The Good Old Days....but for whom?

[Flash]

You're just repeating the same thing 6 ways to Sunday. I've already demonstrated how the latest suit against the SCOTUS ruling is justified as discrimination against black applicants is happening so long as the "legacy" practice continues. Using this practice is a CONSTANT injustice to black, brown, red, tan, white, and yellow student applicants, as it is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment that I showed in a previous post.

I realize that you want to try and justify this practice by using the time honored "if it doesn't say it specifically, then it doesn't exist" when it comes to the Constitution. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution is a labyrinth of statements that MUST be interpreted to fit an evolving nation of the centuries (Bill of Rights, Amendments, SCOTUS rulings). It's these interpretations that are constantly being debated and disseminated. That is why my point has validity, whether you like it or not.

You gave us your opinion that legacy admissions discriminate against black students. You presented no legal justification or cases supporting such an argument. I have no real opinion on legacy admissions except that using your reasoning eliminates many other factors as discrimination.

A Harvard study showed the acceptance rate for legacy students is 34%.

 

[Flash]

Sorry, but your financial acrobats DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASIC FACT THAT THE WEALTHIER YOU GET, THE LESS TAXES YOU COMPARATIVELY PAY. Let's cut through your smoke screen with simple application:

Joe Schmoe (married, 1 kid) makes $30K per year on a 9 to 5 job. His tax rate is 13%, which gives him $27,000.00 take home pay.

Jim Yuppie (married, 1 kid) makes $1 million per year on investments and salary combination. He's not a billionaire, so let's give him the same 13% tax rate as Joe Schmoe, which gives him about $870,000.00 take home pay. Somehow, I don't think Joe Yuppie is going to sweat out any dental bills for the kid and such.

And remember, as your income goes up, your tax rate goes down. One should also note that for about 20 prior to the early 1960's or the the top percent of the wealthy paid about 90% in taxes. Since then, no shortage of the wealthy less than 5% of the country...hell, the numbers have increased since then.
So your proposal is an a-typical example of the wealthy conservative factions foisting the brunt of the federal coffers on the working class. THAT is one of the reasons why this country is constantly in near financial turmoil.

BS. According to government data (census, IRS) as income increases so does the percent of income paid in income taxes.

Average Income Tax Rate
Top 1%: 26%
Top 5%: 22.4%
Top 10%: 20.3%
Top 25%: 17.1%
Top 50%: 14.8%
Bottom 50%: 3.1%
All: 13.4%

Percent of All Federal Income Taxes Paid
Top 1%: 42.3%
Top 5%: 62.7%
Top 10%: 73.7%
Top 25%: 88.5%
Top 50%: 97.7%
Bottom 50%: 2.3%

As income increases, so does the percentage of taxes paid in federal income taxes. The highest income categories also pay the greatest share of federal income taxes.

Source: IRS

​

​

​

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Sorry, but your financial acrobats DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASIC FACT THAT THE WEALTHIER YOU GET, THE LESS TAXES YOU COMPARATIVELY PAY. Let's cut through your smoke screen with simple application:

Joe Schmoe (married, 1 kid) makes $30K per year on a 9 to 5 job. His tax rate is 13%, which gives him $27,000.00 take home pay.

Jim Yuppie (married, 1 kid) makes $1 million per year on investments and salary combination. He's not a billionaire, so let's give him the same 13% tax rate as Joe Schmoe, which gives him about $870,000.00 take home pay. Somehow, I don't think Joe Yuppie is going to sweat out any dental bills for the kid and such.

And remember, as your income goes up, your tax rate goes down. One should also note that for about 20 prior to the early 1960's or the the top percent of the wealthy paid about 90% in taxes. Since then, no shortage of the wealthy less than 5% of the country...hell, the numbers have increased since then.
So your proposal is an a-typical example of the wealthy conservative factions foisting the brunt of the federal coffers on the working class. THAT is one of the reasons why this country is constantly in near financial turmoil.

BS. According to government data (census, IRS) as income increases so does the percent of income paid in income taxes.

Average Income Tax Rate
Top 1%: 26%
Top 5%: 22.4%
Top 10%: 20.3%
Top 25%: 17.1%
Top 50%: 14.8%
Bottom 50%: 3.1%
All: 13.4%

Percent of All Federal Income Taxes Paid
Top 1%: 42.3%
Top 5%: 62.7%
Top 10%: 73.7%
Top 25%: 88.5%
Top 50%: 97.7%
Bottom 50%: 2.3%

As income increases, so does the percentage of taxes paid in federal income taxes. The highest income categories also pay the greatest share of federal income taxes.

Source: IRS

​

​

​

Okay, let's try this again:

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

A recent study finds that the Forbes 400 paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent over recent years—lower than many middle-class Americans.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/forbes-400-pay-lower-tax-rates-many-ordinary-americans/


And as they say, the devil is in the details. This requires attention when reading:


ProPublica Shows How Little the Wealthiest Pay in Taxes: Policymakers Should Respond Accordingly


The main federal tax is the individual income tax, which accounts for roughly half of all federal revenue and which tens of millions of middle-class people pay throughout the year as employers withhold taxes from their paychecks. To a great degree, however, the income tax is essentially voluntary for the nation’s richest people. Much of their income comes in the form of gains in the value of their stocks and other assets, and they can avoid taxes on those gains if they hold on to their assets rather than sell them. When high-income households do pay tax on their income from their assets — such as capital gains and dividends — they pay at tax rates that are far lower than the tax rates they would pay on wages and salaries.

These tax breaks, which policymakers have expanded in recent years, help to widen the enormous gaps in income and wealth between the nation’s richest people and everyone else. The top 1 percent of households in terms of income receive the vast majority of capital gains and a large chunk of dividend income, and they are reaping most of the benefits of a new deduction, enacted in the 2017 tax-cut law, for what’s known as “pass-through” income, which the owners of partnerships and certain other businesses report on their individual tax returns.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...e-wealthiest-pay-in-taxes-policymakers-should

 

[Taichiliberal]

While Taich and I both identify with the left side of the political spectrum,
his maniacal avoidance of logic is no asset to our side.

Private universities, including the one which I attended, are indeed private and their admissions policies are none of our business.

If we wish to make quality education available to all who did the preparatory work to deserve it,
we need to do that in the public sector with tax revenue supported public colleges.

If the quality of the public schools is adequate,
than the private academic institutions can exist in the same manner as private country clubs,
causing no particular hardship to those not invited to participate.

This kind of populism is for working class right wing idiots like trumpanzees,
not for progressive thinkers.
'

Private universities, including the one which I attended, are indeed private and their admissions policies are none of our business.

Pure libertarian (of whom I refer to as "fibbertarian) BS. Here's a dose of reality that pulls the rug out from under Nifty's latest myopic screed:



There Are Really Almost No Truly Private Universities


About 30% of American college students attend so-called private colleges and universities, most of which are non-profit institutions. In reality, however, with very few exceptions, all of them are heavily dependent directly or indirectly on governments for support. Federal student loans allow them to raise fees much higher than they otherwise would be able to charge, as do tuition tax credits and Pell Grants. The tax-deductible treatment of private donations helps fund new buildings. Universities rarely appropriately provide for the depreciation or construction of facilities in their accounting of revenues and expenses, implicitly assuming they are gifts from God. State and local government exemption of facilities from property and sometimes sales taxes provide further assistance. The federal government hands out research grants, with generous (probably overly generous) provision for overhead expenses. Endowments are also advantaged enormously by tax privileges, even for the few dozen schools that will now have to pay an endowment tax. Public school guidance counselors and teachers tell students that to be successful in life they need to go to college and that the extremely successful go to elite private schools.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richar...o-truly-private-universities/?sh=5bd78e2557bc

 

[Taichiliberal]

You're just repeating the same thing 6 ways to Sunday. I've already demonstrated how the latest suit against the SCOTUS ruling is justified as discrimination against black applicants is happening so long as the "legacy" practice continues. Using this practice is a CONSTANT injustice to black, brown, red, tan, white, and yellow student applicants, as it is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment that I showed in a previous post.

I realize that you want to try and justify this practice by using the time honored "if it doesn't say it specifically, then it doesn't exist" when it comes to the Constitution. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution is a labyrinth of statements that MUST be interpreted to fit an evolving nation of the centuries (Bill of Rights, Amendments, SCOTUS rulings). It's these interpretations that are constantly being debated and disseminated. That is why my point has validity, whether you like it or not.

You gave us your opinion that legacy admissions discriminate against black students. You presented no legal justification or cases supporting such an argument. I have no real opinion on legacy admissions except that using your reasoning eliminates many other factors as discrimination.

A Harvard study showed the acceptance rate for legacy students is 34%.

No "opinion", son...just logical deduction based on the FACTS .... cause and effect.

To use your "logic", you have NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRACTICE OF LEGACY STUDENTS. You defend it, then try to couch your defense in BS by saying you "have no real opinion". On that I agree, you're just doing the knee jerk gain position on AA that right wing wonks have been doing for years. It's okay for legacy to exist, but not AA because legacy does not SPECIFICALLY target black students. Yet (GASP!), the ratio of black students is traditionally low to non-existent in these practicing institutions. Oh, and WTF does it matter if it's 34%? Only about 20% of colleges use AA in their admission considerations. That percentage comes out of the black, brown, yellow, white, red & tan applicants who are given the shaft. And yes, like it or not there is a legacy of racism that affects black Americans in academia. So again, you can't have it both ways. Keep or remove ALL preferential systems for whatever reason.

 

[Flash]

Okay, let's try this again:

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

A recent study finds that the Forbes 400 paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent over recent years—lower than many middle-class Americans.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/forbes-400-pay-lower-tax-rates-many-ordinary-americans/


And as they say, the devil is in the details. This requires attention when reading:


ProPublica Shows How Little the Wealthiest Pay in Taxes: Policymakers Should Respond Accordingly


The main federal tax is the individual income tax, which accounts for roughly half of all federal revenue and which tens of millions of middle-class people pay throughout the year as employers withhold taxes from their paychecks. To a great degree, however, the income tax is essentially voluntary for the nation’s richest people. Much of their income comes in the form of gains in the value of their stocks and other assets, and they can avoid taxes on those gains if they hold on to their assets rather than sell them. When high-income households do pay tax on their income from their assets — such as capital gains and dividends — they pay at tax rates that are far lower than the tax rates they would pay on wages and salaries.

These tax breaks, which policymakers have expanded in recent years, help to widen the enormous gaps in income and wealth between the nation’s richest people and everyone else. The top 1 percent of households in terms of income receive the vast majority of capital gains and a large chunk of dividend income, and they are reaping most of the benefits of a new deduction, enacted in the 2017 tax-cut law, for what’s known as “pass-through” income, which the owners of partnerships and certain other businesses report on their individual tax returns.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...e-wealthiest-pay-in-taxes-policymakers-should

The Forbes 400 is a very small, select group. Their tax rate is much less than using the top 5-10% which is a much larger share of the wealthy. Using the top 10% shows a tax rate of 20.3% which is much large than the 8.2% you cite for the top 400.

The IRS figures show us all American taxpayers, not jut the top 400 which, as you pointed out, do not usually make a salary subject to the federal income tax. Their capital gains is taxed at a lower tax rate and is not just available to the wealthy.

So, nothing you said about the richest 400 changes my point that as our income increases so does our tax rate and the greatest share of federal income taxes is paid by the top 25-50%.

 

[Flash]

No "opinion", son...just logical deduction based on the FACTS .... cause and effect.

To use your "logic", you have NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRACTICE OF LEGACY STUDENTS. You defend it, then try to couch your defense in BS by saying you "have no real opinion". On that I agree, you're just doing the knee jerk gain position on AA that right wing wonks have been doing for years. It's okay for legacy to exist, but not AA because legacy does not SPECIFICALLY target black students. Yet (GASP!), the ratio of black students is traditionally low to non-existent in these practicing institutions. Oh, and WTF does it matter if it's 34%? Only about 20% of colleges use AA in their admission considerations. That percentage comes out of the black, brown, yellow, white, red & tan applicants who are given the shaft. And yes, like it or not there is a legacy of racism that affects black Americans in academia. So again, you can't have it both ways. Keep or remove ALL preferential systems for whatever reason.

You make many unfounded assumptions. Stating facts should not be taken as support or opposition to a practice. I did not "defend" the practice of legacy admits. I pointed out that is a practice determined by each school. It does not need a "legal" justification as there is no constitutional right to be admitted to college that legacy admits violate.

I'm not sure why the recent decision even applied to private universities since the 14th only applies to state action. I will have to check the decision.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Private universities, including the one which I attended, are indeed private and their admissions policies are none of our business.

Pure libertarian (of whom I refer to as "fibbertarian) BS. Here's a dose of reality that pulls the rug out from under Nifty's latest myopic screed:

You know what, Taich?

I already went to college decades ago. [There were black people there.]
My kids already went to college decades ago. [There were black people there.]
My kids chose to not have kids.

So why should I give a fat flying fuck?

It's your problem.
Deal with it.

I can't even be bothered to wish you luck
given the asshole that you've consistently managed to be
during the conduct of our discussions.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Okay, let's try this again:

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

A recent study finds that the Forbes 400 paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent over recent years—lower than many middle-class Americans.
https://www.americanprogress.org/art...ary-americans/


And as they say, the devil is in the details. This requires attention when reading:


ProPublica Shows How Little the Wealthiest Pay in Taxes: Policymakers Should Respond Accordingly


The main federal tax is the individual income tax, which accounts for roughly half of all federal revenue and which tens of millions of middle-class people pay throughout the year as employers withhold taxes from their paychecks. To a great degree, however, the income tax is essentially voluntary for the nation’s richest people. Much of their income comes in the form of gains in the value of their stocks and other assets, and they can avoid taxes on those gains if they hold on to their assets rather than sell them. When high-income households do pay tax on their income from their assets — such as capital gains and dividends — they pay at tax rates that are far lower than the tax rates they would pay on wages and salaries.

These tax breaks, which policymakers have expanded in recent years, help to widen the enormous gaps in income and wealth between the nation’s richest people and everyone else. The top 1 percent of households in terms of income receive the vast majority of capital gains and a large chunk of dividend income, and they are reaping most of the benefits of a new deduction, enacted in the 2017 tax-cut law, for what’s known as “pass-through” income, which the owners of partnerships and certain other businesses report on their individual tax returns.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...ymakers-should

The Forbes 400 is a very small, select group. Their tax rate is much less than using the top 5-10% which is a much larger share of the wealthy. Using the top 10% shows a tax rate of 20.3% which is much large than the 8.2% you cite for the top 400.

The IRS figures show us all American taxpayers, not jut the top 400 which, as you pointed out, do not usually make a salary subject to the federal income tax. Their capital gains is taxed at a lower tax rate and is not just available to the wealthy.

So, nothing you said about the richest 400 changes my point that as our income increases so does our tax rate and the greatest share of federal income taxes is paid by the top 25-50%.

Man, you just twist like a pretzel to avoid conceding error.

Bottom line: the Forbes 400 take is on THE WEALTHIEST TAX PAYING AMERICANS. Folk like you keep touting that the rich pay more taxes than the middle, working middle, working class folks in America. Forbes explains why that is not entirely true.

The ProPublica article goes into detail regarding rates and percentages and how the wealthy negate such to their advantage. In other words, what is actually the end result of return and payouts favors the wealthy. To simplify further, the working class guy may pay $1000 in taxes, while the wealthy guy may pay $100,000.

But

The working class guy gets NO refund or less than a 1/3 of his payout, while the wealthy guy through tax loopholes, breaks, etc., gets a hell of a lot more than 1/3 returned.

You can play your myopic mantra until doomsday, but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No "opinion", son...just logical deduction based on the FACTS .... cause and effect.

To use your "logic", you have NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRACTICE OF LEGACY STUDENTS. You defend it, then try to couch your defense in BS by saying you "have no real opinion". On that I agree, you're just doing the knee jerk gain position on AA that right wing wonks have been doing for years. It's okay for legacy to exist, but not AA because legacy does not SPECIFICALLY target black students. Yet (GASP!), the ratio of black students is traditionally low to non-existent in these practicing institutions. Oh, and WTF does it matter if it's 34%? Only about 20% of colleges use AA in their admission considerations. That percentage comes out of the black, brown, yellow, white, red & tan applicants who are given the shaft. And yes, like it or not there is a legacy of racism that affects black Americans in academia. So again, you can't have it both ways. Keep or remove ALL preferential systems for whatever reason.

You make many unfounded assumptions. Stating facts should not be taken as support or opposition to a practice. I did not "defend" the practice of legacy admits. I pointed out that is a practice determined by each school. It does not need a "legal" justification as there is no constitutional right to be admitted to college that legacy admits violate.

I'm not sure why the recent decision even applied to private universities since the 14th only applies to state action. I will have to check the decision.

My good man, I am DIRECTLY RESPONDING TO THE WORDS AND STATEMENTS THAT YOU POSTED. I "assume" nothing.

Furthermore, you (once again) keep providing your opinion, supposition and conjecture as part of a factual declaration. That dog of yours won't fly (I know, some people say "hunt"....sue me.). Your combination of moot points I previously addressed coupled with the aforementioned ignores the factual logic....IF AN INSTITUTION IMPLEMENTS A SYSTEM THAT IS DEEMED LEGALLY BIASED BY THE COURTS, THEN ALL SIMILAR SYSTEMS SHOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME VERDICT. Any thing less is pure hypocrisy...a double standard.

Now you can repeat yourself six ways to Sunday, but you won't logically, rationally or factually refute what I put forth, much less make your assertion plausible by those merits.

That you have now claimed that you "have no real opinion"and that you are ignorant of how the 14th Amendment is involved in the issue speaks to a knee jerk reaction to PERCEPTIONS instead of reality.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You know what, Taich?

I already went to college decades ago. [There were black people there.]
My kids already went to college decades ago. [There were black people there.]
My kids chose to not have kids.

So why should I give a fat flying fuck?

It's your problem.
Deal with it.

I can't even be bothered to wish you luck
given the asshole that you've consistently managed to be
during the conduct of our discussions.

For the reading audience: here's the part of my previous response that Nifty left out.

There Are Really Almost No Truly Private Universities


About 30% of American college students attend so-called private colleges and universities, most of which are non-profit institutions. In reality, however, with very few exceptions, all of them are heavily dependent directly or indirectly on governments for support. Federal student loans allow them to raise fees much higher than they otherwise would be able to charge, as do tuition tax credits and Pell Grants. The tax-deductible treatment of private donations helps fund new buildings. Universities rarely appropriately provide for the depreciation or construction of facilities in their accounting of revenues and expenses, implicitly assuming they are gifts from God. State and local government exemption of facilities from property and sometimes sales taxes provide further assistance. The federal government hands out research grants, with generous (probably overly generous) provision for overhead expenses. Endowments are also advantaged enormously by tax privileges, even for the few dozen schools that will now have to pay an endowment tax. Public school guidance counselors and teachers tell students that to be successful in life they need to go to college and that the extremely successful go to elite private schools.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...h=5bd78e2557bc




He did so because it pulls the rug out from his statement I highlighted in the previous post. Nifty doesn't like being proved wrong on a specific social issue if it hits his mental comfort zone. He keeps defaulting to his nostalgic ramblings on his personal "good old days". That has already been addressed in our previous exchanges. Nifty just ignores such, shifts a goal post, get's hostile, then repeats.

He asks, "Who gives a flying fuck?" Evidently HE DOES, as for a few days now he's been trying to debunk the OP and all it's permutations.

Let's watch him do more of the same. Or maybe he'll realize how foolish he looks, regurgitate his stance and part with schoolyard taunt. Whatever, he's done.

 

[Flash]

Man, you just twist like a pretzel to avoid conceding error.

Bottom line: the Forbes 400 take is on THE WEALTHIEST TAX PAYING AMERICANS. Folk like you keep touting that the rich pay more taxes than the middle, working middle, working class folks in America. Forbes explains why that is not entirely true.

The ProPublica article goes into detail regarding rates and percentages and how the wealthy negate such to their advantage. In other words, what is actually the end result of return and payouts favors the wealthy. To simplify further, the working class guy may pay $1000 in taxes, while the wealthy guy may pay $100,000.

But

The working class guy gets NO refund or less than a 1/3 of his payout, while the wealthy guy through tax loopholes, breaks, etc., gets a hell of a lot more than 1/3 returned.

You can play your myopic mantra until doomsday, but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

The IRS/Census data shows what is actually paid. That includes any deductions, refunds, or other tax breaks. So, the final result is the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes (the highest of any group) and pay most of the federal income taxes. That includes all taxpayers, not just the wealthiest 400.

At the same time, that data does not include government transfer payments such as earned income tax credit, child tax credit, SNAP, Medicaid, or other government benefits. When these are included the poverty rate and wealth gap is reduced.

By looking at the actual taxes paid we see a clearer picture than ProPublica which is from a liberal organization that is going to interpret the data consistent with their political views which is always along the lines that "the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes" which conflicts with reality.

 

[Flash]

My good man, I am DIRECTLY RESPONDING TO THE WORDS AND STATEMENTS THAT YOU POSTED. I "assume" nothing.

