How are we going to pay for all this shit?

if you say so Originally Posted by VitaMan

thank goodness we have aoc to kill this crap Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

yes she has terrible math creds to back this up.

Yeah, but it's the party that is apparently allowed to lie because "they are the good guys and the ends justify the means". I finally brow beat my Democrat friend, after failing to admit that he didn't care if the Democrats lied and cheated to get rid of Trump, to admit he didn't care.

I thanked him ( finally ) for his honesty and reminded him of his hypocrisy. "I don't care as long as Trump lost", he said.

And he tells me that he thinks Biden and the Democrats are doing just fine. No matter what topic I bring up, the only thing on his mind is Jan. 6th which apparently means no Republican is a viable candidate for any office. Every Republican is Trump according to him and apparently many on this board. He spits out CNN talking points as if he gets a copy of the days talking points.

He tells me that if the Republicans take back power, he will leave the country. What is it about Democrats who seem to have their bags packed and ready to go if things don't work out the way they want. Of course he won't leave, I know that and he knows that but he wants me to understand just how much he hates Republicans and WILL cut off his nose to spite his face, gladly apparently. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

you've got a strange friend!

more fake fiat money in circulation creates inflation

Biden Has an Inflation Problem

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bid...es-11628717602 Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

they forgot what happened to Germany, Austria and Slovenia after a war ended... they had hyper-inflation where their currency was made worthless. 1 million in currency notes in the respective coountries listed. theres others, but their issue had to do more with the way their economies functioned (ex. Italian Lira)



some here would love to see that.

The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

You're on my bad side now. You made fun of my book. Originally Posted by Tiny

I read your book...The Laffer Curve or as I refer to it as The Laugher Curve!



That book is only half read by Reagan lovers.

Yes, cutting high marginal rat taxes can increase tax revenue but ole Art....and this is the part never mentioned....raising the marginal taxes rates that are super low can also increase revenue.

You see if the tax rate is Zero tax revenue are Zero much like they would be at a 100% tax rate.

The key is to find the optimal tax rate....which Art Laffer noted was fluid.

So, yes we have a progressive tax system but we also have a regressive tax system too.

You have to look in total at our system.

I read your book...The Laffer Curve or as I refer to it as The Laugher Curve!



That book is only half read by Reagan lovers. Originally Posted by WTF

That's a bald face lie. You didn't read it. If you had, you'd know it's called the Tiny Curve, not the Laffer Curve. And it has to do with tax complexity, not tax rates. The x-axis is the time per year required to comply with tax and other government regulations. And the y-axis is the amount of tax paid annually. Here's how it works. If I spend every waking hour complying with government regulations, including the tax laws, then I don't have enough time to work. Since I don't work I don't make money. And since I don't make money I don't pay taxes. So at that endpoint on the curve, the government gets nothing.

Yes, cutting high marginal rat taxes can increase tax revenue but ole Art....and this is the part never mentioned....raising the marginal taxes rates that are super low can also increase revenue.

You see if the tax rate is Zero tax revenue are Zero much like they would be at a 100% tax rate.

The key is to find the optimal tax rate....which Art Laffer noted was fluid.

So, yes we have a progressive tax system but we also have a regressive tax system too.

You have to look in total at our system. Originally Posted by WTF

I agree with a couple of caveats. One, if you set tax rates to maximize government revenue, you're going to end up with lower employment, salaries and wages, and growth in the private sector. People's after tax wages obviously will be lower. This is not a desired outcome. Also, in my opinion, there are issues of economic freedom and whether we believe the chief purpose of man is to aggrandize government.

Second caveat. First, you're right -- some taxes, like our income tax, are highly progressive. The top 1% gets something like 21% of the income but pays 40% of the income tax. And some taxes, like the state sales taxes are highly regressive.

But if you look "in total at our system" we do have the most progressive tax system in the developed world. There are two reasons. First, we levy very low income tax on the middle class. The Europeans, in particular the welfare states in western Europe, make everyone pay their so-called "fair share", not just the upper income earners. And second, we don't have a huge Value Added Tax (VAT), like the Europeans and others. The VAT is more or less a sales tax, and is highly regressive.

