canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Given your last statement is there any reason for us to continue?
An idea for bipartisan tax reform
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Given your last statement is there any reason for us to continue?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
The last refuge of someone who has lost an argument;
"I have utterly destroyed you".
I am sure your mommy will give you an extra oreo after you tell her. I think we are done here. It is clear we are just going around in circles as you are either being deliberately obtuse or you are too stupid to understand the point I am making.
Just know that you nor anyone else dictate the terms under which I debate. Got it Tyrone?
What premise? What the fuck are you talking about?
Seems like a deliberately unrealistic position so you can frame yourself as some moralistic warrior, when you're anything but.
You don't get to claim morality while supporting a President who cheated on all three of his wives, illegally paid off porn stars, and barged in on teenage girls undressing.
You've lost any morality argument right from the get-go.
OK, so now we know that apart from your shitty moralistic argument, there is no other argument in favor of that policy. Which would make the policy crap.
Your position is; "I hate taxes but I love the stuff taxes pay for."
Not that I can tell. You can't market or brand yourself as a moral crusader while you support a very immoral President.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Looks like you have just conceded my point again.
Nothing in the ORIGINAL text gave them the power. The court took on that power through Marbury v Madison. That is the only point I am trying to make. No need to go any further
If you want to know what their ORIGINAL function of the law is then I suggest you read Article III in the US Constitution. It spells it out quite clearly. The Supreme Court just decided it wanted a little more power and deemed itself the sole decider on what is and isn't Constitutional
In my OPINION it was a breech of the US Constitution. You don't have to agree. I am not asking you to agree. I don't give a flying rip if anyone agrees. It is MY opinion. Nothing you say is going to change MY opinion. Got it? If you don't like it tough. Now we are officially finished here. You can continue to respond, but I am done with you.
You've said multiple times on this thread that I've conceded, so by your own standard, you are the one who actually conceded.
Devolving your argument to a literal interpretation is exactly what being obtuse is.
In your base, obtuse, literal opinion.
The SCOTUS interpreted that from the Constitution. They chose a figurative interpretation. You are choosing a literal, obtuse one.
When you lean on literal, obtuse arguments like that, you're telling everyone you lack the ability to think critically.
Right, and your opinion is informed by your literal, obtuse interpretation of language because you lack critical thinking skills.
That literal, obtuse interpretation is not the standard, and never was.
LV...
...you'd have a better chance arguing with this:
...you'd have a better chance arguing with this:
LOL. Yeah, pretty much.
That is not what the data from your links show. You are comparing the percent of federal income tax paid vs. all taxes paid. Since the discussion was about the effects of the federal income tax cuts, that is the only thing we should be comparing. Your link from ITEP shows federal, state, and local taxes.
The Tax Foundation link shows the top 1% paid 37.2% of all federal income taxes. It did not drop to 22.9% as your claim and that is not what your links show.
My source is the IRS/CBO data but I can using the data from the Tax Foundation link you provided.
Percent of Federal Income Taxes Paid (2016)
Top 1%: 37.3%
Top 5%: 58.2%
Top 10%: 69.4%
Top 50%: 97.1%
Top 25%: 85.9%
This percent has risen steadily (1986)
Top 1%: 25.8%
Top 10%: 54.7%
So, opposite from your claim, higher income groups have paid an increasing share of federal income taxes according to your link. I will comment on the tax rates separately.
https://taxfoundation.org/federal-income-tax-burden/
"As Top Marginal Rates Have Fallen, The Tax Burden on the Rich Has Risen"
https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-tax-rates/
Last edited:
Without the power of judicial review there are few checks on the power of the president and Congress to take any actions they choose.
Exactly. Thank you.
I don't think it's so much about individual income rates, though that does play a significant part.
I think the real story is how the share of corporate income tax has declined since the 1950's and 60's. Not only has the share of corporate income tax declined, but their effective rate has declined as well.
So what's happening is that rich people are gaming the system by taking advantage of the generous corporate tax avoidance laws to do things like "pass-thrus" so their income is taxed at a lower percentage than if it was simply a wage.
Things like deferred compensation, stock options, etc. are taxed at lower rates than traditional wage income.
The solution as I see it is to remove all those deductions and loopholes that let a company like Netflix pay $0 in income tax. I think if you did that, you might not even need to touch the corporate tax rate.
The share of income taxes paid by corporations has not declined. In the past most corporations were C corporations that paid the corporate rate. Over the years, most corporations and most corporate revenue came from S corporations that pay through individual rates and their share of income taxes does not appear separately.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-sanders-says-tax-share-paid-corporations-ha/
Many, included President Obama, favored reducing the effective tax rate for corporations. Having the (or one of the) highest corporate tax rates in the world it kept us from being competitive leading more companies to go offshore. We were also one of the only countries to tax corporations for profits made abroad giving them incentive to keep all their money in foreign banks. Apple had over a trillion dollars abroad. Although it is a cliche, it is true that corporations do not pay taxes--they include that in the cost of products purchased by consumers.
Obviously, that's an irrelevant comparison, in the context of this discussion, since comparing a period before the tax cut to some other period before the tax cut tells us nothing about the impact of the tax cut. What we want to know is what percent of taxes the rich paid before the tax cut and what percent they paid after. Do you have a source for such data? As you can see, my second source shows that the top 1% used to pay 23.2% of the total federal,state, and local taxes, pre-TCJA, and tat they pay 22.9% post-TCJA. It also showes a drop from 15.4% to 15.1% for the next 4% below them.
So, now that you know how wrong you were, do you care to share where you got your false notion?
But the link says this:
So, corporate taxes accounted for 33 percent of all tax revenue in 1952 but just 10 percent in 2013. The 2013 figure is slightly higher than what Sanders said, but his claim is basically accurate on the numbers.
That said, the measurement Sanders used may not be the best. Economists told us that it would be more useful to know what corporate taxes were as a percentage of gross domestic product.
But looking at it that way, the general pattern also holds. In 1952, corporate taxes accounted for 5.9 percent of GDP, a figure that has fallen to 1.6 percent today.