As someone who was extremely liberal in college and grad school but has seen become more of an independent, its really refreshing to hear you talk about their policies from a non biased standpoint. Would love to know how these policies will affect the middle class.
I would love to know WHO Kamala is taking about re:"middle class tax cuts"! I truly cannot find a solution or definition for middle class, like... who exactly qualifies, in terms of federal taxable income brackets?! There is no definition of middle class! A lot of talk but no numerical cutoff to be found for these purported policy recs.
Yeah bc we all suffer in a failing economy. It’s like neglecting the mother when she is pregnant when both should be a necessity for the health of the baby
So true… just like the overwhelming majority of these “liberals”, mostly older wealthy people. Like their charity banquets, food drives, soup kitchen’s, and all this “migrant” politics. 😂 They want to help these people by taking our stuff and giving it all to their new indentured servants. 😉
That's the Dem narrative in general. If we throw away the concept of the Uniparty, the Reps want you to work to move up and out of poverty (In theory). The dems flat out want you to stay dependent on government handouts, and yes they are handouts, because it helps secure your vote... you're in a desperate situation and voting for the "evil racist fascist" party could result in you possibly losing or lessening your government assistance (aka your fellow citizens money being handed out)... even if you don't think the other party is evil and seems to have a better plan, you need security so you keep voting for the ones who keep promising "free" assistance
I seriously doubt Harris even understands monetary and fiscal policies to stimulate the economic activity. Obama clearly didn't understand since the recovery took over 6 years. He didn't do anything.
Being a democrat is so easy. Just propose moronic policies that will hurt everyone but call the other side racist. Just pretend to care about people whose votes you need and say nice-sounding things that have no substance. The left in a nutshell: prices are too high? Just lower them 🥴 duh
I believe the retirement crisis will get even worse. Many struggle to save due to low wages, rising prices, and exorbitant rents. With homeownership becoming unattainable for middle-class Americans, they may not have a home to rely on for retirement either.
Consider buying stocks when the economy is not doing well, like during a recession. It could be a chance to buy them at a lower price and sell later when prices go up. Just keep in mind, this isn't financial advice, but sometimes it's better than keeping a lot of cash.
Accurate asset allocation is crucial. Some use hedging or defensive assets in their portfolio for market downturns. Seeking financial advice is vital. This approach has kept me financially secure for over five years, with a return on investment of nearly $1 million.
‘Grace Adams Cook’ is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name, you’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
It's good you make your own research. and make sure whoever you work with is licensed n verifiable with a repute, this Grace looks the part but i'd do my due diligence. I set up a call, thanks.
Many don't or do but willingly act as though they don't because their soul has a price and it was sold for some pitiful money. Even way back in president Hoover and Roosevelt's time, people in the governing positions such as these 2 presidents also acted like they know f@#$K all about econ
Economics is not some certain theories that all economists agree with. There are actually different school of thoughts and the basics of economics can not be dealt with the intricacies and nuances of economics in the reality.
@@RunningTurtle-ie7ku There are some disagreements there and there, but then there are basic facts based on actual historical case studies that all logical economists agree on, things like during a recession, the way to solve it is not raising interest. Few economists may disagree all they want, but the fact is raising interest has NEVER been successful at bringing recession to an end, in fact it only gets worse, so these economists only has words and no practicality. Invalid opinion.
@@truongsinh9955 I've never said that lowering interest rate during recession is something that most economists dont agree on. Monetary policies, if carried out accountably by independent central bank, are usually more straightforward. However, policies like price control and other fiscal policies like expanding medical insurance are definitely more nuanced. Even using the oversimplified view of economics, those policies can bring welfare loss due to an "inefficient allocation of resources", but they can improve the quality and quantity of factors of production thus bringing long term economic growth. Price controls are more straightward by making things more affordable, which the us definitely needs as certain types of goods and services especially medicines are overpriced.
Have you had Obamacare? Well, I have, I got it for $36 a month starting in November. Then in January I get hit with $795 bill to continue my Obamacare. The only people it helps is the insurance companies. That happened to me twice in 3 years.
That happened to me too. I found out after the fact that it steals money off your tax return to cover costs if you make "too much." And their defintion of "too much" is you aren't in a homeless shelter or moved back in with your parents yet. It really doesn't help working class people on single incomes. As of now I am private pay with no health insurance. Immediate needs like shelter, utilities, and food are more direct than healthcare I "might" need. It's that way for a lot of people.
Just because a company can spend more on payroll doesn't mean they will. Look at Boing for instance. Only the CEO has gotten real wage increases in the past decade. So I'm not a fan of cutting top level taxes and expecting companies to just "do the right thing" and spread the wealth down. It doesn't work that way.
THANK YOU. I see this rhetoric all the time about increasing corporate bottom lines. But time and time again as companies get richer the workers wages remain low and stagnant. There has to be regulation to make sure these companies aren't hoarding so much of this wealth.
@@AW-ry1iy Its called "trickle down economics" as a nickname, and it simply doesnt work. The only reason this line gets parroted around so much is because giant corporations lobby the government to keep passing policies to benefit their bottom line, and then also spend tons of money on propaganda to misinform people. But yea, giving companies more money simply doesnt work. They just pocket it and enrich themselves. There is no reason to pay workers even a single penny more than you have to. A company is already paying people the "optimal" value for labor, to get the most labor they can at the cheapest price they can. Giving people more money wont substantially increase their productivity comparative to the extra cost. So there is simply no reason to do it. Companies arent trying to do what is best for their workers, they are trying to maximize profit. There is no reason to spend excess money on payroll if they dont have to. The only exception being payroll increases for executives which are part of the decisions to increase pay, as they have a personal incentive to increase their own pay. And its this exact policy that has lead to a massive increase in the wealth gap in this country over the last few decades.
so over tax them and watch the costs rise instead or them just moving jobs away.... you have to incentivize businesses to stay... and no offense but the biggest problem with taxes is who uses it... the government... they are the biggest dumpster fire of spending.... until they get spending under control and stop printing money, there's really no reason to bang corporations with higher taxes...
@@silfocus84 Corporations are moving jobs away anyways. If a job can be outsourced, it is being outsourced. No amount of "low taxes" is going to compete with labor that cost a buck per hour or less in other countires. If you want to prevent outsourcing, lowering taxes is pretty much completely ineffective at doing so. This is why despite constantly lowering corporate taxes, which even happened under Trump's 4 years, we still had an increase in outsourcing. It simply doesnt work to prevent it. And I agree the government can sometimes be ineffective at how they spend money, but that is moreso an issue with our current governance rather than the concept of government period. The extra income for the government is still good, we just need to reform who is actually in government so that they do a better job spending the money they have. The issue is moreso that we have rampant corruption in our government, rather than an issue of government's inherently are bad at spending money. Also, printing money is done when you dont have enough taxes to pay for the budget. Higher taxes would lower printing and reduce inflation. The reason printing happens is because the government is REQUIRED to pay for the budget congress passes, but they are also only allowed to tax as much as congress allows. And of course the budget is always higher than the taxes incoming. This means that there are only 2 options to pay for the remainder of the budget. Either you print money or take on debt. Printing a little money or taking on a little debt is fine, the issue happens when its a run away problem. But higher taxes would mean the gap in income vs budget would be lower, meaning less money has to be printed. This would actually reduce inflation. In fact, there are really only 3 options to reduce the printing of money. Either 1.) Take on more debt which has its own problems 2.) Earn more money through taxation 3.) Reduce spending Earning more money through taxation is one of the best possible ways to reduce inflation from printing money. The other is to reduce spending where appropriate, but it depends on what spending you're actually reducing. (You wouldnt want to cut important social programs for example that help the average or poor working class. There are far more wasteful sources of spending you can cut before those). One of the easiest sources of spending we can cut for example, is the military budget. We spend over 800 billion per year on it. Could easily be cut in half, especially with how much wasted spending there is in the military.
On the other hand more people go to school which raises education levels and potential taxable income in the long term. The only thing holding that theory back is big businesses which have been pushing minimum wage jobs and college degree jobs closer together through the years. Back in the day you would be earning 2-3 times as much with a college degree. Therefore twice the taxable income for that person's working years. Now it's more like a 20% difference. And many people with college degrees are staying in "simple" jobs because the tiny wage difference isn't worth 3 times the stress. This is on companies for not having opportunity for that kind of wage growth anymore. And instead paying it up to their top management and cutting middle management.
@@johnmckeon4498 Go to school for what degrees? Undergrad in Psychology which is essentially useless after graduation? Undergrad in Biology, which is essentially useless after graduation? Sure more people may get degrees, but having a degree doesn't mean you're marketable or will make a salary in your first 1-5 years postgrad that justifies the cost of the degree. Businesses don't force people into "minimum wage" jobs. People's skillsets do.
@@johnmckeon4498 I'd be curious if you have any information on the quality of the degrees now vs. "back in the day" -- "Quality" meaning ease with which a job can be found in that specific field after the person graduates. How much of the perceived wage stagnation for college graduates can be attributed to useless degrees like Native American Studies where your only job option is to then teach Native American Studies? And, yes, that is a real degree in which a person I know through my wife has a Masters (maybe even a PhD). Just curious, no malice.
@@MD-pz3cn Yes, it's true that you can't do much with those degrees as far as specialized skills. And without a long-term plan (i.e., graduate school or specialized field), those degrees might not be worth their price tag. However, those people still end up outpacing many non-college-educated people because of how the job market works. For example, a person with a psychology degree can still gain access to jobs that a non-college-educated person cannot. Many companies won't hire someone for certain roles without a degree, even if the role requires no specialized skills. Thus, there are people with those degrees in relatively high-paying roles in banking/finance, tech, management, etc., all because they have a bachelor's degree. Over time, these people will outearn most non-college-educated people, statistically speaking. The exception is trades, but tradework is physically demanding, requires significant education and training, and has much shorter time limits than office/knowledge work. So, for most people, going to college is still the right move despite the diminishing returns.
@@johnmckeon4498 sure, potential tax income, but do you know how long those student loans last? The banks and they're interest rates destroy anyone's ability to get ahead because they will be paying the banks money for 10-20 years. So no one really profits but the banks, especially if loans are paid off.
Very few make $60,000 in tips and if you are a delivery driver who gets barely any tips and has to use your own vehicle the no tax on tip is a necessity to offset all of our cost for upkeep on our vehicles. So this is needed!
I hate how people attack the business owners. I work as a technician for a multi millionaire. Precovid we had 32 employees and now post covid it is 23 and he is getting killed on taxes in MN and stressed financially trying to recover from covid which nearly destroyed the company. Due to Kamala and Covid my employer has not been able to give the raises people desire and he has many sleepless nights. I was a good friend of my fathers and I am his best employee and best technician. On time, loyal, detailed, efficient, dedicated, and trust worthy are some traits I bring. I could easily have quit and got a higher paying job but I promised I would help get through covid and he has promised to reward me when things get better which will require a Trump win. If they want wages up they need to make things better for the people who make the payrolls.
"I hate how people attack the business owners." decades of marxism endoutrination in schools and midia that the employer is the evil capitalist that only and to explore the worker to get richer and richer. not that those dont exist but ...
@@natehighlander5227 you said many things. You never once mentioned anything that Kamala specifically did to create this situation you speak of, WHICH POLICY did she create?
That's the whole point of all the things that happened. Everything coming at you from the extreme Left was set up by the Deep State to bankrupt the middle class, the foundation to any healthy and stable society. The end result are impoverished lower class with a huge number of people, and a few upper class landlords to rule them all. You can do something about it. Tell everyone you know to vote Trump.
@TheNewsIsLying2U fairly certain that more a housing industry mix with bad policy and high tax issue... look out of state and you'll probably find houses in your range...problem is finding work far from home
This comes off as slightly biased to the right. You mention how debt forgiveness raises the national debt but don’t mention how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act blew up the debt. It did not pay for itself as promised proving trickle-down doesn’t work for the 1000th time. And many of the lower to middle class tax cuts and benefits expire but the upper class and corporate cuts are permanent.
This is exactly what I say. This is not rocket science people, Trump is better. Think back to obama's 8 years and how he left us with a lousy economy when he left. Than trump builds things back up, and Biden/Harris gets in and we are right back to the Obama years. Think, people think.. Stop being a bunch of sheep, believing everything the media tells you.
Let's be clear we aren't going back to the old prices however with trump he could potentially bring them down a little bit. Kamala will probably skyrocket them in 2 years and eventually things will be unaffordable that she will push her comm unist policies. Trump is the way to go and he loves the country and did what he said he would do in his first term so I'm handing over my trust to him. Voting trump for the 2nd time. Would've been my 3rd but I didn't vote in 2016 because I wasn't informed enough
This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm very much a fan of tariffs. The classic line is that the cost will come back on the consumer but it's worth it in the long run. If you make it difficult for corporations to develop products over seas and import them back then you'll force them to develop them here causing job growth. It would offset the higher price by boosting the economy because people have higher paying jobs and can afford the products they produce. Before income tax, tariffs were the primary way the government earned money.
@@Hasanaljadid That's because they're able to underpay workers in China and make them dirt cheap. Brining production back to the US would be beneficial in the long term especially when it comes to jobs and boosting the economy. We can, and should, take some regulation off the books as well to help speed it up. A lot of the regulations don't even protect the environment or workers. Just large corporations to weed out smaller start ups
@@apache8795American consumers will benefit from Very cheap imported products.If everything Produced in The US then everything will Cost a LOT more and many people wouldn’t be able to afford
@@Hasanaljadid We lose out when it comes to quality and jobs. We became a service economy with few good long term jobs because of this. Goods being produced in the US don't have to be so high if we fix our over regulation problem for starters. It wasn't that long ago when we had production in America and cost weren't through the roof.
China has subsidized its own domestic industries and it has helped massively. Meanwhile, the US govt similarly can subsidize but instead they use the money on stock buybacks and raising CEO pay instead of on R&D. I’m in favor of protectionist policies for our own industries but companies like Ford and GM have done little to nothing to prove that they are able to produce at the level that China does and lower costs domestically
I disagree with the corporate tax increase being bad…with the already lower tax rate, they’re not giving the employees more money…only corporate C suite and execs
Well they certainly wont give employees more money if its higher. I dont think people are expecting every company in the US to start paying their employees more because there are lower taxes. But some will. Some is better than none. If Kamala increases the tax companies definitely wont be paying employees more.
@@ColinS9797 you're saying "start paying" & "some will" like it's the future. The tax cut happened in 2017, so we already know regular employees didn't get paid more.
It’s a breath of fresh air to see. Unbiased objective thinking. I really enjoy the quality of your videos and your grounded authenticity. Also I think you’re a timeless beauty. Like and subscribed. I look forward to hear what you make of it all after the election is over.
That's by design. It's a sales pitch to get young voters in the door, while the Supreme Court will always put the stopper on it. Bonus points if the judges are Republican appointed, because you can blame the other party for why it didn't work, when in reality the executive branch doesn't really have the power to make such a plan and they already knew that.
@@prodnxbu exactly... government that spends spends spends blaming others for the debt and costs..... and people eat that shit up like yeah evil rich people pay your fair share...
