Who do you support? (general election edtion)

[Flapjack]

I'm not a troll at all. What makes you think that? The fact that my opinions clash with others'?
I also think you're a troll. Why not try to debate your ideas rather than just well trolling?

[Bluebyrd]

I also think you're a troll. Why not try to debate your ideas rather than just well trolling?

I commented a screenshot of who I support (I figured that would be the most accurate way of representing my views) and that somehow makes me a troll?

[Flapjack]

I commented a screenshot of who I support (I figured that would be the most accurate way of representing my views) and that somehow makes me a troll?
Didn't you post some poll? Whatever not important xD So why do you actually support Trump then? Couldn't resist a racist sexist xenophobic bigot with 6 bankruptcies?

[Bluebyrd]

Didn't you post some poll? Whatever not important xD So why do you actually support Trump then? Couldn't resist a racist sexist xenophobic bigot with 6 bankruptcies?

It's an extremely accurate poll that shows what percentage of each candidate's agenda I agree with. I don't support Trump as such. I don't support anybody but Trump best represents my political beliefs.

[Vlerchan]

I seldom post in ROTW.
And I sometimes read outside it.

Like I said though: I could be incorrect. If I am: apologies. But the posting thus far hasn't left me with great confidence.

[Flapjack]

It's an extremely accurate poll that shows what percentage of each candidate's agenda I agree with. I don't support Trump as such. I don't support anybody but Trump best represents my political beliefs.
Really? How many people were polled? Why are the results so different from every other poll?

Why do you support him? I don't agree with anything that comes out of that nasty tangerines mouth. Do you really think he will stick to whatever convinced you to support him? Considering he flip flops in the same interview and doesn't understand basic world politics. Oh and he wants to not pay America's debt or support NATO countries. But he don't like brown people so you like him?

[Canadian Dream]

Just want to point out that the US could make history by electing Hilary Clinton and for the 1st time in history the US would do something right before Canada did weve never had an elected woman lead the country

To be fair we have had a woman lead our country (although yes she was not elected) and we also currently have three women leading Canada's three most powerful provinces. That's a milestone worth noting and it's time for America to do something similar. Although yes Hillary Clinton might not be the best choice in terms of reliability she has the experience of the oval office and is by far the lesser of the two evils. Definitely better than the narcissistic psychopath menacing to destroy the world's most powerful country.

[Flapjack]

To be fair we have had a woman lead our country (although yes she was not elected) and we also currently have three women leading Canada's three most powerful provinces. That's a milestone worth noting and it's time for America to do something similar. Although yes Hillary Clinton might not be the best choice in terms of reliability she has the experience of the oval office and is by far the lesser of the two evils. Definitely better than the narcissistic psychopath menacing to destroy the world's most powerful country.
I cannot stand Clinton but I am happy to see the first female president :) You must remember how far behind the US is from the rest of the world:)

[Bluebyrd]

And I sometimes read outside it.

Like I said though: I could be incorrect. If I am: apologies. But the posting thus far hasn't left me with great confidence.

I only usually post in H&A and Music so I can't see much that I could have posted to suggest trolling.

Really? How many people were polled? Why are the results so different from every other poll?

Why do you support him? I don't agree with anything that comes out of that nasty tangerines mouth. Do you really think he will stick to whatever convinced you to support him? Considering he flip flops in the same interview and doesn't understand basic world politics. Oh and he wants to not pay America's debt or support NATO countries. But he don't like brown people so you like him?

I think you've misunderstood what I meant by 'poll'. It doesn't show data from a population. You answer a series of questions and then it gives you the results of whose agenda you match up with. So I agree with 92% of Trump's agenda, 82% of Johnson's etc...

[Flapjack]

I think you've misunderstood what I meant by 'poll'. It doesn't show data from a population. You answer a series of questions and then it gives you the results of whose agenda you match up with. So I agree with 92% of Trump's agenda, 82% of Johnson's etc...
Why do you support him? I don't agree with anything that comes out of that nasty tangerines mouth. Do you really think he will stick to whatever convinced you to support him? Considering he flip flops in the same interview and doesn't understand basic world politics. Oh and he wants to not pay America's debt or support NATO countries. But he don't like brown people so you like him?

[Bluebyrd]

Why do you support him? I don't agree with anything that comes out of that nasty tangerines mouth. Do you really think he will stick to whatever convinced you to support him? Considering he flip flops in the same interview and doesn't understand basic world politics. Oh and he wants to not pay America's debt or support NATO countries. But he don't like brown people so you like him?

The greatest reason that I support Trump is because we need to take action against terrorism which is high on Trump's priorities.

[Flapjack]

The greatest reason that I support Trump is because we need to take action against terrorism which is high on Trump's priorities.
That is what he says. How will he reduce terrorism? He is currently used in IS propaganda. It is not like we can drop more bombs? Support local fighters on the ground? That's Clinton's suggestion. The only idea Trump has is the stupid Muslim ban that won't even work.

[dxcxdzv]

The greatest reason that I support Trump is because we need to take action against terrorism which is high on Trump's priorities.

This is basically what Clinton said about terrorism:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Homeland_Security.htm#Terrorism

This is basically what Trump said (putting xenophobia and immigration aside):
Close our Internet up, to fight ISIS terrorist recruitment. (Dec 2015)
Here (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Homeland_Security.htm#10) something more consistent.

[Bluebyrd]

That is what he says. How will he reduce terrorism? He is currently used in IS propaganda. It is not like we can drop more bombs? Support local fighters on the ground? That's Clinton's suggestion. The only idea Trump has is the stupid Muslim ban that won't even work.

A Muslim ban wouldn't put ISIS to a halt but it would certainly help in preventing ISIS members from entering the country.

[Flapjack]

A Muslim ban wouldn't put ISIS to a halt but it would certainly help in preventing ISIS members from entering the country.
Cos when they're walking through customs they'll tick the Muslim box? Or are we going back to Nazi and seeing who looks Muslim? Despite the fact there are hundreds of white Europeans in IS. The Muslim ban is racist and Muslims have become the new Jews. The scapegoat for problems the right wing can't fix.

[mattsmith48]

A Muslim ban wouldn't put ISIS to a halt but it would certainly help in preventing ISIS members from entering the country.

Cos when they're walking through customs they'll tick the Muslim box? Or are we going back to Nazi and seeing who looks Muslim? Despite the fact there are hundreds of white Europeans in IS. The Muslim ban is racist and Muslims have become the new Jews. The scapegoat for problems the right wing can't fix.

And most terrorist attacks claimed by ISIS were done by citizens or people legally living in the country where the attack happened, in some cases they had nothing to do with it they just claimed they were responsable for it

[Flapjack]

And most terrorist attacks claimed by ISIS were done by citizens or people legally living in the country where the attack happened, in some cases they had nothing to do with it they just claimed they were responsable for it
Matt how many times do I have to tell people that reality has a well known liberal bias goshhh xD

[Vlerchan]

Matt how many times do I have to tell people that reality has a well known liberal bias goshhh xD
Genuine question, do you actually believe this?

---

Banning muslims immigration also undermines relations with our most important allies in this fight.

[Flapjack]

Genuine question, do you actually believe this?

---

Banning muslims immigration also undermines relations with our most important allies in this fight.
That reality has a liberal bias? No of course not I just say it when I see conservatives denying factsxD It was something funny Stephen Colbert said once:)

Yeah I know it does but Trump doesn't! Did you see that interview where he talks about Ukraine and shows just how little he knows?xD The man is a bloody joke!

[PlasmaHam]

That reality has a liberal bias? No of course not I just say it when I see conservatives denying factsxD It was something funny Stephen Colbert said once:)

And Liberals suppressing facts. (http://louderwithcrowder.com/university-of-houston-student-all-lives-matter/#.V6BuxDsrJdg)

[Flapjack]

And Liberals suppressing facts. (http://louderwithcrowder.com/university-of-houston-student-all-lives-matter/#.V6BuxDsrJdg)
God dam them liberals xD Sooo someone said all lives matter and they had to go to a diversity workshop? :D:D:D How did they know it was liberals? Also that guy was sooo racist xD Conservative sites man xD

[Vlerchan]

PlasmaHam

Mimikyu

The president of the SGA has the power to punish members of the SGA on threat of expulsion from the SGA. In this case, it did occur that she was directed to go to a diversity workshop, amongst other conditions, if she wants to retain her place. Of course, this should be denounced as despotic, but universities in the US are nuts.

This doesn't all suppress 'facts'. It's a question of ideology. It is also certainly the work of liberal.

On a final note, both liberals and conservatives have considerable gaps in their understanding of modern economic theory and empirical finding, so I'm quite reluctant to begin to believe that either have a monopoly on facts.

[Flapjack]

On a final note, both liberals and conservatives have considerable gaps in their understanding of modern economic theory and empirical finding, so I'm quite reluctant to begin to believe that either have a monopoly on facts.
They also have great gaps in their understanding of science and history! I think it is for economists and scientists to provide data and predictions etc ect :)

A scientist can tell you the planet is warming, the consequences and what is causing it but they can't tell you how resources should be managed to reduce the problem.

I think the same goes to economists:) The UKIP leader said once that it was worth the economic damage to get rid of immigrants. He accepted the facts and still stuck to his belief rather than distorting the facts to suite his beliefs.

I also think the liberal and conservative camps differ on loads of social issues but there are so many issues that are independent of that! I think in today's climate people are political sheep, blindly following their party and hiding themselves from facts. I think in politics you must remove yourself from your own bias and use some bloody critical thinking.

[mattsmith48]

So Trump said he will go after porn if he becomes president a day after nude pictures of his wife got release.

[DriveAlive]

So Trump said he will go after porn if he becomes president a day after nude pictures of his wife got release.

Porn is an issue I am divided on. While on the one hand, I think that adults have the right to do as they please, I find the industry extremely dirty and fraught with sex trafficking and abuse. It might not be an issue for a president to handle.

[mattsmith48]

Porn is an issue I am divided on. While on the one hand, I think that adults have the right to do as they please, I find the industry extremely dirty and fraught with sex trafficking and abuse. It might not be an issue for a president to handle.

As long all people involved are 18+ year old humans and consent to do it there is nothing wrong with it, I understand some people might be against porn because of their religion, there is nothing wrong with that, but dont try to ruined everyone's fun by banning it, if your against porn just dont watch porn. The problem here is that he come out against porn the day after his wife's nude pictures were leaked, there are rumours that Trump is the one who ask the New York Post to release these pictures, plus Trump as been on the cover of playboy. Worst than that he also comes out against gay rights, when the pictures show Melania with another woman.

[DriveAlive]

As long all people involved are 18+ year old humans and consent to do it there is nothing wrong with it, I understand some people might be against porn because of their religion, there is nothing wrong with that, but dont try to ruined everyone's fun by banning it, if your against porn just dont watch porn. The problem here is that he come out against porn the day after his wife's nude pictures were leaked, there are rumours that Trump is the one who ask the New York Post to release these pictures, plus Trump as been on the cover of playboy. Worst than that he also comes out against gay rights, when the pictures show Melania with another woman.

No disagreement here from me. However, that does not mean that there should not be some added oversight in the industry itself or on the websites to help protect women from exploitation. Frequently, the women in porn are drug addicts or illegal immigrants and are being forced or coerced into doing it. While this would be very hard to stop, especially through the presidential office, that does not mean we should ignore the problem entirely.

I would also like to mention that I am not all too worried about politicians who disagree with me on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. because these are the hardest to change and could really only be done through the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly refused to do so. It is mostly lip service to their respective party base.

[Flapjack]

Porn is an issue I am divided on. While on the one hand, I think that adults have the right to do as they please, I find the industry extremely dirty and fraught with sex trafficking and abuse. It might not be an issue for a president to handle.
Of course sex trafficking and abuse is an issue a president should tackle but Trump is in it because of that, he is one of the fruit loops that sees it as an attack on the American culture.

