Total posts: 5
-->
@fauxlaw
So, you want a justification for my vote for President Trump to re-elect him? How about this: re=read my post #33. That's it, pure and simple. Don't like it? Doesn'ty work for you? That's on you, entirely, as I've repeated ad nauseam.
No, I wanted to make sense of your initial says. But since it seems you are not disposed to have a discussion on this matter, I will most happily try to work with the post you are directing me to and shall dismiss my previous observations and my first impression of your person for the sake of fairness.
I do not know if you were answering to anybody specifically for this post so I will interpret it without considering the context of the discussion.
I'll spell it out in simple terms so you're sure to understand: Only in a free society can one individual so change his paradigm of uselessness, poverty, and worthlessness as to prosper and enjoy the blessed rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I have nothing to say about this at this point.
The government of personal liberty has not limits set upon it. No, there is no "there comes a time when you have made enough money," and no, there is no "you didn't build that," as the party in the person of Oba'a propsed as the way things are. Biden is another confirmation of that limiting philosophy. Trump is its antithesis. These are abrupt limitations, and you are free, as Richard Bach said, to "argue for your limitations; they are yours."
It seems to me that you are being critical of what you perceive to be a regular pattern in the Democrats' political views, this pattern being the idea that chrematistics and entrepreneurship should have some sorts of limitations since they conflict with some alleged moral values if left unchecked. However, you see the glorification of chrematistics and entrepreneurship in the person of Donald Trump, two ideas that you yourself support and therefore you find yourself aligned with him about "the way life ought to be lived", if I may phrase it that way.
While it is true that many people have a problem with chrematistics, I find it hard to believe that Democrats are against entrepreneurship. The latter has been acknowledged by many since the beginning of economics as a science.
No. Put your money to work for you rather than seeking minimum wage to work for it. The latter is a loser's goal. Why be so limited? It is the curse of entitlement. It is the curse of the Democrat Party to think so minimally.
I am skeptical of the idea that people seek minimum wage, if anything people seek higher wages. But I suspect you are voicing a critic of the role leisure plays in determining workers utility and arguing that the Democrats use this weight in individual choices to their political advantage. I am willing to read you expand upon that if it is the case.
You will find, my friends, that such liberty to invest as Trump has diverted the philosophy of Oba'a is not avarice, and is not a goal unto itself. It's blessings reach far and wide to improve self, family, community, and nations. It has worked for 230 years in this constitutional republic. Show me another system of government, and reductive thinking politics with that success.
Sadly, I do not find so. Not to the same extent as you do. I am struggling to find your exact point here, I must confess. What system of government are we talking about? Presidential republic? I suppose you are arguing that chrematistics and entrepreneurship improve "self, family, community and nations" but I will not put words in your mouth, and will let you detail.
Or, vote for Biden and dismiss your idividual potential for success.
Can you tell what is the link between individual "potential for success", and social and economic issues?
What actions and policies of Trump drives you towards him? Because from what I am reading you are mainly antagonizing one side and attributing very personal notions of freedom and self-improvement to the other.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Useless to you, yes. That's by design. Get it?
No, unfortunately. I see your point in wanting to protect your privacy though the use is hardly existent. You have no secret technique that's worth protecting and that wouldn't already be known to me in one form or another. My inquiry regarding the mechanics of your investment strategy was an attempt to make sense of your contradictory claims, not to gather information that would be exploitable for my own interests. And I do not appreciate the condescending tone of this interrogative sentence.
That is also by design. Like I said, you figure out your path. I've set mine, and did so prior to 2017. That Trump has contributed to the success of my investment path, I claim regardless of your doubt. Doubt is on you, entirely, and you're welcome to it. What do I have to prove to you? Naught.
It seems to me that you made several claims with the ultimate aim being to justify a vote in favour of Donald Trump in the coming US presidential election and I believe you ought to at least answer for these claims and justify them with a satisfying reasoning, especially given the context of where you expressed yourself. The fact that you engaged personal information as an intent to support these claims is your responsibility, if you do not wish such claims to be questioned this way in the future I advise you to refrain from engaging such information.
I could tell stories about my life to justify my position and call on personal privacy when questioned about the truthfulness of my says, but that would not amount to a very constructive discussion and, ultimately, would have just been a way to boost my ego. I do not claim you entered this thread by malice or vanity, but you most certainly are failing to make any constructive contribution, especially since my intervention offers you to detail your reasoning.
Of course I do. However, regardless of my assets, my investment growth is structured such that most of it [no, I will not disclose a percentage] is tax-deferred such that I probably pay less in taxes than you do. At my age, I've paid grandly; I don't anymore. I'm building wealth for my children and grandchildren at this point because I am generous to me and mine.
A laudable endeavour, but I did not ask you to justify yourself regarding taxation.
The rest of you: go fish.
Irrelevant metaphor made for the sake of a rhetorical punch.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
My investment strategy, like my favorite fishing spot, is not for you. It's mine. Find yours, because my situation is not yours.
