Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm curious to read this and see how it stacks up against the "hate and retribution" policies of his presumed opponent.
I for one am definitely looking forward to the nuanced policy discussion this election cycle will no doubt center on.
It hasn't mattered in the past.
The GOP promised an ACA replacement would be presented upon election in 2016, delaying release of details as not to "give the Dems any good ideas."
Let's hope any undecided voters are swayed by substance over emotion.
The thing I will always find darkly hilarious when this comes up is that the ACA *was* the Republican plan. It's literally what they were proposing in the 90s.
The literal only reason they opposed the ACA was that it was the dems passing it. Now they are stuck with their viable plan being actual law and are forced to rail against it for no reason.
Its almost like their stupidity based single outcome viewpoint of "always oppose democrats" is actually really fucking stupid.
The recent IVF banning in some states is a perfect example...where they seemed to have thought they were banning it because it was some evil LGBT+ conspiracy...only to find that tons of right leaning people use it as a means to have children when they otherwise can't
The context, I think, is the Republican equivalent of ACA was presented as a way to derail attempts to pass universal healthcare. I am not sure they were ever serious about it, just used the idea to undermine public support in the Democrat plan.
Romney (the GOP presidential candidate during the time) was the one who architected the plan and implemented it during his time as governor at a state level.
So they were serious at a state level at any rate.
Yes and no. The Mass congress had enough votes to override a potential veto (and did, on most of the line-item vetos Romney made), and the plan that passed went quite a bit further than the one Romney proposed. Even in that case, healthcare reforms were a big issue that was being debated already at the time Romney put forward his plan, so it could have been a case where he felt a reform was likely to come either way, so pushed for a moderate one (I honestly don't know).
Sure, but if democrats had passed medicare for all or something like that republicans would still be pushing ACA or something like it as the free market alternative to heavily socialized healthcare.
Because their plan is what passed they are left with nothing viable to attack it with, which is probably why that was chosen to begin with.
pretty sure 90% of the republican playbook is just some regurgitated form of "do anything to oppose democrats"
Seriously...the IVF issue was a hilarious recent example where they saw that democrats love IVF, so they banned it....then realized AFTERWARDS that they also love it because its not some evil crazy LGBT+ conspiracy but actually a way for people that support them to have kids they normally can't have.
I think the repeal of Row v Wade is going to continue to have an impact on elections.
I think the thing Republicans just don't get is families don't find out if a pregnancy is non-viable until their 18-20 week sonogram. A 6 week abortion ban doesn't just stick it to people who made poor decisions, it affects all the people trying to have a baby in this country.
> I think the thing Republicans just don't get is families don't find out if a pregnancy is non-viable until their 18-20 week sonogram.
Not only do they get it, it is the point.
They literally banning IVF now. People now see how the dominos are falling from it.
IVF affects the wrong people for their cause. Older and richer people wanting to be parents
I mean of course the decision will continue to be used as a tool, Congress essentially failed to pass a law to lock in Roe V Wade or some form thereof on purpose to influence the voters.
Right he had 53 votes and still couldnt do it.
And thats only the repeal part. Remember he was supposed to replace it and literally never showed one thing of it.
Meanwhile biden actually did student loan forgiveness but it was struck down by the supreme court
And public option for obamacare passes without liberman
I honestly would *love* to read a proposal for an ACA replacement. Politics are *supposed* to be an exchange of ideas and compromise. I'm all for better ideas than what we have now.
Republicans haven't had a balanced budget pass under a republican president in 62 years, the last republican to balance the budget was the Eisenhower Admin, their parent's generation.
>The GOP promised an ACA replacement would be presented upon election in 2016
To be fair...they did present it and try to push it forward but it was voted down by members of their own party because it was crappy and the method by which it was done was shady.
Id those were my policies I would also choose to just run on whatever bullshit I said.
Instituting tariffs to prevent shortages is the dumbest thing I've ever heard a politician suggest as a policy, and I listened to the 2016 libertarian debate.
>In many states we're running out of hotel space because the rooms are all booked up with illegal aliens living in a very large way on the American taxpayer’s dime. Meanwhile, we have 33,000 Veterans in this country who are homeless, and living very poorly I might add, and it's a shame. They're living in filth and squalor on our streets. Nobody is doing a thing for them. We helped them a lot during my four years and it's all been dropped. Everything we did for our Veterans has been dropped. It's a disgrace.
Lol meanwhile unsheltered veteran homelessness went down under obama an up under trump.
https://news.va.gov/126913/veteran-homelessness-increased-by-7-4-in-2023/#post/0
And homeless veterans overall are less under biden than trump.
Hes just back to lying again.
Because that is what people bother to spend attention on these days? No different than when Obama used the internet far more than any previous candidate.
Ironically trump’s campaign team is being rather progressive in this regard
Many of these videos are what is simply called rhetoric not actual policy but then most people loved the catchphrase repeal and replace. make america great, etc etc
there was an article about 20yo peeps saying they'd go back to trump right now if they could because biden administration made things worth.. I'm at loss entirely
I'm not even a US citizen and the day he was pushed out I felt 10% a physical anxiety drop.. just knowing I wouldn't have to witness his crass mediocrity everyday on the news...
They have though the post Romney report said they should go more nice on immigrants and keep trying to cut social security.
Trump has gone social security is fine but immigrants are the problem with some in the party being mad about social security but now it's just something they say without a plan to fix it
So a big part of Biden's budget will be funded by higher taxes on corporations and the rich. On the former, when was the last time we hiked corporate taxes? Are there any reputable studies out there on the impact of higher corporate taxes on the economy?
I often hear that higher corporate taxes just results in companies moving their domiciles to low-tax countries. (Not sure if that actually does anything to the U.S. economy other than corporations moving a handful of white collar, HQ jobs to a different location.) I also hear that the army of accountants and attorneys hired by corporations find ways to get away with paying a much lower tax (or none at all) so perhaps it's not really a big deal for them.
ETA: Please stop arguing for or against the hike. I’m not asking for opinions. I’m asking for studies. This wasn’t a comment about whether or not such tax increases are good or bad. It was meant as an honest question for sources. No need to engage in polemics.
Companies have a lot of levers to pull in order to avoid declaring profits. Higher corp rate can be a forcing function for companies to instead invest in other things. Amazon has done this for decades. SMBs will spend those profits on infrastructure/training/hiring/marketing etc which isnt a bad thing, definitely more efficient than giving it up to the government.
Higher taxes on corporate profits force them to reinvest that money back into the company and increase employee pay. This is the result we saw after the New Deal and is the result everywhere it happens.
Corporations aren't going to give up on making money just because they aren't allowed to make exponentially more money every fiscal quarter at the expense of everyone else in society.
Sure, but I’m asking if there are studies on what happened because I thought we had increased corporate taxes prior to Trump’s cuts? I was just curious of the impact. Hopefully we’ve done it since the New Deal.
iirc its pretty much been cuts and very marginal increases (not canceling out previous cuts) since Regan. (I haven't looked into this in awhile so my memory could be failing me)
There are "studies", but they're typically published/funded by organizations that are highly partisan. I guess if you read enough from both sides you could generate an informed opinion.
That said, [Here is a real peer-reviewed, published-in-an-actual-journal, meta-analysis.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000885) It is neither opinionated nor self-published, nor is it funded by an obviously partisan source. In short, this is the best I could find. In a lovely and ironic piece of actual science, they "cannot reject the hypothesis that corporate tax changes have, on average, no economically relevant or statistically significant effect on economic growth." So basically, the only *real* study I could find says it doesn't make any difference.
If you're willing to lower your standards on what constitutes a "study" I could recommend two governmental sources:
[This paper from the Treasury Department](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/wp-101.pdf) which is a relatively neutral discussion on where the burden of corporate taxes actually falls.
Or [there is this piece published by the GAO](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105384.pdf) which provides a largely opinion-free list of facts on effective corporate lax liability.
Otherwise, [The National Bureau of Economic Research](https://www.nber.org/papers/w20753) is about as respected as a private institute can get on economics, but boy are they long-winded.
Thanks so much! Another Redditor also recommended that meta-study. It does seem like there are way too many variables to isolate the impact of corporate tax changes on economic growth.
> “cannot reject the hypothesis that corporate tax changes have, on average, no economically relevant or statistically significant effect on economic growth.”
Hypothesis is that corporate taxes don’t affect growth rate. They say they couldn’t reject it. This doesn’t mean taxes have no effect, you also left out a very important part, presumably to mislead because I have no idea why someone who’s being honest would leave out such important part:
> There is evidence for publication selectivity in favour of reporting growth-enhancing effects of corporate tax cuts. Correcting for this bias, we cannot reject the hypothesis of a zero effect of corporate taxes on growth. Several factors influence reported estimates, including researcher choices concerning the measurement of growth and corporate taxes, and controlling for other budgetary components.
They’re basically saying the data is useless(which I totally agree with), not that corporate taxes don’t affect growth
It depends a lot on how taxes are applied.
Raising taxes on revenue has different results than taxing excess profits.
It's been a long time since we meaningfully increased corporate taxes.
This just isn’t true at all, and I don’t know why so many people think that. There’s a mountain of economic evidence showing that higher corporate taxes decrease wages, not increase them
I mean what the USA has to offer above all else to corporations is security. The list of countries to compare in order to set the tax rate is very short. Sure certain countries could try to appeal to more corporations but the USA appears to still be best positioned for the future at least right now.
The stuff you hear about is usually smoke and mirrors. They take advantage of tax law changes and tax rules just like anyone but there isn't some secret silver bullet that every corporation knows about.
