Page 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 24303132333435363738 LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 560

Thread: What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

  1. #496 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,408 Times in 10,038 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    because it determines how much revenue we collect.
    No it doesn't.

    Tax rates determine how much we collect.

    Revenue-as-a-percentage of GDP comes after taxes are collected. It has no bearing on spending, it doesn't even include actual totals.

    Nevermind the fact that 1% of GDP is $200B (how much did rev-as-a-percentage of GDP fall from 2015-17? 0.9% which is about $200B of current GDP), which would pay for free public colleges 2.5x over.

    Your'e a fucking fraud. Who buys this shit? Are you convinced of your own intelligence? If so, bravo with that level of self-delusion.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  2. #497 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Free public college would cost $85B a year at most.
    Moron is smoking too much weed if he thinks free college would only cost $85 billion.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  3. #498 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    You're withholding again!

    Why do you do that?

    What are the totals by each year, and from where are you getting this source?
    This is from the federal budget under the historical tables. As usual, you complain because I didn't give my shoe size. It would take too much space to list every year. It would be easier because I calculated the average for each decade. You always ignore the main issue by bringing up trivia.

    Here is a chart from the Fed with every year back to the 1930's. I suspect you do not really want the numbers but are just complaining.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-10-2019)

  5. #499 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    This is from the federal budget under the historical tables. As usual, you complain because I didn't give my shoe size. It would take too much space to list every year. It would be easier because I calculated the average for each decade. You always ignore the main issue by bringing up trivia.

    Here is a chart from the Fed with every year back to the 1930's. I suspect you do not really want the numbers but are just complaining.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
    That is going to leave a mark!

  6. #500 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Which means from 2011-2014, it was much lower. It had to be because how else are you getting to that 15.3% number if 2015-2017 averaged around 17.4%?
    Of course it was much lower 2011-2014--actually starting in 2009--it was called a recession. You are only interested in information you can use to make partisan points--you interpret everything based on liberal v. conservative

    2008: 17.1%
    2009: 14.5%
    2010: 14.4%
    2011: 14.8%
    2012: 15.1%
    2013: 16.5%
    2014: 17.2%

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-10-2019)

  8. #501 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    No it doesn't.

    The only reason it does is because you cannot make an argument using any other figures or numbers.

    And you're not even using all the data here...you're "summarizing it" without providing your source, and you're leaving out years that undermine your case!

    Sophistry.
    I did not summarize anything. I calculated averages by decade and did not leave out any numbers. The alternative would have been to list every year. Nothing I posted changed the overall results which you have yet to refute or explain.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-10-2019)

  10. #502 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post

    Tax rates determine how much we collect.
    That is just plain silly. You could have a 1% or 50% tax rate and that does not mean you collect any money at all if people avoided those taxes. Revenue is what is actually collected.

    The tax rate does not tell us how much people actually pay because they only pay that percentage once they earn over a certain amount. The effective tax rate tells us how much people actually paid in taxes and when tax rates were 70-91% people actually paid much less.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-10-2019)

  12. #503 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    That's the important data because at the end of 2012, the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expired.

    So if rev-GDP grew from 2012-2013 that's because of higher taxes on the rich.
    BS. Obama did not even sign the American Taxpayer Relief Act until 2013 meaning we would see any additional revenues until 2014. Don't forget we were still recovering from the recession and the economy was steadily improving.

    "Economist Emmanuel Saez estimated that, in the three years since the tax hike took effect, strategies used by the rich to reduce their reported income eliminated about 19 percent of the revenue the government could have collected from the tax increase had the wealthy not changed their behavior."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8b393a8d6052
    Last edited by Flash; 01-10-2019 at 06:33 PM.

  13. #504 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,408 Times in 10,038 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It would be easier because I calculated the average for each decade
    Doing so paints an inaccurate picture because there are certain years where the tax rate is lower than the year before, and that will have an effect on revenue-as-a-percentage-of-GDP.

    You did that specifically because you know that if you showed it year-by-year, you would see a jump in rev-GDP when taxes are raised, and a drop in rev-GDP when taxes are cut.

    1% change to rev-GDP is $200B today.

    $200B would fund free public college for 25 years.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  14. #505 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,408 Times in 10,038 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Here is a chart from the Fed with every year back to the 1930's. I suspect you do not really want the numbers but are just complaining.
    LOL!

    So right away, when you look at this chart you see that there are large changes in that rate. For example, in 1981 before taxes were cut, federal revenue was above 18% of GDP.

    1% of GDP is $200B today.

    $200B would fund free public college for 25 years.

    So there is money to pay for things. Showing rev-GDP is a pointless metric to use.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  15. #506 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,408 Times in 10,038 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Of course it was much lower 2011-2014--actually starting in 2009--it was called a recession. You are only interested in information you can use to make partisan points--you interpret everything based on liberal v. conservative

    2008: 17.1%
    2009: 14.5%
    2010: 14.4%
    2011: 14.8%
    2012: 15.1%
    2013: 16.5%
    2014: 17.2%
    HOLD UP A SECOND.

    From 2012-2013, rev-GDP grew by 1.4%

    What was the reason for that?

    Oh right, Obama let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of 2012.

    He does that, and suddenly rev-GDP jumps by 1.4% which, in 2013, would be $233 BILLION DOLLARS.

    So from 2012-2013, when the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expires, that resulted in $233B MORE DOLLARS flowing into the Treasury.

    $233B would pay for free public college for about 30 years.

    So nominal changes to the tax code results in massive changes to revenue collected.

    So why are you using rev-GDP to prove a point that raising taxes won't change it when clearly raising taxes dramatically changes the amount of revenue collected?

    Because you're a sophist.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  16. #507 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,408 Times in 10,038 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I did not summarize anything. I calculated averages by decade and did not leave out any numbers.
    1. That is literally a summary. So you're not even acting in good faith here. You're a bad faith actor who engages in sophistry because you don't want to eat shit for being wrong.

    2. By obfuscating and withholding yearly information, you obscure nominal changes to the tax code that results in large changes to revenue collected.

    I simply think you lost all perspective of GDP and revenue as a percentage of GDP.

    I think you simply don't grasp the concept that a 1% change in rev-GDP has a massive effect on the total amount of dollars the Treasury collects.

    1% of rev-GDP today is $200B.

    In 2013, rev-GDP grew by 1.4%, which in 2013 was $233B.

    For perspective, $233B is equal to:
    • About 30 years of free public college under that current proposal ($80B over ten years)
    • About 1/4 of the current $800B+ deficit
    • About 1/2 of Medicaid's budget
    • About 1/3 of the DOD's budget


    The alternative would have been to list every year.
    Doing so would show that nominal changes to the tax code have massive changes to the amount of revenue collected; a point you glossed over because you either don't know the size of the economy, or you do and are trying to obscure it by using metrics the government doesn't use when determining its budget or spending.

    In other words, you engaged in sophistry.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  17. #508 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,408 Times in 10,038 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is just plain silly. You could have a 1% or 50% tax rate and that does not mean you collect any money at all if people avoided those taxes. Revenue is what is actually collected
    And the amount of revenue collected is determined by the tax rate, not the size of the GDP.

    So you engage in sophistry because you know better, but don't want to admit it because that would mean you'd have to eat some shit.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  18. #509 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,408 Times in 10,038 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The tax rate does not tell us how much people actually pay because they only pay that percentage once they earn over a certain amount. The effective tax rate tells us how much people actually paid in taxes and when tax rates were 70-91% people actually paid much less.
    The effective tax rate tells us how much people pay. So now you're moving the goalposts and abandoning the metric you used before to make your case because it can't anymore.

    The marginal tax rates tell us how much they have to pay per bracket.

    By nominally changing the marginal rate, you nominally change the effective rate, and you nominally change the rev-GDP rate, however, nominal changes to the rev-GDP rate results in massive gross changes to the amount of revenue collected. 1% of GDP is $200B today. So if you increase the rev-GDP rate by 1%, then that increases the amount of revenue collected by the Treasury by roughly $200B. $200B would fully fund free public colleges for about 25 years under the current proposal.

    So the question is now; why do you engage in bad faith tactics to make your argument?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  19. #510 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,408 Times in 10,038 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    BS. Obama did not even sign the American Taxpayer Relief Act until 2013 meaning we would see any additional revenues until 2014. Don't forget we were still recovering from the recession and the economy was steadily improving.
    You're a fucking idiot and a liar.

    The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expired at the end of 2012.

    The previous rates for the top bracket went back to 39.6% for 2013:

    IMG_2505.jpg

    All you do is lie. You lie because you've done it for so long, so often, and because no one has ever held you to account for bullshitting. I believe you've lied so much in your life that you simply don't know what it is like to act in good faith anymore.

    Why would you lie about something so easily verified?

    Also, THE DATA YOU PROVIDED shows that after the tax rates returned to pre-Bush levels on the rich, rev-GDP also increased.

    That's your data that shows that, sparky.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


Similar Threads

  1. I'll Not Yield
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 06-29-2013, 11:21 AM
  2. GM Crops Do Not Increase Yield
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 08:04 AM
  3. Taxing the Rich
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-31-2011, 06:42 PM
  4. Instead of more Taxing 'The Rich'....
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 08:09 AM
  5. Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich
    By LadyT in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 06-15-2008, 07:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •