or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 378

post #5656 of 8748
lol8[1].gif

Possibility: So outraged he was verklempt?
post #5657 of 8748
I can just imagine some editor trying to figure out how to punctuate that "sentence."
post #5658 of 8748
It's amazing how he manages to relate everything to himself, his family or people he knows.
post #5659 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

It's amazing how he manages to relate everything to himself, his family or people he knows.


Yeah, but the 5 minutes I watched Hillary tried bringing everything back to her middle-class roots too.  Politicians are just narcissists.

post #5660 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


Yeah, but the 5 minutes I watched Hillary tried bringing everything back to her middle-class roots too.  Politicians are just narcissists.

Trump takes it to a different level though. I think you have to be more than a little self-centered to run for President, but Trump is pathological about it.
post #5661 of 8748
Wow, some interesting stuff there. Her plan would actually lower GDP? Amazing. Cap deductions at 28%? Where's the fucking logic there? And that's going to impact exactly who I said it would...not to mention charitable giving. No, I think the ultra-wealthy will manage to hide income and the niche I said will pay. Time will tell.

And to think even teh poorz will get hit if one counts in that hit to GDP. So much for working class families.

As to your comments about the small percent of US families with $5 million estates (soon to be far less under Hillary), that's a straw man as I never posited it was not a small percent. I just think you're doing your math wrong even with your insistence of using 125 million households. If you want to continue to use that denominator then your numerator is not how many estates paid in last year but how many households in total would be subject to it if triggered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

i disagree. my point is out of all the households in the US it's an extremely small portion that are able to leave an estate much less pay estate tax on it.

the cool thing about your conjecture about who will be affected is that a few organizations have already done the calculations so you dont have to



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-hillary-clintons-tax-proposals/full



http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/TaxFoundation-FF496.pdf


so looks like the ones that fund the clinton foundation will be the ones that would be most impacted
post #5662 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Wow, some interesting stuff there. Her plan would actually lower GDP? Amazing. Cap deductions at 28%? Where's the fucking logic there? And that's going to impact exactly who I said it would...not to mention charitable giving. No, I think the ultra-wealthy will manage to hide income and the niche I said will pay. Time will tell.

And to think even teh poorz will get hit if one counts in that hit to GDP. So much for working class families.

As to your comments about the small percent of US families with $5 million estates (soon to be far less under Hillary), that's a straw man as I never posited it was not a small percent. I just think you're doing your math wrong even with your insistence of using 125 million households. If you want to continue to use that denominator then your numerator is not how many estates paid in last year but how many households in total would be subject to it if triggered.

what? so the study authors conclude that the ones making above 700k will be paying the most and anybody making less 300k will pay almost nothing and we have to trust your word that actually the middle class will pay for it because... it's your word? your best guess?


i feel like everytime you have a discussion with somebody you always accuse them of strawmans... im not even attacking your position. simply clarifying mine. my original point was that only a small percentage out of all the households in the US are affected by the estate tax... and then you claimed that the denominator shouldn't be all households but households that leave behind estates... where is the strawman... and how does that even make sense... it's my position... you want to make my position for me?
post #5663 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

what? so the study authors conclude that the ones making above 700k will be paying the most and anybody making less 300k will pay almost nothing and we have to trust your word that actually the middle class will pay for it because... it's your word? your best guess?

"Almost nothing." Looks to me like under static scoring 90%> pays .7% and 99% > pays 1.7% more according to their calcs. As we know with these projections the assumptions are ceteris paribus. So for sure, the math here says the 1% get hit the hardest but my named niche group obviously gets hit too. So what this projection cannot include is the fact people always figure out a way to game the legislation, and the ones with the most ability to do this, are the ones at the very top. I fully admit the straight math says my named group gets hit but not as hard as the 1% but I'm fully confident in the ability of the 1% to engineer tax avoidance maneuvers. History is on my side with this assumption, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

i feel like everytime you have a discussion with somebody you always accuse them of strawmans... im not even attacking your position. simply clarifying mine. my original point was that only a small percentage out of all the households in the US are affected by the estate tax... and then you claimed that the denominator shouldn't be all households but households that leave behind estates... where is the strawman... and how does that even make sense... it's my position... you want to make my position for me?

Here's how I read your claim: X number of households triggered the estate tax in a given year. Divide that by all households and you'll see it's a small percent.

While I agree with the claim of it being a small percent I don't see how this math in meaningful. The only households that are relevant in your denominator, given this numerator, are those that turned into an estate in a given year.

# of estates taxed / number of total estates in a year = meaningful

# of household that would be taxed if triggered / number of all households = meaningful

# of estates taxed / number of all households = meaningless
post #5664 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Wow, some interesting stuff there. Her plan would actually lower GDP? Amazing.

Where are you getting that? I just searched for "GDP" and didn't see anything that seemed to say that.
post #5665 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Where are you getting that? I just searched for "GDP" and didn't see anything that seemed to say that.

Mentioned more than once right on the first page of "Key Findings."
Quote:
Hillary Clinton’s plan would raise tax revenue by $498 billion over the next decade
on a static basis. However, the plan would end up collecting $191 billion over the
next decade when accounting for decreased economic output in the long run.
Quote:
According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would
reduce GDP by 1 percent over the long-term
due to slightly higher marginal tax
rates on capital and labor.
post #5666 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Mentioned more than once right on the first page of "Key Findings."
 


What do they say about Trump's plans?  I'm not being facetious, I'm wondering.  I guess I'll have a look.

post #5667 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Mentioned more than once right on the first page of "Key Findings."

I was looking at the other link. Gotcha.


I never know how seriously to take these economic analyses. Seems like you can pretty much pick your results by selecting different studies, since the results are almost entirely predicated by your starting assumptions.
post #5668 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


What do they say about Trump's plans?  I'm not being facetious, I'm wondering.  I guess I'll have a look.

Has he really laid out something detailed enough to project from? I'm doubting that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I was looking at the other link. Gotcha.


I never know how seriously to take these economic analyses. Seems like you can pretty much pick your results by selecting different studies, since the results are almost entirely predicated by your starting assumptions.

Yeah, it's all about the assumptions, but it's like a case study in B-school; gotta start somewhere with forecasting.
post #5669 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


What do they say about Trump's plans?  I'm not being facetious, I'm wondering.  I guess I'll have a look.

I haven't seen one with that kind of numerical analysis, but I just read an article where his plans got totally panned and described as "pie in the sky nonsense."


http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/17/Experts-Weigh-Donald-Trump-s-Tax-Plan-and-Find-It-Wanting#gale

They weren't exactly kind to Hillary either, but described it as "basically a wash."
post #5670 of 8748
There is nothing more laughable than economic predictions in general and these in particular. Noone of the people writing these analysis had ever successfully predicted anything. General public should be finally explained that the whole discipline of economics are nothing more than a branch of history unnecessarily complicated by math.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field