Senate OKs sweeping bill lowering drug prices and promoting clean energy, setting up major Biden win

[rumak]

6 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

...so, how will this bill reduce inflation exactly? Nobody has seemed to be able to find out yet. 

 

Taking more money from taxpayers and giving it to politicians so that they can pass it on to their pet subsidies is not anti-inflationary.   Shovelling more cash into climate change boondoggles is not anti-inflationary. Spending billions for the Post Office to buy electric trucks is going to reduce inflation? Give me a break. This should more accurately be called Build Back Broker 2.0.

Or Big Big Bullsheet !    

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Probably because this "landmark" bill is more likely to create higher inflation:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/inflation-bill-sinema-manchin-senate-horribly-misnamed-rcna41712

 

But the Inflation Reduction Act isn’t just misnamed because it won’t do what its title promises — it will likely make inflation worse by raising the cost of producing goods and services and lowering their overall supply. The higher cost and consequent lower supply of goods means that money circulating in the economy is used to purchase fewer goods, thereby pushing up the price of goods, leading to higher inflation. 

This is a typical supply side argument. That higher taxes will result in decreased supply. This argument has been around since taxes were raised under Clinton in 1993. The argument failed then and it will fail now. For an intelligent discussion of the effect of the bill follow this link:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/8/4/23292338/congress-inflation-reduction-act-reduce-biden

As the participants note, Congress doesn't have much ability in the short run to lower inflation. It's the medium and long run where it will have an impact.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Well, Wharton School of Business, cited by Hanaguma (in a post you liked), desagrees with it and considers the impact on inflation will be statistically indistinguishable from zero,

How is zero a reduction?  

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

How is zero a reduction?  

When the bill started out, the tax portion of the bill was higher.

[nauseus]

56 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This is a typical supply side argument. That higher taxes will result in decreased supply. This argument has been around since taxes were raised under Clinton in 1993. The argument failed then and it will fail now. For an intelligent discussion of the effect of the bill follow this link:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/8/4/23292338/congress-inflation-reduction-act-reduce-biden

As the participants note, Congress doesn't have much ability in the short run to lower inflation. It's the medium and long run where it will have an impact.

Big new corporate taxes will ultimately make goods and services more expensive, with worsening inflation.  Volker's success in fighting high inflation 40 years was won with ultra tight monetary policy coincident with the tax cuts under Reagan.  

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Big new corporate taxes will ultimately make goods and services more expensive, with worsening inflation.  Volker's success in fighting high inflation 40 years was won with ultra tight monetary policy coincident with the tax cuts under Reagan.  

Did somebody say that fighting climate change was going to be free?

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Did somebody say that fighting climate change was going to be free?

It you think that hundreds of billions of dollars  to fight climate change is important, then how about being honest and call the bill the "Money for Democratic Donors in 'Renewable Energy'" Bill?  Government spending, if anything, adds to inflation. 

 

As for increased corporate taxes, guess who will wind up paying them? Consumers, in the form of higher prices, which also will add to inflation. 

 

And no amount of IRS involvement in the economy will change that. 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Big new corporate taxes will ultimately make goods and services more expensive, with worsening inflation.  Volker's success in fighting high inflation 40 years was won with ultra tight monetary policy coincident with the tax cuts under Reagan.  

You can't charge more than people are willing to pay. Corporate profits in the USA are bloated. Way above where they used to be. Thanks in large part to tax cuts under the Bush Administratin. So why would restoring corporate taxes to where they were raise prices? What makes the current level of taxation so special?

 

Tax cuts are irrelevant when interest rates are raised to 20%. as they were under Volcker.  Don't understand why you even mentioned them.

[Hanaguma]

37 minutes ago, placeholder said:

When the bill started out, the tax portion of the bill was higher.

Except those taxes will be passed on to the end users, so the revenue generated will be offset. Remember when France had the great idea to add a special tax to millionaires? It added a grand total of 2% to tax revenue, at the expense of 60,000 of the country's wealthiest people leaving the country.  And cost the country 0.2% of GDP per year.   Ain't no way to tax your way out of trouble. 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Except those taxes will be passed on to the end users, so the revenue generated will be offset. Remember when France had the great idea to add a special tax to millionaires? It added a grand total of 2% to tax revenue, at the expense of 60,000 of the country's wealthiest people leaving the country.  And cost the country 0.2% of GDP per year.   Ain't no way to tax your way out of trouble. 

