Donald Trump

veronese68

Tangled Metal wrote:

Does Pence not worry you or he takes over?

Very much so, he's more dangerous in many ways as he appears outwardly sane.

bendertherobot

The succession line is troubling, you have to get down to Mattis (who at least won't press the button without a considered response). Ryan is awful. At least Tillerson did not call Trump a moron.

tangled_metal

Olympus has fallen type of event to eliminate P, VP, speaker and a few other nutters. With some hero to stop the plan succeeding but too late for the nutters at the top.

Seriously not advocating it but that's the only good outcome should Trump lose the presidency mid term for any reason.

kingstongraham

Veronese68 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Does Pence not worry you or he takes over?

Very much so, he's more dangerous in many ways as he appears outwardly sane.

Apart from not allowing himself to eat a meal alone with a woman who isn't his wife. Or to go to a function where they are serving alcohol without his wife. That sounds like someone who can't trust himself.

BelgianBeerGeek

US leaving UNESCO apparently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41598991

lostboysaint

Also leaving Puerto Rico...

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-tweets/index.html

FEMA were in New Orleans for 10 years. He really is some special kind of c**t isn't he.

mfin

Trump golf score claims

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/donald-trump-golf-score-golf-magazine-patently-unbelievable-a7997606.html

bloke on BBC News was laughing at it.

pinno

At what point does his cabinet put the knife in because they see an opportunity for being president?
What will be the reaction of the die hard Trump supporters when they see Trump going?

Matthewfalle

What does Donald Trump hate listening to?

pinno

"I did it my way".

Matthewfalle

Incorrect.

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Incorrect.

Sod off.

Matthewfalle

Still incorrect my friend.

Anyone else fancy having a pop?

tangled_metal

The chicken song?

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Still incorrect my friend.

Anyone else fancy having a pop?

Round the back of Gregg's 9am.

tangled_metal

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Still incorrect my friend.

Anyone else fancy having a pop?

Round the back of Gregg's 9am.

If you want to arrange your secret assignations with Matty I suggest you pm him. Public forum and all that!

pinno

Tangled Metal wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Still incorrect my friend.

Anyone else fancy having a pop?

Round the back of Gregg's 9am.

If you want to arrange your secret assignations with Matty I suggest you pm him. Public forum and all that!

Forum rules:

"To reiterate, this is a place for more serious chat and questions, but also light humour and friendly discussion."

Matthewfalle

Matthewfalle wrote:

What does Donald Trump hate listening to?

Barack music.

Boom tish.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

.@KellyannePolls: "We need a simpler, fairer [tax] system that doesn't benefit the wealthy as it does now."

this is so bizarre, i can't fathom out why she would tweet that, it's unreal :?

It's a tweet from FoxNews - just watched the interview. She was talking about the simplification of the tax system - saying it benefits the wealthy as they can hire the accountants to navigate the code. If you cut the number of tax bands, and the top rate of tax, that makes it better for everyone, doesn't it? Erm.

This is fairly mainstream economic theory.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

.@KellyannePolls: "We need a simpler, fairer [tax] system that doesn't benefit the wealthy as it does now."

this is so bizarre, i can't fathom out why she would tweet that, it's unreal :?

It's a tweet from FoxNews - just watched the interview. She was talking about the simplification of the tax system - saying it benefits the wealthy as they can hire the accountants to navigate the code. If you cut the number of tax bands, and the top rate of tax, that makes it better for everyone, doesn't it? Erm.

This is fairly mainstream economic theory.

But it's quite disingenuous to phrase it to imply the change does not benefit the wealthy.

rick_chasey

IMF says optimal personal income tax top rate is 44%

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

.@KellyannePolls: "We need a simpler, fairer [tax] system that doesn't benefit the wealthy as it does now."

this is so bizarre, i can't fathom out why she would tweet that, it's unreal :?

It's a tweet from FoxNews - just watched the interview. She was talking about the simplification of the tax system - saying it benefits the wealthy as they can hire the accountants to navigate the code. If you cut the number of tax bands, and the top rate of tax, that makes it better for everyone, doesn't it? Erm.

This is fairly mainstream economic theory.

But it's quite disingenuous to phrase it to imply the change does not benefit the wealthy.

not really - the theory is that you remove all of the tax breaks and incentives that distort economic behaviour whilst at the same time reducing the rates of income tax. If you did this in a tax neutral way there is no real reason why the rich would pay less.

In the UK this would mean scrapping tax breaks would hit higher rate tax payers far higher

burnthesheep

Explain to me why a corporation would take the money saved on taxes and voluntarily take it to pay people more or to hire more people. If they don't need more employees to meet current product demands........they won't hire any. Tax break be damned. They'll just up their profit margin and pay out the stock dividends to the rich shareholders.

