...
The term 'foreign investors' is pretty scary, but a lot of those 'foreign investors' are likely funds like Australian and Canadian super funds. You'll of course have your big private wealth holders and sovereign wealth funds from Saudi and China, but those holdings (the foreign wealth ones) are actually heavily regulated and aren't as common as you think, they generally have larger holdings in less regulated areas such as Africa, the Middle East, South America, South East Asia and Eastern Europe.

So if we're to take your position that corporate tax cuts aren't good for the US as a whole, more money in the hands of shareholders as opposed to the US government is still a good thing for the world as a whole and helps the global middle class, including here in Australia.
 
Mofra said:
Ah Ad hominems - cult members really can't control their emotions, can they?

Trickle-down has failed.
Trump's tax cuts, when accounting for state taxes and healthcare effects (which some try to ignore to skew the data) overwhelmingly favoured the already well-off.

It also failed to deliver any sort of economic stimulus.


www.cbpp.org

After Decades of Costly, Regressive, and Ineffective Tax Cuts, a New Course Is Needed | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this morning at this important hearing. I am Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax...
www.cbpp.org

View attachment 2055194

Lucky for the elites, the useful idiots for the 1% vote on ideology rather than facts. Hence the GOP are happy to fan the flames of CTs/misinformation.
Click to expand...
Even after I had a word to you about dodgy sources, you’ve decided to ignore commonsense and instead doubled down with the the same ‘think tank’ links which FK has already pointed out aren’t credible.

We try to gently point you guys in the right direction but it appears our efforts are in vain.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lebbo73 said:
This gap keeps widening under your preferred welfare State. Why is this so?
Click to expand...
The US is not a welfare state by any means.
They have the most expensive (per capita) and the least effective healthcare system in the OECD for example. Massive, massive corporate gouiing in the supply chain to hospitals is a massive factor.
 
Lebbo73 said:
Trickle down economics is when you give money to the ones at the top in the hope that it’ll make it to the bottom. Getting rid of theft via income tax is not trickle down economics.
Click to expand...
The income tax cuts are overwhelmingly targeted towards high income earners (and corporate entities) so yes, removing the progressive elements of the tax system is underpinned by defunct notion of trickle down economics.

It's paid for by massive, massive deficits - it's corporate socialism that conservatives used to oppose.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
The term 'foreign investors' is pretty scary, but a lot of those 'foreign investors' are likely funds like Australian and Canadian super funds. You'll of course have your big private wealth holders and sovereign wealth funds from Saudi and China, but those holdings (the foreign wealth ones) are actually heavily regulated and aren't as common as you think, they generally have larger holdings in less regulated areas such as Africa, the Middle East, South America, South East Asia and Eastern Europe.

So if we're to take your position that corporate tax cuts aren't good for the US as a whole, more money in the hands of shareholders as opposed to the US government is still a good thing for the world as a whole and helps the global middle class, including here in Australia.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with tax cuts being applied to the lower and middle classes - there are a lot of studies that show tax cuts provided to the people who actually spend it (rather than high income earners who invest it) do far more for economic stimulus. In the modern era, they're less inflationary than the retention of corporate profits as well. Stiglitz writes quite a lot about this is and is worth listening to.

The problem is that US tax cuts are targeted towards high income earners and it just does not provide the same benefit.
FWIW 'foreign investors' also includes large entities incorporated in tax havens as well (e.g. Caymen Islands) which will use a separate management LLC that is US domiciled (often Delaware). BlackRock seem to own 5% of everything.

There is however a long term structural issue when deficit-funding is used on tax cuts that have shown to provide no economic stimulus. The US was in bad shape before deficits exploded to 4%, 4.5% of annual GDP under Trump. Continuing to kick the can down the road is really really poor policy.
 
Mofra said:
I have no problem with tax cuts being applied to the lower and middle classes - there are a lot of studies that show tax cuts provided to the people who actually spend it (rather than high income earners who invest it) do far more for economic stimulus. In the modern era, they're less inflationary than the retention of corporate profits as well. Stiglitz writes quite a lot about this is and is worth listening to.

