President Trump

[zubs]

Free trade took a massive uppercut in 2016.

 

[tim]

Exactly Zubs...this goes back to the trend I pointed out in another thread way back when everybody was mocking Trumps run...

...and there in lies the differences we have.  Collectivism vs individualism.  Personally, I don't buy into the whole kumbaiya, we are all in this together klan.  I believe in the power, motivation and basic greed that drives individuals to innovate, work hard and succeed.  I know that is not politically correct but I still see people as imperfect and essentially selfish.  The needs of the one far outweigh the needs of the many, but individual success will inadvertently pull forward the rest.  It is the way of capitalism.  It is exactly the battle we see in Trump vs Bernie. Republican vs Democrat.

This seems like just a way for a person to rationalize their own selfishness. If you surround yourself with selfish, greedy people then you assume everyone is selfish and greedy. So your own selfishness and greed must be okay.

 

[tim]

Trump doesn't have to micromanage anything.  His presidency will make CEO's think twice before moving their production out of USA. 

Why will they think twice about it?

The people around the world are showing that they would rather look after themselves then achieve a globalized "gene roddenberry" world.  The proof is Brexit, Trump, Taiwan DPP, Marie LePens rise.  All of these examples are in favor of nationalism.  Nationalism favor Tariffs which means having a plant in the USA is better.

I think Carrier is owned by United Technologies which has several government contracts which Trump is using as leverage.

Yay, tarrifs!http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2016/03/11/import-tariffs-bad-will-cost-money./

 

[morekaos]

No, its just human nature. Capitalism relies on this little fact. People always want more. It is the most effective motivator to achieve.  Libs always miss this assuming everyone takes into account everyone else, all the time. Truth is, they don't.  You may think thats sad but I see it as just how it is.  An idealistic world of all are equal removes the incentive to achieve, inequality is the reason the system works. Its a Hobsian world of all against all.

 

[tim]

My company serves plants in USA, Asia, and Mexico.  There has always been pressure to move the US plants production to another country.  With Trump winning the election, that pressure has lessened.

For the people who still have factory jobs in USA they should be happy Trump won. 
For the big companies like Carrier who has to compete with cheap Chinese AC makers...not so much.

I know we don't know all the details of the Carrier thing, but doesn't it encourage more companies to threaten to move out of the country so that they get a deal? And if they don't get the same deal as Carrier, do they have reason to be upset? "Hey, Don, I got these 2000 jobs here...it would be a shame if something happened to them."

 

[Movingup]

Coming from the wise President on the June 1st, 2016 town hall in Indiana.
https://youtu.be/T-UGVfv-4Kc

 

[Ready2Downsize]

Exactly Zubs...this goes back to the trend I pointed out in another thread way back when everybody was mocking Trumps run...

...and there in lies the differences we have.  Collectivism vs individualism.  Personally, I don't buy into the whole kumbaiya, we are all in this together klan.  I believe in the power, motivation and basic greed that drives individuals to innovate, work hard and succeed.  I know that is not politically correct but I still see people as imperfect and essentially selfish.  The needs of the one far outweigh the needs of the many, but individual success will inadvertently pull forward the rest.  It is the way of capitalism.  It is exactly the battle we see in Trump vs Bernie. Republican vs Democrat.

This seems like just a way for a person to rationalize their own selfishness. If you surround yourself with selfish, greedy people then you assume everyone is selfish and greedy. So your own selfishness and greed must be okay.

And wasn't it YOU who assumed old white people love their white privilege putting all old white people in the same group of selfish and greedy people, not even knowing who these old white people are or what struggles they had as they became old white people?

 

[tim]

No, its just human nature. Capitalism relies on this little fact. People always want more. It is the most effective motivator to achieve.  Libs always miss this assuming everyone takes into account everyone else, all the time. Truth is, they don't.  You may think thats sad but I see it as just how it is.  An idealistic world of all are equal removes the incentive to achieve, inequality is the reason the system works. Its a Hobsian world of all against all.

I guess I think people have a mix of selfish and unselfish desires. Trump appeals to people's selfish desires and not to the unselfish ones. This is because he is completely selfish. Just because something is part of "human nature" doesn't mean we should not fight against it to some degree. I'm not sure why people donate to charity in your world.

