Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Totally moronic brainwashed and typical liberalism!!Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1%.
Tax cuts help wage growth when they make more money available to hire more people.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.
Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth
How do tax cuts hurt wage growth?
Tax cuts don't do anything however when the rich just put their tax rebates back into their bank accounts.
It's complicated.
Tax Cuts don't steal democracy.
Interesting you say that because that's exactly what happened. That's why we had a multi-millionaire and a billionaire running to be President. What do you think rich people do with all the money they get from their tax cuts? What they don't spend on foreign-made luxury goods, or put in overseas bank accounts in socialist countries like Switzerland, they give to politicians who then act in their interests. Since most politicians spend about 80% of their time raising money, from whom do you think they do most of that raising? Could it be the same people who benefit from the tax cuts those legislators pass? Come on...we're not dumb. We know what's happening. It just takes balls to admit it. So do you have balls? Lady- or otherwise?
The Wilsonian-Expert-Administrative State to which Congress has delegated writing actual laws does steal democracy.
Hey man, Glenn Beck admitted he was wrong to Samantha Bee. They made a whole thing about it. They even had cake. So you can drop this faux-intellectual act. It's not fooling anyone anymore.
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.
Hilarious. Wrong. How are all the pensions at bankrupt companies doing?
???? What pensions at which companies? And yes, 401k's underperform defined benefits (pensions) according to a Boston College study via The Motley Fool.
When the government siphons off 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, that makes it harder to fund a 401K.
??? 12.4%? Whaaaa? Where are you getting that number? Don't understand what you're saying. And if the government is siphoning off your earnings it's only because your boss or the company you work for isn't paying their fair share. The average effective tax rate for businesses is 12.4%. The average effective tax rate for individuals is around 17.4%. So why are corporations paying a different tax rate if they're people?
If you had 30 or 40 years of investing, you wouldn't notice.
Well, since 401k's only really came into fashion less than 30 years ago, your assessment there is pretty much devoid of historical context. It's really funny...you say "oh, you'll do fine if you've been investing 30-40 years" knowing that this type of "investing" only started about 30 years ago. So, again, if you work for 50 years, but could only invest for 30 of those years, and you hit retirement age in 2008 (which is what happened to millions of people), you get screwed and have to work at Walmart to make ends meet. So while I appreciate you trying to abdicate responsibility for a policy you support, it ends up coming off as callous and petty.
I said average real earnings were up. Your chart says average real earnings were up.
As I said, I could explain the difference between average and median, but you're a liberal, it would be wasted on you.
Hilarious. And wrong. But for fun, prove it.
I've seen it all now. You have to be a paid shill to post this kind of stuff. No one else in their right mind would. So are you paid leftist shill or bat guano crazy? Which is it? It's most definitely one or the other. Do you really expect rational Americans to believe you?
I said average real earnings were up. Your chart says average real earnings were up.
And that argument you're making is intellectually bankrupt for all the reasons I gave.
As I said, I could explain the difference between average and median, but you're a liberal, it would be wasted on you.
Try me.
Hilarious. And wrong. But for fun, prove it.
From Nasdaq: In a 2016 study of 424 out of 500 S&P companies, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 335:1, with the average CEO on the index receiving $12.4MN in compensation. So I was in the ballpark, and I did qualify it. But whatever.
I've seen it all now. You have to be a paid shill to post this kind of stuff. No one else in their right mind would. So are you paid leftist shill or bat guano crazy? Which is it? It's most definitely one or the other. Do you really expect rational Americans to believe you?
I'm neither, but your attempt to make this personal speaks to your desperation. And I'm not the one who made prediction after prediction during Obama that all turned out to be wrong. That was you guys. And then you came up short with your Obamacare replacement that wasn't. LOL! Seriously, you guys had 7 years to come up with something. What were you doing all that time? Posturing.
When you finally leave school and get a job, you might notice that your paycheck is reduced by 6.2% to fund Social Security. Your employer puts in another 6.2% on your behalf. f you're able to add those two figures together, you'll get the 12.4% I mentioned.
The employer isn't taking their 6.2% out of your earnings. It comes out of theirs.
Who is "You guys" n00b? The Democrat Congress Obama had or the other ones?
I don't work in government, so wtf? I was watching in disdainat the workings of the government. What were you doing?
any cost an employer incurs comes out of wages and prices. If employer didn't have to pay SS competition would force them to lower prices or raise wages. Do you understand?
When you finally leave school and get a job, you might notice that your paycheck is reduced by 6.2% to fund Social Security. Your employer puts in another 6.2% on your behalf. f you're able to add those two figures together, you'll get the 12.4% I mentioned.
What you said was "When the government siphons off 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, that makes it harder to fund a 401K." Your post implied the worker pays that, not the worker + the employer. The employer isn't taking their 6.2% out of your earnings. It comes out of theirs. Maybe you are the one who needs to actually get a job so you know what you're talking about.
Seriously, dude. That's just sloppiness on your part. Calm down. Take a breather. Come back once you figure out what you're trying to say.
So when you said CEO pay skyrocketed, you really meant for 424 people?
Not 400,000. LOL!
Curious, how many people do those 424 companies employ?
any cost an employer incurs comes out of wages and prices. If employer didn't have to pay SS competition would force them to lower prices or raise wages. Do you understand?
So how come wages didn't grow when Obama cut payroll taxes from 2010-2012?
A lot!
