If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Imagine if someone is a tax accountant and they spent years studying the tax code.
Then Trump comes in and possibly eliminates most of those tax rules.
“It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”
Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning Economist; a professor at Princeton. This is the kind of guy that delivers your "facts". The pity is that you don't have even a remote desire to question your socialist orthodoxy. Real facts can be used in prediction.
I guess I'll go out my back door now and head to my outhouse. I'll sit down on one of the holes, unstrap the one strap of my overalls, let them drop to my ankles, and wack- off to a naked photo of the future first lady.
?It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.?
Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning Economist; a professor at Princeton. This is the kind of guy that delivers your "facts". The pity is that you don't have even a remote desire to question your socialist orthodoxy. Real facts can be used in prediction.
I guess I'll go out my back door now and head to my outhouse. I'll sit down on one of the holes, unstrap the one strap of my overalls, let them drop to my ankles, and wack- off to a naked photo of the future first lady.
does anyone know the actual rate corporations pay for taxes... on average? Hoss and I were talking about it last night. I doubt very many are paying the full tax amount. My question is what is the actual effect rate?
I'm a big fan of limiting exclusions, simplifying the tax code combine with a reduction in the rate. The net impact would be same/similar tax $$$'s but less overhead to manage that "income".
Something like that is going to happen. Information like that seems to come in bits and shards rather than in complete datasets, but once more attention is paid to the big tax dodgers, maybe that changes. Civil-society groups are gearing up and collecting the data. Something for now:
Imagine if someone is a tax accountant and they spent years studying the tax code.
Then Trump comes in and possibly eliminates most of those tax rules.
Good point. I've read that dramatic simplification of the tax code would "save" $300 billion yearly in the economy as a whole Think of the record-keeping that a simplified code would eliminate.
Certainly, there is an element of "risk" involved in bond pricing. That is why I used the US government bond, because that bond is as close to risk-free as possible. Bonds are also reflective of the demand for money, which is the point I was making. For example, after Brexit, the 10-year dropped to 1.54% (all numbers from memory) because folks were expecting a disaster in Europe and they wanted to put their money in a safe place, so the demand for bonds went up, the rate down. That bond is at 2.11% today.
Dow hit a new all-time high this morning. IMO, that won't hold because earnings are not good enough to support it. But it does reflect real people putting their money at risk expecting real growth.
I think it reflects a lack of real investment opportunities, but the bottom line is that rising yields mean perceived increases in risk. As you say, there's negative rates out there. There is far more capital than there are places to put it. Which calls into question the legitimacy of a plan to repatriate income with the expectation that it will be invested in real things that create growth. So, ride a stocks bubble a little bit because there aren't better options.
“It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”
Yeah, I saw that from Krugman. And a lot of others. MSNBC, amidst their despondency, spent 15 minutes talking about the market collapse.
Turns out they went up a shitload. Nice call, Krugman. As much as I dislike him and his bullshit, he's probably being subjected to gads of alt-right flaying on twitter, so I do feel bad for him. But he's still an ass and, IMO, a good representation of why flyover folks told the elites to fuck off.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Krugman has his flaws, but he was correct during the crash of 2007-2008 that austerity wasn't the answer and it wasn't. The markets will be fine now, they would start tanking if Trump sends out the deportation squads to haul up 11 million people. But if they get laws like Dodd-Frank and the banker nonsense comes back that's great news for them. Just make sure you get out before the baloon pops this time.
I'm trying to embrace the few good things I think Trump will do.
First, and foremost, he'll torch the extrajudicial "Dear Colleague" bullshit letters from the DOJ. God bless.
Second, he'll probably stop spending resources on a problem that we can't fix. Al Gore, and many others, told us that unless we took drastic measures that we would reach a point of no return by 2016 when it comes to climate change (to be fair, other outstanding scientists and leaders said it was considerably earlier -- in particular, the UN Head of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said 2012). Drastic measures have not been taken. I have no reason to believe Al Gore is wrong about 2016 as the science is settled. So, we're over the cliff -- and probably waaay over it. No need to spend anything further. So, hopefully he'll kybash the EPA's determination that the air every sentient being and Geezer expels is a pollutant. So, that's a positive.
Third, he'll appoint judges with constitutional and statutory fidelity. They won't try to figure out which party or side is the putative oppressed and rule accordingly. And thanks to the Ds, there's no more filibuster for anything other than Supreme Court justices. Time to start loading up the bench.
Fourth, he'll possibly blow up the world before HARBAUGH!!!! can vanquish UFM more than once. And in so doing, he'll blow up Michigan.
Last edited by iam416; November 10, 2016, 12:36 PM.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Imagine if someone is a tax accountant and they spent years studying the tax code.
Then Trump comes in and possibly eliminates most of those tax rules.
That'd suck to be that person.
and good for the rest of us...
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
Something like that is going to happen. Information like that seems to come in bits and shards rather than in complete datasets, but once more attention is paid to the big tax dodgers, maybe that changes. Civil-society groups are gearing up and collecting the data. Something for now:
I'm not necessarily proposing corps should pay more... I'd rather have the jobs in the US to be honest. What I am asking is what is the real effective rate and we should eliminate the games.
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
It is a pipe dream that the tax code is simplified, Trump won but they have 51 senators. Maybe they get rid of the filibuster totally and ram crap through and it will be OK.
Tweet
Comment