Very well then. Obviously it is legitimate of you to refuse to disclose any information, though I find the secrecy useless.
You said that your investments were for the most part in "no-loss" mode, however such investments can only be so if they are privately guaranteed (by an insurer) or protected by some kind of law. And even considering this, their performance are much lower than that of the stock market considering portfolio managers invest in very low risk assets in order to minimize the risk of a negative return, even if punctual. No such investment exists in the US, that is, being guaranteed against negative return and registering performance similar to that of the stock market, that I am aware of. You could be using some kind of structured product, which can effectively cover against a loss, but those usually have specific time limits and potential unfavorable scenarios, so they can still ultimately register a loss.
Considering all of the above, I find your claim of a 51% increase of wealth under Trump's presidency dubious, and the details you have provided to be half-lies at best.
Yes, real estate does represent a good portion of it, but that is also particular to me. Like is said; location, location, location. One property is in Silicon Valley, owned since 1978, mortgage-free and earning $5G/mo, and whose value has appreciated by a factor of 17.5:1 since.
That's great but I did not inquire about your investments prior to 2017.
Yes, I attribute my gains in the market to Donald Trump.
Since I cannot legitimately consider that you have personally benefited from Trump's presidency in a proportions you claim and that you seem to argue that because the stock market went up he is a good president, I will assume that your says can be summed up to the following:
The stock market has increased under Trump's presidency and he is responsible for it, therefore he is fit to be president.
And to this I must once again express my curiosity. Why do you think the stock market is a good metric to assess the proficiency of a head of state, and why does it seem to be the only metric you are willing to legitimize?
PS: If the increase is due to real estate however, I must again ask the same question, but for the real estate market.
I am also curious as whether or not you included taxation in your figures.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
[...] my wealth has increased 51% since Trump was elected, and I've not lost squat by the recent Covid-19 effect. Hell, yeah, I'm voting for him again.
[...] Virtually all my investments are in a no-loss mode - they stay level in a loss, but I gain when it grows. My risk, and reward, is less, but I can, at this point, afford that. [...] I have a net worth in the high 7 figures, mostly by real estate.
Hello.
Such an increase is quite impressive, 14.72% annually (roughly, if we assume we are exactly three years into Donald Trump's term as president). This is actually better than the S&P500's annual 13.59% over the same period. Though I assume the difference lies in the almost four month turbulent lag between 20 January and now. Beyond congratulating you for this impressive financial performance in the face of the Covid-19 crisis and considering that your risk and reward are inferior to that of stocks - if I correctly understood, I wish to ask: what are the actual mechanics of your investments, or at least those most responsible for this performance? If most of your wealth is in real estate I am skeptical that it registered such an increase since real estate usually offers less return than the stock market; though I am not aware of all the types of investment using real-estate as an underlying asset, I must admit.
I suspect you included the revenue from your freelance work in the 51% figure, I'll let you clarify this point.
Finally, I am curious as whether you hold Donald Trump responsible (fully or partially) for such performance or you believe another individual as president will bring financial disturbances that most probably will be nonexistent or minimal under Donald trump's second term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I do have several remarks regarding the fiscal plan presented in the initial post which I believe have yet to be made in this thread.
In order to make sure we are on the same page, I will say what I understood of each spreadsheet before commenting, I won't cover them all, though.
~
- How 2019 GDP per human is $79K/year.
In this first spreadsheet you are affirming that US GDP per capita in 2019 was $59,000 and could be raised to $79,000 thanks to healthcare bonuses and "low-income" populations "finding better jobs". I speculate the latter implies a shift in the labor-market equilibrium due to the US unemployment falling below its natural rate.
While I have seen many ways to calculate GDP, I must say doing so by adding healthcare bonus to median salary (I believe it is median) is a novelty to me. US GDP per capita in late 2019 was slightly below $58,000, even if you could increase GDP by strictly the same amount you increase income, the idea of a ~20% GDP increase remains preposterous. The principle on which the calculation is based is simply wrong, yet I still think it is worthwhile to point out that while an increase in wages has been observed in recent years in the US, the Covid-19 situation is likely to profoundly alter last years economic trends.
- How tax revenue would be raised(2020).
This is the one that motivated me to answer in the first place. I understand that in the upper part you are breaking down your intended US government tax revenue for the year 2020, ultimately presenting a figure of $12.396 trillion. In the middle part you give a figure of the US GDP based on your previous calculation, which amounts to $85.672 trillion. In the bottom part you are breaking down your US government's intended spending as well as providing figures on US consumption and investments (through the use of the US stock market value).