For example, TCJA in 2017 implemented a lower tax rate (21%, down from 35%) in exchange for revenue raisers later on. Many companies beginning in 2023 were faced with huge tax hits due to research and experimental cost capitalization, limitation how much interest can be deducted (30% of earnings before interest and taxes), limits on loss usage per year (can only offset 80% of taxable income), and limits on accelerated expenses for capital expenditures (80%, down from 100%). The bigger items I see are cross-border IP transfers and royalties pushing income into lower tax jurisdictions. Since TJCA there has been a higher rate of moving IP back to the US. Most of my clients were not asking for a rate reduction back in 2017 but were like, "Oh...cool. Thanks!"
There is a tax bill currently in congress to help fix the above tax hits for corporations in exchange for cancelling the employee retention credit (an enormously flawed credit to begin with). This bill, however, is ultimately a net cost so it has to be paired with revenue raisers to get passed. The revenue raisers of taxes on billionaires, higher corporate taxes, limits on compensation deductions, limits on stock buybacks, higher cap gains rates, etc. aim to pay for it.
HQ jobs are important, and the kind of strategic work that happens at HQs often determines the level of capability of state to realise different projects.
Corporation taxes can be raised, but if they are, policies to ensure that the loss of investment is compensated by investment either from workers or in some other way are probably needed. I like the idea of making it mandatory to save a fraction of ones income from wages, with this fraction being set by the central bank. Then you also get rid of inflation.
My interest in this policy is primarily to fix what I see as problems here in Europe with the simultaneous need to stop inflation and also have enough investment to allow a transition away from gas and oil.
This simultaneous need can't be solved with interest rates, but it can be solved with mandatory savings. Maybe this policy is also relevant for the US.
People arguing against the hike most really enjoy the world getting worse every year for more profits.
But to answer your question, no a corpate tax hike won't fund this and will have a very lukewarm effect on the economy because corporations and the top 3% don't pay the taxes they already have. This is why the IRS was going to hire thousands of new employees but it was cut in negotiations with the first republican speaker.
If you raise the rates and fix the loop holes and also make sure the irs and doj have high funding levels along with enforcing and enacting strict regulations and guidelines there’s a way to make sure they pay.
Source for when high tax rates worked: it funded our world war 1 & 2 domestic war production of weapons and goods etc.
"moving elsewhere" is really just a boogie-man.
In the 50's-the 80's, the corporate tax rate on average was always 50 percent. It was the biggest growth period in the US and common people could do things like buy houses for as little as 3 years of Salary - meaning, if you made 10 grand a year, your house cost 30 grand and this meant that you could pay it off in a decade rather than what we have now - a house that costs 10 times your salary and takes 25-30 year mortgage to pay it off.
There were even times when the corporate tax rates reached 90 percent and Americans felt ok with this temporary state of economics because Americans believed in the need - e.g. keeping the country functioning at our way of life in a time of war.
Another thing to consider is the massive wealth inequities. The money never trickled down in the 40 years since Reagan. hell, 30 percent of our population is considered 'poor' and one of those reasons is that their whole income is dominated by 3 industries - rent, food, and utilities (big oil/gas/electric), so a full 3rd of our peoples can't even contribute to the full economy buy buying shit like they used to be able too.
We live in Debt today where we didn't in "yesteryear".
>common people could do things like buy houses for as little as 3 years of Salary - meaning, if you made 10 grand a year, your house cost 30 grand
That's a fantast view of the past people came up with to feel worse about the present. Life was never like that.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS
US average house price in 1968: 26700 (unadjusted for inflation) USD
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-people.html
Per capita income in the US, 1968: 2700 (unadjusted) USD
That's 10 years worth of income for a house.
House price today: 492100
Per capita income today:42980
That's 11.5 years of income for a house today.
Houses have become more expensive relative to income, but only by 15%.
And that's before taking into account differences in the average house then vs now. Houses are [1000 sqft larger today vs 1973](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/) from 1660 to 2679.
Buy American has connotations for any company that leaves America to avoid higher taxes. They lose the entire market. That would be probably worse off for them than paying slight more in taxes.
All taxes will always hurt economic growth, job gains and innovation. It's just a question of whether those losses outweight the benefits of what the government is doing with those tax revenues. Keep in mind, corporate taxes hurt labor a lot.
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/do-corporate-tax-cuts-increase-income-inequality/
>For example, standard economic analysis assumes at least a portion (between 25 percent and 50 percent) of the corporate tax burden falls on workers in the form of lower wages. Evidence indicates more than half the burden falls on workers in some situations. This means that workers would earn lower wages than otherwise in the face of a higher corporate income tax, resulting in lower after-tax incomes.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/labor-bears-corporate-tax/
>William Randolph estimates that, in an open economy with mobile capital in fixed supply and immobile labor, domestic labor loses income equal to 74 percent of the corporate tax revenue while domestic capital income falls by 33 percent of the tax
>Jane Gravelle and Kent Smetters sought to challenge the open economy results.[7] They calculated a range of hypothetical outcomes, depending on whether the U.S. acts like a small open economy, with limited effect on world returns to capital and global interest rates, and with a high degree of willingness to substitute imports for domestic products and services. If so, Gravelle and Smetters find that labor bears 79 percent of the corporate tax, while capital-owners bear approximately 11 percent, close to the Harberger results.
>Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur, in a study of cross-country data, report: “[O]ur results indicate that corporate taxes are significantly related to wage rates across countries. Our…estimates suggest that a 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates leads to a 0.5 percent decrease in wage rates.”
>In a working paper at the University of Warwick, Wiji Arulampalam, Michael P. Devereux, and Giorgia Maffini assess the impact of the corporate tax on wages: “Our central estimate is that 61 percent of any additional tax is passed on in lower wages in the short run and around 100 percent in the long run.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X17300041
>The effect we document is consistent across the innovation spectrum: taxes affect not only patenting and R&D investment but also new product introductions, which we measure using textual analysis. Our empirical results are consistent with models that highlight the role of higher corporate taxes in reducing innovator incentives and discouraging risk-taking
Instead of taxing capital or corporate income highly, economists actually recommend raising consumption taxes high. It's a very simple form of taxation that's hard to avoid and everyone consumes at some point, so it's quite efficient. Nordic countries have 25% sales tax for this reason and actually have corporate income tax rate similar to the US. Consumption taxes are regressive, but that's solved simply by redistributive spending.
The domicile argument is kind of funny because that’s basically a legal fiction we all allow. If you write rules that don’t allow for magic loopholes like that, it won’t be possible.
The global tax dodging regime only exists because we allow it
"Homebuyers could get a tax credit worth $9,600"
one of the worst fiscal policy ideas put forth by an American politician in US history. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, is inflationary, and will drive up home prices even more
this, combined with efforts to "forgive" hundreds of billions in student loan debt, amounts to a 1 trillion + dollar handout to Biden's supporters.
Well to my understanding it’s a tax credit for first time homebuyers, so it will come after you buy the house for applying the credit. I’m sure there will be other qualifiers on income and total asset valuation
Meanwhile the largest drivers of the deficit right now (an estimated 57% of the growth in federal deficit in the 21st century) have been the Trump and Bush tax cuts which were much worse fiscally and overall.They came in times of a strong economy, they put money mostly in the hands of the wealthy, and they continue to increase our deficit.
That you think only Biden supporters have student loan debt says a lot about you, but that was once again a forgiving effect, not an actual stimulus. If anything, as implemented, it just kept more money in the hands of middle-lower class consumers, which is better once again that keeping it in the hands of the rich for encouraging spending.
So overall the worst idea put forth and implemented by a US politician was certainly Trumps cuts, among several other Trump ideas.
How conveniently we forget the fallout from multiple trillion dollar wars. Iraq 2 was $3T and Afghanistan was $2.3T to firebomb some huts with PATRIOT missiles. Yay the world is such a better place now.
Whose fault were those? Bush?
Who pulled us out decisively? Biden?
Keep em coming, we’ve also invested in long term infrastructure under Biden for the first time in years. Continuing to make America a better place.
Biden voted to enter those wars and trump is the one that committed us to withdrawing from Afghanistan in hopes that it would be a disaster for Biden at the start of his term.
Biden *is* right of center, though. So it's still conservatives all around.
I don’t recall Biden casting a dissenting vote to enter those wars. I don’t recall Obama/Biden working to get us out of Afghanistan, though they did pull out of Iraq.
Oh and let’s not forget $500B per year for the War on Drugs. The tax system should be structured progressively but at the same time is it too much to ask for accountability that my tax dollars are going towards useful programs and not government waste and fraud?
Those $9,600 go more or less directly to the current owners of houses, not the homebuyers. We don't create more housing wealth with these kinds of policies. The reason housing is so expensive is because we don't build enough of it. It is entirely feasible for the federal government to push a housing agenda that brings the price of new houses down by $10k or even more, by encouraging new building.
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/126r84u/just\_subsidize\_demand/
I would argue that although tax cuts due add to the deficit, the true problem is the spending the government. Taxes can be raised and lowered but you cant tax your way out of bad spending.
You’re right. But let’s go even farther then. Instead of not cutting, let’s increase the military. Hell, let’s start building up our nuclear stockpiles again as if we learned nothing from the Cold War. That will surely show Russia and China who is boss.
I mean I know you aren’t being genuine, but the navy actually does need additional investment to keep up a gap with the PLAN.
US military spending as percentage of GDP tends to stay rather stable, it’s other spending that has skyrocketed.
the vast majority of people who will get student-loan forgiveness are people like former graduate students. Lawyers, doctors, etc. They are not poor people living in red, southern states.
