Page 35 of 38 FirstFirst ... 253132333435363738 LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 560

Thread: What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

  1. #511 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    "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
    Totally runs in contradiction to the metric you were using previously, showing that after the tax rates were raised, rev-GDP increased:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    2008: 17.1%
    2009: 14.5%
    2010: 14.4%
    2011: 14.8%
    2012: 15.1%
    2013: 16.5%
    2014: 17.2%
    And here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    2015: 17.9%
    2016: 17.4%
    2017: 17.0%
    So when we combined the two, we see this:

    2008: 17.1%
    2009: 14.5%
    2010: 14.4%
    2011: 14.8%
    2012: 15.1%
    2013: 16.5%
    2014: 17.2%
    2015: 17.9%
    2016: 17.4%
    2017: 17.0%

    So your link there says that rich people avoided paying taxes, however, your data shows that the amount of revenue the government collected actually increased substantially.

    The problem with your argument is that you engage in sophistry, and you jump from one metric to the other, so you never end up making a coherent argument because one point you make in one argument totally contradicts the point you make in another.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (01-11-2019)

  3. #512 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,136
    Thanks
    10,959
    Thanked 19,482 Times in 9,081 Posts
    Groans
    1,448
    Groaned 1,427 Times in 1,256 Posts

    Default Robert Reich: The Big Economic Switcheroo


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to signalmankenneth For This Post:

    LV426 (01-11-2019), Phantasmal (01-11-2019)

  5. #513 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by signalmankenneth View Post
    Exactly.

    Conservatives act in bad faith because when you subscribe to Conservatism, it means you have to ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs. You have to misrepresent things; you have to compromise your ethics and values for sophistry and obfuscation because Conservatism is about preserving the individual ego by sacrificing society and truth.

    Conservatives are just morally reprehensible people, and all their lifeboats should be torched.

    Conservatism should not survive past this decade. It needs to be completely destroyed. It is not a benefit to society. Conservatism is anti-social.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    Phantasmal (01-11-2019), signalmankenneth (01-11-2019)

  7. #514 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Totally runs in contradiction to the metric you were using previously, showing that after the tax rates were raised, rev-GDP increased:

    And here:


    So when we combined the two, we see this:

    2008: 17.1%
    2009: 14.5%
    2010: 14.4%
    2011: 14.8%
    2012: 15.1%
    2013: 16.5%
    2014: 17.2%
    2015: 17.9%
    2016: 17.4%
    2017: 17.0%

    So your link there says that rich people avoided paying taxes, however, your data shows that the amount of revenue the government collected actually increased substantially.

    The problem with your argument is that you engage in sophistry, and you jump from one metric to the other, so you never end up making a coherent argument because one point you make in one argument totally contradicts the point you make in another.
    You mean tax revenue increased as we recovered from the recession? Who knew? If you notice, it remained at those levels even in 2017 following a tax cut. Also, you have to look at long-term trends, not year to year changes which could be affected by man factors.

    Previously you claimed revenue as a percent of GDP meant nothing; now you are using it to support your argument.

  8. #515 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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:

    Attachment 8436

    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.
    That is what I said--that Obama signed the bill to increase taxes on those above $400,000 in 2013. That means any increase in revenue would not be seen until 2014. You look for things to argue about even when you know when you are wrong (or cannot understand what you read).

  9. #516 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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?
    Changing the rate by 1% makes the incorrect assumption everybody is paying 1% more in taxes on total GDP. The higher rates do not apply to all income but only after reaching a certain income threshold. So a person could be in the 39.5 bracket but only pay 22% (for example) on total income because they were paying the lower rates on lower income. Also, we do not pay taxes on total GDP.

    Marginal rates do not show what we actually pay--that is what effective rates show us.

    Simple economics.

  10. #517 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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.
    Tax rates do not determine how much revenue is collected because you don't know how much income people will pay taxes on and how people will change their behavior to avoid higher taxes (like buying municipal bonds for income). Also, tax rates do not tell you how much people will earn in each income bracket unless you can predict the income of everybody.

    You are confused about taxation.

  11. #518 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You mean tax revenue increased as we recovered from the recession?
    There you go again!

