Nothing wrong with the theory, but the way it was done didn't cut it. I'm not faulting American consumers. It's just that we shouldn't be handing out personal tax cuts unless we cut spending. This problem has been going on for nearly a half century. I don't think Obama did a good job, but any idea Trump is going to change the plight of the average worker with his current policies is folly. Oh, please--you're not going to bait me into a nasty reply. I do know what I'm talking about. I taught high school students and adults business skills that would help them start their own businesses so they didn't have to live from paycheck to paycheck. I do care and understand how tough it is for many American families. Ramping up spending on R&D, infrastructure, and worker training, both public and private in all three areas, and we can start to help the average guy. Another consumer spending binge isn't the answer.
Again, I'm not an Obama fan--never was--but he didn't create the problem. The fair criticism is he didn't help solve it.
Funny, but I'm pretty sure there is video of Trump bellowing that he is going to get rid of the carried interest deduction!
Strongly agreed. It is time to invest, not fritter our future away on these idiotic gimmicks. This is a huge tax cut for Wall Street. Designed by Wall Street. The biggest change to the tax code in three decades was slapped together in the back rooms by a small coterie of Congressman and an army of lobbyists. Scarcely debated, and amended by secret committee. Nobody except the folks in the smoke filled room knows half of what is in this bill. But the GOP is rushing to pass it. They have to keep Wall Street's faith. And Trump has always wanted these people to take him seriously, and he's willing to use your money to do it. He won't care what's in it. He'd sign a cocktail napkin if it said "tax bill" on it.
No, "the left" didn't accidently allude to some truth you've conjured up. There are tax cuts for Joe American in the Trump plan, but they're largely eaten up by cuts in programs and transfer payments for and to lower- and middle-income Americans. Some losses aren't evem immediately obvious. Cuts to Medicaid spending increases will create a crisis in skilled nursing for American who outlive their money and capacity to care for themselves. With Boomers on the cusp of bloating the need for skilled nursing care, and more older people living longer, retirees without the ability to cover $75,000/year in a care facility will no longer be able to count on government help. (Something like 43% of Medicaid spending is for skilled nursing.)
Republicans are getting desperate to pass something, anything. The problem they have is everything big they want to do hurts or potentially hurts lower- and middle-income voters.
Here's a gimmick if there ever was one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-thousands-of-dollars/?utm_term=.e644df0b7fa0 https://www.wired.com/story/grad-students-are-freaking-out-about-the-gops-tax-plan-they-should-be/ The GOP tax plan changes tax rules for graduate students, adding thousands of dollars per year apiece. And, it's hardest on STEM!
Congratss - You've captured all of the misunderstanding of the left on economics. This from the party of 1% productivity growth. Funny stuff.
Not only that,...but if you work for a university and as part of your compensation, the college gives your kids free college education...you now have to pay tax on that as if it were income...which effectively stops thousands of middle class kids from going to college
Exactly. Over time, it probably reduces the number of Americans with post graduate degrees. One of those links includes quotes from a computer scientist student who's trying to figure out how to pay thousands of dollars more in taxes. Is it surprising that it comes at a time when Republicans are removing scientists?
Nonsense! Fifty years ago a man could move from GOOD job to better job, plus the labor market had the edge and unskilled new entries had the luxury of OTJT at top wage! Today there are so many looking for work in a down economy and job market employee's don't have to and hardly consider unskilled anymore! Well that explains a lot As for the baiting, it doesn't seem that was ever needed, just the lesson I always get a kick out of Economists, MPO, it's just a fancy name for SPECULATOR I just look at Paul Krugman "Economist" with all his exposer, I was making what he made in 2016 when I was 28 years old Plus I didn't need the advice of a guy with a crystal ball to follow trends in the economy and where opportunities were, I just used common sense, word of mouth and booms.. Had a bunch of great times, and enjoyed the company of a lot of interesting people in many different area's of this country! Now if I'd have listened to my HS Counselor I'd have ended up a economics teacher LOLOL.
