It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bank Raises Minimum Hourly Wage to $15

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Are businesses in business to make money or to pay employees more than what the market calls for?




posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Do you assume I am a wealthy man?

If that were the case I would not care about increasing my itemized expenses by half of my property tax.

It may save me $200. But I do have the cash on hand to do so, so why not?

edit on 12/21/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pavil
It's true that self interest rules. Too bad it isn't enlightened self interest.

I'm not getting $1,000. In fact I'm going to pay the first half of my next year's property tax next week so I can pay a bit less federal tax next year. It will help me when I pay my 2017 taxes but it won't help me in 2020 when I pay my 2019 taxes. Or any year after that.



Give me 4 years of 4.0 GDP and let's see where the deficit and America ends up.
And if you don't see that increase? Then what?



So you are paying more...so will I until I adust our business entity to the most optimal, which I will be doing next year. Even then because of our situation, I doubt Ill see tax savings. Would I have rather seen a different tax cut? For sure. But we got this done and it's a good start. Overall, a lot of people are getting significant cuts. Isn't that what progressives wanted, the well off paying more of "their fair share"? It's going to help a lot of people and not really hurt me as I anticipate increased growth in aspects of our business.I'll pay more taxes but I'll make more too.

So far GDP is going better than anticipated, there's lot's of work still to be done. Like I've said repatriating off shore corporate money, infrastructure and controlling the budget are the other pieces of the puzzle. I'm sure there will be tweaks of the tax structure as well, I'm pretty positive it's not perfect.

A Good economy should be the goal of both Republicans and Democrats. I get that politics prevents both sides from helping the other out. That needs to stop.

If GDP doesn't hit the right number or the budget doesn't get reduced, you adjust. Isn't that common sense.

What if good GDP is sustainable? What happens then.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil




If GDP doesn't hit the right number or the budget doesn't get reduced, you adjust.


Yeah, just write a new law.
No matter what. Right?
It's more important to "do something" than to do something that works.

Right?



edit on 12/21/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Things aren't so bad. There's lots of work to be done and every side needs to contribute ideas. The main goal in the near term is making sure the economy doesn't go into a historically overdue recession or downturn. The tax cuts help by giving certainty to business and money back to a lot of Americans. A well thought out and massive Infrastructure plan would really work if we can get both parties on board. Infrastructure is money well spent if done smartly.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil




The main goal in the near term is making sure the economy doesn't go into a historically overdue recession or downturn.


Overdue?
We have been recovering from a very major recession for the past 6 years.
When were we "due" for another?



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I assume you are fiscally responsible, and probably in your kickin' 60's! I assume this new tax law will benefit you overall, because by the time the breaks for the individual end up even you will be fully retired, and the cuts will likely be voted back in place regardless of D or R in office, because at that time it will be presidential elections, and who wants to raise taxes as a campaign theme?



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pavil




If GDP doesn't hit the right number or the budget doesn't get reduced, you adjust.


Yeah, just write a new law.
No matter what. Right?
It's more important to "do something" than to do something that works.

Right?




You adjust to the situation. Why do you make that sound like thats a strange idea. How would you have done taxes and grow the economy?

It's not like the past 16 years were awesome from an economic standpoint for the averge American.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I do not hold with your assumption about how the new tax law will affect me.

As for the remainder of your post, it will not require an act of Congress to raise personal income taxes in ten years. It will take an act of Congress to prevent it. The same is not true for corporate taxes.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pavil




The main goal in the near term is making sure the economy doesn't go into a historically overdue recession or downturn.


Overdue?
We have been recovering from a very major recession for the past 6 years.
When were we "due" for another?


Look at it historically. economic expansions

Economic expansions don't last forever, even the weakest one we've had in GDP terms getting out from the housing bubble catastrophe.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Yes. Look at it.

When were we "due" for the next recession? How overdue are we?




The main goal in the near term is making sure the economy doesn't go into a historically overdue recession or downturn.



edit on 12/21/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pavil

Yes. Look at it.

When were we "due" for the next recession? How overdue are we?




The main goal in the near term is making sure the economy doesn't go into a historically overdue recession or downturn.





The National Bureau of Economic Research dates expansions on a monthly basis. From the trough of the recession of 1945 to the late-2000s recession, there have been eleven periods of expansion, lasting an average of fifty-nine months.



You tell me.....how long has this latest expansion been going on?
edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

When are were we due for the next recession?
Since we are "overdue", according to you.
edit on 12/21/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pavil

When are were we due for the next recession?
Since we are "overdue", according to you.


Not according to me.....please look at the data. Average is 59 months you say it's been six years of expansion....do the math. There are exceptions but historically, we are overdue.
There are things you can do to delay but interest rates are already still low. That's why infrastructure spending would be a pretty solid plan.


edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil




Not according to me


Yes, according to you.



