2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 298K
  • Politics 
Vance regarding the Elon Musk "Department of Government Efficiency":

"...
Vance: Well, I’ve spoken. You mean with the president or with Elon?

Ryan: With Elon.

Vance: Ok, yeah, with Elon. So, I’ve spoken with Elon a little bit about it and um, you know, I think that the way that this is envisioned is you set up a, you know, you set up an organization with very smart people from the private sector and a few smart people from government and you go in and you say, ‘How are we going to fix all of these inefficiencies?’ And the thing that’s complicated about this, man, is it’s going to look much different in say the Department of Defense versus Social Security, right?

... In an example of targeting Social Security, Vance went on to cite a claim of rampant Social Security fraud among migrants.

... In another section of the interview, when Vance was asked what programs he would target first himself, he cited “welfare programs” and “section 8 housing.”..."


It is sort of weird how much the White Nationalist right is enamored of this D.O.G.E. concept ...

 
nycfan said:
Vance regarding the Elon Musk "Department of Government Efficiency":

"...
Vance: Well, I’ve spoken. You mean with the president or with Elon?

Ryan: With Elon.

Vance: Ok, yeah, with Elon. So, I’ve spoken with Elon a little bit about it and um, you know, I think that the way that this is envisioned is you set up a, you know, you set up an organization with very smart people from the private sector and a few smart people from government and you go in and you say, ‘How are we going to fix all of these inefficiencies?’ And the thing that’s complicated about this, man, is it’s going to look much different in say the Department of Defense versus Social Security, right?

... In an example of targeting Social Security, Vance went on to cite a claim of rampant Social Security fraud among migrants.

... In another section of the interview, when Vance was asked what programs he would target first himself, he cited “welfare programs” and “section 8 housing.”..."


It is sort of weird how much the White Nationalist right is enamored of this D.O.G.E. concept ...

Click to expand...

It was when Gov Martin came in I believe-Dems been running things for a long time almost uninterupted So the Pubs had such a"commission" I knew one guy on it pretty well on it The resultant implemention of Measures to improve efficiencies was...drum roll...I don't remember anything really
 
I want a list of the Customers-come on Twitter get the stuff rolling...I mean just make it and satisfy our interests
 
Feel like it was just a couple days ago that I said I can't believe we're in the 50s. 49 days to go? Election will be here in the blink of an eye...
 
Rock said:
Feel like it was just a couple days ago that I said I can't believe we're in the 50s. 49 days to go? Election will be here in the blink of an eye...
Click to expand...
And yet it can’t come soon enough. I will vote as soon as I can when early voting opens (October 17-November 2 in NC) to get my vote banked.
 
mpaer said:
It was when Gov Martin came in I believe-Dems been running things for a long time almost uninterupted So the Pubs had such a"commission" I knew one guy on it pretty well on it The resultant implemention of Measures to improve efficiencies was...drum roll...I don't remember anything really
Click to expand...
It was called the Governor’s Efficiency Commission. I was part of it. The group I worked with studied the UNC system, the community college system and the public schools. One of our recommendations was consolidation of the various school systems in the counties into one system. One of the small counties down east had four or five school systems. I think just about all the counties have just one system now.
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
While there is certainly a limit to how much you can cut taxes... there is much greater benefit to the economy to cutting taxes on SS (where most people will spend the extra money) vs. cutting taxes on the rich (where most people will pocket the extra money).
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with that, but candidly given the current deficit we can't really afford to cut many taxes. We need to be increasing tax revenue, not decreasing it. Any cut in taxes has to be more than offset by increases somewhere else.

