Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 13192021222324 LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 349

Thread: 59% support AOC's plan to raise top bracket to 70%

  1. #331 | 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
    The income of the top 1% increased 242% between 1979-2015.
    Right, now how much did their share of AGI grow from 1979-2015?

    Oh right, you don't post that number because doing so would confirm my point that all the income gains went to the top 1%.

    So you just post what the AGI share is in 2015, but you don't post what the share was in 1980 so we can compare the two sets of figures.

    I contend you deliberately withheld that information because it's so damaging to your argument over "fairness", that you can't show figures that show how blatantly unfair it is that all the gains in income went to just 1% of workers.

    Prove me wrong that wasn't your intent. Go ahead. Rehabilitate your bad faith. I'll pop popcorn.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  2. #332 | 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
    It can most definitely be done.

    It just takes a Constitutional Amendment.

    I think I can drive up more support for that Constitutional Amendment than you can drive support that political donations are "speech".

    If money = speech, then there is no such thing as "free speech".
    Free speech does not necessarily involve money. I can exercise my free speech including campaigning for candidates without spending a penny.

    How often has money determined how you vote? Did you vote for Hillary because she spent twice as much as Trump or would you have voted for her if she spent $0?

  3. #333 | 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
    Now you are changing the debate to how their share of income grew and the context?
    Flash, you are the one who brought the 1%'s share of AGI into this debate.

    You did that to try and show that they're paying a fair proportionate share of taxes.

    But I said "not so fast"...what was their income gain over that period. In other words, what is the context here?

    The context tells us everything about the situation.

    If you show that the 1%'s share of AGI in 1980 is lower than their share of AGI in 2015, then that serves my point that they enjoyed the income gains, and thus, should pay a higher share of taxes because of it.

    You hold that information back because you know it will make my case.

    That's why you're a fucking fraud.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  4. #334 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    12,526
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 8,341 Times in 5,714 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 374 Times in 355 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Flash, you are the one who brought the 1%'s share of AGI into this debate.

    You did that to try and show that they're paying a fair proportionate share of taxes.

    But I said "not so fast"...what was their income gain over that period. In other words, what is the context here?

    The context tells us everything about the situation.

    If you show that the 1%'s share of AGI in 1980 is lower than their share of AGI in 2015, then that serves my point that they enjoyed the income gains, and thus, should pay a higher share of taxes because of it.

    You hold that information back because you know it will make my case.

    That's why you're a fucking fraud.
    OMG, are you STILL trying to raise my taxes, someone put this nut-bags panties in his mouth already
    This just In::: Trump indicted for living in liberals heads and not paying RENT

    C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network

    Trump Is Coming back to a White House Near you

  5. #335 | 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
    We were discussing the share of taxes paid by the wealthy, their tax rate, their share of taxes vs. share of income.
    No, we weren't talking about that. You are trying to unilaterally shift the debate to that because you can't win the argument about how the 1% saw all the gains in income during your trickle down experiment.

    So what you do is very dishonest...you ignore everything we were talking about before (how the wealthy saw a 242% increase in their income) and decided to change the parameters of the debate to just the year 2015, and using just the 1% share of AGI metric.

    Then you abandon that metric when the request for the context is made.

    You're a pretty slippery fucking scumbag to do that, but I'm not as dumb as you are (I wasn't conned by Trump), so it doesn't work on me. I'm too clever to let you try and rig this.

    I'm holding you to account for this shit.

    And by the way, this isn't the first time you've entered random metrics in the debate you end up absconding later on. You did it with rev-GDP too.

    Total fucking fraud. Who buys this shit???? Who thinks you're a respectable person? You don't act in good faith here, so there's little reason to believe you do so IRL.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  6. #336 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    12,526
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 8,341 Times in 5,714 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 374 Times in 355 Posts

    Default

    I like when nut-bags think the more curse words th3ey use the more scary they sound

    hey Tiny, give it a rest, I could probably kick your a$$
    This just In::: Trump indicted for living in liberals heads and not paying RENT

    C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network

    Trump Is Coming back to a White House Near you

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Getin the ring For This Post:

    Wolverine (01-18-2019)

  8. #337 | 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
    If I made the same illogical arguments you make your anger would erupt (if it ever goes away) and we would hear accusations about "changing the goal posts," "sophistry," and "bad faith."
    Your entire argument is illogical.

    You argued several metrics that you ended up abandoning because you deliberately withheld exculpatory information. Then you tried to present them honestly, but you couldn't do that either, so you just abandoned them completely.

    Before, it was you trying to use rev-GDP to prove some point that raising taxes wouldn't raise that, even though the stats you showed did, and then once the context of how much a % means in terms of gross revenue was added, you ditched that entire argument! TOTALLY CHICKENED OUT OF IT. You dropped it completely. You never even mentioned rev-GDP again.