[mattsmith48]

No disagreement here from me. However, that does not mean that there should not be some added oversight in the industry itself or on the websites to help protect women from exploitation. Frequently, the women in porn are drug addicts or illegal immigrants and are being forced or coerced into doing it. While this would be very hard to stop, especially through the presidential office, that does not mean we should ignore the problem entirely.

I would also like to mention that I am not all too worried about politicians who disagree with me on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. because these are the hardest to change and could really only be done through the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly refused to do so. It is mostly lip service to their respective party base.

Its fun to agree on shit it should happen more often :p

Its true that gay marriage and abortion are tough to change because of the Supreme Court but we also have to remember who appoint new judges to the Supreme Court and thats what can make a difference when it comes to recriminalize Porn, abortion or gay marriage.

[Flapjack]

ROnVNY5K-J8
H6l7TUJ6iSU
This guy does a gay voice overs, he says all the same words Trump said but in a sassy gay voice xD I think it helps highlight how ridiculous what he says is :)

[Vlerchan]

I understand some people might be against porn because of their religion, there is nothing wrong with that, but dont try to ruined everyone's fun by banning it, if your against porn just dont watch porn.
I wrote this post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219864) almost two years ago. You are free to respond to the charges made.

I would also like to mention that I am not all too worried about politicians who disagree with me on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. because these are the hardest to change and could really only be done through the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly refused to do so. It is mostly lip service to their respective party base.
I do agree with this, but it is also worth nothing that the next president will be able to decide to the composition of the court. Unfortunately, as Obama had a good moderate lined up.

---

Porn is also never going to be recriminalised.

[mattsmith48]

I just saw this on Twitter what kind of people can possibly vote for someone who said he might use nukes?

j1vlMUfR_Wc

[Flapjack]

I just saw this on Twitter what kind of people can possibly vote for someone who said he might use nukes?

j1vlMUfR_Wc
I also saw that!! I am subbed to TYT so I see them as they're uploaded:)

[PlasmaHam]

Good news for all those disappointed with the candidates for this election! Which basically means everyone. I just checked the news, and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, almost has enough support to have a spot in the presidential debates.

Current rules dictate a candidate must have a 15% support in national polls to have a spot on national televised debates, and Johnson is currently around 12% and climbing. A Libertarian candidate haven't had this support since 1992.

Honestly, he is America's best bet, I am praying that a miracle happens.

[Flapjack]

Good news for all those disappointed with the candidates for this election! Which basically means everyone. I just checked the news, and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, almost has enough support to have a spot in the presidential debates.

Current rules dictate a candidate must have a 15% support in national polls to have a spot on national televised debates, and Johnson is currently around 12% and climbing. A Libertarian candidate haven't had this support since 1992.

Honestly, he is America's best bet, I am praying that a miracle happens.
Nooo this a bad idea!! Democrat voters will be the one voting for him so it will increase the likelihood Trump will win:/

[PlasmaHam]

Nooo this a bad idea!! Democrat voters will be the one voting for him so it will increase the likelihood Trump will win:/

Hm, I know a lot of Republicans who would rather vote for Johnson as well. I mean, he was a Republican, and most Republicans agree with Libertarians on reduced government. They don't exactly agree on certain social policies, but Libertarians typically see government as a non-factor in most social issues.

It seems like a win/win in my eyes.

[Flapjack]

Hm, I know a lot of Republicans who would rather vote for Johnson as well. I mean, he was a Republican, and most Republicans agree with Libertarians on reduced government.

It seems like a win/win in my eyes.
I don't know enough about the guy to know if I prefer him but my main concern is ensuring Trump does not win.

[PlasmaHam]

I don't know enough about the guy to know if I prefer him but my main concern is ensuring Trump does not win.

But of all candidates, I bet most of us can agree that Johnson would be the best. He isn't a lying crook or a egotistic businessman, but someone who people actually like. His policies are reasonable.

Here, I have an idea. Give me some time and I will try to post his stances on the controversial and important issues. I am personally curious so I'll get back to y'all later on that.

[Flapjack]

But of all candidates, I bet most of us can agree that Johnson would be the best. He isn't a lying crook or a egotistic businessman, but someone who people actually like. His policies are reasonable.

Here, I have an idea. Give me some time and I will try to post his stances on the controversial and important issues. I am personally curious so I'll get back to y'all later on that.
Okayy thanks for that buddy!!:)

4HDZt9oAzbI
Trump is finally losing!

[Dalcourt]

Nooo this a bad idea!! Democrat voters will be the one voting for him so it will increase the likelihood Trump will win:/

no...I feel he would rather draw people away from Trump than from Hillary. Most Democrats are for the social security safety net and Johnson opposes that for example so as I said not too much danger for Hillary.

[Flapjack]

no...I feel he would rather draw people away from Trump than from Hillary. Most Democrats are for the social security safety net and Johnson opposes that for example so as I said not too much danger for Hillary.
As long as he gets more Trump voters than Clinton voters, he has my support!

[Dalcourt]

As long as he gets more Trump voters than Clinton voters, he has my support!

ah well if Trump goes on like that for a little bit longer he hopefully digs his own grave anyway.
don't understand why so many people still like him...
he's not interested in doing something for our country he just wants to please his ego by being president.

[Flapjack]

ah well if Trump goes on like that for a little bit longer he hopefully digs his own grave anyway.
don't understand why so many people still like him...
he's not interested in doing something for our country he just wants to please his ego by being president.
Because they're stupid ignorant racist sexist and xenophobic bigots? I am glad to see how much he has dropped in the polls though!!

[Dalcourt]

Because they're stupid ignorant racist sexist and xenophobic bigots? I am glad to see how much he has dropped in the polls though!!

yea I'm glad to see that, too.
but even as a hardcore Republican one must hate him by now.
he's just an egoist and doesn't care for anyone and anything besides himself

[xXl0sth0peXx]

I might regret making this post, and I'm not really in this to get into an argument/discussion about this, more so just because I feel like sharing my opinion.

I don't "support" Hillary, or Trump, or anyone else. I don't know if I could even say I "support" Sanders. I don't really know "who" I support at this point. But what I do support is the democratic party. And that's a lot different than saying "I support Clinton" or "Sanders" or "Obama". This simply means that I believe that at the current moment, the democratic party /most/ aligns with my beliefs. That doesn't mean it totally does, and that's fine. I wouldn't expect it to 100% align. But what it also means is that I don't support the beliefs of many of the republican party candidates, including the ones that we have now.
For this election, many people have said to me "do a write-in ballot for Sanders so he can win over Clinton", and here's my issue with that. While there's a lot more to it than this, let's say we have 60% of the electoral votes for democrat, and the other 40% for republican. This seems great, but then you think, 30% of those democratic votes are for Clinton, and the other 30% are a write-in for Sanders. Now, You have 30%, 30%, and 40%, meaning that the democrats don't win.

So for this election, I'm not so much voting for/supporting Clinton as I am for the Democratic party.

[Flapjack]

I might regret making this post, and I'm not really in this to get into an argument/discussion about this, more so just because I feel like sharing my opinion.

I don't "support" Hillary, or Trump, or anyone else. I don't know if I could even say I "support" Sanders. I don't really know "who" I support at this point. But what I do support is the democratic party. And that's a lot different than saying "I support Clinton" or "Sanders" or "Obama". This simply means that I believe that at the current moment, the democratic party /most/ aligns with my beliefs. That doesn't mean it totally does, and that's fine. I wouldn't expect it to 100% align. But what it also means is that I don't support the beliefs of many of the republican party candidates, including the ones that we have now.
For this election, many people have said to me "do a write-in ballot for Sanders so he can win over Clinton", and here's my issue with that. While there's a lot more to it than this, let's say we have 60% of the electoral votes for democrat, and the other 40% for republican. This seems great, but then you think, 30% of those democratic votes are for Clinton, and the other 30% are a write-in for Sanders. Now, You have 30%, 30%, and 40%, meaning that the democrats don't win.

So for this election, I'm not so much voting for/supporting Clinton as I am for the Democratic party.
Heyyy sorry I don't get what you mean by a write-in ballot for Sanders? Didn't he lose the primary or can you still vote for him as an independent?

[xXl0sth0peXx]

Heyyy sorry I don't get what you mean by a write-in ballot for Sanders? Didn't he lose the primary or can you still vote for him as an independent?

Even if you're not "on the ballot" i.e Clinton or Sanders, you can do like a write-in for another candidate. see here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/21/1404380/-The-Write-In-Vote) and here (http://sourceplanet.net/politics/bernie-sanders-write-in-states-what-you-need-to-know/).

I'm not saying he's going to run per se, though he doesn't necessarily have to, but it's just merely hypothetical.

[Flapjack]

Even if you're not "on the ballot" i.e Clinton or Sanders, you can do like a write-in for another candidate. see here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/21/1404380/-The-Write-In-Vote).
Oh that's cool thanks!!:) and yeah I think you made the right decision doing that:) Kinda like voting for a third party:)

[Porpoise101]

As we near the election, polls become more accurate. Trump's recent bungles seem to have costed him. He is behind by 9-10 points. If Trump can't change public opinion or have good debates, he will be facing an uphill battle it seems.

[mattsmith48]

But of all candidates, I bet most of us can agree that Johnson would be the best. He isn't a lying crook or a egotistic businessman, but someone who people actually like. His policies are reasonable.

Here, I have an idea. Give me some time and I will try to post his stances on the controversial and important issues. I am personally curious so I'll get back to y'all later on that.

Actually the best candidate is Jill Stein but she wont be president. I still have doubts about Gary Johnson he as some crazy ideas, Trump is a maniac and Hillary Clinton is corupt and wont change anything.

[Vlerchan]

I checked out Jill Stein's platform: read "democratise the Federal Reserve" and felt ill.

The other stuff is sounds nice and progressive - and nuts in near equal doses - but the path to upholding her platform is scant of actual detail.

[PlasmaHam]

Actually the best candidate is Jill Stein but she wont be president. I still have doubts about Gary Johnson he as some crazy ideas, Trump is a maniac and Hillary Clinton is corupt and wont change anything.

Jill Stein is basically the extreme liberal. Some of her ideas are nuts. Gary Johnson is pretty sensible.
mattsmith48 What exactly don't you like about him? Please don't respond with your typical character assassination.

[Vlerchan]

Gary Johnson is pretty sensible, what exactly don't you like about him?
He hasn't read a monetary policy brief since 1932.

He wants to replace income tax with non-progressive consumption taxation.

[dxcxdzv]

[...] the replacement of all income and payroll taxes with a single consumption tax that determines your tax burden by how much you spend, not how much you earn. Such a tax would be structured to insure that no one’s tax burden for the purchase of basic family necessities would be increased. To the contrary, costs of necessities would likely decrease with the elimination of taxes already included in the price of virtually everything we buy.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/taxes

He wants to get rid of VAT?

[mattsmith48]

Jill Stein is basically the extreme liberal. Paraxiom agreed with me in that some of her ideas are nuts. Gary Johnson is pretty sensible, what exactly don't you like about him?

Gary Johnson as crazy and controvercial ideas for both sides liberals and conservatives. I dont agree with him with the replacement of all income and payroll taxes with a single consumption tax. Eliminate corporate and employers income tax to create jobs, hes agaisnt gun control, against public health care, against the minimum wage, he wants to privatized social security.

[Vlerchan]

[...] the replacement of all income and payroll taxes with a single consumption tax that determines your tax burden by how much you spend, not how much you earn. Such a tax would be structured to insure that no one’s tax burden for the purchase of basic family necessities would be increased. To the contrary, costs of necessities would likely decrease with the elimination of taxes already included in the price of virtually everything we buy.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/taxes

He wants to get rid of VAT?
Nah. That's just poor wording of the point. Earlier in the same extract it states:

the replacement of all income and payroll taxes with a single consumption tax [VAT]

Ibid.

I also had no idea the French called it VAT too.

[dxcxdzv]

Nah. That's just poor wording of the point. Earlier in the same extract it states:

the replacement of all income and payroll taxes with a single consumption tax [VAT]

Ibid.

Ah so basically he wants to suppress all income taxes and payroll taxes (which concern wages if the translation is correct) and replace everything with one based on consumption but in a way that doesn't affect products of necessities? Woho, it's time for some Mathematics magic, does he have a sort of complete document detailing everything?

Basically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax) payroll taxes constitute for regularly employed individuals' cases:
Employer, social security: 6.2%
Employer, Medicare: 1.45%
Employee, social security: 6.2% -> Maximum taxable amount $7,347
Employee, Medicare: 1.45%
Total of 15.3% of which 7.65% paid by the employer.
However according to this (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf#page=11) the employer pays an additional 20% of the employee's own rate for social security, same goes for Medicare.
The employer is likely to get taxed at a total rate of 6.2 + 1.24 + 1.45 + 0.29 = 9.18%.
I wanna make average shit so I won't go for the income tax.

However, according to this document (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf) the effective payroll tax rate for the middle quintile of average income before tax is about 7.8% (data from 2010, I'm not the one who retrieved them but here's the original source).

Anyway let's follow the actual IRS rates, the CBO's ones are probably more realistic as they are integrating numerous factors and are not limited to employees only.
I will just keep the effective individual income tax rate for the middle quintile (3rd), which is 1.6%.

I haven't found data on the average wage before tax, not individually at least. From there it starts to get slightly more complicated and I'm a bit to lazy to take the household income and try to properly divide it to obtain an individual income. It's kinda interesting, I was just wondering how high his "alleged" consumption tax rate should be in order to be effective regarding his will to suppress the previously mentioned taxes.

I just realized I've been a bit too far in the post, sorry, haha.

I also had no idea the French called it VAT too.
Value Added Tax, Taxe sur la Valeur Ajoutée. I think the same words are used in lots of languages.

[PlasmaHam]

Gary Johnson as crazy and controvercial ideas for both sides liberals and conservatives. I dont agree with him with the replacement of all income and payroll taxes with a single consumption tax.
We can agree that something needs to be done with the IRS and Federal spending. Sure is a lot better than what the others are offering.
Eliminate corporate and employers income tax to create jobs
It would work to create jobs. I am no economist though, so I don't really know how he plans to make that work. If he did, it would be good.
, hes agaisnt gun control
Good for him!
against public health care
Obamacare has done nothing but hurt Americans, hospitals, private insurance, and doctors. You don't see people praising public health care like they used too.
, against the minimum wage
Theres pros and cons to this, but in a free market a mandatory minimum wage is not necessary.
he wants to privatized social security.[
Anyone with any sense knows social security is going down the drain. The government doesn't just use social security money for social security, but for other purposes as well. People will tell you that social security needs major reform, what worked in the 40s and 50s doesn't work today. And honestly, private businesses have a better track record than the Federal government when it comes to money management. I have my own opinions on social security alternatives but this is not the place.

[mattsmith48]

We can agree that something needs to be done with the IRS and Federal spending. Sure is a lot better than what the others are offering.

Well hes for cutting the millitary and stop useless wars so thats good cut in the spending. But I dont see how the replacement income taxes with a single consumption tax would make things better.

It would work to create jobs. I am no economist though, so I don't really know how he plans to make that work. If he did, it would be good.

When you cut taxes of bussines and employers it doesnt help the economy or create jobs they just keep that money for them self and dont spend much of it if any. There is no reason to believe eliminate their income tax would have a different result.

Good for him!

Yes because the US doesnt have a gun problem in other countries too they let terrorist and criminals legally buy gun.

Obamacare has done nothing but hurt Americans, hospitals, private insurance, and doctors. You don't see people praising public health care like they used too.

How is Obamacare responsible for that and how it did this?

Theres pros and cons to this, but in a free market a mandatory minimum wage is not necessary.


People making enough money to be able to eat is necessary.

Anyone with any sense knows social security is going down the drain. The government doesn't just use social security money for social security, but for other purposes as well. People will tell you that social security needs major reform, what worked in the 40s and 50s doesn't work today. And honestly, private businesses have a better track record than the Federal government when it comes to money management. I have my own opinions on social security alternatives but this is not the place.

I not aware of what the problems with social security in the US are but privitizing it would obviously make it worst.

[Vlerchan]

It would work to create jobs. I am no economist though, so I don't really know how he plans to make that work. If he did, it would be good.
It would at the least increased wages as the incidence of corporation taxation rests on labour for the most part. This impact is disproportionately felt by lower-skilled labour. The overwhelming likelihood is that increased investment - and let's all remember that corporation tax is that on funds set aside for reinvest - you can be certain would create employment.

The same with payroll taxation, which is just income tax under a different name and with more administrative waste.

... but in a free market a mandatory minimum wage is not necessary.
I don't support a minimum wage but 'the free market' isn't a reason for that at all.

But I dont see how the replacement income taxes with a single consumption tax would make things better.
It doesn't undermine labour work decisions or act as a tax on savings and investment.

When you cut taxes of bussines and employers it doesnt help the economy or create jobs they just keep that money for them self and dont spend much of it if any. There is no reason to believe eliminate their income tax would have a different result.
This is all complete crap to be quite honest.

---

I'll post some articles when I get the chance. I imagine that'll be tomorrow evening.

People making enough money to be able to eat is necessary.
There is no reason this must be attained through the imposition of a minimum wage which has a number of harmful implications for the poor.

Is there a a reason that the minimum wage is better than positive tax credits?

I not aware of what the problems with social security in the US are but privitizing it would obviously make it worst.
Obviously.

I - in fact - have no idea. You're just following your biases.

[dxcxdzv]

When you cut taxes of bussines and employers it doesnt help the economy or create jobs they just keep that money for them self and dont spend much of it if any. There is no reason to believe eliminate their income tax would have a different result.
It is obvious - at least to me - that a company cannot grow if "they keep that money for themselves" (who? btw).
If a company's charges decrease during a fiscal year and assuming that for this first year the strategy didn't change it will, at the end this fiscal year, find itself with a higher net income (profit) and thus with an increase in its capital.
But in general you don't keep all of this profit in a Cash 101 (chart of accounts). depending of the company's size and if it is quoted on stock-markets or not there are different possibilities like pay off its debts (whether they are short term like Accounts Payable 210 or long term like a random bank loan), you can also reinvest the capital in your enterprise like R&D or increase your long term assets (whether they are tangible or intangible).
If the company's big enough it will perhaps have to deal with shareholders (yeah I say stock-market and shareholders, I know), whether they establish a new dividend rate (which is a complicated decision, btw), make a buyback or other really funny things to do with shares.
So basically, it's not that simple man.
+
It would at the least increased wages as the incidence of corporation taxation rests on labour for the most part.


----------------------------


Obviously.

I - in fact - have no idea. You're just following your biases.
I'm personally not very comfortable with the idea of a country where you can't access healthcare - or at least proper healthcare - because of your income.

[mattsmith48]

It would at the least increased wages as the incidence of corporation taxation rests on labour for the most part. This impact is disproportionately felt by lower-skilled labour. The overwhelming likelihood is that increased investment - and let's all remember that corporation tax is that on funds set aside for reinvest - you can be certain would create employment.

It is obvious - at least to me - that a company cannot grow if "they keep that money for themselves" (who? btw).
If a company's charges decrease during a fiscal year and assuming that for this first year the strategy didn't change it will, at the end this fiscal year, find itself with a higher net income (profit) and thus with an increase in its capital.
But in general you don't keep all of this profit in a Cash 101 (chart of accounts). depending of the company's size and if it is quoted on stock-markets or not there are different possibilities like pay off its debts (whether they are short term like Accounts Payable 210 or long term like a random bank loan), you can also reinvest the capital in your enterprise like R&D or increase your long term assets (whether they are tangible or intangible).
If the company's big enough it will perhaps have to deal with shareholders (yeah I say stock-market and shareholders, I know), whether they establish a new dividend rate (which is a complicated decision, btw), make a buyback or other really funny things to do with shares.
So basically, it's not that simple man.

If they dont pay taxes they might a little reinvest in the company, the only wage increased will be to the higher ranked personel and share olders. Big corporation dont increase the salary of his lower employees unless they are forced to either by a union or minimum wage.

The same with payroll taxation, which is just income tax under a different name and with more administrative waste.

how is it more waste and how a consumption tax would be better

I don't support a minimum wage but 'the free market' isn't a reason for that at all.

Why are you against a minimum wage?


This is all complete crap to be quite honest.

---

I'll post some articles when I get the chance. I imagine that'll be tomorrow evening.

If you look anywhere where they cut taxes for employers and rich people they just keep that money for them self and they dont spend any of it which hurt the economy, them not paying taxes would be the same problem but bigger.

There is no reason this must be attained through the imposition of a minimum wage which has a number of harmful implications for the poor.


Is there a a reason that the minimum wage is better than positive tax credits?

How a minimum wage hurt poor people? For older people who make the minimum wage it very hard to get out of that situation and they will make minimum wage for most of their live. Just look at places McDonalds or Walmart people who work at those places should be between 16-25 students just getting extra money but theres more and more people in their 30s and 40s who still work at minimum wage and will never get out of there for whatever reason. Raising the minimum wage would atlease help them make enough to live.

[dxcxdzv]

If they dont pay taxes they might a little reinvest in the company, the only wage increased will be to the higher ranked personel and share olders. Big corporation dont increase the salary of his lower employees unless they are forced to either by a union or minimum wage.
I don't understand how you can permit yourself to speculate on this kind of decisions when I just told you that this is way more complex than the classic Marxist Capital/Labour.
It's gonna be hard for me to respond without a practical example, I don't have access to my regular database from the UK but I'm gonna search if I have a company's income statement roaming around on my computer.
A company can increase employee's wages for several reasons, and these reasons don't concern executives exclusively. The most famous example probably being Ford's $5 wage.
Furthermore shareholders don't have "wages", they have dividends, which are fixed by the company. And, as I said, modifying the dividend rate is a complicated decision that often requires long-term projections.



If you look anywhere where they cut taxes for employers and rich people they just keep that money for them self and they dont spend any of it which hurt the economy, them not paying taxes would be the same problem but bigger.

May I have an example then?
I'm okay with reading financial data so just give a source.


How a minimum wage hurt poor people? For older people who make the minimum wage it very hard to get out of that situation and they will make minimum wage for most of their live. Just look at places McDonalds or Walmart people who work at those places should be between 16-25 students just getting extra money but theres more and more people in their 30s and 40s who still work at minimum wage and will never get out of there for whatever reason. Raising the minimum wage would atlease help them make enough to live.
Establishing a minimum wage leads to higher unemployment rate as companies are less likely to hire someone out of the blue and will go through more complicated selection processes (which will increase their charges as well).

[Vlerchan]

Big corporation dont increase the salary of his lower employees unless they are forced to either by a union or minimum wage.
Lower capital investment results in a lower marginal productivity of Labour, which prompt suppresses wage-growth, and this is widely observed. Furthermore, where labour has lower mobility than capital, one would expect it to bear less of a burden, which doesn't require that only have its wages suppressed. Nonetheless, whatever the channel and whatever biases you want to introduce to this discussion, the empirical evidence seems rather clear.

Our central estimate is that the long run elasticity of the wage bill with respect to taxation is -0.093. Evaluated at the mean, this implies that an exogenous rise of $1 in tax would reduce the wage bill by 49 cents. We find only weak evidence of a difference for multinational companies.

Arulampalam, Devereux and Maffini (2010) (http://ftp.iza.org/dp5293.pdf)

Using cross-country data I estimate that a ten percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate of high-income countries reduces mean annual gross wages by seven percent. The results do not support the common belief that the burden of corporate taxes falls most heavily on skilled labor; corporate taxation appears to reduce the wages of low-skill and high-skill workers to the same degree.

