59% support AOC's plan to raise top bracket to 70%

[Wolverine]

Since you cannot make an economic or fiscal argument in your defense, you seek to shift the debate to emotions.

Keep your emotions in check and smile more! You'll probably find a man easier and won't have to be a spinster!

I believe no one should be taxed more than anyone else, it's called coveting when you do, you want more earn more you useless tool. Learn it live it love it you will feel better about yourself.

Here is a video you should watch this has to be you!

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/daily-affirmations-ii/3506378

I am a man you little prick, you are a soy boy! It's evident when you threaten people, and then walk it back you yellow spined coward!

 

[LV426]

I know. The share of federal income taxes they paid is higher than their share of income.

They paid a 242% tax rate???

Nope.

They paid a much lower rate than that.

Furthermore, none of this is an economic or fiscal argument against tax increases on the rich.

You're trying to shift the grounds of the debate to fairness.

Top 1% (2015)
20.65% Share of AGI
39.04% Percent of Federal Income Taxes Paid

We're not talking about their share in a vacuum, we're talking about how their share got to 20.65%.

Just curious, what was the 1% share of AGI in 1980? Do you have that number, or did you leave it out like you usually do because it undermines your argument?

 

[Flash]

How many republicans refused the money over the years ?

No candidates (Democrat or Republican) refused federal funding for the general election until Obama in 2008. In 2012 and 2016 neither candidate took the money because they could raise and spend much more than they could under the law (about $150 million vs. $1.22 billion in 2012).

Some Democratic and Republican candidates refused the federal matching funds for the nomination process during the latter years of federal funding.

 

[LV426]

I know. The share of federal income taxes they paid is higher than their share of income.

Top 1% (2015)

20.65% Share of AGI
39.04% Percent of Federal Income Taxes Paid

[IRS: Statistics of Income, Individual Income Rates, and Tax Shares, 2017]

So here's another great example of how you lie in the most insidious way possible.

You present a number, in a vacuum, and try to establish that as the source of the debate.

But the debate isn't about what their share of the AGI is in 2015, the debate is about how their share grew from what it was in 1980 to what it was in 2015.

That is what you leave out; the context.

And it's obvious why you leave that context out...because if you included it, you would have to show that the 1%'s share of AGI in 2015 is much, much higher than what their share was in 1980. Because of that, you can show how much their share of the AGI grew over the 35 years of trickle down Consertvative economics.

By leaving that context out, you inadvertently do two things:

1) Prove my point that you act in bad faith.
2) Undermine and discredit your own argument.

So again, I have to ask why do you do that?

I really believe it's a mental illness thing with you. I think you are mentally ill. No one would stoop to levels that low, and no one would employ bad faith tactics that insidious unless they were mentally ill.

 

[LV426]

I believe no one should be taxed more than anyone else, it's called coveting when you do, you want more earn more you useless tool.

So emotional!

Try smiling more, you'll look prettier.

 

[Flash]

They paid a 242% tax rate???

Nope.

They paid a much lower rate than that.

Furthermore, none of this is an economic or fiscal argument against tax increases on the rich.

You're trying to shift the grounds of the debate to fairness.



We're not talking about their share in a vacuum, we're talking about how their share got to 20.65%.

Just curious, what was the 1% share of AGI in 1980? Do you have that number, or did you leave it out like you usually do because it undermines your argument?

No, you are not reading again or checking the links (which you complain about when I don't give documentation).

The income of the top 1% increased 242% between 1979-2015.

I left out 1980? I also left out 1981 and every other year until 2015. You expect me to list every year? I used 1979 because the IRS data goes from 1979-2015. We have already been through this 2-3 times--must be short-term memory loss.

I never shifted the grounds. You falsely claimed the top gained 100% of the income so I posted income shares to show how full of BS you are. So, you brought up income gains.

 

[LV426]

No, you are not reading again or checking the links (which you complain about when I don't give documentation).

Your post contained no link.

When I cut and paste what you "sourced" in your post, it didn't bring me to any page where you got that info.

