Out of 42 top economists, only 1 believes that Trump's tax policy will improve the economy

[JonnyRingo84]

You're missing the point here.

You're assuming that he's drawing a connection between the falling birth rates and shrinking workforce relative to an aging population and the long term economic burden that will fall on the working population in the future. You're also assuming that he's paying any attention to the economics of financing the current system and what happens when they can no longer do so at future population levels. Lastly, you forget that he's probably assuming that almost none of the immigrants/refugees will assimilate into the population and meaningfully contribute to the tax base over the next 10 years.

i think he probably gets it, but just doesnt want to.

i do think reasonable discussions can be held about how many people a country can assimilate, or even what types of people are likely to be difficult to assimilate. but the notion that immigration, or accepting refugees, is a completely selfless act by many of these countries, is completely untrue imo. idk why this elderly support problem isnt in the conversation more.

 

[panamaican]

i think he probably gets it, but just doesnt want to.

i do think reasonable discussions can be held about how many people a country can assimilate, or even what types of people are likely to be difficult to assimilate. but the notion that immigration, or accepting refugees, is a completely selfless act by many of these countries, is completely untrue imo. idk why this elderly support problem isnt in the conversation more.

I know you know, I was being facetious.

The elderly support problem isn't in the conversation because most of these people seem incapable of identifying that these issues are interconnected and thus the solutions are interconnected. Plus they operate from a perspective where the refugees/immigrants are uniformly worthless, present and future, and thus not relevant to the economic conversation writ large except as a long term net drain.

I'm sure that if you pressed them on the solution to the elderly support problem, without the immigration/refugee context, you'd eventually get to either a dismantling of the system itself or some sort of population increase mechanism. And if you pressed them on the population increase mechanism that they'd prefer, you'd get some pie in the sky fantasy where the people suddenly shift to mass birthing despite the existing economic apparatus making that nearly impossible.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

No disagreement really. As one article put it, we're getting these tax cuts because the GOP has wanted them for years...not because there's any economic reason to do so now.

Which is pretty much as close as you can get to saying that we're not governing by what's best for the nation in the present or the future. We're governing by what we didn't get to do in the past, who cares if circumstances have changed. It's a failure that the GOP has been repeating over and over again. This is more and more clear every time they hold up the economic policy of a President who governed 30 years ago as the path for the future.

Do you not vote R in federal elections? Maybe even voted for them in 2016?

 

[panamaican]

Do you not vote R in federal elections? Maybe even voted for them in 2016?

I vote R the vast majority of the time. Which is why their current direction is so frustrating. I only vote in one state though and my choice doesn't always get the local nomination. And, as always, I can criticize the GOP without it requiring that I endorse the Dems.

This tax cut for example would be fine if it came with a spending cut. But it doesn't. Similarly, we have very low unemployment but stagnant wage growth. Nothing in the current model is going to change any of that. They didn't eliminate the tax deductions that, imo, are the least useful (like the mortgage interest deduction and property tax deduction) but did eliminate the one that actually helps middle class taxation (state and local tax deductions).

Actually, let's focus just on that for a moment. Eliminating the state and local tax is insanely stupid. It punishes every state with an income tax. It incentivizes people to move to low tax states. The problem with low tax states is that they can't fund shit, especially if they see a population uptick. So it's going to push states towards greater economic insolvency over time.

The deductions that were left in place, mortgage interest and property tax, primarily benefit banks and the already well-to-do. Property taxes generally fund local schools so this just exacerbates the school stratification issue since low tax states will have less money to drop into the general education coffers.

The mortgage interest deduction serves no purpose at all in this day and age. All it does it up the amount of money that people borrow and the interest that the banks collect. Eliminating it would probably drop the overall value of houses but only by the amount that the deduction was inflating prices so the long term effect is probably moot (not to mention that you can grandfather current mortgages). Housing prices would still increase at the same rate for new purchases since the supply and demand for property isn't affected by the deduction.

Those 2 choices alone (eliminating state and local deductions while keeping mortgage interest and property tax deduction) make this an extremely flawed approach, imho, unless the goal is to fuck over states and reward banks.

 

[Ophydian]

@Madmick or @panamaican what is the difference between this tax plan and a tax plan that would have been proposed under a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio presidencies? I imagine since legislation is written by Congress, and that Congress would have the same general makeup under say a Bush presidency they would all be roughly similar. I haven't heard that Trump has exhorted some sort of undue influence on members of Congress to shape this bill in his own image, so far it appears Trump pretty much just pushes whatever Paul Ryan shows him. It looks like the pretty standard "moderate" conservative tax plan we could expect under any Republican presidency.

Thus, isn't the failing in the GOP tax bill as described by these economists not Trump's limited input but that the current moderate conservative tax doctrine is inherently damaging to the economy?

I fail to see how Trump uniquely impacted this bill which makes it a bad choice, but another Republican president would have been able to use his "influence" to convince Paul Ryan and friends to draft something that similarly follows party doctrine, but isn't damaging.

