Trump's tax plan

[Linux23]

You lend someone $1000. They declare money obsolete and your loan is now void.

Would you do business with them again?

do you know what the difference is between money and currency?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0&list=PLE88E9ICdipidHkTehs1VbFzgwrq1jkUJ&index=4

 

[Slew Foot]

You lend someone $1000. They declare money obsolete and your loan is now void.

Would you do business with them again?

Whose got the bigger guns?

 

[fskimospy]

pretty much this. currency is like the matrix, it's only real because the mind makes it real.

If you guys think that such a plan would result in anything other than a nationwide (worldwide?) economic catastrophe you are badly misinformed.

 

[dank69]

do you know what the difference is between money and currency?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0&list=PLE88E9ICdipidHkTehs1VbFzgwrq1jkUJ&index=4

Haha, someone has been drinking the gold seller Kool-Aid.

 

[alcoholbob]

The national debt can not be paid off, it's mathematically impossible.

500 billion, 2 trillion, who cares? It won't ever be paid off either way.

But it can be financed as long as the Chinese have their currency pegged to the dollar, then Chinese savers will keep buying US dollar bonds. With 22 trillion dollars in savings China could bail out the U.S. Government outright John Pierpont Morgan-style (of course they'd pretty much own the country at that point, just like creditors are taking Greek capital assets now).

 

[fskimospy]

But it can be financed as long as the Chinese have their currency pegged to the dollar, then Chinese savers will keep buying US dollar bonds. With 22 trillion dollars in savings China could bail out the U.S. Government outright John Pierpont Morgan-style (of course they'd pretty much own the country at that point, just like creditors are taking Greek capital assets now).

1. That's not how international capital flows work.

2. The US has no need for any bailouts.

3. The US and Greece are nothing alike.

 

[Sonikku]

Whose got the bigger guns?

I'll spend the $1000 on getting a bigger gun than my lender. :hmm:

 

[Kwatt]

You lend someone $1000. They declare money obsolete and your loan is now void.

Would you do business with them again?

I wouldn't but some would.

After all how many bankruptcies has Trump been in on?

People keep lining up for the next one....


.

 

[piasabird]

Sounds horrible. I like the current plan better. Lumping in $30k to $100k is a giant leap.

For instance if you take $15 an hour as the new minimum wage, with a 40 hour work week that is $31,200 a year so $30k would become the new poverty wage. It is hard to tax someone making 99k a year the same as someone making 31k.

With deductions I probably am making around $50k and paying about 2%-3% in taxes If I base it on my Total Taxes paid/gross earnings. Part of this is charitable contributions, State Property tax and Interest on my house loan.

For instance you could also do away with some deductions like Interest on a house loan and Property tax on people that make over say $100k(single) or $200k (married) or some other income amounts. You could also just limit the deductions for housing and state property tax deductions to some level of deductions. I think Romney proposed limiting deductions to say $10k or something like that.

 

[piasabird]

What I don't like is raising all taxes on capital gains across the board. A lot of people may have retirement income in a stock brokerage account from their life savings. Those people should not be taxed the same as someone with 10 billion in stocks that live off of capital gains only. This is where we need to apply some progressive rules. Romney had an idea of making capital gains not taxable until you reach a certain level of income to give the middle class a break while taxing the ultra rich at a reasonable rate proportionate to their levels of income.

 

[shira]

The national debt can not be paid off, it's mathematically impossible.

500 billion, 2 trillion, who cares? It won't ever be paid off either way.

Of course it's mathematically possible. But it's almost certainly economically impossible in the real world.

 

[shira]

What I don't like is raising all taxes on capital gains across the board. A lot of people may have retirement income in a stock brokerage account from their life savings. Those people should not be taxed the same as someone with 10 billion in stocks that live off of capital gains only. This is where we need to apply some progressive rules. Romney had an idea of making capital gains not taxable until you reach a certain level of income to give the middle class a break while taxing the ultra rich at a reasonable rate proportionate to their levels of income.

Then Romney is a moron. Because capital gains are currently NOT taxable until you reach the 25% income tax bracket. Which means that for a married couple in 2015, and including the standard $12,600 deduction and $8000 for two exemptions, that's $96,000 in income. So for married couples with up to $96,000 in Adjusted Gross Income, the tax rate on capital gains is 0. Right now.

But "Romney had an idea." Wow.

 

[dank69]

What I don't like is raising all taxes on capital gains across the board. A lot of people may have retirement income in a stock brokerage account from their life savings. Those people should not be taxed the same as someone with 10 billion in stocks that live off of capital gains only. This is where we need to apply some progressive rules. Romney had an idea of making capital gains not taxable until you reach a certain level of income to give the middle class a break while taxing the ultra rich at a reasonable rate proportionate to their levels of income.

I have a hard time believing Romney ever had that idea. Source?

