Romney delivers powerful message.

[Flash]

Couple questions:

1) Wasn't the first tax cut supposed to do that? Wasn't it supposed to lead to growth of at least 3%? Wasn't it supposed to raise wages by $4,000? Wasn't it supposed to lead to business investment? You have been here arguing constantly that the Russia Tax Cut that took effect in 2018 cut taxes for the middle class. Unless you're now going to admit you've been BSing this whole time? Have you?

2) It's adorable how you think Mnuchin is serious when he says he wants to cut taxes for the middle class. He already did that in 2018, supposedly. Those tax cuts are set to expire by 2024. So he already cut taxes for the middle class, and it didn't work. So why do you think he intends to cut them again for the middle class and not lie about it, like he did in 2017-18?

The topic was there is nobody calling for additional tax cuts for the wealthy--and you haven't shown me anybody who is. What those tax cuts will do is anybody's guess and I doubt the Democratic House will pass anything that goes primarily to the wealthy. Since the bottom 50% only pays 3% of all federal income taxes there is little left to cut.

You completely diverted from the original topic about people calling for additional cuts for the rich and told us about what the past cuts did--completely unrelated to the point of the discussion. I don't care what Mnuchin says or does--he did not call for additional cuts for the rich which proves my point.

 

[Flash]

Is it, though? Because it's not just their percentage of income, it's the fact that their share of income growth has outpaced their share of the tax burden.

But their share of the tax burden is still higher than their share of the income while all the lower groups has a larger share of the income than their tax rate. So that means they are paying their "fair share" while others are not. If you want them to pay an even higher share that is just an arbitrary figure which has nothing to do with fairness.

 

[Flash]

But again, you are narrowly focusing on their income as a whole while ignoring the fact that their share of the income gains has outpaced their share of the tax burden. Meaning, the amount of income they take in is a larger share than that share of which they pay in taxes.

It's an inconvenient thing you are deliberately ignoring to try and suck up to the 1%, who don't give a shit about you at all.

You are saying previously their share of the taxes were even higher than their share of the income than they are now. As long as their share of the taxes is higher than their share of the income that is more than their "fair share" unless you just seek to punish people for their success.

In 1980 the top 1% paid 19.05% of federal individual income taxes. By 2016 it was 37.32% which was a 95.9% increase. That is more than fair when their share of income was 19.72%.

 

[LV426]

The topic was there is nobody calling for additional tax cuts for the wealthy--and you haven't shown me anybody who is. What those tax cuts will do is anybody's guess and I doubt the Democratic House will pass anything that goes primarily to the wealthy. Since the bottom 50% only pays 3% of all federal income taxes there is little left to cut.

You completely diverted from the original topic about people calling for additional cuts for the rich and told us about what the past cuts did--completely unrelated to the point of the discussion. I don't care what Mnuchin says or does--he did not call for additional cuts for the rich which proves my point.

Well, the 2018 Russia Tax Cut was supposed to be for the middle class and we know it wasn't. So why would any new tax cut be any different?

 

[LV426]

But their share of the tax burden is still higher than their share of the income

But it's not. Their share of the income they've taken is more than 37% of their share of the tax burden.

while all the lower groups has a larger share of the income than their tax rate.

The top 1% has seen their income grow 50%. The rest of us have seen about an 8% change in our income, on average.

So that means they are paying their "fair share" while others are not. If you want them to pay an even higher share that is just an arbitrary figure which has nothing to do with fairness.

The amount I want them to pay isn't arbitrary, it's based on what most economists recommend...that would be a top tax rate between 50-75%. I also support the wealth tax, since their share of overall wealth has increased while everyone else's has declined.

 

[LV426]

You are saying previously their share of the taxes were even higher than their share of the income than they are now.

As it should be.

As long as their share of the taxes is higher than their share of the income that is more than their "fair share" unless you just seek to punish people for their success.

LOL @ the thought that while 60% of wealth in this country is inherited, that translates to success.

Yeah, the success of being born into a family that has inherited wealth.

You might consider that success, but I don't.

In 1980 the top 1% paid 19.05% of federal individual income taxes. By 2016 it was 37.32% which was a 95.9% increase. That is more than fair when their share of income was 19.72%.

Right, but they've taken more of the income gains since 1980. An oversized share, in fact. CEO pay has risen, what, 250% since 1980?

 

[Flash]

Yet, they have taken a greater share of the income gains than the share of federal taxes they paid.

So the wealthy have taken 50%+ of the income gains, yet only pay a 37% of the tax burden. How is that fair?

Easy. As long as their percentage of taxes is higher than their percentage of income they are paying more than their fair share.

Also, it overlooks the fact that as income rises a smaller percentage comes from wages subject to federal income taxes. Higher tax rates lead rational individuals to seek to reduce their taxes. Higher income get a large share of their income from capital gains which Democrats and Republicans favor keeping at a lower rate (Obama raised it from 15% to 20%).