And it's important to include 1980's 1% share of AGI because that will show how much it grew over 35 years of trickle-down.

You held it back because you knew that it would be much lower than their share of AGI in 2015.

Admit it, that's why you held it back.

My argument was that the 1% saw all the income gains in the years of your trickle down. You posted some bullshit about how their share of AGI in 2015 was about 20%. But you didn't post what their share of AGI was in 1980, before the trickle down and transfer of income started so we can see how much their share grew. I contend you held that info out because it would show that their share of AGI grew at the expense of everyone else. And since you refused to post what that 1980 number is, we can safely assume you withheld it because it would show how much their share of AGI grew after tax cuts.

So I gotta ask again, why do you do that?

Why do you post things in a vacuum and then try to argue them without context, and why do you continually hold back information that is damaging to your argument?

 

[Flash]

So here's another great example of how you lie in the most insidious way possible.

You present a number, in a vacuum, and try to establish that as the source of the debate.

But the debate isn't about what their share of the AGI is in 2015, the debate is about how their share grew from what it was in 1980 to what it was in 2015.

That is what you leave out; the context.

And it's obvious why you leave that context out...because if you included it, you would have to show that the 1%'s share of AGI in 2015 is much, much higher than what their share was in 1980. Because of that, you can show how much their share of the AGI grew over the 35 years of trickle down Consertvative economics.

By leaving that context out, you inadvertently do two things:

1) Prove my point that you act in bad faith.
2) Undermine and discredit your own argument.

So again, I have to ask why do you do that?

I really believe it's a mental illness thing with you. I think you are mentally ill. No one would stoop to levels that low, and no one would employ bad faith tactics that insidious unless they were mentally ill.

Now you are changing the debate to how their share of income grew and the context?

We were discussing the share of taxes paid by the wealthy, their tax rate, their share of taxes vs. share of income. When I showed you were wrong about the wealthy paying a smaller percent of taxes than their share of the income, you drop that argument and switch to context.

If I made the same illogical arguments you make your anger would erupt (if it ever goes away) and we would hear accusations about "changing the goal posts," "sophistry," and "bad faith."

 

[Nordberg]

People should not discuss the problem until they are educated about the facts.

Wealth gap has to be addressed quickly.

 

[Flash]

We can ban it with a Constitutional Amendment.

So you just choose to ignore the things you cannot explain.

What a fucking fraud.

I only ignore things that are stupid or impossible. Nobody is going to amend the Constitution to restrict free speech or the freedom of Americans to contact their elected representatives.

 

[LV426]

The income of the top 1% increased 242% between 1979-2015.

Right, now how much did their share of AGI grow from 1979-2015?

Oh right, you don't post that number because doing so would confirm my point that all the income gains went to the top 1%.

So you just post what the AGI share is in 2015, but you don't post what the share was in 1980 so we can compare the two sets of figures.

I contend you deliberately withheld that information because it's so damaging to your argument over "fairness", that you can't show figures that show how blatantly unfair it is that all the gains in income went to just 1% of workers.

Prove me wrong that wasn't your intent. Go ahead. Rehabilitate your bad faith. I'll pop popcorn.

 

[Flash]

It can most definitely be done.

It just takes a Constitutional Amendment.

I think I can drive up more support for that Constitutional Amendment than you can drive support that political donations are "speech".

If money = speech, then there is no such thing as "free speech".

Free speech does not necessarily involve money. I can exercise my free speech including campaigning for candidates without spending a penny.

How often has money determined how you vote? Did you vote for Hillary because she spent twice as much as Trump or would you have voted for her if she spent $0?

 

[LV426]

Now you are changing the debate to how their share of income grew and the context?

Flash, you are the one who brought the 1%'s share of AGI into this debate.

You did that to try and show that they're paying a fair proportionate share of taxes.

But I said "not so fast"...what was their income gain over that period. In other words, what is the context here?

The context tells us everything about the situation.