 

[Chaotic0ne]

This is really, really wrong. First, the whole 'burden on our grandchildren' is based off of a misunderstanding of the nature of our debt. Second, to say 'some problems would occur' when the US government repudiates the dollar and moves everything to a new national currency to avoid servicing its debt is like saying 'I feel a bit under the weather' when you have Ebola.

Dangerous nonsense.

You didn't dispute anything I said. You simply disagreed. There is absolutely no way 20T+ debt is ever going to be paid off without an extremely severe impact on everyday citizens. Or it would take 50-100 years to nibble away at it, but that's only if people are elected who are anti-deficit the entire time. The consequences of establishing a new currency would be lesser than paying off the debt. All it would take is a pen stroke. There could be a slow transition into the new currency with the federal government managing its currency instead of private Federal Reserve banks. They could still call it the "dollar", except the new dollar has no debt attached to it.

There are "some" problems that would occur if the worlds leading economy and issuer of the worlds leading reserve currency simply disavowed it's debt and abandoned it's currency....lol. Even Ron Paul would call this statement pure lunacy, even though it's Ron Paul that convinced people like you to feel empowered to have opinions on things you know absolutely jack shit about.

I consider the idea of paying off 20T+ in debt pure lunacy. What's your solution when that debt reaches 50 or 100 trillion? If you're banking on Republicans chipping away at that deficit, don't hold your breath. It was Bush jr who started the trend of crazy spending, and it looks like they plan on fighting another war in the middle east which was part of the cause of deficit spending by the Bush administration. We don't have money for x, y, z but we got infinite resources to fight pointless wars. People like you criticize without offering solutions. Things cannot continue as they are forever and something has to give at some point. The global economy is destined to crash, because the world's monetary policies aren't responsible. And it'll take such an event before something is done about it, and then my solution won't appear all that crazy.

 

[jonks]

do you know what the difference is between money and currency?

You do recall the quote you supported, it wasn't that far back. "All they'd have to do is establish a new currency with no debt tied to it." Explain how it makes a difference whether I'm referring to money or currency if I disclaim any debt attached? Say we owe China $1Billion US dollars. The US dollar is declared defunct and replaced with the new currency, the Americano dollero, and all US Dollar debt is expressly disclaimed. You think China is fine with the loss of their entire investment because, hey, the currency changed, not the money?

I wouldn't but some would.
After all how many bankruptcies has Trump been in on?
People keep lining up for the next one....

Are you under the impression that there are as many countries as there are individual and institutional investors?

 

[fskimospy]

You didn't dispute anything I said. You simply disagreed. There is absolutely no way 20T+ debt is ever going to be paid off without an extremely severe impact on everyday citizens. Or it would take 50-100 years to nibble away at it, but that's only if people are elected who are anti-deficit the entire time.

That's absolutely wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. The US had a higher debt/GDP ratio after World War 2 and it took nowhere near that long to pay it off (and had plenty of people who weren't all about paying off the debt at the helm).

So basically, recent US history decisively disproves this claim.

The consequences of establishing a new currency would be lesser than paying off the debt. All it would take is a pen stroke. There could be a slow transition into the new currency with the federal government managing its currency instead of private Federal Reserve banks. They could still call it the "dollar", except the new dollar has no debt attached to it.

US treasury bonds underpin a huge amount of the financial transactions that exist worldwide. It would not matter if we did it 'slowly' or 'quickly', because once we telegraphed our intent to not service those bonds massive worldwide financial chaos would ensue. It would be an utter catastrophe.

I think you should read up more on monetary policy and international financial markets.

 

[Chiropteran]

Of course it's mathematically possible. But it's almost certainly economically impossible in the real world.

Under the current system? It isn't. There is not enough money in circulation to pay the debt even if the government had ALL of it.

Now, you try to argue that the money can be used more than once, we can pay it to the government as taxes, they can pay down the debt, then we can somehow earn that money back and pay more taxes, which leads to more debt being paid down- except this can not occur under the current system. Debt being paid off takes that money out of circulation... unless new debt is used to bring it back into circulation. The amount of debt created is always more than the amount of money brought into circulation. Even at a hypothetical 100% tax rate, the government could never obtain enough money to pay off all of the national debt.

 

[Chiropteran]

People said this before Clinton took office. They were wrong it can be done we just need more people working and more growth or team work between the parties.

Clinton proved you can have a surplus over a couple years, nothing more. That is perfectly possible, because you absolutely can pay back some of the debt, I never said you couldn't. You just can't pay it all back, there isn't enough money in existence.

 

[fskimospy]

Under the current system? It isn't. There is not enough money in circulation to pay the debt even if the government had ALL of it.