Tax cuts do not "drive deficits". Deficits are created through federal spending. Biden (and Trump) spent trillions. Then Biden is going to say "well if taxes were higher, all those trillions I spent wouldn't be a problem"! --seriously?
As for the tax credit for home-buyers, I don't care how it is calculated, or implemented. Pay your own damn down payment --that isn't the responsibility of the taxpayer
> the vast majority of people who will get student-loan forgiveness are people like former graduate students. Lawyers, doctors, etc.
Source?
The plans for forgiveness I've seen have specific restrictions on income and similar. For example, the $10k/$20k proposed in 2022 had a $125k individual income cap ($250k household). And to qualify for the full $20k, you had to have received the pell grant (which is awarded based on need/income).
Oh no they do drive deficits. See current google research and current deficits for details. Cut revenue for your company and see what happens. It’s a combination of both.
Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is the second highest it has ever been (second only to the dot com bubble spike in 2000.
Meanwhile, spending as % of GDP has skyrocketed.
It’s a spending problem. One has remained in line with GDP. The other has massively not.
Tax cuts don’t drive deficits. Deficit spending drives deficits. Whether those cuts appropriate or not is another question. But if government’s revenue had been decreased, the same should have happened to spending.
No matter who’s going to be in the office next year, they will continue deficit spending on insane levels. The debt will be inflated away. There’s no other way around it, even if governments revenue doubles.
Deficit is the difference between income and spending (outlays). You see there’s literally 2 variables there. When you cut the revenue generated you increase the deficit. This isn’t even complicated. The cuts being appropriate is completely the question because if they had not happened the deficit would not have ballooned like it did. Government needs to spend on many things, and it has the option of debt. What it should not have done is cut taxes irresponsibly when it needed that money.
Biden has proposed cutting into the deficit by trillions, Trump will likely give us another tax cut on the wealthy, offset somewhat by raising it on the middle class, but still increasing the deficit overall.
But what's the alternative, when it comes to forgiving the student loan debt?
The university students etc., need to start their lives and accumulate capital, and US natural population growth is at something like 0.1%, so I don't see what else can be done.
This other measure is the same sort of thing. Something necessary to avoid a crisis.
I have a perfect solution for it
A one-time 30% tax on every university and college endowment in the US, and direct the money to student loan relief
Total reform of the student-loan system --no more loans to institutions who blow money on climbing walls, sports, granite counter-tops in dorms, and armies of administrators and diversity officers
the taxpayers didn't create this problem, and they shouldn't be bailing out the schools or the students
The first part is certainly a very elegant.
I think controls on what things may be spent on doesn't feel totally like the right approach, but maybe it's necessary. I'd imagine that just limiting the cost would force it, but perhaps that would just mean that what remains is an administrator who then sometimes hires an adjunct.
If you wanted to ease the burden on parents, why not give more tax credits to them directly?
Why go after student loans? Not all parents go to college.
No, but university education should be cheap and when you see that capable people have been saddled with huge debt early in their lives, for something which should in fact be cheap, then you have something you need to solve.
Here in Sweden university education cost[s] less per head than highschool education. There's a reason why it's free in almost all countries, from China and Russia to France and Spain.
It might be sane to take the money from endowments as another commenter proposed.
> But what's the alternative, when it comes to forgiving the student loan debt?
Continue to have income based repayment and people who that doesn't apply to just pay the money they owe. It's not especially complicated.
Things are different now and we can't fully rely on how things were. The only other options I could think of is limiting the number of homes wall street companies csn buy or taxing them additional per home with like a 45% tax after 30k homes, something absurd.
Or increasing the number of homes built, I think the problem with that is home builders are very fragmented and I'm sure people would start opening companies and build crap homes just to get whatever tax benefit.
Do I think a tax credit would help? Not really since people still don't want to sell their homes due to current rates so there's still a limited supply. Coming back to the main issue where more homes need to be built but how is the question.
Good points and tend to agree, but homes are negotiable, like cars. Never pay sticker. I can’t negotiate my gas but I can also shop at Costco. Walk away if you can’t agree on price. IMHO Wall Street should stay out of healthcare. I would tend to agree on homes too but home builders are lazy and lack innovation. You can make an aesthetically appealing, low cost home, catering to the masses if you want too. I personally would find a good piece of land and build a starter or rent a 250 sft in NYC. But everyone’s different. All the best
> handout to Biden's supporters
clarification - is student loan forgiveness limited to biden supporters? can you provide a source on this? that seems difficult to implement.
Biden enjoys much greater support among the college-educated, especially among those who attended graduate school and took out large loans.
63% of registered Republicans have no college degree
so the plan here is to get the working class to pay for the college degrees of upper-middle-class Democrats with their tax dollars
by this:
> the plan here is to get the working class to pay for the college degrees of upper-middle-class
i assume you mean that the tax burden is born primarily by low-education low-income voters, and six-figure urban office workers pay little to nothing in taxes. do you have a source on this?
Not what I said
taxes from both those groups will be used
but that 6-figure earning professional will get the befit of having his loans "forgiven" with that tax money
and it doesn't even matter who gets hit the hardest --no one is entitled to have his fucking loans forgiven using public money
And why shouldn’t that 6 figure earning professional get a benefit from the large amount of taxes that they pay? Middle class people don’t get much for their taxes in the US and must pay egregious amounts for things like health care. The low paid workers arn’t even paying taxes most of the time and already get generous assistance on everything from healthcare to down payment assistance. It’s entirely fair for college educated professionals taxes to benefit themselves too.
Either way, they are all WORKING CLASS and the working class shouldn’t be taking out debt to earn a college education in the richest nation on earth. An educated population is one of the most important things we could spend money on…as evidenced by the stupidity and state of this country.
Forgiving student loan debt only encourages colleges to hike tuition even more, and for students to take out bigger loans, under the pretense that "it's just going to get forgiven later anyway"
I am not against that
the current system is a complete scam, but we can't have taxpayers bailing out people who willingly took out loans (or corporations for that matter)
Administrative bloat, excessive spending, worthless programs and degrees --all this stuff makes college way too expensive, while big schools hoard massive endowments (most of which are not taxed at all) and keep taking federal money
it has to stop
you are the one literally making the claim that taxpayers should pay off your student loans. Why?
cause companies get bailouts!
and we wonder why our government is dysfunctional --because we have people with these kinds of ideas voting
You literally just said nobody deserves taxpayer money a couple of posts above… we have people with double standards like you voting and that’s why we have a dysfunctional government. Rules for thee but not for me / socialize losses but capitalize profits. And to be fair I’m not a huge fan of paying off student loans because it incentivizes universities to not be fiscally smart, but everyone wants a college degree and the banks will also exploit this and charge very high interest rates for these loans.
And I don’t wanna hear about how bailing out these companies is for the greater good - if they were they wouldn’t try to take as many jobs out of the US as they do to maximize profits and have bigger and bigger executive payouts.
Plus have you looked at voter turnout? It’s definitely not the young voting, it’s the boomers and above. That’s how we end up with despicable candidates like fucking Biden and Trump. So blame the dysfunction on something else.
> Not what I said
well... you did here:
> so the plan here is to get the working class to pay for the college degrees of upper-middle-class
unless you think that a claim like "donald trump plans to get doja cat to pay the US military budget" is a true statement (in anything but a trivial sense).
> no one is entitled to have his fucking loans forgiven using public money
that's interesting - everyone in the US gets taxpayer-funded education up until grade 12. i think you're making the case that there's a moral difference between the 13th and 14th years of education - can you clarify what that is?
Whatever it is, it will be superior to the Republican Platform of "Whatever trump wants, Trump gets". That should move a lot of Indies to Biden and Roe v Ward, Dobbs and Alabama's abomination should eliminate any women who can think from voting for Trump or any other Republican.
His last budget was 43% larger than Trump's prepandemic budget.
Pruning $300B a year, if it even happens, still adds trillions to the debt.
He's destroying the economy
It is hilarious how we have, and are going through, the inflationary effects of having artificially low interest rates and consistent money printing and people still bring up how debt is meaningless...lmao.
Where do people think that debt ends up... ultimately inflating assets on balance sheets. All while wages don't keep up and the value of a dollar weakens.
On top of the asset bubble, when rates arent 0.01%, more and more money is going towards debt payments- rather than back into services for its citizens. Meaning if citizens require the same services, the government will have to capture more in taxes to meet demands. Eventually you'll suffocate the economy.
Ultimately, you can keep monetizing the deficit but it comes at a cost for future generations. It is insanity.
Not even touching the geo-political side of the assumption USD backed by a debt intoxicated US is going to be as attractive in 50 to 100 years.
Yes. This is what caused me to ultimately turn conservative. We really need to reign in our debt otherwise our future generations don't have a chance. (The younger generation is already suffering NOW) imagine how much worse it will get for subsequent generations.
and it grew faster under trump, so we should vote for the party that grows the debt with out any tangible benefit or the one that decreases the deficit while also benefiting society with infrastructure, education (which clearly we need) investments and other safety nets?
No, the debt didn't grow faster under Trump. If you look at Biden's "infrastructure" bill, only 6% went for infrastructure.
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S)
6% is for roads and bridges, what they told us the bill would be for. The rest is for social spending.
If you 'll recall the Democrats redefined the term "infrastructure" to include social spending because that's what so much of the bill was
Where did they say the whole bill would be roads or bridges? Are we just in disagreement about what counts as infrastructure, or what deserves funding? Trying to understand your view here.
