Trump Wants to Lower Poverty Line

Just another promise broken. But since Trump is a rich person he's gonna look out for himself. And other rich people will benefit from his policies. And Trump can make a point that the booming economy is a result of giving rich people tax cuts. How do you argue with that?

 

The world needs ditch diggers too.
Everyone has a choice what they want to do.

 

Rich people employ others.
You ever work for a poor person.

 

We don't want "open borders." How can fruitful discussion occur in America when many people like you prefer caricature to truth?

 

By changing the Poverty level, Trump can automatically claim fewer are poor.....now that's progress.

 

Good point.

 

Uh huh. Real wages have gone up 1% during Trump's Presidency.



The Orange Oaf cares so much about Joe and Jane American he gave 85% of the tax cut to people making $400,000 per year. He said he wouldn't cut taxes for rich people when he was duking it out with Useless Hillary. Promise made, promise broken. If he had given all the tax cuts to people making less than $400,000, they cuts would have been six times higher.

Cutting unemployment? It was on its way down since 2010.

Did you look at the graphs above? Your claim bear little relation to reality.

 

This from the guy who made the comment above? Hohhhh-Kayyyyy...

 

Give them enough money to look after themselves. If blow it, don't give them more. But fer crissake, don't waste tax dollars on snooping bureaucrats. I spent years in public education watching bureaucrats hold meetings to coordinate holding meetings. I've witnessed enough waste to last me a lifetime.

 

Businesses are price-takers in the labor market. Employers don't "get to pay low wages..." A negative income tax would supplement the incomes of low-wage workers, keep them working and adding to the economy, and increase the size of the economy.

There are some workers who are quite simply unemployable in a money-making enterprise at a high minimum wage. If we set a high minimum, the job won't exist.

 

Business tax cuts, maybe, but not personal tax cuts for rich people.

 

Well, you can argue the fact that the booming economy is just a coincidence. Liberals like to use the argument that the economy's booming despite Trump, not because of him.

 

I can't argue with that.

 

It really is not any different than getting food stamps. The food stamps only cause that the "money" those people get can only be used on food. If you give them just money, means they just get the option of suffering malnutrition while owning nice crap you don't really need. That's not much of an option. Nor does it change how it's paid and who gets away with artificially created high profits.

Yeah,... some. 10 to 15% of the US population would go hungry to bed if it wasn't for freaking food stamps. That's not some, that's a lot of people. Half the working population earns less than 15 bucks an hour. That's poverty. It's my impression that there is a lot of money being earned in the US. Almost no other country matches that. Americans are petting themselves on the back over it. Yet the % of people earning dirt low wages is just massive.

 

I think it is a big problem for 1% to pay more in income tax than 90% combined (which doesn't include those who don't pay income taxes -like everyone who gets a refund). Critical lefties will claim this outsized contribution from just 1% reflects their tremendous affluence, perhaps, but it also reflects how little 99% contributes.

 

Huh? The guy gets a paycheck from the employer with the negative tax added.

It's more like a minimum wage than welfare. Most of them would make more than the minimum wage and would be entitled to spend on a few luxuries. They would get a paycheck from a regular employer.

Yes, it would. See above.

As I said, employers are price-takers in the labor market. Employers are typically price-takers, too, in markets for what they sell. What's this "artificially created high profits" stuff? Employers who make artificially high profits are typically manipulating markets. Employees, including those getting a negative income tax should be able to join unions.

A negative income tax would boost wages, but some folks will still need other help.

The U.S. is marginally ahead of much of Europe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage​

The idea workers can make a lot more than $15/hour is unrealistic.

 

Do you think Bezos "worked" for his $100+ billion?

 

So what

Are you aware people get food stamps even WITH a fulltime job?

It is as if you do not understand that
negative income tax = government giving financial aid.
food stamps = worth money = government giving financial aid.
potato - potato

Do you not understand my idea that the government shouldn't be there to give financial aid to people who actually work in order to stop being malnourished? Do you not understand that companies in the US earn plenty of money, so there is no reason why THEY should be paying more instead of letting the government pick up the bill?

​

In much of Europe healthcare and high end colleges are as good as free, and they get a good pension. That also doesn't calculate in the cost of living. As far as it's worth something:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livi...t.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Germany

worth something, because you know... New York city aint exactly equal to living in the middle of nowhere Alabama. Than again Frankfurt probably is not equal to some ex east Germany town that nobody as heard off. So anyways... that list doesn't mean anything.

It's not since companies in the US earn utterly incredible amount of money.

 

Are you trying to make a point? Cause if you are, you failed.

 

Probably far more than you could comprehend.

 

Those tax cuts for the rich started during the George W. Bush years...hardly the time of economic prosperity. The US economy has been doing well lately mainly because we are no longer importing oil.

 

With a negative income tax, workers would have what amounts to a guaranteed annual income and there would be no need for food stamps. There would be no welfare office, bureaucrats doling out benefits, etc.

I probably understand how things work better than you do--I taught economics.

Raising the minimum wage will put some people out of work while a negative income tax has those who would have been unemployed contributing to the economy.

When companies decide not to hire people because the minimum wage is too high--they automate or stop producing--government pays welfare, At least with a negative income tax the worker is producing and the overall economic output is higher.

 

You think you're a lot more knowledgeable about the economy than you actually are.

P.S. Your 99% figure is BS.

 

Uh huh. Typical capitalist wannabe who has little idea of how things actually work.

 

No, it's really not BS. It's actually very very easy to not be poor in the US. It may not be glamorous, and it may suck, but it isnt hard.