.

People on both sides of the ideological divide often seem to make a practice of serving up very disingenuous arguments, and I agree that's it's appropriate to consider all forms of taxation, and at all levels of government (federal, state, local), when evaluating the progressivity of a tax system.

Nonetheless, the U.S. tax code is, with all types of taxes taken into account, vastly more progressive than that of Europe's social democracies.

Back when discussions of frameworks such as Simpson-Bowles were commencing, Casey Mulligan wrote a piece taking a look at the U.S. vs. the French tax systems:

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ig-government/

This ought to be something of an eye-opener for followers of AOC and Bernie.

.

.

Of course, Senator Wyden's "tax plan for billionaires" was killed stone dead last week.

One might be curious as to why he offered to limit his mark-to-market plan to the very wealthiest; billionaires only. (Or maybe not!)

If the Senator wants to find someone vehemently opposed to his idea of taxing accrued gains, all he has to do is look across the table at family dinners this holiday season.

Enter Adam Wyden, his son, who is a very successful young hedge funder with a net worth of around $100 million (well short of being subject to the "billionaire's tax").

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoine...h=52adecac3cbc

One of his fund's major holdings is Houston's RCI Hospitality, the parent company of Rick's Cabaret, which he picked up on the cheap during the earliest days of the covid shutdown.

Thus he demonstrated convincingly that it might be a lot smarter to drop money ON strip clubs rather than in them! (With the obvious caveat that you should only buy during distressed times.)

(Unfortunately, a lot of guys drop money IN strip clubs without getting nearly enough in return!)

.

.

Of course, Senator Wyden's "tax plan for billionaires" was killed stone dead last week.

One might be curious as to why he offered to limit his mark-to-market plan to the very wealthiest; billionaires only. (Or maybe not!)

If the Senator wants to find someone vehemently opposed to his idea of taxing accrued gains, all he has to do is look across the table at family dinners this holiday season.

Enter Adam Wyden, his son, who is a very successful young hedge funder with a net worth of around $100 million (well short of being subject to the "billionaire's tax").

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoine...h=52adecac3cbc

One of his fund's major holdings is Houston's RCI Hospitality, the parent company of Rick's Cabaret, which he picked up on the cheap during the earliest days of the covid shutdown.

Thus he demonstrated convincingly that it might be a lot smarter to drop money ON strip clubs rather than in them! (With the obvious caveat that you should only buy during distressed times.)

(Unfortunately, a lot of guys drop money IN strip clubs without getting nearly enough in return!)

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Hilarious. Wyden should listen to his son.

I took a quick look at Rick's in that time frame and before. While the psychic gratification of walking into the local titty bar and knowing I owned a piece of it would be nice, I flushed the idea. Historically they've carried more debt than they should IMO, and I'm not sure they'll ever pay a dividend. I remember reading a conference call transcript. The CEO and at that time largest shareholder Eric Langan was getting some semi-hostile questions from a shareholder who thought the corporate jet was an extravagance. Eric (Rick?) justified it by saying it was the only way to keep tabs on the far flung Rick's empire, and he flew the plane himself so the company didn't have to pay for a pilot. Eric adjourned the meeting with a call to meet up afterwards at the local Rick's affiliate for breasts and booze. Kind of like the American Express card, ownership has its benefits.

There was probably an element of luck in Wyden Junior's success in this position. Having your businesses closed down temporarily at the same time you've got too much debt is not a good place to be.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoine...h=52adecac3cbc

One of his fund's major holdings is Houston's RCI Hospitality, the parent company of Rick's Cabaret, which he picked up on the cheap during the earliest days of the covid shutdown.

Thus he demonstrated convincingly that it might be a lot smarter to drop money ON strip clubs rather than in them! (With the obvious caveat that you should only buy during distressed times.)

(Unfortunately, a lot of guys drop money IN strip clubs without getting nearly enough in return!)

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I met Eric in the early the nineties....bought Rick stock in 1999 , it did a reverse split. I sold it at close to 4 dollars. Sure wish I'd hung on to it.

