Obama's 2011 Tax Cut Was UNFAIR to the Poor

[ThoughtCrimes]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP?

The the conclusion reached in the OP is false, based on the improper method you used with the calculations to inflate the false point you tried to shovel! Now you go even further by switching the OP's topic of the SSI payroll tax to the bloody income tax.

Your scam is a bait and switch by talking about the SSI payroll tax in the OP and now the income tax trying to prove the same false hypothesis. They are two different birds, and you sure won't find the methodology employed in the two taxes having ANYTHING is common. If you're trying to prove the income tax is a progressive tax, there is no need because the fucking income tax IS A PROGRESSIVE TAX without limit, and the SSI payroll tax is a limited tax based on the same rate for all workers!

Why do you think you can pass this bullshit you're trying to spread as factual? As I said above, what bloody chutzpah and pomposity!

 

[Siete]

President Obama signed an $858 billion tax cut deal. It extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012 and unemployment benefits through 2011. It cut payroll taxes by 2 percent, adding $120 million to workers' spendable income. It extended a college tuition tax credit. It also included $55 billion in industry-specific tax cuts.

 

[edthecynic]

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

And it is ONLY there in black and white, but in green it doesn't exist.
As I pointed out, 47% already pay no income tax, so an income tax cut, no matter what bracket they are in will be ZERO. All that will happen is with the newly jiggered withholding tables less will be withheld from their paycheck each week, but their refund check after they file by April 15 will be less an equal amount as the "extra" they got each week. If they got $10.00 extra each week, then their refund would be $520.00 less.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

This is a perfect example of the liberal refusal to deal with facts. The OP debunks the analytical approach--i.e., using gross dollar amounts--that liberals use as the basis for their claim that the Trump tax cuts heavily favor the rich. Now, either "Jake Starkey" does not understand basic math or he simply doesn't care.

The only valid comparison is the rate that each group is paying, i.e., the percentage, or "share," of their income that they are paying in taxes.

If Joe A makes $40K and gets his taxes cut from 12% to 4%, a drop of 8 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $4,800 to $1,600, a savings of $3,200. If Joe B makes $900K and gets his taxes cut from 37% to 33%, a drop of 4 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $33,300 to $29,700, a savings of $3,600 ($400 more than Joe A). Who got the better deal? Who is paying a smaller share/percentage of his income? Obviously, Joe A.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The ironic thing is that Trump's tax cuts gave the biggest rate reductions to the second, third, and fourth brackets, whereas the top bracket got a smaller rate cut--plus, people in the top bracket had their state and local deductions capped at $10K.

Even more ironic is the fact that the 47% who paid no taxes before Tramp's tax cuts for the rich will get no tax cut, you can't get a cut below zero. Now when the lying scum GOP say everyone will see more money in their take home pay each week, that is a typical lying by half truth.

The 47% will see more take home pay each week because Tramp jiggered the withholding tables, so whatever increase they got each week, their refund that they get when they file April 15th will be that much smaller. Everything from the GOP is always smoke and mirrors.

So you propose they get more back than they paid in?

Will that stop the whining?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

I think the reason we look at gross dollars is because when it comes to costs of living there are standards that are based in fixed costs. Where 10% for somebody who makes 30k likely equals more than their entire monthly budget to live. Where as 10% for somebody who is making 3 million a year, means what? They are still making 2.7 million. Do you get it?

Cost of living is not fixed.

 

[edthecynic]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

This is a perfect example of the liberal refusal to deal with facts. The OP debunks the analytical approach--i.e., using gross dollar amounts--that liberals use as the basis for their claim that the Trump tax cuts heavily favor the rich. Now, either "Jake Starkey" does not understand basic math or he simply doesn't care.

The only valid comparison is the rate that each group is paying, i.e., the percentage, or "share," of their income that they are paying in taxes.

If Joe A makes $40K and gets his taxes cut from 12% to 4%, a drop of 8 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $4,800 to $1,600, a savings of $3,200. If Joe B makes $900K and gets his taxes cut from 37% to 33%, a drop of 4 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $33,300 to $29,700, a savings of $3,600 ($400 more than Joe A). Who got the better deal? Who is paying a smaller share/percentage of his income? Obviously, Joe A.

No, as I have pointed out many tines already and you have avoided, Joe A is already paying no income taxes as part of the 47%. So Joe A's $3,200 savings is only on paper, in reality Joe A saves nothing.