Felix (2007) (https://www.kansascityfed.org/Publicat/RegionalRWP/RRWP07-01.pdf)

Controlling for observable worker characteristics, a one percent lower state tax rate is associated with a 0.36 percent higher union wage premium, suggesting that workers in a fully unionized firm capture roughly 54 percent of the benefits of low tax rates.

Felix and Hines (2009) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w15263)

Consistent with our theoretical model, we find a negative effect of corporate taxation on wages: a 1 euro increase in tax liabilities yields a 77 cent decrease in the wage bill [...] ge effect through reduced investment is empirically small due to regional labor mobility. High and medium-skilled workers, who arguably extract higher rents in collective agreements [this is a German-thing, inapplicable to the U.S.], bear a larger share of the corporate tax burden.

Faust, Peichl and Siegloch (2013) (http://ftp.iza.org/dp7390.pdf)

Here's a non-technical piece that discusses the issue with considerable clarity.

Between 1977 and 1991, a one-percentage-point increase in the state corporate tax rate reduced wages 0.27 percent, on average. In comparison, from 1992 to 2005, a one-percentage-point increase in the state corporate tax rate decreased wages 0.52 percent, on average. This jump may be due in part to increasing global competition.

Felix (2009) (https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/09q2felix.pdf)

I am also not claiming that the empirical work is airtight. But if we are going to decide on policy, I am sure you would agree, it should be done along lines of the academic literature.

---

You're also wrong about wages only increase with rises in the minimum wage or unions.

Though, I will admit that very high elasticity of supply for no-skill roles suppresses wage growth to a considerable degree.

how is it more waste and how a consumption tax would be better
Payroll taxation creates more waste than typical income taxation on the basis that firms need to hire someone to calculate the optimal incidence of the taxation being imposed, reducing overall-efficiency. Both - payroll taxation and income taxation - are less efficient than consumption taxation, because both distort decisions around working, and saving (and thus investing), which undermines the overall efficiency present in the economy.

Why are you against a minimum wage?

For multiple reasons. The main one is that it increases unemployment amongst the low-skilled. The welfare gains that minimum wage employees receive are, thus, taken from people with ever lower skills than them, and with even lower prospects. Even if the beneficiary is at the bottom, it is still bottom-up redistribution. (There is also particular harm done to migrants and minorities as a result).

I might be able to abide to this, if there wasn't better options, like positive tax credits (a point, which you seemed to have forgotten to address).

If you look anywhere where they cut taxes for employers and rich people they just keep that money for them self and they dont spend any of it which hurt the economy, them not paying taxes would be the same problem but bigger.
Like Reise, I'm comfortable reading financial data, and academic papers.

How a minimum wage hurt poor people? For older people who make the minimum wage it very hard to get out of that situation and they will make minimum wage for most of their live. Just look at places McDonalds or Walmart people who work at those places should be between 16-25 students just getting extra money but theres more and more people in their 30s and 40s who still work at minimum wage and will never get out of there for whatever reason. Raising the minimum wage would atlease help them make enough to live.
Please read my previous response on the minimum wage.

I would also prefer to offer them jobs training and help them upskill rather than create incentives for them to remain in perpetual poverty.

[mattsmith48]

May I have an example then?
I'm okay with reading financial data so just give a source.

Heres a few articles I found about Kansas where they had massive tax cuts for the rich to help the economy and create job. Now the state is going bankrupt and they're close to ask Donald Trump for advice on how to make money out of a bankrupcy.

http://reverbpress.com/politics/failed-reaganomics-experiment-kansas-keeps-getting-worse/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/sam-brownback-kansas-tax-cuts-trickle-down

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bad-worse-sam-brownbacks-kansas

For multiple reasons. The main one is that it increases unemployment amongst the low-skilled. The welfare gains that minimum wage employees receive are, thus, taken from people with ever lower skills than them, and with even lower prospects. Even if the beneficiary is at the bottom, it is still bottom-up redistribution. (There is also particular harm done to migrants and minorities as a result).

Establishing a minimum wage leads to higher unemployment rate as companies are less likely to hire someone out of the blue and will go through more complicated selection processes (which will increase their charges as well).

Yes because flipping burgers at McDonald requires alot of skills and experience, and paying them $15 an hour instead of $10 would put a company that makes billions bankrupt in weeks so to avoid this they will fire all their employees and replace them with machines.

Vlerchan How tax credit better than minimum wage?

Payroll taxation creates more waste than typical income taxation on the basis that firms need to hire someone to calculate the optimal incidence of the taxation being imposed, reducing overall-efficiency. Most business have accountants who can calculate everything related to taxes I dont see how its reducing the efficiency.

Both - payroll taxation and income taxation - are less efficient than consumption taxation, because both distort decisions around working, and saving (and thus investing), which undermines the overall efficiency present in the economy.


How does it distort decisions around working, and saving?


I would also prefer to offer them jobs training and help them upskill rather than create incentives for them to remain in perpetual poverty.

Sure you know how we could do that? Free college.

[Vlerchan]

Heres a few articles I found about Kansas where they had massive tax cuts for the rich to help the economy and create job. Now the state is going bankrupt and they're close to ask Donald Trump for advice on how to make money out of a bankrupcy.
Yes, undermining aggregate demand during a period of contraction is mindless, and if I lived in Kansas, I wouldn't have supported the transition at that particular instance.

It's also well recognises that deficit-funding tax cuts undermines the positive effects of those tax cuts.

Both of those points completely undermine any sort of generality of the Kansas project.

---

Worth noting, again, that I support progressive consumption taxation.

Yes because flipping burgers at McDonald requires alot of skills and experience, and paying them $15 an hour instead of $10 would put a company that makes billions bankrupt in weeks so to avoid this they will fire all their employees and replace them with machines.

I'm not sure if the first statement is sarcastic or not, but the fact that it is no-skill employment is the main reason it is paid so poorly.

Nonetheless, it is irrelevant as to whether firms can pay higher wages, and keep everyone employed. You'll find, regardless of what you might prefer, in the real world, it's just not what happens. Firms are profit maximising entities, at the end of the day.

@Vlerchan How tax credit better than minimum wage?
Doesn't do what I have claimed about the minimum wage, welfare-gains can be extracted from rich consumers.

Most business have accountants who can calculate everything related to taxes I dont see how its reducing the efficiency.
Even if it were just an extra piece to calculate and add to the payslip, it means extra work for accountants. However, this is more than just adding to a tax slip. It requires doing complicated things, like calculating elasticises of labour-supply under conditions of uncertainty. The likelihood is that firms don't go to a considerable level of depth in this, which results in inefficient matching itself, but I would imagine it does take-up some time.

That it is less efficient that stacking the percentage on top of income taxation, is without a doubt, regardless.

How does it distort decisions around working, and saving?
The income tax distorts decisions around working because as ones average (and, marginal) taxation increases, as it does under progressive taxation, there is less of an incentive to work an extra hour. For example, most of my colleagues in work are on 50,000 a year, and will never do overtime where it will be taxed at 52%.

It disincentives saving, because it is nondiscriminatory with regards set aside for consumption, and funds set aside for saving. Where a consumption tax will allow people to save, tax-free, the income tax will not.

Sure you know how we could do that? Free college.
I explained, with links to the academic literature, how this is a wholly inefficient means of helping people out of poverty, and the dividends of such policy are largely accrued by middle-class whites.

Please go back and read those posts, since I am not going to repeat the points I made, for a third time.

[Flapjack]

kV4-M-0CAIs
For those that think Trump should be president because he is a great businessmen.

[dxcxdzv]

Yes because flipping burgers at McDonald requires alot of skills and experience, and paying them $15 an hour instead of $10 would put a company that makes billions bankrupt in weeks so to avoid this they will fire all their employees and replace them with machines.
Vlerchan pretty much answered you, but I propose you to imagine yourself as an entrepreneur, a business, you get the picture.

The establishment of a minimum wage means that you can't pay your employees (as said, the lower skilled) lower than a certain amount.
Why is it troublesome? First it fragilizes your position in case of financial bad times because whatever happens you won't be able to reduce the Wages and Salaries charge, it means that any strategy based on the reduction (even temporary) of the wages is impossible. Therefore the only way a company can reduce such a charge is simply to fire employees.
And even, in some countries you can't fire them for such a reason, or at least you can't without the rest of the employees getting on strike and shit.

So basically if you have to pay an employee a certain minima you want to make sure he/she will be an asset, and not a threat to the company. In other words you want to ensure a certain productivity. This goes by the skills (soft and hard) of the employee, to make sure there is a good cohesion with the team ; as most of the time you will work with other human beings (Yeah, I know I know...). To make sure of that you will have to go through a more complicated decision process where you need to include and take in consideration different factors.
To be short, companies try to evaluate the risk, which takes time and mobilize human resources, in other words, it is costly.

There is also the simple fact that some businesses, even though they want to recruit, won't do it - or at least to a lower scale - as they might simply no have the money needed to recruit a certain amount of people at a certain wage.
This leads also to higher competition among the unemployed where the lower-skilled are likely to stay unemployed.

[sqishy]

ry comfortable with the idea of a country where you can't access healthcare - or at least proper healthcare - because of your income.

I agree with this.

Bringing it back to topic (partly), the plot of the TV series Breaking Bad wouldn't have happened if the US had a healthcare system like Canada/France does.

I don't see any hope for such a change, at least not in the near-mid future.

[mattsmith48]

Yes, undermining aggregate demand during a period of contraction is mindless, and if I lived in Kansas, I wouldn't have supported the transition at that particular instance.

It's also well recognises that deficit-funding tax cuts undermines the positive effects of those tax cuts.

Both of those points completely undermine any sort of generality of the Kansas project.

What positive effect of those tax cuts? the state is going bankrupt because of those tax cuts.

Worth noting, again, that I support progressive consumption taxation.

Can we agree that if you make more money a bigger pourcentage of your income should be payed in taxes? A consuption tax does the opposite of that and penalize the lower class who spend their entire income so pay more taxes on what they make than rich people who only spend a small portion of their income. It also as the effect to raise the price of everything you buy, thus raise the price of living which means it makes it harder to get out of the lower class.

I'm not sure if the first statement is sarcastic or not, but the fact that it is no-skill employment is the main reason it is paid so poorly.

Nonetheless, it is irrelevant as to whether firms can pay higher wages, and keep everyone employed. You'll find, regardless of what you might prefer, in the real world, it's just not what happens. Firms are profit maximising entities, at the end of the day.

So we agree that if they arent forced to they wont raise their employee's salary or to pay them a living wage they wont do it? Their only goal is to make a profit and they dont give a shit if their employees dont make enough money to live.


Even if it were just an extra piece to calculate and add to the payslip, it means extra work for accountants. However, this is more than just adding to a tax slip. It requires doing complicated things, like calculating elasticises of labour-supply under conditions of uncertainty. The likelihood is that firms don't go to a considerable level of depth in this, which results in inefficient matching itself, but I would imagine it does take-up some time.

Calculating taxes doesnt give accontants extra work its part of their job and what your payed for. Its like a teacher saying ''im not gonna give more explanation to this kid who didnt understand what I said because it would give me extra work.'' its part of your job to make sure every students understand what you teach them, like its the accountant's job to calculate shit, including taxes.

The income tax distorts decisions around working because as ones average (and, marginal) taxation increases, as it does under progressive taxation, there is less of an incentive to work an extra hour. For example, most of my colleagues in work are on 50,000 a year, and will never do overtime where it will be taxed at 52%.

It disincentives saving, because it is nondiscriminatory with regards set aside for consumption, and funds set aside for saving. Where a consumption tax will allow people to save, tax-free, the income tax will not.

Where you live how does tax on overtime work?