Is it, though? Because the economy isn't dependent on the federal deficit. Interest rates for federal borrowing are. If you reduce the deficit by cutting spending, you're not positively impacting the economy because you're cutting spending. If you are reducing the deficit by raising taxes, you aren't negatively impacting the economy because the tax revenue is being spent.

Yes. Most economists recognize that as the debt increases economic growth slows down. There is a debate about what that point is, but it is generally lower than the GDP which our total debt now exceeds. The CBO Long Term Budget Outlooks says an increasing debt "could reduce projected annual income by between $2,000 and $6,000 per person by 2040..."

If you say so, but that song was way different 7 years ago.

Not from me. You seek to answer my arguments by telling me what conservatives said which has nothing to do with my posts.

 

[Flash]

As it should be.

Then you are not really asking for the wealthy to pay their fair share. You are asking that they pay their fair share plus 50%.

LOL @ the thought that while 60% of wealth in this country is inherited, that translates to success.

Yeah, the success of being born into a family that has inherited wealth.

You might consider that success, but I don't.

And that 60% is somewhat exaggerated. It does not mean 60% of of higher income people inherited their wealth, it means of all the wealth 60% was inherited. Theoretically, that could be all from one person.

About 20% of millionaires inherited their money. There about about 10 million millionaires in the U. S. and many of those are teachers, plant workers, etc. who steadily contributed to retirement accounts over many years.

Right, but they've taken more of the income gains since 1980. An oversized share, in fact. CEO pay has risen, what, 250% since 1980?

Those income gains did not come from inheritance. Social mobility studies show only about 50% of the top earners are still in that category ten years later.

 

[Flash]

Great post, great research.

Thanks.

Thanks, it is IRS data.

 

[Flash]

Is it, though? Because it's not just their percentage of income, it's the fact that their share of income growth has outpaced their share of the tax burden.

First you claimed "But they don't pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than their income."

When I proved they do you switched it to the growth in their income was faster than their growth in taxes. But they still pay a much higher percentage of taxes than their income regardless of whether it has increased faster than the growth in income.

 

[Walt]

But their share of the tax burden is still higher than their share of the income while all the lower groups has a larger share of the income than their tax rate.

Flash is forgetting to include the words "federal income", before taxes. Remember, the wealthy pay far less of their overall wealth in taxes then the poor, and far less of their income in taxes. Only when you are very careful to limit it to taxable income and federal income taxes, can you start getting something that the wealthy pay their fair share.

 

[CFM]

Flash is forgetting to include the words "federal income", before taxes. Remember, the wealthy pay far less of their overall wealth in taxes then the poor, and far less of their income in taxes. Only when you are very careful to limit it to taxable income and federal income taxes, can you start getting something that the wealthy pay their fair share.

Since the poor have no wealth and pay no income taxes, your claim is dismissed as foolish.

When a poor person pays 0% in income taxes, how is that less than someone paying even 1%?


As far as Romney's message, it was clear. He's mad because Trump beat the person deemed the most qualified to ever run for the office and he couldn't beat an unqualified, incompetent black that made the claim.

 

[Flash]

Flash is forgetting to include the words "federal income", before taxes. Remember, the wealthy pay far less of their overall wealth in taxes then the poor, and far less of their income in taxes. Only when you are very careful to limit it to taxable income and federal income taxes, can you start getting something that the wealthy pay their fair share.

Not true. Many of my post said "federal individual income taxes." Can you show evidence of your claims?

 

[LV426]

Easy. As long as their percentage of taxes is higher than their percentage of income they are paying more than their fair share.

If you want to be reductionist, sure.

But doing so means you have to act in bad faith and ignore the fact that their share of the wealth has increased as their share of income gains have increased.

Also, it overlooks the fact that as income rises a smaller percentage comes from wages subject to federal income taxes. Higher tax rates lead rational individuals to seek to reduce their taxes. Higher income get a large share of their income from capital gains which Democrats and Republicans favor keeping at a lower rate (Obama raised it from 15% to 20%).

So it sounds to me like you think all income should be taxed the same.

Yes. Most economists recognize that as the debt increases economic growth slows down.

NO THEY DON'T!

We just went through this garbage argument of yours no less than 8 years ago.

You all lied and argued 8 years ago that high debt correlates to lower economic growth, and the study you used to make that argument, GROWTH IN THE TIME OF DEBT, turned out to be a gigantic crock of shit riddled with "spreadsheet errors" and "data omissions" that, when corrected, actually show that the lower the % of debt to GDP, the lower the economic growth. When corrected for those errors, the conclusion of the study inverts itself, and actually makes the point that high levels of debt do not correspond to lower economic growth.

The fact that this has been debunked for the last 7 years, yet you still argue it anyway leads me to believe you do not act in good faith, nor do you have any intention of ever doing so.

If I made a 7-year old debunked argument and made it my orthodoxy, as you have done, I'd be so fucking embarrassed, I probably wouldn't keep posting on boards like these, where people like me will come and drag you for repeating lies. And that's what they are, Flash...LIES.

The Reinhart-Rogoff error – or how not to Excel at economics
http://theconversation.com/the-reinhart-rogoff-error-or-how-not-to-excel-at-economics-13646

Forget Excel: This Was Reinhart and Rogoff's Biggest Mistake
https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-reinhart-and-rogoffs-biggest-mistake/275088/

FAQ: Reinhart, Rogoff, and the Excel Error That Changed History
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...goff-and-the-excel-error-that-changed-history

What I don't understand, Flash, is why you keep arguing something that is so obviously wrong, even the original authors admit that they were fooling you. Is it a matter of pride? Is it a matter of ego? What gives? Why are you so insistent on being wrong? Are you really that petty?

 

[LV426]

The CBO Long Term Budget Outlooks says an increasing debt "could reduce projected annual income by between $2,000 and $6,000 per person by 2040..."

COULD.

What we know for sure is that cutting taxes doesn't increase personal incomes by the "$4,000" the GOP promised at the end of 2017.

 

[Getin the ring]

COULD.

What we know for sure is that cutting taxes doesn't increase personal incomes by the "$4,000" the GOP promised at the end of 2017.

only a retard would think that cutting ones taxes wouldn't leave one with more of his own money

but proceed

 

[LV426]

Then you are not really asking for the wealthy to pay their fair share. You are asking that they pay their fair share plus 50%.

Well, they've taken at least 50% of the income gains since the Great Recession, so are you arguing their share should be more?

And that 60% is somewhat exaggerated.

Wait - somewhat? So you don't actually know, do you? So you tried to attack my argument with a load of bullshit that you're not 100% dialed up on yourself. See, it's easy for a fence sitter like you to never have to actually take a position, instead relying on your privilege and status to coast your way past the tough stats and data. Instead of challenging that claim, you spun it off into something different. Flatly, 60% of wealth in this country is inherited and you think inheritance = success.

About 20% of millionaires inherited their money.

So that's a lot.

There about about 10 million millionaires in the U. S. and many of those are teachers, plant workers, etc. who steadily contributed to retirement accounts over many years.

LOL @ the thought of teachers being millionaires.

Here's the problem for you....the average 401K balance isn't $1M, it's $100K.

And that includes people at the very top who are skewing that figure higher.

If you take the 1% out, the average amount anyone has in their 401K is just $50K. And only half of Americans even own stock, and most stock is owned by the top 1%.

Now, Flash, does $50K = $1M?

Does $100K = $1M?

Nope.

Those income gains did not come from inheritance. Social mobility studies show only about 50% of the top earners are still in that category ten years later.

LOL...well I guess that all depends on what you mean by "top earners"? So you made a deliberately vague and undefined statement right here that I'm sure you're going to start adjusting the parameters on in order for you to "clarify what you meant".

But that's your game, as always...say something broad, vague, and/or undefined, don't defend it, and instead fall back on your inherent privilege that lets you make an unaccountable remark on an anonymous forum.

 

[Getin the ring]

Well, they've taken at least 50% of the income gains since the Great Recession, so are you arguing their share should be more?




Wait - somewhat? So you don't actually know, do you? So you tried to attack my argument with a load of bullshit that you're not 100% dialed up on yourself. See, it's easy for a fence sitter like you to never have to actually take a position, instead relying on your privilege and status to coast your way past the tough stats and data. Instead of challenging that claim, you spun it off into something different. Flatly, 60% of wealth in this country is inherited and you think inheritance = success.




So that's a lot.




LOL @ the thought of teachers being millionaires.

Here's the problem for you....the average 401K balance isn't $1M, it's $100K.

And that includes people at the very top who are skewing that figure higher.

If you take the 1% out, the average amount anyone has in their 401K is just $50K. And only half of Americans even own stock, and most stock is owned by the top 1%.

Now, Flash, does $50K = $1M?

Does $100K = $1M?

Nope.




LOL...well I guess that all depends on what you mean by "top earners"? So you made a deliberately vague and undefined statement right here that I'm sure you're going to start adjusting the parameters on in order for you to "clarify what you meant".

But that's your game, as always...say something broad, vague, and/or undefined, don't defend it, and instead fall back on your inherent privilege that lets you make an unaccountable remark on an anonymous forum.

do you actually have a degree in retardation?

you just don't stop do you

on topic Romney is a phony, end of that subject

 

[LV426]

First you claimed "But they don't pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than their income."

But they really don't. Their effective rate is much lower than their share of the wealth. You were using marginal rates to make that judgment...effective rates are much lower, and are really the heart of the matter.

I know the sophist game you try to play, Flash.

37% is the marginal rate, not the effective rate.

 

[Getin the ring]

But they really don't. Their effective rate is much lower than their share of the wealth. You were using marginal rates to make that judgment...effective rates are much lower, and are really the heart of the matter.

I know the sophist game you try to play, Flash.

37% is the marginal rate, not the effective rate.

hey pinhead, the topic is Romney

could you focus, rock back and forth and breathe