 

[Slade3200]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

I think the reason we look at gross dollars is because when it comes to costs of living there are standards that are based in fixed costs. Where 10% for somebody who makes 30k likely equals more than their entire monthly budget to live. Where as 10% for somebody who is making 3 million a year, means what? They are still making 2.7 million. Do you get it?

Cost of living is not fixed.

It’s fixed to the point where it defines whether somebody is living in poverty or not. It reflects if a person is low, middle, or high class. That’s why there are tax brackets based on people’s income

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

I think the reason we look at gross dollars is because when it comes to costs of living there are standards that are based in fixed costs. Where 10% for somebody who makes 30k likely equals more than their entire monthly budget to live. Where as 10% for somebody who is making 3 million a year, means what? They are still making 2.7 million. Do you get it?

Cost of living is not fixed.

It’s fixed to the point where it defines whether somebody is living in poverty or not. It reflects if a person is low, middle, or high class. That’s why there are tax brackets based on people’s income

It's not fixed at any point.
Poverty levels are just made up numbers so as to justify government meddling

 

[edthecynic]

The ironic thing is that Trump's tax cuts gave the biggest rate reductions to the second, third, and fourth brackets, whereas the top bracket got a smaller rate cut--plus, people in the top bracket had their state and local deductions capped at $10K.

Even more ironic is the fact that the 47% who paid no taxes before Tramp's tax cuts for the rich will get no tax cut, you can't get a cut below zero. Now when the lying scum GOP say everyone will see more money in their take home pay each week, that is a typical lying by half truth.

The 47% will see more take home pay each week because Tramp jiggered the withholding tables, so whatever increase they got each week, their refund that they get when they file April 15th will be that much smaller. Everything from the GOP is always smoke and mirrors.

So you propose they get more back than they paid in?

Will that stop the whining?

Typical Straw Man. I am merely pointing out the Tramp claim that EVERY worker is getting a tax cut is a LIE. About half of American workers will get no tax cut other than on paper, they will only get a cut in their refund.

 

[Slade3200]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

I think the reason we look at gross dollars is because when it comes to costs of living there are standards that are based in fixed costs. Where 10% for somebody who makes 30k likely equals more than their entire monthly budget to live. Where as 10% for somebody who is making 3 million a year, means what? They are still making 2.7 million. Do you get it?

Cost of living is not fixed.

It’s fixed to the point where it defines whether somebody is living in poverty or not. It reflects if a person is low, middle, or high class. That’s why there are tax brackets based on people’s income

It's not fixed at any point.
Poverty levels are just made up numbers so as to justify government meddling

Yes, I realize it is not a fixed amount, I was speaking to the concept that there is a base amount of money that generally covers the necessities for people to live. Housing, food, travel, clothing etc. I realize that varies per person and per area however I was speaking to a larger concept. Did you not understand the point I was making? If not then ask a question and I’ll explain. If you did understand and disagree then make a counter argument. Otherwise I’m not interested in playing little word games to win cheap debate points.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The ironic thing is that Trump's tax cuts gave the biggest rate reductions to the second, third, and fourth brackets, whereas the top bracket got a smaller rate cut--plus, people in the top bracket had their state and local deductions capped at $10K.

Even more ironic is the fact that the 47% who paid no taxes before Tramp's tax cuts for the rich will get no tax cut, you can't get a cut below zero. Now when the lying scum GOP say everyone will see more money in their take home pay each week, that is a typical lying by half truth.

The 47% will see more take home pay each week because Tramp jiggered the withholding tables, so whatever increase they got each week, their refund that they get when they file April 15th will be that much smaller. Everything from the GOP is always smoke and mirrors.

So you propose they get more back than they paid in?

Will that stop the whining?

Typical Straw Man. I am merely pointing out the Tramp claim that EVERY worker is getting a tax cut is a LIE. About half of American workers will get no tax cut other than on paper, they will only get a cut in their refund.

If the top marginal bracket a person was paying before the Trump tax laws went down then that person got a tax cut regardless of whether or not he gets a refund

So you see the only people who didn't get a tax cut were those in the 10% bracket

 

[Skull Pilot]

Uh, no, actually the rich are *not* getting an "unfair share" of the tax cuts. Did you not understand the OP? Do you understand that you can't base your measurement on gross dollars? If you would bother to just look at the new tax tables and compare them to the old ones, you would see that the biggest rate cuts went to the second, third, and fourth tax brackets, not to the top one. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

I think the reason we look at gross dollars is because when it comes to costs of living there are standards that are based in fixed costs. Where 10% for somebody who makes 30k likely equals more than their entire monthly budget to live. Where as 10% for somebody who is making 3 million a year, means what? They are still making 2.7 million. Do you get it?

