Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the median is $51K, that means it's the 50th percentile.

NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. All it means is that of all wages together, the median is $51K. But when you enter that median wage into a percentile of wages, you find that $51K is in the 63rd percentile. So that means there are more workers making under $51K than at or above it. The reason it's $51K is because of incomes at the top, skewing the median upward.

Fucking moron...wow. No wonder GDP growth was so terrible last quarter.

Seriously, did you even bother to figure this out for yourself? You can very easily see where $51K/yr falls in income percentiles. The fact that you don't do that means you're either too lazy or too ignorant to know better.

All it means is that of all wages together, the median is $51K.

Go back to your link. Type in 37990

Making $37,990.00 annually was percentile 50% in 2016.
This percentile ranged from $37,848.00 to $38,000.00 a year

So that means there are more workers making under $51K than at or above it.

Yes, wages at the 63rd percentile means 63% make less.
Wages at the 50th percentile, or median, is where half make more, half make less.

If you weren't a retard, you'd know that.

The reason it's $51K is because of incomes at the top, skewing the median upward.

Nope. Moron.
More income at the top skews the mean, or average, upward.
How many math classes did you fail before you just gave up?

Did you actually pass any math classes in high school?
Putin wants to know.

 

[The Derp]

And frozen credit markets was a pretty simple problem to fix, a problem where we never actually addressed the root of and has actually been getting worse. Let the finance giants practicing crazy business practices go under, or suffer the consequences of their actions...and let all the small banks, credit unions, investments firms etc. practicing smart policy take their place. What we did was a short term band-aid on a flesh wound, that didn't fix anything. Sure, letting big finance suffer the consequences of their lunacy would have consequences on a lot of people, the lunacy should not have been there in the first place, but the long term solution we needed, was to let them take the hit, let small finance not acting crazy to buy up their assets for pennies on the dollar, and let them re-stabilize the market.

I can agree to that. The one problem I have with it, though, is that without caps on market share, what's to prevent a small bank from buying up its competitors and turning itself into another TBTF bank? Remember, most banks started out as regional banks but through mergers and acquisitions, grew into TBTF banks. Without market share caps, all we're doing is starting the cycle over again. Personally, I think the best solution would have been for the government to turn the Post Office into a federally-backed Savings and Loan that allowed balance transfers from TBTF banks, free of charge, for consumers who didn't want to be involved and who wanted free checking and no ATM fees.

And the tax receipt increase I was referring to was that of JFK and LBJ tax cuts, and yes a 64% increase is quite substantial. Reagans tax receipt increase after tax cuts was around 40%, he also spent a bitch ton. (Mostly to force the soviets to try to compete and collapse). Which wasn't federal spending helping citizens one of your points? These are all receipt increases you said didn't exist...so what's with the shifting goal posts?

Defense spending, which is where most of Reagan's deficit spending was, does not help citizens because the end use of what that spending produces isn't even used here. A bomb or a tank does nothing to help the American economy, and continuing to manufacture them -even when they're long past their use- makes the US military the biggest welfare program there is. The military buildup Reagan did wasn't what collapsed the Soviets - Afghanistan was. Reagan's defense spending was more about lining the pockets of defense contractors (another wealth re-distribution scheme), than about fighting Communism. Solidarity did more to bring down the Soviet Union than US defense spending.

 

[The Derp]

Go back to your link. Type in 37990
Making $37,990.00 annually was percentile 50% in 2016.
This percentile ranged from $37,848.00 to $38,000.00 a year

Right! But $37,990 is not the median income. $51,000 is.

 

[The Derp]

Yes, wages at the 63rd percentile means 63% make less.
Wages at the 50th percentile, or median, is where half make more, half make less.

What a dumbass.

According to the St. Louis Fed, Real Median Household income for 2015 was $56K.

 

[The Derp]

You asid the economy grew because the Fed cut rates in 1983.

Fine. By 1983, they had cut rates. If you want to make a semantic argument, fine. You can stand on that. Keep in mind that's an awful low pedestal.

