An idea for bipartisan tax reform

Oneuli said:
As you know, that's a lie. I admitted nothing of the sort. Why did you choose to lie about that? Did you imagine that someone lurking in this thread would see that and think I'd made such an admission, and not even think to look back in the thread and realize otherwise? Don't you worry that people will come to regard you with contempt when they realize you traffic in lies that way?



Feel free to tell Flash that, since he's the one who jumped the gun. But you and I both know that he was wrong, since the best available evidence shows that the tax burden will have been shifted away from the rich.



Yes, understood. If you look at the Tax Foundation's "dynamic scoring" (which assumes the tax cut will impact pre-tax earnings), you'll see that the windfall for the rich is expected to be even greater when that is factored in.
Click to expand...

Oh you didn’t admit it in exact words. But you did admit that the most accurate measure hasn’t been released yet. That being the IRS data. As such you are relying on “mathematical models” which are extremely prone to bias and variability as they are based off of ASSUMPTIONS which may or may not be correct. Hence they are bogus.

So yes you conceded that you are using a bogus analysis. Maybe you don’t know mathematical models are prone to bias? Maybe you do know and hope you can hide behind the logical fallacy of appealing to authority hoping others won’t know the inherent problems with mathematical models?
 
Frank Apisa said:
LV...

...you'd have a better chance arguing with this:

brick.png
Click to expand...

Wait that isn't LV?
 
I Love America said:
Oh you didn’t admit it in exact words.
Click to expand...

Yes, or in any words. So what were you hoping to achieve when you chose to lie about it?

But you did admit that the most accurate measure hasn’t been released yet
Click to expand...

Yes. And since we don't have the best data that will eventually be available, I used the best data that is currently available. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's standard operating procedure. For example, if you were to post "the economy added 20,000 jobs in February," it would be understood that's not the most accurate measure that will eventually be available. It's possible the economy didn't add any jobs in February, for example.... the BLS will update the February jobs report a couple more times in the coming months, and the best number may end up being significantly different. The preliminary figure is reached with a combination of actual counts and modeling to account for incomplete data. But, at this point, 20,000 is the best available. Similarly, the best available evidence, at this point, is that the Republican upper-class tax cut shifted the tax burden away form the rich.

So yes you conceded that you are using a bogus analysis.
Click to expand...

No. As you're well aware, I conceded nothing of the sort. Bogus is fake, fraudulent. It's not a synonym for "possibly inaccurate." As you know, you've been able to find no better evidence than I presented. It was my honest best effort to test the false assertion Flash made, and it was based on good-faith estimates produced by reputable experts. For obvious reasons, you'd like to think they're wrong. But your partisan hopes do not make the models bogus..... and, regardless, as you can see, I am clearly NOT conceding that they're bogus. So why did you choose to lie and claim I was? Did you really think you'd get away with your dishonesty? Don't you feel a bit slimy even attempting it?

The lack of honor and character among conservatives is a real curiosity to me, so anything you could do to explain what went through you mind when you decided to lie and claim I conceded something you know I didn't concede would be appreciated. Thanks!
 
Oneuli said:
Yes, or in any words. So what were you hoping to achieve when you chose to lie about it?



Yes. And since we don't have the best data that will eventually be available, I used the best data that is currently available. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's standard operating procedure. For example, if you were to post "the economy added 20,000 jobs in February," it would be understood that's not the most accurate measure that will eventually be available. It's possible the economy didn't add any jobs in February, for example.... the BLS will update the February jobs report a couple more times in the coming months, and the best number may end up being significantly different. The preliminary figure is reached with a combination of actual counts and modeling to account for incomplete data. But, at this point, 20,000 is the best available. Similarly, the best available evidence, at this point, is that the Republican upper-class tax cut shifted the tax burden away form the rich.



No. As you're well aware, I conceded nothing of the sort. Bogus is fake, fraudulent. It's not a synonym for "possibly inaccurate." As you know, you've been able to find no better evidence than I presented. It was my honest best effort to test the false assertion Flash made, and it was based on good-faith estimates produced by reputable experts. For obvious reasons, you'd like to think they're wrong. But your partisan hopes do not make the models bogus..... and, regardless, as you can see, I am clearly NOT conceding that they're bogus. So why did you choose to lie and claim I was? Did you really think you'd get away with your dishonesty? Don't you feel a bit slimy even attempting it?

The lack of honor and character among conservatives is a real curiosity to me, so anything you could do to explain what went through you mind when you decided to lie and claim I conceded something you know I didn't concede would be appreciated. Thanks!
Click to expand...

You are clinging to bogus math models to push your lefty agenda.

Don’t blame me for calling it out.
 
I Love America said:
You are clinging to bogus math models to push your lefty agenda.

Don’t blame me for calling it out.
Click to expand...

I'm blaming you for lying. You said I admitted things you know I didn't admit. So, I'm still holding out hope you'll explain what was going through your mind when you decided to lie that way. The shamelessness of right-wing dishonesty remains a mystery to me, and I'm hoping at some point someone will explain how it functions, psychologically. I mean, there must be some way you squared your partisan need to be deceptive with your conscience, and I'm wondering how you did that.
 
Oneuli said:
I'm blaming you for lying. You said I admitted things you know I didn't admit. So, I'm still holding out hope you'll explain what was going through your mind when you decided to lie that way. The shamelessness of right-wing dishonesty remains a mystery to me, and I'm hoping at some point someone will explain how it functions, psychologically. I mean, there must be some way you squared your partisan need to be deceptive with your conscience, and I'm wondering how you did that.
Click to expand...

I already explained

I speak truth and never lie. It is time to end this conversation. I have accomplished my goal by pointing out you are using bogus inaccurate math models that can be easily manipulated based on inputs.

You aren’t using FACTUAL real data. You can keep calling it “best available” but it isn’t. What you should really say is “I found data that supports my position so I like it”

With that, you and I are finished here. No need for you to respond. It will go unread and will not yield a response. But I suspect you won’t be able to help yourself. I understand. Many leftists exhibit little self control
 
Oneuli said:
The link shows that the tax cuts shifted a larger part of the tax burden AWAY FROM the wealthy. What made you think otherwise? Could you point to the specific table/link/source that you see as showing a growing share of the tax burden on the wealthy since the cut (note, I'm not asking what happened in the many years before that cut, since obviously we had some good leadership in prior periods, such as Clinton, which involved the rich paying something closer to their fair share following upper-class tax hikes).
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any data available this soon showing the percent of federal income taxes paid by various income groups. I was not trying to show the results of any particular tax cut but that the general lowering of the marginal tax rate since the 1980's has shown a continual and dramatic shift of all federal income taxes toward the wealthy. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of all federal income taxes in 1980 and 70% in 2014.

Sorry if I was not clear in my explanation. However, your contention that is declined to 22% was based on an entirely different measure of all taxes (federal, state, local) and not federal income taxes. So the dramatic decline you showed was not true.

The Bush-Obama tax cuts virtually eliminated most federal income taxes for the bottom 40-50%, so it is only logical that the less they pay the more is being paid by upper income.
 
I Love America said:
I already explained

I speak truth and never lie.
Click to expand...

Yet you lied repeatedly about me supposedly conceding points that you knew, full well, I didn't concede. So, how did you make peace with that decision to lie, when it's clearly important to you that others not think of you as a liar? Was the idea that the lie was so obviously a lie that it couldn't possibly have taken anyone in, and therefore couldn't be understood as an attempt to deceive, and so it was OK? Or is it more of a utilitarian thing, where you think defending the right-wing perspective is important enough that it trumps the usual moral rules about lying -- sort of like lying about hiding Jews during the Holocaust? Or was it an honest error, where you initially misunderstood what I said, but then felt you'd gone too far to back down so you had to pretend what you'd said was right?
 
Flash said:
I don't think there is any data available this soon showing the percent of federal income taxes paid by various income groups. I was not trying to show the results of any particular tax cut but that the general lowering of the marginal tax rate since the 1980's has shown a continual and dramatic shift of all federal income taxes toward the wealthy.
Click to expand...