Higher corporate taxes would spur R&D expenditure, not curtail it. This, in turn, would increase the rate of economic growth, not reduce it. In what world do you live in, where a CEO of a corporation looks at profits and thinks, 'Hmmm, with low corporate income taxes, I can extract most of this profit, increase share price, and receive huge performance bonuses and stock options (also under favorable tax benefits), or I can just push most of the profit into R&D and / or reinvestment back into the company and forego those juicy tendies"? They are incentivized to think short-term and bank those corporate profits, so that they can, in turn, receive their performance bonuses. Any repercussion from their shortsightedness is not their problem. It's the next CEOs problem to fix. They just want to get out with a pillowy nest egg. Or in the case where it all comes crashing down and burning, they'll get out with a golden parachute. That is the incentive structure. In contrast, high corporate taxes would incentivize reinvestment back into the company and R&D, since the profits would otherwise go towards paying more taxes, and not improving the companies prospects. If they had a choice between paying more taxes or reinvesting that same amount back into R&D and, thereby, foregoing those increased taxes and actually benefiting the company and its future, what do you think they will choose? Your assertions are asinine and not only counter to common sense, but counter to reality, the facts, and data. "If they spend less on taxes, they can spend more on payroll"? Honestly, again, what world do you live in? Have you looked at the data for, oh, I don't know, the last half a century? Have you looked at wage growth, compared to GDP growth? Compared to CEO pay growth? All of the increased profits from increased productivity, goes solely to paying the C-suite. Wage growth has not kept up. Again, your assertions are asinine. Counter to reality. Counter to the facts. Counter to the data. You don't know what you're talking about. You are spewing a whole lot of nonsense that's been peddled for ages under the auspices of so-called [conservative] economists, generally under the idea of trickle-down economics. Basic common sense would show that it is nonsensical. Barring any such capacity for common sense, the decades of data - showing that trickle-down economics not only does not work, but has harmed the vast majority of US citizens, aside from the top 1% - would do, as well. There is already broad consensus among economists, (Nobel prize-winning economists being of note), that Trump's economic policies would be absolutely detrimental to the economy, as opposed to Biden's or Harris', which already has been proven to be world-leading. Trump inherited Obama's economy and then once his own policies started to kick in, we started to see a reversal in all of the trends. Critically, this was before the pandemic was even on our radar. All of the relevant economic signals indicated that we were heading into a recession. The pandemic merely provided cover for him and his near perfect record of ruining everything he touches. Conversely, the Biden/Harris administration inherited the pile of excrement that Trump left them (by leading in the worst handling of the pandemic amongst our global peers) and they had to turn that slow-moving ship around and did so significantly better than any of our global peers. And this is not an isolated instance. You see the same pattern with whatever metric you want to look at, comparing across democratic and republican presidents, governors, states, etc. The highest prosperity, quality of life, quality of healthcare, education; lowest crime rate, unemployment rate, etc. for the democratic presidents, states, etc. and vice versa for their republican counterparts. The republican states routinely rank at the bottom of all metrics. They are routinely subsidized by the democratic states. Conversely, the democratic states routinely rank at the top of all metrics. The metrics are irrefutable. Conservative policies (social, fiscal, or otherwise) don't work. Presenting any semblance of parity between the two platforms is tantamount to gouging out your eyes and sticking them in your earholes. We have the data and evidence that states otherwise.
No tax on tips will not help those who most need it. Most people who live off of tips do not make enough such that it would have any meaningful impact on their lives. This only opens up a loophole for hedge fund managers who receive performance fees to simply restructure their pay as tips. As if carried interest wasn't enough of a loophole, now they get to pay no taxes. Again, benefiting those at the top in the guise of something that supposedly helps the most in need. Ultimately, it only serves to further harm those in need. This will gut the funds of social security and medicare of some $1.5 trillion, thereby invoking the conservative clarion call for sun-setting those programs and thereby, achieving their goal of taking away any social safety net for those who most need it in the name of serving those few at the top. And, of course, for any lucky enough, while working from a traditional tip-centric job, to even make enough in tips to meet the threshold where they would see any meaningful tax benefit at all, the 10% tax-on-everything not only absolutely wipes away any tax benefit they might have even been lucky enough to see, they would end up paying even more in taxes. And lose their social security, as well. This will, of course, make no difference to those at the top. The benefits they receive wholly outweigh the meaningless increase in the cost of living. Once you are making above a certain amount, your cost of living simply does not increase linearly and the increased cost of bread, milk, eggs, etc. is absolutely imperceptible to them, whereas, the decreased taxes on the money they make simply further increases that non-linear relationship. The inevitable calling card of the conservative is always, 'well, how can we possibly pay' for helping those who are most in need and the most vulnerable - which is precisely the very remit and the purpose of what the government exists for - while they are simultaneously the ones consistently racking up the debt, in the course of subsidizing those at the top, the very act of which invariably hurts those at the bottom. Yet, progressive policies are somehow, not only able to help those most in need, but do so while simultaneously reducing the rate of debt accrual. So what conservatives are really saying is, 'how can we possibly pay for the social services that guarantee humanity and dignity for those most in need, when we're diverting those funds to those who provide the money to keep us in power?' It invariably devolves into decrying policies that help the vulnerable as the evil vicissitudes of the socialist, communist, marxist regimes, while simultaneously engaging in wholesale socialism for the wealthy. Absolutely bass ackwards. And arguably, such a repeated pattern of stripping rights and liberties from those at the bottom to further engorge the bellies of the wealthiest would be, by any definition, the embodiment of evil, particularly so if said conduct is repeatedly employed by those with a self-professed monopoly on godliness and Christian-like behaviour. So instead of serving their constituents who vote for them, they serve their big money donors and lobbyists who power their disinformation campaigns to get people to vote against their interests, and then continue to take away their rights and liberties. And since the data and evidence shows that their policies are wholly unpopular, even within their most radicalized core base (when presented with only the policies, separate from any party identification), rather than changing their platform and their policies, they implement the backstop of stripping away peoples' voting rights and any safeguards against gerrymandering, so that they no longer need to rely on their constituents choosing them, but rather them getting to choose whose votes among their constituents count. How is it that so many countries are able to have universal healthcare, without plummeting into deep financial abyss - as conservatives would have us believe, according to their fear mongering? How is it that the US spends more money per capita on healthcare compared to similarly wealthy, high-income, peer nations, yet we have lower life expectancy, lower quality of care, lower long-term health outcomes, higher mortality rates, higher premature death rates, and are the only one without universal health insurance coverage. So we pay 50-100% more for healthcare coverage, however, other peer nations somehow get 50-100% better quality of care. We somehow pay upwards of 100s of percent to 1,100% more than other countries for the same exact drug or treatment regimen, from the same exact pharmaceutical company. Somehow, the rest of the world has figured it out, but nope, there couldn't possibly be a way to do it here in the US (the same exact notion can be applied to our singularly unique situation with mass shootings, as well, go figure). Hmmm, that's odd, isn't it? This is an absurdly extreme rendition, if not an absolute perversion of the already perverse assertion of American exceptionalism that conservatives so love to trumpet about. I mean, what could possibly be the reason? The conservatives say it can't be done. They say it would be fiscally irresponsible. Yet, the republican party consistently blocks efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices on behalf of the government. Yet, Biden was able to cap insulin costs for seniors on Medicare, providing a huge benefit to a population in need, while simultaneously lowering the cost to government by $160 billion. Hmmm, again, that's odd, isn't it? It's almost like, democratic policies - you know, the ones that ensure the government functions in its purpose to protect and provide benefits and services to maintain dignity and humanity to all of its citizens, and not just prop up and subsidize the few at the top with the most voracious appetites - is actually cheaper. Hmmm, that's odd isn't it? Who woulda thunk it?
Also, if I had to suffer from predatory loan practices, where I ended up in a situation in which I had already paid back my principle, multiple times over, yet I would never be able to get out of that hole, being relegated to perpetually paying off this so-called 'debt' (asset for the debtor) for the rest of my life, what kind of sick, twisted individual would I have to be, in order to be livid that someone else doesn't have to suffer through the same thing? If anything, I would assume that any rational human being would want for no one to have to endure the same hardship. That debtor was already made whole, multiple times over. The debtee already paid back their debt, multiple times over. That's the whole point. Why allow them to be exploited like that? But again, the notion that 'I suffered unfairly, so why shouldn't they', is absolutely deplorable. Likewise, the notion that 'I was fortunate enough to be born into a family that either didn't require any loans, or was able to attain favorable terms, such that I wouldn't be drowning in debt for the rest of my life, so since it doesn't benefit me, why should those who are being preyed upon have any kind of humane relief from such unjust practices?' is equally detestable. I should mention that hiding behind economics as a shield to circumvent any potential moral judgement or inquiry upon inhumane conclusions arrived at on the basis of said economics is not only despicable, but it's wholly disingenuous. Economics is, at its core, entirely contextualized by humanity. Or at least, it's supposed to be. It is not *_solely_* about maximizing the utilization of resources in the *_abstract_* . It does not exist in a vacuum. It is about maximizing the utilization of resources by *_humans_* in order to maximize *_their_* well-being. When you start making arguments that rip the core of humanity out of economics, you've lost the plot. You are then simply engaging in brandishing economics as a weapon to benefit the few, at the cost of the many. Granted, my remarks are within the limited context of how you are framing and / or presenting certain things. Therefore, it may not indeed be a full and accurate reflection of who you are or what you believe in, however, it is what you have put out there. And in doing so, you are broadcasting and perpetuating certain harmful myths, even if unwittingly, and, therefore, can and should be called out on it. Again, you can try to hide behind a qualifier, stating that you are not discussing politics and only remaining in the realm of economics, however, economics does not exist in a vacuum. Economics exists to inform policy, such that the government, by way of the policies it implements, can preside over a nation and society that maximizes the utilization of its resources in order to maximize the well-being of that society and its constituents. The only reason I am even qualifying this is because, taken as a whole, you still seem rather 'young'. It is certainly not an excuse and doesn't give anyone a pass, simply because they are 'young'. However, assuming an individual is 'young', in terms of their life lived or their life experience, simply in proportion to the totality of their potential life path, they are still relatively in the early stages of their journey of self-discovery, self-growth, learning how to learn, yada, yada, and, therefore, are privileged with some limited benefit of the doubt that would, otherwise, not be conferred. With that qualification, my remarks still stand.
Lol😂. Name one supremely successful country with a 35% corporate taxes rate? Moreover, the wealth disparities between the rich and the poor are vastly linked to underinvestment, not low incomes. Incomes don't generate wealth.. Investment does my CEO pay is linked to stock options. Most of the middle class and poor are not heavily invested enough. True. Some people don't have the income to invest...which is why SS should've been privatized long ago. I would do a 6.2% to Fix income pension and 6.2% to a variable investment account for growth and if you die before 62 your heir can have generational wealth. Trickle down economics does work if you play the game. The stock market is the greatest distribution of wealth there is.
I personally wouldn't invest in companies that cuts R&D fundings to stick more cash into their pockets. A company that doesn't think of the future might as well be dead and investors know about this far too well.
@@nathanielwilliams6945 “What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” ― Billy Madison (movie)
Some commenters criticize “trickle down economics,” but that term and concept is used as a political strawman to misrepresent supply-side economics. No supply-sider believes the lives of the poor are improved by “benefits” being transferred to the rich and then to the poor through a series of "trickle down" spending. The framing of trickle down economics is fundamentally a demand-side thought-process and not of those who advocate for tax cuts and deregulation. The real purpose of supply-side economics is to incentivize productivity, NOT direct spending on new or existing wages, NOT to redistribute wealth in order to reduce inequality of OUTCOME, and NOT to give people money to buy things at existing levels of production. When you misrepresent the goals and metrics of success and then argue against that caricature, it doesn’t mean the actual goals were not met. Wealth is generated when we develop new ideas, skills, and products as either workers or owners of capital and there must be incentives for that. Policies that apply supply-side principles effectively achieve this goal over the long term. Concerns over inequality stem from political class warfare stoked by SJWs more concerned about the subjective notion of “fairness” than the absolute growth and improvement of the wealth pie and living standards across the board. Despite people like Elon Musk getting richer faster than the rest of us, it’s not a zero-sum game nor do the rich get richer at the expense of the poor getting poorer under a free enterprise system.
In a developed economy, top investment strategies for asset owners include: 1) Leveraging Political Influence: Securing favorable regulations and creating artificial monopolies through political connections. Examples include the establishment of chaebols in South Korea or the influence of corporate lobbyists in the U.S. The best investments aren't R/D, it's for the big players to buy off politicians so that they can self-regulate their own industries & eliminate any potential future competition (aka the creation of artificial monopolies). 2) Exploiting Existing Monopolies: Once an artificial monopoly is established, firms can focus on maximizing profits by cutting costs and reducing innovation. For instance, some pharmaceutical companies acquire patents from universities (often funded by taxpayers) at a low cost and then sell the resulting products at high prices. This practice is facilitated by lobbying efforts that prevent government price negotiations for Medicare, effectively creating a monopoly. 3) Investing in Low-Risk Income-Producing Assets: With less emphasis on innovation and research and development, investors may turn to assets that provide stable returns, such as stock buybacks, farmland, and real estate. These investments often generate consistent income without the risks associated with new product development or market competition. It actually is a zero-sum game when corporations & billionaires are buying political influence, using it to create artificial monopolies, and using those unfair advantages to price gouge & gobble up the asset's of the middle class like a monopoly game. We don't have a "free enterprise system". We have a monopoly game where a few players use their enormous piles of cash to rewrite the rules to take ownership of the entire gameboard. Over recent decades, there has been a notable decrease in the middle class and a decline in living standards for most people in developed countries.
@@jeremyjackson7429 Valid concerns. It is true that in some aspects there is cronyism where some big businesses coalesce with the government to pick winners and losers, but the US economy as a whole is still largely positive-sum. Next, let's make clear that there's a difference between being pro-free enterprise and being pro-business. I'm pro-free enterprise and not pro-business primarily because at the political level, I believe the problem we have in the world is to avoid the concentration of power. Unless we have a dispersant of power, we cannot maintain a free society. If we have a system under which the government is in a position to give large favors, then it's human nature for people to try to get those favors, whether those people are large or small enterprises or representatives of other special groups. Then in my opinion, the best way to prevent that and make sure businesses operate in public interest is to force them to engage in competition with one another. So yes, there is a great danger of having large, small and in between corporations exerting influence onto government. What's the answer? Bigger government? Or limiting the government by reducing the incentives for corporations to try to affect the government? I'd say the latter. If you got a choice between big business or big government, there's one important difference. No big business can get a dollar from you unless you voluntarily pay it. General Motors cannot send a policeman to take money out of your pocket. It may indirectly get money from you by operating on government to impose tariffs on foreign cars for example. But in the market, it can only get money from you insofar it can produce a product that you think is worth buying. That's hardly the case with government; they can take money from you whether you believe you're getting your money's worth or not. And this is an enormous difference, one that's between freedom and coercion, and is a difference we can only maintain if we can keep down the size and scope of the government. So to prevent the formation of and combat existing artificial monopolies, we should remove the government intervention that created them in the first place. This would prevent companies from using regulatory capture to block competition. Simplify regulations to reduce complexity that businesses exploit through lobbying. For patents, they should be used to incentivize innovation, not stifle competition. So, perhaps limit the duration of patents which would allow competitors to challenge patents and bring new products to the market. Increase transparency and educate the public to resist corporate cronyism and big government ideals. Consider privatizing education through a voucher system, which increases choice for parents, competition among schools, and limits government biases that exist in public schooling. As far as stock buybacks, farmland, and real estate investments go, these all stimulate the economy by creating jobs, stabilizing markets, and providing capital returns that can be reinvested in other areas of the economy to some degree. Sure, these investments may mean less emphasis on innovation and R&D for a subset of firms, but that doesn’t mean the economy as a whole experiences a reduction in innovation and research. Many factors drive up innovation like venture capital, startups, and tech firms. Many which are highly focused on developing new tech and driving progress. Companies turning to buybacks or real estate still allocate capital to R&D where necessary. Other sectors, like tech and healthcare, continue to prioritize innovation. So, the broader economy remains dynamic even if some individual firms allocate some of their capital to low-risk assets. Not to mention, supply-side economics also incentivizes investments from new entrepreneurs, not just existing ones. Lowering barriers to entry and allowing for greater profit motives via less taxation for example would increase entrepreneurship from both new and existing entrepreneurs. So the idea that we have to put all our hopes and dreams on a subset of rich companies "trickling down" their profits is not an argument any serious supply-sider has ever made. It is a leftist strawman.
