Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut

[anatta]

All that wage growth is skewed by growth at the top.

Take out the 1%'s wage growth and what does the picture look like?

lies

Workers at the lower end of the pay scale finally are getting the most benefit from rising wages
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/wor...e-getting-most-benefit-from-rising-wages.html
For the first time during the recovery, lower-end earners are getting more of the benefit, according to a Goldman Sachs report.

 

[LV426]

Workers at the lower end of the pay scale finally are getting the most benefit from rising wages

BECAUSE OF THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES YOU STUPID ASSHOLE!

Lower end of the pay scale = minimum wage

So if you increase the minimum wage, you raise wages for workers at the lower end of the pay scale.

So your shitty tax cuts didn't case any wage increases for those at the bottom, minimum wage increases did.

 

[LV426]

And then reduced the top rate from 91% to 77% to 70%.

Cool! So 70% was the magic number, then! So I'm glad to see you support a top tax rate of 70% since that's what AOC, Sanders, and Warren have all supported.

Who knew Flash was actually a liberal socialist progressive!??

 

[Earl]

A better way would simply be to extend K-12 to K-16. It would pay for itself because more people would be getting higher education and earning more, which would generate more revenue and pay for itself.

Pay for your own children's college, Snowflake.

 

[Micawber]

how much longer with the GOP tout supply side economics and be taken seriously by the voters?

and how did Bush's 2 massive tax cuts for the wealthy go...…….guess they forgot to build those unneeded factories while crashing the economy

and let's not forget your namesake in this...

 

[Micawber]

I was banned.

Yes, the same punishment from DC Junkies. I did notice this board seemed incrementally more intelligent.

 

[Earl]

"Before I explain the factors that cause wages to increase, let's look at two factors that do not increase wages but are commonly assumed to do so: minimum wages and unions. Elementary economics holds that a price floor will cause a surplus; in this case, the minimum wage sets a price floor for labor and results in excess unemployment. Throughout the 1990s, supporters of the minimum wage frequently trotted out a study by economists David Card and Alan Kreuger that purported to show an increase in employment in New Jersey after the passage of a higher minimum wage. Unfortunately, Card and Kreuger relied on surveys of business owners to establish employment data, and when other economists attempted to replicate their results by looking at the actual payroll data, employment was found to have fallen after the increase in the minimum wage, just as standard economic theory predicted."
https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/economic-opportunity-miscellaneous/why-do-wages-increase

 

[LV426]

More government spending does not make America great again. And all Americans should share in any government obligations.

What do you think paying taxes is? It's Americans sharing in government obligations.

Flash is just seeking accommodation of his entitlement because he wants to be the one everyone tries to win over, when he is one no one needs to win over.

My main objection is that many of these programs accomplish little

M4A accomplishes little? Huh? It's guaranteeing health care as a right to everyone. That's not "little".

reward additional spending,

This phrase means nothing.

give money to those liberals are often complaining about--contractors, wealthy businesses, multiple third parties who never accomplish the job but manage to spend all the money.

How would that be the case with Medicare for all, which would abolish private insurance, or free public colleges, which would make for-profit colleges less appealing?

Liberals argue that the wealthy rule the nation in their interests. While this is much too simplistic a view, the programs pushed by both Democrats and Republicans result in the very thing they criticize.

Please explain how Medicare for all or Free Public Colleges would result in the wealthy ruling the nation, while they have to pay higher taxes or a higher % of their income in taxes?

Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

You and John Delaney should get a room and jerk each other off.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut

Because we made more. A lot more...

 

[LV426]

Those without jobs will not get the healthcare since they pay no payroll taxes?

Of course they will get health care...and we are at full employment, so who are the people you're talking about not getting health care? The elderly, disabled, kids.

Flash doesn't think those people should get health care.

 

[LV426]

Wasteful spending is a poor way to add to the GDP when you are taking it from the taxpayers.

Flash thinks all government spending is wasteful, and that's the goalpost he's shifting here.

Flash wants to apply his subjective judgment as the standard which determines when something crosses from not wasteful to wasteful and he bases that judgment on his shitty instincts and rotten character. Flash is only capable of making false equivalences because he's either too lazy or too cowardly (or both) to confront the fact that there is no symmetry in politics.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

Oh, OK, sort of a modified flat tax.

And no, I can't see how that would work very well at all. The rich pay much more of the revenue than the poor. What you're proposing would essentially strip away all the revenue generated by taxing the rich more than the middle. That revenue is absolutely vital for making our country great, so we can't really be great without it. We'd be quite mediocre. We would have to cut way back on government spending, which would translate into massive job loss, 2.1 million Americans employed by the government, so that would produce a lot of unemployment.

I didn't say I would replace the progressive tax with the flat tax, I just said I like the simplicity of the flat tax. It would not necessarily strip away the additional revenue raised by the wealthy because they would lose a lot of those deductions they have now. Actually, they (and most other groups) would pay more than they do now. Of course, that all depends on what the flat tax amount is. At one time it was estimated that 17% would be revenue neutral and it would apply to all income over $30,000 (adjusted upward for today).

