It's The Ecomomy Stupid...

[seer]

What happened in general is that the money was disproportionately skewed to the wealthy - and widened the poor/rich wealth gap. The data is inescapable. Those of you who were contented with the sop tossed your way are welcome to your point of view. Those of us who recognize a sop when we see one will be voting to remove those responsible from office.

Of course comrade, we need a new proletariat...

800px-Hammer_and_sickle_red_on_transparent.svg.jpg

[rogue06]

Again - fun with statistics. There is no incompatibility between "80% of Americans benefited" and "most of the money went disproportionately to the wealthiest."

Fun with statistics. Who was paying the lion's share of the taxes? For instance, the top 1% paid 37.3% of all individual income taxes. That is considerably more than the share paid by the "bottom" 90% combined (30.5%). The top 50% of all taxpayers paid 97% of total individual income taxes (meaning the bottom 50% paid just 3%). So naturally, when you're paying a lot more income tax than most everyone else you will naturally be getting back a lot more than most everyone else. It just goes to reason.

But inevitably there will always be those bemoaning how "most of the money went disproportionately to the wealthiest." One of my brother's friends was complaining about how he saw almost no benefit from the tax cut. Of course the fact that he's semi-retired with a (taxable) income so small that he got back considerably more than what he put in thanks to earned income tax credit. He actually got $500 to $600 back more than he paid. But being a dyed in the wool Democrat he complained he should get more of what he didn't make and it wasn't "fair" that some rich person got more of the money that rich person paid in taxes back

[carpedm9587]

Carp if stock buy backs raise the value of the stocks then all the share holders benefit (which with 401Ks are many of us). And as my past link showed it has other long term benefits. And I don't know where you are getting that 17% number - is that an average?

You do love to ignore the data, don't you. In the U.S., 84% of the stock is owned by the wealthiest 10%. Again - I have never made the claim that the lower/middle class didn't get ANY benefit - I said the preponderance of the benefit went to the wealthiest people in the U.S. Study after study affirms that this is exactly what happened.

What I do know is that I saved $1,300 because of the tax code with a $500 bonus on top of that.That is good for me, I'm just not that worried about what other men make, these CEOs have to answer to their stockholders.

Like I said - you were contended with your sop, and are applauding your comparative pittance while the richest members of our society are laughing all the way to the bank, especially at the idea that ANY of that wealth is going to "trickle down" to people like you. How you can be so easily conned, Seer, is beyond me. You just be outraged that you walked away with an extra $4.10 per day while the average CEO saw a 17% increase of their income. The average CEO in the U.S. makes slightly more than $177K, so they saw an average increase of $82 per day. And that's the average. The CEOs of big companies saw million-dollar increases in their compensation.

But I asked you a question Carp: what system has pulled more people out of poverty?

The question is irrelevant. I have not said "get rid of capitalism." I have said "free market capitalism" is an ill - capitalism needs to be carefully and constantly regulated and monitored - or it becomes a vehicle by which the rich can oppress the poor - which is happening today in the U.S.

[carpedm9587]

[QUOTE=seer;631787]Of course comrade, we need a new proletariat...

The lack of content in your response is indicative of your inability to frame a coherent argument for your position, Seer. Jibes and name calling are the refuge of those with no rational argument.

[guacamole]

Wrong thread...delete...

[carpedm9587]

Fun with statistics. Who was paying the lion's share of the taxes? For instance, the top 1% paid 37.3% of all individual income taxes. That is considerably more than the share paid by the "bottom" 90% combined (30.5%). The top 50% of all taxpayers paid 97% of total individual income taxes (meaning the bottom 50% paid just 3%). So naturally, when you're paying a lot more income tax than most everyone else you will naturally be getting back a lot more than most everyone else. It just goes to reason.

More fun with statistics. The answer to your question depends on how you frame the question and what "lion's share" means. In strict dollars - more taxes are paid by people with more money. That is natural. Your numbers are correct. When you look at the question from the perspective of percentage of income after costs of daily living are excluded, the heaviest tax burden (as a percentage) falls on the middle class. That is to say, the rich pay from their excess, without having to touch the moneys needed for daily living, retirement savings, college savings, etc. The middle class regularly has to compromise one or more of those elements because taxes eat into that money.

