General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "What We Could've Gotten With Trump's $1.5 Trillion Rich Tax Cut" video.

Yep, ignore the influence of demand and limited supplies. It isn't that easy bud. Kyle and his fans are economic illiterates.
4
jindoYu, no tax rates are permanent. The corporate tax rate is only "permanent" as it has no expiration date, but it can be changed. The "temporary" tax rate is only there because the 60 votes from the senate did not happen. But that can be changed later and in 10 years they expire forcing the new congress and president to act.
3
Dan Ryan, the working class does get a cut. Kyle and his fan base are either lying or simply have no idea what they are talking about. On some other points 1. Deficit: The projected deficit is based on the current economic situation. The idea of the tax cuts is to motivate economic growth. Supporters of this law feel that money is invested better in the hands of private individuals and companies. That essentially, you, I, the mom and pop shop down the street, and the large corporation can invest money better than the government can. Now there is a lot to this, but for the most part I agree, and history has shown that in when talking about the federal government that is true. So when people talk about the deficit they are looking at current times. However, if the economy grows the deficit will actually be reduced. Using simple numbers saying the current tax rate is 50% and the current economy size is $100 (again, simple, small numbers). The government receives $50 in revenue. Now say the tax rate was dropped to 10% and the economy grows to $1000. Now the government has $100 in revenue. This will not happen immediately but can over time. Lower tax rates does not always mean lower revenue. Same as higher tax rates does not always mean higher revenue. If that were true we can set the tax rate up to 80%, 90% or even 100%. 2. "Entitlements": There will be very little, if any cuts to entitlements. There may be reforms, but nothing too extreme and politically the people who see it are people who usually vote democrat to begin with. That's politics. If republicans do entitlement reform they may cut for the very poor who vote left, or in a way that the young may end up getting their SS later, such as extending the age to say 70 but it only starts for people who are in their 20s, but again, the young typically vote left, so republicans will not care. Same as when democrats push to raise the min. wage and businesses complain. In the end business owners vote right, so democrats don't care as they know they were not going to get their votes to begin with. So there will most likely not be major entitlement reform. There will be some, but nothing major. And those that feel it vote democrat to begin with so it will not harm republicans politically.
2
"The tax cuts for the rich and corporations aren't expiring though. So why is it dishonest to point out the middle/lower class ones are? " Because you are being deceptive. "If it needed 60 votes, then why does one set of cuts expires and the other one doesn't all written in the same tax bill? " Because by Senate rules no individual tax cuts can be "permanent" without 60 votes. Corporations are not individuals. The rich tax cuts will expire as well with the exception of the corporate tax cuts and estate tax. It is deceptive because nothing in government is permanent, that is political talk. Democrats can take over and raise taxes all they want. They can also extend the expiration date. Also, look that that expiration date, 2025. That is not arbitrary. By then there will be a new president and a lot of current members of congress will be gone. So future politicians will be pressured to act. This law, like all laws, has a lot of politics tied to it which isn't surprising. Kyle is being intellectually dishonest here in his analysis of this law. You may disagree with it, but you have to be fair in doing so.
2
"This would make sense if the American companies were not already the biggest companies in the world (Exxon Mobil, Google, Apple, etc), and these big companies were paying taxes to begin with. Some of the biggest corporations in our country pay zero in taxes, some even get rebates. " They pay that low rate because of loopholes and write offs that require paper work and man hours to take advantage of. All this bill does is lower the rate to what companies were paying while removing the loopholes to limit the paper work and man hours. So instead of going down a curvy path to get where you want you go down a straight path. If companies are paying that low to begin with why not give it to them at the very beginning?
2
Around 70% of workers do. those that don't work part time or are temp workers.
2
"“Well they’re rich they don’t need it.” Is not a moral argument, btw." It is also not an economic argument. Just because they are rich does not mean they don't need it. They have different finances. I bet Kyle has more money than me, so by his standards he needs it less than I do.
2
I have never seen money perform surgery. I have never eaten money. I have never seen money lecture a course.