In January 1983, Fed Funds was 8.68%. In December 1983, Fed Funds was 9.47%. Looks like you lied.

Don't know what you mean by "Fed Funds", but I suspect this is just a generalized term you use to wiggle around into the parameters of the argument that you change later on.

You asid the economy grew because the Fed cut rates in 1983.

Fine. By 1983, they had cut rates. If you want to make a semantic argument, fine. You can stand on that. Keep in mind that's an awful low pedestal.

Damn, dude, learn to read. The chart says "Real Gross Domestic Product".

So when you go to the actual source data, it says very plainly "In current dollars". So you're misrepresenting growth to make it look bigger than it actually was. This is a Russian Active Measure; a lie by omission. In chained 2009 dollars, Reagan's growth wasn't 9%. It was closer to 4%, and that's not thanks to tax cuts. That's thanks to The Fed and Congress raising spending.

Obviously I do, better than you.

You know just enough to make a deliberately misleading argument.

Reagan's largest deficit, 1983, was 5.7% of GDP.

So that's a deliberately misleading argument to make. Reagan doubled the deficit. Obama reduced it by 60%.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your argument was that cutting corporate taxes somehow translates to growth.

exactly, it takes money to grow!! The more you tax them the less they can grow. As a typical liberal you think taxing them encourages growth. It's beyond stupid. It can only be described as liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When confronted with reality,

A tax holiday at this point would best serve as a testing period for a long-term overhaul of the U.S. taxation of foreign earnings. In the long term, however, a more competitive and consistent tax policy on foreign earnings must be adopted for U.S. firms to make investment decisions free of artificial incentives. The U.S. system encourages hoarding cash abroad, and thus it withholds funds from even those firms that might reinvest them domestically by unduly penalizing them for repatriation. A more competitive tax rate on foreign earnings would promote the free flow of capital across borders and allow firms to invest where they see opportunity, rather than where the tax incentives are best. Because the current policy disadvantages investment in the United States, the immediate effect would have to be an increased flow of capital into the United States. That would create value immediately, either via investment or via return of cash to shareholders, who can use it to consume and create demand, can invest it elsewhere, and will be required to pay tax on dividend or capital gains income and create revenue for the treasury. Further, under the current system, the treasury is denied needed revenues because the system demands payment of the full corporate tax rate on foreign earnings, and thus the money is never repatriated. That is not a positive result for any U.S. stakeholder and is particularly troubling when considering our growing deficits. Given the growing portion of revenue earned by U.S. firms abroad, an overhaul of our policy on taxing foreign earnings is required to put both our domestic economy and our multinational companies on an even footing with foreign competitors.Tax Analysts -- Effects of 2004 Int'l Tax Holiday, Recommendations Going Forward

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you argue in theory, and I argue in fact.

totally stupid anti science of course. A scientific experiment requires that that you hold all variables constant except the one being studied. According to your liberal science the more money our corporations keep off shore the more jobs they create here!! Lets pass a law requiring all corporate money to be moved offshore!! Stupid?????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A bomb or a tank does nothing to help the American economy, .

but liberals, including Krugman, always argue that military spending ended the Great Depression?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The military buildup Reagan did wasn't what collapsed the Soviets - Afghanistan was.

1) specifically the Stinger Missile used in Afghanistan, at the time the latest greatest weapon on earth thanks to our huge Republican military budget.

2) they might have collapsed into a more liberal and severe communism but Reagan's clarity about freedom, democracy, capitalism and our huge spending advantage left them no moral, intellectual, or practical choice. Similarly Republicans converted China to Republican capitalism and freed 1.4 billion from liberal communist slavery and brought peace to the planet. Do you know why our liberals spied for Stalin and Mao??

A statue to former US president Ronald Reagan, who is highly respected in Poland for having helped hasten the fall of the Iron Curtain, was unveiled by Communist-era opposition icon Lech Walesa in Warsaw yesterday.