@@i0li0il0i Companies absolutely can coerce money out of you. For example. lets say you have cancer. You will die without treatment. Hospitals are privatized, pharmaceuticals are privatized, and most insurance providers are privatized. What cost can the health industry charge you that you are willing to pay? For most people, the answer is probably "just about anything", because they will DIE without it. And as a result, the health industry can charge stuff like $500+ for medicine that cost $1-2 to make. or charge $40K for an operation that may only cost them like a thousand dollars. This is because healthcare is an inelastic good. The demand for it doesnt change very much with price. So companies can charge basically whatever they want, and you have no option but to pay for it if you value your life. There are several other industries that are highly inelastic too, such as housing/rent, essential foods, basic utilities, etc. These markets are highly susceptible to price gouging for this very reason. Of course not every industry sells goods or services which are inelastic, but its absolutely not true to act like giant corporations have ultimately no power over people. Also, for your discussion on monopolies. Monopolies ALWAYS form in capitalism if left to its own devices. Always. it is a mathematical truth. Small advantages (even if by chance) cumulate in capitalism, and grow to significant advantages, until eventually one entity has monopolistic control over a market. This will ALWAYS happen in unregulated capitalism. Without question. Having larger market share lets corporations do extremely anti-competitive practices to push out competitors. Just look at the strategies employed by Rockefeller before a lot of modern regulations were made to help prevent the formation of monopolies. Regulation isnt what causes monopolies. Monopolies are the default in capitalism. Only good regulations are capable of preventing them. Granted, not every regulation is good at doing so, but the idea of trying to remove most regulations that is common on the right is also just blatantly wrong. Regulations are required for ensuring the market remains as fair and competitive as possible, because that is NOT the natural state of capitalism. The natural state is for advantages to accumulate over iterations, until one entity has majority control over the entire market, and uses that control to push out competitors. The only way to avoid that is with regulations which make many of those practices illegal.
@@i0li0il0i I want to make sure I understand what you're saying...confused as to how we can incentivise corporations against government lobbying. As I understand, less government regulations leads to more competition in the long term, which is what these corporations are trying to prevent no? It seems like corporations have every reason for more government regulations, cause as you say, they provide more opportunity for loop holes. Not to mention politicians can still be bribed outside of lobbying. I'm just not sure how corporations would want less government involvement, when they've used the government as a tool to help them gain their monopoly in the first place. Unless I'm missing something..
Thanks for your insightful explanation of both economic plans. I'd like to point out two things. The border situation is out of control now and tax money is going towards giving housing, food and health care to this massive number of people, which is also causing series of violent crimes committed by gangs that are crossing the border. I think the downsides of an uncontrolled border way outweigh the "benefit" of more work force. About the tariffs, I do think it is important to stimulate the production of goods inside the country. Our whole economy should not rely on china's low cost products. It might be uncomfortable at first, but I think it will be good in the long run. By looking at the constant increase of the US national debt, looks like Kamala's policies will continue to add up to the debt, which is worst for everybody. Good intentions are not enough. Another important thing that needs to be considered is: how is the tax money being used? Because some politicians only speak of increasing more and more taxes (no matter if on one group or the other) to sustain their idealist or ideologic policies, but is this money being used efficiently? Or just going down the drain on incompetent management, poor political decisions and to people or groups taking advantage of the system?
Girl thank you! I was raised conservative - got sent to republican camp and everything, but I've always been an independent. If I take a test online, I always get that im on the left, but as we've been saying, the left has changed. People who are brainwashed won't recognize or admit that, but the left today is radically different than it once was. I'm voting for Trump because I was an RFK Jr. supporter. I know nothing about economics and am voting based on my values in favor of freedom and against censorship/cancel culture. But I really needed to know this stuff too!
I appreciate your independent stance - I really wish partisanship were not part of politics. I agree that the left has developed an excessive focus on semantics and people there need to become more comfortable with different viewpoints, but I'd be curious how you feel about right-wing censorship, particularly with Trump. If I remember correctly, he has talked about using the DOJ to go after election officials and political opponents at large (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has an article looking at claims he has made on that front), and book bans have recently skyrocketed, many of them spearheaded by conservative organizations in states like FL. I wish everyone was just able to talk to one another about important matters respectfully :(
The book bans are stupid I agree, though I can’t speak on Trump and the DOJ, the left is much less friendly to the 1st amendment than the right. Just look at what happened in COVID, they took every chance they could to get private companies to censor criticism of COVID information and policies, and blanket labeled it all as “misinformation”. They only fact check one side, etc.
@@George-hl2xm your not going to lose your health insurance under Trump. Did you not have insurance when he was president? Under Harris 1 thing is for sure, you will pay more for your insurance.
@@BR549_o7 where have been Trump tried to kill Obama care the first time he was in office and he’s when he gets back in he will finish it off leaving millions of people without health insurance I can’t vote someone like that
@@George-hl2xm so you'll have health insurance but everything will sky rocket in cost... besides he can't just kill the AHA/Obamacare... if anyone remembers in 2016 he did run on providing healthcare but said the way Obamacare is structured it just caused massive rises in costs for most people and then the whole punishing people with no healthcare was ridiculous... Wanting to dismantle a broken machine and replace it with something better is not the same as just flat out killing it. It's in the same ballpark as saying he banned abortion when clearly he didn't, he got rid of a nonsensical ruling that nobody ever ratified and let the states which each have their own culture if we are being honest decide how they wanted to handle the issue and even said he'd never outright ban it... but for whatever reason that's considered him banning it...
Lowering taxes helps normal people more than billionaires. Companies being able to hire more people is the difference between having a job vs having no job for a lot of people. Taxing billionaires doesn't really affect billionaires but it greatly affects normal people.
You can also just do targeted tax breaks. Instead of lowering taxes for the ultra wealthy, just keep their taxes the same, and give anyone earning 200K or less a year big tax breaks. We have a marginal tax system, so we can target specific tax brackets to lower, while keeping others the same.
I am shocked you did not point out that if tips are NOT taxed then that person's future social security payout will absolutely plummet...which is not good when a large chunk of the elderly population already cannot afford to retire comfortably.
@Notorious_Network Right. I was told once that someone who is big enough to give you something is also big enough to take it away. The government as it is is very big.
Hi. I'm so glad I found your videos. Very well done. Just solid facts and analysis. No hysterics for either candidate or party, just a well-reasoned and factual explanation of how these policies would play out and what the results would be for us. This is sorely needed in today's environment and much appreciated. I've shared your videos and hope to see more!
taxes rates before 1981 - top marginal tax rate was lowered over his 8 years in office from 73% to 28%. The effective federal corporate income tax rate has decreased: 1950: 50% 1960: 37% 1970: 32% 1980: 20% 1990: 25% 2000: 20% 2010: 15% 2020: 13% and corporate profits and CEO pay continue to rise for the last 50 years. Far out outpacing wage increases for the general public. Tax cuts are never paid for. The US Federal Tax Revenue as % of the GDP decreased from 18.5 to 17.4 from 1980 to 1990. Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added $1.9 trillion to the Federal deficit. General rage increase will cause inflation and job loss, but CEO million dollars bonuses and corporate subsidies are okay. FREE MONEY!!! Universal Health care is socialism and we can afford it, but we can spend close to a BILLION dollars a year on defense. (government ownership of the means of production) Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row - Pentagon again fails annual audit of $3.8 trillion in military assets.
Tax cuts don’t add to deficit. That doesn’t even make sense. Spending more than we take in adds to the deficit, not taking away less of others money. Trump did help do that and that’s a fair critique. When tax cuts occur what needs to be calculated is what the government ends up taking in in overall revenue, not just the amount that will be saved on the tax payer’s part.
We're now 36T in debt and 1T just the interest alone. We are broke. It's like having a wife with an out of control spending habits. Even 💯 percent tax can't cover the spending spree. Btw 100 percent tax is slavery
It usually boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils. Personally, I prefer less tax and more control over how I can spend my money, and will take the price hike from tariffs over higher taxes for a government who has no idea how to balance a checkbook, let alone a multi-trillion dollar budget.
The debt absolutely exploded following Trump's tax cuts so if your concern is balancing the budget he's proven completely incapable of that. I think we'll probably have a better time hoping Harris hires people who can talk her out of the more ridiculous parts of her tax plan than someone fundamentally incorrect
The problem you're ignoring is much too long term, over time as the wealth gap grows, the elite will become more and more powerful and unreachable and more middle class Americans will be closer to poverty than anywhere near the top. We will end up with a new bougeoirsie, and a more disgruntled lower class
Politicians and those running for a lot of government offices have no conception of economics. Some of them I think want a room in this country on purpose.
The "landlords will discriminate against poor people" thing has been happening for years already and it's BECAUSE there is no entity with the power or will to do anything about their endless greed. Also there simply is conflicting research on the efficacy of rent controls on housing supply which leads into the entire issue you'd have economically with the policy. Basically being against rent controls is just a big part of the economist mythos that's been assumed for so long people forget to check up on whether they're even right or not anymore. It's said to be bad by your textbook so it must be true. And the No Tax on Tips idea is asinine, for a few reasons. Why should tip earners be exempt from taxes unlike say janitors or teachers, for example? Also, it's well-known that a lot of tip-earners affected by this idea already don't pay the affected tax.
one thing about tariffs is that it will discourage companies from sending jobs overseas to cheap and practically slave labor. Jobs will come back to America in order to protect the companies bottom line. Unless they are really committed to their business model in which case I won't be buying their products.
Most people worry about the increase in goods and services produced overseas but don't see what tarrifs do in the long term....not to mention less taxes on the American people gives them more agency to spend on the market and allows the people to be more choosey what they spend on. Not to mention they'll have more to invest.
One important item that you failed to mention fully. As businesses get taxed less and have more money they do several things with it. Yes, share holders and owners may pocket more if the profit. But most businesses will also reinvest that extra profit back into the businesses. This is seen thru better or additional equipment, additional jobs ect. The more a business gets taxed and has to shoulder expenses the more they make do with the equipment they have and less jobs they will fill. It's called a hiring freeze. This can lead to the job being harder to do and also less jobs for people in the surrounding community . Neither of these scenarios is a positive.
Yes but as we've seen for the past decade, companies have a tendency to over hire and as a result, do massive layoffs when shit hits the fan which always is the detriment of the workers who are let go
In the 1970s there was so much affordable rentals in Los Angeles. Anyone who could afford it would buy a duplex. Now, the stigma against landlords is great and for some reason many people are not choosing to become landlords anymore. I don't understand it and Kamala doesn't either.
Wouldn’t the prices go higher only on imported goods? Not really domestic goods? That might encourage people to buy and make American goods And also with the deportation the jobs would then go to American people meaning more income to hopefully be able to have extra money at the end of the month
The prices would increase on imported goods, but America is an 80% service based economy and the other 20% manufacturing. So in turn, we have to import goods for the majority of our resources. I'm all for American owned manufacturing, but you have to look at the current situation at hand. If you're trying to decrease prices/inflation from what it is now tariffs just won't do anything but jack up prices in this scenario but in the process create more American owned industry. If mass deportation was enacted, the economy would lose a good bit of money getting put into it, the salary of jobs that immigrants work would have to go up as the demand for people to work those jobs are very high. With more people willing to work for ends meat immigrating into America, the better it is for businesses who want to pay jack shit. Another thing that is generally shown with companies being forced to pay more money to the employee is that companies will try and get someone else to pay for it, by charging customers more money or whatever the case may be.
And Trump only wants tariffs on specific items like cheeses and wines and steel. This video is a really basic and not very relevant assessment of their policies.
I didn’t have insurance for so many years. I just found a pretty terrible job and have my insurance paid for at 100%. I only pay around $50 a month for dental. Life’s so difficult.
Why does the media allow corporations to continue to BS people about passing on the cost why do they need to pass on cost to the customer for any reason when companies are already charging a very high price or percentage overhead example Apple is charging 3 times what it cost to make a iPhone other companies are doing the same and worse are maybe they are charging so much because they can and blame it on so called inflation 🤔🙄
Apple charges 3x more than it cost to make the product for the brand. The cost isn't the only thing that sets the price of a product it's mainly the demand. Demand can be created through building up a name and style for yourself. Apple for example has created a brand of luxury behind their products. People are paying for the idea of luxury when buying an apple product. They could buy other brands of phones but people who buy Apple products are loyal to a brand. Most other corporations pass the cost to the consumer because they need to make a profit. If Brand X cost $2.00 to make I sell it for $2.50 and get a 0.50 profit. However if the cost of production goes up anywhere on the supply line, like hiring Americans instead of illegal immigrants (because legally you have to pay Americans a certain amount), or I'm hit with a tariff, I have to keep that profit margin the same. The only way to do that is raise the price of the product. Inflation is a product of government control of the currency. When the government puts more dollars into circulation the spending power of that dollar goes down. If Brand X is still $2.50 but the strength of the dollar goes down 10% because of inflation I need to make up that cost of inflation to keep the profit margin the same.
It's basic human survival instinct. Let's say you make 30k after paying income tax, then suddenly gov increases tax and your net income after tax becomes 27k, wouldn't you want to pass it on to your customers so that you can gain that 3k back somehow? Yes it trickles down from every facet of your life: your landlord, grocery stores, restaurants, uber, flight ticket. Everywhere. More taxation makes you poorer at the end
JD Vance explained the tariffs as not being associated with all imports. There are raw materials, products and components only available in other countries. Some produce, for instance, cannot be grown domestically as the climate doesn't allow for it. Companies that are foreign can import their product into the US without affiliated tarifs. If a domestic company that can otherwise manufacture products in the US decides to manufacture abroad then tarifs on those products would be implanted on import into the US.
There is Proposition 33 in California for Rent Control. The 2 historically most expensive cities for renters is New York and San Francisco, both are the earliest to implement price controls on rent. If you are a property owner, landlord or investor who's income - full or part - is dependent on rent from tenants than you also have to create a buffer for inflation. In order to do that more is invested into higher cost luxury housing and less into lower cost housing. Both of which require many of the same materials and skill sets to construct.
Why not just fix the tax loopholes wealthy people use on their personal income instead of taxing corporations so that the best way for a company to decrease its taxes is to not overpay its executives?
Great video. Thanks! One correction at 2:00. This is the opposite of true but it's a common mistake. Hear me out. Companies are taxed on net profit after expenses. When corporate tax rates are low, corporations want to realize those profits (since you can move them out to shareholders on the cheap). When corporate tax rates move higher, you want to reinvest more of those gross receipts to minimize profits now (and boost them in the future). A quick scenario. ACME Corp sells $10M in anvils each year. They pay $5M in wages, $3M in rent and put $1M into R&D. That leaves $1M in profit. Their country charges a 35% tax rate so they pay $350k in corporate taxes and pay the remaining $650k to their cheerful shareholders. Trump comes along and cuts the tax rate to 21%. What does ACME do? ACME are smart. They know this low corporate tax rate is unlikely to last. The next year, they sell $10M in anvils, pay $8M in wages and rent. But they eliminate their R&D budget completely. Why? Because now they can recognize that whole $2M as profit and only pay $420k in taxes. They can give $1.58M to back to shareholders. Under the old scheme, they would have had to pay $700k and give back only $1.3M. So, they cut R&D while they can recognize those profits under low tax rates. But Levi, $1.3M in profit is more than the $650k they were giving to shareholders before. Why didn't they eliminate R&D under the old rate? Presumably, they think R&D at an after tax price of $650k is a good investment and will lead to more profit later. But under the new tax rate, that same R&D comes at an after tax rate of $790k ($1M - $210k). Perhaps they think that price is too high for their projected payout. Kamala comes along a restores the tax rate to 35%. Now ACME's incentive to recognize all of their profits now is reduced. R&D is back, baby!
I'd like to see what other companies have done about this. ACME is probably not the only one who took advantage of low tax rate by Trump. That being said, I'm sure company leaders aren't stupid and they will try to find ways that are most profitable and beneficial to everyone in different scenarios. If the company eliminates R&D funds due to low tax rates, stock shareholders will know about this and they will be less willing to buy more shares because of low growth the company will have for the next decade or two. Long story short: there are short and long-term effect of lowering corporate taxes and you have only given a very specific example of short term effect.
@@park417Yeah, which companies will give up funding on R&D for such short term profit? Certainly not a growth stock. R&D is where the meat is. And growth is what shareholders want, not dividends/income unless one is at retirement age.
Although this one example may have taken this route, I think it'd be a mistake to say that this is the normal approach. If I owned a large corporation, my shareholders would have certain expectations of how much they will gain each year in dividends/income. If the tax rate is lower, then I know that I can get away with less profit and still meet shareholder expectations, allowing me to grow the company while keeping the shareholders satisfied. If the tax rate is higher, then I know I have to see greater profit to meet shareholder expectations, thus taking from R&D. Basically, most companies are long term focused, not short term focused. So they will keep their habit of allocating more to R&D when taxes are low, and less when taxes are high.