Again, suggesting more government spending makes the country does not work. If so, the country should be really great because spending has increased faster than inflation and revenue over the years. I don't think the country is great when we keep open unnecessary military bases, build weapon systems the military did not request, pay inflated charges for medical supplies to Medicare because we will not do competitive bidding (because it protects small businesses), subsidize colleges that recruit students to increase their budgets with little regard for the needs of the students, provide food stamps and free school lunches to some students without making them meet the eligibility requirements of other recipients, or giving farmers a $16 billion handout, Those do not make the country great.

I don't accept your belief that this waste does not matter because it adds to the GDP. Keeping taxes lower and letting American workers choose how to spend that money also adds to the GDP but in a way that helps them.

We're not collecting enough revenue as it is, which is extremely irresponsible during a strong economy, since it is impossible to increase revenue during a weak economy. Basically, the only time you can stock up on your hay reserves is while the sun is shining. That means the next recession is going to have a far greater impact on the debt than average because we didn't do that under Trump, we didn't prepare. We just spent.

We don't collect enough revenue because we spend too much. Look at the history of spending and revenues and you can see that spending increased faster than revenues
When so much of that spending is unnecessary and unproductive we could make big cuts without hurting anybody that needs it. Government funding often rewards more spending and punishes saving--doing nothing to make the country great.

I certainly agree about Trump, his spending is irresponsible but illustrates what I have been saying. Those spending increases helped him get members of Congress to support those spending bills. Give them some money for their district or state and they will support anything. If a member wants some project for their district the others don't question that project because they don't want their projects questioned. The surest way to get a new weapons system passed is to have parts of it made in 435 different congressional districts.

 

[LV426]

If the taxpayers kept more of that money and spent it they would also be adding to the GDP but in a more productive manner.

And you know he acts in bad faith when he repeats the same shitty talking points Conservatives have been using to justify their shit tax cuts since 1980.

Flash, whenever taxes are cut, personal savings drops and household debt increases, so tax cuts do not let you keep more of what you earn.

I've posted this chart dozens of times, and to this day, Flash refuses to even acknowledge it. Why? Because it ruins his narrative that tax cuts are good because they "let you keep more of what you earn", even though every time taxes are cut, debt increases and savings plummets.



And of course, there's this too (note the date):

US consumer debt surges to record highs
July 14, 2019
https://nypost.com/2019/07/14/us-ha...sis-consumers-owe-more-with-less-in-the-bank/

So Flash, maybe you can explain why people who have been able to "keep more of what they earn" thanks to the tax cut you supported, are actually going into debt and losing their savings?

How can that be when tax cuts "let you keep more of what you earn"?

So the central premise to your entire fiscal belief system is a fucking crock of shit.

 

[Flash]

Cool! So 70% was the magic number, then! So I'm glad to see you support a top tax rate of 70% since that's what AOC, Sanders, and Warren have all support
Who knew Flash was actually a liberal socialist progressive!??

It wasn't magic to me. I was just responding to your comment by Kennedy to show what he did. He gave big "tax cuts to the rich". I think about 35-40% is about the top that is fair.

More than that is just punishment by those who are jealous of those more successful than them. They think if somebody is rich they don't deserve it, must have inherited it or made it by doing something shady. They think the wealthy "owe" those who chose not get an education, training, or experience and can't earn a decent living.

 

[LV426]

It wasn't magic to me. I was just responding to your comment by Kennedy to show what he did. He gave big "tax cuts to the rich". I think about 35-40% is about the top that is fair.

Why do you think that is fair and not the 70% rate Kennedy had, that you just invoked?

Kennedy said he wouldn't have cut taxes if we were at near-full employment (which we are currently at), if the economy wasn't growing (which it is at 2.5%), or we weren't embroiled in foreign conflicts (we are in 7).

So what are you talking about, Flash? Is this just an instance of you operating in bad faith again? Looks like it.

 

[LV426]

More than that is just punishment by those who are jealous of those more successful than them.

Echoing Conservative talking points about a prosperity gospel is weak sauce; why not just say you're gonna vote for Trump and be done with it?

So from 1947-1980, the wealthy were "punished" in this country?

How did the poor babies ever survive?????

 

[LV426]

They think if somebody is rich they don't deserve it, must have inherited it or made it by doing something shady.

It's easy to think this for a lazy person such as yourself who is too cowardly to confront the fact that your entire belief system is a combination of tired Conservative talking points, and a BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE sloppy argument.

You think both sides are the same because you're too lazy or cowardly (or both) to confront the fact that your guiding conventional wisdom is completely fucking wrong.

They think the wealthy "owe" those who chose not get an education, training, or experience and can't earn a decent living.

Chose to not get education??? What? They didn't choose to not get an education because they're lazy like you, they were forced to choose to not get an education because they couldn't afford it.