Seems to me you can't be conservative and think this bill is somehow uniquely terrible considering its what is to be expected from pretty much any conservative administration.

I'm curious with the question you posed. If Trump doesn't have any impact on what might go into the tax bill and it is basically business as usual for conservatives then why is the tax bill being met with so much adversity and the House and Senate versions being different?

 

[HIMBOB]

Shit, it is 2017, the employment rate of the refugees is under 5%. What are the results so far? Stunning? Be less stupid. Oh, right, you are an ideologue. Got it.

Your are suggesting a 10 year forecast has been proven wrong after 2 years and you're calling me stupid???

 

[HIMBOB]

ok

lets try this with a different graphic. keep in mind that every developed country is shaping up this way, or is this way already. do you not see the looming disaster?

Wow i knew this was a big problem in Japan but that's a fucking disaster.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Wow i knew this was a big problem in Japan but that's a fucking disaster.

yea its crazy. country is literally withering.

most developed countries look this way in the near future, though. especially those that do not allow/attract much immigration.

 

[TheGreatA]

Wow i knew this was a big problem in Japan but that's a fucking disaster.

Not really considering that the Japanese are still workhorses into their 70's.

 

[AviatorShades]

Who cares what demonstrably smart people who are experts in a field have to say?

Life experience has taught me not to

(just in the broadest sense, not specific to this issue)

 

[AviatorShades]

ok

lets try this with a different graphic. keep in mind that every developed country is shaping up this way, or is this way already. do you not see the looming disaster?

Most developing countries are going in the same direction. The entire world outside of subsaharan Africa is going in the same direction. I see the looming disaster but it's probably not the same looming disaster pro-immigration people are seeing.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Most developing countries are going in the same direction. The entire world outside of subsaharan Africa is going in the same direction. I see the looming disaster but it's probably not the same looming disaster pro-immigration people are seeing.

heterogeneity?

 

[Ice That Jaw]

Fuck the republicans for this tax plan. They are fucking slaves to the donors and you can damn well gaurantee the Koch brothers and Sheldon Addelson types threatened to pull campaign funding unless there were big corporate cuts. Its like they arent even trying to hide it.

And fucking LOL at these imbeciles claiming that the corporations will bring the money back. Why would they? It's much each to keep the money overseas where it can be used to borrow or invest over there. The money is not coming back and certainly not trickling down.

 

[Swing]

Life experience has taught me not to

(just in the broadest sense, not specific to this issue)

Skepticism is good because we can't always just trust what other people are telling us. But when there's a consensus like this one, and instead of opposition there's a just a noncommittal/missing response, I feel about as comfortable as I can in following somebody else's lead.

At least, I think we deserve for the people trying to sell us on this tax plan to break down the nuts and bolts of how this going to work. Especially because the pessimists among us, of which I'm one, think the proponents of this plan either can't do that or don't really think it's going to work.

 

[AviatorShades]

heterogeneity?

Economics as a field developed in the midst of a period of unprecedented population growth. We measure economic health in fantasy terms (reliant on everlasting, exponential growth of labor & consumption rather than towards a specific cultural objective).

This isn't sustainable or viable regardless of one's politics. Even if development didn't lead to fertility collapse, the physical & legal environments couldn't support the boom for much longer and we would need to cause an artificial collapse. Factor on top of that how many human careers are subject to automation (most).

Mass third-world immigration has stalled things by maybe a whopping 20-30 years. All of the reckless destruction of genetic & regional diversity, the undermining radical political schisms it necessitated, you might squeeze one generation of fake growth metrics out of it like Europe is doing. Worth the price?

Most of the 1970s "baby factory" countries south of the US & Italy have collapsed to mere replacement level & are now competing with us instead of sourcing us. Mexico is at 2.1-2.2. The only stubborn growth regions left are subsaharan Africa & Afghanistan, where perpetual armed conflicts enforce traditional gender rolls.

It isn't a choice between two futures. The fertility collapse is globally inevitable & will end with an extreme transformation breaking the capitalism vs socialism paradigm (such as universal basic income & luxury wealth based on earned stake in robotic labor productivity). It's a choice of whether the irreversible damage mass immigration from SSA would cause to our host nations is worth another 20 years of stalling the inevitable so at&t/pepsi can pretend they have new customers.

 

[superpunch]

That is the smartest economist the country

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

. I mean, why isn't Pakistan ahead of the USA in economic production??? Look at how many more people they have than us

LOL...

 

[HIMBOB]

Stopped reading at locked up Hillary. That would have zero economic effect.


That being said, today I'm thankful the butthurt is still so immense on the left.

You don't think political witch hunting will hurt an economy?
Pfft of course you don't. Thinking your style.

 

[HIMBOB]

Not really considering that the Japanese are still workhorses into their 70's.

Sorry my bad they are still a few years away from complete disaster.

 

[HIMBOB]

Life experience has taught me not to

(just in the broadest sense, not specific to this issue)

Homeopathy fan detected.