Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[The Derp]

Does it increase after that?

Not as of the way the bill is currently written. But it's still a tax increase, not a tax cut.

Lots of taxpayers in the 10% bracket getting those things?

Yes. Particularly the medical deductions, interest deductions, and education deductions.

 

[The Derp]

Since you are posting that shit chart how about explaining a few things to me.
Is it the Senate version or the House version?

That "shit chart" was the JCT's analysis of the Senate's bill.

What are the inputs to the chart?
What are the assumptions?
What are the projections based upon?

Why don't you read the chart, because the information is right there? I can't teach you how to read, you should already know how to do that.

If the Committee changes either the House version or the Senate version how will that effect the chart?

It depends on what happens on conference. This chart is just the analysis of the Senate's bill.

Tax cuts are good for this country. If you weren't a dumbass hate filled Moon Bat you would understand that.

No they're not. Tax cuts are not good for this country. Who told you they were? Because you certainly didn't come to that conclusion on your own.

 

[The Derp]

This Derp Moon Bat is confused as hell and is quoting this Democrat fake news. You know, like Peloski claiming that a tax cut will be the destruction of the country or Armageddon or some other silly shit..

I'm quoting the Joint Committee on Taxation, not the media.

Meanwhile, Conservatives have not produced one single analysis of their tax bill that supports their wild claims.

Nobody in this country making $30K a year will be paying more taxes under the new tax plan

Yes, they will be. Their tax rate is increased from 10% to 12% in 2019. The increase in the standard deduction doesn't account for the loss of the various itemized deductions. Anyone who's ever done their own taxes knows that. Also, by increasing the standardized deduction (only 15% for individuals and 5% for seniors, BTW), you reduce the incentive to give to charity because charitable deductions are itemized deductions. Analysis of the bill shows that charitable giving will decline, according to the Tax Policy Center.

with a larger standard deduction and lower incremental tax bracket. Hell, even nowadays I bet everybody in this country that has a family income of $30K is in that 49% that don't pay income taxes. If they are paying income taxes then they are not doing it right.

It's not a lower incremental tax bracket, it's a higher incremental tax bracket. You're raising taxes from 10% to 12% for anyone making up to $30K a year.

Last year, the average amount of just the top 4 itemized deductions for anyone earning up to $30K a year was:

$8,646 for Medical expenses
$1,039 for SALT
$6,300 for Mortgage Interest
$2,483 for Charitable Contributions

That alone is $18,468 on average.

Add in the first personal exemption ($4,000) and one dependent ($4,000) and you get an average deduction of $26,468. But you're only "doubling" the deduction for families to $24,000.

So subtract $26,468 from $24,000 and you end up with what? A tax bill of $2,400 on average. And that's not even counting deductions for things like student loan interests, fellowship grants, energy assistance, renewable energy deductions, personal employment deductions, etc.

So everything you've been told about this bill is bullshit, and everything you are spitting out about this bill is bullshit.

 

[The Derp]

Hey, fucktard, if minimum wage workers at $10/hour are considered low-wage, minimum wage workers at $13/hour are still low-wage workers, because they make the ******* minimum wage.

Yeah, and the number of those workers has declined because they got better-paying, full-time jobs. Which was exactly what the intended effect of the hike was!

So you're saying the MW hike was a bad thing for Seattle despite:

An increase in higher-paid, full-time jobs.
Faster wage growth than the rest of the country
A record-low unemployment rate of 2.8%

If what you're saying is true, then all that should be the opposite.

Which means your argument is bullshit.

And they didn't become full-time workers, they lost hours. That means they worked less, not more..

No, what it means is that those workers got better jobs, so there were fewer low-wage workers. Still trying to figure out why you think having fewer low-wage workers is a bad thing...?

You wouldn't be including all workers in this claim?
Because that would be dishonest...or proof that you know **** all about statistics.

Nope. What's going on here is that you don't know what the **** you're talking about, and you're ignoring the verifiable data we have that shows after Seattle's minimum wage increase, the unemployment rate dropped to below 3% and wages for everyone rose faster than the rest of the country. In fact, Seattle's wage growth was the best in the nation after the MW increase. You all predicted the opposite would happen. You were wrong, as usual.

 

[The Derp]

Corporations need a low income tax rate to have higher after tax profits.

Right, which has nothing to do with expansion and reinvestment, only earnings for shareholders and senior executives. A business makes the decision to expand before any profit is taxed, not after. You would know this if you ever worked for a business in your entire life, which you haven't.

So your inexperience is showing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This Derp Moon Bat is confused as hell and is quoting this Democrat fake news. You know, like Peloski claiming that a tax cut will be the destruction of the country or Armageddon or some other silly shit..