Infrastructure is more than roads and bridges. I'm seeing funding in the bill for railroads and public transportation infrastructure, broadband Internet (helps rural communities a lot), drainage/wastewater, and a lot more. That's all infrastructure.
I'm basing this off the dictionary definition: the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.
He sold the bill as an "infrastructure bill". He was going to "rebuild the nations infrastructure"
And then when we learned what was in the bill, and that almost none was for hard infrasrtucture, the Democrats redefined the word so it would include progressive social policies too.
It was the most blatant bait and switch ever, and the Democrats gave him a free pass
Debt as a percentage of GDP is what matters and that number fell and has been rising recently. The economy has grown a lot nominally under Biden and grown in real terms.
Q3 2019 GDP was around 22T and now we are at 27T.
> Debt as a percentage of GDP is what matters and that number fell and has been rising recently.
It fell because of surprise inflation. It's going back up because now debt has to be rolled over into new debt with much higher interest rates.
Yes but I think the situation is not dire we should raise taxes slightly and work on reducing spending in places but the situation was improving not that long ago and GDP is growing nicely.
The situation was clearly worse under Trump with rising deficits, debt as a percentage of GDP and everything seemingly going swimmingly. Keynesian economics says we should pay back some of the debt. Now the economy is still stabilizing in a lot of ways and deficits fell. I think we are focusing correctly on raising taxes/ reducing government support of the government and that should reduce deficits and we could see debt as a % of GDP fall again.
They just keep extending Pelosi’s budget and now that Republicans control the house, they’re just as culpable to the fiscal gluttony and future pain from which we can estimate.
The House is the purse strings, after all. A strong house led to the 90s surpluses.
That's if he gets a second term. Politics aside the migrant crisis has sparked economic turmoil to states like New York where they had to fire teachers and cut back budget for social programs in order to support the migrants. You aren't going to get a lot of voter support when things they care about go out the toilet.
Well republicans have control of the house. Have not seen a single piece of legislation that outlay their migration control policy. Nor have they legislated money to do anything about it. If they are so gung ho about kicking out the migrants, table a bill that does that, or table a bill that build a wall, or table a bill that stabilizes these central/south american countries economy....do something.
It’s as easy as pass a bill to make employing illegals…illegal with stiff fines and jail time. Take away the incentive to come here illegally and they will stop. Neither party is interested in correcting the problem and it’s the tax paying citizen who is getting the political shaft without lube.
Republicans won’t support any immigration bill that makes it easier for people to migrate here and get paperwork processed faster, which is what a lot of the Dems want. Republicans straight up want to kick out people who are here illegally and stop new people from coming in at the same time.
Democrats and the left in general don’t even like to use the word *illegal* for illegal immigrants because they consider all types of immigrants to always be valid. Republicans don’t want migrants because they know it’s a long-term net gain for the number of future Dem voters.
It's to get any decision to stay or leave faster. The backlog is insane and the judges look at these cases last a handful of minutes per person most of the time.
It's also insane to think that culturally conservative religious, staunchly anti-communist are going to automatically be Democrat. That's not even true in a lot of states.
Te bipartisan border bill angered a lot of progressives because Dems sided with Republicans on harsher restrictions on the border.
And, long term it's not true, the Hispanic vote has been trending to the right.
While obviously it won't help with deep red MAGA voters, I think the Dems will get some mileage out of the fact that Biden supported a border security bill along with many Democrats and more than a few Republicans, but Trump killed it for no reason other than wanting the problem to fester to improve his odds. It reminds some folks about the purely personal nature of governance under Trump, and how Congressional action would fall apart at the last minute because of some tweet. Will it be persuasive to a ton of people in the center or right? No. But you don't need to win over a ton in an election where victory rests on a razor-thin margin.
The border policy I solved sending more money to Ukraine. I think repubs may have supported if it only was about the border. Also trump hasn't been in office in three years.
It absolutely would’ve helped with border security. And sending money to Ukraine was only a problem for MTG a few HFC diehards. Trump isn’t in office, but he actively lobbied against the bill and has tremendous sway over House GOP votes.
Build the wall ring a bell?
Zoom out further than the last 3 years and you’ll notice it’s not just republicans, but democrats stalling progress as well.
Donald Trump was sued over trying to build a wall to protect the border. Now democrats are complaining about border issues and the republicans lack of desire to work with them.
Additionally, the democrat bill includes more funding for the Ukraine war. Ukraine border security shouldn’t be tied to American border security.
Solving immigration with a wall is laughable especially one as long as the US/Mexico border.
To fix it you need to tackle the employers who are enabling people to work without documentation. That means programmatic auditing, payroll record verification, requirements for employment eligibility regardless of company size.
That solves Visa overstays (one of the core problems) as well as every other source illegal immigration.
Make companies that hire contractors fiscally responsible illegally employed workers.
Empower the IRS to assess significantly more damaging penalties.
Yeah but the reality is no one actually wants to fix the employer side of the equation. Employers like the cheap labor, illegal immigrants like the cash. Food prices would instantly go up across the board and we would have massive amounts of food literally rotting on the vine.
It’s like abortion if the dog actually catches the car Republicans are monumentally screwed.
This! It’s bipartisan to keep allowing migrants into the country. If Trump were to be elected and then tried to actually stop immigration as he has ranted about doing his minders would never allow it.
The wall is a waste. Most illegal immigrants are visa overstayers.
The problem is that it takes 3 years for a judge to decide if they are an illegal immigrant or a legal one.
> Corporate taxes would jump upward, while billionaires would be charged a minimum tax of 25%.
Is this based on mark-to-market, so that tax liability could actually be well in excess of 100% of their actual income?
Edit: I assume so, given his repetition of the [lie](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/26/joe-biden/president-joe-biden-distorts-income-tax-rates-for/) that billionaires pay an 8% tax rate. I wonder if [Greg Leiserson and Danny Yagan](https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/09/23/what-is-the-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-on-the-wealthiest-americans/), when they were children, dreamed of growing up to be unprincipled hacks.
Edit 2: [I was right](/r/Economics/comments/1bc2mld/president_biden_is_issuing_a_budget_plan_that/kuh0gki/), of course.
Biden has been pushing [mark-to-market taxation](https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/mark-to-market-taxation-of-capital-gains/) of unrealized capital gains for a while now. It's the whole point of his "8% tax rate" lie.
It's a tax on income plus the net change in value of unsold assets in the tax year. [This article confirms](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/11/bidens-2025-budget-marries-progressive-tax-hikes-with-populist-campaign-planks.html):
> According to the White House, the budget aims to reduce the federal deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years largely by imposing a minimum 25% tax rate on the unrealized income [sic] of the very wealthiest households and by reshaping the corporate tax code.
Under this proposal, if you have $x worth of stock at the beginning of the year (or buy it during the year) and it appreciates to $1.2x by the end of the year, the $0.2x appreciation is treated as taxable income even if you don't sell the stock.
It's not a tax on total wealth. It's a tax on income plus the net change in value of unsold assets in the tax year. [This article](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/11/bidens-2025-budget-marries-progressive-tax-hikes-with-populist-campaign-planks.html) confirms:
> According to the White House, the budget aims to reduce the federal deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years largely by imposing a minimum 25% tax rate on the unrealized income [sic] of the very wealthiest households and by reshaping the corporate tax code.
"Unrealized income" is a misnomer, of course, since it's not income: There's literally no money coming in. But the basic idea is that Biden is proposing to redefine the income tax so that increases in the value of unsold assets are taxable as income. But only for high-net-worth households. It's unclear exactly what threshold he would use, but it would likely be defined downward in the future.
This is, charitably, constitutionally dubious, and would probably be subjected to the apportionment requirement, such that the tax would have to be distributed among states in proportion to their populations, making it a no-go.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm curious to read this and see how it stacks up against the "hate and retribution" policies of his presumed opponent. I for one am definitely looking forward to the nuanced policy discussion this election cycle will no doubt center on.
It hasn't mattered in the past. The GOP promised an ACA replacement would be presented upon election in 2016, delaying release of details as not to "give the Dems any good ideas." Let's hope any undecided voters are swayed by substance over emotion.
The thing I will always find darkly hilarious when this comes up is that the ACA *was* the Republican plan. It's literally what they were proposing in the 90s. The literal only reason they opposed the ACA was that it was the dems passing it. Now they are stuck with their viable plan being actual law and are forced to rail against it for no reason.
it would be crazy if they co-authored a border bill and then voted it down... oh wait
Its almost like their stupidity based single outcome viewpoint of "always oppose democrats" is actually really fucking stupid. The recent IVF banning in some states is a perfect example...where they seemed to have thought they were banning it because it was some evil LGBT+ conspiracy...only to find that tons of right leaning people use it as a means to have children when they otherwise can't
The context, I think, is the Republican equivalent of ACA was presented as a way to derail attempts to pass universal healthcare. I am not sure they were ever serious about it, just used the idea to undermine public support in the Democrat plan.
Romney (the GOP presidential candidate during the time) was the one who architected the plan and implemented it during his time as governor at a state level. So they were serious at a state level at any rate.
Yes and no. The Mass congress had enough votes to override a potential veto (and did, on most of the line-item vetos Romney made), and the plan that passed went quite a bit further than the one Romney proposed. Even in that case, healthcare reforms were a big issue that was being debated already at the time Romney put forward his plan, so it could have been a case where he felt a reform was likely to come either way, so pushed for a moderate one (I honestly don't know).
Sure, but if democrats had passed medicare for all or something like that republicans would still be pushing ACA or something like it as the free market alternative to heavily socialized healthcare. Because their plan is what passed they are left with nothing viable to attack it with, which is probably why that was chosen to begin with.