 

[morekaos]

No, its just human nature. Capitalism relies on this little fact. People always want more. It is the most effective motivator to achieve.  Libs always miss this assuming everyone takes into account everyone else, all the time. Truth is, they don't.  You may think thats sad but I see it as just how it is.  An idealistic world of all are equal removes the incentive to achieve, inequality is the reason the system works. Its a Hobsian world of all against all.

I guess I think people have a mix of selfish and unselfish desires. Trump appeals to people's selfish desires and not to the unselfish ones. This is because he is completely selfish. Just because something is part of "human nature" doesn't mean we should not fight against it to some degree. I'm not sure why people donate to charity in your world.

Tax breaks and self loathing wealthy guilt.

 

[tim]

And wasn't it YOU who assumed old white people love their white privilege putting all old white people in the same group of selfish and greedy people, not even knowing who these old white people are or what struggles they had as they became old white people?

Yes, it was me. I'm not sure what your point is, though. I contend that there are a lot of white people that are used to a country where they get advantages based on their skin color. Due to lack of exposure/education, many of these people are rather xenophobic. They also fear because they correctly feel that their advantages are fading. They blame "other" for the problems in their lives.

 

[tim]

No, its just human nature. Capitalism relies on this little fact. People always want more. It is the most effective motivator to achieve.  Libs always miss this assuming everyone takes into account everyone else, all the time. Truth is, they don't.  You may think thats sad but I see it as just how it is.  An idealistic world of all are equal removes the incentive to achieve, inequality is the reason the system works. Its a Hobsian world of all against all.

I guess I think people have a mix of selfish and unselfish desires. Trump appeals to people's selfish desires and not to the unselfish ones. This is because he is completely selfish. Just because something is part of "human nature" doesn't mean we should not fight against it to some degree. I'm not sure why people donate to charity in your world.

Tax breaks and self loathing wealthy guilt.

Then why does giving percentage decrease as income goes up?

 

[morekaos]

Not to pile on here I really enjoy the conversation but I am a native Californian,  pacific islander (definitely not white) born of immigrant, "educated" parents, and am, I suppose also considered "educated" (UCLA) who has had a continuous job (minimum wage McDonalds)  since I was 14 years old. Not at all what you might lump into Hillarys deplorable category. Yet I proudly voted Trump, so did a lot of others.

 

[morekaos]

No, its just human nature. Capitalism relies on this little fact. People always want more. It is the most effective motivator to achieve.  Libs always miss this assuming everyone takes into account everyone else, all the time. Truth is, they don't.  You may think thats sad but I see it as just how it is.  An idealistic world of all are equal removes the incentive to achieve, inequality is the reason the system works. Its a Hobsian world of all against all.

I guess I think people have a mix of selfish and unselfish desires. Trump appeals to people's selfish desires and not to the unselfish ones. This is because he is completely selfish. Just because something is part of "human nature" doesn't mean we should not fight against it to some degree. I'm not sure why people donate to charity in your world.

Tax breaks and self loathing wealthy guilt.

Then why does giving percentage decrease as income goes up?

Because the limitations on charitable donations effect on overall tax bills. It has a diminishing return.

 

[tim]

No, its just human nature. Capitalism relies on this little fact. People always want more. It is the most effective motivator to achieve.  Libs always miss this assuming everyone takes into account everyone else, all the time. Truth is, they don't.  You may think thats sad but I see it as just how it is.  An idealistic world of all are equal removes the incentive to achieve, inequality is the reason the system works. Its a Hobsian world of all against all.

I guess I think people have a mix of selfish and unselfish desires. Trump appeals to people's selfish desires and not to the unselfish ones. This is because he is completely selfish. Just because something is part of "human nature" doesn't mean we should not fight against it to some degree. I'm not sure why people donate to charity in your world.

Tax breaks and self loathing wealthy guilt.

Then why does giving percentage decrease as income goes up?

Because the limitations on charitable donations effect on overall tax bills. It has a diminishing return.

Oh, sure, that might affect things for some people with enough money to care. Personally, I have never made a decision about giving to others based on taxes.

I was unclear, but my question was referring more to people that don't make enough money for taxes to be an issue. Those people give more than others. They are not doing it for the tax break. They do it because they think it is important to help others. And, some of that is a selfish "It might be me one day" kind of thing, but not all of it. Some of it is because they live around people that are in need.

I believe that people who are more selfish, greedy, and concerned about money will work harder and be bothered less about breaking ethical, moral, and legal standards to get what they want. Those are the people who will indeed get more money. For people who prioritize money and morals differently, they will tend to have less money.