"Let us bow before Ronald Reagan for the fact that our generation was able to bring an end to the great divisions and conflicts of the world," Mr Walesa said in a ceremony in the heart of the Polish capital Warsaw.

"What happened seemed impossible or unthinkable. The older generations still remember," the Nobel Peace laureate said.

A handsome, stylized 'park bench' monument dedicated to Cold War victor Ronald Reagan was unveiled in the former Soviet republic of Georgia yesterday. The country's pro-Western, American-educated president Mikhail Saakashvili proclaimed that the work 'deserves a place in the heart of Tblisi' as he and his countrymen seek to honor Reagan for 'destroying the Soviet empire'. He also took the opportunity to lament what he sees as Vladimir Putin's attempts torestore that lost empire.

 

[sakinago]

And frozen credit markets was a pretty simple problem to fix, a problem where we never actually addressed the root of and has actually been getting worse. Let the finance giants practicing crazy business practices go under, or suffer the consequences of their actions...and let all the small banks, credit unions, investments firms etc. practicing smart policy take their place. What we did was a short term band-aid on a flesh wound, that didn't fix anything. Sure, letting big finance suffer the consequences of their lunacy would have consequences on a lot of people, the lunacy should not have been there in the first place, but the long term solution we needed, was to let them take the hit, let small finance not acting crazy to buy up their assets for pennies on the dollar, and let them re-stabilize the market.

I can agree to that. The one problem I have with it, though, is that without caps on market share, what's to prevent a small bank from buying up its competitors and turning itself into another TBTF bank? Remember, most banks started out as regional banks but through mergers and acquisitions, grew into TBTF banks. Without market share caps, all we're doing is starting the cycle over again. Personally, I think the best solution would have been for the government to turn the Post Office into a federally-backed Savings and Loan that allowed balance transfers from TBTF banks, free of charge, for consumers who didn't want to be involved and who wanted free checking and no ATM fees.

And the tax receipt increase I was referring to was that of JFK and LBJ tax cuts, and yes a 64% increase is quite substantial. Reagans tax receipt increase after tax cuts was around 40%, he also spent a bitch ton. (Mostly to force the soviets to try to compete and collapse). Which wasn't federal spending helping citizens one of your points? These are all receipt increases you said didn't exist...so what's with the shifting goal posts?

Defense spending, which is where most of Reagan's deficit spending was, does not help citizens because the end use of what that spending produces isn't even used here. A bomb or a tank does nothing to help the American economy, and continuing to manufacture them -even when they're long past their use- makes the US military the biggest welfare program there is. The military buildup Reagan did wasn't what collapsed the Soviets - Afghanistan was. Reagan's defense spending was more about lining the pockets of defense contractors (another wealth re-distribution scheme), than about fighting Communism. Solidarity did more to bring down the Soviet Union than US defense spending.

The whole point of my suggested solution is that there is no such thing as too big to fail. If your running your bank like a maniac, it will fail. TBTF was the banks way of holding the politicians hostage by saying there's gonna be a lot of pissed off people, good luck with your re-election (btw we won't be able to donate)...which in turn held us hostage to the politicians who just wanted to kick the can down the road, and by doing so further cemented the maniacs in power over financiers actually making money the right way. I doubt anyone of the smaller firms would be able rise to prominence as high as the big banks we see today, but even if they did, they wouldn't be any such notion of TBTF, and one would hope they'd recognize how and why they came to such prominence (BC of the jackasses before them were jackasses).

 

[sakinago]

And frozen credit markets was a pretty simple problem to fix, a problem where we never actually addressed the root of and has actually been getting worse. Let the finance giants practicing crazy business practices go under, or suffer the consequences of their actions...and let all the small banks, credit unions, investments firms etc. practicing smart policy take their place. What we did was a short term band-aid on a flesh wound, that didn't fix anything. Sure, letting big finance suffer the consequences of their lunacy would have consequences on a lot of people, the lunacy should not have been there in the first place, but the long term solution we needed, was to let them take the hit, let small finance not acting crazy to buy up their assets for pennies on the dollar, and let them re-stabilize the market.

I can agree to that. The one problem I have with it, though, is that without caps on market share, what's to prevent a small bank from buying up its competitors and turning itself into another TBTF bank? Remember, most banks started out as regional banks but through mergers and acquisitions, grew into TBTF banks. Without market share caps, all we're doing is starting the cycle over again. Personally, I think the best solution would have been for the government to turn the Post Office into a federally-backed Savings and Loan that allowed balance transfers from TBTF banks, free of charge, for consumers who didn't want to be involved and who wanted free checking and no ATM fees.

And the tax receipt increase I was referring to was that of JFK and LBJ tax cuts, and yes a 64% increase is quite substantial. Reagans tax receipt increase after tax cuts was around 40%, he also spent a bitch ton. (Mostly to force the soviets to try to compete and collapse). Which wasn't federal spending helping citizens one of your points? These are all receipt increases you said didn't exist...so what's with the shifting goal posts?

Defense spending, which is where most of Reagan's deficit spending was, does not help citizens because the end use of what that spending produces isn't even used here. A bomb or a tank does nothing to help the American economy, and continuing to manufacture them -even when they're long past their use- makes the US military the biggest welfare program there is. The military buildup Reagan did wasn't what collapsed the Soviets - Afghanistan was. Reagan's defense spending was more about lining the pockets of defense contractors (another wealth re-distribution scheme), than about fighting Communism. Solidarity did more to bring down the Soviet Union than US defense spending.

And that's very very debatable that Reagan defense spending never forced the soviets hand to try to keep up. Not to mention, we also propped up the mujahideen during their war with Afghanistan. Our Most notable contribution was the stinger missle...brought upon by reagans increased defense spending. Yea Afghanistan was a big accelerator, but they most certainly felt the pressure with tech embargoes to try to keep up with weapons developments.

The Collapse of the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. TBTF was the banks way of holding the politicians hostage .

stupid lie of course!!! bank shareholders lost millions so had most incentive in world not to fail then and now!!!

Plus, banks were too big to fail. Their failure would have cause a Great Depression and were doing exactly that when the Fed rescued them and the entire world's economic system!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

further cemented the maniacs in power

if they were maniacs why have they been so solid for the last 10 years???? Housing collapse was caused by massive liberal intervention in housing market that nobody understood fully at the time, not by bankers! Do you understand??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our Most notable contribution was the stinger missle...brought upon by reagans increased defense spending.

well actually it was brought about by decades of huge defense spending and placed in Afghanistan because Reagan had the conservative intellectual clarity to do it all by himself over everyone's objections.

Let's pray Trumps military budget is big enough to shoot down Iranian and North Korean nuclear missiles, something far harder than shooting down soviet helicopters!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go back to your link. Type in 37990
Making $37,990.00 annually was percentile 50% in 2016.
This percentile ranged from $37,848.00 to $38,000.00 a year

Right! But $37,990 is not the median income. $51,000 is.

Right! But $37,990 is not the median income. $51,000 is.

You don't know the difference between median income and median HOUSEHOLD income?

Have you always been a moron, or did you suffer a traumatic brain injury?
Did Trump hire you to make liberals look like morons?
Because you deserve a bonus, hugely!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You asid the economy grew because the Fed cut rates in 1983.

Fine. By 1983, they had cut rates. If you want to make a semantic argument, fine. You can stand on that. Keep in mind that's an awful low pedestal.

In January 1983, Fed Funds was 8.68%. In December 1983, Fed Funds was 9.47%. Looks like you lied.

Don't know what you mean by "Fed Funds", but I suspect this is just a generalized term you use to wiggle around into the parameters of the argument that you change later on.

You asid the economy grew because the Fed cut rates in 1983.

Fine. By 1983, they had cut rates. If you want to make a semantic argument, fine. You can stand on that. Keep in mind that's an awful low pedestal.