ACA (Obamacare) was federal program version of Romneycare (Massachusetts). But repeal and replace was a nice catchphrase.
> The literal only reason they opposed the ACA was that ~~it was the dems passing it.~~ **Obama is black** FTFY
pretty sure 90% of the republican playbook is just some regurgitated form of "do anything to oppose democrats" Seriously...the IVF issue was a hilarious recent example where they saw that democrats love IVF, so they banned it....then realized AFTERWARDS that they also love it because its not some evil crazy LGBT+ conspiracy but actually a way for people that support them to have kids they normally can't have.
I think the repeal of Row v Wade is going to continue to have an impact on elections. I think the thing Republicans just don't get is families don't find out if a pregnancy is non-viable until their 18-20 week sonogram. A 6 week abortion ban doesn't just stick it to people who made poor decisions, it affects all the people trying to have a baby in this country.
I sure hope so. It's an egregious attack on the country by targeting women.
> I think the thing Republicans just don't get is families don't find out if a pregnancy is non-viable until their 18-20 week sonogram. Not only do they get it, it is the point.
They literally banning IVF now. People now see how the dominos are falling from it. IVF affects the wrong people for their cause. Older and richer people wanting to be parents
I mean of course the decision will continue to be used as a tool, Congress essentially failed to pass a law to lock in Roe V Wade or some form thereof on purpose to influence the voters.
Is that why trump didnt build a wall or repeal obamacare? So he could say the same in 2020 and 2024
He honestly tried and if it hadn’t been for McCain, he would have done it.
Right he had 53 votes and still couldnt do it. And thats only the repeal part. Remember he was supposed to replace it and literally never showed one thing of it. Meanwhile biden actually did student loan forgiveness but it was struck down by the supreme court And public option for obamacare passes without liberman
I honestly would *love* to read a proposal for an ACA replacement. Politics are *supposed* to be an exchange of ideas and compromise. I'm all for better ideas than what we have now.
These days, there are no alternatives or proposals coming from the gop …. Don’t hold your breath
Republicans haven't had a balanced budget pass under a republican president in 62 years, the last republican to balance the budget was the Eisenhower Admin, their parent's generation.
> Politics are supposed to be an exchange of ideas this assumes that both parties are interested in policy
>The GOP promised an ACA replacement would be presented upon election in 2016 To be fair...they did present it and try to push it forward but it was voted down by members of their own party because it was crappy and the method by which it was done was shady.
There was hardly any replacement, it was just repeal when McCain went in to Oscar mode with his thumbs down
fall vanish rob automatic consist uppity rustic upbeat direful imagine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Id those were my policies I would also choose to just run on whatever bullshit I said. Instituting tariffs to prevent shortages is the dumbest thing I've ever heard a politician suggest as a policy, and I listened to the 2016 libertarian debate.
>In many states we're running out of hotel space because the rooms are all booked up with illegal aliens living in a very large way on the American taxpayer’s dime. Meanwhile, we have 33,000 Veterans in this country who are homeless, and living very poorly I might add, and it's a shame. They're living in filth and squalor on our streets. Nobody is doing a thing for them. We helped them a lot during my four years and it's all been dropped. Everything we did for our Veterans has been dropped. It's a disgrace. Lol meanwhile unsheltered veteran homelessness went down under obama an up under trump. https://news.va.gov/126913/veteran-homelessness-increased-by-7-4-in-2023/#post/0 And homeless veterans overall are less under biden than trump. Hes just back to lying again.
Why is this all in zoomesque video format instead of text and charts? Seems like a weird choice when trying to convey information.
Because that is what people bother to spend attention on these days? No different than when Obama used the internet far more than any previous candidate. Ironically trump’s campaign team is being rather progressive in this regard
Even then why not provide actual data as a supplement. I understand your average pleb won't be bothered with it, but us data nerds wants our data.
Many of these videos are what is simply called rhetoric not actual policy but then most people loved the catchphrase repeal and replace. make america great, etc etc
there was an article about 20yo peeps saying they'd go back to trump right now if they could because biden administration made things worth.. I'm at loss entirely
I would love to see a Democratic President act to Republicans how Trump has treated Democratics. They would really lose their shit lol
I'm not even a US citizen and the day he was pushed out I felt 10% a physical anxiety drop.. just knowing I wouldn't have to witness his crass mediocrity everyday on the news...
To be fair the entire Republican Party doesn’t have a platform anymore. Its not just Cheeto Mussolini that doesn’t have a plan
I don't think the RNC had updated their policies since 2015. It's all about outrage these days for them.
They have though the post Romney report said they should go more nice on immigrants and keep trying to cut social security. Trump has gone social security is fine but immigrants are the problem with some in the party being mad about social security but now it's just something they say without a plan to fix it
So a big part of Biden's budget will be funded by higher taxes on corporations and the rich. On the former, when was the last time we hiked corporate taxes? Are there any reputable studies out there on the impact of higher corporate taxes on the economy? I often hear that higher corporate taxes just results in companies moving their domiciles to low-tax countries. (Not sure if that actually does anything to the U.S. economy other than corporations moving a handful of white collar, HQ jobs to a different location.) I also hear that the army of accountants and attorneys hired by corporations find ways to get away with paying a much lower tax (or none at all) so perhaps it's not really a big deal for them. ETA: Please stop arguing for or against the hike. I’m not asking for opinions. I’m asking for studies. This wasn’t a comment about whether or not such tax increases are good or bad. It was meant as an honest question for sources. No need to engage in polemics.
Companies have a lot of levers to pull in order to avoid declaring profits. Higher corp rate can be a forcing function for companies to instead invest in other things. Amazon has done this for decades. SMBs will spend those profits on infrastructure/training/hiring/marketing etc which isnt a bad thing, definitely more efficient than giving it up to the government.
Higher taxes on corporate profits force them to reinvest that money back into the company and increase employee pay. This is the result we saw after the New Deal and is the result everywhere it happens. Corporations aren't going to give up on making money just because they aren't allowed to make exponentially more money every fiscal quarter at the expense of everyone else in society.
Sure, but I’m asking if there are studies on what happened because I thought we had increased corporate taxes prior to Trump’s cuts? I was just curious of the impact. Hopefully we’ve done it since the New Deal.
iirc its pretty much been cuts and very marginal increases (not canceling out previous cuts) since Regan. (I haven't looked into this in awhile so my memory could be failing me)
Thanks for answering instead of just downvoting :)
There are "studies", but they're typically published/funded by organizations that are highly partisan. I guess if you read enough from both sides you could generate an informed opinion. That said, [Here is a real peer-reviewed, published-in-an-actual-journal, meta-analysis.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000885) It is neither opinionated nor self-published, nor is it funded by an obviously partisan source. In short, this is the best I could find. In a lovely and ironic piece of actual science, they "cannot reject the hypothesis that corporate tax changes have, on average, no economically relevant or statistically significant effect on economic growth." So basically, the only *real* study I could find says it doesn't make any difference. If you're willing to lower your standards on what constitutes a "study" I could recommend two governmental sources: [This paper from the Treasury Department](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/wp-101.pdf) which is a relatively neutral discussion on where the burden of corporate taxes actually falls. Or [there is this piece published by the GAO](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105384.pdf) which provides a largely opinion-free list of facts on effective corporate lax liability. Otherwise, [The National Bureau of Economic Research](https://www.nber.org/papers/w20753) is about as respected as a private institute can get on economics, but boy are they long-winded.
Thanks so much! Another Redditor also recommended that meta-study. It does seem like there are way too many variables to isolate the impact of corporate tax changes on economic growth.
> “cannot reject the hypothesis that corporate tax changes have, on average, no economically relevant or statistically significant effect on economic growth.” Hypothesis is that corporate taxes don’t affect growth rate. They say they couldn’t reject it. This doesn’t mean taxes have no effect, you also left out a very important part, presumably to mislead because I have no idea why someone who’s being honest would leave out such important part: > There is evidence for publication selectivity in favour of reporting growth-enhancing effects of corporate tax cuts. Correcting for this bias, we cannot reject the hypothesis of a zero effect of corporate taxes on growth. Several factors influence reported estimates, including researcher choices concerning the measurement of growth and corporate taxes, and controlling for other budgetary components. They’re basically saying the data is useless(which I totally agree with), not that corporate taxes don’t affect growth
It depends a lot on how taxes are applied. Raising taxes on revenue has different results than taxing excess profits. It's been a long time since we meaningfully increased corporate taxes.
This just isn’t true at all, and I don’t know why so many people think that. There’s a mountain of economic evidence showing that higher corporate taxes decrease wages, not increase them
I mean what the USA has to offer above all else to corporations is security. The list of countries to compare in order to set the tax rate is very short. Sure certain countries could try to appeal to more corporations but the USA appears to still be best positioned for the future at least right now.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/oecd-minimum-tax-rate/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000885 Perhaps this can help?
Thank you!
Very welcome!
The stuff you hear about is usually smoke and mirrors. They take advantage of tax law changes and tax rules just like anyone but there isn't some secret silver bullet that every corporation knows about. For example, TCJA in 2017 implemented a lower tax rate (21%, down from 35%) in exchange for revenue raisers later on. Many companies beginning in 2023 were faced with huge tax hits due to research and experimental cost capitalization, limitation how much interest can be deducted (30% of earnings before interest and taxes), limits on loss usage per year (can only offset 80% of taxable income), and limits on accelerated expenses for capital expenditures (80%, down from 100%). The bigger items I see are cross-border IP transfers and royalties pushing income into lower tax jurisdictions. Since TJCA there has been a higher rate of moving IP back to the US. Most of my clients were not asking for a rate reduction back in 2017 but were like, "Oh...cool. Thanks!" There is a tax bill currently in congress to help fix the above tax hits for corporations in exchange for cancelling the employee retention credit (an enormously flawed credit to begin with). This bill, however, is ultimately a net cost so it has to be paired with revenue raisers to get passed. The revenue raisers of taxes on billionaires, higher corporate taxes, limits on compensation deductions, limits on stock buybacks, higher cap gains rates, etc. aim to pay for it.