If you save money for lets say retirement, you dont pay taxes on that money until you start receiving it after you retire same goes with everything if you get an account to put money in it to save later you will only pay taxes on that money when you get it out I dont see how it would stop you from saving. Consumption tax is only advantagous for saving if you are rich because they pay taxes on a small portion of their income. If you are in the middle class or the lower class you spend your entire paycheck sometimes more so you pay taxes your entire income so you have less money to save.

I explained, with links to the academic literature, how this is a wholly inefficient means of helping people out of poverty, and the dividends of such policy are largely accrued by middle-class whites.

Please go back and read those posts, since I am not going to repeat the points I made, for a third time.

So you want poor people to get out of there by getting trainning so they can get a better job and get out of poverty but you want them to pay for it when they dont make enough money to live.

Vlerchan pretty much answered you, but I propose you to imagine yourself as an entrepreneur, a business, you get the picture.

The establishment of a minimum wage means that you can't pay your employees (as said, the lower skilled) lower than a certain amount.
Why is it troublesome? First it fragilizes your position in case of financial bad times because whatever happens you won't be able to reduce the Wages and Salaries charge, it means that any strategy based on the reduction (even temporary) of the wages is impossible. Therefore the only way a company can reduce such a charge is simply to fire employees.
And even, in some countries you can't fire them for such a reason, or at least you can't without the rest of the employees getting on strike and shit.

So basically if you have to pay an employee a certain minima you want to make sure he/she will be an asset, and not a threat to the company. In other words you want to ensure a certain productivity. This goes by the skills (soft and hard) of the employee, to make sure there is a good cohesion with the team ; as most of the time you will work with other human beings (Yeah, I know I know...). To make sure of that you will have to go through a more complicated decision process where you need to include and take in consideration different factors.
To be short, companies try to evaluate the risk, which takes time and mobilize human resources, in other words, it is costly.

There is also the simple fact that some businesses, even though they want to recruit, won't do it - or at least to a lower scale - as they might simply no have the money needed to recruit a certain amount of people at a certain wage.
This leads also to higher competition among the unemployed where the lower-skilled are likely to stay unemployed.

Even if you would have some difficulties financially lowering the wages of your employees is just wrong, other people dont think like this and thats why a minimum wage and unions are so important. If your business have some financial trouble you have to work on other solutions. Without a minimum wage your employees would always have that stress that if your business doesnt do good enough or if the owner gets into some financial trouble your salary will go down, than affect his productivity negatively because of the stress of losing money and not being able to pay for what he needs like food, rent, debts ect. same can be said of people working where the minimum wage is too low. With a minimum wage brought to a living wage you can reduce or in best cases eliminate that stress completly which would higher the productivity of the employee since he can focus on his job. The other point that higher minimum wage as the effect to keep lower-skilled people unemployed is not true like I said earlier most minimum wage jobs like flipping burgers at McDonalds dont require alot of skill, just look clean and show up on time. the only effect a higher minimum wage as on those people is they make enough to live.

[Vlerchan]

What positive effect of those tax cuts? the state is going bankrupt because of those tax cuts.
That I might support tax cuts in general does not mean I support them in all instances.

Even if we pretend that your cherry-picked example is worth considering, you have now turned to misrepresenting the position I am defending.

Can we agree that if you make more money a bigger pourcentage of your income should be payed in taxes? A consuption tax does the opposite of that and penalize the lower class who spend their entire income so pay more taxes on what they make than rich people who only spend a small portion of their income. It also as the effect to raise the price of everything you buy, thus raise the price of living which means it makes it harder to get out of the lower class.
Progressive consumption taxation means the amount paid depends on the income of the consumer. It would be filed at the end of the year. I agree that non-progressive consumption is design facto regressive.

So we agree that if they arent forced to they wont raise their employee's salary or to pay them a living wage they wont do it? Their only goal is to make a profit and they dont give a shit if their employees dont make enough money to live.
I contested the fact that governments needed to force them - I am still contesting that.

Where you live how does tax on overtime work?
Same as on normal time.

If you save money for lets say retirement, you dont pay taxes on that money until you start receiving it after you retire same goes with everything if you get an account to put money in it to save later you will only pay taxes on that money when you get it out I dont see how it would stop you from saving.
Least here - and in the US - tax is paid on income before it can be deposited in a savings account.

There is then a separate capital gains tax levied.

Consumption tax is only advantagous for saving if you are rich because they pay taxes on a small portion of their income. If you are in the middle class or the lower class you spend your entire paycheck sometimes more so you pay taxes your entire income so you have less money to save.
The rich do that vast majority of the saving in both cases. The net impact is about the same for the middle class - who whilst spending a greater portion of their income than the upper-class, also have contributed a considerable amount in income tax. The poor - I imagine - would save less where it is not possible to reduce consumption. This distributional issue is the reason I support a progressive consumption tax. Nonetheless - under this scheme - there would be more saving overall.

So you want poor people to get out of there by getting trainning so they can get a better job and get out of poverty but you want them to pay for it when they dont make enough money to live.
No. It should be well subsidised and/or income dependent.

With a minimum wage brought to a living wage you can reduce or in best cases eliminate that stress completly which would higher the productivity of the employee since he can focus on his job.
If there was a gain to be made for firms in increasing wages then I presume firms would do it. Such would be profit maximising.

The other point that higher minimum wage as the effect to keep lower-skilled people unemployed is not true like I said earlier most minimum wage jobs like flipping burgers at McDonalds dont require alot of skill, just look clean and show up on time. the only effect a higher minimum wage as on those people is they make enough to live.
This is nonesense.

That these jobs are low skill doesn't mean that firms don't care about overheads.

[dxcxdzv]

Even if you would have some difficulties financially lowering the wages of your employees is just wrong, other people dont think like this and thats why a minimum wage and unions are so important.
The problem is not in the question whether or not it is wrong.

If your business have some financial trouble you have to work on other solutions.
Are you conscious that companies in general don't like to have angry employees but because of too much restrictions (labour regulations) they are sometimes forced to do massive layoffs?


Without a minimum wage your employees would always have that stress that if your business doesnt do good enough or if the owner gets into some financial trouble your salary will go down, than affect his productivity negatively because of the stress of losing money and not being able to pay for what he needs like food, rent, debts ect.
That is the contrary actually, it works as an extrinsic incentive and sometimes can trigger an intrinsic one (which is kinda good for the productivity). Many factors have to be taken into account though.
If you take the example of US lawyers, when they get paid only if they win the case, well, they move their asses.
I'd also like to know from where you've read that it is bad for the productivity.


same can be said of people working where the minimum wage is too low.

Example?

With a minimum wage brought to a living wage you can reduce or in best cases eliminate that stress completly which would higher the productivity of the employee since he can focus on his job.

In some cases it seems like the minimum wage increase can lead to an increase labour productivity.
Minimum wages may increase labour productivity if they cause firms to substitute away from labour towards other factors of production such as capital because the relative cost of labour increases with the policy.
They may also increase total factor productivity (TFP) if they induce firms to invest in unmeasured intangible assets such as training and organisational capital. For example, minimum wages may create incentives for firms to offer more training for their employees, particularly in monopsony labour markets where employers accrue rents from training provision (see e.g. the discussion in Acemoglu and Pischke, 1999), and implement organisational changes such as tighter human resource practices, increased performance standards at work, and better management practices (e.g. as inLester, 1964; and as in the institutional theory of Brosnan, 2003; Kaufman, 2010; and Osterman, 2011).
Alternatively, productivity increases may simply come about through increased worker effort in response to receiving a better wage (e.g. as in the shirking model of Shapiro & Stiglitz, 1984,or the gift exchange model of Akerlof, 1982).
Riley et al. (2015). (http://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Minimum%20wages%20and%20firm%20productivity%20NIESR%20DP%20449.pdf) (I'll get deeper into this one later).

However, this is not the point being made here.

The other point that higher minimum wage as the effect to keep lower-skilled people unemployed is not true
I request either your detailed reasoning or a valid source for what you just said.


like I said earlier most minimum wage jobs like flipping burgers at McDonalds dont require alot of skill, just look clean and show up on time. the only effect a higher minimum wage as on those people is they make enough to live.
Yeah, life will be better if we all go flip burgers.

I'd like you to read with more attention my previous post, I've also a question: Do you know what are hard and soft skills and how and why someone gets hired for a specific job, regardless of the potential requirements?

[mattsmith48]

That I might support tax cuts in general does not mean I support them in all instances.

Even if we pretend that your cherry-picked example is worth considering, you have now turned to misrepresenting the position I am defending.

I pick this example because its the best one to proves cutting taxes for rich people does not work. The Replubican had full control of the state they could cut taxes as much as they wanted they did and it failed.

Progressive consumption taxation means the amount paid depends on the income of the consumer. It would be filed at the end of the year. I agree that non-progressive consumption is design facto regressive.

That sound as complicated as the income tax you keep saying is too complicated and because of that it should be eliminated.

Least here - and in the US - tax is paid on income before it can be deposited in a savings account.

Your right its if a part or entire pay check goes into a saving account you dont pay taxes until you withdrawal some of it or all. If you deposit money after already payed taxes on it you will only pay taxes on the interest unless you put it in a tax-free saving accounts.

The rich do that vast majority of the saving in both cases. The net impact is about the same for the middle class - who whilst spending a greater portion of their income than the upper-class, also have contributed a considerable amount in income tax. The poor - I imagine - would save less where it is not possible to reduce consumption. This distributional issue is the reason I support a progressive consumption tax. Nonetheless - under this scheme - there would be more saving overall.


Only for the rich, and the higher portion of the middle class. The rest cant save as much or at all because a consumption tax highers the cost of living and if you have the choice between eating and paying your rent or saving money the choice is pretty obvious.

No. It should be well subsidised and/or income dependent.

So goverment pay for them because they cant afford it because minimum wage is to low?


If there was a gain to be made for firms in increasing wages then I presume firms would do it. Such would be profit maximising.

That these jobs are low skill doesn't mean that firms don't care about overheads.

Were talking about companies who dont put real meat in their burgers to cut spending. As long their employees show up in time and they look clean those companies dont give a shit. they dont give a shit if they are happy or if they make enough to eat. If they really cared they would pay them more. Same with company who dont pay women equally to men for equal work they dont give a shit and the only way they will do it is if they are forced to do so either by the goverment or a union.

The problem is not in the question whether or not it is wrong.

Are you conscious that companies in general don't like to have angry employees but because of too much restrictions (labour regulations) they are sometimes forced to do massive layoffs?

Are you conscious that restrictions and regulation are there to protect the employees.

That is the contrary actually, it works as an extrinsic incentive and sometimes can trigger an intrinsic one (which is kinda good for the productivity). Many factors have to be taken into account though.
If you take the example of US lawyers, when they get paid only if they win the case, well, they move their asses.
I'd also like to know from where you've read that it is bad for the productivity.


Its common sense if you have more stress you will be less focus on doing your job thus being lest productive.


Example?

Its the same I just said about not having a minimum wage except with a low minimum wage you know your salary wont go any lower.

In some cases it seems like the minimum wage increase can lead to an increase labour productivity.
Minimum wages may increase labour productivity if they cause firms to substitute away from labour towards other factors of production such as capital because the relative cost of labour increases with the policy.
They may also increase total factor productivity (TFP) if they induce firms to invest in unmeasured intangible assets such as training and organisational capital. For example, minimum wages may create incentives for firms to offer more training for their employees, particularly in monopsony labour markets where employers accrue rents from training provision (see e.g. the discussion in Acemoglu and Pischke, 1999), and implement organisational changes such as tighter human resource practices, increased performance standards at work, and better management practices (e.g. as inLester, 1964; and as in the institutional theory of Brosnan, 2003; Kaufman, 2010; and Osterman, 2011).
Alternatively, productivity increases may simply come about through increased worker effort in response to receiving a better wage (e.g. as in the shirking model of Shapiro & Stiglitz, 1984,or the gift exchange model of Akerlof, 1982).
Riley et al. (2015). (http://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Minimum%20wages%20and%20firm%20productivity%20NIESR%20DP%20449.pdf) (I'll get deeper into this one later).