2
Golem, those Nordic countries lack in productivity, have different cultures, less diversity and much fewer people. Even at that they have a market based economy with that tax code. They do not simply have "high taxes and free stuff". In fact, those programs you listed off are very restricted. Universal healthcare has a lot of shortcomings in it and "free college" is restricted to who the government feels can go. In the US we allow more people to go to college. "Right wingers use “high taxes” as a scare tactic but forget that taxes can be used to benefit the average worker if utilized properly." It is easier to utilize the taxes properly with a smaller population. Look up the video "Milton Friedman Destroys Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups".
2
"How many recessions will it take to convince you? " Our two major recessions were from demand side economics. In the 1930s FDR tried to spend our way out of the recession, he turned it into a depression. In 2007 you had the bailouts. The recession in 2007 was caused by the housing markets. "Corporate profits are at all time high" And they are not investing due to high taxes and regulations. They are now under Trump. You will be seeing all of this soon. "The tax cuts for the middle class in Trump’s plan is only temporary" Only because they could not get the 60 votes from the Senate. You know why the expiration date is set at 2025? Because by then it is guaranteed that there will be a new president and congress who will have to act. This is typical in politics where something happens after that politicians is guaranteed to be gone.
2
Billsama, other countries have small populations and completely different societies. Compare us to countries of 100+ people. Do you want to be like China or Mexico? Or maybe Japan where people literally work themselves to death. " Remember, taxes are being raised for the middle class after 10 years" In 10 years you will have a different president and congress. Also the economy will be different in some ways. They will handle that when they do.
2
I am pursuing my PhD right now and it is stressful. I am doing it so I can have a nice living a few years down the road. Under Kyle's economic plan I would just quit and work at the truck stop again.
2
"But with free college you wouldn't even be in debt in the first place" You would pay in other ways such as lower quality of education for example.
2
" life's not fair get over it." I agree, so when someone is richer than you don't complain and do not tax them at a higher rate.
2
"Add to the mix that median wages have not risen much in three decades, yet new home prices have risen by 230% over the same time period. Look at child care, rents, energy, transportation and yes . . higher education costs over the same time period and the cost increases are massive" Most areas in the market that has increased over time has been due to the federal government. College education: The federal student loan program Housing: The FHA and now the recent bank bailouts Healthcare: The payroll tax and medicare and medicaid mixed with around $1 trillion being spent in healthcare by the federal government "So the corporation owes you and society nothing" If corporations do not invest in the people and workers it will go under. Take, for example, Blackberry Limited. It failed to satisfy customers and as a result their stock prices dropped and the company is essentially dead. K-Mart, Sears and Radioshack are considered to be a few of the worse companies to work for and their stock prices are dropping where Radioshack is in a transition state due to how poorly it is doing.
2
Immanuel Herman, you had similar thoughts that Milton Friedman had. He said the government should be the servants and we have to keep it as local as possible. The problem these days is that the left to me are either 1. fascists 2. lazy I say fascists as they want everyone to have the same government they want with a centralized government. I say lazy that when you start talking about the idea of smaller, more local governments they say it won't work and my feeling is at that level they have to actually work to make it successful.
1
" says the simpleton who rambles off the two economic terms he knows in attempt to sound competent" You use this money to pay for "free college" without increasing supply such as classrooms, professors, tutors, etc. than colleges will raise tuition where it will cost way more than $600 billion.
1
Cristian, I know it cost money. My point is there comes a situation where no matter how much money you have does not matter as resources are scarce and limited.
1
" do you really think that when they say free college that it means they are going to take that money and pay tuition to private institutions?" It doesn't matter if it is private or public. Look at what the student loan program did. It increased demand without increasing supply thus tuition has skyrocketed. Those public colleges raised their tuition.
1
"so when public colleges are tuition free they are going to raise tuition. " Do you expect professors to work for free?
1
"nope they will be paid just as if tuition was collected. This is what is meant by the cost of free college or “paying” for college." The demand for college will go up meaning universities will increase tuition prices.
1
" there will be no tuition to go up" So professors are going to work for free? Where are you going to get funds to pay for equipment, pay for janitors and staff? " I know that’s hard for you to understand since you keep repeating the only economic concept you know" You are the one saying that university staff and workers are going to work for free.
1
Jay C, you can't magically remove tuition. Labor and equipment cost money. You are saying there will be no tuition. So how do you pay for that labor and equipment?