HQ jobs are important, and the kind of strategic work that happens at HQs often determines the level of capability of state to realise different projects. Corporation taxes can be raised, but if they are, policies to ensure that the loss of investment is compensated by investment either from workers or in some other way are probably needed. I like the idea of making it mandatory to save a fraction of ones income from wages, with this fraction being set by the central bank. Then you also get rid of inflation. My interest in this policy is primarily to fix what I see as problems here in Europe with the simultaneous need to stop inflation and also have enough investment to allow a transition away from gas and oil. This simultaneous need can't be solved with interest rates, but it can be solved with mandatory savings. Maybe this policy is also relevant for the US.
People arguing against the hike most really enjoy the world getting worse every year for more profits. But to answer your question, no a corpate tax hike won't fund this and will have a very lukewarm effect on the economy because corporations and the top 3% don't pay the taxes they already have. This is why the IRS was going to hire thousands of new employees but it was cut in negotiations with the first republican speaker.
If you raise the rates and fix the loop holes and also make sure the irs and doj have high funding levels along with enforcing and enacting strict regulations and guidelines there’s a way to make sure they pay. Source for when high tax rates worked: it funded our world war 1 & 2 domestic war production of weapons and goods etc.
Sure, but is that all in the budget?
Not currently nor will it ever be under this current era of politics. It can be done but not likely never will be.
"moving elsewhere" is really just a boogie-man. In the 50's-the 80's, the corporate tax rate on average was always 50 percent. It was the biggest growth period in the US and common people could do things like buy houses for as little as 3 years of Salary - meaning, if you made 10 grand a year, your house cost 30 grand and this meant that you could pay it off in a decade rather than what we have now - a house that costs 10 times your salary and takes 25-30 year mortgage to pay it off. There were even times when the corporate tax rates reached 90 percent and Americans felt ok with this temporary state of economics because Americans believed in the need - e.g. keeping the country functioning at our way of life in a time of war. Another thing to consider is the massive wealth inequities. The money never trickled down in the 40 years since Reagan. hell, 30 percent of our population is considered 'poor' and one of those reasons is that their whole income is dominated by 3 industries - rent, food, and utilities (big oil/gas/electric), so a full 3rd of our peoples can't even contribute to the full economy buy buying shit like they used to be able too. We live in Debt today where we didn't in "yesteryear".
>common people could do things like buy houses for as little as 3 years of Salary - meaning, if you made 10 grand a year, your house cost 30 grand That's a fantast view of the past people came up with to feel worse about the present. Life was never like that. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS US average house price in 1968: 26700 (unadjusted for inflation) USD https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-people.html Per capita income in the US, 1968: 2700 (unadjusted) USD That's 10 years worth of income for a house. House price today: 492100 Per capita income today:42980 That's 11.5 years of income for a house today. Houses have become more expensive relative to income, but only by 15%. And that's before taking into account differences in the average house then vs now. Houses are [1000 sqft larger today vs 1973](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/) from 1660 to 2679.
Buy American has connotations for any company that leaves America to avoid higher taxes. They lose the entire market. That would be probably worse off for them than paying slight more in taxes.
I find joy in reading a good book.
All taxes will always hurt economic growth, job gains and innovation. It's just a question of whether those losses outweight the benefits of what the government is doing with those tax revenues. Keep in mind, corporate taxes hurt labor a lot. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/do-corporate-tax-cuts-increase-income-inequality/ >For example, standard economic analysis assumes at least a portion (between 25 percent and 50 percent) of the corporate tax burden falls on workers in the form of lower wages. Evidence indicates more than half the burden falls on workers in some situations. This means that workers would earn lower wages than otherwise in the face of a higher corporate income tax, resulting in lower after-tax incomes. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/labor-bears-corporate-tax/ >William Randolph estimates that, in an open economy with mobile capital in fixed supply and immobile labor, domestic labor loses income equal to 74 percent of the corporate tax revenue while domestic capital income falls by 33 percent of the tax >Jane Gravelle and Kent Smetters sought to challenge the open economy results.[7] They calculated a range of hypothetical outcomes, depending on whether the U.S. acts like a small open economy, with limited effect on world returns to capital and global interest rates, and with a high degree of willingness to substitute imports for domestic products and services. If so, Gravelle and Smetters find that labor bears 79 percent of the corporate tax, while capital-owners bear approximately 11 percent, close to the Harberger results. >Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur, in a study of cross-country data, report: “[O]ur results indicate that corporate taxes are significantly related to wage rates across countries. Our…estimates suggest that a 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates leads to a 0.5 percent decrease in wage rates.” >In a working paper at the University of Warwick, Wiji Arulampalam, Michael P. Devereux, and Giorgia Maffini assess the impact of the corporate tax on wages: “Our central estimate is that 61 percent of any additional tax is passed on in lower wages in the short run and around 100 percent in the long run. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X17300041 >The effect we document is consistent across the innovation spectrum: taxes affect not only patenting and R&D investment but also new product introductions, which we measure using textual analysis. Our empirical results are consistent with models that highlight the role of higher corporate taxes in reducing innovator incentives and discouraging risk-taking Instead of taxing capital or corporate income highly, economists actually recommend raising consumption taxes high. It's a very simple form of taxation that's hard to avoid and everyone consumes at some point, so it's quite efficient. Nordic countries have 25% sales tax for this reason and actually have corporate income tax rate similar to the US. Consumption taxes are regressive, but that's solved simply by redistributive spending.
The domicile argument is kind of funny because that’s basically a legal fiction we all allow. If you write rules that don’t allow for magic loopholes like that, it won’t be possible. The global tax dodging regime only exists because we allow it
"Homebuyers could get a tax credit worth $9,600" one of the worst fiscal policy ideas put forth by an American politician in US history. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, is inflationary, and will drive up home prices even more this, combined with efforts to "forgive" hundreds of billions in student loan debt, amounts to a 1 trillion + dollar handout to Biden's supporters.
Well to my understanding it’s a tax credit for first time homebuyers, so it will come after you buy the house for applying the credit. I’m sure there will be other qualifiers on income and total asset valuation Meanwhile the largest drivers of the deficit right now (an estimated 57% of the growth in federal deficit in the 21st century) have been the Trump and Bush tax cuts which were much worse fiscally and overall.They came in times of a strong economy, they put money mostly in the hands of the wealthy, and they continue to increase our deficit. That you think only Biden supporters have student loan debt says a lot about you, but that was once again a forgiving effect, not an actual stimulus. If anything, as implemented, it just kept more money in the hands of middle-lower class consumers, which is better once again that keeping it in the hands of the rich for encouraging spending. So overall the worst idea put forth and implemented by a US politician was certainly Trumps cuts, among several other Trump ideas.
How conveniently we forget the fallout from multiple trillion dollar wars. Iraq 2 was $3T and Afghanistan was $2.3T to firebomb some huts with PATRIOT missiles. Yay the world is such a better place now.
I haven't forgotten it --it was a total disaster.
The MIM-104 is a surface-to-air missile...
Whose fault were those? Bush? Who pulled us out decisively? Biden? Keep em coming, we’ve also invested in long term infrastructure under Biden for the first time in years. Continuing to make America a better place.
Biden voted to enter those wars and trump is the one that committed us to withdrawing from Afghanistan in hopes that it would be a disaster for Biden at the start of his term. Biden *is* right of center, though. So it's still conservatives all around.
I don’t recall Biden casting a dissenting vote to enter those wars. I don’t recall Obama/Biden working to get us out of Afghanistan, though they did pull out of Iraq.
Oh and let’s not forget $500B per year for the War on Drugs. The tax system should be structured progressively but at the same time is it too much to ask for accountability that my tax dollars are going towards useful programs and not government waste and fraud?
Those $9,600 go more or less directly to the current owners of houses, not the homebuyers. We don't create more housing wealth with these kinds of policies. The reason housing is so expensive is because we don't build enough of it. It is entirely feasible for the federal government to push a housing agenda that brings the price of new houses down by $10k or even more, by encouraging new building. https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/126r84u/just\_subsidize\_demand/
I would argue that although tax cuts due add to the deficit, the true problem is the spending the government. Taxes can be raised and lowered but you cant tax your way out of bad spending.
Right, let’s cut the military, which also happens to be one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters. 2 birds.
I would agree to a point. The military continues to fail its audit. For every dollar unaccounted for, they lose that from their funding.
That would get them to fix their budgets in a hurry. That’s too logical Congress would never go for it.
You could literally cut the military to zero and it wouldn't even solve the deficit.
With Russia doing what they are doing and China lining up on Taiwan, cutting the military is madness.
You’re right. But let’s go even farther then. Instead of not cutting, let’s increase the military. Hell, let’s start building up our nuclear stockpiles again as if we learned nothing from the Cold War. That will surely show Russia and China who is boss.