However, this is not the point being made here.

Higher minimum wage increase the productivity yes that is exactly the point being made.


I request either your detailed reasoning or a valid source for what you just said.

What do you call this?
like I said earlier most minimum wage jobs like flipping burgers at McDonalds dont require alot of skill, just look clean and show up on time. the only effect a higher minimum wage as on those people is they make enough to live.

[dxcxdzv]

Are you conscious that restrictions and regulation are there to protect the employees.
You don't answer to my question.

And yes, I am conscious. Except that not everything is black or white and often employees know very little about how all of this works.


Its common sense if you have more stress you will be less focus on doing your job thus being lest productive.
No, it is your opinion, nothing that you said is factual or even related to "common sense". I provided you with a practical example, then, do the same. I'm also skeptical regarding your competences and knowledge in management so I won't take your says as absolute truth.


Its the same I just said about not having a minimum wage except with a low minimum wage you know your salary wont go any lower.
Therefore, where is your example from your previous statement?



Higher minimum wage increase the productivity yes that is exactly the point being made.
No.
It says that in some cases companies can manage to achieve a positive outcome from a minimum wage increase. However, such an increase, if too high, is harmful.

EDIT: The whole point of the conversation is whether or not minimum wage is better than tax credit. This was the starting one, at least.


What do you call this?
I asked for a detailed reasoning or a valid source. Have you ever read a thesis once in your life?

You also didn't answer my last question.

I'm alright with continuing to debate as long as a minimum of dignity is kept. If you see what I mean.

[mattsmith48]

You don't answer to my question.

And yes, I am conscious. Except that not everything is black or white and often employees know very little about how all of this works.

Than you have to educate them about it not cut them.


No, it is your opinion, nothing that you said is factual or even related to "common sense". I provided you with a practical example, then, do the same. I'm also skeptical regarding your competences and knowledge in management so I won't take your says as absolute truth.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karenhigginbottom/2014/09/11/workplace-stress-leads-to-less-productive-employees/#60a279475bb2

Happy now?

Therefore, where is your example from your previous statement?

Not sure what your asking here

No.
It says that in some cases companies can manage to achieve a positive outcome from a minimum wage increase. However, such an increase, if too high, is harmful.

EDIT: The whole point of the conversation is whether or not minimum wage is better than tax credit. This was the starting one, at least.


If that is the case why you guys have not explained yet why tax credits better than minimum wage.

I asked for a detailed reasoning or a valid source. Have you ever read a thesis once in your life?

You also didn't answer my last question.

What question?

[Vlerchan]

I pick this example because its the best one to proves cutting taxes for rich people does not work. The Replubican had full control of the state they could cut taxes as much as they wanted they did and it failed.
In other words, it just happens to fit your agenda.

I indicated as to why I don't believe we can generalise the experience in Kansas to the broader realm of economic truth. You completely ignored these reasons.

To repeat, the fiscal deficit these tax cuts were built on undermined their positive effects, and impinging on aggregate demand during a contractionary period, as happened, undermined growth.

Do you disagree with the truth-value of either of those statements?

That sound as complicated as the income tax you keep saying is too complicated and because of that it should be eliminated.
John made 100,000 this year. It is noted on his end of year statement. From looking at his end-of-year bank statement, we can see that he saved 40,000. In that case we would tax 60,000 of Johns income, conditional on the rate reserved for those earning 100,000.

That's not complicated.

I also never disagreed with income taxation on the grounds its complicated in this thread, though it is.

for the rich, and the higher portion of the middle class. The rest cant save as much or at all because a consumption tax highers the cost of living and if you have the choice between eating and paying your rent or saving money the choice is pretty obvious.
You're attacking this position as if I said I held it.

I actually support a progressive consumption tax and also happen to be critical of income taxation.

So goverment pay for them because they cant afford it because minimum wage is to low?
No, governments pay for them because it enables, and incentivises, access to a public good.

Please revisit my comments on the minimum wage and positive tax credits as to why I find this means of redistribution preferable.

Were talking about companies who dont put real meat in their burgers to cut spending. As long their employees show up in time and they look clean those companies dont give a shit. they dont give a shit if they are happy or if they make enough to eat. If they really cared they would pay them more.
I have no idea as to how this connects to your argument that a minimum wage wouldn't increase unemployment.

It probably just doesn't.

Since I am home, and have the time, here is some of the literature on how minimum wages affect employment.

A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries.

Neumark and Wascher (2007) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf)

We argue that the minimum wage will impact employment over time, through changes in growth rather than an immediate drop in relative employment levels. We conduct simulations showing that commonly-used specifications in this literature, especially those that include state-specific time trends, will not accurately capture these effects. Using three separate state panels of administrative employment data, we find that the minimum wage reduces job growth over a period of several years.

Meer and West (2013) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w19262.pdf)

Individuals ages 16 to 30 with less than a high school education by 5.6 percentage points. This estimate accounts for 43 percent of the sustained, 13 percentage point decline in this skill group's employment rate and a 0.49 percentage point decline in employment across the full population ages 16 to 64.

Clemens (2015) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w21830)

Difference-indifferences estimation reveals an increase in average wages by 4.8 percent and an employment reduction by about 1.9 percent in affected establishments. These estimates imply an employment elasticity with respect to wages of about -0.3.

Bossler (2016) (http://doku.iab.de/discussionpapers/2016/dp1016.pdf)

In the long-run.

The evidence indicates that even as individuals reach their late 20’s, they earn less and perhaps work less the longer they were exposed to a higher minimum wage, especially as a teenager. The adverse longerrun effects of facing high minimum wages as a teenager are stronger for blacks.

Neumark et al. (2004) (http://ftp.iza.org/dp1428.pdf)

There is an increasing amount of evidence that their are quite robust adjustment measures that firms can rely on to mitigate the employment effects when it comes to small increases in the minimum wage. That is, at least in the short-run.

Bearing in mind that the estimates for the United States reflect a historic experience of moderate increases in the minimum wage, it appears that if negative effects on employment are present, they are too small to be statistically detectable. Such effects would be too modest to have meaningful consequences in the dynamically changing labor markets of the United States.

Belman and Wolfson (2014) (http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1220&context=empl_research)

Though, these metaanalysis, or analysis, in general, might not be so useful, where it is generalising across industries.

[...] the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.

Neumark and Wascher (2013) (http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-paper.pdf)

Which would make sense, where some industries are more flexible than others.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karenhig.../#60a279475bb2

Happy now?
Survey data is open to all sorts of reporting biases, which is why you'll never see a survey paper get published in an actual economic journal.

I don't doubt that people who are stressed are less productive, though. But, whether the minimum wage is an effective tool of defusing that is questionable.

Edit.

If that is the case why you guys have not explained yet why tax credits better than minimum wage.
"Doesn't do what I have claimed about the minimum wage, welfare-gains can be extracted from rich consumers."

I said this two posts ago. Since you didn't address it, I presume I wouldn't need to push the point.

---

It says that in some cases companies can manage to achieve a positive outcome from a minimum wage increase
One would presume, given firms are profit-maximising entities, that the opportunity cost of making employees more productive, is lost productivity gains elsewhere.

[DriveAlive]

The boost in productivity from raising wages is not due to increased employee "happiness" but rather the ability to attract more skilled employees and decrease the turnover rate.

[dxcxdzv]

Than you have to educate them about it not cut them.
It is not that simple. You are the proof.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/karenhigginbottom/2014/09/11/workplace-stress-leads-to-less-productive-employees/#60a279475bb2

Happy now?
Frankly? Mixed.
This article is worth nothing without its source, source that the author has failed to directly provide.
So I searched by myself for Towers Watson.

Before I get into this I'll take the time to give a short insight to the article in itself.
It's first stated that high levels of stress at work have a negative effect on productivity, okay. I'm buying it.
It is then stated that the main cause of these high stress levels is a poor staffing, in other words, an inadequate management.
This is way far from proving your point.

I've found this (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiT2cfG4LLOAhWMJcAKHTNRDNgQFggjMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.towerswatson.com%2FDownloadMedia.aspx%3Fmedia%3D%257BE3F4E AEA-6C6D-4204-BD03-DD55DE8BA5D1%257D&usg=AFQjCNFiz6IPWVH-l0QakRw8LkcvisJV9A&sig2=4KDl8SeM_YR16wuTVqEeFg) which is a way more consistent source (warning, download pdf).
It studies employee's stress and their relation with the employer. It mainly aims at giving the employers an idea of how they can manage work stress.
The correlation with an alleged minimum wage is highly questionable though.

I had found another study from Towers Watson called the same name as said in the article you linked but as it was centered on retirement (and as the lowest trench of income studied was "<$50K") I won't talk about it.
However here is the link (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi7nqCU3rLOAhWsK8AKHeXLCQYQFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.towerswatson.com%2FDownloadMedia.aspx%3Fmedia%3D%257B581A7 04A-0635-43CA-8073-CB79D6FBCF52%257D&usg=AFQjCNFVgCMsKgHHXydyfKJtrhzD_pWSGA&sig2=w_PgWIuShKoOeMMG9arfFQ
) if you want to take a look.


Not sure what your asking here


Without a minimum wage your employees would always have that stress that if your business doesnt do good enough or if the owner gets into some financial trouble your salary will go down, than affect his productivity negatively because of the stress of losing money and not being able to pay for what he needs like food, rent, debts ect.
same can be said of people working where the minimum wage is too low.
I'm asking for an example where such a phenomena is observable. And, of course, I'm not asking for one specific company in one specific case.



If that is the case why you guys have not explained yet why tax credits better than minimum wage.
Please note that I didn't promote it directly, by the way.
However Vlerchan answered you, perhaps not in a complete bloc but he did.
Here is a quote:
welfare-gains can be extracted from rich consumers.


What question?
I'd like you to read with more attention my previous post, I've also a question: Do you know what are hard and soft skills and how and why someone gets hired for a specific job, regardless of the potential requirements?


One would presume, given firms are profit-maximising entities, that the opportunity cost of making employees more productive, is lost productivity gains elsewhere.
Insignificant on the long-run, hopefully.

[Vlerchan]

Insignificant on the long-run, hopefully.
I'd say it might actually might be the only significant thing about all this, unfortunately.

It is then stated that the main cause of these high stress levels is a poor staffing, in other words, an inadequate management.
Seems like both Matt and I should also be reading the articles we address.

I tend to just throw my hands up at 'survey data' whenever I see it though, in my defence.

[dxcxdzv]

I'd say it might actually might be the only significant thing about all this, unfortunately.
Making an employee more productive by training and also by making him maintain a decent level of satisfaction with his job can be on the long-run an indecently great strategy.
Having higher skilled employees is a non-negligible asset in numerous sectors.

You has the threat that due to his/her increased skills he/she might get tempted to go see elsewhere as well, this is why maintaining satisfaction is important.
However this mostly applies to already greatly skilled employees.

Without taking into account any number I would in general prefer having a few trustworthy employees than numerous "others".

The point of such a practice on lower-skilled employees is debatable.

[Vlerchan]

Making an employee more productive by training and also by making him maintain a decent level of satisfaction with his job can be on the long-run an indecently great strategy.
Having higher skilled employees is a non-negligible asset in numerous sectors.
I am not disagreeing with this. I am claiming that the opportunity cost of training employees, is not adopting productivity gains elsewhere. One would presume, in the case where firms choose not to train employees, that the marginal costs here outweigh the marginal gains.

Without taking into account any number I would in general prefer having a few trustworthy employees than numerous "others".
It probably costs less to just higher better-skilled, better-paid employees, since the likelihood is to maintain trained-employees in an environment that requires no-skills will be costly in itself (i.e., it costs to maintain higher satisfaction).