But inevitably there will always be those bemoaning how "most of the money went disproportionately to the wealthiest." One of my brother's friends was complaining about how he saw almost no benefit from the tax cut. Of course the fact that he's semi-retired with a (taxable) income so small that he got back considerably more than what he put in thanks to earned income tax credit. He actually got $500 to $600 back more than he paid. But being a dyed in the wool Democrat he complained he should get more of what he didn't make and it wasn't "fair" that some rich person got more of the money that rich person paid in taxes back

In the U.S. of A - when a tax policy further widens the gap between rich and poor - it's a bad tax. The Trump/Republican tax was bad - another in a long line of bad tax policy by both parties. I am an advocate of a truly flat tax. One deduction (COL for an individual, married couple, family or three, or family of four, possibly family of five if we need that reproduction level) - no business taxes - ALL sources of income included - one tax rate calculated annually to align with what is needed to balance government spending.

The current system allows for the extremely poor, and then is badly skewed to the wealthiest. The ETR for people with incomes above $1M is 30.2% for 2018. The ETR for a person earning $45,000 is 9.5%. This means a parent of a family of four (two children) that earns $22.50/hour will pay $4,275 of their salary in taxes and have to do everything else on the remaining $40,725. That means mortgage, car, food, utilities, college savings, retirement savings, medical expenses and co-pays and premiums, insurances, and you know the rest of the list.

Meanwhile, the person earning $2M pays $600K and gets to live their life on the remaining $1.4M. Statistically, the lower wage earner has a significantly higher personal impact.

[Sparko]

More fun with statistics. The answer to your question depends on how you frame the question and what "lion's share" means. In strict dollars - more taxes are paid by people with more money. That is natural. Your numbers are correct. When you look at the question from the perspective of percentage of income after costs of daily living are excluded, the heaviest tax burden (as a percentage) falls on the middle class. That is to say, the rich pay from their excess, without having to touch the moneys needed for daily living, retirement savings, college savings, etc. The middle class regularly has to compromise one or more of those elements because taxes eat into that money.

that's kind of the whole point of being rich though isn't it?

Also just think how much worse off the middle class will be if they do pass socialist programs like single payer health care, free college, etc. Taxes will go from 25% to probably 45% or higher. And it will hurt the middle class and even more.

[guacamole]

that's kind of the whole point of being rich though isn't it?

Also just think how much worse off the middle class will be if they do pass socialist programs like single payer health care, free college, etc. Taxes will go from 25% to probably 45% or higher. And it will hurt the middle class and even more.

I'm already paying a health-care tax--just to a corporation instead of the government. Then when my coverage runs out, I get to pay more health care costs. I already pay for my college education too. What difference if I pay the government in an actual tax or pay the government (or a private lender) interest on my government loan? The fact is that it's expensive to be middle class. What I think we're seeing more of is people being fed up with what they perceive as the predatory, profit-as-first-interest motive of business when it comes to issues like healthcare and higher ed.

[Sparko]

I'm already paying a health-care tax--just to a corporation instead of the government. Then when my coverage runs out, I get to pay more health care costs. I already pay for my college education too. What difference if I pay the government in an actual tax or pay the government (or a private lender) interest on my government loan? The fact is that it's expensive to be middle class. What I think we're seeing more of is people being fed up with what they perceive as the predatory, profit-as-first-interest motive of business when it comes to issues like healthcare and higher ed.

Well as far as college goes, you will be paying for someone else's college for the rest of your life. Why should you have to do that?

As far as healthcare goes. Have you actually looked at medicare? If they do medicare for all, it won't be free health care. They have "parts" to medicare. And premiums and deductibles and limits. Part A covers hospital costs only. It has no premiums, but you have a $1,364 deductible each benefit period. Days 0-60 no coinsurance. Days 61-90 $341 per day of each benefit period. Day 91+ $682 coinsurance. Part B is for doctor visits. You have a $135 premium per month, a $185/year deductible and you pay 20% of the medicare approved bill. Part D - Drugs, varies per plan, but is also not free. Typically $33/month premium plus copays for each drug. And that is per person.