1
" the government will pay the costs to run the schools, like they already do for state schools," We currently lack professors, TAs, dorms, classrooms, etc. You are wanting to increase demand for colleges without increase supply. What is going to stop universities from doubling the salaries of professors? What is going to stop professors from demanding a higher salary considering they will have to take on a larger work load? This is why I said tuition will go up. You say there will be no tuition, but those professors, staff, and other workers will want to get paid. And if you increase their work load than they will demand more money. I can look at my situation. Our university lacks TAs to the point one coordinator said to me they needed "warm bodies". They hired a computer science major to teach physics where they are not learning anything. Is that really getting an education? Us TAs demanded higher pay because they made us do more work. Come Fall 2018 they are going to give us an extra $300 a month. That adds up. We are short TAs and the demand went up, so did our price. Our professors because of increase in demand received a $10,000 a year raise recently. This is why I said "free college" will end up costing more than what Kyle said it would. You increase demand without increasing supply. This is basic economics. "How do you think public elementary and high schools operate?" 84% of funding for public schools are local and state. So that completely undermines your argument as you are pushing for federal funding of college education while pointing towards a state ran function. Next, we lack teachers as is. That is why there are incentives for special ed teachers and science and math teachers. Also, go to your local high schools and go to university campuses. Compare who much better universities are. Universities have better computers, classrooms, offices, buildings, etc. Almost every campus I have been in was beautiful with the exception of campuses in CA. Even at that many CA campuses were beautiful compared to high schools. Look at the science labs at colleges. There are NMRs, FTIRs, UV-Vis in chemistry labs. Good luck finding a spectrometer in high schools. In colleges you have dorms, gyms, lounges, a student union, etc. Things you will not find on a high school campus. You cannot compare high school to college. You are over simplifying this issue.
1
"our roads, our citizens, our educated people, our fire departments, our police departments, our infrastructure." Almost all of that are locally funded and are a drop in the bucket compared to healthcare and college education. Also, you take advantage of them as well and you had the opportunity to start your own company with those programs.
1
"However, note that many of the provisions sunset in 2025" That is only because the 60 required senate votes to make the tax cuts permanent (meaning they do not have an expiration date) was not going to happen. Come 2025 you will have a new congress and president that will be pressured to keep the cuts or do something. Saying they are going to expire in 2025 is showing intellectual dishonesty or a complete lack of understanding of politics. There will be a new congress and a new tax bill by then.
1
The Felix, it isn't that easy as if you are skilled you will not work at that company anymore. In fact a lot of people won't if they treat their employees that way. But if you want to use that analogy it will be this. That company will be able to attract better, more productive workers increasing their bottom line. Thus they will have more profits to pay your more and give you more vacation time. "Oh and you can't quit." So the company is holding a gun to our head?
1
Denmark has a much different culture and is much smaller than the US. It is an invalid comparison.
1
"Tell that to the 9% of full-time workers that don't receive any paid time off." How many years have they worked there? If they have worked there only 6 months they are considered "short term" or "temporary" still. You can be a temp worker and still work full time. 9% is small when you consider those factors.
1
Dante Ratto, stats are like a bikini, they reveal a lot but never show the whole thing. 9% is low overall so you have to ask yourself why are those 9% the exception? As I said, your work full time for 6 months you still many not qualify for vacation. You have to factor that in.
1
"You're purely speculating on how long that 9% have worked for their companies." Not really. I am asking questions. 9% is small as a whole, why do they not have vacation? You have to think about that. There is more to it than simply being full time. "come back with some actual data you truthiness spouting buffoon." The name calling shows you cannot argue the point. There are other factors at play but you want to limit it down to them simply working full time.
1
" like infrastructure, education, military, regulatory agencies, fire and police. Why do you guys always go to take 100%???????" You went to the 100%. Anyway, most of those programs are localized. Police, fire, education are ran locally. Around 70% of firefighters are volunteer and the are a minute portion of the overall budget.
1
"So it's ok for the rich to steal from the working class" I never had a rich guy steal from me. I have never seen a rich guy steal from anyone.
1
Doctor Doom, who has more than 90 percent of the rest of the country? The top 10% earned only 40% of the income.