I'm quoting the Joint Committee on Taxation, not the media.

Meanwhile, Conservatives have not produced one single analysis of their tax bill that supports their wild claims.

Nobody in this country making $30K a year will be paying more taxes under the new tax plan

Yes, they will be. Their tax rate is increased from 10% to 12% in 2019. The increase in the standard deduction doesn't account for the loss of the various itemized deductions. Anyone who's ever done their own taxes knows that. Also, by increasing the standardized deduction (only 15% for individuals and 5% for seniors, BTW), you reduce the incentive to give to charity because charitable deductions are itemized deductions. Analysis of the bill shows that charitable giving will decline, according to the Tax Policy Center.

with a larger standard deduction and lower incremental tax bracket. Hell, even nowadays I bet everybody in this country that has a family income of $30K is in that 49% that don't pay income taxes. If they are paying income taxes then they are not doing it right.

It's not a lower incremental tax bracket, it's a higher incremental tax bracket. You're raising taxes from 10% to 12% for anyone making up to $30K a year.

Last year, the average amount of just the top 4 itemized deductions for anyone earning up to $30K a year was:

$8,646 for Medical expenses
$1,039 for SALT
$6,300 for Mortgage Interest
$2,483 for Charitable Contributions

That alone is $18,468 on average.

Add in the first personal exemption ($4,000) and one dependent ($4,000) and you get an average deduction of $26,468. But you're only "doubling" the deduction for families to $24,000.

So subtract $26,468 from $24,000 and you end up with what? A tax bill of $2,400 on average. And that's not even counting deductions for things like student loan interests, fellowship grants, energy assistance, renewable energy deductions, personal employment deductions, etc.

So everything you've been told about this bill is bullshit, and everything you are spitting out about this bill is bullshit.

That alone is $18,468 on average.

Wow!!
That's some bad liberal math you're using there.......

It's important to note that only about 30% of taxpayers choose to itemize deductions on their tax returns, with the rest opting for the standard deduction instead.

Also, these are the averages among itemized returns that claimed each type of deduction. For example, only 19% of itemized returns claimed a deduction for medical expenses (Not 100%, silly!), and of those returns that claimed the deduction, these are the average amounts that were claimed.

So subtract $26,468 from $24,000 and you end up with what?

Apparently, since only 30% itemize, a tax cut for at least 70%.

Add in the first personal exemption ($4,000) and one dependent ($4,000) and you get an average deduction of $26,468. But you're only "doubling" the deduction for families to $24,000.

So subtract $26,468 from $24,000 and you end up with what? A tax bill of $2,400 on average.

Ummmm....so much wrong here.​

If your numbers were right (they aren't), Subtracting $26,468 from $30,000 gives you taxable income of
$3,532.....at 10% the tax would be $353 not $2400.
Their new tax, if your numbers were right (they aren't) would be 12% on taxable income of $6000, or $720.

So everything you've been told about this bill is bullshit

Irony is ironic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, fucktard, if minimum wage workers at $10/hour are considered low-wage, minimum wage workers at $13/hour are still low-wage workers, because they make the ******* minimum wage.

Yeah, and the number of those workers has declined because they got better-paying, full-time jobs. Which was exactly what the intended effect of the hike was!

So you're saying the MW hike was a bad thing for Seattle despite:

An increase in higher-paid, full-time jobs.
Faster wage growth than the rest of the country
A record-low unemployment rate of 2.8%

If what you're saying is true, then all that should be the opposite.

Which means your argument is bullshit.

And they didn't become full-time workers, they lost hours. That means they worked less, not more..

No, what it means is that those workers got better jobs, so there were fewer low-wage workers. Still trying to figure out why you think having fewer low-wage workers is a bad thing...?

You wouldn't be including all workers in this claim?
Because that would be dishonest...or proof that you know **** all about statistics.

Nope. What's going on here is that you don't know what the **** you're talking about, and you're ignoring the verifiable data we have that shows after Seattle's minimum wage increase, the unemployment rate dropped to below 3% and wages for everyone rose faster than the rest of the country. In fact, Seattle's wage growth was the best in the nation after the MW increase. You all predicted the opposite would happen. You were wrong, as usual.

Yeah, and the number of those workers has declined because they got better-paying, full-time jobs.

This paper evaluates the wage, employment, and hours effects of the first and second phase-in of the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance, which raised the minimum wage from $9.47 to as much as $11 per hour in 2015 and to as much as $13 per hour in 2016. Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. Evidence attributes more modest effects to the first wage increase. We estimate an effect of zero when analyzing employment in the restaurant industry at all wage levels, comparable to many prior studies.

Minimum Wage Increases, Wages, and Low-Wage Employment: Evidence from Seattle

Sigh.........

So you're saying the MW hike was a bad thing for Seattle....

I'm saying the MW hike was a bad thing for Seattle low-wage employees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations need a low income tax rate to have higher after tax profits.

Right, which has nothing to do with expansion and reinvestment, only earnings for shareholders and senior executives. A business makes the decision to expand before any profit is taxed, not after. You would know this if you ever worked for a business in your entire life, which you haven't.

So your inexperience is showing.

Right, which has nothing to do with expansion and reinvestment, only earnings for shareholders and senior executives.

Right, because shareholders and senior executives will never do anything to get better earnings for shareholders and senior executives.

A business makes the decision to expand before any profit is taxed, not after.

And there is your light bulb!!!
Before the profit is even earned, they'll compare a tax jurisdiction at 35% unfavorably to one at 20%.

 

[The Derp]

Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs

What jobs? Low-paying jobs. Total payroll for higher-paying jobs increased.

So you traded low-paying jobs for higher-paying jobs.

And you think that's a bad thing, why?

 

[The Derp]

Right, because shareholders and senior executives will never do anything to get better earnings for shareholders and senior executives.

What they do there has no bearing on whether or not a company expands or "invests". Cutting the corporate income tax rate has no bearing on a company reinvesting or expanding because that is done prior to profit being taxed. You've yet to even explain how cutting the corporate rate will cause a business to expand. You haven't done that, because you can't.

And there is your light bulb!!!
Before the profit is even earned, they'll compare a tax jurisdiction at 35% unfavorably to one at 20%.

NO THEY WON'T! We know this because Gary Cohn just asked a roomful of CEO's that very question and nearly all of them said they wouldn't expand if given a tax break. The video is hilarious.

You just admitted that the corporate income tax has no bearing on why a company would expand. FFS, are you being deliberately obtuse or is this just an act of sophistry?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs

What jobs? Low-paying jobs. Total payroll for higher-paying jobs increased.

So you traded low-paying jobs for higher-paying jobs.

And you think that's a bad thing, why?

Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

Minimum Wage Increases, Wages, and Low-Wage Employment: Evidence from Seattle

And you think that's a bad thing, why?

I think lower low-wage employee earnings is a bad thing because they need more money, not less money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, because shareholders and senior executives will never do anything to get better earnings for shareholders and senior executives.

What they do there has no bearing on whether or not a company expands or "invests". Cutting the corporate income tax rate has no bearing on a company reinvesting or expanding because that is done prior to profit being taxed. You've yet to even explain how cutting the corporate rate will cause a business to expand. You haven't done that, because you can't.

And there is your light bulb!!!
Before the profit is even earned, they'll compare a tax jurisdiction at 35% unfavorably to one at 20%.

NO THEY WON'T! You just admitted that the corporate income tax has no bearing on why a company would expand. FFS, are you being deliberately obtuse or is this just an act of sophistry?

What they do there has no bearing on whether or not a company expands or "invests".

Ummm....they want more money, with lower rates they'll invest to get it. DURR!

Before the profit is even earned, they'll compare a tax jurisdiction at 35% unfavorably to one at 20%.
​

NO THEY WON'T! ​

Just because you're a moron who would happily invest just as much to get a 5% after tax cut of the profit as to get an 80% after tax cut of the profit, doesn't mean anyone else is as stupid as you........​

 

[The Derp]

the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent

So low-wage jobs were traded for high wage jobs and the net effect was higher employment and higher wages overall.

That's what the data shows.

tConsequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

BECAUSE THE JOBS BECAME HIGHER-PAYING JOBS.

That's why Seattle's unemployment rate is 2.8% and has the fastest wage growth in the nation.

You're grasping at straws and you don't even understand what you're saying.

I think lower low-wage employee earnings is a bad thing because they need more money, not less money.

The average wage for low-wage workers declined because the total number of low-wage workers declined because they got higher paying jobs.

If what you're saying is true, Seattle's unemployment would have increased and wages would have decreased. The opposite happened. So you're here lamenting the loss of low-paying jobs and higher wages. Welcome to bizarro world.

 

[The Derp]

Ummm....they want more money, with lower rates they'll invest to get it. DURR!

No, they're going to invest regardless of what the income tax rate is becuase there is demand.

Corporate income taxes have nothing to do with demand.

No businessperson has ever said "no thanks, I don't want to expand because I'll have to pay more in taxes on more profits".

So you're arguing a deliberately sophist and false position.

