Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ross Perot was free to spend as much of his own money in 1992 as he wished. Same as today. Duh.

Again, stop being obtuse. We aren't talking about self-financing, and you know it.

Your "point" seems to be that the rich can buy elections.
Didn't work for Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996, so you were wrong.
So stop being obtuse.

How do you think Trump got in , and the GOP. Devos, Koch alone buys the GOP, Mercer, Ichan. etc.

How do you think Trump got in , and the GOP

The same way Perot got in in 1992 and 1996.
The same way Oberweis got in here in Illinois.
Wait, what? LOL!

Koch alone buys the GOP

Koch didn't support Trump.
Hillary did a good job buying the Presidency, eh?
Did she spend twice as much as Trump? More?

Their Daddy was Fred Koch, anti government. they thought Eisenhower was a communist. He belonged to the John Birch Society. They, Trump does not want to pay taxes, none of his circle does. They want no gov. regulation so they can use pesticides and pollute at will. They want to get rid of the new deal. Trump said he hates to see people die at the side of the road, what is the main reason that would happen, no insurance. Class divide was bad enough but this is class divide on steroids. Trump is letting many who voted for him down. Not to mention he gave the Fed land to the states to the capitalist to drill for oil. He has ruined the USA.

They, Trump does not want to pay taxes, none of his circle does.

Who does Trump think he is, Warren Buffett?

Not to mention he gave the Fed land to the states

That's great! The Federal government should only own a tiny amount of land.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They did all those mean things are real wages still increased. Cool!

Median weekly earnings did not increase.

So what?

 

[The Derp]

But there will be.

How? Magic?

What? The proposed tax cuts?

Both the current and previous.

Yeah, the last 8 years kinda sucked for the young. Thanks Obama!!

So...Conservatives controlled a majority of State Legislatures and governorship for most of those 8 years. They controlled the House for most of those 8 years. They controlled the senate for the last 2. You like to remind liberals about this all the time. Bragging about all the elections you won. Well, winning elections also comes with the unfortunate requirement of having to govern. Which Conservatives just seem incapable of doing, based on your comment about how hard it was for young people during Obama.

So basically, if things sucked during Obama it's because Conservatives were in charge.

 

[The Derp]

Who does Trump think he is, Warren Buffett?

Who cares about Warren Buffet? "Quick, look over there! Squirrel!" Why do Conservatives always whine about Warren Buffett, as if he represents or means anything or is any relevant to what we are talking about. Buffet pays his taxes. He just pays a lower effective rate than his secretary.

That's great! The Federal government should only own a tiny amount of land.

Why?

 

[The Derp]

So what?

So that means full-time, hourly wage workers have not seen a wage increase. And most workers in this country are full-time, hourly wage workers. 57%, actually.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But there will be.

How? Magic?

What? The proposed tax cuts?

Both the current and previous.

Yeah, the last 8 years kinda sucked for the young. Thanks Obama!!

So...Conservatives controlled a majority of State Legislatures and governorship for most of those 8 years. They controlled the House for most of those 8 years. They controlled the senate for the last 2. So if things sucked during Obama it's because Conservatives were in charge.

How?

When you reduce obstacles to business formation and growth, more form, more grow.

Both the current and previous.

How do these tax cuts redistribute wealth to the wealthy? Be specific.

So...Conservatives controlled a majority of State Legislatures and governorship for most of those 8 years. They controlled the House for most of those 8 years. They controlled the senate for the last 2.

Thank goodness. Imagine how much more damage Obama could have done if his failures the first two years hadn't given Republicans a massive victory in the House in 2010.

So if things sucked during Obama.....

It's because he buried us under more moronic regulations.
Happily, many can be rolled back.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who does Trump think he is, Warren Buffett?

Who cares about Warren Buffet? "Quick, look over there! Squirrel!" Why do Conservatives always whine about Warren Buffett, as if he represents or means anything or is any relevant to what we are talking about. Buffet pays his taxes. He just pays a lower effective rate than his secretary.

That's great! The Federal government should only own a tiny amount of land.

Why?

Buffet pays his taxes.

He has structured his life to pay a tiny percentage of what he would pay, without his machinations.
If he thought government deserved a lot more revenue, he should sell his stock and pay capital gains taxes.
He should allow his estate to be taxed upon his death. Typical liberal hypocrite.

He just pays a lower effective rate than his secretary.

A silly lie.

You should read the Constitution. Nothing in there about the Feds holding massive chunks of
land in the western states. Plus, they suck at it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what?

So that means full-time, hourly wage workers have not seen a wage increase. And most workers in this country are full-time, hourly wage workers. 57%, actually.

So that means full-time, hourly wage workers have not seen a wage increase

None of them? Are you sure?