1
" The share of wealth owned by the top 0.1% is about the same as the bottom 90%." Wealth does not equal income. Here is why we have wealth inequality in this country 1. If someone has no assets and only $10 they have more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because many people, including me, have negative wealth due to college loans or home loans. Is that bad? I feel it isn't as we can allow people to take steps back to put themselves in a better position 2. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter 3. A homeowner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home Beyond owning a home the average person has little to now wealth. Why? Because the average person does not down and have not developed a business or a major corporation. The Walton Family has more wealth than others because they own half of Walmart as in the stores, merchandise, trucks, etc. But if you were to give that portion of Walmart to some average Joe the value of Walmart will drop to where that person will most likely go bankrupt. Again, wealth does not equal income. You can have a lot of income but very little wealth if you are in debt.
1
How are they economic boosts?
1
"We have an under-educated workforce in a local and global economy" We are in the top 5 in productivity. Being "educated" vs being "skilled and productive" are different things. Paying for someone's Women's study degree is not an economic boost. "We have a LOT of trained people who aren't using their degrees because they can't afford to take financial risks" They have worthless degrees. . " (like starting a business) " Most of the time you do not need a college education to start a business. "Universal preschool would allow more families to work, or work more, or go back to school, or start a business." Pre-K is usually for only a few hours. Pre-K in my school district starts at 9 AM and ends at 1 or 2 at the latest. From dropping off the kid to picking it back up they will not have time to work. "Infrastructure, this one should be obvious; good paying jobs during construction; the skills and experience of these workers after the work is done will boost the private sector; good roads and bridges means less lost productivity to traffic and accidents." It is very challenging to predict the cost of infrastructure as the price of concrete and steel is constantly changing. Also, you run the risk of hiring too many workers which the government typically does, extending the job for too long, and doing frivolous projects that end up being a waste. Where in the private sector they will push to avoid that.
1
Robert, the thing is that privately people will invest in those programs as well but in a more efficient way. That also boost the economy.
1
""We're in the top 5 in productivity" is very different than "we will be in the top 5 in productivity in 10 years"." We have been up there for a while now. "The reason free college is an economic boost is because today a graduate starts professional life with a huge debt." The average student debt is around $30,000, that is not much when you consider the return. If you pursue the correct degree than it is nothing. We cannot be funding worthless degrees like Liberal Arts. Also, the value in college education isn't just education, most of what you learn you can learn on your own. The value is showing employers you can pursue a long term goal and are willing to invest both time and money to achieve it. Developing connections is also the goal. Many people feel college is about sitting in a classroom and learning a topic. It is much more than that. Compare the time you spend in a classroom in college compared to high school. You spend around 1/3 of your time in a classroom in college compared to high school. College is about investing to achieve a long term goal and showing you can become independent. Making college "free" removes that. "If there was free college then there's no debt, and the money will be spent in buying clothes, car, house or condo, consumer goods, entertainment, etc." Those professors are not going to work for free. So instead of paying for tuition why not lower taxes and allow people to choice to go to college? "Distributing the money through many businesses and creating the jobs that will attend to the demand, which creates more tax revenue, which means it's cheaper individually to have free education." Again, why not lower taxes so people have more money to spend? Right now you are pushing for lowering taxes so people can spend their money the way they want. "We know this is the way it happens because previous generations who didn't start in the red did use the money to buy stuff, creating economic growth" What went on then was different compared to now. " It's just logical that when you're starting on your own you spend money. Keeping all that money as a bank's profit is strangling it from the rest of the productive economy." Money in banks are loaned out to start businesses and buy homes. Also, again, why not lower taxes so people have money to spend how they want? You cannot make college free as professors are not going to work for free. So to pay for it you need higher taxes meaning less money for people to spend. You are contradicting yourself right now as you want people to have the option to spend money how they want but also want higher taxes. "For the infrastructure, I'm not sure what your point is. Unpredictability has always been there for supplies... and? Has been a workable problem since forever. " It hasn't been a workable problem as many projects take longer than expected. And at times to make them faster you have to offer more money as what CC Myers did in 2007 in Oakland. His bid was low but he built the maze fast earning an extra $5 