    Now we have virtually the same situation again, this time with a new metric, 1% share of AGI.

    So now you provide one year of 1% share of AGI and present that one year as the example of why you think the rich are paying a fair share. Yet, you don't post the year of AGI before trickle down and before the massive transfer of income to the top because it will show that the 1%'s share of AGI grew at the expense of everyone else, thus providing justification for a fair higher tax rate.

    So you just repeat the same bad faith over and over, which is why it's habitual and why I'm right to assume you're mentally ill.

    All of this is in service of your ego. You simply don't want to give me the satisfaction of being right because either I'll rub it in your face (And chances are I will), or because your ego cannot handle it.

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


  9. #338 | 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
    I only ignore things that are stupid or impossible. Nobody is going to amend the Constitution to restrict free speech or the freedom of Americans to contact their elected representatives.
    Money isn't speech, and I bet you that if put to a vote, I would win that vote.

    If money = speech then there is no such thing as "free speech".
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. #339 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    12,526
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 8,341 Times in 5,714 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 374 Times in 355 Posts

    Default

    ^^^^ Thinks "1% share of AGI" makes him sound important
    This just In::: Trump indicted for living in liberals heads and not paying RENT

    C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network

    Trump Is Coming back to a White House Near you

  11. #340 | 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
    Free speech does not necessarily involve money.
    You just said money was speech.

    So if money = speech, then there is no such thing as free speech.

    So we're not debating the merits of campaign finance reform, we're just debating what you personally think "free speech" means, and that definition changes as your argument changes.

    Total. Fucking. Fraud.

    Who buys the shit you're selling?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  12. #341 | 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 Getin the ring View Post
    OMG, are you STILL trying to raise my taxes, someone put this nut-bags panties in his mouth already
    STOP.

    No one believes for a second that you are employed and have an income stream.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  13. #342 | 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 Getin the ring View Post
    ^^^^ Thinks "1% share of AGI" makes him sound important
    Your buddy Flash was the one who brought that into the debate.

    Also, you can't even participate in the debate because you're a fucking idiot. After all, you're so dumb you got conned by a C-List celebrity with a bad tan and mail-order wife.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  14. #343 | 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
    Your entire argument is illogical.

    You argued several metrics that you ended up abandoning because you deliberately withheld exculpatory information. Then you tried to present them honestly, but you couldn't do that either, so you just abandoned them completely.

    Before, it was you trying to use rev-GDP to prove some point that raising taxes wouldn't raise that, even though the stats you showed did, and then once the context of how much a % means in terms of gross revenue was added, you ditched that entire argument! TOTALLY CHICKENED OUT OF IT. You dropped it completely. You never even mentioned rev-GDP again.

    Now we have virtually the same situation again, this time with a new metric, 1% share of AGI.

    So now you provide one year of 1% share of AGI and present that one year as the example of why you think the rich are paying a fair share. Yet, you don't post the year of AGI before trickle down and before the massive transfer of income to the top because it will show that the 1%'s share of AGI grew at the expense of everyone else, thus providing justification for a fair higher tax rate.

    So you just repeat the same bad faith over and over, which is why it's habitual and why I'm right to assume you're mentally ill.

    All of this is in service of your ego. You simply don't want to give me the satisfaction of being right because either I'll rub it in your face (And chances are I will), or because your ego cannot handle it.

    Such a snowflake.
    Your economics is faulty if you think income gains by one group come at the "expense" of others. If my income increases by $1 million and yours increases by $50,000, my gains did not take anything away from you. We both gained. Your envy is driving your economics.

  15. #344 | 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 just said money was speech.

    So if money = speech, then there is no such thing as free speech.

    So we're not debating the merits of campaign finance reform, we're just debating what you personally think "free speech" means, and that definition changes as your argument changes.

    Total. Fucking. Fraud.

    Who buys the shit you're selling?
    Please paste the post in which I said "money was speech."

    I said campaign contributions are protected free speech under the Constitution according to a majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy. That was the Supreme Court.

  16. #345 | 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

    So you just post what the AGI share is in 2015, but you don't post what the share was in 1980 so we can compare the two sets of figures.

    Prove me wrong that wasn't your intent. Go ahead. Rehabilitate your bad faith. I'll pop popcorn.
    No matter what years I post you complain about all the years I left out.

    In 1980 the AGI share of the top 1% was 20.65%.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-31-2017, 03:58 AM
  2. How Romney's Tax Plan Could Raise Middle-Class Taxes
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-03-2012, 05:11 PM
  3. GOP plan to cut taxes on the rich & raise them on the 99%
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2011, 03:57 AM
  4. Cain: My 9-9-9 plan will raise taxes ....
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-2011, 01:39 PM
  5. Obama's healthcare plan: why we should support it
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 08-11-2009, 05:10 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
  •