It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am guessing it was your point that they didn't bail out the banks like we did. However, it appears that the IMF actually bailed out the government, according to your article.
Iceland’s recovery can also be explained by sound policies. The quick restoration of the domestic banking system and early steps to facilitate domestic debt restructuring were important. Steady fiscal adjustment, while carefully preserving its Nordic welfare model, has made Iceland one of just a handful of European countries running budget surpluses. Central bank policies have helped steer inflation close to target while capital controls continue to provide breathing room to address remaining vulnerabilities. In addition, the country has maintained much of the boost in competitiveness spurred by the early depreciation of the krona, contributing to a rebalancing towards export-oriented sectors. It is also important to recognize both Iceland’s strong ownership and performance under the 2008-2011 IMF-supported program.
Michelle Obama in particular said expressly that we have to give up some of our pie so that others can have more. Remember that?
Science requires thought before blindly accepting things. just sayin'.
i can't help but laugh at some of the gullibility that these kinds of articles rely on.
Would you rather have a country where there is massive income imequality, but most of the poor have base living conditions like food and shelter. Or would you rather there be very little income inequality, but the poor be worse off.
Go into some details if you wanna have a real conversation. Just saying.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Their prediction is for 2027, ten years from now, and after the new tax bill sunsets on most things in it. in other words, their terrible prediction is what would have happened in 2018 without the tax bill.
The tax bill, like almost every tax bill in recent years, has a sunset clause. In ten years, the personal income tax rates sunset if not renewed. I don't like that idea either, but it is disingenuous to state how terrible the bill is in ten years without mentioning that the same problems that make it so terrible then exist NOW without the bill passing.
That article might as well have said "Thank God the Republicans saved us for ten years!"
Overall, 53.4 percent of American households would see a tax increase and 25.2 percent would see a tax cut in 2027. But the shares depend substantially on what income group you're in. Most Americans in the bottom fifth of the distribution — those in poverty, or near poverty — wouldn't see their taxes change either way, as they typically don't earn enough money to pay income taxes. The different inflation measure can reduce the tax refund they receive from the earned income tax credit and child tax credit, but the effect is fairly small.
By contrast, nearly 70 percent of Americans in the middle fifth of the income distribution — earning $54,700 to $93,200 a year in 2017 dollars — would see their taxes go up, with an average tax hike of $150. That's not a huge change, but the direction is certainly not favorable.
Republicans advocating for the bill have focused less on 2027, when much of the bill’s changes will have expired, than on 2018 through 2025, when all its cuts, including for individuals, will be in effect. In 2018, the bill is an across-the-board cut for all income groups, but the biggest cuts are reserved for the upper middle class:
I feel certain the sunset clause is there to try and get at least one Democrat to vote for letting the American people keep a little more of their money.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Sure. For the American people, of course. For "nearly" all of them...