Romney delivers powerful message.

[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-reinh...conomics-13646

Forget Excel: This Was Reinhart and Rogoff's Biggest Mistake
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...istake/275088/

FAQ: Reinhart, Rogoff, and the Excel Error That Changed History
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hanged-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

[LV426]

When I proved they do you switched it to the growth in their income was faster than their growth in taxes.

No.

First of all, you say that they pay a share of the income commensurate with their share of wealth.

But that's not how taxes are paid. So you're trying to spin away their low effective rates and their low share.

The fact of the matter is that taxes aren't calculated by your share of wealth. They're calculated by income. And since the Great Recession, incomes for the top 1% have taken 50% of the gains, despite them only paying a 37% top marginal rate.

So it would seem that, since taxes are paid off income and not wealth, the marginal and effective tax rates need to be adjusted upward to account for the increased share of wealth the 1% have taken for themselves since the Great Bush Economic Collapse.

Unless you are now not going to argue for who pays their fair share.

[LV426]

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

Where's that 3% growth you promised?

Where are the $4,000 wage increases you promised?

[LV426]

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

It's so funny watching you spit and fume here, trying to throw the thread and conversation off track because you have nothing meaningful to contribute, and you know it.

Just kill yourself. You know you're going to eventually anyway, you might as well speed it up and get it over with now, instead of diabetes, alcohol, and opioids slowly doing it over the course of a few years.

[LV426]

hey pinhead, the topic is Romney

could you focus, rock back and forth and breathe

Maybe follow the thread so you don't look completely lost in the conversation.

[canceled.2021.2]

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.

but we don't tax wealth so your comparison is meaningless

it is like saying Hillary won the popular vote. It sounds good in your left wing circles, but has no meaning in reality