So if they implement that "medicare for all" for everyone, you will have much higher taxes and still end up paying just as much as you do now or more for actual medical services. It is not "free" at the point of use.

[seer]

The lack of content in your response is indicative of your inability to frame a coherent argument for your position, Seer. Jibes and name calling are the refuge of those with no rational argument.

Carp I have been presenting coherent arguments with stats to back me up from the get go. All you have been doing is crying "not fair." Purely emotional. The poor in this culture are doing better than any time is our history, by far (as my linked showed).

The question is irrelevant. I have not said "get rid of capitalism." I have said "free market capitalism" is an ill - capitalism needs to be carefully and constantly regulated and monitored - or it becomes a vehicle by which the rich can oppress the poor - which is happening today in the U.S.

And I have not supported unbridled capitalism, I'm a protectionist for goodness sake. And what rich man is oppressing me? Preventing me from earning and doing what I wish? Who is oppressing you? That is Marxist language and you know it.

Like I said - you were contended with your sop, and are applauding your comparative pittance while the richest members of our society are laughing all the way to the bank, especially at the idea that ANY of that wealth is going to "trickle down" to people like you. How you can be so easily conned, Seer, is beyond me. You just be outraged that you walked away with an extra $4.10 per day while the average CEO saw a 17% increase of their income. The average CEO in the U.S. makes slightly more than $177K, so they saw an average increase of $82 per day. And that's the average. The CEOs of big companies saw million-dollar increases in their compensation.

Again, how did my childhood friends, with less than a high school education, become millionaires? And what does the CEO's pay have to do with me? I'm just not that envious.

[carpedm9587]

that's kind of the whole point of being rich though isn't it?

SO your argument is "that's what rich people want?"

Also just think how much worse off the middle class will be if they do pass socialist programs like single payer health care, free college, etc. Taxes will go from 25% to probably 45% or higher. And it will hurt the middle class and even more.

So let's just look at that math, shall we? First, if we go to the flat tax I have proposed, everyone gets to keep the COL portion of their income tax-free. Then everyone pays the same tax on what remains. So let's just say that the tax rate goes to 50%, and let's just say that the COL number is $15/person up to a family of five. Let's see what that looks like. We'll use 2018 ETR, median income in the range, and a family of 5 people -

• 0 - 10K - currently 5.1% ($255) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 10-20K - currently 2.5% ($375) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 20-30K - currently 3.8% ($950) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 30-40K - currently 7.0% ($2,450) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 40-50K - currently 9.5% ($4,275) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 50-75K - currently 11.6% ($7,250) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 75-100K - currently 14.0% ($14,613) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $6,250 (ETR of 7.1%) and includes medical/college
• 100-200K - currently 16.7% ($25,050) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $37,500 (ETR of 25%) and includes medical/college
• 200-500K - currently 20.3% ($71,050) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $137,500 (ETR of 39.2%) and includes medical/college
• 500K-1M - currently 24.6% ($184,500) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $337,500 (ETR of 45%) and includes medical/college
• > 1M (calculated on $2M) - currently 30.2% ($604,000) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $962,500 (ETR of 48.1%) and includes medical/college

That's the general idea. The numbers are just pulled out of the air. It would take a bit of economic study to determine what the correct maximum number of deductibles, the amount of the deductibles (which may have to change by region based on regional COL), and the actual tax rate. Business taxes drop to zero because ALL business profits are either invested in the business (tax free) or pass through to owners and shareholders, where they are taxed as income at the same rate as all other income. Why tax twice?

Note that the cross over (Carpe > existing) is at about $130K. So I think we can safely say that the only people negatively impacted are at the upper end of middle class and into wealthy.

[carpedm9587]

Carp I have been presenting coherent arguments with stats to back me up from the get go.

Seer, I've have been presenting a coherent argument with stats from the get go. You don't like those stats, so you cherry pick stats to try to convey a story slanted the way you want to tell it. But your stats don't change the reality: the bulk of the tax cut went to the most wealthy - and made worse the poor/rich divide.

All you have been doing is crying "not fair." Purely emotional.