Butterball. Problem is for the last 30 or so years schools have been pushing kids to college and now the market is saturated with people with degrees. My mother in law has two masters degrees and can't hardly find work. I'm a skilled maintainer, millwright, electrician machinist ect and have to beat job offers away with a stick. There are tons of high paying jobs out there but few people that are qualified to do them. 50 years ago there was a better balance of skillsets than there is now.
I'm not so sure a "my mother" story is an adequate analysis. I don't see that happening in advanced STEM degrees. However, I certainly do not disagree with there being jobs such as your own. I'm definitely in favor of people making sure that investing in an advanced degree is the best investment of the time and money. imo it would be better if students had a better understanding of what kind of jobs are actually available. I do know people who graduated in something that sounded like big money only to find that they really didn't like the work. For example, sitting in a cubicle working on a computer all day long doesn't appeal to everyone. I know a guy who is now a gp doctor. He told me that half way through med school he realized that he really hated patients!! But, he kept on, because of the time and investment a course change would require. YUCK! In law, everyone wants a law degree so they can help the underprivileged! So, guess what we have WAY too many of. There are a lot of changes that could be made to avoid some of the mistakes, but adding double digit taxes to graduates in STEM is absolutely NOT acceptable when no other attention is being paid. Republicans are just hunting for money so they can benefit the super wealthy. And, they appear to have a deep and abiding hate for scientists!
Alright. Let's look at it this way. A chemical engineer with 5 years of experience will hire on to this company and might be able to negotiate a salary of 55 to 60k a year always on call. Expected to answer emails in. The middle of the night within minutes of receiving them. On a plane at a moments notice to go to a plant and help them correct a problem. Millwright with the standard starting wage with zero OT throughout the year will make 62k. A mechanic is the next step down in pay here. All he needs to do is work 8 hours of OT a month to outearn a supervisor who has a minimum of a 4 year degree. Last time the engineer was in the plant we compared hours worked this year. We are about even. I'm out earning him by more than 40k just from my day (night) job. It's that way across pretty much all industries where there is even semi-skilled labor. That's what happens when there is an abundance of something in the market. Right now there is an overabundance of people entering the workforce with degrees. Which makes them about as valuable as toilet paper.
It seems your numbers match the bottom 10% of those with a 4 year chemical engineering degree. They come in with significant growth potential in a broad range of industries that depend on knowledge of chemistry. The top 10% is more like $160k. I would suggest there is a difference in growth potential for the average person who has a degree in chemical engineering. It does bring up the issue of what it takes for a high school student to catch up to where you are in terms of broad range of capability, ability to run yourself as a business, etc. Our education direction doesn't appear to me to do much of that. But, that's not really what the tax issue is about. I haven't heard that the tax issue applies to undergrads. It definitely does apply to those working on post graduate degrees. Our nation's graduate programs are the source of chemical engineers who are ready to play an active role in developing new products in medicine, in new materials, etc., thus allowing the company to hire more of those with 4 year degrees. Our universities play a significant role in advancing science and technology in the US. It is that graduate students who are doing that. The results sometimes spin off as businesses and some become public.
That is going to depend on where you are at. In this area 60k puts you in the top 10 or 15 percent of earners. I am not saying that we don't need people with degrees. Just that we need to not be pushing for everyone to go get them.
Wages started flattening out in real terms about fifty years ago. As I said, there's nothing Trump is doing or proposing that will improve the return to labor. So what? I had enough money by the time I was that age that I didn't need to make a dime from teaching either high school or adults. I don't collect Social Security, nor am I enrolled in Medicare. Other people do need these programs and I'm happy to see they exist. You would be well advised to stay away from investing, Uh huh. I spent many months outside the country every year, long enough to pick up a Canadian citizenship to go along with my U.S. citizenship. My wife and I still travel overseas frequently.
Right, and here is what wealthy, successful peeps do with their leisure time I'm hardly convinced good Sir!
Why is it that you're recommending people stay away from investing? I've seen an average of a 18%return over the last 5 years or so.
And you failed to even address even one of the points he made, all of which are true. If that's your idea of a rebuttal, you don't have a thing to stand on.
Yup you really strike me as a rich successful educator, again, I'm hardly convinced! If I was to guess of even put a wager down I take sock for the win LMFAO