This is what firms seem to actually do, by the way. Employees in Lidl are paid more than employees in Tesco (supermarkets in Ireland, Lidl is probably in France, somewhere), but these are also more productive (managers, are also ex-military, it's a weird strategy).

---

Related.

Did anyone read, or see, Trump's economic speech? I agree with Shipley.

Policies have consequences, and presidential candidates ought to show they understand this. So far, Trump hasn't -- and until he does, his ideas don't deserve to be called a plan.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-08/trump-has-a-posture-not-a-plan-on-economics

It's clear Trump hasn't put more thought into this plan, than 'it appeals to the base I wont catch with anti-trade, anti-immigration'.

One interesting deduction made in the NewYorker, was that it might be concessions to rich donors, since it seems clear that he either won't, or can't, pay for his own campaign.

---
phuckphace:

Trump on Economics, Nien?

[dxcxdzv]

I am not disagreeing with this. I am claiming that the opportunity cost of training employees, is not adopting productivity gains elsewhere. One would presume, in the case where firms choose not to train employees, that the marginal costs here outweigh the marginal gains.
Oh, yeah.
Such a management is deadly complicated, I guess the Ben-Porath model alone is not to describe it with satisfying accuracy.


It probably costs less to just higher better-skilled, better-paid employees, since the likelihood is to maintain trained-employees in an environment that requires no-skills will be costly in itself (i.e., it costs to maintain higher satisfaction).
There are obviously less reasons to train low-skills employees fo low-skills position than the contrary. The latter was the one I was referring to.


This is what firms seem to actually do, by the way. Employees in Lidl are paid more than employees in Tesco (supermarkets in Ireland, Lidl is probably in France, somewhere), but these are also more productive (managers, are also ex-military, it's a weird strategy).

Uugh, Lidl is implemented in France, but I've never been to one, except in the UK. Anyway, I'm not really sure increasing employee's wages is an idea Tesco may currently be thinking of.
Where have you seen such a comparison in pays between those two companies?


Related.

Did anyone read, or see, Trump's economic speech? I agree with Shipley.

Policies have consequences, and presidential candidates ought to show they understand this. So far, Trump hasn't -- and until he does, his ideas don't deserve to be called a plan.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-08/trump-has-a-posture-not-a-plan-on-economics

It's clear Trump hasn't put more thought into this plan, than 'it appeals to the base I wont catch with anti-trade, anti-immigration'.

One interesting deduction made in the NewYorker, was that it might be concessions to rich donors, since it seems clear that he either won't, or can't, pay for his own campaign.
Honestly I hardly handle any politic speech, candidates never - publicly - propose accurate plans (by that I mean precise numbers on a given policy supported by multiple evidences). Parties hopefully - at least in France - release more detailed projects but I've personally never been able to trust anyone who can't join an accurate analysis with his/her propositions.
I've beena cross the written document (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/An_America_First_Economic_Plan-_Winning_The_Global_Competition_.pdf) fo Trumpie's speech that was provided by the author of the article you linked. Despite a sort of "Detroit Great Again" and the regular insults towards H.Clinton and Obama, uugh, well

[sqishy]

Honestly I hardly handle any politic speech, candidates never - publicly - propose accurate plans (by that I mean precise numbers on a given policy supported by multiple evidences). Parties hopefully - at least in France - release more detailed projects but I've personally never been able to trust anyone who can't join an accurate analysis with his/her propositions.
I've beena cross the written document (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/An_America_First_Economic_Plan-_Winning_The_Global_Competition_.pdf) fo Trumpie's speech that was provided by the author of the article you linked. Despite a sort of "Detroit Great Again" and the regular insults towards H.Clinton and Obama, uugh, well

Someone who sees it too!

Usually when I actually do consciously watch/listen, it's of petty entertainment value.

[Vlerchan]

Anyway, I'm not really sure increasing employee's wages is an idea Tesco may currently be thinking of.
I am not saying they are. The point I am making is that Lidl and Tesco hire different sorts of employees, Lidl might pay more, but it's purchasing much more efficient employees.

Parties hopefully - at least in France - release more detailed projects but I've personally never been able to trust anyone who can't join an accurate analysis with his/her propositions.
Oh, I don't have an issue with them not doing an accurate plan.

The issue I have is that He's entirely unwilling to think about the downsides intelligently. In particular, look at his suggestions around cutting the budget deficit, and slimming the regulatory burden. I support both, but there is no plan he is presenting here. What's he's actually said, is worse than just ignoring it.

[dxcxdzv]

I am not saying they are. The point I am making is that Lidl and Tesco hire different sorts of employees, Lidl might pay more, but it's purchasing much more efficient employees.
I know, that was just one of the random ramblings that pop into my mind, sometimes one jumps on the keyboard.


Oh, I don't have an issue with them not doing an accurate plan.

The issue I have is that He's entirely unwilling to think about the downsides intelligently. In particular, look at his suggestions around cutting the budget deficit, and slimming the regulatory burden. I support both, but there is no plan he is presenting here. What's he's actually said, is worse than just ignoring it.
I've always this idea that something needs to be carefully and accurately calculated to be relevant, if you claim something you should be able to demonstrate every single mechanism that supports it.
Hard to handle, because hard to do, but, humans didn't land on the Moon thanks to vague thoughts.

Anyway,
In the days ahead, we will provide more details on this plan and how it will help you and your family. It will present a night-and-day contrast to the job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing Obama-Clinton agenda.
I'm, curious.

Under my plan, no American company will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes.
I'm a bit disturbed, he wants to limit businesses' taxes to 15% of their net income?

We are also going to bring back trillions of dollars from American businesses that is now parked overseas. Our plan will bring that cash home, applying a 10 percent tax. This money will be re-invested in states like Michigan.
Kill tax havens, recollect all the money, take a little democratic 10% commission, reinvest the rest? In what? Why 10%? How does he plan to end tax havens?

I could continue quoting a lot of his says but I really don't have the will to verify by myself every single statement he makes.


Usually when I actually do consciously watch/listen, it's of petty entertainment value.
And then people wonder why I'm reluctant in voting.

[sqishy]

And then people wonder why I'm reluctant in voting.

The funny aspects of life sometimes.

[phuckphace]

since it was mentioned, heil Lidl

[EuRo]

I dislike Trump very much, but I'd rather have someone running the country that is honest. Hillary has flip-flopped and lied too many times, she's a liar and deceiver. Trump is hamming it up, I don't think he's as extreme as he or the media portrays. Keep in mind that I dislike both candidates, but Trump in my eyes is the lesser of the two evils.

So if I were forced to vote, then Trump.

[Leprous]

I dislike Trump very much, but I'd rather have someone running the country that is honest. Hillary has flip-flopped and lied too many times, she's a liar and deceiver. Trump is hamming it up, I don't think he's as extreme as he or the media portrays. Keep in mind that I dislike both candidates, but Trump in my eyes is the lesser of the two evils.

So if I were forced to vote, then Trump.

Well you do know only 3% of what Trump says is based on facts right? Let that sink in. Atleast Clinton doesn't tell people to kill Trump or insult people who lost their son in a war.

[phuckphace]

Atleast Clinton doesn't tell people to kill Trump or insult people who lost their son in a war.

Clinton has literally killed people irl that she didn't like (livin' the dream!)

I know this can be tricky for you guys but just because there's a "D" next to Clinton doesn't make her any less of a staggeringly corrupt crypto-neocon, and she'd be be at least as bad as Bush if not worse as president. it's time to stop shilling for whoever the Democrat is because those kinds of party distinctions have been meaningless for a while and are especially so now that The Great Realignment 2k16 is underway.

I didn't mock Berniebros when they went all out for Bernie (well, mostly) because at least with Bernie you got an apparently true-believer social democrat and all that entails. Clinton on the other hand is transparently interventionist and Big Money and all those other things that leftoids hate when it's Republicans that do it. believe it or not the fact that Clinton is a woman is the thing I find least objectionable about her, by a long shot.

tl;dr wow just wow it's mid 2016 and people are still defending Clinton unironically

[PlasmaHam]

I didn't mock Berniebros when they went all out for Bernie (well, mostly) because at least with Bernie you got an apparently true-believer social democrat and all that entails. Clinton on the other hand is transparently interventionist and Big Money and all those other things that leftoids hate when it's Republicans that do it. believe it or not the fact that Clinton is a woman is the thing I find least objectionable about her, by a long shot.


I do respect Bernie Sanders for actually being open about his position and views. He admitted straight up that he was a socialist, and was pretty honest. Unlike Hillary, who lies about just about everything and is still hiding e-mails despite saying she wasn't. Then you have the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, and numerous other scandals.

Clinton=Scandal like Hitler=Genocide

[Leprous]

Clinton has literally killed people irl that she didn't like (livin' the dream!)

I know this can be tricky for you guys but just because there's a "D" next to Clinton doesn't make her any less of a staggeringly corrupt crypto-neocon, and she'd be be at least as bad as Bush if not worse as president. it's time to stop shilling for whoever the Democrat is because those kinds of party distinctions have been meaningless for a while and are especially so now that The Great Realignment 2k16 is underway.

I didn't mock Berniebros when they went all out for Bernie (well, mostly) because at least with Bernie you got an apparently true-believer social democrat and all that entails. Clinton on the other hand is transparently interventionist and Big Money and all those other things that leftoids hate when it's Republicans that do it. believe it or not the fact that Clinton is a woman is the thing I find least objectionable about her, by a long shot.

tl;dr wow just wow it's mid 2016 and people are still defending Clinton unironically

The thing with Clinton is that she most likely won't be nuking the ME though. Never said she was any good, just better than mister Trump. Well, atleast not as retarded. The thing with Trump is he's not even trying to come over as a small degree of smart.

[sqishy]

The thing with Clinton is that she most likely won't be nuking the ME though. Never said she was any good, just better than mister Trump. Well, atleast not as retarded. The thing with Trump is he's not even trying to come over as a small degree of smart.

In (some frail, perhaps) fairness though, Trump has talked more about how the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, and Clinton supported the invasion.

Trump may have said conflicting things since though, but still.

[Leprous]

In (some frail, perhaps) fairness though, Trump has talked more about how the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, and Clinton supported the invasion.

Trump may have said conflicting things since though, but still.

Well it's a vote for the lesser evil, in my opinion that still remains Clinton. Atleast she's not calling Belgium a city. Clinton has brains, Trump is just downright stupid.

[sqishy]

Well it's a vote for the lesser evil, in my opinion that still remains Clinton. Atleast she's not calling Belgium a city. Clinton has brains, Trump is just downright stupid.

Only Trump knows what is actually going on in his mind (hopefully). He may actually be smart and is strategically being haphazard to get attention and so on, but it is very hard to know much with that.

Nevertheless Clinton is regrettably the better realistic choice here, agreed.

[Leprous]

Only Trump knows what is actually going on in his mind (hopefully). He may actually be smart and is strategically being haphazard to get attention and so on, but it is very hard to know much with that.

Nevertheless Clinton is regrettably the better realistic choice here, agreed.

Well it is possible he is doing this on purpose. It wouldn't really matter if you take a look at his suporters and their average amount of knowledge on politics and anything that is going on outside of their state.

[sqishy]

Well it is possible he is doing this on purpose. It wouldn't really matter if you take a look at his suporters and their average amount of knowledge on politics and anything that is going on outside of their state.

Oh yes, the Trump supporters are the bigger problem. Trump is more like the happenstance spark for this firestorm.

[Leprous]

Oh yes, the Trump supporters are the bigger problem. Trump is more like the happenstance spark for this firestorm.

You'd actually be surprised at what their stupidity can do. For example, Brussels. We had 2 terrorist attacks in 1 day. It's a terrible thing, but right after that our city gets the reputation of shithole, hellhole, etc. Because of Trump and his supporters who believe this.