The main goal in the near term is making sure the economy doesn't go into a historically overdue recession or downturn.



I don't see a regular pattern.
Your source
upload.wikimedia.org...

edit on 12/21/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pavil




Not according to me


Yes, according to you.



The main goal in the near term is making sure the economy doesn't go into a historically overdue recession or downturn.



I don't see a regular pattern.
Your source
upload.wikimedia.org...


I show you examples and suddenly it's my "proof" not the historical data?

You are usually a numbers /data kind of guy. Show me your rationale why we will keep expanding for 6 more years?

So economies just have continual expansion? I'd love for that to be the case, but that's not how it works in our capitalist economy.


Since 1970, the average expansion has averaged seventy-two months, or approximately six years. The US enjoyed ten consecutive years (March 1991 – March 2001) of uninterrupted growth in the 1990s. After Fed Chairman Volcker put a lid on runaway inflation in the 1970s by pushing the Fed Funds Rate to the high teens, the US economy expanded for nearly eight years in the 1980s. The nearly nine year-long expansion from February 1961 to December 1969 is the second longest period of growth on record. The current expansion began in July 2009 and is seventy-eight months old (6-1/2 years), longer than the seventy-two month average over the last 45 years.



Durations of Expansion & Contractions r1

link

Like him or not, Trump gave a boost to the economy. This tax cut will do more of the same. That still won't be enough to really set us up for a sustained period of really good GDP growth. That's why infrastructure and all the rest is important.


edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil


So economies just have continual expansion?
That is not what I said. In fact I made no claim at all. You are the one who claimed we are "overdue" for a recession or nearterm downturn. The historical data shows no pattern and this tax law is in no way a prevention of any such event.

Look at the chart from your source. Did the last major tax "reform" prevent a nearterm downturn? Did it prevent a recession? upload.wikimedia.org...


edit on 12/21/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pavil


So economies just have continual expansion?
That is not what I said. In fact I made no claim at all. You are the one who claimed we are "overdue" for a recession or nearterm downturn. The historical data shows no pattern and this tax law is in no way a prevention of any such event.

Look at the chart from your source. Did the last major tax "reform" prevent a nearterm downturn? Did it prevent a recession?


Were going around in circles and it's late here. What's your plan? I've showed you 2 sets of data that show most expansions last less than six years historically and you seem to think I'm making that up.

I'd love to have 4 more years of growth, that, historically has a slim chance of happening. Tax cuts stimulate the economy as do other economic tools. The interest rate cut "arrow " isn't there yet, interest rates are still too low for them to have much effect.

What do you propose to keep the economy humming along at a 3.5 or greater GDP while avoiding a downturn turn?



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

I've showed you 2 sets of data that show most expansions last less than six years historically and you seem to think I'm making that up.
You are relying upon patterns where there are none.




Tax cuts stimulate the economy as do other economic tools.
Not according to your source. upload.wikimedia.org...



What do you propose to keep the economy humming along at a 3.5 or greater GDP while avoiding a downturn turn?

The annual growth rate has not been 3.5% recently and the rate of increase has not been impressive this year as compared to 2009-2011.
tradingeconomics.com...

I do not propose that stimulus in the form of tax cuts will help anything. I do not propose that that catering to special interests like major broadband providers and the fossil fuels industry will benefit the economy or anyone but those interests.

edit on 12/21/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


U.S. Third-Quarter Growth Revised to Three-Year High of 3.3%
By Sho Chandra
November 29, 2017, 8:30 AM EST
Updated on November 29, 2017, 8:51 AM EST
The U.S. economy’s growth rate last quarter was revised upward to the fastest in three years on stronger investment from businesses and government agencies than previously estimated, Commerce Department data showed Wednesday.


3.3 with 2 major Hurricanes is pretty good.

So you are against a lot of things but what are you for to grow the economy and sustain the expansion?

As for do tax cuts stimulate the economy, yes they do. More money in consumers hands drives more spending which drives GDP upwards.


We then tried to determine how much each variable – spending and tax rates of each quintile – correlated to a change in GDP. Our findings showed that US$1 in tax cuts for individuals making $20,001 to $61,500 a year in 2010 dollars (the second and third quintiles) was correlated with an increase in GDP more than double that of a rise in spending by the same amount. A tax cut for those in the fourth quintile earning $61,501 to $100,029 didn’t have as great effect but still correlated with a boost in GDP 1.4 times that of new spending.


This whole article is a good read

Do tax cuts stimulate the economy more than spending?

Once again, please tell me what you would do to grow the economy and sustain the expansion we are in?


Time to sleep


edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join