$60k in tips? Seems a bit high. Personally, I don't think servers and those who get tips pay much in taxes because they don't report all of them. Maybe some do, but I doubt it.
If they get tips in cash - think bellman or valet - then sure, but most of the restaurant server tips are on credit cards and POS system automatically pushes that to payroll system which then gets reported to IRS.
yeah, if you're a waiter you do get paid around 40 to 70k year including your base salary and tips depending on where you work. Your base would probably be around 20 to 30k and the rest would all be tips which would be taxed free. So not all of 40 to 70k but 40 to 50k would be taxed free. The reason why its so high, is because its the only job that actually matched with inflation. Your tips are the parentage of pricing. So if the price increase so does your salary.
Only on card tips, you would offset or not disclose the cash tips which is why servers usually like cash tips over card tips. Back in 2000s I used to make about 60k a year BEFORE TAXES as a waiter/cashier getting paid minimum wage ($7.25) + tips. But I worked 6 days/week, nights.
But if you combine Trump's first policy of reducing tax all around, people's take home pay will increase, allowing them to actually afford more even if tariffs increase the prices of goods. That result is also excluding the additional jobs he will be creating by revitalizing the manufacturing and fracking industries, AND deporting illegal immigrants which will free up more jobs for the population.
The tariff increase will outpace the increase in available funds so you won't really make more. His tax plan didn't do anything for anyone making under 40k, gave you about 4k around the 80k mark, and from there it increased up to 20k for those around 200k mark. Also the jobs that would be made available from lack of immigrants will do almost nothing but lead to issues because no one will want to work those jobs anyways. Will basically be minimum wage jobs that are high stress or physically taxing. Oil and I think manufacturing are doing better under Biden than Trump.
Blame the corporations for hiring immigrants instead of Americans because they know they can get away with under paying immigrants. Trump's also a wannabe dictator.
When you get rid of immigrants doing those jobs you're talking about, the cost to work those jobs goes up, then businesses will start charging more to make up for the fact they lost out on money because they have to pay the worker more. Higher costs, higher inflation. Also, peoples take home pay doesn't increase at the pace in which corporations gain. So when Inflation increases, corporations and privately owned industries do better economically speaking than say a business who gives employees salary increases based off of the rate of inflation, while on other hand most privately owned businesses and corporations don't have to pay employees more, therefore creating a wealth distribution problem.
8:10 - Respectfully, why did you focus on the higher cost of products due to the loss of cheap labor and leave out the increased wages for those who would replace the cheap labor?
Imagine your boss retired and there are two new candidates for your boss's old position: One guy who's a complete asshole, and another guy who's just a little less of an asshole than the other. If you were asked for your input and had the ability to impact the decision-making process, what would you do? I think most sane people would voice their opinion that the lesser asshole should become the boss - not because they like them, but because they're a better candidate than the other option. Same goes for politics. Go vote.
@@christmaskitty5891 I agree, but i’m going to edit your example a bit. Imagine you have two options for a pilot. One who isn’t politically correct in the slightest and will curse you out, but will get you to and from a your destination safely with a smooth landing, or one who will say all the right things to make you feel nice and good, but never learned how to fly a plane? I’d rather the one who might offend me, but is better qualified for the job. Don’t be passive. If you have an opinion, express it and vote. Don’t allow yourself to be unheard by not participating. The results will affect you.
@@christmaskitty5891 What if the lesser Asshole wants to make horrible changes that could eliminate your job, would you still vote for her? My life was better 4 years ago with the Asshole boss.
A few things to add~ Trump wants to lower gas prices, lower interest rates, become energy independent, close the border, which helps everyone, especially the lower and middle class.
he's also big pro Nuclear power unlike all the fake save the planet green politicians that are just lining the pockets of those companies making windfarms and solar panels which are just back ups more than anything...He could say the climate is changing but the reasons are up for debate amongst scientists and they'd say he's a climate change denier and wants to murder the planet lmao
? How would he do those things? The Fed controls interest rates, not the president. Energy independence and lower gas prices can’t happen at the same time without investment into renewable energy (because fossil fuels are finite, so supply will be especially limited in long term if we only use US sources). I'm not sure how you'd define closing the border, but immigration is generally good for the economy, and costs will definitely go up if producers are not able to meet demand bc of worker shortages. Please let me know if I’m wrong, I just don’t know how those results would be possible in the real world.
I have a mixed views on Obamacare. I’ve seen how it’s benefiting people but also it hasn’t. The cost of insurance skyrocketed when this act went into place.
Speaking of Social Security, would be good to see a video about social security. Interesting to compare it against 401ks with the same paycheck deductions, and address Social Security insolvency.
I appreciate this video. I feel like your analysis was geared more towards the facts of these policies as opposed to the feelings towards (or against) the policies or the candidates themselves. This is the type of content I would want to see in order to help me understand what is at stake...factually as opposed to allowing merely the candidate drive my decision making. CHEERS!
You claimed this was supposed to be unbiased but then immediately started ripping out opinions without evidence or explanations, you literally just used “I’m a CPA” as your entire backing.
Speaking as someone from a working-poor background, Kamala will definitely not help the poor or underprivileged. Obamacare raised our healthcare costs substantially, and forced a lot of our friends to pay fines for not being able to afford healthcare
Remember, student debt is *never* forgiven- the debt is just moved on to the working who are paying for this in the taxes withheld from their paychecks... and those people are usually the ones who didn't get to go to college because they couldn't afford it or didn't want to put their parents under that pressure. And the politicians get the credit, which was the intention in the first place. Similarly, Kamala (and Biden) do this and preach about helping lower income people because they are running for election- Kamala has been in government for YEARS, including 4 years IN THE WHITE HOUSE yet even her own people can't clearly state anything good she has ever done for her constituents ...only the stuff she promised. She was like an absentee student when it came to her #1 campaign focus (the border) never having gone there, and it's almost intentionally been opened up to a destructive degree. I really appreciate your focus on interpreting the candidate's promises and how they will likely play out rather than focusing on race and gender and and all the emotional stuff that won't help our country in the long run. Kamala pandering to blacks by ignoring she's almost entirely either Jamaican or Indian, having racist obscene (the lyrics) rap music playing while people twerk and gyrate on the stage, she's trying to make it a popularity contest and I really appreciate when this generation can see through all that. There are some points in this video that we could debate a little, but your analytical focus is awesome and as a former teacher you get an A+ for effort. Great video. 💙
You missed the point! Politicians say things to get more votes, nothing else. For every vote lost from those who understand, they gain 10 votes from those who dont.
Interesting take! Couple comments to consider, from my view: A server making $60,000 in income doesn't equate to $100,000 gross. A portion of that $60,000 is already taxed (most servers have an low hourly rate), but even if we assume they pay $40,000 in taxes on that $100,000, that would mean their effective rate is 40%. Of course, we have a progressive tax system and so even in the worst scenario top marginal for that income would be 22%, and thus the effective rate would about 15%.
In a nutshell, Kamala's policies will short term increase economy and Trump's would long term increase economy. I want Trump's policies to overhaul the fda/health and medical industry. People also have to do their part in not overspending, stop buying crap you don't need, buy necessities not overly expensive, stay away from junk food and eat less carbs.
The problem with rent is that it isn't completely being driven by market influences as they are described in college. Landlords work together to set prices and they are not based on costs. People have no choice but to pay high rents and cut other budgets or they have to rent from scum lords that never fix the apart ments, never treat for bugs and let the housing turn to unlivable locations. This is partly due to clientel care for homes, but is mostly caused by simple neglect to maintain the properties they own as required by law and is usually in the lease contracts. While Harris' proposal is mentioned as bad because of interference with the market, landlord organizations and shared data bases that price fix rents outside of true market influences is also interfering with the market and needs to be illegal.
I am an Indian businessman.i like trump.because of him I got tax relief in past.kamala hates successful guy like me .why should I support her if she can't give me financial benefit?
I'm not sure if I have ever heard as bad argumentation on the policies. Especially if you observe the existing reality around you. Every last one of your argument is proven false if you look at countries in Europe. Corporations have done record profits and they used those on stock buybacks, not on hiring people or raising wages. You've heard too much trickledown economics and misses the fact it has been debunked two decades ago.
On the corporate tax increase, wouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Wouldn't they have an incentive to invest in R&D which would reduce profit and the amount which is taxed?
For the no tax on tips, how likely is it that you would actually make 60 k a year.... especially when there are restaurants that require you to share your tips with other servers, hosts, batender, and the cooks?
Yeah "I'm not going to lean one way or another"... Proceeds to lean right... The 35% corporate tax was just fine before trump, and trumps lower rate sure hasn't done shit to keep cost of living low, meanwhile corporate profits soared
As a non-American myself, I see you have made an excellent analysis on the economic policies proposed by the candidates for the upcoming American election. I am wondering what is your take on inflation? As nowadays, price inflation has been one of the key issues that affects people's livelihood, and I would like to know if you have any opinion on how to solve such issue?
Why are you assuming if companies have less tax and more income they will hire more people LMAO. Like I support capitalism, markets and businesses but why are you even saying something of a blanket statement like that, its so uneducated.
You rightly point out that tariffs are intended to be targeted to protect certain industries. Makes sense to have tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles because US EV manufacturing is so far behind. But increasing tariffs on everything is essentially creating a national sales tax. Tariffs can be set by the executive branch, a sales tax has to go through Congress. So an across the board tariff is just a sneaky way to raise taxes.
On the rent increase cap, what's the difference between being discriminated against vs having a rent you could never afford? I feel like the net result, except with the former, provided you get accepted, youre paying less rent.
Hey- thanks for the video. It’s refreshing to hear analysis of their proposals in a fairly objective review. As an area of clarification with Obamacare- 1. The lie you could keep your plan. My individual plan was no longer offered. 2. The marketplace options offered were all 3 times as expensive before subsidies. (The plan I had before would has the most similarities to a bronze plan). A major point in the rhetoric in selling Obamacare was that it was not a tax and “control or help health care costs”. The Supreme Court only found it constitutional by considering it a tax and the cost for healthcare continues to rise.
One major point of contention for me is the assertion that substantial tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations somehow don't affect the working class. In truth, these policies exacerbate the wealth gap in our country, significantly contributing to the struggles many Americans face. Additionally, these tax breaks (along with his new proposals) are projected to increase our deficit by $7 trillion, with no clear plan in place to pay for that. I am down to have an honest conversation... but I think you're misrepresenting that fact quite a bit.
One of trump's policy I hate the most is no tax on tips. It sounds great but its really unfair because if you're making 70k on tips its equivalent to making 100k. Also they are not paying their fair share on income tax like the rest of us. In addition, servers are the only class of workers that have their income adjusted for inflation because they get tipped by a percentage of the cost. If the cost increase due to inflation they atomically get paid more.
When it comes to tax, I'd personally sacrifice the prices of goods and services to get better infrastructure and public services, like public transport, which are paid from taxes. In an ideal world goods and services offered by buisnesses should be a higher need, for pleasure, for fun, for making your life more like you want it when you can afford it. But basic human needs should be handled by government. Transport? Public transport. Health care? Good public healthcare. Housing for the least fortunate? Good low rent public neigbourhoods. Jobs? Public programms to ensure that the least fortunate people without proper education get low level jobs AND have the opportunity to higher their qualifications.
When you spoke about increased tariffs for foreign goods, you failed to mention that buying local goods would increase jobs and the increase in cost of labour would also provide more money in the pockets of people likely to spend it on the economy. Basically instead of money leaving the country it would be re-invested locally.
Swift changes in economic policy will nearly always invite stress to the system. It must be properly assessed whether such stress is constructive or destructive in the end, and where that end will be. I have failed to see either candidate give satisfyingly practical critiques of their policies, though I admit Harris's litany of seemingly experimental proposals require a great deal more explanation and much less rhetoric to logically equate to progress.
Bruh I had the longest comment about ideal economics and complexity and accidentally clicked on another video. i don't feel like typing the whole thing out but my main take was just that while this is helpful it might have been fruitful to couch your analysis as being reliant on ideal market responses to state policy.
I don’t think its fair to say Trump’s tax cuts are for billionaires, - my grandpa, my aunt, mother-in-law, are all math loving people who use the stock market to support their household. I actually know loads of people who are average Joe’s, but make investments that suffer under Biden’s policies… A cut will benefit all, and that includes the Uber rich, but its definitely better for the average, too.
It's an opinion that sways people with no evidence so it's misleading people which is bad especially now she needs to focus on the real problems not potential ones
Thank you. This is great! Can we compare how much and who is going to be negatively affected most in a LONG TERM? I think at this point we know we’ll have to suffer for at least a short while because of our country’s outstanding debt. And we just have to swallow that pill. But in a long term, who can start to turn this ship around gradually? Kamala or Trump? Or neither?
As someone who was extremely liberal in college and grad school but has seen become more of an independent, its really refreshing to hear you talk about their policies from a non biased standpoint. Would love to know how these policies will affect the middle class.
I would love to know WHO Kamala is taking about re:"middle class tax cuts"! I truly cannot find a solution or definition for middle class, like... who exactly qualifies, in terms of federal taxable income brackets?! There is no definition of middle class! A lot of talk but no numerical cutoff to be found for these purported policy recs.
Poorly, like all of Obama’s and Biden’s policies, just on crack or meth this time around.😐
@@marguerillathey define the middle class as anyone making LESS than $450,000 a year…
I disagree. Kamala's intention is NOT to help the poor and underprivileged. Her intention is to APPEAR to help the poor and underprivileged.
Yeah bc we all suffer in a failing economy. It’s like neglecting the mother when she is pregnant when both should be a necessity for the health of the baby
So true… just like the overwhelming majority of these “liberals”, mostly older wealthy people. Like their charity banquets, food drives, soup kitchen’s, and all this “migrant” politics. 😂 They want to help these people by taking our stuff and giving it all to their new indentured servants. 😉
That's the Dem narrative in general. If we throw away the concept of the Uniparty, the Reps want you to work to move up and out of poverty (In theory). The dems flat out want you to stay dependent on government handouts, and yes they are handouts, because it helps secure your vote... you're in a desperate situation and voting for the "evil racist fascist" party could result in you possibly losing or lessening your government assistance (aka your fellow citizens money being handed out)... even if you don't think the other party is evil and seems to have a better plan, you need security so you keep voting for the ones who keep promising "free" assistance
I seriously doubt Harris even understands monetary and fiscal policies to stimulate the economic activity. Obama clearly didn't understand since the recovery took over 6 years. He didn't do anything.
Being a democrat is so easy. Just propose moronic policies that will hurt everyone but call the other side racist. Just pretend to care about people whose votes you need and say nice-sounding things that have no substance.
The left in a nutshell: prices are too high? Just lower them 🥴 duh
I believe the retirement crisis will get even worse. Many struggle to save due to low wages, rising prices, and exorbitant rents. With homeownership becoming unattainable for middle-class Americans, they may not have a home to rely on for retirement either.
Consider buying stocks when the economy is not doing well, like during a recession. It could be a chance to buy them at a lower price and sell later when prices go up. Just keep in mind, this isn't financial advice, but sometimes it's better than keeping a lot of cash.
Accurate asset allocation is crucial. Some use hedging or defensive assets in their portfolio for market downturns. Seeking financial advice is vital. This approach has kept me financially secure for over five years, with a return on investment of nearly $1 million.
Mind if I ask you to recommend this particular coach you using their service?
‘Grace Adams Cook’ is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name, you’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
It's good you make your own research. and make sure whoever you work with is licensed n verifiable with a repute, this Grace looks the part but i'd do my due diligence. I set up a call, thanks.
It's almost like some politicians dont have a basic understanding of econ
Many don't or do but willingly act as though they don't because their soul has a price and it was sold for some pitiful money. Even way back in president Hoover and Roosevelt's time, people in the governing positions such as these 2 presidents also acted like they know f@#$K all about econ
The bottom line is no matter what they do corporations will find someway to pass that burden to the consumers. Lose lose situation
Economics is not some certain theories that all economists agree with. There are actually different school of thoughts and the basics of economics can not be dealt with the intricacies and nuances of economics in the reality.