Uust because you're a moron who would happily invest just as much to get a 5% after tax cut of the profit as to get an 80% after tax cut of the profit, doesn't mean anyone else is as stupid as you........

No businessperson has ever said that they won't expand because the income tax rate is high. Expansion means higher revenues, which means higher profits. So even if the rate of return was 1%, that's still 1% more than 0.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent

So low-wage jobs were traded for high wage jobs and the net effect was higher employment and higher wages overall.

That's what the data shows.

tConsequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

BECAUSE THE JOBS BECAME HIGHER-PAYING JOBS.

That's why Seattle's unemployment rate is 2.8% and has the fastest wage growth in the nation.

You're grasping at straws and you don't even understand what you're saying.

I think lower low-wage employee earnings is a bad thing because they need more money, not less money.

The average wage for low-wage workers declined because the total number of low-wage workers declined because they got higher paying jobs.

If what you're saying is true, Seattle's unemployment would have increased and wages would have decreased. The opposite happened. So you're here lamenting the loss of low-paying jobs and higher wages. Welcome to bizarro world.

BECAUSE THE JOBS BECAME HIGHER-PAYING JOBS.

No more low-wage jobs in Seattle? Not one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ummm....they want more money, with lower rates they'll invest to get it. DURR!

No, they're going to invest regardless of what the income tax rate is becuase there is demand.

Corporate income taxes have nothing to do with demand.

No businessperson has ever said "no thanks, I don't want to expand because I'll have to pay more in taxes on more profits".

So you're arguing a deliberately sophist and false position.

Uust because you're a moron who would happily invest just as much to get a 5% after tax cut of the profit as to get an 80% after tax cut of the profit, doesn't mean anyone else is as stupid as you........

No businessperson has ever said that they won't expand because the income tax rate is high. Expansion means higher revenues, which means higher profits. So even if the rate of return was 1%, that's still 1% more than 0.

No, they're going to invest regardless of what the income tax rate is becuase there is demand.

Given the choice between 2 cities, one mile apart, across state lines....call them TexasA and TexasB,
one state with a corporate tax rate of 95% the other state with a corporate tax rate of 20%,
where do you build the new Derp Industries factory?
Be honest. Use your fingers and your toes if you have to..........

 

[The Derp]

That's some bad liberal math you're using there........

No, you're just saying that because you didn't realize that the average deductions total up to more than the standard deduction Conservatives were proposing.

It's important to note that only about 30% of taxpayers choose to itemize deductions on their tax returns, with the rest opting for the standard deduction instead.Also, these are the averages among itemized returns that claimed each type of deduction. For example, only 19% of itemized returns claimed a deduction for medical expenses (Not 100%, silly!), and of those returns that claimed the deduction, these are the average amounts that were claimed

So, you're raising taxes on 30% of people. So it's not a tax cut, then.

Apparently, since only 30% itemize, a tax cut for at least 70%.

But that's not how it's been sold!

Ummmm....so much wrong here.
If your numbers were right (they aren't), Subtracting $26,468 from $30,000 gives you taxable income of
$3,532.....at 10% the tax would be $353 not $2400.

Where are you getting the $30K from? What I was doing was subtracting the difference of the averages of the deductions vs. the doubling of the standard deduction. What you did here was completely ignore that comparison, deliberately, in order to create a fog of controversy.

Prior to the tax bill, the average amount itemized was $26,000
Your shit tax bill doubles the standard deduction to only $24,000

So that's a $2,000 liability.

More of your inexperience showing.

Their new tax, if your numbers were right (they aren't) would be 12% on taxable income of $6000, or $720.Irony is ironic.

Wrong.

 

[The Derp]

No more low-wage jobs in Seattle? Not one?

If what you're theorizing is true, then Seattle's unemployment rate would have increased, not dropped to below 3%. Wages would have also decreased but instead Seattle had faster wage growth than the rest of the nation.

Those two points you have been unable to reconcile, choosing instead to try to lament the loss of low-wage jobs because you think American workers are overpaid anyway.

 

[Boss]

Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs

What jobs? Low-paying jobs. Total payroll for higher-paying jobs increased.

So you traded low-paying jobs for higher-paying jobs.

And you think that's a bad thing, why?

Yes, it's bad. You priced the low-skilled and less-educated out of the job market. Now you'll have to raise taxes to care for them.

 

[The Derp]

Given the choice between 2 cities, one mile apart, across state lines....call them TexasA and TexasB,
one state with a corporate tax rate of 95% the other state with a corporate tax rate of 20%,
where do you build the new Derp Industries factory?
Be honest. Use your fingers and your toes if you have to..........

That's a false choice, because the corporate income tax rate has no bearing on consumer demand.