    You're doing that thing where you make deliberately vague statements that you then whittle down and redefine later on just to save face.

    Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP increased to levels above where they were prior to the recession.

    That's what your data shows.

    After the recession, tax rates for the wealthy returned to pre-Bush levels.

    Subsequently, rev-GDP increased to pre-Bush levels too.

    What a fucking idiot. Way to self-own.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  12. #519 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    1% of rev-GDP today is $200B.
    We don't pay taxes on the entire GDP; so, 1% increase in the tax rate does not increase government revenue by 1% of GDP. Much of the GDP is not subject to federal income taxes.

  13. #520 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Previously you claimed revenue as a percent of GDP meant nothing; now you are using it to support your argument.
    Wrong, boyo.

    I'm using it to disprove YOUR ARGUMENT.

    I'm using YOUR DATA to disprove YOUR ARGUMENT.

    Data you deliberately selectively used, right?

    So that would make you a sophist.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  14. #521 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is what I said--that Obama signed the bill to increase taxes on those above $400,000 in 2013.
    Moron.

    The Bush Tax Cuts were set to expire at the end of 2012, regardless of what Obama did.

    You said that revenue wouldn't hit until 2014, but that's wrong. You were wrong. Now you're trying to retroactively correct yourself, when the entire crux of your argument was that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012 didn't affect rev-GDP when the stats you posted showed that it clearly did.


    Enough.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  15. #522 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You look for things to argue about even when you know when you are wrong (or cannot understand what you read).
    No.

    Stop.

    What's happening is that you're using a metric, the only metric you can use, to try and make an argument against raising taxes on the rich, while ignoring those metrics when they don't support your argument.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  16. #523 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Changing the rate by 1% makes the incorrect assumption everybody is paying 1% more in taxes on total GDP. The higher rates do not apply to all income but only after reaching a certain income threshold. So a person could be in the 39.5 bracket but only pay 22% (for example) on total income because they were paying the lower rates on lower income. Also, we do not pay taxes on total GDP.
    Marginal rates do not show what we actually pay--that is what effective rates show us.
    Simple economics.
    Again, you're being a sophist.

    Changing the rev-GDP rate by 1% is a difference of $200 BILLION.

    $200B would fully fund free public colleges for 25 years.

    An incremental change in rev-GDP has a massive effect on the amount of gross revenue collected. Every 1% change in rev-GDP is $200B.

    So you're admitting that raising taxes would nominally increase rev-GDP, but what you're not admitting is that nominal changes to rev-GDP has massive effects on the amount of revenue collected.

    1% of GDP = $200B.

    $200B is 1/4 of our current deficit.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  17. #524 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,252
    Thanks
    13,539
    Thanked 12,184 Times in 7,628 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    I can understand muni's being tax free. It allows municipalities to float bonds at a reasonable rate.

    But stuff like capital gains...should be considered...well, INCOME...and should be taxed just like any other income.

    Inheritances should be taxed as income.

    And the rates should go WAY up...over 75% on top income.

    Most of the reason given for not doing so...really do not rise above rationalizations in order to favor the rich.

    Just sayin.'

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Apisa For This Post:

    PoliTalker (01-11-2019)

  19. #525 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Tax rates do not determine how much revenue is collected because you don't know how much income people will pay taxes on and how people will change their behavior to avoid higher taxes (like buying municipal bonds for income). Also, tax rates do not tell you how much people will earn in each income bracket unless you can predict the income of everybody.You are confused about taxation.
    Now you're arguing tax rates don't collect revenue.

    So you're in crazytown now, all because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

    Using your own data, you see that an incremental, nominal change to the rev-GDP rate has a massive effect on the total gross revenue collected. So much so that a single 1% change to the rev-GDP rate is the difference of $200B.

    What are some individual things $200B can pay for?
    1. 1/2 of Medicaid.
    2. 1/4 of the deficit.
    3. 1/3 of the defense budget
    4. 25 years of free public college

    So yeah, raising taxes does result in more revenue to pay for things. You just don't want to admit that because doing so would be an admission that I'm right, AOC is right, and all mainstream economists are right.

    Admitting that we're all right and you're wrong is simply something your fragile ego cannot handle.
    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
  •