As I pointed out above, what makes you think that the current level of taxation is either the optimum one or too high? With simplistic thinking like yours, the only way for taxes to go is down.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It you think that hundreds of billions of dollars  to fight climate change is important, then how about being honest and call the bill the "Money for Democratic Donors in 'Renewable Energy'" Bill?  Government spending, if anything, adds to inflation. 

 

As for increased corporate taxes, guess who will wind up paying them? Consumers, in the form of higher prices, which also will add to inflation. 

 

And no amount of IRS involvement in the economy will change that. 

Trumps giveaway wasn't just corporate taxes. Most big corporations avoid tax like the plague. The average worker pays more tax than them.

 

The degree to which government spending causes inflation depends on how it's spent. Overall, yes but spending on investment can return some of that expenditure. Investment in green energy is needed fast. Especially since governments have dodged the hard decisions for decades. Now we get to pay for that. If you're so worried about inflation now why not just increase taxes on corporations a bit. Or close a few loopholes, whatever it takes to get them to pay some tax. The Trump giveaway which only inflated assets like property, stock, crypto,overseas bank accounts, etc.

[Hanaguma]

Just now, placeholder said:

As I pointed out above, what makes you think that the current level of taxation is either the optimum one or too high? With simplistic thinking like yours, the only way for taxes to go is down.

Down is a good direction for taxes to go. Nothing wrong with letting people keep and spend/invest their own money, is there?

 

If you want to volunteer more of your money to the IRS, you can easily do so by adding it to your filing every year. Same as all the rich boobs who complain that their taxes are too low. They can set a good example by voluntarily paying what they consider to be "their fair share". That would give them some moral standing to lecture others to do the same. Otherwise it is all an exercise in virtue signalling. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Down is a good direction for taxes to go. Nothing wrong with letting people keep and spend/invest their own money, is there?

 

If you want to volunteer more of your money to the IRS, you can easily do so by adding it to your filing every year. Same as all the rich boobs who complain that their taxes are too low. They can set a good example by voluntarily paying what they consider to be "their fair share". That would give them some moral standing to lecture others to do the same. Otherwise it is all an exercise in virtue signalling. 

No limits? Schools, roads, police, hospitals, etc. I guess you live off your savings and investments and all your kids are grown up?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Down is a good direction for taxes to go. Nothing wrong with letting people keep and spend/invest their own money, is there?

 

If you want to volunteer more of your money to the IRS, you can easily do so by adding it to your filing every year. Same as all the rich boobs who complain that their taxes are too low. They can set a good example by voluntarily paying what they consider to be "their fair share". That would give them some moral standing to lecture others to do the same. Otherwise it is all an exercise in virtue signalling. 

It depends on what the needs of a country are on the whole. And making it personal is the mark of someone who has no coherent argument to offer.

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

No limits? Schools, roads, police, hospitals, etc. I guess you live off your savings and investments and all your kids are grown up?

Actually, yeah I do pretty much.  And I never said "no limits" so please quit strqw manning.  Paying for community necessities? Great. $300 billion for so-called climate initiatives? No thank you. 

[Walker88]

Biden has a couple of major bills passed, he has UE down to a 53 year low of 3.5%, 3 million jobs created so far in 2022 (Biden inherited 6.8% UE from 45), oil is now trading at the 87 handle with gas below $4 now, the yearly deficit was reduced by $350 billion in FY 2021 and will be down $1.7 trillion in FY 2022, and he just took out Ayman al-Zawahiri with a weapon ordered developed in 2011 under Obama.

 

It's shaping up to be a pretty successful Presidency, despite the poll numbers.

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, yeah I do pretty much.  And I never said "no limits" so please quit strqw manning.  Paying for community necessities? Great. $300 billion for so-called climate initiatives? No thank you. 

Well, the Biden government is basing its climate initiative on the science. I suspect that you're basing your opposition on denialism.

[sqwakvfr]

The federal agency I fear the most is the IRS.  About 10 years ago I got an IRS demand letter for more money.  This was based upon on a tax return I had filed 3 years earlier and I had filed an amended return for the same year because of a missing 1099.  The CPA told me in many cases an amended return results in a new and deeper look at a return. .  I feared the worst and this is why I have had a CPA do my taxes for over 35 years.  The CPA went to war on my behalf and won.  It was months of back and forth but in the end I paid ZERO.  Since then let’s just say my deductions have been on the conservative side.  I do not believe for a second that only the rich and corporations will be scrutinized by the IRS that is now more funded.  

 

As for inflation reduction, reduction in prescription drug prices and of course the environment, the probability of me benefiting it in my lifetime is very small.  I was born in the early 1960’s and I live on a fixed state government pension, currently not taking any medications and never owned an electric vehicle or lived in a home with solar panels.  

 

I live in reality but it seems some in the Senate live in the world of idealism.  

[Hanaguma]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, the Biden government is basing its climate initiative on the science. I suspect that you're basing your opposition on denialism.

"The science!?"  And what exactly is "the science"?   

 

Does it tell him to subsidize rich people so they can buy electric cars?  Which use dangerous batteries, lots of rare earth elements, and run on electricity produced by coal/gas? 

 

How did "the science" come up with such exact figures like "eliminate 40% of greenhouse gasses by 2030"? Those numbers sound more political than scientific to me. 

[The Hammer2021]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Prisons are full of people who believed themselves too clever to be caught.

 

Where there is a will, there’s a way.

 

The will to tackle tax evasion just showed up.

Tax evasion is legal. Anybody  who pays taxes they are not legally obliged  to pay is stupid.

[Berkshire]

1 minute ago, The Hammer2021 said:

Tax evasion is legal. Anybody  who pays taxes they are not legally obliged  to pay is stupid.

Tax evasion is illegal.  Tax avoidance is legal.  I hope you're not giving tax advice to your friends.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

"The science!?"  And what exactly is "the science"?   

 

Does it tell him to subsidize rich people so they can buy electric cars?  Which use dangerous batteries, lots of rare earth elements, and run on electricity produced by coal/gas? 

 

How did "the science" come up with such exact figures like "eliminate 40% of greenhouse gasses by 2030"? Those numbers sound more political than scientific to me. 

Actually it was originally 50% but that was reduced to 40% and yes there is some science around that.

 

The United States has set an ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 50% by 2030. Are we on track to succeed?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220602095102.htm

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Actually it was originally 50% but that was reduced to 40% and yes there is some science around that.

 

The United States has set an ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 50% by 2030. Are we on track to succeed?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220602095102.htm

Interesting. "THE science" has suddenly changed into "SOME science". So "some science" is worth $300 billion?

[howlee101]

21 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

3 million jobs created so far in 2022

"Created"?  You may want to fact check your statement.  Of course Biden is  gloating his administration "created" jobs but the term to use should be jobs "added".  The pandemic caused many employers to lay off workers but now those employers are bringing back those workers as businesses are opening back up to full operations.   

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Interesting. "THE science" has suddenly changed into "SOME science". So "some science" is worth $300 billion?

Considering the science said 50% and the bill has gone for 40% then my adding the "some" makes so much difference to the actual "science" in the paper I linked to does it?

 

and that's without using extra coal.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[The Hammer2021]

15 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Tax evasion is illegal.  Tax avoidance is legal.  I hope you're not giving tax advice to your friends.

Hhhmmm. I believe  you have explained some problems I've been having. Thank you! I stand  corrected

[ozimoron]

35 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

"The science!?"  And what exactly is "the science"?   

 

Does it tell him to subsidize rich people so they can buy electric cars?  Which use dangerous batteries, lots of rare earth elements, and run on electricity produced by coal/gas? 

 

How did "the science" come up with such exact figures like "eliminate 40% of greenhouse gasses by 2030"? Those numbers sound more political than scientific to me. 

It's a target. It's not just intended to be words. When you put a target into law you need to introduce laws to mandate that happens. That compels industry to take notice and so something to achieve that goal. It also provides incentive for investment and surety for banks. When all companies have to do their boards can't refuse just to save the shareholders a buck or two.

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's a target. It's not just intended to be words. When you put a target into law you need to introduce laws to mandate that happens. That compels industry to take notice and so something to achieve that goal. It also provides incentive for investment and surety for banks. When all companies have to do their boards can't refuse just to save the shareholders a buck or two.

Ok, so now "the science" is actually "a target"?

 

Now let's assume it comes to pass and the US reduces by 40% in 8 years. This will have next to no impact on the global climate unless the OTHER big emitters get on board. And they aren't. So it amounts to yet another futile gesture. One that costs $300 billion.

[The Hammer2021]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

No limits? Schools, roads, police, hospitals, etc. I guess you live off your savings and investments and all your kids are grown up?

Police? To apply which laws?

Schools? To promote which values?

Roads? To where?

Hospitals? Sounds  great idea but in Britain taxes pay for fertility  treatment, transvestite  operations, breast enlargments and  INFURIATINGLY the Breeders and their kids.

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by The Hammer2021

[DBath]

9 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

But will Biden cheat the actuary tables and live long enough to sign the bill ???? 

Dude has one foot in the grave - maybe two already.