@@RunningTurtle-ie7ku There are some disagreements there and there, but then there are basic facts based on actual historical case studies that all logical economists agree on, things like during a recession, the way to solve it is not raising interest. Few economists may disagree all they want, but the fact is raising interest has NEVER been successful at bringing recession to an end, in fact it only gets worse, so these economists only has words and no practicality. Invalid opinion.
@@truongsinh9955 I've never said that lowering interest rate during recession is something that most economists dont agree on. Monetary policies, if carried out accountably by independent central bank, are usually more straightforward. However, policies like price control and other fiscal policies like expanding medical insurance are definitely more nuanced. Even using the oversimplified view of economics, those policies can bring welfare loss due to an "inefficient allocation of resources", but they can improve the quality and quantity of factors of production thus bringing long term economic growth. Price controls are more straightward by making things more affordable, which the us definitely needs as certain types of goods and services especially medicines are overpriced.
Have you had Obamacare? Well, I have, I got it for $36 a month starting in November. Then in January I get hit with $795 bill to continue my Obamacare. The only people it helps is the insurance companies. That happened to me twice in 3 years.
@@amypoole30 I don’t believe that I haven’t had any problems with mine and you will have bigger problems if Trump gets rid of it
Shoukd rename to Bananacare.
@@Corteum why it works better than the old system
That happened to me too. I found out after the fact that it steals money off your tax return to cover costs if you make "too much." And their defintion of "too much" is you aren't in a homeless shelter or moved back in with your parents yet. It really doesn't help working class people on single incomes. As of now I am private pay with no health insurance. Immediate needs like shelter, utilities, and food are more direct than healthcare I "might" need. It's that way for a lot of people.
@@johnmckeon4498 nonsense
Just because a company can spend more on payroll doesn't mean they will. Look at Boing for instance. Only the CEO has gotten real wage increases in the past decade. So I'm not a fan of cutting top level taxes and expecting companies to just "do the right thing" and spread the wealth down. It doesn't work that way.
Agreed, I don't mind capitalism but I think there does need to be some regulation on actually paying the workers more when the company does good.
THANK YOU. I see this rhetoric all the time about increasing corporate bottom lines. But time and time again as companies get richer the workers wages remain low and stagnant. There has to be regulation to make sure these companies aren't hoarding so much of this wealth.
@@AW-ry1iy Its called "trickle down economics" as a nickname, and it simply doesnt work.
The only reason this line gets parroted around so much is because giant corporations lobby the government to keep passing policies to benefit their bottom line, and then also spend tons of money on propaganda to misinform people.
But yea, giving companies more money simply doesnt work. They just pocket it and enrich themselves. There is no reason to pay workers even a single penny more than you have to. A company is already paying people the "optimal" value for labor, to get the most labor they can at the cheapest price they can. Giving people more money wont substantially increase their productivity comparative to the extra cost. So there is simply no reason to do it.
Companies arent trying to do what is best for their workers, they are trying to maximize profit. There is no reason to spend excess money on payroll if they dont have to. The only exception being payroll increases for executives which are part of the decisions to increase pay, as they have a personal incentive to increase their own pay.
And its this exact policy that has lead to a massive increase in the wealth gap in this country over the last few decades.
so over tax them and watch the costs rise instead or them just moving jobs away.... you have to incentivize businesses to stay... and no offense but the biggest problem with taxes is who uses it... the government... they are the biggest dumpster fire of spending.... until they get spending under control and stop printing money, there's really no reason to bang corporations with higher taxes...
@@silfocus84 Corporations are moving jobs away anyways. If a job can be outsourced, it is being outsourced. No amount of "low taxes" is going to compete with labor that cost a buck per hour or less in other countires.
If you want to prevent outsourcing, lowering taxes is pretty much completely ineffective at doing so. This is why despite constantly lowering corporate taxes, which even happened under Trump's 4 years, we still had an increase in outsourcing. It simply doesnt work to prevent it.
And I agree the government can sometimes be ineffective at how they spend money, but that is moreso an issue with our current governance rather than the concept of government period. The extra income for the government is still good, we just need to reform who is actually in government so that they do a better job spending the money they have. The issue is moreso that we have rampant corruption in our government, rather than an issue of government's inherently are bad at spending money.
Also, printing money is done when you dont have enough taxes to pay for the budget. Higher taxes would lower printing and reduce inflation. The reason printing happens is because the government is REQUIRED to pay for the budget congress passes, but they are also only allowed to tax as much as congress allows. And of course the budget is always higher than the taxes incoming. This means that there are only 2 options to pay for the remainder of the budget. Either you print money or take on debt. Printing a little money or taking on a little debt is fine, the issue happens when its a run away problem.
But higher taxes would mean the gap in income vs budget would be lower, meaning less money has to be printed. This would actually reduce inflation. In fact, there are really only 3 options to reduce the printing of money.
Either
1.) Take on more debt which has its own problems
2.) Earn more money through taxation
3.) Reduce spending
Earning more money through taxation is one of the best possible ways to reduce inflation from printing money. The other is to reduce spending where appropriate, but it depends on what spending you're actually reducing. (You wouldnt want to cut important social programs for example that help the average or poor working class. There are far more wasteful sources of spending you can cut before those).
One of the easiest sources of spending we can cut for example, is the military budget. We spend over 800 billion per year on it. Could easily be cut in half, especially with how much wasted spending there is in the military.
The negative side of student debt relief is also that people would be willing to borrow more for college, making ot more expensive
On the other hand more people go to school which raises education levels and potential taxable income in the long term. The only thing holding that theory back is big businesses which have been pushing minimum wage jobs and college degree jobs closer together through the years. Back in the day you would be earning 2-3 times as much with a college degree. Therefore twice the taxable income for that person's working years. Now it's more like a 20% difference. And many people with college degrees are staying in "simple" jobs because the tiny wage difference isn't worth 3 times the stress. This is on companies for not having opportunity for that kind of wage growth anymore. And instead paying it up to their top management and cutting middle management.
@@johnmckeon4498 Go to school for what degrees? Undergrad in Psychology which is essentially useless after graduation? Undergrad in Biology, which is essentially useless after graduation? Sure more people may get degrees, but having a degree doesn't mean you're marketable or will make a salary in your first 1-5 years postgrad that justifies the cost of the degree.
Businesses don't force people into "minimum wage" jobs. People's skillsets do.
@@johnmckeon4498 I'd be curious if you have any information on the quality of the degrees now vs. "back in the day" -- "Quality" meaning ease with which a job can be found in that specific field after the person graduates. How much of the perceived wage stagnation for college graduates can be attributed to useless degrees like Native American Studies where your only job option is to then teach Native American Studies? And, yes, that is a real degree in which a person I know through my wife has a Masters (maybe even a PhD).
Just curious, no malice.
@@MD-pz3cn Yes, it's true that you can't do much with those degrees as far as specialized skills. And without a long-term plan (i.e., graduate school or specialized field), those degrees might not be worth their price tag. However, those people still end up outpacing many non-college-educated people because of how the job market works. For example, a person with a psychology degree can still gain access to jobs that a non-college-educated person cannot. Many companies won't hire someone for certain roles without a degree, even if the role requires no specialized skills. Thus, there are people with those degrees in relatively high-paying roles in banking/finance, tech, management, etc., all because they have a bachelor's degree. Over time, these people will outearn most non-college-educated people, statistically speaking. The exception is trades, but tradework is physically demanding, requires significant education and training, and has much shorter time limits than office/knowledge work. So, for most people, going to college is still the right move despite the diminishing returns.
@@johnmckeon4498 sure, potential tax income, but do you know how long those student loans last? The banks and they're interest rates destroy anyone's ability to get ahead because they will be paying the banks money for 10-20 years. So no one really profits but the banks, especially if loans are paid off.
Very few make $60,000 in tips and if you are a delivery driver who gets barely any tips and has to use your own vehicle the no tax on tip is a necessity to offset all of our cost for upkeep on our vehicles. So this is needed!
I hate how people attack the business owners. I work as a technician for a multi millionaire. Precovid we had 32 employees and now post covid it is 23 and he is getting killed on taxes in MN and stressed financially trying to recover from covid which nearly destroyed the company. Due to Kamala and Covid my employer has not been able to give the raises people desire and he has many sleepless nights. I was a good friend of my fathers and I am his best employee and best technician. On time, loyal, detailed, efficient, dedicated, and trust worthy are some traits I bring. I could easily have quit and got a higher paying job but I promised I would help get through covid and he has promised to reward me when things get better which will require a Trump win. If they want wages up they need to make things better for the people who make the payrolls.
"I hate how people attack the business owners." decades of marxism endoutrination in schools and midia that the employer is the evil capitalist that only and to explore the worker to get richer and richer. not that those dont exist but ...
@@natehighlander5227 you said many things. You never once mentioned anything that Kamala specifically did to create this situation you speak of, WHICH POLICY did she create?
That's the whole point of all the things that happened. Everything coming at you from the extreme Left was set up by the Deep State to bankrupt the middle class, the foundation to any healthy and stable society. The end result are impoverished lower class with a huge number of people, and a few upper class landlords to rule them all. You can do something about it. Tell everyone you know to vote Trump.
"Due to Kamala" discredits your entire post. Please give detail how the VP has given your employer sleepless nights.
sounds like he just can’t keep up with capitalism. adios business
PLEASE MAKE MORE VIDEOS explaining stuff that people need to understand!! People are oblivious to economics
“Please shovel more crap propaganda down my throat china! Please! More!” 😆
There are many men that have made those videos on TH-cam already.
Margaret excellent job at outlining each candidate's stand on addressing wealth issues in the USA.
You've got a great channel, keep up the good work.
As a landlord, I like people who can pay the rent and not destroy my property
How do you feel about tenants with pets or kids
@@LittleHoss17 dogs destroy more than cats do
@@LittleHoss17 I'm curious if he just meant people who literally turn their rental into a dumpster with regard for the owner
As a renter, I don’t like landlords because if there weren’t so many landlords, I could afford to buy a house.
@TheNewsIsLying2U fairly certain that more a housing industry mix with bad policy and high tax issue... look out of state and you'll probably find houses in your range...problem is finding work far from home
This comes off as slightly biased to the right. You mention how debt forgiveness raises the national debt but don’t mention how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act blew up the debt. It did not pay for itself as promised proving trickle-down doesn’t work for the 1000th time. And many of the lower to middle class tax cuts and benefits expire but the upper class and corporate cuts are permanent.
Because this is intentionally analyzed under a right-thought mindset
We had 4 years of Biden/Harris and 4 years of Trump. In terms of economics it's quite obvious which administration did better.
This is exactly what I say. This is not rocket science people, Trump is better. Think back to obama's 8 years and how he left us with a lousy economy when he left. Than trump builds things back up, and Biden/Harris gets in and we are right back to the Obama years. Think, people think.. Stop being a bunch of sheep, believing everything the media tells you.
True, biden harris 2024!
@@YohanKuruvilla you’re incompetent
Let's be clear we aren't going back to the old prices however with trump he could potentially bring them down a little bit. Kamala will probably skyrocket them in 2 years and eventually things will be unaffordable that she will push her comm unist policies. Trump is the way to go and he loves the country and did what he said he would do in his first term so I'm handing over my trust to him. Voting trump for the 2nd time. Would've been my 3rd but I didn't vote in 2016 because I wasn't informed enough
@@YohanKuruvilla yasss biden harris for prison 2024!!
This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm very much a fan of tariffs. The classic line is that the cost will come back on the consumer but it's worth it in the long run. If you make it difficult for corporations to develop products over seas and import them back then you'll force them to develop them here causing job growth. It would offset the higher price by boosting the economy because people have higher paying jobs and can afford the products they produce. Before income tax, tariffs were the primary way the government earned money.
Chinese Ev will Cost 10K USD.American made EV will cost 30k USD.Chinese Made IPhone will cost 1k USD.American made IPhone will Cost 4k USD
@@Hasanaljadid That's because they're able to underpay workers in China and make them dirt cheap. Brining production back to the US would be beneficial in the long term especially when it comes to jobs and boosting the economy. We can, and should, take some regulation off the books as well to help speed it up. A lot of the regulations don't even protect the environment or workers. Just large corporations to weed out smaller start ups
@@apache8795American consumers will benefit from Very cheap imported products.If everything Produced in The US then everything will Cost a LOT more and many people wouldn’t be able to afford
@@Hasanaljadid We lose out when it comes to quality and jobs. We became a service economy with few good long term jobs because of this. Goods being produced in the US don't have to be so high if we fix our over regulation problem for starters. It wasn't that long ago when we had production in America and cost weren't through the roof.
China has subsidized its own domestic industries and it has helped massively. Meanwhile, the US govt similarly can subsidize but instead they use the money on stock buybacks and raising CEO pay instead of on R&D. I’m in favor of protectionist policies for our own industries but companies like Ford and GM have done little to nothing to prove that they are able to produce at the level that China does and lower costs domestically
I disagree with the corporate tax increase being bad…with the already lower tax rate, they’re not giving the employees more money…only corporate C suite and execs
Correct, they were doing fine at 35%
Well they certainly wont give employees more money if its higher. I dont think people are expecting every company in the US to start paying their employees more because there are lower taxes. But some will. Some is better than none. If Kamala increases the tax companies definitely wont be paying employees more.
@@ColinS9797 you're saying "start paying" & "some will" like it's the future. The tax cut happened in 2017, so we already know regular employees didn't get paid more.
It’s a breath of fresh air to see. Unbiased objective thinking. I really enjoy the quality of your videos and your grounded authenticity. Also I think you’re a timeless beauty. Like and subscribed. I look forward to hear what you make of it all after the election is over.
Did not get a cent from that student loan relief 😂😂😂
That's by design. It's a sales pitch to get young voters in the door, while the Supreme Court will always put the stopper on it. Bonus points if the judges are Republican appointed, because you can blame the other party for why it didn't work, when in reality the executive branch doesn't really have the power to make such a plan and they already knew that.
The bill was cut by republicans in the house. Had it passed you probably would have
Not only that, but now you're paying for the relief through your taxes.
Me neither lol
@@prodnxbu exactly... government that spends spends spends blaming others for the debt and costs..... and people eat that shit up like yeah evil rich people pay your fair share...
Higher corporate taxes would spur R&D expenditure, not curtail it. This, in turn, would increase the rate of economic growth, not reduce it.
In what world do you live in, where a CEO of a corporation looks at profits and thinks, 'Hmmm, with low corporate income taxes, I can extract most of this profit, increase share price, and receive huge performance bonuses and stock options (also under favorable tax benefits), or I can just push most of the profit into R&D and / or reinvestment back into the company and forego those juicy tendies"? They are incentivized to think short-term and bank those corporate profits, so that they can, in turn, receive their performance bonuses. Any repercussion from their shortsightedness is not their problem. It's the next CEOs problem to fix. They just want to get out with a pillowy nest egg. Or in the case where it all comes crashing down and burning, they'll get out with a golden parachute. That is the incentive structure. In contrast, high corporate taxes would incentivize reinvestment back into the company and R&D, since the profits would otherwise go towards paying more taxes, and not improving the companies prospects. If they had a choice between paying more taxes or reinvesting that same amount back into R&D and, thereby, foregoing those increased taxes and actually benefiting the company and its future, what do you think they will choose? Your assertions are asinine and not only counter to common sense, but counter to reality, the facts, and data.
"If they spend less on taxes, they can spend more on payroll"? Honestly, again, what world do you live in? Have you looked at the data for, oh, I don't know, the last half a century? Have you looked at wage growth, compared to GDP growth? Compared to CEO pay growth? All of the increased profits from increased productivity, goes solely to paying the C-suite. Wage growth has not kept up. Again, your assertions are asinine. Counter to reality. Counter to the facts. Counter to the data. You don't know what you're talking about.
You are spewing a whole lot of nonsense that's been peddled for ages under the auspices of so-called [conservative] economists, generally under the idea of trickle-down economics. Basic common sense would show that it is nonsensical. Barring any such capacity for common sense, the decades of data - showing that trickle-down economics not only does not work, but has harmed the vast majority of US citizens, aside from the top 1% - would do, as well.