Concerning your intended tax revenue, I will again point out that your figures and the actual ones are in sharp contrast, the US government revenue in 2019 being $3.5 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office's Summary for Fiscal Year 2019.[1] Regardless of the administrative monstrosity that almost quadrupling a country's tax revenue within a single year represents, there is an argument to be made and even an entire economic analysis based on the Laffer curve disturbances such a tax policy would entail. The US GDP is also obviously not $85.672 trillion and this figure is the result of the erroneous calculations of the previous spreadsheet, even if it is intended as a forecast. Finally it is being assumed that investing equals domestic public stock and as such the US stock market is being used as a metric. This is in my opinion a dangerous point of reference, not only does investing not mean purchase of stocks, it doesn't even mean purchase of financial assets. Still, let's assume "investing" means here household investment in financial assets: not all financial assets are stocks and even less so publicly traded domestic stocks. The range of investments available to a private investor (even if they are not high net worth individuals) is wide: bonds, structured products, derivatives, private equity, real-estate based products, etc. Another important point is that it is assumed the US stock market will triple because of an increase in corporate profits, the funny thing is that at the time this was written the fundamental analysis books were probably used as door stops by traders.
I won't discuss the assumption of open borders and the figures related to it, even if they were accurate a ~700 million influx would probably yield apocalyptic economic results on the short and mid runs.
- How tax revenue would be raised (2021-2036).
I do not have much to say about the following spreadsheets in this category that wouldn't have already been covered by the previous paragraph (minimally so I will admit). However I must warn that such fiscal forecasts on an almost twenty years period are not only questionable, they are non exploitable. The author assumes a constant GDP increase that, even if it were true on average, is irrelevant since it is being ignorant of economic cycles and brutal shifts in trends caused by external events. An exemplary case in very recent memory being how Italy had to constantly revise its projected deficit because of the uncertainty regarding its economy and its political engagements relative to the European Union. If even one single year a country experiences recession, the economic repercussions can last for years and the fiscal policy must be rethought, sometimes from the ground-up, if there is a change in power (which most probably happens over a twenty year period for any democracy deserving to be called so). A single economically disappointing year also most probably mean increased borrowing and therefore increased mass of interests, though there is a case to be made in favour of the japonisation of our advanced Western economies.
- How X can pay the taxes.
- Spending(2019-2036).
- Spending graph(X).
I have no remark on these parts, either by fear of redundancy or lack of knowledge and/or interest in the matter.
~
In a second part, I would like to address the general principles of the proposed fiscal plan, since pointing out inaccuracies can only lead one so far.
~
First and foremost: I do not share your view on the necessity of literally erasing the US public debt, even less so within an interval of eight years. I have three reasons for that: the US capacity to handle debt, the current worldwide economic order of things, and the sheer necessity of it.
- The US capacity to handle debt: I have no doubt that the level of debt (be it that of the US or other countries) is frightening, especially put in perspective with the historical levels. However the US strong economy has up until then made up quite conveniently for the increased repayments, somehow stabilising debt sustainability. No miracle, this is due in recent years to the US economy's good performances in terms of GDP growth, and interests to GDP ratio remains within historical range.[2] This ratio is expected to increase, obviously, but it is a sign that a brutal 8-year debt erasing plan is not yet within the realm of pragmatical policy-making.
- The current worldwide economic order of things: It is no news to say that the Great Recession has had an ineffable impact on finance and economics. Among which is the governments' admission of the need for constant massive borrowings. We run on deficits, we have run on deficits for years and all our economies and political decisions are structured around it, central banks have become our wet nurses and monetary policy has shown to be the primary way to deal with economic disturbances. Where is the necessity to decrease deficit when central banks can maintain low interest rates? And where is the possibility to do so when the commercial balance is negative?
- The sheer necessity of it: As pointed by my previous sentence, Western economies do need deficit, few are those that can enjoy positive commercial balances. In this sense the ways to reduce deficit are all paved with the spikes of social unrest and fierce industrial competitiveness. Obviously we are not trapped, deficit can most definitely be reduced, but Covid-19 has demolished all hopes of this being a possibility on the short run.
Given this context, I hardly believe sole fiscal policy and especially taxation will be enough to reduce deficit to zero, be it within ten years or a hundred. The logic of what I am going to say may sound questionable, but if it were as easy as further taxing the population, debt problems would have been long gone. A sales tax for example (as you propose it) is a non-discriminatory flat tax, it is not regressive, it does not evolve in proportion of income. This is a clear problem for low-income populations since they are most negatively impacted in reason of the marginal loss of income. And I do not believe this can be resolved by somehow increasing their level of income since this will have repercussions on corporate profitability and inflation (at least it is supposed to). A sales tax could also reduce compressible consumption which would lower GDP growth further and reduce corporate profits. A tax on "stock revenue" can discourage investing as well and even lead corporations to move financial operations elsewhere (Luxembourg attracting a large number of European investment funds is an example, even though they do have taxation they offer an overall easier framework than other countries). I also dispute the proposal of "opening US borders", especially for logistical reasons, which I believe need not be explained given the figures presented.
~
I laud the work put into expressing this audacious plan but strongly disagree with its assumptions and propositions. I recommend continuing to explore the possibility of increased or reformed taxation while bearing in mind the political and economic structures not only of the US but the world in general.
Created: