canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
I have kicked your ass up and down JPP Toby. I am almost feeling sorry for you. Almost.
Sorry, but you won't benefit from affirmative action here Toby. Nobody to help you with your homework
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1980s Fiscal Policy
- Thread starter canceled.2021.1
- Start date
I have kicked your ass up and down JPP Toby. I am almost feeling sorry for you. Almost.
Sorry, but you won't benefit from affirmative action here Toby. Nobody to help you with your homework
Adjusting for inflation is a perfectly acceptable method of displaying incomes
Sure, in a vacuum, but not how incomes are distributed. Which is the point.
If you want different brackets, then you come up with them. There was nothing wrong with how I displayed the data
Right, like I said, you just lazily multiplied everything by inflation. But what you didn't take into account was the income growth of the 1% over the last 40 years, and that those gains -if applied to pre-1980's rates- would result in a much higher effective tax rate, not to mention a much higher revenue amount (both gross and as a % of GDP) because incomes for the 1% have grown the last 40 years at the expense of income growth for everyone else, which has remained largely flat.
So when you put the tax code back to what it was pre-1980, and apply it to 2019 incomes after 40 years of income distribution, you end up collecting far more revenue than you did before because the marginal rates are higher, and the incomes for the top 1% are higher. Then you can use that revenue to offset the Out-of-pocket costs to the middle class by enrolling everyone in Medicare for All (thus saving them the expenses of health insurance and health care), making public colleges free (thus saving them the expenses of tuition, room & board), and creating good paying jobs in a Green New Deal (thus raising incomes and lifting people out of poverty).
So none of that was accounted for in your argument. It's pretty obvious why.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Sure, in a vacuum, but not how incomes are distributed. Which is the point.
irrelevant
I accept your concession
Irish Exit
Verified User
They're not trying to push that through Congress.
The issue with pensions has nothing to do with their performance and everything to do with Conservatives trying to make an argument over 50-year liabilities.
LOL. The whole purpose of reforming the Act is to cover current insolvency with loans that future pensioners would have to pay back so Baby Boomers get theirs. It has nothing to do with conservatives. It has to do with old people's sense of entitlement and damned be the consequences. Let the whole pension system collapse for all I care.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Right, like I said, you just lazily multiplied everything by inflation. But what you didn't take into account was the income growth of the 1% over the last 40 years, and that those gains -if applied to pre-1980's rates- would result in a much higher effective tax rate, not to mention a much higher revenue amount (both gross and as a % of GDP) because incomes for the 1% have grown the last 40 years at the expense of income growth for everyone else, which has remained largely flat.
So when you put the tax code back to what it was pre-1980, and apply it to 2019 incomes after 40 years of income distribution, you end up collecting far more revenue than you did before because the marginal rates are higher, and the incomes for the top 1% are higher.
So none of that was accounted for in your argument. It's pretty obvious why.
I made no predictions about what revenue would or wouldn't be collected. I merely took the income tax brackets from 1980 which you wanted and updated them based on inflation.
What revenue they would or wouldn't raise is really impossible to predict with any accuracy. I also didn't account for the deductions we used to have back then that we don't now. I presume you want to reinstate those as well.
I humbly accept your concession Toby. It is ok. I didn't expect you to be able to compete with me. You don't have the chops
irrelevant
I accept your concession
You saying "irrelevant" would be a concession you made that you didn't think about this part of your argument.
You're only saying it's "irrelevant" because it undermines your case.
LOL!
I made no predictions about what revenue would or wouldn't be collected. I merely took the income tax brackets from 1980 which you wanted and updated them based on inflation.
Now who's backing away from their argument!?
What revenue they would or wouldn't raise is really impossible to predict with any accuracy. I also didn't account for the deductions we used to have back then that we don't now. I presume you want to reinstate those as well.
Oh deductions, you say?
Name one.
Name one deduction from 1946-1980 that prevented any rich person from paying the top marginal rate.
Just one.
I dare you.
I humbly accept your concession Toby. It is ok. I didn't expect you to be able to compete with me. You don't have the chops
You have to convince yourself that I conceded something because you haven't ever accomplished anything in your life outside these boards.
I made no predictions about what revenue would or wouldn't be collected. I merely took the income tax brackets from 1980 which you wanted and updated them based on inflation.
What revenue they would or wouldn't raise is really impossible to predict with any accuracy. I also didn't account for the deductions we used to have back then that we don't now. I presume you want to reinstate those as well.
I humbly accept your concession Toby. It is ok. I didn't expect you to be able to compete with me. You don't have the chops
"So what if I made an inaccurate argument and tried to frame this in a way that helps me save face...I was just doing it for my ego."