There is already broad consensus among economists, (Nobel prize-winning economists being of note), that Trump's economic policies would be absolutely detrimental to the economy, as opposed to Biden's or Harris', which already has been proven to be world-leading. Trump inherited Obama's economy and then once his own policies started to kick in, we started to see a reversal in all of the trends. Critically, this was before the pandemic was even on our radar. All of the relevant economic signals indicated that we were heading into a recession. The pandemic merely provided cover for him and his near perfect record of ruining everything he touches. Conversely, the Biden/Harris administration inherited the pile of excrement that Trump left them (by leading in the worst handling of the pandemic amongst our global peers) and they had to turn that slow-moving ship around and did so significantly better than any of our global peers. And this is not an isolated instance. You see the same pattern with whatever metric you want to look at, comparing across democratic and republican presidents, governors, states, etc. The highest prosperity, quality of life, quality of healthcare, education; lowest crime rate, unemployment rate, etc. for the democratic presidents, states, etc. and vice versa for their republican counterparts. The republican states routinely rank at the bottom of all metrics. They are routinely subsidized by the democratic states. Conversely, the democratic states routinely rank at the top of all metrics. The metrics are irrefutable. Conservative policies (social, fiscal, or otherwise) don't work. Presenting any semblance of parity between the two platforms is tantamount to gouging out your eyes and sticking them in your earholes. We have the data and evidence that states otherwise.
No tax on tips will not help those who most need it. Most people who live off of tips do not make enough such that it would have any meaningful impact on their lives. This only opens up a loophole for hedge fund managers who receive performance fees to simply restructure their pay as tips. As if carried interest wasn't enough of a loophole, now they get to pay no taxes. Again, benefiting those at the top in the guise of something that supposedly helps the most in need. Ultimately, it only serves to further harm those in need. This will gut the funds of social security and medicare of some $1.5 trillion, thereby invoking the conservative clarion call for sun-setting those programs and thereby, achieving their goal of taking away any social safety net for those who most need it in the name of serving those few at the top. And, of course, for any lucky enough, while working from a traditional tip-centric job, to even make enough in tips to meet the threshold where they would see any meaningful tax benefit at all, the 10% tax-on-everything not only absolutely wipes away any tax benefit they might have even been lucky enough to see, they would end up paying even more in taxes. And lose their social security, as well. This will, of course, make no difference to those at the top. The benefits they receive wholly outweigh the meaningless increase in the cost of living. Once you are making above a certain amount, your cost of living simply does not increase linearly and the increased cost of bread, milk, eggs, etc. is absolutely imperceptible to them, whereas, the decreased taxes on the money they make simply further increases that non-linear relationship.
The inevitable calling card of the conservative is always, 'well, how can we possibly pay' for helping those who are most in need and the most vulnerable - which is precisely the very remit and the purpose of what the government exists for - while they are simultaneously the ones consistently racking up the debt, in the course of subsidizing those at the top, the very act of which invariably hurts those at the bottom. Yet, progressive policies are somehow, not only able to help those most in need, but do so while simultaneously reducing the rate of debt accrual. So what conservatives are really saying is, 'how can we possibly pay for the social services that guarantee humanity and dignity for those most in need, when we're diverting those funds to those who provide the money to keep us in power?' It invariably devolves into decrying policies that help the vulnerable as the evil vicissitudes of the socialist, communist, marxist regimes, while simultaneously engaging in wholesale socialism for the wealthy. Absolutely bass ackwards. And arguably, such a repeated pattern of stripping rights and liberties from those at the bottom to further engorge the bellies of the wealthiest would be, by any definition, the embodiment of evil, particularly so if said conduct is repeatedly employed by those with a self-professed monopoly on godliness and Christian-like behaviour.
So instead of serving their constituents who vote for them, they serve their big money donors and lobbyists who power their disinformation campaigns to get people to vote against their interests, and then continue to take away their rights and liberties. And since the data and evidence shows that their policies are wholly unpopular, even within their most radicalized core base (when presented with only the policies, separate from any party identification), rather than changing their platform and their policies, they implement the backstop of stripping away peoples' voting rights and any safeguards against gerrymandering, so that they no longer need to rely on their constituents choosing them, but rather them getting to choose whose votes among their constituents count.
How is it that so many countries are able to have universal healthcare, without plummeting into deep financial abyss - as conservatives would have us believe, according to their fear mongering? How is it that the US spends more money per capita on healthcare compared to similarly wealthy, high-income, peer nations, yet we have lower life expectancy, lower quality of care, lower long-term health outcomes, higher mortality rates, higher premature death rates, and are the only one without universal health insurance coverage. So we pay 50-100% more for healthcare coverage, however, other peer nations somehow get 50-100% better quality of care. We somehow pay upwards of 100s of percent to 1,100% more than other countries for the same exact drug or treatment regimen, from the same exact pharmaceutical company. Somehow, the rest of the world has figured it out, but nope, there couldn't possibly be a way to do it here in the US (the same exact notion can be applied to our singularly unique situation with mass shootings, as well, go figure). Hmmm, that's odd, isn't it? This is an absurdly extreme rendition, if not an absolute perversion of the already perverse assertion of American exceptionalism that conservatives so love to trumpet about. I mean, what could possibly be the reason? The conservatives say it can't be done. They say it would be fiscally irresponsible. Yet, the republican party consistently blocks efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices on behalf of the government. Yet, Biden was able to cap insulin costs for seniors on Medicare, providing a huge benefit to a population in need, while simultaneously lowering the cost to government by $160 billion. Hmmm, again, that's odd, isn't it? It's almost like, democratic policies - you know, the ones that ensure the government functions in its purpose to protect and provide benefits and services to maintain dignity and humanity to all of its citizens, and not just prop up and subsidize the few at the top with the most voracious appetites - is actually cheaper. Hmmm, that's odd isn't it? Who woulda thunk it?
Also, if I had to suffer from predatory loan practices, where I ended up in a situation in which I had already paid back my principle, multiple times over, yet I would never be able to get out of that hole, being relegated to perpetually paying off this so-called 'debt' (asset for the debtor) for the rest of my life, what kind of sick, twisted individual would I have to be, in order to be livid that someone else doesn't have to suffer through the same thing? If anything, I would assume that any rational human being would want for no one to have to endure the same hardship. That debtor was already made whole, multiple times over. The debtee already paid back their debt, multiple times over. That's the whole point. Why allow them to be exploited like that? But again, the notion that 'I suffered unfairly, so why shouldn't they', is absolutely deplorable. Likewise, the notion that 'I was fortunate enough to be born into a family that either didn't require any loans, or was able to attain favorable terms, such that I wouldn't be drowning in debt for the rest of my life, so since it doesn't benefit me, why should those who are being preyed upon have any kind of humane relief from such unjust practices?' is equally detestable.
I should mention that hiding behind economics as a shield to circumvent any potential moral judgement or inquiry upon inhumane conclusions arrived at on the basis of said economics is not only despicable, but it's wholly disingenuous. Economics is, at its core, entirely contextualized by humanity. Or at least, it's supposed to be. It is not *_solely_* about maximizing the utilization of resources in the *_abstract_* . It does not exist in a vacuum. It is about maximizing the utilization of resources by *_humans_* in order to maximize *_their_* well-being. When you start making arguments that rip the core of humanity out of economics, you've lost the plot. You are then simply engaging in brandishing economics as a weapon to benefit the few, at the cost of the many.
Granted, my remarks are within the limited context of how you are framing and / or presenting certain things. Therefore, it may not indeed be a full and accurate reflection of who you are or what you believe in, however, it is what you have put out there. And in doing so, you are broadcasting and perpetuating certain harmful myths, even if unwittingly, and, therefore, can and should be called out on it. Again, you can try to hide behind a qualifier, stating that you are not discussing politics and only remaining in the realm of economics, however, economics does not exist in a vacuum. Economics exists to inform policy, such that the government, by way of the policies it implements, can preside over a nation and society that maximizes the utilization of its resources in order to maximize the well-being of that society and its constituents. The only reason I am even qualifying this is because, taken as a whole, you still seem rather 'young'. It is certainly not an excuse and doesn't give anyone a pass, simply because they are 'young'. However, assuming an individual is 'young', in terms of their life lived or their life experience, simply in proportion to the totality of their potential life path, they are still relatively in the early stages of their journey of self-discovery, self-growth, learning how to learn, yada, yada, and, therefore, are privileged with some limited benefit of the doubt that would, otherwise, not be conferred. With that qualification, my remarks still stand.
Lol😂. Name one supremely successful country with a 35% corporate taxes rate? Moreover, the wealth disparities between the rich and the poor are vastly linked to underinvestment, not low incomes. Incomes don't generate wealth..
Investment does my CEO pay is linked to stock options. Most of the middle class and poor are not heavily invested enough.
True. Some people don't have the income to invest...which is why SS should've been privatized long ago. I would do a 6.2% to Fix income pension and 6.2% to a variable investment account for growth and if you die before 62 your heir can have generational wealth.
Trickle down economics does work if you play the game. The stock market is the greatest distribution of wealth there is.
I personally wouldn't invest in companies that cuts R&D fundings to stick more cash into their pockets. A company that doesn't think of the future might as well be dead and investors know about this far too well.
@@nathanielwilliams6945 “What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
― Billy Madison (movie)
Some commenters criticize “trickle down economics,” but that term and concept is used as a political strawman to misrepresent supply-side economics. No supply-sider believes the lives of the poor are improved by “benefits” being transferred to the rich and then to the poor through a series of "trickle down" spending.
The framing of trickle down economics is fundamentally a demand-side thought-process and not of those who advocate for tax cuts and deregulation. The real purpose of supply-side economics is to incentivize productivity, NOT direct spending on new or existing wages, NOT to redistribute wealth in order to reduce inequality of OUTCOME, and NOT to give people money to buy things at existing levels of production. When you misrepresent the goals and metrics of success and then argue against that caricature, it doesn’t mean the actual goals were not met.
Wealth is generated when we develop new ideas, skills, and products as either workers or owners of capital and there must be incentives for that. Policies that apply supply-side principles effectively achieve this goal over the long term.
Concerns over inequality stem from political class warfare stoked by SJWs more concerned about the subjective notion of “fairness” than the absolute growth and improvement of the wealth pie and living standards across the board. Despite people like Elon Musk getting richer faster than the rest of us, it’s not a zero-sum game nor do the rich get richer at the expense of the poor getting poorer under a free enterprise system.
In a developed economy, top investment strategies for asset owners include:
1) Leveraging Political Influence: Securing favorable regulations and creating artificial monopolies through political connections. Examples include the establishment of chaebols in South Korea or the influence of corporate lobbyists in the U.S. The best investments aren't R/D, it's for the big players to buy off politicians so that they can self-regulate their own industries & eliminate any potential future competition (aka the creation of artificial monopolies).
2) Exploiting Existing Monopolies: Once an artificial monopoly is established, firms can focus on maximizing profits by cutting costs and reducing innovation. For instance, some pharmaceutical companies acquire patents from universities (often funded by taxpayers) at a low cost and then sell the resulting products at high prices. This practice is facilitated by lobbying efforts that prevent government price negotiations for Medicare, effectively creating a monopoly.
3) Investing in Low-Risk Income-Producing Assets: With less emphasis on innovation and research and development, investors may turn to assets that provide stable returns, such as stock buybacks, farmland, and real estate. These investments often generate consistent income without the risks associated with new product development or market competition.
It actually is a zero-sum game when corporations & billionaires are buying political influence, using it to create artificial monopolies, and using those unfair advantages to price gouge & gobble up the asset's of the middle class like a monopoly game.
We don't have a "free enterprise system". We have a monopoly game where a few players use their enormous piles of cash to rewrite the rules to take ownership of the entire gameboard. Over recent decades, there has been a notable decrease in the middle class and a decline in living standards for most people in developed countries.
@@jeremyjackson7429 Valid concerns. It is true that in some aspects there is cronyism where some big businesses coalesce with the government to pick winners and losers, but the US economy as a whole is still largely positive-sum. Next, let's make clear that there's a difference between being pro-free enterprise and being pro-business. I'm pro-free enterprise and not pro-business primarily because at the political level, I believe the problem we have in the world is to avoid the concentration of power. Unless we have a dispersant of power, we cannot maintain a free society.
If we have a system under which the government is in a position to give large favors, then it's human nature for people to try to get those favors, whether those people are large or small enterprises or representatives of other special groups. Then in my opinion, the best way to prevent that and make sure businesses operate in public interest is to force them to engage in competition with one another. So yes, there is a great danger of having large, small and in between corporations exerting influence onto government. What's the answer? Bigger government? Or limiting the government by reducing the incentives for corporations to try to affect the government? I'd say the latter.
If you got a choice between big business or big government, there's one important difference. No big business can get a dollar from you unless you voluntarily pay it. General Motors cannot send a policeman to take money out of your pocket. It may indirectly get money from you by operating on government to impose tariffs on foreign cars for example. But in the market, it can only get money from you insofar it can produce a product that you think is worth buying. That's hardly the case with government; they can take money from you whether you believe you're getting your money's worth or not. And this is an enormous difference, one that's between freedom and coercion, and is a difference we can only maintain if we can keep down the size and scope of the government.
So to prevent the formation of and combat existing artificial monopolies, we should remove the government intervention that created them in the first place. This would prevent companies from using regulatory capture to block competition. Simplify regulations to reduce complexity that businesses exploit through lobbying.
For patents, they should be used to incentivize innovation, not stifle competition. So, perhaps limit the duration of patents which would allow competitors to challenge patents and bring new products to the market.
Increase transparency and educate the public to resist corporate cronyism and big government ideals. Consider privatizing education through a voucher system, which increases choice for parents, competition among schools, and limits government biases that exist in public schooling.
As far as stock buybacks, farmland, and real estate investments go, these all stimulate the economy by creating jobs, stabilizing markets, and providing capital returns that can be reinvested in other areas of the economy to some degree. Sure, these investments may mean less emphasis on innovation and R&D for a subset of firms, but that doesn’t mean the economy as a whole experiences a reduction in innovation and research. Many factors drive up innovation like venture capital, startups, and tech firms. Many which are highly focused on developing new tech and driving progress.
Companies turning to buybacks or real estate still allocate capital to R&D where necessary. Other sectors, like tech and healthcare, continue to prioritize innovation. So, the broader economy remains dynamic even if some individual firms allocate some of their capital to low-risk assets. Not to mention, supply-side economics also incentivizes investments from new entrepreneurs, not just existing ones. Lowering barriers to entry and allowing for greater profit motives via less taxation for example would increase entrepreneurship from both new and existing entrepreneurs. So the idea that we have to put all our hopes and dreams on a subset of rich companies "trickling down" their profits is not an argument any serious supply-sider has ever made. It is a leftist strawman.
@@i0li0il0i Companies absolutely can coerce money out of you.
For example. lets say you have cancer. You will die without treatment. Hospitals are privatized, pharmaceuticals are privatized, and most insurance providers are privatized.
What cost can the health industry charge you that you are willing to pay? For most people, the answer is probably "just about anything", because they will DIE without it. And as a result, the health industry can charge stuff like $500+ for medicine that cost $1-2 to make. or charge $40K for an operation that may only cost them like a thousand dollars.
This is because healthcare is an inelastic good. The demand for it doesnt change very much with price. So companies can charge basically whatever they want, and you have no option but to pay for it if you value your life.
There are several other industries that are highly inelastic too, such as housing/rent, essential foods, basic utilities, etc. These markets are highly susceptible to price gouging for this very reason.
Of course not every industry sells goods or services which are inelastic, but its absolutely not true to act like giant corporations have ultimately no power over people.
Also, for your discussion on monopolies. Monopolies ALWAYS form in capitalism if left to its own devices. Always. it is a mathematical truth. Small advantages (even if by chance) cumulate in capitalism, and grow to significant advantages, until eventually one entity has monopolistic control over a market. This will ALWAYS happen in unregulated capitalism. Without question. Having larger market share lets corporations do extremely anti-competitive practices to push out competitors. Just look at the strategies employed by Rockefeller before a lot of modern regulations were made to help prevent the formation of monopolies.