Now, you try to argue that the money can be used more than once, we can pay it to the government as taxes, they can pay down the debt, then we can somehow earn that money back and pay more taxes, which leads to more debt being paid down- except this can not occur under the current system. Debt being paid off takes that money out of circulation... unless new debt is used to bring it back into circulation. The amount of debt created is always more than the amount of money brought into circulation. Even at a hypothetical 100% tax rate, the government could never obtain enough money to pay off all of the national debt.

You can put money into circulation in more ways than issuing government debt. The fed could create money and buy corporate bonds, for example. (and many other ways)

We could pay back 100% of the debt if we wanted to. Where did you get the idea that this can't happen?

 

[MongGrel]

I wouldn't but some would.

After all how many bankruptcies has Trump been in on?

People keep lining up for the next one....


.

I was going to mention his bankruptcies, but as you did I'll just +1

 

[Chiropteran]

You can put money into circulation in more ways than issuing government debt. The fed could create money and buy corporate bonds, for example. (and many other ways)

Under the current system? No, you can't. Only the fed creates money, and it is created through making more debt.

If the fed created money and bought bonds, they would just be trading one debt for another.

We could pay back 100% of the debt if we wanted to. Where did you get the idea that this can't happen?

It's very basic math.

Fed creates $1000, borrowing it from China. China wants $1100 back, because of interest. Fed creates $1100, borrowing it from Europe, pays back China, and now owes Europe $1210 after interest.

The fed can keep "creating" money through debt, but that just shifts the debt around and it can never be paid completely off. The fed buys bonds from a bank, now the bank has more money (yay!) but ultimately those bonds must be paid back, the debt didn't go anywhere.

 

[Enigmoid]

That's absolutely wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. The US had a higher debt/GDP ratio after World War 2 and it took nowhere near that long to pay it off (and had plenty of people who weren't all about paying off the debt at the helm).

So basically, recent US history decisively disproves this claim.

US treasury bonds underpin a huge amount of the financial transactions that exist worldwide. It would not matter if we did it 'slowly' or 'quickly', because once we telegraphed our intent to not service those bonds massive worldwide financial chaos would ensue. It would be an utter catastrophe.

I think you should read up more on monetary policy and international financial markets.

And how does today's economy compare to that just after WWII?

 

[fskimospy]

Under the current system? No, you can't. Only the fed creates money, and it is created through making more debt.

If the fed created money and bought bonds, they would just be trading one debt for another.

It's very basic math.

Fed creates $1000, borrowing it from China. China wants $1100 back, because of interest. Fed creates $1100, borrowing it from Europe, pays back China, and now owes Europe $1210 after interest.

The fed can keep "creating" money through debt, but that just shifts the debt around and it can never be paid completely off. The fed buys bonds from a bank, now the bank has more money (yay!) but ultimately those bonds must be paid back, the debt didn't go anywhere.

Yes, you can.

The fed creates money and then buys securities with it. There is no requirement that they buy government securities with it. You said it would be impossible to pay back the federal debt, which is obviously untrue.

You are also ignoring the fact that because the Fed CHOOSES to implement monetary policy mostly through buying and selling government bonds that it MUST implement monetary policy this way. This is absolutely not the case.

Hell, if they wanted to they could literally print a whole bunch of extra dollars and drop them on streetcorners in garbage bags. This would be a bad idea, but it's something that could totally be done.

 

[fskimospy]

And how does today's economy compare to that just after WWII?

Hard to see how that's relevant. The statement was that it's impossible to pay off our debt without a whole bunch of crazy things happening. I was simply pointing out that history directly contradicts that statement.

Not to mention sheer screaming nonsense of the idea that we could suddenly issue "Bollars" instead of "Dollars" and that everything would be fine after some modest adjustments.

 

[Chiropteran]

Yes, you can.

The fed creates money and then buys securities with it. There is no requirement that they buy government securities with it. You said it would be impossible to pay back the federal debt, which is obviously untrue.

...

Hell, if they wanted to they could literally print a whole bunch of extra dollars and drop them on streetcorners in garbage bags. This would be a bad idea, but it's something that could totally be done.

You seem to be confused. The fed is not part of the government. It was created by the government, but is not a part of it. The federal government is in debt, the fed creates debt.

The fed could buy up all the debt in the world, sure, but that wouldn't do anything to relieve the US Federal Government of it's debts. It would just owe money to the fed instead of to whoever currently owns the debt.

Moving around debt isn't the same as paying it off.



>You are also ignoring the fact that because the Fed CHOOSES to implement monetary policy mostly through buying and selling government bonds that it MUST implement monetary policy this way. This is absolutely not the case.

I'm ignoring nothing. I clarified my post with the opening statement "under the current system". Sure, the US government could change/twist/abuse the law and mint a coin and call it a 100000 trillion dollar coin and deposit it to immediately pay off all debt and create a huge surplus at the same time, but that wouldn't be "under the current system". If you are going to argue about what is theoretically possible given a change of current laws and police, sure, ANYTHING is possible, and it's rather pointless to speculate.