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Now who's backing away from their argument!?
Not backing away from anything Toby.
Go back and read my OP. Did I make any predictions about revenue generation? I will understand if you can't find it
Not backing away from anything Toby.
Sure you are.
Your argument was simply using an inflation multiplier and then screaming bloody murder about it.
Yeah, going back to 1980 tax rates would increase the tax burden...but the revenue windfall would provide relief to out of pocket costs on things like health care and education, incurred by those same taxpayers. Or it will provide them with better paying jobs in the Green New Deal, so they can stop working as part-time wage slaves at McDonald's and can have good paying, full time jobs.
Why do you oppose good jobs and lower out of pocket spending?
Because you are antisocial.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Sure you are.
Your argument was simply using an inflation multiplier and then screaming bloody murder about it.
Yeah, going back to 1980 tax rates would increase the tax burden...but the revenue windfall would provide relief to out of pocket costs on things like health care and education, incurred by those same taxpayers. Or it will provide them with better paying jobs in the Green New Deal, so they can stop working as part-time wage slaves at McDonald's and can have good paying, full time jobs.
Why do you oppose good jobs and lower out of pocket spending?
Because you are antisocial.
You just needed to stop right there. That was all I was pointing out in my post. I was merely addressing the tax burden which is the ONLY thing you wanted to focus on remember? So I focus on what you wanted to focus on and you get salty about it? Seems odd doesn't it?
As for the "revenue windfall" and all of the other things you think would come out of it, that is what is called sophistry. There is no guarantee any of the money would go to those things and you know it. It is all a wish list.
You have conceded. You just don't know you conceded
You just needed to stop right there. That was all I was pointing out in my post. I was merely addressing the tax burden which is the ONLY thing you wanted to focus on remember? So I focus on what you wanted to focus on and you get salty about it? Seems odd doesn't it?
What seems odd is that you screech about an increase in the burden without mentioning the relief to individual out of pocket spending.
So what you did was try and gin up whiny screeching about an increase in taxes, while staying silent on what that increase actually pays for.
It's a tactic you and your kind uses frequently, and why I am correct to call it sophistry.
So do you always make arguments that are just half the details, or is it something you do exclusively here?
As for the "revenue windfall" and all of the other things you think would come out of it, that is what is called sophistry.
Nope.
We let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich, and revenues grew 13% and $325B - which was the largest single yearly revenue gain ever.
So if we got that from letting the rate return to 39.6%, it stands to reason that increasing the rate on the top bracket alone to 70% would increase revenues even more, because that's empirically what happened from 2012-2013.
What's sophistry is pretending that revenues will go down when tax rates are raised. Never in the history of our country has that happened.
But revenues have gone down when tax rates are cut. That's happened quite a few times, most recently from 2001-2004.
There is no guarantee any of the money would go to those things and you know it.
Now THAT is sophistry.
If spending bills are passed, then that is a guarabtee the money would go to those things.
So at least you're conceding that raising taxes would raise revenue, now your point of contention seems to be that the increase in revenue won't be spent on the things that Congress would pass spending bills for.
And that is a sophist's argument.
What a fucking fraud and intellectual lightweight. I see why you are compelled to declare victory, your ego is so fragile.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
What seems odd is that you screech about an increase in the burden without mentioning the relief to individual out of pocket spending.
So what you did was try and gin up whiny screeching about an increase in taxes, while staying silent on what that increase actually pays for.
It's a tactic you and your kind uses frequently, and why I am correct to call it sophistry.
So do you always make arguments that are just half the details, or is it something you do exclusively here?
I didn't "screech" about anything Toby. Go back and read the OP. I included your quotes. You specifically wanted to focus on tax rates from 1980. I asked you to be specific. You declined. So I worked within the parameters you set forth. Now you want to complain that I didn't provide specifics.
I didn't "screech" about anything Toby
Yeah you did.
You screeched about how the tax burden would rise on the middle class.
You tried to make that point in a vacuum as the reason you oppose undoing the last 40 years of Conservatism.
You specifically wanted to focus on tax rates from 1980. I asked you to be specific. You declined.
LOL!
You specifically wanted to focus on tax rates from 1980
I asked you to be specific.
You specifically wanted to focus on tax rates from 1980
Perpetual motion machine of Conservative idiocy on full display right fuckin' here.
ME: I want to specifically focus on tax rates.
Dumbass: Be specific.
ME: (repeats) I want to specifically focus on tax rates.
Dumbass: Be specific.
The problem with Conservatives is that they're all functionally illiterate.
Now you want to complain that I didn't provide specifics.
It's not that you didn't provide specifics...it's that you went about the most lazy and inaccurate way possible to present some specifics in a vacuum.