Regulation isnt what causes monopolies. Monopolies are the default in capitalism. Only good regulations are capable of preventing them. Granted, not every regulation is good at doing so, but the idea of trying to remove most regulations that is common on the right is also just blatantly wrong. Regulations are required for ensuring the market remains as fair and competitive as possible, because that is NOT the natural state of capitalism. The natural state is for advantages to accumulate over iterations, until one entity has majority control over the entire market, and uses that control to push out competitors. The only way to avoid that is with regulations which make many of those practices illegal.
@@i0li0il0i I want to make sure I understand what you're saying...confused as to how we can incentivise corporations against government lobbying. As I understand, less government regulations leads to more competition in the long term, which is what these corporations are trying to prevent no? It seems like corporations have every reason for more government regulations, cause as you say, they provide more opportunity for loop holes. Not to mention politicians can still be bribed outside of lobbying. I'm just not sure how corporations would want less government involvement, when they've used the government as a tool to help them gain their monopoly in the first place. Unless I'm missing something..
Thanks for your insightful explanation of both economic plans. I'd like to point out two things. The border situation is out of control now and tax money is going towards giving housing, food and health care to this massive number of people, which is also causing series of violent crimes committed by gangs that are crossing the border. I think the downsides of an uncontrolled border way outweigh the "benefit" of more work force.
About the tariffs, I do think it is important to stimulate the production of goods inside the country. Our whole economy should not rely on china's low cost products. It might be uncomfortable at first, but I think it will be good in the long run. By looking at the constant increase of the US national debt, looks like Kamala's policies will continue to add up to the debt, which is worst for everybody. Good intentions are not enough. Another important thing that needs to be considered is: how is the tax money being used? Because some politicians only speak of increasing more and more taxes (no matter if on one group or the other) to sustain their idealist or ideologic policies, but is this money being used efficiently? Or just going down the drain on incompetent management, poor political decisions and to people or groups taking advantage of the system?
Girl thank you! I was raised conservative - got sent to republican camp and everything, but I've always been an independent. If I take a test online, I always get that im on the left, but as we've been saying, the left has changed. People who are brainwashed won't recognize or admit that, but the left today is radically different than it once was. I'm voting for Trump because I was an RFK Jr. supporter. I know nothing about economics and am voting based on my values in favor of freedom and against censorship/cancel culture. But I really needed to know this stuff too!
I appreciate your independent stance - I really wish partisanship were not part of politics. I agree that the left has developed an excessive focus on semantics and people there need to become more comfortable with different viewpoints, but I'd be curious how you feel about right-wing censorship, particularly with Trump. If I remember correctly, he has talked about using the DOJ to go after election officials and political opponents at large (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has an article looking at claims he has made on that front), and book bans have recently skyrocketed, many of them spearheaded by conservative organizations in states like FL. I wish everyone was just able to talk to one another about important matters respectfully :(
The book bans are stupid I agree, though I can’t speak on Trump and the DOJ, the left is much less friendly to the 1st amendment than the right. Just look at what happened in COVID, they took every chance they could to get private companies to censor criticism of COVID information and policies, and blanket labeled it all as “misinformation”. They only fact check one side, etc.
None of Kamala's give always does anything to give me an advantage or making my life better. In fact, it all makes my life worse
@@natehighlander5227 I get to keep my health insurance under Harris under Trump I’ll lose it vote 💙🇺🇸
@@George-hl2xmno thanks.
@@George-hl2xm your not going to lose your health insurance under Trump. Did you not have insurance when he was president? Under Harris 1 thing is for sure, you will pay more for your insurance.
@@BR549_o7 where have been Trump tried to kill Obama care the first time he was in office and he’s when he gets back in he will finish it off leaving millions of people without health insurance I can’t vote someone like that
@@George-hl2xm so you'll have health insurance but everything will sky rocket in cost... besides he can't just kill the AHA/Obamacare... if anyone remembers in 2016 he did run on providing healthcare but said the way Obamacare is structured it just caused massive rises in costs for most people and then the whole punishing people with no healthcare was ridiculous... Wanting to dismantle a broken machine and replace it with something better is not the same as just flat out killing it. It's in the same ballpark as saying he banned abortion when clearly he didn't, he got rid of a nonsensical ruling that nobody ever ratified and let the states which each have their own culture if we are being honest decide how they wanted to handle the issue and even said he'd never outright ban it... but for whatever reason that's considered him banning it...
Lowering taxes helps normal people more than billionaires. Companies being able to hire more people is the difference between having a job vs having no job for a lot of people. Taxing billionaires doesn't really affect billionaires but it greatly affects normal people.
You can also just do targeted tax breaks. Instead of lowering taxes for the ultra wealthy, just keep their taxes the same, and give anyone earning 200K or less a year big tax breaks. We have a marginal tax system, so we can target specific tax brackets to lower, while keeping others the same.
Yeah I would argue more money for payroll means unemployment numbers go down and economy is more healthy to combat inflation.
I am shocked you did not point out that if tips are NOT taxed then that person's future social security payout will absolutely plummet...which is not good when a large chunk of the elderly population already cannot afford to retire comfortably.
add to that ALL wages would magically become "tips".
Or, people invest for their personal retirement instead of hoping the government will be your permanent parent?
@@Notorious_Network exactly. You don't want to trust government.
@Notorious_Network Right. I was told once that someone who is big enough to give you something is also big enough to take it away.
The government as it is is very big.
You believe in social security? It will be gone by the time we retire.
I really appreciate and respect the fact that you’re not biased. Thank you so much for the objective analysis, this helps greatly!
Hi. I'm so glad I found your videos. Very well done. Just solid facts and analysis. No hysterics for either candidate or party, just a well-reasoned and factual explanation of how these policies would play out and what the results would be for us. This is sorely needed in today's environment and much appreciated. I've shared your videos and hope to see more!
taxes rates before 1981 - top marginal tax rate was lowered over his 8 years in office from 73% to 28%. The effective federal corporate income tax rate has decreased: 1950: 50% 1960: 37% 1970: 32% 1980: 20% 1990: 25% 2000: 20% 2010: 15% 2020: 13% and corporate profits and CEO pay continue to rise for the last 50 years. Far out outpacing wage increases for the general public.
Tax cuts are never paid for.
The US Federal Tax Revenue as % of the GDP decreased from 18.5 to 17.4 from 1980 to 1990.
Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added $1.9 trillion to the Federal deficit.
General rage increase will cause inflation and job loss, but CEO million dollars bonuses and corporate subsidies are okay. FREE MONEY!!!
Universal Health care is socialism and we can afford it, but we can spend close to a BILLION dollars a year on defense. (government ownership of the means of production)
Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row - Pentagon again fails annual audit of $3.8 trillion in military assets.
Well put, thanks!!!
You took the words out of my mouth
Tax cuts don’t add to deficit. That doesn’t even make sense. Spending more than we take in adds to the deficit, not taking away less of others money. Trump did help do that and that’s a fair critique. When tax cuts occur what needs to be calculated is what the government ends up taking in in overall revenue, not just the amount that will be saved on the tax payer’s part.
We're now 36T in debt and 1T just the interest alone. We are broke. It's like having a wife with an out of control spending habits. Even 💯 percent tax can't cover the spending spree. Btw 100 percent tax is slavery
Spending causes deficit. Stop spending more than you're getting in. Simple as.
It usually boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils. Personally, I prefer less tax and more control over how I can spend my money, and will take the price hike from tariffs over higher taxes for a government who has no idea how to balance a checkbook, let alone a multi-trillion dollar budget.
Well said, was just about to write about choosing the lesser of two evils
She said 28% corporate tax credit not 35%
The debt absolutely exploded following Trump's tax cuts so if your concern is balancing the budget he's proven completely incapable of that. I think we'll probably have a better time hoping Harris hires people who can talk her out of the more ridiculous parts of her tax plan than someone fundamentally incorrect
Its honestly just a mess to fix every plan has pros and cons
The problem you're ignoring is much too long term, over time as the wealth gap grows, the elite will become more and more powerful and unreachable and more middle class Americans will be closer to poverty than anywhere near the top. We will end up with a new bougeoirsie, and a more disgruntled lower class
Politicians and those running for a lot of government offices have no conception of economics. Some of them I think want a room in this country on purpose.
The "landlords will discriminate against poor people" thing has been happening for years already and it's BECAUSE there is no entity with the power or will to do anything about their endless greed. Also there simply is conflicting research on the efficacy of rent controls on housing supply which leads into the entire issue you'd have economically with the policy. Basically being against rent controls is just a big part of the economist mythos that's been assumed for so long people forget to check up on whether they're even right or not anymore. It's said to be bad by your textbook so it must be true.
And the No Tax on Tips idea is asinine, for a few reasons. Why should tip earners be exempt from taxes unlike say janitors or teachers, for example? Also, it's well-known that a lot of tip-earners affected by this idea already don't pay the affected tax.
tarrifs work in the long term because it moves the manufacturing jobs here because we have the lowest cost of energy and materials to build things
one thing about tariffs is that it will discourage companies from sending jobs overseas to cheap and practically slave labor. Jobs will come back to America in order to protect the companies bottom line. Unless they are really committed to their business model in which case I won't be buying their products.
Most people worry about the increase in goods and services produced overseas but don't see what tarrifs do in the long term....not to mention less taxes on the American people gives them more agency to spend on the market and allows the people to be more choosey what they spend on. Not to mention they'll have more to invest.
Are you actually a CPA?
One important item that you failed to mention fully. As businesses get taxed less and have more money they do several things with it. Yes, share holders and owners may pocket more if the profit. But most businesses will also reinvest that extra profit back into the businesses. This is seen thru better or additional equipment, additional jobs ect. The more a business gets taxed and has to shoulder expenses the more they make do with the equipment they have and less jobs they will fill. It's called a hiring freeze. This can lead to the job being harder to do and also less jobs for people in the surrounding community . Neither of these scenarios is a positive.
Yes but as we've seen for the past decade, companies have a tendency to over hire and as a result, do massive layoffs when shit hits the fan which always is the detriment of the workers who are let go
Thank you for providing an impartial analysis of both candidates and listing both the pros and cons.
Keep up the good work!
In the 1970s there was so much affordable rentals in Los Angeles. Anyone who could afford it would buy a duplex. Now, the stigma against landlords is great and for some reason many people are not choosing to become landlords anymore. I don't understand it and Kamala doesn't either.
You don't have to accept the price hikes due to tariffs. You have the option to not buy that product.
Wouldn’t the prices go higher only on imported goods? Not really domestic goods? That might encourage people to buy and make American goods
And also with the deportation the jobs would then go to American people meaning more income to hopefully be able to have extra money at the end of the month
The prices would increase on imported goods, but America is an 80% service based economy and the other 20% manufacturing. So in turn, we have to import goods for the majority of our resources. I'm all for American owned manufacturing, but you have to look at the current situation at hand. If you're trying to decrease prices/inflation from what it is now tariffs just won't do anything but jack up prices in this scenario but in the process create more American owned industry.
If mass deportation was enacted, the economy would lose a good bit of money getting put into it, the salary of jobs that immigrants work would have to go up as the demand for people to work those jobs are very high. With more people willing to work for ends meat immigrating into America, the better it is for businesses who want to pay jack shit.
Another thing that is generally shown with companies being forced to pay more money to the employee is that companies will try and get someone else to pay for it, by charging customers more money or whatever the case may be.
And Trump only wants tariffs on specific items like cheeses and wines and steel. This video is a really basic and not very relevant assessment of their policies.
@@TheNewsIsLying2U That's good I love Napa wine and American made steels are better in quality
Trump 2024
I didn’t have insurance for so many years. I just found a pretty terrible job and have my insurance paid for at 100%. I only pay around $50 a month for dental. Life’s so difficult.
Why does the media allow corporations to continue to BS people about passing on the cost why do they need to pass on cost to the customer for any reason when companies are already charging a very high price or percentage overhead example Apple is charging 3 times what it cost to make a iPhone other companies are doing the same and worse are maybe they are charging so much because they can and blame it on so called inflation 🤔🙄
Apple charges 3x more than it cost to make the product for the brand. The cost isn't the only thing that sets the price of a product it's mainly the demand. Demand can be created through building up a name and style for yourself. Apple for example has created a brand of luxury behind their products. People are paying for the idea of luxury when buying an apple product. They could buy other brands of phones but people who buy Apple products are loyal to a brand.
Most other corporations pass the cost to the consumer because they need to make a profit. If Brand X cost $2.00 to make I sell it for $2.50 and get a 0.50 profit. However if the cost of production goes up anywhere on the supply line, like hiring Americans instead of illegal immigrants (because legally you have to pay Americans a certain amount), or I'm hit with a tariff, I have to keep that profit margin the same. The only way to do that is raise the price of the product.
Inflation is a product of government control of the currency. When the government puts more dollars into circulation the spending power of that dollar goes down. If Brand X is still $2.50 but the strength of the dollar goes down 10% because of inflation I need to make up that cost of inflation to keep the profit margin the same.
It's basic human survival instinct. Let's say you make 30k after paying income tax, then suddenly gov increases tax and your net income after tax becomes 27k, wouldn't you want to pass it on to your customers so that you can gain that 3k back somehow? Yes it trickles down from every facet of your life: your landlord, grocery stores, restaurants, uber, flight ticket. Everywhere. More taxation makes you poorer at the end
if people are still buying iphones, something that no one needs, then they're not charging too high.
JD Vance explained the tariffs as not being associated with all imports. There are raw materials, products and components only available in other countries. Some produce, for instance, cannot be grown domestically as the climate doesn't allow for it. Companies that are foreign can import their product into the US without affiliated tarifs. If a domestic company that can otherwise manufacture products in the US decides to manufacture abroad then tarifs on those products would be implanted on import into the US.
One of the problems is housing. Imagine you save around $2000 a month because you don’t have to pay for rents or mortgages.
There is Proposition 33 in California for Rent Control. The 2 historically most expensive cities for renters is New York and San Francisco, both are the earliest to implement price controls on rent. If you are a property owner, landlord or investor who's income - full or part - is dependent on rent from tenants than you also have to create a buffer for inflation. In order to do that more is invested into higher cost luxury housing and less into lower cost housing. Both of which require many of the same materials and skill sets to construct.
Beautifully explains the policies, job well done! Thank you!
Why not just fix the tax loopholes wealthy people use on their personal income instead of taxing corporations so that the best way for a company to decrease its taxes is to not overpay its executives?
Great video. Thanks!
One correction at 2:00. This is the opposite of true but it's a common mistake. Hear me out.
Companies are taxed on net profit after expenses. When corporate tax rates are low, corporations want to realize those profits (since you can move them out to shareholders on the cheap). When corporate tax rates move higher, you want to reinvest more of those gross receipts to minimize profits now (and boost them in the future). A quick scenario.
ACME Corp sells $10M in anvils each year. They pay $5M in wages, $3M in rent and put $1M into R&D. That leaves $1M in profit. Their country charges a 35% tax rate so they pay $350k in corporate taxes and pay the remaining $650k to their cheerful shareholders.
Trump comes along and cuts the tax rate to 21%. What does ACME do?
ACME are smart. They know this low corporate tax rate is unlikely to last. The next year, they sell $10M in anvils, pay $8M in wages and rent. But they eliminate their R&D budget completely. Why? Because now they can recognize that whole $2M as profit and only pay $420k in taxes. They can give $1.58M to back to shareholders. Under the old scheme, they would have had to pay $700k and give back only $1.3M. So, they cut R&D while they can recognize those profits under low tax rates.
But Levi, $1.3M in profit is more than the $650k they were giving to shareholders before. Why didn't they eliminate R&D under the old rate? Presumably, they think R&D at an after tax price of $650k is a good investment and will lead to more profit later. But under the new tax rate, that same R&D comes at an after tax rate of $790k ($1M - $210k). Perhaps they think that price is too high for their projected payout.
Kamala comes along a restores the tax rate to 35%.
Now ACME's incentive to recognize all of their profits now is reduced. R&D is back, baby!
I'd like to see what other companies have done about this. ACME is probably not the only one who took advantage of low tax rate by Trump. That being said, I'm sure company leaders aren't stupid and they will try to find ways that are most profitable and beneficial to everyone in different scenarios. If the company eliminates R&D funds due to low tax rates, stock shareholders will know about this and they will be less willing to buy more shares because of low growth the company will have for the next decade or two. Long story short: there are short and long-term effect of lowering corporate taxes and you have only given a very specific example of short term effect.