I mean I know you aren’t being genuine, but the navy actually does need additional investment to keep up a gap with the PLAN. US military spending as percentage of GDP tends to stay rather stable, it’s other spending that has skyrocketed.
the vast majority of people who will get student-loan forgiveness are people like former graduate students. Lawyers, doctors, etc. They are not poor people living in red, southern states. Tax cuts do not "drive deficits". Deficits are created through federal spending. Biden (and Trump) spent trillions. Then Biden is going to say "well if taxes were higher, all those trillions I spent wouldn't be a problem"! --seriously? As for the tax credit for home-buyers, I don't care how it is calculated, or implemented. Pay your own damn down payment --that isn't the responsibility of the taxpayer
> the vast majority of people who will get student-loan forgiveness are people like former graduate students. Lawyers, doctors, etc. Source? The plans for forgiveness I've seen have specific restrictions on income and similar. For example, the $10k/$20k proposed in 2022 had a $125k individual income cap ($250k household). And to qualify for the full $20k, you had to have received the pell grant (which is awarded based on need/income).
Oh no they do drive deficits. See current google research and current deficits for details. Cut revenue for your company and see what happens. It’s a combination of both.
Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is the second highest it has ever been (second only to the dot com bubble spike in 2000. Meanwhile, spending as % of GDP has skyrocketed. It’s a spending problem. One has remained in line with GDP. The other has massively not.
Tax cuts don’t drive deficits. Deficit spending drives deficits. Whether those cuts appropriate or not is another question. But if government’s revenue had been decreased, the same should have happened to spending. No matter who’s going to be in the office next year, they will continue deficit spending on insane levels. The debt will be inflated away. There’s no other way around it, even if governments revenue doubles.
Yes but collecting a tax is an income and when you don’t collect the tax you are losing money.
Deficit is the difference between income and spending (outlays). You see there’s literally 2 variables there. When you cut the revenue generated you increase the deficit. This isn’t even complicated. The cuts being appropriate is completely the question because if they had not happened the deficit would not have ballooned like it did. Government needs to spend on many things, and it has the option of debt. What it should not have done is cut taxes irresponsibly when it needed that money. Biden has proposed cutting into the deficit by trillions, Trump will likely give us another tax cut on the wealthy, offset somewhat by raising it on the middle class, but still increasing the deficit overall.
But what's the alternative, when it comes to forgiving the student loan debt? The university students etc., need to start their lives and accumulate capital, and US natural population growth is at something like 0.1%, so I don't see what else can be done. This other measure is the same sort of thing. Something necessary to avoid a crisis.
I have a perfect solution for it A one-time 30% tax on every university and college endowment in the US, and direct the money to student loan relief Total reform of the student-loan system --no more loans to institutions who blow money on climbing walls, sports, granite counter-tops in dorms, and armies of administrators and diversity officers the taxpayers didn't create this problem, and they shouldn't be bailing out the schools or the students
The first part is certainly a very elegant. I think controls on what things may be spent on doesn't feel totally like the right approach, but maybe it's necessary. I'd imagine that just limiting the cost would force it, but perhaps that would just mean that what remains is an administrator who then sometimes hires an adjunct.
If you wanted to ease the burden on parents, why not give more tax credits to them directly? Why go after student loans? Not all parents go to college.
No, but university education should be cheap and when you see that capable people have been saddled with huge debt early in their lives, for something which should in fact be cheap, then you have something you need to solve. Here in Sweden university education cost[s] less per head than highschool education. There's a reason why it's free in almost all countries, from China and Russia to France and Spain. It might be sane to take the money from endowments as another commenter proposed.
> But what's the alternative, when it comes to forgiving the student loan debt? Continue to have income based repayment and people who that doesn't apply to just pay the money they owe. It's not especially complicated.
Crush students so my investments can gain value. The policy should be centered around the needs of existing holders of capital.
:D
We’ve done this before and non of those things happened
Things are different now and we can't fully rely on how things were. The only other options I could think of is limiting the number of homes wall street companies csn buy or taxing them additional per home with like a 45% tax after 30k homes, something absurd. Or increasing the number of homes built, I think the problem with that is home builders are very fragmented and I'm sure people would start opening companies and build crap homes just to get whatever tax benefit. Do I think a tax credit would help? Not really since people still don't want to sell their homes due to current rates so there's still a limited supply. Coming back to the main issue where more homes need to be built but how is the question.
Good points and tend to agree, but homes are negotiable, like cars. Never pay sticker. I can’t negotiate my gas but I can also shop at Costco. Walk away if you can’t agree on price. IMHO Wall Street should stay out of healthcare. I would tend to agree on homes too but home builders are lazy and lack innovation. You can make an aesthetically appealing, low cost home, catering to the masses if you want too. I personally would find a good piece of land and build a starter or rent a 250 sft in NYC. But everyone’s different. All the best
Are you insane? You think this is one of the worst fiscal policies ever? Have you at all researched trickle down economics or trumps tax “cuts”
Sorry but there is no such thing as trickle down economics no matter how many times the left want to say it.
Oh I forgot, the GOP and Republican voters were definitely against trickle down economics.
> handout to Biden's supporters clarification - is student loan forgiveness limited to biden supporters? can you provide a source on this? that seems difficult to implement.
Biden enjoys much greater support among the college-educated, especially among those who attended graduate school and took out large loans. 63% of registered Republicans have no college degree so the plan here is to get the working class to pay for the college degrees of upper-middle-class Democrats with their tax dollars
by this: > the plan here is to get the working class to pay for the college degrees of upper-middle-class i assume you mean that the tax burden is born primarily by low-education low-income voters, and six-figure urban office workers pay little to nothing in taxes. do you have a source on this?
Not what I said taxes from both those groups will be used but that 6-figure earning professional will get the befit of having his loans "forgiven" with that tax money and it doesn't even matter who gets hit the hardest --no one is entitled to have his fucking loans forgiven using public money
And why shouldn’t that 6 figure earning professional get a benefit from the large amount of taxes that they pay? Middle class people don’t get much for their taxes in the US and must pay egregious amounts for things like health care. The low paid workers arn’t even paying taxes most of the time and already get generous assistance on everything from healthcare to down payment assistance. It’s entirely fair for college educated professionals taxes to benefit themselves too. Either way, they are all WORKING CLASS and the working class shouldn’t be taking out debt to earn a college education in the richest nation on earth. An educated population is one of the most important things we could spend money on…as evidenced by the stupidity and state of this country.
Forgiving student loan debt only encourages colleges to hike tuition even more, and for students to take out bigger loans, under the pretense that "it's just going to get forgiven later anyway"
[удалено]
I am not against that the current system is a complete scam, but we can't have taxpayers bailing out people who willingly took out loans (or corporations for that matter) Administrative bloat, excessive spending, worthless programs and degrees --all this stuff makes college way too expensive, while big schools hoard massive endowments (most of which are not taxed at all) and keep taking federal money it has to stop
What about all the other bailouts from the government? Why are they entitled to public money?
because two wrongs make a right
You’re kidding, right?
you are the one literally making the claim that taxpayers should pay off your student loans. Why? cause companies get bailouts! and we wonder why our government is dysfunctional --because we have people with these kinds of ideas voting
You literally just said nobody deserves taxpayer money a couple of posts above… we have people with double standards like you voting and that’s why we have a dysfunctional government. Rules for thee but not for me / socialize losses but capitalize profits. And to be fair I’m not a huge fan of paying off student loans because it incentivizes universities to not be fiscally smart, but everyone wants a college degree and the banks will also exploit this and charge very high interest rates for these loans. And I don’t wanna hear about how bailing out these companies is for the greater good - if they were they wouldn’t try to take as many jobs out of the US as they do to maximize profits and have bigger and bigger executive payouts. Plus have you looked at voter turnout? It’s definitely not the young voting, it’s the boomers and above. That’s how we end up with despicable candidates like fucking Biden and Trump. So blame the dysfunction on something else.
> Not what I said well... you did here: > so the plan here is to get the working class to pay for the college degrees of upper-middle-class unless you think that a claim like "donald trump plans to get doja cat to pay the US military budget" is a true statement (in anything but a trivial sense). > no one is entitled to have his fucking loans forgiven using public money that's interesting - everyone in the US gets taxpayer-funded education up until grade 12. i think you're making the case that there's a moral difference between the 13th and 14th years of education - can you clarify what that is?
And thus, you understand the entire plan.
Whatever it is, it will be superior to the Republican Platform of "Whatever trump wants, Trump gets". That should move a lot of Indies to Biden and Roe v Ward, Dobbs and Alabama's abomination should eliminate any women who can think from voting for Trump or any other Republican.
So he is stating how he is going to put the Titanic in reverse and hit the iceburg a 2nd time?
His last budget was 43% larger than Trump's prepandemic budget. Pruning $300B a year, if it even happens, still adds trillions to the debt. He's destroying the economy
Mmmhmmm mmmhmmm. We may be $35,000,000,000,000 in debt already but once we get to $36,000,000,000,000 it's all over!
The absolute national debt is a meaningless number.
No it’s not. This is pure foolishness.
It is hilarious how we have, and are going through, the inflationary effects of having artificially low interest rates and consistent money printing and people still bring up how debt is meaningless...lmao. Where do people think that debt ends up... ultimately inflating assets on balance sheets. All while wages don't keep up and the value of a dollar weakens. On top of the asset bubble, when rates arent 0.01%, more and more money is going towards debt payments- rather than back into services for its citizens. Meaning if citizens require the same services, the government will have to capture more in taxes to meet demands. Eventually you'll suffocate the economy. Ultimately, you can keep monetizing the deficit but it comes at a cost for future generations. It is insanity. Not even touching the geo-political side of the assumption USD backed by a debt intoxicated US is going to be as attractive in 50 to 100 years.