 

[The Derp]

When you reduce obstacles to business formation and growth, more form, more grow.

Complete and utter nonsense, of course. Businesses only grow when there is demand for the product or service they produce. A business does not grow or shrink for any other reason (other than shrinking to maximize profits for majority shareholders). Businesses aren't prevented from growth because of artificial obstacles. Businesses are prevented from growth because consumer demand isn't there. That's it. That's the only reason. Anything else is a lie. Conservative "business owners" like to whine and cry about how the big mean government is preventing their fly-by-night, bathtub whiskey/incest porn business from being as big as Walmart. The reason those businesses don't grow isn't because of government, it's because those businesses are run by jackasses who don't know anything and suck at business. But because they're Conservatives, it's never their fault. It's always someone else's (the government, liberals, black people, etc.).

How do these tax cuts redistribute wealth to the wealthy? Be specific.

Are you ******* kidding?!?!? Reducing the corporate income tax from 35% down to 15% (which includes pass-thrus and LLCs, which are usually privately-run hedge funds or law firms) is how that happens. What Trump is proposing is basically what Brownback did in Kansas. How'd that work out? Not well.

Thank goodness. Imagine how much more damage Obama could have done if his failures the first two years hadn't given Republicans a massive victory in the House in 2010.

So here's the cognitive dissonance in your argument; Conservatives controlled most of government from 2010 on. Particularly at the state and local level, where government has the greatest impact on citizenry. So you argue that the Obama years were awful, but at the same time, you are cheering the electoral victories of the GOP while blaming Obama for the poor economy that was in place after Conservatives gained all that control.

So that's how your argument is a steaming pile of bullshit. And I think you even know it.

 

[The Derp]

He has structured his life to pay a tiny percentage of what he would pay, without his machinations.

And has called for the rates to rise. So what's your problem?

A silly lie.

Sorry, comrade, but it's 100% true. Trump also pays a lower effective rate than you. In fact, those who derive their income from business pass-throughs and the like (of which Buffet is a part) pay an average effective tax rate of just 12.4%. The average effective tax rates for individuals is about 17%. So my question to you, is that if corporations are people, shouldn't they be taxed like people?

 

[The Derp]

None of them? Are you sure?

The data shows they have not. The data from your chart shows they have not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you reduce obstacles to business formation and growth, more form, more grow.

Complete and utter nonsense, of course. Businesses only grow when there is demand for the product or service they produce. A business does not grow or shrink for any other reason (other than shrinking to maximize profits for majority shareholders). Businesses aren't prevented from growth because of artificial obstacles. Businesses are prevented from growth because consumer demand isn't there. That's it. That's the only reason. Anything else is a lie. Conservative "business owners" like to whine and cry about how the big mean government is preventing their fly-by-night, bathtub whiskey/incest porn business from being as big as Walmart. The reason those businesses don't grow isn't because of government, it's because those businesses are run by jackasses who don't know anything.

How do these tax cuts redistribute wealth to the wealthy? Be specific.

Are you ******* kidding?!?!? Reducing the corporate income tax from 35% down to 15% (which includes pass-thrus and LLCs, which are usually privately-run hedge funds or law firms) is how that happens. What Trump is proposing is basically what Brownback did in Kansas. How'd that work out? Not well.

Thank goodness. Imagine how much more damage Obama could have done if his failures the first two years hadn't given Republicans a massive victory in the House in 2010.

So here's the cognitive dissonance in your argument; Conservatives controlled most of government from 2010 on. Particularly at the state and local level, where government has the greatest impact on citizensry. So you argue that the Obama years were awful, but at the same time, you are cheering the electoral victories of the GOP while blaming Obama for the poor economy that was in place after Conservatives gained all that control.

So that's how your argument is a steaming pile of bullshit. And I think you even know it.

Businesses only grow when there is demand for the product or service they produce.

And you feel that means the same number of businesses would be created whether the tax on corporations was 60%, 40% or 20%.

Businesses aren't prevented from growth because of artificial obstacles.

And that's why coal production skyrocketed under Obama.
Mining companies and utilities weren't worried about regulations on CO2.

Reducing the corporate income tax from 35% down to 15%

Great, how does that redistribute wealth to the wealthy?

Conservatives controlled most of government from 2010 on.

Nah, Reid was preventing House bills from hitting the Senate floor until Jan 2015.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He has structured his life to pay a tiny percentage of what he would pay, without his machinations.

And has called for the rates to rise. So what's your problem?

A silly lie.

Sorry, comrade, but it's 100% true. Trump also pays a lower effective rate than you. In fact, those who derive their income from business pass-throughs and the like (of which Buffet is a part) pay an average effective tax rate of just 12.4%. The average effective tax rates for individuals is about 17%. So my question to you, is that if corporations are people, shouldn't they be taxed like people?