The idea that it will bring jobs "back home" may make a little more sense. But.......it's not going to bring back the jobs you want. Do you REALLY want to work for Foxconn? The company with suicide nets up at their plant in asia and boarding houses inside a barbed wire fence?

You need to promote sustainable job growth for good paying jobs in expanding sectors like renewable energy, infrastructure rejuvenation (which needs an influx of money badly), and technology jobs. Invest in the trade schools so you have a well trained and competitive workforce for those better paying jobs.

Service sector jobs will always be there (hotel or food service as an example).

I can't condone giving companies huge tax breaks to bring back $7 an hour low-skill jobs when people already won't take on those jobs in the US, and they are fulfilled by Latino visa holders or immigrants.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

.@KellyannePolls: "We need a simpler, fairer [tax] system that doesn't benefit the wealthy as it does now."

this is so bizarre, i can't fathom out why she would tweet that, it's unreal :?

It's a tweet from FoxNews - just watched the interview. She was talking about the simplification of the tax system - saying it benefits the wealthy as they can hire the accountants to navigate the code. If you cut the number of tax bands, and the top rate of tax, that makes it better for everyone, doesn't it? Erm.

This is fairly mainstream economic theory.

But it's quite disingenuous to phrase it to imply the change does not benefit the wealthy.

not really - the theory is that you remove all of the tax breaks and incentives that distort economic behaviour whilst at the same time reducing the rates of income tax. If you did this in a tax neutral way there is no real reason why the rich would pay less.

In the UK this would mean scrapping tax breaks would hit higher rate tax payers far higher

I agree, but just highlighting one bit. The proposals for estate tax don't imply a tax neutral approach.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

IMF says optimal personal income tax top rate is 44%

Hmm but, income tax rates in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are higher and everyone benefits form a very high standard of living. We pay income tax, VAT, fuel duty, road tax... etc etc. I think it is a very skewed taxation system which favours the higher earners.
You work in the financial sector, what do you think?

rick_chasey

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

IMF says optimal personal income tax top rate is 44%

Hmm but, income tax rates in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are higher and everyone benefits form a very high standard of living. We pay income tax, VAT, fuel duty, road tax... etc etc. I think it is a very skewed taxation system which favours the higher earners.
You work in the financial sector, what do you think?

Optimum in terms of maximising tax revenue....

Scandi & Nordics enjoy massive windfall of oil & gas wealth & wealth that their previous generation didn't see, so they'll suck up the high tax 'cos they're still earning sh!tloads more than their parents.

Give it a couple of generations & it won't be the same, I suspect.

bendertherobot

So, today he said he's been speaking to the President of the Virgin Islands

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

IMF says optimal personal income tax top rate is 44%

Hmm but, income tax rates in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are higher and everyone benefits form a very high standard of living. We pay income tax, VAT, fuel duty, road tax... etc etc. I think it is a very skewed taxation system which favours the higher earners.
You work in the financial sector, what do you think?

Optimum in terms of maximising tax revenue....

Scandi & Nordics enjoy massive windfall of oil & gas wealth & wealth that their previous generation didn't see, so they'll suck up the high tax 'cos they're still earning sh!tloads more than their parents.

Give it a couple of generations & it won't be the same, I suspect.

Having spent quite a lot of time in Norway (albeit not in the cities) I don't see much evidence of a particularly high standard of living - at least in terms of consumerism. They no doubt do benefit from better services and infrastructure spending though alot of that is frittered away on things that simply aren't needed. Really they don't seem to know what to spend the money on.

pinno

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

IMF says optimal personal income tax top rate is 44%

Hmm but, income tax rates in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are higher and everyone benefits form a very high standard of living. We pay income tax, VAT, fuel duty, road tax... etc etc. I think it is a very skewed taxation system which favours the higher earners.
You work in the financial sector, what do you think?

Optimum in terms of maximising tax revenue....

Scandi & Nordics enjoy massive windfall of oil & gas wealth & wealth that their previous generation didn't see, so they'll suck up the high tax 'cos they're still earning sh!tloads more than their parents.

Give it a couple of generations & it won't be the same, I suspect.

Having spent quite a lot of time in Norway (albeit not in the cities) I don't see much evidence of a particularly high standard of living - at least in terms of consumerism. They no doubt do benefit from better services and infrastructure spending though alot of that is frittered away on things that simply aren't needed. Really they don't seem to know what to spend the money on.

Much better than not having enough and having to spread it thin, surely? and you know what country I am talking about.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Scandi & Nordics enjoy massive windfall of oil & gas wealth & wealth that their previous generation didn't see, so they'll suck up the high tax 'cos they're still earning sh!tloads more than their parents.

Give it a couple of generations & it won't be the same, I suspect.

We have had the same. Frittered away instead of invested though.