The problem is that US tax cuts are targeted towards high income earners and it just does not provide the same benefit.
FWIW 'foreign investors' also includes large entities incorporated in tax havens as well (e.g. Caymen Islands) which will use a separate management LLC that is US domiciled (often Delaware). BlackRock seem to own 5% of everything.

There is however a long term structural issue when deficit-funding is used on tax cuts that have shown to provide no economic stimulus. The US was in bad shape before deficits exploded to 4%, 4.5% of annual GDP under Trump. Continuing to kick the can down the road is really really poor policy.
Click to expand...
I agree with this entirely. The US needs to drastically cut spending.
 
Lebbo73 said:
Trickle down economics is when you give money to the ones at the top in the hope that it’ll make it to the bottom. Getting rid of theft via income tax is not trickle down economics.
Click to expand...

Trump has proposed getting rid of (Federal) income tax but simultaneously imposing tariffs (of up to 85 percent) on all imports to compensate.

In case you haven't switched on, the makers of the goods subject to the tariffs will foist that increase on the goods, resulting in stuff costing 85 percent more at the checkout.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewleahey/2024/06/14/can-trump-eliminate-the-income-tax/

When tariffs are applied broadly, as Trump appears to be suggesting, the price increase affects a similarly broad set of goods—essentially, everything that is imported. Retailers and wholesalers will pass on those added expenses to consumers, leading directly to higher prices at checkout.

Such price hikes in everyday goods disproportionately impact low and middle-income households, because they are the consumers that spend the highest percentage of their income on consumable goods. This converts a progressive income tax—higher income folks pay a higher rate—into a regressive tax, akin to a sales tax. As such, in the near term, the only groups benefiting from the elimination of a broad-based income tax and the ratcheting up of tariffs are those folks at the higher end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
Click to expand...

Everyday necessities, like clothing, food, and household goods, as well as significant purchases like electronics, vehicles, and equipment, will immediately increase in price. Even goods entirely produced domestically, and thus not directly subject to tariffs, may see price hikes—as demand outstrips supply.
Click to expand...

It's crazy that the Republicans (the party of Adam Smith and trade liberalization) would even consider such a proposal:

When there is no probability that any such repeal [of a tariff in a foreign country] can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them. When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class. (Bk. 4, Ch. 2)
Click to expand...

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/adam-smith-trump-tariffs/

The above was written over 200 years ago.

The USA is the worlds number 1 importer of goods. They import 3 trillion USD per year, comprising 15 percent of their total GDP.

The cost of living would skyrocket if Trump follows through on his plan.

You do get this right?
 
Malifice said:
Trump has proposed getting rid of (Federal) income tax but simultaneously imposing tariffs (of up to 85 percent) on all imports to compensate.

In case you haven't switched on, the makers of the goods subject to the tariffs will foist that increase on the goods, resulting in stuff costing 85 percent more at the checkout.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewleahey/2024/06/14/can-trump-eliminate-the-income-tax/





It's crazy that the Republicans (the party of Adam Smith and trade liberalization) would even consider such a proposal:



https://taxfoundation.org/blog/adam-smith-trump-tariffs/

The above was written over 200 years ago.

The USA is the worlds number 1 importer of goods. They import 3 trillion USD per year, comprising 15 percent of their total GDP.

The cost of living would skyrocket if Trump follows through on his plan.

You do get this right?
Click to expand...
The cost of living has already skyrocketed under Biden.

You don’t need to model or forecast out 10 years.

It is literally happening right in front of you!

You do get this right?
 
EasternTiger said:
The cost of living has already skyrocketed under Biden.
Click to expand...

You can thank Trumps tariffs and tax cuts for the wealthy, both of which caused inflation (and prices) to spike.

Those tariffs got passed onto the consumer. This accelerated the cost of living crisis.

What economic policy of Biden do you think contributed to rising costs of living?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top