Furthermore, you (once again) keep providing your opinion, supposition and conjecture as part of a factual declaration. That dog of yours won't fly (I know, some people say "hunt"....sue me.). Your combination of moot points I previously addressed coupled with the aforementioned ignores the factual logic....IF AN INSTITUTION IMPLEMENTS A SYSTEM THAT IS DEEMED LEGALLY BIASED BY THE COURTS, THEN ALL SIMILAR SYSTEMS SHOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME VERDICT. Any thing less is pure hypocrisy...a double standard.

Now you can repeat yourself six ways to Sunday, but you won't logically, rationally or factually refute what I put forth, much less make your assertion plausible by those merits.

That you have now claimed that you "have no real opinion"and that you are ignorant of how the 14th Amendment is involved in the issue speaks to a knee jerk reaction to PERCEPTIONS instead of reality.

That may be rational and fair in your mind, but is definitely not consistent with court interpretations of the 14th amendment.

There is a big difference legally between race and gender differences and someone whose parent went to the college where you are applying, especially since your chances of being admitted are only 40%.

The many factors colleges used for admission by definition mean everybody is not equal or they would not be competing for admission. Our Constitution should not be interpreted to take those decisions away from the university.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Man, you just twist like a pretzel to avoid conceding error.

Bottom line: the Forbes 400 take is on THE WEALTHIEST TAX PAYING AMERICANS. Folk like you keep touting that the rich pay more taxes than the middle, working middle, working class folks in America. Forbes explains why that is not entirely true.

The ProPublica article goes into detail regarding rates and percentages and how the wealthy negate such to their advantage. In other words, what is actually the end result of return and payouts favors the wealthy. To simplify further, the working class guy may pay $1000 in taxes, while the wealthy guy may pay $100,000.

But

The working class guy gets NO refund or less than a 1/3 of his payout, while the wealthy guy through tax loopholes, breaks, etc., gets a hell of a lot more than 1/3 returned.

You can play your myopic mantra until doomsday, but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

The IRS/Census data shows what is actually paid. That includes any deductions, refunds, or other tax breaks. So, the final result is the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes (the highest of any group) and pay most of the federal income taxes. That includes all taxpayers, not just the wealthiest 400.

At the same time, that data does not include government transfer payments such as earned income tax credit, child tax credit, SNAP, Medicaid, or other government benefits. When these are included the poverty rate and wealth gap is reduced.

By looking at the actual taxes paid we see a clearer picture than ProPublica which is from a liberal organization that is going to interpret the data consistent with their political views which is always along the lines that "the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes" which conflicts with reality.

You keep piling on your opinion, supposition and conjecture whenever the basic information is explained plainly. You make claims about the information source (IRS/Census Bureau) you referred to of which you provide not link to proof. Also, if you may recall that GOP congress and administrations have waged war on SNAP, etc. Medicaid is not available to all ... no universal health care in America in any shape or form. That you infer that social service programs and entitlements "reduce" the poverty rate and wealth gap is a fantasy to behold. Both my sources point DIRECTLY to how the tax rates, what revenue exactly is being taxed, tax breaks and such inordinately affect that balance for the working class.

Pro Publica did look at the actual taxes AND the tax rate that you previously pointed to in supporting the notion of defending the wealthy from paying more taxes (i.e., less tax breaks). You just deny the ALL THE FACTS and just demonstrate a myopia of the "conservatives" who carry water for the rich. Sadly for you, the WHOLE truth isn't going away.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
My good man, I am DIRECTLY RESPONDING TO THE WORDS AND STATEMENTS THAT YOU POSTED. I "assume" nothing.

Furthermore, you (once again) keep providing your opinion, supposition and conjecture as part of a factual declaration. That dog of yours won't fly (I know, some people say "hunt"....sue me.). Your combination of moot points I previously addressed coupled with the aforementioned ignores the factual logic....IF AN INSTITUTION IMPLEMENTS A SYSTEM THAT IS DEEMED LEGALLY BIASED BY THE COURTS, THEN ALL SIMILAR SYSTEMS SHOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME VERDICT. Any thing less is pure hypocrisy...a double standard.

Now you can repeat yourself six ways to Sunday, but you won't logically, rationally or factually refute what I put forth, much less make your assertion plausible by those merits.