My personal preference, to start, would be (1) to lower the estate tax threshold, which is super high, by several million dollars (say, to around $7-8 million, from its current $13+ million); and (2) to create at least one income tax bracket, and possibly two, above what we currently have. The current highest tax bracket is 37% on income above $609k for individuals and $731k for married couples. I would create a 40% tax bracket beginning at $1 million and a 45% tax bracket beginning at $3 million.
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
While there is certainly a limit to how much you can cut taxes... there is much greater benefit to the economy to cutting taxes on SS (where most people will spend the extra money) vs. cutting taxes on the rich (where most people will pocket the extra money).
Click to expand...
1. That's only true in a recession. In a full employment economy, the macroeconomic effects will be more or less the same. If there's a difference, it will likely favor tax cuts on the rich (depending on your definition of rich) because the rich are typically still working. So the disincentive to work applies in one case and not the other. Now, I happen to think that the "marginal taxes on income disincentivize work" effect is small, which is one of many reasons I'm not a conservative, but small is better than zero. Note: the tax cut, unlike the Trump tax cuts, would have to be on work and not passive income, but anyway . . .

So the case here for SS tax cuts wouldn't be economic but rather fairness. The old folks deserve to keep more of their money, more than the rich. Something like that.

2. There are plenty of folks here on SS who therefore know more than me, but I wouldn't imagine that the average SS recipient is paying much tax on SS. The SS payments just aren't going to be sufficient to kick the recipient much above the zero-tax levels. The SS tax cut would be more beneficial to people who have a bunch of investment income from stuffed IRAs, etc. So it would still be a tax cut for the well-to-do, if not the wealthy.
 
rodoheel said:
I definitely agree with that, but candidly given the current deficit we can't really afford to cut many taxes. We need to be increasing tax revenue, not decreasing it. Any cut in taxes has to be more than offset by increases somewhere else.

My personal preference, to start, would be (1) to lower the estate tax threshold, which is super high, by several million dollars (say, to around $7-8 million, from its current $13+ million); and (2) to create at least one income tax bracket, and possibly two, above what we currently have. The current highest tax bracket is 37% on income above $609k for individuals and $731k for married couples. I would create a 40% tax bracket beginning at $1 million and a 45% tax bracket beginning at $3 million.
Click to expand...
Man, if you ever lower the estate tax threshold, there are going to be a lot of rich people getting the plug pulled ASAP.
 
Patb78 said:
It was called the Governor’s Efficiency Commission. I was part of it. The group I worked with studied the UNC system, the community college system and the public schools. One of our recommendations was consolidation of the various school systems in the counties into one system. One of the small counties down east had four or five school systems. I think just about all the counties have just one system now.
Click to expand...
I think the number of school systems across the state is down to 105 or 106, and the NCGA is leaning on one of the big remaining city systems (Asheville City Schools) to consolidate with Buncombe County.

Another I know a little about is in my home county -Davidson- where Lexington City Schools are holding our for fear of diluting minority presence. The city schools are majority minority both in student population and school board membership, and they fear that if they merge the minority students will get lost in their new environments and the supportive environment they've created for themselves over many generations will be lost as well.
 
superrific said:
1. That's only true in a recession. In a full employment economy, the macroeconomic effects will be more or less the same. If there's a difference, it will likely favor tax cuts on the rich (depending on your definition of rich) because the rich are typically still working. So the disincentive to work applies in one case and not the other. Now, I happen to think that the "marginal taxes on income disincentivize work" effect is small, which is one of many reasons I'm not a conservative, but small is better than zero. Note: the tax cut, unlike the Trump tax cuts, would have to be on work and not passive income, but anyway . . .

So the case here for SS tax cuts wouldn't be economic but rather fairness. The old folks deserve to keep more of their money, more than the rich. Something like that.

2. There are plenty of folks here on SS who therefore know more than me, but I wouldn't imagine that the average SS recipient is paying much tax on SS. The SS payments just aren't going to be sufficient to kick the recipient much above the zero-tax levels. The SS tax cut would be more beneficial to people who have a bunch of investment income from stuffed IRAs, etc. So it would still be a tax cut for the well-to-do, if not the wealthy.
Click to expand...
Married filing jointly, if combined income exceeds $44,000 ($35K for single filers) 85% of SS benefit is taxable income. So if you are getting SS while the other spouse is still working you'll be over the threshold. But you're right that it mostly impacts people who have investment income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top