I have not said "not fair" once - nor have I made an "emotional" argument. If you wish to defend how one man's labor can be worth hundreds and even thousands the labor of another man, feel free to defend it. I know of no argument that will successfully do that. Nor do I know of any justification for requiring a man to choose between feeding his family or clothing them while another is contemplating which second yacht to get using money generated primarily by the labor of the first man.

The poor in this culture are doing better than any time is our history, by far (as my linked showed).

Also a red herring. The man who steals $500 from the poor man but leaves him with $200 cannot claim the moral high ground because they didn't take everything.

And I have not supported unbridled capitalism, I'm a protectionist for goodness sake. And what rich man is oppressing me?

The rich man who pocketed most of the tax return, who is chuckling all the way to the bank while you busily defend him (or her).

Preventing me from earning and doing what I wish?

Irrelevant - that is not what the discussion is about.

Who is oppressing you? That is Marxist language and you know it.

Again - labels are easy to toss around - they aren't an argument. Your need to resort to them tells volumes about the strength of your argument.

Again, how did my childhood friends, with less than a high school education, become millionaires?

Irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm relatively sure - if you were to look at their books - they achieved that by paying the lowest possible wage they could get away with, regardless of the impact on the lives of the people doing the work.

And what does the CEO's pay have to do with me? I'm just not that envious.

Then you have been successfully conned. Congratulations.

[seer]

Seer, I've have been presenting a coherent argument with stats from the get go. You don't like those stats, so you cherry pick stats to try to convey a story slanted the way you want to tell it. But your stats don't change the reality: the bulk of the tax cut went to the most wealthy - and made worse the poor/rich divide.

That is false Carp, the bulk of the tax cuts went to Corporations, big and small. You keep whining about buy backs, but those stocks had to first be purchased from current stock holders. Yes the Corporation,gets more of their own stocks back but the people who they were purchased FROM actually got the money.

I have not said "not fair" once - nor have I made an "emotional" argument. If you wish to defend how one man's labor can be worth hundreds and even thousands the labor of another man, feel free to defend it. I know of no argument that will successfully do that. Nor do I know of any justification for requiring a man to choose between feeding his family or clothing them while another is contemplating which second yacht to get using money generated primarily by the labor of the first man.

First, I'm sure those workers who make yachts are rather happy that the second yacht was purchased. And yes, you are doing it again - it's not fair. And I defend what the market bears - why does an actor (the most useless of trades) get 15 million a movie? Because we are willing to pay $10 a ticket.

Also a red herring. The man who steals $500 from the poor man but leaves him with $200 cannot claim the moral high ground because they didn't take everything.

When did the rich man steal from me? Did he break into my house? Hack my bank account? Be specific, I want to catch this thief!

Irrelevant - that is not what the discussion is about.

That is exactly the discussion, you claim that the rich were oppressing us less fortunates - with no actual evidence.

Irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm relatively sure - if you were to look at their books - they achieved that by paying the lowest possible wage they could get away with, regardless of the impact on the lives of the people doing the work.

Right, and I can find another job or retrain, I could start my own business (I know a husband and wife from my old church who run two hot dog stands, together they make 70+ a year). And I happen to know what my boss makes, and I also know he did not pay himself for three years during the recession. But yes to remain competitive, we have to keep labor costs down or fold. No Carp, the rich are not oppressing the poor. We all have choices. And I worked for one of these guys I grew up with, he paid union scale, he needed men he could count on (it wasn't a union shop).

Then you have been successfully conned. Congratulations.

And you are a Marxist at heart...

[Sparko]

SO your argument is "that's what rich people want?"



So let's just look at that math, shall we? First, if we go to the flat tax I have proposed, everyone gets to keep the COL portion of their income tax-free. Then everyone pays the same tax on what remains. So let's just say that the tax rate goes to 50%, and let's just say that the COL number is $15/person up to a family of five. Let's see what that looks like. We'll use 2018 ETR, median income in the range, and a family of 5 people -