million. Now you can try to avoid that extra cost, but slow repairs slows down traffic and economic activity which can cost the state more money. Your choice. Getting estimates on infrastructure spending is incredibly challenging and usually cost more than expected. " The government doesn't hire workers to build new infrastructure. It takes bids for the project from private companies which decide how many workers they need to do it and put it on their bid." I agree, and I pointed out an example with CC Myers. Now you expect the government to be good at bidding? "Just the mere fact that you didn't know this undermines your whole argument." Actually I do understand this. It seems like you are missing the point. A company can bid and have the project take longer than what can really be done, or simply hire more workers than needed due to the government overpaying. Or the government can be investing in something it does not need to invest in to begin with. The whole point is that just because government is willing to spend on infrastructure does not mean it is the best way to create jobs. "Why, in your mind, would they do that? " If their bid allows for a long time then they will do it. As I showed with the CC Myers example getting done fast means bonuses thus costing the government more. Now there is the other sides of economic activity being lost but you have to consider this 1. If the job is done quickly it will mean those jobs are temporary and not long term, and bonuses will make infrastructure spending higher 2. If you lower the bonuses for quick finishes than workers will have jobs longer and infrastructure spending will be lower, but economic activity will be limited due to delays in traffic for example My point, this issue is not that easy as "we spend X amount and that will grow the economy". Also, most infrastructure spending is local anyway. "Because the vast majority of the time the problem with government services is that they're understaffed" In a lot of office and agencies they do. I my school district we have too many administrators and the city is being challenged right now to remove some due to it costing too much money. In federal programs like the EPA there are too many workers which is why the current administration is laying them off. In some areas such as teachers and the IRS it is understaffed, but in others there are too many workers. A lot of times politicians create agencies and programs to simply create government jobs. As a whole the government has shown to be inefficient with money, especially the federal government. To think more federal government spending is going to grow the economy is not likely.
1
The Felix, to say again on infrastructure spending as in my long comment this point might have been lost. To start, most of it is local anyway, so pointing to federal dollars is meaningless. You say my comment is undermined as I supposedly did not understand that private companies do the work. I do understand that. But the fact that someone is pointing to federal dollars feeling that can fund our infrastructure when that is not how it works also undermines their argument. You have to be fair here. Also, when looking at infrastructure spending you have to consider these 1. If the job is done quickly it will mean those jobs are temporary and not long term, and bonuses will make infrastructure spending higher 2. If you lower the bonuses for quick finishes than workers will have jobs longer and infrastructure spending will be lower, but economic activity will be limited due to delays in traffic for example So again, it isn't as easy as "we have X amount and it can pay for Y amount which can create Z jobs". There is more to it than that. If you are repairing a bridge that creates 50 jobs, but thousands of workers now have to wait an extra 30 minutes to an hour to get to work that hinders productive economic activity. On the flip side you say "get the job done faster" so they do, but as a result huge bonuses are paid out that cost the government more. You also have to consider was the bridge repair necessary to begin with? One of my colleagues is the facilities manager at the university I work at. He has these challenges all the time to face. They are not easy to handle. In the end, this idea of "X amount of money can be spent here creating economic growth" is way too simplified.
1
"Money can be exchanged for goods and services." If those goods and services do not exist than on amount of money will matter. For example, if you paid for tuition where a university's enrollment went from say 10,000 to 15,000, but they only had enough professors to teach 10,000 than something has to give. Either 1. You deny access to 5,000 2. You hire "warm bodies" to "teach" the class even if they are poor professors 3. You increase classroom sizes demanding more work from current professors to where they will demand more money Even with option 2 and 3 you still need more classrooms/larger classrooms which cost money to where tuition is higher now. Thus it will end up cost more. In the end those things are commodities that requires someone to provide. You can't just throw money at something and expect it to exist.
1
"So you're saying you'd prefer for money to be abolished? " No, but it should be attached to the gold standard. People also need to realize those goods just don't exist. Consider this, how much does it cost for you to teleport from your house to the moon? The reality is that no amount of money can do that as teleportation does not exist. Thus no matter how much money you have it does not matter.
1
"you’re right, it FUNDS these programs, the people that work in these careers do it" And people and machines can only produce so much no matter how much money you throw at it.
