Getin the ring
Verified User
no matter how much you try not to be stupid, it just keeps getting better.
have you ever heard of MATH?
"Sanders is right: Republican tax cuts cost more than forgiving student debt"
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
no matter how much you try not to be stupid, it just keeps getting better.
have you ever heard of MATH?
Sure, if i redefine the parameters any number of ways, I can make it look better.
That $14B increase...does that account for inflation? What dollars is that figure in? Because inflation last year was 2.44% and $14B is less than 2.44% of the revenue for 2018.
no matter how much you try not to be stupid, it just keeps getting better.ave you ever heard of MATH?
Math in the chart you avoided.
If what you're saying is true, how do you explain the increase in household debt and the decrease in personal savings that has followed every tax cut over the last 40 years?
no matter how much you try not to be stupid, it just keeps getting better.
have you ever heard of MATH?
The idiot doesn't seem to have taken advantage of the first 13 years of free education, why would he want free college?
No matter how you look at it, those gains are dwarfed by the gains of the wealthiest Americans over the last decade.
You're arguing that a handful of middle class families managed to nominally increase their wages, but the vast majority did not! You even said yourself, only 7% went to a higher bracket, wyet 4% went to a lower bracket! So that's a net gain of just 3%. Hardly something to crow about.
What point are you trying to make?
1. Thanks to increases in the minimum wage, not tax cuts.
2. The lowest bracket caps out at just $9,500. So moving from that bracket into the next one up that caps out at just $38K isn't exactly something to crow about. It means they could have gone from $9,500 to $9,800.
What point are you trying to make?
You're a fucking coward who makes threats on anonymous message boards because you lack self control.
Total fucking pussy. Posturing jackass who wants people to think you have guns so they'll be afraid to confront all the shitty, horrible things you believe and are a part of your character.
The point is that all the stuff about the middle-class shrinking fails to point out the decline is due to those moving into higher quintiles. The wages of the middle class as a whole increased, but they did not move into a higher quintile. The net gain of 3% only applied to those moving from one category to another--it does not mean that the majority of the middle-class did not experience wage gains.
You seem to want to believe the middle-class experienced no gains.
Only 5% of workers are making the minimum wage, so that can't explain most of the wage gains.
Barely. A Net 3% increase is nominal and within the margin of error.
You JUST SAID that the decline is due to those moving into higher quintiles, but then you admit it was really just a net 3% gain overall. So...that's not a lot of people. A net 3% shift from one quintile to another is what would be referred to as nominal and within the margin of error.
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of acceptance. What the middle class may or may not have gained in income, it lost to increases on health care, education, and energy spending that far outstripped any net gains in wages for a small, statistically-within-the-margin-of-error group of higher middle class earners.
What bracket are you specifically speaking about? Which ones? You say 7% of middle class workers moved from one bracket to another...which fucking brackets? Do you mean moving into the top bracket? Or are you doing that Flash thing and stripping your statement of context because what really happened was 7% of middle class workers moved from one bracket to another, but it could have been the lower brackets. So...are you saying that 7% of middle class workers moved from the second highest bracket to the highest bracket? SHOW YOUR WORK. And what about the other 93% of middle class workers? What happened to them? Nothing, right?
So again, your point is...?
SIGH
You know as well as I do that wage elasticity works both ways, and that if you increase wages at the bottom you increase competitive demand for workers up the chain, which results in everyone seeing higher wages.
It's why every single state that raised their minimum wage back in 2014 saw faster job and wage gains than the states that didn't.
Terri4Trump
Verified User
Sanders is a liar and you are a moron.
Besides, the answer is never more taxes, the answer is cut spending. We can start by tossing back all those fucking illegal aliens asses that you have your lips so firmly planted on.
This is a Conservative (probably anatta) who got his ass handed to him on this board, so he created a brand new ID to re-establish the credibility you lost.
OK, what spending?
Our current deficit is $1T thanks to your tax cuts.
If you cut all discretionary spending, you're still running a $600B annual deficit.
Tax cuts are pointless, stupid, and do nothing good for anyone, ever. They never have, and they never will.
But then who is going to pick your fruit, process your meat, mow your lawn, take care of your kids, fuck your top donors, or replace you in the workforce when you retire and have to go on SS and Medicare?
You JUST SAID that only 7% moved to an unnamed "higher bracket". 4% went to a lower bracket, and 89% didn't change brackets at all.
So on what are you basing this weird statement that the majority of middle class experienced wage gains? You just proved the majority didn't when you said only 7% moved to a higher bracket.
Is 7% a majority? Is 93% a minority?
See, I don't understand why you are arguing with me here. All you're doing is helping me make my case by proving that 7% of middle class workers over the last twenty years moved to a higher bracket (which bracket? you don't say), while 4% actually found themselves in a lower bracket..
So your argument, that the middle class saw wage gains, is supported by...what?
7% moving up a bracket (but not saying which bracket or how many per bracket)? Since when is 7% a "majority"? Or, are you going to redefine the parameters of averages and argue that 7% represents a majority of workers?
One problem with this: Forcing those who made INTELLIGENT decisions with their money foot the bill for burger-flipping liberal arts majors is unconstitutional (in addition to being fundamentally immoral), while letting people keep more of their own money isn't even a valid "cost" to the government in the first place because it's money the federal government was never entitled to.
View attachment 10628
If tax cuts let you keep more of what you earn, how come household debt skyrockets and personal savings plummets every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years?
You're not using this correctly, doofus.
Into the Night
Verified User
Let 'em. Their lying.
Into the Night
Verified User
He didn't give any money to rich people. He cut their taxes while he was cutting yours.