That you have now claimed that you "have no real opinion"and that you are ignorant of how the 14th Amendment is involved in the issue speaks to a knee jerk reaction to PERCEPTIONS instead of reality.

That may be rational and fair in your mind, but is definitely not consistent with court interpretations of the 14th amendment.

There is a big difference legally between race and gender differences and someone whose parent went to the college where you are applying, especially since your chances of being admitted are only 40%.

The many factors colleges used for admission by definition mean everybody is not equal or they would not be competing for admission. Our Constitution should not be interpreted to take those decisions away from the university.

Just how in the hell do YOU know anything about "the court interpretations of the 14th amendment" when you just confessed ignorance regarding the 14th amendment? And if you "have no real opinion" then WTF have you been going on about for the last 2 days?

And once again, you throw in your opinion, supposition and conjecture which doesn't amount to a hill of beans, as I am pointing to the FACTS and LOGIC derived from said facts on this issue.

Bottom line: you're just giving a knee jerk reaction to PERCEPTIONS instead of reality...in this case common among those who feel their white privilege threatened on some conscious or subconscious level. Like I said before, IF AN INSTITUTION IMPLEMENTS A SYSTEM THAT IS DEEMED LEGALLY BIASED BY THE COURTS, THEN ALL SIMILAR SYSTEMS SHOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME VERDICT. Any thing less is pure hypocrisy...a double standard.

If you don't have anything new to add instead of a rehash of your previous statements, then I'd say we're done here and will let you have the last word.

 

[Flash]

Just how in the hell do YOU know anything about "the court interpretations of the 14th amendment" when you just confessed ignorance regarding the 14th amendment? And if you "have no real opinion" then WTF have you been going on about for the last 2 days?

And once again, you throw in your opinion, supposition and conjecture which doesn't amount to a hill of beans, as I am pointing to the FACTS and LOGIC derived from said facts on this issue.

Bottom line: you're just giving a knee jerk reaction to PERCEPTIONS instead of reality...in this case common among those who feel their white privilege threatened on some conscious or subconscious level. Like I said before, IF AN INSTITUTION IMPLEMENTS A SYSTEM THAT IS DEEMED LEGALLY BIASED BY THE COURTS, THEN ALL SIMILAR SYSTEMS SHOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME VERDICT. Any thing less is pure hypocrisy...a double standard.

If you don't have anything new to add instead of a rehash of your previous statements, then I'd say we're done here and will let you have the last word.

I did not express ignorance of the 14th. It is very complicated so there is much I do not know. I do know enough to know your interpretation has no legal support. Because the court struck down a practice that violated the equal protection clause does not mean other admissions criteria that favor one group over another also violates equal protection because they are not similar systems under the law.

I don't need an opinion on legacy admissions to know it does not fit into any equal protection criteria based on previous decisions. My posts often do not include my opinion but an attempt to refute or correct concepts I don't think are correct.

When you start getting into the "white privilege" being threatened it is just partisan rhetoric used to avoid any constitutional issues.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

For the reading audience: here's the part of my previous response that Nifty left out.

There Are Really Almost No Truly Private Universities


About 30% of American college students attend so-called private colleges and universities, most of which are non-profit institutions. In reality, however, with very few exceptions, all of them are heavily dependent directly or indirectly on governments for support. Federal student loans allow them to raise fees much higher than they otherwise would be able to charge, as do tuition tax credits and Pell Grants. The tax-deductible treatment of private donations helps fund new buildings. Universities rarely appropriately provide for the depreciation or construction of facilities in their accounting of revenues and expenses, implicitly assuming they are gifts from God. State and local government exemption of facilities from property and sometimes sales taxes provide further assistance. The federal government hands out research grants, with generous (probably overly generous) provision for overhead expenses. Endowments are also advantaged enormously by tax privileges, even for the few dozen schools that will now have to pay an endowment tax. Public school guidance counselors and teachers tell students that to be successful in life they need to go to college and that the extremely successful go to elite private schools.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...h=5bd78e2557bc




He did so because it pulls the rug out from his statement I highlighted in the previous post. Nifty doesn't like being proved wrong on a specific social issue if it hits his mental comfort zone. He keeps defaulting to his nostalgic ramblings on his personal "good old days". That has already been addressed in our previous exchanges. Nifty just ignores such, shifts a goal post, get's hostile, then repeats.

