I bristled when Jonah's boss said "You're not a real New Yorker." That's below the below right there. And frankly Doar showed himself to be without a shred of humor, so don't give me this "joking" crap. Didn't like him. Not. One. Bit.
I live in a small town that is mostly hispanic. We have lots of poor folks in town. I get really annoyed re this about aid to the poor - the story about work requirements being better public policy is really not well documented. Yes it is popular to tell people that cash benefits should not be given to those who don't try to work at all. But when you see these programs analyzed in detail, it turns out that they make it hard for folks, especially mothers of young children, to get aid, because they spend a lot of time just documenting their work efforts - and these are the folks at the very bottom, so have a hard time getting to work - few have a reliable car, and they also need sitters etc. In fact the point of food stamps etc was to end the very poor nutrition for the poor. The notion of jealous workers angry that someone got an extra cookie is absurd.
Can we not work over who did more on civil rights. Yes there were very good men on both sides. But... can we also get honest about what happened after a terrible Supreme Court ruling on voting rights? Thus immediately states wanted to put in place voter ID rules and put them in place in such a way that folks would be unable to vote. In fact the efforts did not effect most elections. But the better method would have been to give several years for folks to get up to speed. And.... note that when states did input changes to driver's license rules, they gave lots of time for folks to get their docs in order.
Tax rates by themselves are meaningless. The two systems are not at all comparable. I don’t know why this myth lives on that either the rates can even be compared or that they created a better country or that the 50’s was some utopia. I think the biggest thing about the 50’s was cultural and the economics were mostly just better because of us being number one economically after the destruction of WW2. Also, we had a growing government with less dead weight. Now we have a stagnate government full of dead weight.
@@nunyabidness3075 Why can't we compare rates? If we raise them on the rich, they will pay an even larger share than they do now. The economy is somewhat like a hot dog shaped balloon. If you squeeze it at one end, it will expand at the other end.
@@johnstewart7025 In the 50’s, those super high marginal rates were not applied to the same set of income which we call taxable today. When Congress reformed the code during Reagan’s presidency, they killed most of the last vestiges of the things that weren’t taxed. Today, if your executive compensation includes houses, cars, planes, meals, club memberships, extraordinary healthcare the lower level workers don’t get, etc. those things get taxed. Also, all sorts of investments and tax shelters were big write offs. Also, there was not nearly as much hidden labor taxes that we have today, and sales taxes were lower everywhere. So, your company President might on paper make 5 to 10 times his workers’ salaries, but the company was actually paying many times more and he was receiving many times more in value. Even if it was his own company, he’d pay himself this way to avoid taxes at the high marginal rates. Almost no one paid those rates. They were easily avoidable by regular high earners. Who got caught were people who were not planning for a big income, and didn’t have the advice and preparations. It was an anti social mobility program.
@@nunyabidness3075 But aren't we living in a very "anti social mobility" period again? I have been reading about that in the Wall Street Journal for 25 years. The money has to come from somewhere. And we know where it is.
@@johnstewart7025 Ah, the old zero sum problem. You think you must get more money from the wealthy, but that’s false. First, you can make everything more efficient by slimming government. Also, as the Scandinavians have been proving, the money is in the middle class. And as Reagan showed, using the Laffer curve actually can get more income from lower taxes. I would agree we could be more mobile, but I would argue we are killing dynamism and THAT’s the reason for less mobility. Outside of Silicon Valley our industries are not nearly as competitive and innovative as they should be. Look at all the rules on consumer products and other things where the government specifies specific solutions instead of desired performance. Years of double pane windows have been wasting the money of gulf coast residents who would be better off with simply having larger overhangs at a great savings. How about all those lightbulb types and coolant types we specified instead of demanding an efficiency level and letting the market meet the requirements with a variety of technologies. Then there’s stuff like the Jones Act, tariffs, terrible labor laws, terrible immigration system, etc. etc. Anyways,MGs verify what I was saying about the tax rates, and honestly start being skeptical about some of these common political beliefs and the people who keep spreading them.
I bristled when Jonah's boss said "You're not a real New Yorker." That's below the below right there. And frankly Doar showed himself to be without a shred of humor, so don't give me this "joking" crap. Didn't like him. Not. One. Bit.