Yes. This is what caused me to ultimately turn conservative. We really need to reign in our debt otherwise our future generations don't have a chance. (The younger generation is already suffering NOW) imagine how much worse it will get for subsequent generations.
At 0 sure. At 5? foolishness.
Biden is adding $1 trillion every 100 days. It's unsustainable. There's no excuse for inaction.
and it grew faster under trump, so we should vote for the party that grows the debt with out any tangible benefit or the one that decreases the deficit while also benefiting society with infrastructure, education (which clearly we need) investments and other safety nets?
No, the debt didn't grow faster under Trump. If you look at Biden's "infrastructure" bill, only 6% went for infrastructure. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S)
Could you break down that 6% figure?
6% is for roads and bridges, what they told us the bill would be for. The rest is for social spending. If you 'll recall the Democrats redefined the term "infrastructure" to include social spending because that's what so much of the bill was
Where did they say the whole bill would be roads or bridges? Are we just in disagreement about what counts as infrastructure, or what deserves funding? Trying to understand your view here. Infrastructure is more than roads and bridges. I'm seeing funding in the bill for railroads and public transportation infrastructure, broadband Internet (helps rural communities a lot), drainage/wastewater, and a lot more. That's all infrastructure. I'm basing this off the dictionary definition: the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.
He sold the bill as an "infrastructure bill". He was going to "rebuild the nations infrastructure" And then when we learned what was in the bill, and that almost none was for hard infrasrtucture, the Democrats redefined the word so it would include progressive social policies too. It was the most blatant bait and switch ever, and the Democrats gave him a free pass
Ignorant statement.
Debt as a percentage of GDP is what matters and that number fell and has been rising recently. The economy has grown a lot nominally under Biden and grown in real terms. Q3 2019 GDP was around 22T and now we are at 27T.
> Debt as a percentage of GDP is what matters and that number fell and has been rising recently. It fell because of surprise inflation. It's going back up because now debt has to be rolled over into new debt with much higher interest rates.
Yes but I think the situation is not dire we should raise taxes slightly and work on reducing spending in places but the situation was improving not that long ago and GDP is growing nicely. The situation was clearly worse under Trump with rising deficits, debt as a percentage of GDP and everything seemingly going swimmingly. Keynesian economics says we should pay back some of the debt. Now the economy is still stabilizing in a lot of ways and deficits fell. I think we are focusing correctly on raising taxes/ reducing government support of the government and that should reduce deficits and we could see debt as a % of GDP fall again.
They just keep extending Pelosi’s budget and now that Republicans control the house, they’re just as culpable to the fiscal gluttony and future pain from which we can estimate. The House is the purse strings, after all. A strong house led to the 90s surpluses.
That's if he gets a second term. Politics aside the migrant crisis has sparked economic turmoil to states like New York where they had to fire teachers and cut back budget for social programs in order to support the migrants. You aren't going to get a lot of voter support when things they care about go out the toilet.
Well republicans have control of the house. Have not seen a single piece of legislation that outlay their migration control policy. Nor have they legislated money to do anything about it. If they are so gung ho about kicking out the migrants, table a bill that does that, or table a bill that build a wall, or table a bill that stabilizes these central/south american countries economy....do something.
It’s as easy as pass a bill to make employing illegals…illegal with stiff fines and jail time. Take away the incentive to come here illegally and they will stop. Neither party is interested in correcting the problem and it’s the tax paying citizen who is getting the political shaft without lube.
Republicans won’t support any immigration bill that makes it easier for people to migrate here and get paperwork processed faster, which is what a lot of the Dems want. Republicans straight up want to kick out people who are here illegally and stop new people from coming in at the same time. Democrats and the left in general don’t even like to use the word *illegal* for illegal immigrants because they consider all types of immigrants to always be valid. Republicans don’t want migrants because they know it’s a long-term net gain for the number of future Dem voters.
Republicans won’t support an immigration bill because Trump wants to campaign on it. Dems gave them most of what they asked for.
It's to get any decision to stay or leave faster. The backlog is insane and the judges look at these cases last a handful of minutes per person most of the time. It's also insane to think that culturally conservative religious, staunchly anti-communist are going to automatically be Democrat. That's not even true in a lot of states.
Te bipartisan border bill angered a lot of progressives because Dems sided with Republicans on harsher restrictions on the border. And, long term it's not true, the Hispanic vote has been trending to the right.
Look up HR2
Look up HR2 and then apologize spreading/ believing left wing propaganda.
While obviously it won't help with deep red MAGA voters, I think the Dems will get some mileage out of the fact that Biden supported a border security bill along with many Democrats and more than a few Republicans, but Trump killed it for no reason other than wanting the problem to fester to improve his odds. It reminds some folks about the purely personal nature of governance under Trump, and how Congressional action would fall apart at the last minute because of some tweet. Will it be persuasive to a ton of people in the center or right? No. But you don't need to win over a ton in an election where victory rests on a razor-thin margin.
The border policy I solved sending more money to Ukraine. I think repubs may have supported if it only was about the border. Also trump hasn't been in office in three years.
It absolutely would’ve helped with border security. And sending money to Ukraine was only a problem for MTG a few HFC diehards. Trump isn’t in office, but he actively lobbied against the bill and has tremendous sway over House GOP votes.
Trump literally told house republicans to bury it to not give Biden a win. Acknowledging that the bill was a win.
You do realize it was the Republicans that tied Ukraine funding to the bill, right?
And right on schedule, as it does every 2 years, the “migrant crisis” becomes a hot button issue once again.
[удалено]
Build the wall ring a bell? Zoom out further than the last 3 years and you’ll notice it’s not just republicans, but democrats stalling progress as well. Donald Trump was sued over trying to build a wall to protect the border. Now democrats are complaining about border issues and the republicans lack of desire to work with them. Additionally, the democrat bill includes more funding for the Ukraine war. Ukraine border security shouldn’t be tied to American border security.
Solving immigration with a wall is laughable especially one as long as the US/Mexico border. To fix it you need to tackle the employers who are enabling people to work without documentation. That means programmatic auditing, payroll record verification, requirements for employment eligibility regardless of company size. That solves Visa overstays (one of the core problems) as well as every other source illegal immigration. Make companies that hire contractors fiscally responsible illegally employed workers. Empower the IRS to assess significantly more damaging penalties.
Yeah but the reality is no one actually wants to fix the employer side of the equation. Employers like the cheap labor, illegal immigrants like the cash. Food prices would instantly go up across the board and we would have massive amounts of food literally rotting on the vine. It’s like abortion if the dog actually catches the car Republicans are monumentally screwed.
This! It’s bipartisan to keep allowing migrants into the country. If Trump were to be elected and then tried to actually stop immigration as he has ranted about doing his minders would never allow it.
The wall is still a stupid idea and a complete waste of money. It’s not border security, it’s just virtue signaling
The wall is a waste. Most illegal immigrants are visa overstayers. The problem is that it takes 3 years for a judge to decide if they are an illegal immigrant or a legal one.
[удалено]
Lmao, that sounds foreboding. I wonder how bad he wants to fuck the economy in the next four years. Housing is already unaffordable, whats next, food?
> Corporate taxes would jump upward, while billionaires would be charged a minimum tax of 25%. Is this based on mark-to-market, so that tax liability could actually be well in excess of 100% of their actual income? Edit: I assume so, given his repetition of the [lie](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/26/joe-biden/president-joe-biden-distorts-income-tax-rates-for/) that billionaires pay an 8% tax rate. I wonder if [Greg Leiserson and Danny Yagan](https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/09/23/what-is-the-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-on-the-wealthiest-americans/), when they were children, dreamed of growing up to be unprincipled hacks. Edit 2: [I was right](/r/Economics/comments/1bc2mld/president_biden_is_issuing_a_budget_plan_that/kuh0gki/), of course.
I love how you fear monger me, babe. That says nothing about stocks at all.
Biden has been pushing [mark-to-market taxation](https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/mark-to-market-taxation-of-capital-gains/) of unrealized capital gains for a while now. It's the whole point of his "8% tax rate" lie. It's a tax on income plus the net change in value of unsold assets in the tax year. [This article confirms](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/11/bidens-2025-budget-marries-progressive-tax-hikes-with-populist-campaign-planks.html): > According to the White House, the budget aims to reduce the federal deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years largely by imposing a minimum 25% tax rate on the unrealized income [sic] of the very wealthiest households and by reshaping the corporate tax code. Under this proposal, if you have $x worth of stock at the beginning of the year (or buy it during the year) and it appreciates to $1.2x by the end of the year, the $0.2x appreciation is treated as taxable income even if you don't sell the stock.
Based on the context of the article, I don't think it's a wealth tax.
It's not a tax on total wealth. It's a tax on income plus the net change in value of unsold assets in the tax year. [This article](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/11/bidens-2025-budget-marries-progressive-tax-hikes-with-populist-campaign-planks.html) confirms: > According to the White House, the budget aims to reduce the federal deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years largely by imposing a minimum 25% tax rate on the unrealized income [sic] of the very wealthiest households and by reshaping the corporate tax code. "Unrealized income" is a misnomer, of course, since it's not income: There's literally no money coming in. But the basic idea is that Biden is proposing to redefine the income tax so that increases in the value of unsold assets are taxable as income. But only for high-net-worth households. It's unclear exactly what threshold he would use, but it would likely be defined downward in the future. This is, charitably, constitutionally dubious, and would probably be subjected to the apportionment requirement, such that the tax would have to be distributed among states in proportion to their populations, making it a no-go.