And has called for the rates to rise. So what's your problem?

I don't have a problem with Warren's hypocrisy.
He wants government to have more money, gives it tens of billions less than he could.

Sorry, comrade, but it's 100% true.

Show me how much his secretary earns and I'll show you the lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

None of them? Are you sure?

The data shows they have not. The data from your chart shows they have not.

The data shows they have not

Well, now we see you don't know what median means. LOL!

The data from your chart shows they have not.

That was your chart. LOL!

 

[The Derp]

And you feel that means the same number of businesses would be created whether the tax on corporations was 60%, 40% or 20%.

Corporations only pay taxes on profits, not revenues. Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% isn't going to create any businesses because lowering that rate is meaningless for consumers. No one is going to rush out and buy a flat-screen TV because Best Buy's tax rate dropped from 35% to 15%. I think you know this, but are just playing obtuse because...because...you're paid to? You're ordered to? Don't know...don't care.

And that's why coal production skyrocketed under Obama. Mining companies and utilities weren't worried about regulations on CO2.

Coal production didn't decline because of regulations. Coal production declined because, frankly, there is no more coal to safely mine. But more importantly, coal production declined because of the rise of natural gas and renewables. There are currently more people employed in solar energy than oil, coal, and natural gas combined. You're clinging to an industry that's dying. You're like Blockbuster Video, and everyone else is like Netflix.

Great, how does that redistribute wealth to the wealthy?

Since most of the 1% derive their income by way of LLC's and pass-throughs (which this tax cut would include), that's how they redistribute wealth. Book royalties, for example, are typically received via pass-through entities. Under Trump's tax plan, the rate on the royalties from his "Art of the Deal" would go from 35% to 15%. How does that benefit consumers? It doesn't. It just benefits Trump.

Nah, Reid was preventing House bills from hitting the Senate floor until Jan 2015.

Which House bills were those? The 60+ Obamacare repeals? Well, you have total control of DC again...so where's all this legislation that is supposedly so wonderful? I mean, y'all only had 8 years to prepare.

 

[The Derp]

I don't have a problem with Warren's hypocrisy.

I'm lost on how he's hypocritical.

He wants government to have more money, gives it tens of billions less than he could.

That isn't the point. And shirking those responsibilities by trying to pass them off on others just further underscores the point that the policies you support are tragically and fatally flawed to their core fundamentals. I am more than happy to get into why they are fatally flawed to their core fundamentals, but whenever I do, you guys go into hysterics and melodrama.

Show me how much his secretary earns and I'll show you the lie.

First of all, a lot (if not all) of Buffet's income comes by way of pass-thru's, LLCs, and other entities of that type because that's how they're taxed. If Buffett were paid a salary as his secretary is, then you could make the comparison. But because of the nature of the origination of his income vs. the origination of his secretary's, you cannot compare the marginal rates. You have to compare the effective rates.

You know the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate, right???????????????????

 

[The Derp]

Well, now we see you don't know what median means.

No, what we see is that you don't know how to read a chart. Maybe it needs to be in Russian or Cyrillic for you to understand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you feel that means the same number of businesses would be created whether the tax on corporations was 60%, 40% or 20%.

Corporations only pay taxes on profits, not revenues. Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% isn't going to create any businesses because lowering that rate is meaningless for consumers. No one is going to rush out and buy a flat-screen TV because Best Buy's tax rate dropped from 35% to 15%. I think you know this, but are just playing obtuse because...because...you're paid to? You're ordered to? Don't know...don't care.

And that's why coal production skyrocketed under Obama. Mining companies and utilities weren't worried about regulations on CO2.

Coal production didn't decline because of regulations. Coal production declined because, frankly, there is no more coal to safely mine. But more importantly, coal production declined because of the rise of natural gas and renewables. There are currently more people employed in solar energy than oil, coal, and natural gas combined. You're clinging to an industry that's dying. You're like Blockbuster Video, and everyone else is like Netflix.

Great, how does that redistribute wealth to the wealthy?

Since most of the 1% derive their income by way of LLC's and pass-throughs (which this tax cut would include), that's how they redistribute wealth. Book royalties, for example, are typically received via pass-through entities. Under Trump's tax plan, the rate on the royalties from his "Art of the Deal" would go from 35% to 15%. How does that benefit consumers? It doesn't. It just benefits Trump.

Nah, Reid was preventing House bills from hitting the Senate floor until Jan 2015.

Which House bills were those? The 60+ Obamacare repeals? Well, you have total control of DC again...so where's all this legislation that is supposedly so wonderful? I mean, y'all only had 8 years to prepare.

Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% isn't going to create any businesses because lowering that rate is meaningless for consumers.

If I had a business profit last year of $1 million, I have about $650,000 left over to invest.
Drop the rate to 15% and I have $850,000 to invest.

More money to invest and a larger possible after tax return won't increase business creation?
Did you take any Econ classes after you failed that first one?

No one is going to rush out and buy a flat-screen TV because Best Buy's tax rate dropped from 35% to 15%.

Pretty sure no one claimed they would. So what?

Coal production didn't decline because of regulations.

Sure as hell did.

Coal production declined because, frankly, there is no more coal to safely mine.

Link?

But more importantly, coal production declined because of the rise of natural gas and renewables.

Thank goodness Obama failed to crush fracking with his "green" regulations.

There are currently more people employed in solar energy than oil, coal, and natural gas combined.

Yes, the low-productivity of the solar energy industry is something to be proud of.

You're like Blockbuster Video, and everyone else is like Netflix.

Or I'm like Exxon and you're like Solyndra.

 

[The Derp]

If I had a business profit last year of $1 million, I have about $650,000 left over to invest.Drop the rate to 15% and I have $850,000 to invest..

I notice how you generically use the word "invest". I think you do that on purpose so you can then wiggle the parameters around to shape your argument later. So I'm not going to let you get away with it. By "invest" you mean, what? Expanding your business? OK, but why would you expand your business depending on the tax rate if your revenue isn't increasing because there's no increased demand? What you have failed to articulate is how a tax cut for the corporation translates to increased consumer spending by individuals. And I'll save you the time trying to explain it; THERE IS NO TRANSLATION. The cut to the corporate tax rate does not, has not, and will never translate to increased consumer spending. The only way consumer spending can be increased and still remain sustainable is to raise wages. That's it. That's the only way.

Your supply-side economic theory hasn't worked in 37 years and it will never work because it is fundamentally flawed to its core for that very reason I mentioned above.

Pretty sure no one claimed they would. So what?

You are claiming that whether you realize it or not. All you're doing is just talking around and rebranding supply-side, voodoo economics. The same core fundamental flaws to your ideology exist regardless of how you parse or phrase it. So when you say "I can invest more" what you're really saying is that if you get a tax cut, you claim it will lead you to expand your business regardless of demand. That disconnect there is the proverbial thread in the sweater that you pull at and the whole fucken' thing unravels. You don't expand your business just because you feel like it, you expand your business because there is demand you want or need to meet. A tax cut for your profits do nothing to increase the demand to justify the investment.

I mean really, dude, this is Econ 101.

Sure as hell did. Link?

Here ya go, comrade. Here's ABC as well. Why do you think they do mountaintop removal for coal mining now? Why not just dig more holes in the ground? THINK, dude. THINK.

Thank goodness Obama failed to crush fracking with his "green" regulations.

Obama didn't need to do it because the market did it for him. Fracking is now unprofitable not because of regulations, but because the price of natural gas has declined so much that the revenues from that natural gas don't even cover the expenses of extraction. Right now, natural gas costs about $2/McF, which is the lowest it's been in nearly 20 years. But has that translated to booming success in shale markets? Nope. The land the shale is under may be worth a bit, but the shale gas itself is not. In fact, since 2013, 213 oil and natural gas companies have gone bankrupt, listing more than $85B in debt.

Yes, the low-productivity of the solar energy industry is something to be proud of.

Low productivity? Huh? Low-productivity would be the sludge they get from Alberta that costs more to refine and extract than it's worth. Why do you think TransCanada wants to build KXL? They already have a pipeline that carries Alberta sludge into the US. So much that it's oversupplied, leading to price discounting. If KXL is built, the Alberta sludge that went to US PADD II refineries in Illinois is diverted to the Gulf Coast where it can be sold globally for a higher price. So if you want energy prices, food prices, and textile prices to rise, support KXL and be a dumbass.

Or I'm like Exxon and you're like Solyndra.

Well, you would be like Exxon in that you deliberately lie and mislead people from the harm you're causing to the planet. So in a sense, your own comparison is valid. BTW - Solyndra went under and lost what - $700M? Well, since 2013 there have been 213 oil and natural gas companies that went under and lost...wait for it...wait for it...$85 BILLION ******* DOLLARS.

So which is more? $700M or $85B?

I know you're a Conservative, but even you know how to read numbers, right?

 

[Penelope]

So what?

So that means full-time, hourly wage workers have not seen a wage increase. And most workers in this country are full-time, hourly wage workers. 57%, actually.

They already cut overtime for salary employees.

No state or city tax deductions. No medical deductions. Bush gave tax deductions and allowed Corps to bring back money to the US and jobs decreased , the rich just pocket the money. Bush ran us into a recession.