He asks, "Who gives a flying fuck?" Evidently HE DOES, as for a few days now he's been trying to debunk the OP and all it's permutations.

Let's watch him do more of the same. Or maybe he'll realize how foolish he looks, regurgitate his stance and part with schoolyard taunt. Whatever, he's done.

I am in fact literate, Taich, and, again in fact, read your entire post.

Then I said, in the most uncomplicated possible manner, that I don't give a shit.

I don't see any convincing argument that interference with private schools
is in any way necessary to provide appropriate educational opportunities to all...in public schools,.

a goal which we presumably share,
but given your creativeness with the King's English,
I can't be sure of for certain.

Don't forget, I'm not enamored with all private schools.
I wouldn't choose Oral Roberts or Liberty Baptist for puppy training.
[I especially wouldn't, in fact, given that I like puppies more than people.]

So my perceptions are not based on a reverence for private schools.
I liked my private university, but loathed my private prep school enough to inform my parents
that they would enroll me in public high school or have a high school dropout son.
That was before you were born, I suspect.

Do I respect your opinions?
I've tried, but not as hard as you've tried to make it difficult.

When you attribute "libertarian" status to a democratic socialist like myself,
you give the appearance of one trying to employ English-looking words
to a unique new language.

 

[Lightbringer]

a goal which we presumably share,
but given your creativeness with the King's English,
I can't be sure of for certain.

You made me laugh. Out loud. For real.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Just how in the hell do YOU know anything about "the court interpretations of the 14th amendment" when you just confessed ignorance regarding the 14th amendment? And if you "have no real opinion" then WTF have you been going on about for the last 2 days?

And once again, you throw in your opinion, supposition and conjecture which doesn't amount to a hill of beans, as I am pointing to the FACTS and LOGIC derived from said facts on this issue.

Bottom line: you're just giving a knee jerk reaction to PERCEPTIONS instead of reality...in this case common among those who feel their white privilege threatened on some conscious or subconscious level. Like I said before, IF AN INSTITUTION IMPLEMENTS A SYSTEM THAT IS DEEMED LEGALLY BIASED BY THE COURTS, THEN ALL SIMILAR SYSTEMS SHOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME VERDICT. Any thing less is pure hypocrisy...a double standard.

If you don't have anything new to add instead of a rehash of your previous statements, then I'd say we're done here and will let you have the last word.

I did not express ignorance of the 14th. It is very complicated so there is much I do not know. I do know enough to know your interpretation has no legal support. Because the court struck down a practice that violated the equal protection clause does not mean other admissions criteria that favor one group over another also violates equal protection because they are not similar systems under the law.

I don't need an opinion on legacy admissions to know it does not fit into any equal protection criteria based on previous decisions. My posts often do not include my opinion but an attempt to refute or correct concepts I don't think are correct.

When you start getting into the "white privilege" being threatened it is just partisan rhetoric used to avoid any constitutional issues.

Man, you are just babbling BS! The chronology of the posts shows the objective reader EXACTLY what you said and in the context it was said.

The cornerstones of your screeds that totally undermines them: I'm not sure why the recent decision even applied to private universities since the 14th only applies to state action. I will have to check the decision.


SCOTUS latest decision on AA was brought on via a HARVARD law suit, genius. Last time I checked, Harvard was PRIVATE institution on record. That you didn't know this speaks volumes as to how little you understand about this subject beyond the mantras and talking points of what you catch on right wing media.

Then you seriously lie your butt off by saying you often do not post your opinion ... right after you post an OPINION regarding trying to revise what the 14th amendment entails regarding equal protection under the las (again, something the SCOTUS ruling details).

Your proud ignorance on the matter just verifies my assessment: you really don't know WTF is going on beyond having a knee jerk reaction that your social conscious white privilege is somehow being threatened or violated. For someone who has stated to "have no real opinion" you sure have spent a LOT of time an effort trying to pass it of as fact based logic.

You're done....you've got nothing more than the SOS in various forms. Prattle on without fear of retort from me here, as it would be a waste of my time to rehash what has already been covered.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You made me laugh. Out loud. For real.

Proving the old saying, "stupid is as stupid does".

(Apologies, dear readers. I just took this buffoon off of the ignore list to see why he keeps dogging my threads and posts. No surprises, and God forgive me for indulging a guilty pleasure and making fun of the intellectually challenged. I'll put him back on the list now).