• 0 - 10K - currently 5.1% ($255) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 10-20K - currently 2.5% ($375) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 20-30K - currently 3.8% ($950) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 30-40K - currently 7.0% ($2,450) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 40-50K - currently 9.5% ($4,275) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 50-75K - currently 11.6% ($7,250) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $0 (ETR of 0%) and includes medical/college
• 75-100K - currently 14.0% ($14,613) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $6,250 (ETR of 7.1%) and includes medical/college
• 100-200K - currently 16.7% ($25,050) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $37,500 (ETR of 25%) and includes medical/college
• 200-500K - currently 20.3% ($71,050) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $137,500 (ETR of 39.2%) and includes medical/college
• 500K-1M - currently 24.6% ($184,500) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $337,500 (ETR of 45%) and includes medical/college
• > 1M (calculated on $2M) - currently 30.2% ($604,000) PLUS all/partial medical premiums/copays/deductibles and all college expenses - Carpe plan: $962,500 (ETR of 48.1%) and includes medical/college

That's the general idea. The numbers are just pulled out of the air. It would take a bit of economic study to determine what the correct maximum number of deductibles, the amount of the deductibles (which may have to change by region based on regional COL), and the actual tax rate. Business taxes drop to zero because ALL business profits are either invested in the business (tax free) or pass through to owners and shareholders, where they are taxed as income at the same rate as all other income. Why tax twice?

Note that the cross over (Carpe > existing) is at about $130K. So I think we can safely say that the only people negatively impacted are at the upper end of middle class and into wealthy.

Why should the rich be punished? They earned their money. They worked hard for it and succeeded. Yet you want to punish success. Destroy the American dream. Crush innovation and enterprise. Discourage people from even trying. Why try to become successful if all that happens is that the government takes it all away?

[carpedm9587]

That is false Carp, the bulk of the tax cuts went to Corporations, big and small. You keep whining about buy backs, but those stocks had to first be purchased from current stock holders. Yes the Corporation,gets more of their own stocks back but the people who they were purchased FROM actually got the money.

That's false, Seer. The bulk of the tax cuts went to the wealthy. This is because when you combine the direct savings the wealthy received from the personal tax cuts, and the indirect benefit they received when the companies you cite used the money to do stock buybacks and jack up the price of the stock, the bulk of the benefit ended up in the pockets of the wealthy. You can twist the stats any way you want to, but you cannot avoid that reality.

First, I'm sure those workers who make yachts are rather happy that the second yacht was purchased. And yes, you are doing it again - it's not fair. And I defend what the market bears - why does an actor (the most useless of trades) get 15 million a movie? Because we are willing to pay $10 a ticket.

First, those workers made a fraction of the money that went into making that yacht, so this tired old hackneyed cliche is pointless. If the the money that went into tax cuts was redirected into infrastructure - the jobs would still exist, we'd have better roads, and the poor rich person might have to do without another yacht.

As for "what the market bears" - that is a free market point of view - and free markets have one metric: money. Everything else will be sacrificed to money. When there is a glut of workers, there will be a race to the bottom for salaries, leaving the rich rich and the workers increasingly poor.

When did the rich man steal from me?

Every time he/she took the majority of the money generated by your labor.

Did he break into my house?

No. Didn't need to.

Hack my bank account?

No, didn't need to.

Be specific, I want to catch this thief!

Apparently, you don't. What you seem to want to do is defend his right to continue to steal your labor and the labor of everyone else that is getting a minute fraction of the money generated by their labor.

That is exactly the discussion, you claim that the rich were oppressing us less fortunates - with no actual evidence.

I have presented the evidence: the salary and wealth disparity in the U.S. - which has been growing since the 1980s. You have failed to make any argument to justify how one man's labor is worth dollars per hour and another man's labor is worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Right, and I can find another job or retrain, I could start my own business (I know a husband and wife from my old church who run two hot dog stands, together they make 70+ a year). And I happen to know what my boss makes, and I also know he did not pay himself for three years during the recession. But yes to remain competitive, we have to keep labor costs down or fold. No Carp, the rich are not oppressing the poor. We all have choices. And I worked for one of these guys I grew up with, he paid union scale, he needed men he could count on (it wasn't a union shop).

And if you walk away with tens of thousands of dollars per hour while your lowest paid employee cannot make a living wage - you will have joined the ranks of the oppressors.

And you are a Marxist at heart...

Sticks and stones, Seer. It is the man with no argument that has to resort to labeling and name calling. I'm not afraid of your labels - so carry on...