So you think people should get an education, but you don't think it should be affordable for everyone to do so.

So you're just a Conservative.

 

[LV426]

More than that is just punishment by those who are jealous of those more successful than them. They think if somebody is rich they don't deserve it, must have inherited it or made it by doing something shady. They think the wealthy "owe" those who chose not get an education, training, or experience and can't earn a decent living.

All this talk about punishment is a tactic to shift the argument away from the economics and into the realm of emotion. Emotion is something Flash can wrap his head around because he feels strong emotions all the time.

Flash cannot debate in good faith the benefit of his economic perspective, so he seeks to make the debate about emotions. Eliciting opposition to higher taxes by framing your position as an emotional defense against "punishment" is a tactic to avoid answering for the fact that "letting people keep more of what they earn" actually results in people keeping less, AND I HAVE THE FUCKING DATA THAT PROVES IT:



Flash has no data to support his emotional claim about "letting people keep more of what they earn". It's no coincidence that a thoughtless person would make the same thoughtless arguments Conservatives have been making in defense of this shitty policy, particularly since the Russia Tax Cut started in January 2018.

 

[LV426]

It wasn't magic to me. I was just responding to your comment by Kennedy to show what he did. He gave big "tax cuts to the rich". I think about 35-40% is about the top that is fair.

More than that is just punishment by those who are jealous of those more successful than them. They think if somebody is rich they don't deserve it, must have inherited it or made it by doing something shady. They think the wealthy "owe" those who chose not get an education, training, or experience and can't earn a decent living.

In all of Flash's posts, note that there isn't one single economic argument in favor of his beliefs.

NOT. ONE.

He argues the emotion of "letting people keep more of what they earn" aware of the fact that every time taxes have been cut since 1980, personal savings declined and household debt increased. So that quite frankly means tax cuts don't let people keep more of what they earn. So from an economic perspective, his argument is utter shit and he knows it.

He knows there's no data, no support, no empirical evidence. He knows his ideology doesn't work or make sense, nor does it align with the facts and evidence we have over the last 40 years.

So since he can't make an economic, fiscal, or fact-based argument, he instead tries an emotional one, invoking things like "punishments" and "jealousy" and a bastardized, ham-fisted prosperity gospel.

If Flash had any economic support for his philosophy (and it is a philosophy, not an actual position), he would have posted charts, facts, numbers that show economic benefits that follow tax cuts. But he has nothing like that, and ignores any actual data or evidence that contradict it. For Flash, it's more important to be emotional about taxes than ambivalent to the emotion.

He doesn't think it's "fair" for the wealthy to be taxed at 70%, yet he's perfectly OK with the wealthy making off with nearly 100% of the income and wage gains since the start of Flash's trickle down tax scam.

Flash is a highly emotional wreck; his emotions are too fragile.

 

[Flash]

And you know he acts in bad faith when he repeats the same shitty talking points Conservatives have been using to justify their shit tax cuts since 1980.

Flash, whenever taxes are cut, personal savings drops and household debt increases, so tax cuts do not let you keep more of what you earn.

I've posted this chart dozens of times, and to this day, Flash refuses to even acknowledge it. Why? Because it ruins his narrative that tax cuts are good because they "let you keep more of what you earn", even though every time taxes are cut, debt increases and savings plummets.

View attachment 11387

And of course, there's this too (note the date):

US consumer debt surges to record highs
July 14, 2019
https://nypost.com/2019/07/14/us-ha...sis-consumers-owe-more-with-less-in-the-bank/

So Flash, maybe you can explain why people who have been able to "keep more of what they earn" thanks to the tax cut you supported, are actually going into debt and losing their savings?

How can that be when tax cuts "let you keep more of what you earn"?

So the central premise to your entire fiscal belief system is a fucking crock of shit.

You base that on the unfounded assumption that tax cuts led to cuts in social programs and people have to borrow and can't save as much. Yet, we don't see those cuts in social programs--they just keep increasing.

You can't explain why tax cuts give Americans less income.

Also, it does not show the people have less to spend. Maybe borrowing increases because people take out loans to buy stuff with their additional income. They can afford a new car with their additional money and take out a loan to pay for it. Or, it might be because tax cuts are usually imposed as a stimulus when the economy is down.

If they have less money to spend, we should see personal income, disposable income, and personal consumption expenditures all decline. Let's see.

Disposable Income (increase from previous month)

Feb/2019: .05
Mar/2019: 0.4
Apr/2019: 0.4
May/2019: .03
Jun/2019: 0.4 ($69.7 billion for June)

Personal Consumption Expenditure
Feb: -0.1
Mar: 1.0
Apr: 0.6
May: 0.5
Jun: 0.3 ($41 billion for June)

Consumer Spending (percent change)
2016: 2.4%
2017: 4.8%

Looks like consumers have more to spend according to the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The following terms make up the bulk LV426's talking points:
bad faith
shitty talking points
is a fucking crock of shit.