Damn, dude, learn to read. The chart says "Real Gross Domestic Product".

So when you go to the actual source data, it says very plainly "In current dollars". So you're misrepresenting growth to make it look bigger than it actually was. This is a Russian Active Measure; a lie by omission. In chained 2009 dollars, Reagan's growth wasn't 9%. It was closer to 4%, and that's not thanks to tax cuts. That's thanks to The Fed and Congress raising spending.

Obviously I do, better than you.

You know just enough to make a deliberately misleading argument.

Reagan's largest deficit, 1983, was 5.7% of GDP.

So that's a deliberately misleading argument to make. Reagan doubled the deficit. Obama reduced it by 60%.

Fine. By 1983, they had cut rates.

By 2008 they had cut rates. So what?

If you want to make a semantic argument, fine.

Semantics? LOL! You said 1983, you were wrong. No semantics about it.

Don't know what you mean by "Fed Funds",

Because you're an idiot.

What is the 'Federal Funds Rate'
The interest rate at which a depository institution lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another depository institution overnight. The federal funds rate is generally only applicable to the most creditworthy institutions when they borrow and lend overnight funds to each other. The federal funds rate is one of the most influential interest rates in the U.S. economy, since it affects monetary and financial conditions, which in turn have a bearing on key aspects of the broad economy including employment, growth and inflation. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which is the Federal Reserve’s primary monetary policymaking body, telegraphs its desired target for the federal funds rate through open market operations. Also known as the “fed funds rate".

Federal Funds Rate

Try not to sound so ignorant in the future. That's best done by not arguing with a guy who knows a fuck ton more about markets and the economy than you.

So when you go to the actual source data, it says very plainly "In current dollars".

Dude, real GDP means adjusted for inflation. Current dollars means not adjusted for inflation.

This is a Russian Active Measure; a lie by omission

Is everyone who points out your idiocy Russian, or just me?

In chained 2009 dollars, Reagan's growth wasn't 9%. It was closer to 4%

Prove his Q2 1983 GDP grew 4% and not 9.4%

I'll wait for your actual source..

 

[Never3ndr]

Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:

This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:

Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)

None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):

So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.

Your logic is almost non-existent here. Tax cuts don't redistribute wealth...they allow the flow of wealth to continue as whatever is "natural" in that economy...in our case that would be a flow of wealth from the bottom to the top.

Taxation, at least in our system, actually supports wealth redistribution through our welfare programs. This redistribution acts against the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich (thereby decreasing our wealth inequality). The least you could do is have a reasonable line of logic and base that logic on sound facts. I'm generally in favor of your notion that tax cuts, at least as they stand right now, are bad for our economy, but your logic defeats your entire point by being so backwards.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:

This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:

Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)

None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):

So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.

Your logic is almost non-existent here. Tax cuts don't redistribute wealth...they allow the flow of wealth to continue as whatever is "natural" in that economy...in our case that would be a flow of wealth from the bottom to the top.

Taxation, at least in our system, actually supports wealth redistribution through our welfare programs. This redistribution acts against the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich (thereby decreasing our wealth inequality). The least you could do is have a reasonable line of logic and base that logic on sound facts. I'm generally in favor of your notion that tax cuts, at least as they stand right now, are bad for our economy, but your logic defeats your entire point by being so backwards.

if a rich guy like Trump pays $25 million in taxes as he did in 2005 and poor guy pays $1000 that is a huge huge flow of wealth from rich to poor. Its a bad thing since it is anti evolution or anti science to make the poor guy think he can reproduce just like the rich because the rich guy will support his children.

 

[The Derp]

exactly, it takes money to grow!!

It takes revenues to grow, not profit. You can increase profit without increasing revenues. Companies do that all the time by slashing workforce or eliminating benefits. Increasing revenues means there is increased demand for your product, thus causing you to expand. But if revenues aren't increasing, there is no point in expanding because there's no demand.

"If you build it, they will come" works in the movies, but not real life. You need to stop having your opinion informed by Hollywood.