I in fact was looking at buying some at the start of the pandemic. My ex owns a shop that caters to strippers among her many clientele and they were starting to come back in groves buying dance wear. When I first started looking it was around 12 and I wanted to buy some. ...it had moved to 15 and I thought that was too much and I passed. I should have made a phone call....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoine...h=52adecac3cbc

One of his fund's major holdings is Houston's RCI Hospitality, the parent company of Rick's Cabaret, which he picked up on the cheap during the earliest days of the covid shutdown.

Thus he demonstrated convincingly that it might be a lot smarter to drop money ON strip clubs rather than in them! (With the obvious caveat that you should only buy during distressed times.)

(Unfortunately, a lot of guys drop money IN strip clubs without getting nearly enough in return!)

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I met Eric in the early the nineties....bought Rick stock in 1999 , it did a reverse split. I sold it at close to 4 dollars. Sure wish I'd hung on to it.

I in fact was looking at buying some at the start of the pandemic. My ex owns a shop that caters to strippers among her many clientele and they were starting to come back in groves buying dance wear. When I first started looking it was around 12 and I wanted to buy some. ...it had moved to 15 and I thought that was too much and I passed. I should have made a phone call....


But yea....I made a few bucks off a strip club!...and left a pile on the table.

JUST IN - U.S. GDP at disappointing 2.0% in Q3 vs 6.7% in prior Q2, missing the estimate of 2.7% by 0.7%.

United States economy is slowing down at fast pace.

@disclosetv

i had ricks stocks for awhile. sold it and made some money.

.

all this

while the cruelest tax of all hits the working man

inflation

inflation caused by the chaos of the true believers in the biden fiasco

expected to cost 54% more to heat your homes this winter in the northeast Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

With midterm elections looming a year from now, the inflation narrative might be the most vexing issue facing Democratic House and Senate candidates.

Although obviously not a "tax" in the sense that a legislated tax is one, millions of working- and middle-class households certainly feel "taxed" by rising food and fuel costs. Republican candidates will try to draw a direct line between gargantuan spending packages and CPI inflation.

As Tiny mentioned earlier, all this spending even alarms center-left Democratic economist Larry Summers, who said a couple of months ago that proposed spending initiatives would cover the estimated output gap three times over, whereas the 2009 "stimulus" was only one-sixth as large. (To be clear, not in nominal dollar or real terms, but relative to the estimated output gap at the respected times.)

Larry also said more recently that he's concerned that central bankers now are becoming much more concerned with their perceived "wokeness" than with the issues that responsible Fed officials ought to be concerned with. (Holy fucking shit! If Larry goes any further with any of this sort of talk, people are going to start saying he's a conservative!)

Along with the issue of possible "tapering," the inflation debate is the dominant one in the financial world today. Yellen is still insisting that inflation is "transient." My view is that, at least if you're looking out to an 18-24 month window, she may very well be correct. But not for reasons that she's likely to be very happy about.

Suppose House Democrats get shellacked in the 2022 midterms, and the Blue Team even loses the Senate. What do you think happens in 2023?

Spending initiatives get killed stone dead, and the trend deficit/GDP ratio drops from the mid-teens to perhaps 6% or so. (Still a lot of deficit spending, but I suspect that's about as close as we're going to get to fiscal "austerity" in this insane world.)

What do you think that would do to headline GDP and to currently bloated values of almost every major asset category?

Note that the 10-year UST yield keeps sticking around the 1.55-1.6 range while the long bond (30-year Treasury) now yields a couple of bips below 2%. That's astonishingly low by historical standards.

My view is that the bond market "sees something" that most finance commentators and journalists don't.

.

Why not think of it in terms of seconds, I asked myself? A trillion seconds would have to be years, probably many years ago. I made a wild guess. As it turned out, I wasn't close. I found that 1,000 seconds ago was equal to almost 17 minutes. It would take almost 12 days for a million seconds to elapse and 31.7 years for a billion seconds. Therefore, a trillion seconds would amount to no less than 31,709.8 years.
So just to keep it simple, debt 25 trillion that comes to 792,500 years.