To show you what this can do though. Yesterday when I landed in Brussels we and everyone else waiting for their luggage got a 'Welcome To Belgium' gift bag. Why? Because they are trying their best to make Brussels look like a good place, this was also clear when looking at the posters and general attitude of the staff.

So basicly mister Trump here gave a pretty beautiful city the name of hellhole, making all his supporters believe it, making the media spread it and giving Belgium in general a bad reputation without giving a shit. Also his supporters are capable of just murdering any Muslim on sight if the hate towards them keeps going on. Something needs to be done about both the attitude of the supporters and Trump himself.

[Atom]

My short opinion on this year's election:

Clinton is weak and a joke, just like Merkel.

Trump has some balls but his character play has gone so far as to hurt him, I don't believe he would put to work some of his more controversial ideas, like the coal industry thing, but he talks too much shit so people are starting to slowly turn against him.

On the plus side, I'm glad that people now see other parties (green and libertarians) as available options and not just blue n' red. They won't win this election but this is a good foundation for the future.

[phuckphace]

I do respect Bernie Sanders for actually being open about his position and views. He admitted straight up that he was a socialist, and was pretty honest.

I believed this too but then he abruptly about-faced from his working class champion gimmick and endorsed Clinton. the more I look back, the more I start to suspect that Sanders never seriously believed he had a shot at winning the nomination much less the presidency, but was quite content to mooch donorbux from his silly supporters anyway - not that I blame the guy seeing as how he's now nice and set for what little remains of his life.

Clinton=Scandal like Hitler=Genocide

Clinton has killed people in real life which technically makes her Literally Hitler. Trump is Figuratively Hitler since he's only killed people on Twitter

[StoppingTom]

Keep in mind if Trump were elected, he probably gave Mike "cigarettes don't cause cancer" Pence the Kasich deal, so in reality that clown would be running the show.

[ThisBougieLife]

Pence is more of a threat than Trump is, if he were actually the presidential nominee. It's hard for me to see a VP have much influence; they rarely do.

It's also hard for me to say I "support" anyone in this election. This will be the first election I get to vote in yet the choices are disappointingly poor.

[mattsmith48]

Pence is more of a threat than Trump is, if he were actually the presidential nominee. It's hard for me to see a VP have much influence; they rarely do.

It's also hard for me to say I "support" anyone in this election. This will be the first election I get to vote in yet the choices are disappointingly poor.

What would Pence do that is more dangerous than what Trump will certainly do?

[Flapjack]

Pence is more of a threat than Trump is, if he were actually the presidential nominee. It's hard for me to see a VP have much influence; they rarely do.

It's also hard for me to say I "support" anyone in this election. This will be the first election I get to vote in yet the choices are disappointingly poor.
I disagree with nearly everything that Pence does and says but Trump is 100x worse. Trump is a threat to not only the USA, but the world.

[Dalcourt]

Pence is more of a threat than Trump is, if he were actually the presidential nominee. It's hard for me to see a VP have much influence; they rarely do.

It's also hard for me to say I "support" anyone in this election. This will be the first election I get to vote in yet the choices are disappointingly poor.

I haven't really paid attention to Pence...Trump is way too loud for that..
But I agree that it's hard for first time voter to support anyonein this election.

[mattsmith48]

I disagree with nearly everything that Pence does and says but Trump is 100x worse. Trump is a threat to not only the USA, but the world.

I haven't really paid attention to Pence...Trump is way too loud for that..
But I agree that it's hard for first time voter to support anyonein this election.

The only thing about Mike Pence that could be a threat is that he doesnt believe climate change is real.

[Porpoise101]

he doesnt believe climate change is real.
If you read the Republican platform, you would see that this doesn't matter. The Republican Party is sworn to uphold a platform that essentially climate change is overblown by alarmist scientists and radical leftists. They believe that the fundamental science behind climate change is wrong, which means that the Republicans (wrongly) believe that nothing should be done, Trump included.

Environmental policy is probably one of the top reasons that I cannot support the Republicans.

[Flapjack]

If you read the Republican platform, you would see that this doesn't matter. The Republican Party is sworn to uphold a platform that essentially climate change is overblown by alarmist scientists and radical leftists. They believe that the fundamental science behind climate change is wrong, which means that the Republicans (wrongly) believe that nothing should be done, Trump included.

Environmental policy is probably one of the top reasons that I cannot support the Republicans.
I still don't get how such a big party in a developed country like the USA can get away with believing climate change isn't real.

[PlasmaHam]

I still don't get how such a big party in a developed country like the USA can get away with believing climate change isn't real.

Every attempt by the Democrats to deal with the environment just results in some start up green energy business going bankrupt or millions spent on nothing.

There is very little support for climate change, and even less for human based change. Even scientists don't agree on it, look it up. People have been making claims for years that the oceans are going to rise 20 feet by the end of the century, you don't hear that too much today, as most long term observers and scientists state the number is closer to one foot. The climate has always shifted some, the 1800s were described as a mini ice age due to much lower than average temperatures over the later half of that century. For all we know, the Earth could be in for something similar, and mankind is not affecting it at all.

In all honesty, how much a president loves trees and electric cars should be the least of our priorities right now.

[Vlerchan]

There is very little support for climate change, and even less for human based change. Even scientists don't agree on it, look it up.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

If you want to discuss specific studies, we can do that.

In all honesty, how much a president loves trees and electric cars should be the least of our priorities right now.
I don't agree that the President should abdicate all responsibility to the long-term needs of a nation, because the short-term needs seem pressing (and, in fact, the short-term needs always seem more pressing).

[Porpoise101]

I don't agree that the President should abdicate all responsibility to the long-term needs of a nation, because the short-term needs seem pressing (and, in fact, the short-term needs always seem more pressing).
I prefer a system where the President solves problems so that they build up to a larger, long term plan. Of course, not all responsibility should be devoted to long-term issues. But it is almost negligent to not deal with problems hanging over your country. The US is forced to be reactionary and short-sighted because of its political system. With each successive President, especially if the party changes, the way laws are executed are thrown out the window and the execution of law changes. Digital media is making media more sensationalist and prolific, also making the public's reaction less concerted and long-lasting. This shortsightedness is bad because it only causes new future issues and it usually ends up costing more in the end. The only one thing that stays somewhat similar is national security policy because we have national security briefings for presidential candidates to ensure a smooth transition.

[Vlerchan]

This shortsightedness is bad because it only causes new future issues and it usually ends up costing more in the end.
I agree with this. Mitigating short-termism is one of the reasons I feel we should introduce more non-elected elements into political decision-making, and/or structural-incentives to engage in more long-term thinking.

The latter, though, is probably easier to do.

[Flapjack]

Every attempt by the Democrats to deal with the environment just results in some start up green energy business going bankrupt or millions spent on nothing.

Every attempt aside from this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlGhLu_KVvY
Obama has done other small things for the environment but nothing significant enough. Just because Obama hasn't done much good is not a reason for us to want our leaders to do something
There is very little support for climate change, and even less for human based change. Even scientists don't agree on it

By little support for climate change I assume you mean that there is little belief in the scientific community that it is real? Are you a climate change denier then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


In all honesty, how much a president loves trees and electric cars should be the least of our priorities right now.
What would be a higher priority than climate change?

[admide]

The vast majority of Americans are afraid to vote third party. Why? They are brainwashed by the media into thinking a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. With this two party system, we can only vote for the left or the right wing. We seem to be forgetting that the American Eagle needs both and the between to fly.

I may have exaggerated a bit on the brainwashing, but that's essentially what it becomes when rich politicians pay nred outlets.

[mattsmith48]

I still don't get how such a big party in a developed country like the USA can get away with believing climate change isn't real.

This is why?

Every attempt by the Democrats to deal with the environment just results in some start up green energy business going bankrupt or millions spent on nothing.

There is very little support for climate change, and even less for human based change. Even scientists don't agree on it, look it up. People have been making claims for years that the oceans are going to rise 20 feet by the end of the century, you don't hear that too much today, as most long term observers and scientists state the number is closer to one foot. The climate has always shifted some, the 1800s were described as a mini ice age due to much lower than average temperatures over the later half of that century. For all we know, the Earth could be in for something similar, and mankind is not affecting it at all.

In all honesty, how much a president loves trees and electric cars should be the least of our priorities right now.



What would be a higher priority than climate change?

Politicians would like to do something about climate change and try to keep this planet habitable but they don't have time because of higher priority like making sure you pee in the right bathroom and make sure gay people don't have the same rights than straight people.

Seriously though for a country like the US recriminalize corruption is a higher priority because thats what stops politicians from doing anything to fight climate change and people who vote for them don't believe its real so they don't have to believe it or believe it is but lie about it.

[Porpoise101]

In all honesty, how much a president loves trees and electric cars should be the least of our priorities right now.
The way you trivialize this, it is kind of scary. The left wing has been stunted from the climate change reforms it has wanted because elections keep getting in the way. Only after Obama was elected and TEA Party types came in 2010, the climate change debate worsened into madness. Here is a nice video about it, it's an interesting watch (disclaimer: Vox media has a left leaning bias, but it is not terribly bad like The Young Turks):
O4Q8Nm4ksVU

Climate change poses an immediate risk to our nation, especially the Southeastern US and coasts.

[phuckphace]

climate change is real but the issue is fake

normal people don't trust anything connected to "green" because it's been totally taken over by slimy leftoids and made banal through political exploitation. it's kind of like how normal people are irritated by the Left wagging fingers about smoking in public while also promoting much more harmful social behavior - the irony isn't lost on us.

personally I give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that the actual science is more or less solid, but I don't trust the politics and the people behind it - people who nag us here in the West about green energy while ignoring China and India as major sources of pollution thanks to globalism. they're implicitly welcoming of an enlarged underclass thanks to Third World immigration to the West without caring about the negative environmental impact of population growth.

this is why I think the right is better suited to handle this issue, after we're done snapping out of the whole neocon thing of course. environmentalism goes hand-in-hand with a desire to preserve tradition and order (can't really do that in a polluted wasteland with inundated coasts) while the Left's concern for collectivism extends to welfare handouts but is otherwise too preoccupied with naming each flake in the snow-globe to care what happens in a decade or four. unless we're talking ice shelves.

[mattsmith48]

climate change is real but the issue is fake

normal people don't trust anything connected to "green" because it's been totally taken over by slimy leftoids and made banal through political exploitation. it's kind of like how normal people are irritated by the Left wagging fingers about smoking in public while also promoting much more harmful social behavior - the irony isn't lost on us.
What harmful behaviors?

personally I give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that the actual science is more or less solid, but I don't trust the politics and the people behind it - people who nag us here in the West about green energy while ignoring China and India as major sources of pollution thanks to globalism. they're implicitly welcoming of an enlarged underclass thanks to Third World immigration to the West without caring about the negative environmental impact of population growth.


Its not because China and India are making the planet inhabitable that no one else shouldnt do anything about climate change.

this is why I think the right is better suited to handle this issue

Yes by Ignoring facts and denying science

[Flapjack]

climate change is real but the issue is fake

What issue is fake?

normal people don't trust anything connected to "green" because it's been totally taken over by slimy leftoids and made banal through political exploitation.
You define people as normal as people that agree with your political opinion?

I like to think the green movement is politically independent however in reality of course it is not. The left wing looks to the future and for progress, the right wing looks to the past and is bought out by corporations that benefit from no progress regarding the environment and climate change.
people who nag us here in the West about green energy while ignoring China and India as major sources of pollution thanks to globalism. they're implicitly welcoming of an enlarged underclass thanks to Third World immigration to the West without caring about the negative environmental impact of population growth.
I don't know what people you're talking about but all the progressives I know want policies to target climate change across the world. Just because China is worse does not mean the USA should forget climate change exists.
major sources of pollution thanks to globalism.

My gosh you really hate globalism xD You have never explained why though. Do you not think globalism will help progressive countries put pressure on countries like China?