Fortunately, the birthrate is lower for wealthy, selfish people. So evolution will keep humanity from becoming a sea of selfishness.

I don't think libs assume "everyone takes into account everyone else, all the time." That is quite extreme. Perhaps we just have a hard time imagining people taking others into account as rarely as you imagine.

 

[zubs]

I heard on the radio today that nice and agreeable people make less money than assholes.  So if you teach your children to be nice and agreeable, you are stunting their income....quite the conundrum don't you think?

 

[morekaos]

We are getting into the weeds here. All your points are valid, we are not monolithic, I am making a more general argument,  my point is more relevant when looking at the political trend in relation to this thread. Theological,philosophical and moral discussions could fill a whole other topic.

 

[peppy]

I heard on the radio today that nice and agreeable people make less money than assholes.  So if you teach your children to be nice and agreeable, you are stunting their income....quite the conundrum don't you think?

Wasn't there a study that showed that 1 out of 5 CEOs match the profile of a psychopath??

 

[nosuchreality]

Then why does giving percentage decrease as income goes up?

Because it is false mantra on the evils of wealth.

That decrease might also mirror the base tax rates.  At an AGI of $50K, a family of 4 filing jointly with two children will have a base tax liabiity of $1468 for the Fed income.  At $100K that is $9368.  At $200K, it's $37,190.

So according to the chart, the $50K family, donated 4%, $2000.  With $1468 in taxes, that's $3468 for the common good.  That getting evil $100K family, only donated 2.6%, that's $2600, with $9268 in taxes or $11868 for the common good. And that evilest $200K family cheaply donate a mere 2.4%, or $4800, plus $37,190 in taxes or $41,190 for the common good.

So the $50k family, sub 7% for the common good, the $100K family, almost 12% and the $200K family, right around 20%.

 

[socal78]

If you are white and think you do not have white privilege, then you do not understand what the term "white privilege" means. Imagine having to go through all you have gone through. Now imagine doing all that AND being black. If you think your life would then be easier, then you are not clued in to all the things that black people have to deal with. Some of it is due to outright racist people, but probably not most. Most of it is due to inherent, unconscious bias in people. There is also bias in various systems in the country. It isn't hard to see if you are really looking. The fact that many white people don't see it is because they don't have to. They don't suffer from it. Not suffering from it when others do gives you an advantage. You aren't trying to have that advantage. (Well, some people do, but most don't.) But you still have it. And it isn't just race. I think men also have many advantages.

Just look at who has been President of the USA. If you are a child imagining a future for yourself, is it easier to imagine you could be President if you are a white man or if you are a black woman? White men have 40-something examples. Black women have 0. Women haven't even had 100 years of being able to vote. Blacks struggled to actually get to vote in many states until after civil rights laws passed just 50 years ago. Imagine if your parents had suffered from that prejudice while your white friends' parents did not. Doesn't it seem like that would have an effect on you?

When I talk about white privilege, it is not to make white people feel guilty. It is to acknowledge the benefits that white people have without even trying. It is to acknowledge that it is harder in this country to be brown-skinned. Maybe think of it as a phrase of empathy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TU50Bz3Ey0

 

[tim]

Then why does giving percentage decrease as income goes up?

Because it is false mantra on the evils of wealth.

...[image removed here for space savings]...

That decrease might also mirror the base tax rates.  At an AGI of $50K, a family of 4 filing jointly with two children will have a base tax liabiity of $1468 for the Fed income.  At $100K that is $9368.  At $200K, it's $37,190.

So according to the chart, the $50K family, donated 4%, $2000.  With $1468 in taxes, that's $3468 for the common good.  That getting evil $100K family, only donated 2.6%, that's $2600, with $9268 in taxes or $11868 for the common good. And that evilest $200K family cheaply donate a mere 2.4%, or $4800, plus $37,190 in taxes or $41,190 for the common good.

So the $50k family, sub 7% for the common good, the $100K family, almost 12% and the $200K family, right around 20%.

That's interesting. I'm not sure how that squares with morekaos' theory that people give based on tax benefits. It seems like his theory would show less giving in that range where the percentage curves back up. But I probably am wrong about the tax breaks. I've never hit that $1,000,000 AGI, so I haven't had a whole ton of reason to spec that out.