What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Grey Fox]

Can you do something about the 100 man unit trying to hack my workplace?

[DGuller]

Can you do something about the 100 man unit trying to hack my workplace?

I can look into that.  What's your password?

[Eddie Teach]

Blueberries.

[Grey Fox]

Can you do something about the 100 man unit trying to hack my workplace?

I can look into that.  What's your password?

That's not enough. Since the DOD mandated 2-factor authentification, you also need my thumb.

[HVC]

Can you do something about the 100 man unit trying to hack my workplace?

I can look into that.  What's your password?

That's not enough. Since the DOD mandated 2-factor authentification, you also need my thumb.

Careful he's Russian, he has ways

[The Minsky Moment]

Now you are implicitly conceding that deductability *does* in fact subsidize local spending, but advancing a new argument that the subsidy is in fact worthwhile, because of the additional income, and hence the higher federal tax revenues, it generates. 

I'm not making the concession, just responding to the assumption in the prior post.  The SALT deduction is one of the few constants of the federal tax regime - it was even there in the tax struck down in Pollock before the adoption of the 16th amendment.  The principle is basic - the federal government shouldn't be able to tax monies already appropriated by the state government in tax.  It's not a credit for tax paid, it's simply an exclusion from income taxation of that already taxed by a co-sovereign.  It's not a subsidy to the state for the feds to refrain from taxing money the state collects in taxation, its just the basic operation of federalism. 

I like this argument better, but I still see some problems, specifically in determining causality.  A large part of urban spending goes to crime prevention and social programs.  These don't generate higher incomes, they mitigate the consequences that come with population density.  Not all urban centers are productive either.  Take a look at any rust belt shithole.  It would be very hard to ascribe the success of NY finance to the NY state education system, or the success of Silicon Valley to Berkeley or Cal State Fullerton.

It's an economic question, so one can argue about causality until the end of time without coming to any definitive answer.  High tax relative tax levels are certainly no guarantee of economic success.  Weak state taxation OTOH is often correlated with poor economic outcomes and there is quite a bit of developmental and growth literature on this.

As to the specific examples, the strength of the NYC area in financial services and media is almost certainly connected to the density and amenities of the commercial district and the surrounding residential areas, which entails high infrastructure cost.  In California, the public university system generates 2/3 of the STEM graduates in the state (half UCal half CSU), I am reasonably confident this contributes to the strength of the tech industry in the state.

[crazy canuck]

It's not a subsidy to the state for the feds to refrain from taxing money the state collects in taxation, its just the basic operation of federalism. 

Trump has been successful because Trumpists have no understanding of basic legal and constitutional principles.  They simply see  the whole structure of what has been built carefully over time as something which should be destroyed asap - and they claim the title of "conservative". 

[Jacob]

There's also the bit where the tax proposal wants to charge income tax on tuition waivers for graduate students, apparently wanting to inflict a serious blow on higher education across the country.

I guess they've made the calculation that higher education tends to equal more liberal politics, therefore they should harm or destroy higher education.

[Valmy]

It's not a subsidy to the state for the feds to refrain from taxing money the state collects in taxation, its just the basic operation of federalism. 

Trump has been successful because Trumpists have no understanding of basic legal and constitutional principles.  They simply see  the whole structure of what has been built carefully over time as something which should be destroyed asap - and they claim the title of "conservative". 

No I observed when I left the Republicans 15 or so years ago that they are radicals and not conservatives at all. Actual conservatism I can get behind, these kind of bomb throwing quasi-anarchist types I can do without.

[The Larch]

There's also the bit where the tax proposal wants to charge income tax on tuition waivers for graduate students, apparently wanting to inflict a serious blow on higher education across the country.

I guess they've made the calculation that higher education tends to equal more liberal politics, therefore they should harm or destroy higher education.

I read somewhere that, if implemented, it'd basically wreck doctoral programs all over the US, since it would count tuitition support as income and make students pay an outrageous amount in taxes, basically restricting superior education to the independently wealthy.

[Valmy]

There's also the bit where the tax proposal wants to charge income tax on tuition waivers for graduate students, apparently wanting to inflict a serious blow on higher education across the country.

I guess they've made the calculation that higher education tends to equal more liberal politics, therefore they should harm or destroy higher education.

I read somewhere that, if implemented, it'd basically wreck doctoral programs all over the US, since it would count tuitition support as income and make students pay an outrageous amount in taxes, basically restricting superior education to the independently wealthy.

Taxing people who have no money I am all for closing loop holes but that seems like a recipe for failure.

Well at least they are not soaking the rich. Actually I find that hard to believe, was anybody worried that college was too affordable in the US? I mean first education budgets get slashed around the nation and now they are going after the students as well?

[Jacob]

Here's a grad student breaking down the impact of the tax plan: http://caffeinatedcraziness.tumblr.com/post/167182063379/for-all-american-grad-students-who-get-tuition

[Oexmelin]

Actually I find that hard to believe

How can you still find any of this hard to believe?

[Valmy]

Actually I find that hard to believe

How can you still find any of this hard to believe?

Because the Republicans have been militant in Texas in keeping tuition cheap (while refusing to fund education, but that is more about cutting taxes as much as possible rather than an a necessarily anti-education stance). This is a major crusade by the small town very right wing representatives who work tirelessly to get their rural students into the big state universities and keep it affordable. Since that is the constituency fighting to keep college education cheap I am surprised that would be constituency the Republicans would be going after. But granted this is for grad students so maybe that is the thing. If they made it for undergrads as well that would destroy college football and basketball and that can not be tolerated

But last I checked rural communities need doctors and lawyers. It is hard enough for them to attract those types as it is.

[Jacob]

The GOP culture warrior people need to find a way to destroy the Liberal parts of higher education while still producing lawyers and doctors for small communities. It seems that their current strategy is to settle for getting half of that done.