1
" well the reality is even if teachers werent payed their would still be many teachers its in human nature to further our species " No there won't. People will not work for free. "like i said though if what your saying is true all public schools would be impossible" Public schools are funded locally and even with that we lack teachers especially in fields like math, science and special ed. That is why there are more money given to those teachers in other programs like loan forgiveness. "places that have free college people are actually more educated for some reason " More educated does not mean more skilled and productive. Also, in other places they have restrictions on who can and cannot attend. It isn't free for everyone. The US also has arguably the best university system in the world. " their schools are just better in literally every way " Depends. If you look at productivity the US is in the top 5. Do you want good test takers or productive people. " why it can work in nations that even have far smaller economies then america but it just cant work here" Smaller the country the easier it is to micromanage. Also, their societies are vastly different. For example their colleges do not have a program like the NCAA.
1
"The gold standard is why there were a multitude of financial panics in the 19th century" Not true. We were developing at that time.
1
" Um. No. Not being able to spend is why the economy kept crashing and made the great depression worse worldwide." Several factors led to that such as increased government spending during the depression. It wasn't the gold standard.
1
" Alright then burn all of your money." Rather extreme and you totally missed the point.
1
"very true, then how come less populous countries can somehow produce apparently so much stuff to give everyone their education, healthcare etc. " Those countries have many shortcomings as well and have restrictions. For example, they track their students where many are not allowed to go to college. On healthcare they lack in research and innovation. And again, they can micromanage their programs with a smaller population.
1
" Gold standard restricted what the government can do to get out of a recession and depression. This is why there were constant panics" Even after that gold standard there were recessions.
1
At around 4 minutes, us being "scared of the government" is a sign we have become too dependent on the government. They have given us so much to where they can take it away. This is a legit fear people have had when they oppose Bernie Sanders.
1
"I'm assuming your in favour of limited or no government then?" I am in favor of limited government, no government is just as bad as too much government.
1
"People who are dependent on government would be dependent on what if government were not around? " Society, friends and family, the private sector. This isn't to say we should not have a government, we should. But we have to keep it limited and as local as possible to be able to control it so it remains the servants as opposed to being the masters. "If they die because they are not getting proper assistance, do you see that as a good thing that we have one less person dependent on government?" Why did they not get "proper assistance"? Was it their fault or the fault of society for not providing it as in having enough doctors, teachers, etc. What is "proper assistance"? What is the standard? Also, realize the government does not have a magic wand. "This is essentially what you are saying. You are assuming that if they were not dependent on government, they would be fine." Never said that. But you are saying that they need government to survive as if they have a magic wand. "Without government, would corporations spend money to help the poor and sick?" Maybe as dead people cannot give them money. Maybe not as there are limited resources. Plus, it isn't just government and corporations. There are local communities and small businesses as well. "hey have all the money in the world right now and they are not doing a whole to help America beside paying taxes" Even with high tax revenue the government still does not have a magic wand. If there are not any resources than people cannot receive anything.
1
If you were to take that money and invest it in "free college" you will see two results 1. An increase in tuition price as you increase demand without increasing supply. Thus that $600 billion will be much more in reality 2. Limited economic growth. Investing in more Women's Studies degrees does not grow the economy
1
With Kyle's economic ideas I will never work.
1
Johan Nilsson, most of those programs, firefighter (70% are volunteer BTW), police, infrastructure, etc. are funded locally and are a drop in the bucket compared to something like college.
1
"The kid who's education you pay for now could wind up being a doctor for your kid or your kid's kid or could be that surgeon who saves your kid's life." If you are going to school to be a doctor than cost is not an issue.
1
Big Bad Boss, acceptance rates for med school is less than 50%. I see nothing where the rate is dropping. Even at that if you decide not to pursue a PhD or medical degree that is on you. It is also arguable that earning a PhD hurts your employment, so you should look at the rate of obtaining a masters.
1
"Yea we spend more on military then the next ten civilized country's combined" That number keeps changing but the most accurate I saw was 8. But consider this, our economy is much larger than all of those countries. And if you combine their GDP and defense spending they spend around 2.5% of the GDP on defense and in the US we spend around 3.5%, so that is a difference of a percent. Not so large.
1
" Cancelling student debt will give people more money to spend. " And lower the value of a college degree.