That's not at all what you said. You said "The Republican tax cuts have shifted the tax burden to the wealthy and decreased the taxes paid by the working class." That's definitely not true. There have been upper-class tax HIKES either pass by Democratic Congresses or, in the case of the sunsetting during Obama's presidency, forced by a Democratic president, that have shifted the tax burden in the direction of the rich. But Republican tax cuts tend to have the opposite impact.

Anyway, the data suggests that the impact of the last Republican tax cut was to raise the proportion of the tax burden born by the upper-middle class, in order to reduce the burden born by the wealthy.
 
Oneuli said:
That's not at all what you said. You said "The Republican tax cuts have shifted the tax burden to the wealthy and decreased the taxes paid by the working class." That's definitely not true. But Republican tax cuts tend to have the opposite impact.
Click to expand...

I will stick to my original quote. The tax cuts which were mostly Republican (Reagan and Bush but not all Republican because Obama extended the Bush tax cuts) shifted the tax burden to the wealthy. Obama raising taxes on those over $400,000 was very recent and does not explain the long term trend.

For example, between 1980-1990 the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% went from 19% to 25% [Tax Foundation]. Between 2001-2007 the share paid by the top 1% went from 33% to 39%. There were Republican tax cuts under Reagan and Bush and I don't remember any major Democratic tax increases during those years.

Actually, I am not partisan and do not attribute good and bad to Democrats or Republicans or tax cuts or increases. There are too many other factors affecting revenue such as recessions. I would blame the trend of shifting income taxes toward the rich due to tax cuts for the middle class and the increased share of the income gained by the wealthy during that period. If you make more money you pay more taxes.
 
Flash said:
I will stick to my original quote. The tax cuts which were mostly Republican (Reagan and Bush but not all Republican because Obama extended the Bush tax cuts) shifted the tax burden to the wealthy. Obama raising taxes on those over $400,000 was very recent and does not explain the long term trend.

For example, between 1980-1990 the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% went from 19% to 25% [Tax Foundation]. Between 2001-2007 the share paid by the top 1% went from 33% to 39%. There were Republican tax cuts under Reagan and Bush and I don't remember any major Democratic tax increases during those years.

Actually, I am not partisan and do not attribute good and bad to Democrats or Republicans or tax cuts or increases. There are too many other factors affecting revenue such as recessions. I would blame the trend of shifting income taxes toward the rich due to tax cuts for the middle class and the increased share of the income gained by the wealthy during that period. If you make more money you pay more taxes.
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct. Great analysis. They are being deliberately dishonest using bogus math models
 
Flash said:
For example, between 1980-1990 the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% went from 19% to 25% [Tax Foundation].
Click to expand...

The problem is that you're not looking primarily at the impact of tax laws there, but rather the impact of income growth. The wealthy had their income grow vastly quicker than the nation as a whole during the catastrophic Reagan/Bush years. So, even with their average tax rates falling dramatically in that time (from 34.47% to 23.25%, for the top 1%, according to the Tax Foundation), their tax payments went up. It sounds like, from what you're saying, you recognize that.
 
Oneuli said:
The problem is that you're not looking primarily at the impact of tax laws there, but rather the impact of income growth. The wealthy had their income grow vastly quicker than the nation as a whole during the catastrophic Reagan/Bush years. So, even with their average tax rates falling dramatically in that time (from 34.47% to 23.25%, for the top 1%, according to the Tax Foundation), their tax payments went up. It sounds like, from what you're saying, you recognize that.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is why my previous post said: "I would blame the trend of shifting income taxes toward the rich due to tax cuts for the middle class and the increased share of the income gained by the wealthy during that period. If you make more money you pay more taxes."

Tax revenue generally tends to increase annually with tax increases or cuts. Tax revenue as a percent of GDP was lower in the 1950s-1960's with a 70-91% marginal tax rate than it was later with a much lower rate.
 
Oneuli said:
The problem is that you're not looking primarily at the impact of tax laws there, but rather the impact of income growth. The wealthy had their income grow vastly quicker than the nation as a whole during the catastrophic Reagan/Bush years.
Click to expand...

Catastrophic Reagan/Bush years???? And you wonder why NO one with even half a brain takes your bullshit seriously? STFU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top