@@park417Yeah, which companies will give up funding on R&D for such short term profit? Certainly not a growth stock. R&D is where the meat is. And growth is what shareholders want, not dividends/income unless one is at retirement age.
Although this one example may have taken this route, I think it'd be a mistake to say that this is the normal approach. If I owned a large corporation, my shareholders would have certain expectations of how much they will gain each year in dividends/income. If the tax rate is lower, then I know that I can get away with less profit and still meet shareholder expectations, allowing me to grow the company while keeping the shareholders satisfied. If the tax rate is higher, then I know I have to see greater profit to meet shareholder expectations, thus taking from R&D.
Basically, most companies are long term focused, not short term focused. So they will keep their habit of allocating more to R&D when taxes are low, and less when taxes are high.
$60k in tips? Seems a bit high. Personally, I don't think servers and those who get tips pay much in taxes because they don't report all of them. Maybe some do, but I doubt it.
If they get tips in cash - think bellman or valet - then sure, but most of the restaurant server tips are on credit cards and POS system automatically pushes that to payroll system which then gets reported to IRS.
Nowadays everyone’s using that damn software that limits your tipping to 18%, 20%, 23%. You bet the IRS is seeing that information reported.
Probably misspoke and meant to say 60k income
yeah, if you're a waiter you do get paid around 40 to 70k year including your base salary and tips depending on where you work. Your base would probably be around 20 to 30k and the rest would all be tips which would be taxed free. So not all of 40 to 70k but 40 to 50k would be taxed free. The reason why its so high, is because its the only job that actually matched with inflation. Your tips are the parentage of pricing. So if the price increase so does your salary.
Only on card tips, you would offset or not disclose the cash tips which is why servers usually like cash tips over card tips. Back in 2000s I used to make about 60k a year BEFORE TAXES as a waiter/cashier getting paid minimum wage ($7.25) + tips. But I worked 6 days/week, nights.
But if you combine Trump's first policy of reducing tax all around, people's take home pay will increase, allowing them to actually afford more even if tariffs increase the prices of goods. That result is also excluding the additional jobs he will be creating by revitalizing the manufacturing and fracking industries, AND deporting illegal immigrants which will free up more jobs for the population.
The tariff increase will outpace the increase in available funds so you won't really make more. His tax plan didn't do anything for anyone making under 40k, gave you about 4k around the 80k mark, and from there it increased up to 20k for those around 200k mark. Also the jobs that would be made available from lack of immigrants will do almost nothing but lead to issues because no one will want to work those jobs anyways. Will basically be minimum wage jobs that are high stress or physically taxing. Oil and I think manufacturing are doing better under Biden than Trump.
Blame the corporations for hiring immigrants instead of Americans because they know they can get away with under paying immigrants. Trump's also a wannabe dictator.
You're delusional if you genuinely think that illegal immigrants are taking desirable jobs away from American citizens. Get a grip.
"deporting illegal immigrants which will free up more jobs for the population" :
Jobs that Americans do not want to do themselves !
When you get rid of immigrants doing those jobs you're talking about, the cost to work those jobs goes up, then businesses will start charging more to make up for the fact they lost out on money because they have to pay the worker more. Higher costs, higher inflation.
Also, peoples take home pay doesn't increase at the pace in which corporations gain. So when Inflation increases, corporations and privately owned industries do better economically speaking than say a business who gives employees salary increases based off of the rate of inflation, while on other hand most privately owned businesses and corporations don't have to pay employees more, therefore creating a wealth distribution problem.
8:10 - Respectfully, why did you focus on the higher cost of products due to the loss of cheap labor and leave out the increased wages for those who would replace the cheap labor?
Thank you Margaret!
This needs to be seen by all Americans
The working people pay tax like crazy. We need a strong leader that make smart decisions for our country’s. Kamala is an air head
This is the first time I'm not gonna vote for anyone. Tired of U.S. politicians.
Imagine your boss retired and there are two new candidates for your boss's old position: One guy who's a complete asshole, and another guy who's just a little less of an asshole than the other. If you were asked for your input and had the ability to impact the decision-making process, what would you do? I think most sane people would voice their opinion that the lesser asshole should become the boss - not because they like them, but because they're a better candidate than the other option.
Same goes for politics. Go vote.
@@christmaskitty5891 which most ppl regret voting for Biden including me with this scenario you are describing.
@@christmaskitty5891 I agree, but i’m going to edit your example a bit. Imagine you have two options for a pilot. One who isn’t politically correct in the slightest and will curse you out, but will get you to and from a your destination safely with a smooth landing, or one who will say all the right things to make you feel nice and good, but never learned how to fly a plane? I’d rather the one who might offend me, but is better qualified for the job. Don’t be passive. If you have an opinion, express it and vote. Don’t allow yourself to be unheard by not participating. The results will affect you.
@@christmaskitty5891 What if the lesser Asshole wants to make horrible changes that could eliminate your job, would you still vote for her? My life was better 4 years ago with the Asshole boss.
A few things to add~ Trump wants to lower gas prices, lower interest rates, become energy independent, close the border, which helps everyone, especially the lower and middle class.
he's also big pro Nuclear power unlike all the fake save the planet green politicians that are just lining the pockets of those companies making windfarms and solar panels which are just back ups more than anything...He could say the climate is changing but the reasons are up for debate amongst scientists and they'd say he's a climate change denier and wants to murder the planet lmao
? How would he do those things? The Fed controls interest rates, not the president. Energy independence and lower gas prices can’t happen at the same time without investment into renewable energy (because fossil fuels are finite, so supply will be especially limited in long term if we only use US sources). I'm not sure how you'd define closing the border, but immigration is generally good for the economy, and costs will definitely go up if producers are not able to meet demand bc of worker shortages. Please let me know if I’m wrong, I just don’t know how those results would be possible in the real world.
I have a mixed views on Obamacare. I’ve seen how it’s benefiting people but also it hasn’t. The cost of insurance skyrocketed when this act went into place.
Speaking of Social Security, would be good to see a video about social security. Interesting to compare it against 401ks with the same paycheck deductions, and address Social Security insolvency.
I appreciate this video. I feel like your analysis was geared more towards the facts of these policies as opposed to the feelings towards (or against) the policies or the candidates themselves. This is the type of content I would want to see in order to help me understand what is at stake...factually as opposed to allowing merely the candidate drive my decision making. CHEERS!
You claimed this was supposed to be unbiased but then immediately started ripping out opinions without evidence or explanations, you literally just used “I’m a CPA” as your entire backing.
Speaking as someone from a working-poor background, Kamala will definitely not help the poor or underprivileged. Obamacare raised our healthcare costs substantially, and forced a lot of our friends to pay fines for not being able to afford healthcare
Our finances are at stake regardless so long as the government keeps spending money it doesn’t have on wars.
Middle class getting sacked as usual
Remember, student debt is *never* forgiven- the debt is just moved on to the working who are paying for this in the taxes withheld from their paychecks... and those people are usually the ones who didn't get to go to college because they couldn't afford it or didn't want to put their parents under that pressure. And the politicians get the credit, which was the intention in the first place. Similarly, Kamala (and Biden) do this and preach about helping lower income people because they are running for election- Kamala has been in government for YEARS, including 4 years IN THE WHITE HOUSE yet even her own people can't clearly state anything good she has ever done for her constituents ...only the stuff she promised. She was like an absentee student when it came to her #1 campaign focus (the border) never having gone there, and it's almost intentionally been opened up to a destructive degree. I really appreciate your focus on interpreting the candidate's promises and how they will likely play out rather than focusing on race and gender and and all the emotional stuff that won't help our country in the long run. Kamala pandering to blacks by ignoring she's almost entirely either Jamaican or Indian, having racist obscene (the lyrics) rap music playing while people twerk and gyrate on the stage, she's trying to make it a popularity contest and I really appreciate when this generation can see through all that. There are some points in this video that we could debate a little, but your analytical focus is awesome and as a former teacher you get an A+ for effort. Great video. 💙
Absolutely agree. 😊
wow you are far out there
you're so up there in your echo chamber lol. Poor soul
@@bacharbaridi lol, sorry, we should all be voting for the lady who gets the thot-squad to twerk at her rally?
I like this video. This gives you a quick brief about their policies about the economy. 👍🏽
I still have student debt, through the government not a private lender. How has mine not gotten canceled?
Good video by the way!
You missed the point! Politicians say things to get more votes, nothing else. For every vote lost from those who understand, they gain 10 votes from those who dont.
Informative. Thank you. And Trump by the way!
Trump 2024! Say no to communism.
If you think Kamala is a commie, I'd like to invite you to literally any European country, most would see her right wing
@@n00bminecraft Well, that’s also not a good thing, whatsoever. President Trump Vance, 2024 ❤️🇺🇸
@@n00bminecraft Well, that’s also not a good thing, whatsoever. President Trump Vance, 2024 ❤️🇺🇸
@@n00bminecraft price control is right wing?
Interesting take! Couple comments to consider, from my view: A server making $60,000 in income doesn't equate to $100,000 gross. A portion of that $60,000 is already taxed (most servers have an low hourly rate), but even if we assume they pay $40,000 in taxes on that $100,000, that would mean their effective rate is 40%. Of course, we have a progressive tax system and so even in the worst scenario top marginal for that income would be 22%, and thus the effective rate would about 15%.
In a nutshell, Kamala's policies will short term increase economy and Trump's would long term increase economy. I want Trump's policies to overhaul the fda/health and medical industry. People also have to do their part in not overspending, stop buying crap you don't need, buy necessities not overly expensive, stay away from junk food and eat less carbs.
The problem with rent is that it isn't completely being driven by market influences as they are described in college.
Landlords work together to set prices and they are not based on costs. People have no choice but to pay high rents and cut other budgets or they have to rent from scum lords that never fix the apart ments, never treat for bugs and let the housing turn to unlivable locations.
This is partly due to clientel care for homes, but is mostly caused by simple neglect to maintain the properties they own as required by law and is usually in the lease contracts.
While Harris' proposal is mentioned as bad because of interference with the market, landlord organizations and shared data bases that price fix rents outside of true market influences is also interfering with the market and needs to be illegal.
So Margaret: if you had to choose which one would you say is the best or worst option for the middle class overall?
I am an Indian businessman.i like trump.because of him I got tax relief in past.kamala hates successful guy like me .why should I support her if she can't give me financial benefit?
subscribed!
I'm not sure if I have ever heard as bad argumentation on the policies. Especially if you observe the existing reality around you.
Every last one of your argument is proven false if you look at countries in Europe.
Corporations have done record profits and they used those on stock buybacks, not on hiring people or raising wages.
You've heard too much trickledown economics and misses the fact it has been debunked two decades ago.
Europe's economies are literally barely alive
ohhh lord, I can fix her, shes so beautiful
On the corporate tax increase, wouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Wouldn't they have an incentive to invest in R&D which would reduce profit and the amount which is taxed?
finally someone can fact check these talks! you made it so easy to understand too tysm!
Save America 🇺🇸 TRUMP 2024
For the no tax on tips, how likely is it that you would actually make 60 k a year.... especially when there are restaurants that require you to share your tips with other servers, hosts, batender, and the cooks?
Corporates make so much money. Why lowered their taxes?
Yeah "I'm not going to lean one way or another"... Proceeds to lean right... The 35% corporate tax was just fine before trump, and trumps lower rate sure hasn't done shit to keep cost of living low, meanwhile corporate profits soared
As a non-American myself, I see you have made an excellent analysis on the economic policies proposed by the candidates for the upcoming American election. I am wondering what is your take on inflation? As nowadays, price inflation has been one of the key issues that affects people's livelihood, and I would like to know if you have any opinion on how to solve such issue?
Why are you assuming if companies have less tax and more income they will hire more people LMAO. Like I support capitalism, markets and businesses but why are you even saying something of a blanket statement like that, its so uneducated.
You rightly point out that tariffs are intended to be targeted to protect certain industries. Makes sense to have tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles because US EV manufacturing is so far behind. But increasing tariffs on everything is essentially creating a national sales tax. Tariffs can be set by the executive branch, a sales tax has to go through Congress. So an across the board tariff is just a sneaky way to raise taxes.
On the rent increase cap, what's the difference between being discriminated against vs having a rent you could never afford? I feel like the net result, except with the former, provided you get accepted, youre paying less rent.
Hey- thanks for the video. It’s refreshing to hear analysis of their proposals in a fairly objective review. As an area of clarification with Obamacare- 1. The lie you could keep your plan. My individual plan was no longer offered. 2. The marketplace options offered were all 3 times as expensive before subsidies. (The plan I had before would has the most similarities to a bronze plan). A major point in the rhetoric in selling Obamacare was that it was not a tax and “control or help health care costs”. The Supreme Court only found it constitutional by considering it a tax and the cost for healthcare continues to rise.
One major point of contention for me is the assertion that substantial tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations somehow don't affect the working class. In truth, these policies exacerbate the wealth gap in our country, significantly contributing to the struggles many Americans face. Additionally, these tax breaks (along with his new proposals) are projected to increase our deficit by $7 trillion, with no clear plan in place to pay for that. I am down to have an honest conversation... but I think you're misrepresenting that fact quite a bit.
One of trump's policy I hate the most is no tax on tips. It sounds great but its really unfair because if you're making 70k on tips its equivalent to making 100k. Also they are not paying their fair share on income tax like the rest of us. In addition, servers are the only class of workers that have their income adjusted for inflation because they get tipped by a percentage of the cost. If the cost increase due to inflation they atomically get paid more.
When it comes to tax, I'd personally sacrifice the prices of goods and services to get better infrastructure and public services, like public transport, which are paid from taxes.
In an ideal world goods and services offered by buisnesses should be a higher need, for pleasure, for fun, for making your life more like you want it when you can afford it. But basic human needs should be handled by government. Transport? Public transport. Health care? Good public healthcare. Housing for the least fortunate? Good low rent public neigbourhoods. Jobs? Public programms to ensure that the least fortunate people without proper education get low level jobs AND have the opportunity to higher their qualifications.
Exactly, these multi billion dollar corporations got their wealth using public infrastructure and government welfare (oops I meant “subsidies”).
When you spoke about increased tariffs for foreign goods, you failed to mention that buying local goods would increase jobs and the increase in cost of labour would also provide more money in the pockets of people likely to spend it on the economy. Basically instead of money leaving the country it would be re-invested locally.
Swift changes in economic policy will nearly always invite stress to the system. It must be properly assessed whether such stress is constructive or destructive in the end, and where that end will be. I have failed to see either candidate give satisfyingly practical critiques of their policies, though I admit Harris's litany of seemingly experimental proposals require a great deal more explanation and much less rhetoric to logically equate to progress.
If you don't run for office in the US can you immigrate to Canada and run for office . We just need someone who won't break sh*t.
Bruh I had the longest comment about ideal economics and complexity and accidentally clicked on another video. i don't feel like typing the whole thing out but my main take was just that while this is helpful it might have been fruitful to couch your analysis as being reliant on ideal market responses to state policy.
I don’t think its fair to say Trump’s tax cuts are for billionaires, - my grandpa, my aunt, mother-in-law, are all math loving people who use the stock market to support their household. I actually know loads of people who are average Joe’s, but make investments that suffer under Biden’s policies… A cut will benefit all, and that includes the Uber rich, but its definitely better for the average, too.
doesnt lowering corporate tax increase the budget deficit??
thank you margret. make more videossss!!!!!!
keep up the news. the unbiased opinion is well needed in our time.
It's an opinion that sways people with no evidence so it's misleading people which is bad especially now she needs to focus on the real problems not potential ones
@@cesramm1120 you're saying your point of view is easily swayed and you need someone to think for you. cool.
@@SuperJarete not at all idiot
Thank you. This is great! Can we compare how much and who is going to be negatively affected most in a LONG TERM? I think at this point we know we’ll have to suffer for at least a short while because of our country’s outstanding debt. And we just have to swallow that pill. But in a long term, who can start to turn this ship around gradually? Kamala or Trump? Or neither?