I didn't take it that way at all. But I'm not a New Yorker.
I live in a small town that is mostly hispanic. We have lots of poor folks in town. I get really annoyed re this about aid to the poor - the story about work requirements being better public policy is really not well documented. Yes it is popular to tell people that cash benefits should not be given to those who don't try to work at all. But when you see these programs analyzed in detail, it turns out that they make it hard for folks, especially mothers of young children, to get aid, because they spend a lot of time just documenting their work efforts - and these are the folks at the very bottom, so have a hard time getting to work - few have a reliable car, and they also need sitters etc. In fact the point of food stamps etc was to end the very poor nutrition for the poor.
The notion of jealous workers angry that someone got an extra cookie is absurd.
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard welfare attacked on that basis.
The american need for self promotion is off the charts - half the conversation is all about the puppets presenting
I don’t understand. It’s about them comparing their theories.
#MAGA2024 #TrumpVance24 #letsgobrandon
Can we not work over who did more on civil rights. Yes there were very good men on both sides. But... can we also get honest about what happened after a terrible Supreme Court ruling on voting rights? Thus immediately states wanted to put in place voter ID rules and put them in place in such a way that folks would be unable to vote. In fact the efforts did not effect most elections. But the better method would have been to give several years for folks to get up to speed. And.... note that when states did input changes to driver's license rules, they gave lots of time for folks to get their docs in order.
Bunch of people living together vying for resources
Why can't we go back to income tax and corporate tax rates of the 1950s? MAGA, you know?
Tax rates by themselves are meaningless. The two systems are not at all comparable. I don’t know why this myth lives on that either the rates can even be compared or that they created a better country or that the 50’s was some utopia.
I think the biggest thing about the 50’s was cultural and the economics were mostly just better because of us being number one economically after the destruction of WW2. Also, we had a growing government with less dead weight. Now we have a stagnate government full of dead weight.
@@nunyabidness3075 Why can't we compare rates? If we raise them on the rich, they will pay an even larger share than they do now. The economy is somewhat like a hot dog shaped balloon. If you squeeze it at one end, it will expand at the other end.
@@johnstewart7025 In the 50’s, those super high marginal rates were not applied to the same set of income which we call taxable today. When Congress reformed the code during Reagan’s presidency, they killed most of the last vestiges of the things that weren’t taxed. Today, if your executive compensation includes houses, cars, planes, meals, club memberships, extraordinary healthcare the lower level workers don’t get, etc. those things get taxed. Also, all sorts of investments and tax shelters were big write offs. Also, there was not nearly as much hidden labor taxes that we have today, and sales taxes were lower everywhere.
So, your company President might on paper make 5 to 10 times his workers’ salaries, but the company was actually paying many times more and he was receiving many times more in value. Even if it was his own company, he’d pay himself this way to avoid taxes at the high marginal rates.
Almost no one paid those rates. They were easily avoidable by regular high earners. Who got caught were people who were not planning for a big income, and didn’t have the advice and preparations. It was an anti social mobility program.
@@nunyabidness3075 But aren't we living in a very "anti social mobility" period again? I have been reading about that in the Wall Street Journal for 25 years. The money has to come from somewhere. And we know where it is.
@@johnstewart7025 Ah, the old zero sum problem. You think you must get more money from the wealthy, but that’s false. First, you can make everything more efficient by slimming government. Also, as the Scandinavians have been proving, the money is in the middle class. And as Reagan showed, using the Laffer curve actually can get more income from lower taxes.
I would agree we could be more mobile, but I would argue we are killing dynamism and THAT’s the reason for less mobility. Outside of Silicon Valley our industries are not nearly as competitive and innovative as they should be. Look at all the rules on consumer products and other things where the government specifies specific solutions instead of desired performance. Years of double pane windows have been wasting the money of gulf coast residents who would be better off with simply having larger overhangs at a great savings. How about all those lightbulb types and coolant types we specified instead of demanding an efficiency level and letting the market meet the requirements with a variety of technologies.
Then there’s stuff like the Jones Act, tariffs, terrible labor laws, terrible immigration system, etc. etc.
Anyways,MGs verify what I was saying about the tax rates, and honestly start being skeptical about some of these common political beliefs and the people who keep spreading them.