1
"Statistically poorer people spend a higher percent of their money than rich people, " It isn't that simple. The rich live different lifestyles and have different financial responsibilities and wants compared to the poor. To think they spend a less percent than the poor is over simplifying the issue, and also is, for the most part, wrong.
1
" in the UK it costs 9k per year to go to the best university in the world." Which has a low acceptance rate. You may say the same about Harvard and Yale, but in the US we have a lot of smaller universities to choose from that are still strong.
1
Steven Bee, student loan debt is not a big deal for people who earned a degree that is worth something. You say " it prevents people from being able to start a business, continue their education into a specialized field, or buy a home or car." People going after a specialized field are going to earn a lot, debt is not an issue. If you earn a degree that is valued high debt is not an issue as well because you can pay it off quickly and than buy a home a couple years later.
1
The problem with student loan debt is that many people get worthless degrees while going in 6 figure debt. Go after a degree that companies value, not Women's Study or Liberal Arts.
1
"I don't understand why you think getting a degree guarantees you a job. " I never said it guarantees a job. I am saying it is an investment. If done right you can get a job. History is not a degree that is valued high. The STEM fields are. Your brother should have went after a different degree.
1
It isn't that easy bud.
1
Economics is too challenging for Kyle to comprehend.
1
"Thats such a weak right wing talking point. If you paid attention to Sec. Talk you would know that rate is not what they actually pay and in fact they pay an active rate of about 12%" That is true, but why? Because of loopholes that take man hours and paper work to take advantage of. The best solution is to reduce the rate and remove the loopholes. They pay the same rate in the end minus wasting funds and resources on paper work and man hours. "his video explaining the bill was from impartial research. 98% of projections has this bill as bad news for the country. " Kyle does not do research. I will bet he has not even read the bill. How is it "bad news for the country"? "Also, yes the bill will cut taxes for middle class workers but the 1% tax cut is permanent while the middle class has a sunset." The 1% tax cut is for corporations and estate taxes. Individual tax cuts cannot remain permanent unless you have 60 senate votes. So they had to set an expiration date. But nothing is permanent in government and future politicians can change this law. They can change it tomorrow for 2019 if they want. The "sunset" was mandatory but the year of 2025 when it will happen is not arbitrary. In 2025 you will have a new president and many new congress members. They will have to handle it if it does not get handled to begin with. "Why do they need more cuts when they have almost 100% more spending power than the bottom 50%" The rich has a different spending responsibility than everyone else. You are busy watching Kyle on Youtube while they are running a company. ". Boom and bust economics is the only thing republicans do." Boom and bust cycles have been happening for over 200 years in the US. " Wait for the crash, brother. Its happened twice already since the 1930s. " The 1930s were the result of massive federal government spending. "Why is tax evasion a crime when youre a middle class person? " Tax evasion is a crime for everyone. "Wait for this bill to fuck the economy" Talk to me in 2 years. "Maybe if you understood Bernie’s tax plan " I actually read it. It was vague and some numbers did not add up. It also made incorrect assumptions.
1
"Why dont you make content?" Because I am focused on my PhD studies. I have actually been spending less time on these comment sections and focusing more on my studies.
1
westingtyler ideas, the top 10% earned 40% off the income. "Fair" would be them paying 40% of the taxes, not 70%.
1
Leopold, without the business owners those workers will not have a job.
1
Me too. That is why it will never work. I bring this up all the time with Bernie fans. Where is he going to get all this "free healthcare" and "free college" when people refuse to be doctors? Why work hard to be a doctor when you can work at McDonalds and have a Living wage healthcare retirement vacation and so on all promised by the government?
1
Kyle is an economic illiterate.
1
Smitty, the only way corporations get money is if they sell the people something. They are not forcing anyone to do anything.
1
ChrisJ Fox, that is not true. Taxes are society deciding that government is a way to provide for society. For example, taxes paying for a road is society saying they want the government to fund that road as opposed to having it done privately.
1
Arnold has a point. Kyle is talking about what government can buy where most of these programs he points to are either 1. ran locally or 2. are the responsibility of the individual If you want to go to college that is on you to invest in it. For infrastructure spending that is localized and the more local the government is the easier it is for the people to see if they are getting their money's worth.
1