If you show that the 1%'s share of AGI in 1980 is lower than their share of AGI in 2015, then that serves my point that they enjoyed the income gains, and thus, should pay a higher share of taxes because of it.

You hold that information back because you know it will make my case.

That's why you're a fucking fraud.

 

[Getin the ring]

Flash, you are the one who brought the 1%'s share of AGI into this debate.

You did that to try and show that they're paying a fair proportionate share of taxes.

But I said "not so fast"...what was their income gain over that period. In other words, what is the context here?

The context tells us everything about the situation.

If you show that the 1%'s share of AGI in 1980 is lower than their share of AGI in 2015, then that serves my point that they enjoyed the income gains, and thus, should pay a higher share of taxes because of it.

You hold that information back because you know it will make my case.

That's why you're a fucking fraud.

OMG, are you STILL trying to raise my taxes, someone put this nut-bags panties in his mouth already

 

[LV426]

We were discussing the share of taxes paid by the wealthy, their tax rate, their share of taxes vs. share of income.

No, we weren't talking about that. You are trying to unilaterally shift the debate to that because you can't win the argument about how the 1% saw all the gains in income during your trickle down experiment.

So what you do is very dishonest...you ignore everything we were talking about before (how the wealthy saw a 242% increase in their income) and decided to change the parameters of the debate to just the year 2015, and using just the 1% share of AGI metric.

Then you abandon that metric when the request for the context is made.

You're a pretty slippery fucking scumbag to do that, but I'm not as dumb as you are (I wasn't conned by Trump), so it doesn't work on me. I'm too clever to let you try and rig this.

I'm holding you to account for this shit.

And by the way, this isn't the first time you've entered random metrics in the debate you end up absconding later on. You did it with rev-GDP too.

Total fucking fraud. Who buys this shit???? Who thinks you're a respectable person? You don't act in good faith here, so there's little reason to believe you do so IRL.

 

[Getin the ring]

I like when nut-bags think the more curse words th3ey use the more scary they sound

hey Tiny, give it a rest, I could probably kick your a$$

 

[LV426]

If I made the same illogical arguments you make your anger would erupt (if it ever goes away) and we would hear accusations about "changing the goal posts," "sophistry," and "bad faith."

Your entire argument is illogical.

You argued several metrics that you ended up abandoning because you deliberately withheld exculpatory information. Then you tried to present them honestly, but you couldn't do that either, so you just abandoned them completely.

Before, it was you trying to use rev-GDP to prove some point that raising taxes wouldn't raise that, even though the stats you showed did, and then once the context of how much a % means in terms of gross revenue was added, you ditched that entire argument! TOTALLY CHICKENED OUT OF IT. You dropped it completely. You never even mentioned rev-GDP again.

Now we have virtually the same situation again, this time with a new metric, 1% share of AGI.

So now you provide one year of 1% share of AGI and present that one year as the example of why you think the rich are paying a fair share. Yet, you don't post the year of AGI before trickle down and before the massive transfer of income to the top because it will show that the 1%'s share of AGI grew at the expense of everyone else, thus providing justification for a fair higher tax rate.

So you just repeat the same bad faith over and over, which is why it's habitual and why I'm right to assume you're mentally ill.

All of this is in service of your ego. You simply don't want to give me the satisfaction of being right because either I'll rub it in your face (And chances are I will), or because your ego cannot handle it.

Such a snowflake.

 

[LV426]

I only ignore things that are stupid or impossible. Nobody is going to amend the Constitution to restrict free speech or the freedom of Americans to contact their elected representatives.

Money isn't speech, and I bet you that if put to a vote, I would win that vote.

If money = speech then there is no such thing as "free speech".

 

[Getin the ring]

^^^^ Thinks "1% share of AGI" makes him sound important

 

[LV426]

Free speech does not necessarily involve money.

You just said money was speech.

So if money = speech, then there is no such thing as free speech.

So we're not debating the merits of campaign finance reform, we're just debating what you personally think "free speech" means, and that definition changes as your argument changes.

Total. Fucking. Fraud.

Who buys the shit you're selling?