Cost of living is not fixed.

It’s fixed to the point where it defines whether somebody is living in poverty or not. It reflects if a person is low, middle, or high class. That’s why there are tax brackets based on people’s income

It's not fixed at any point.
Poverty levels are just made up numbers so as to justify government meddling

Yes, I realize it is not a fixed amount, I was speaking to the concept that here is a base amount of money that generally covers the necessities for people to live. Housing, food, travel, clothing etc. I realize that varies per person and per area however I was speaking to a larger concept. Did you not understand the point I was making? If not then ask a question and I’ll explain. If you did understand and disagree then make a counter argument. Otherwise I’m not interested in playing little word games to win cheap debate points.

You couldn't explain your way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[Slade3200]

I think the reason we look at gross dollars is because when it comes to costs of living there are standards that are based in fixed costs. Where 10% for somebody who makes 30k likely equals more than their entire monthly budget to live. Where as 10% for somebody who is making 3 million a year, means what? They are still making 2.7 million. Do you get it?

Cost of living is not fixed.

It’s fixed to the point where it defines whether somebody is living in poverty or not. It reflects if a person is low, middle, or high class. That’s why there are tax brackets based on people’s income

It's not fixed at any point.
Poverty levels are just made up numbers so as to justify government meddling

Yes, I realize it is not a fixed amount, I was speaking to the concept that here is a base amount of money that generally covers the necessities for people to live. Housing, food, travel, clothing etc. I realize that varies per person and per area however I was speaking to a larger concept. Did you not understand the point I was making? If not then ask a question and I’ll explain. If you did understand and disagree then make a counter argument. Otherwise I’m not interested in playing little word games to win cheap debate points.

You couldn't explain your way out of a wet paper bag.

Just as I thought. You don’t care about the substance, you’re just here to pet your ego and try to win cheap debate points. When you can’t you jump right to the insults. So transparent

 

[mikegriffith1]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

This is a perfect example of the liberal refusal to deal with facts. The OP debunks the analytical approach--i.e., using gross dollar amounts--that liberals use as the basis for their claim that the Trump tax cuts heavily favor the rich. Now, either "Jake Starkey" does not understand basic math or he simply doesn't care.

The only valid comparison is the rate that each group is paying, i.e., the percentage, or "share," of their income that they are paying in taxes.

If Joe A makes $40K and gets his taxes cut from 12% to 4%, a drop of 8 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $4,800 to $1,600, a savings of $3,200. If Joe B makes $900K and gets his taxes cut from 37% to 33%, a drop of 4 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $33,300 to $29,700, a savings of $3,600 ($400 more than Joe A). Who got the better deal? Who is paying a smaller share/percentage of his income? Obviously, Joe A.

No, as I have pointed out many tines already and you have avoided, Joe A is already paying no income taxes as part of the 47%. So Joe A's $3,200 savings is only on paper, in reality Joe A saves nothing.

Uh, you're kidding, right? One, your argument does not affect the OP because the OP is talking about Obama's 2011 PAYROLL tax cut. You know the difference between the income tax and the payroll tax, right? But, okay, let's shift the comparison up a bit:

Joe A makes $80K per year and gets his taxes cut from 20% to 12%, a cut of 8 percentage points, which reduces his federal tax burden from $16,000 to $9,600, a savings of $7,4000. Joe B makes $2M and get his taxes cut from 37% to 33%, a cut of 4 percentage points, which reduces his federal tax burden from $740,000 to $660,000, a savings of $80,000. Who got the better deal? Who is paying a smaller share/percentage of his income? Obviously, Joe A.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cost of living is not fixed.

It’s fixed to the point where it defines whether somebody is living in poverty or not. It reflects if a person is low, middle, or high class. That’s why there are tax brackets based on people’s income

It's not fixed at any point.
Poverty levels are just made up numbers so as to justify government meddling

Yes, I realize it is not a fixed amount, I was speaking to the concept that here is a base amount of money that generally covers the necessities for people to live. Housing, food, travel, clothing etc. I realize that varies per person and per area however I was speaking to a larger concept. Did you not understand the point I was making? If not then ask a question and I’ll explain. If you did understand and disagree then make a counter argument. Otherwise I’m not interested in playing little word games to win cheap debate points.

You couldn't explain your way out of a wet paper bag.

Just as I thought. You don’t care about the substance, you’re just here to pet your ego and try to win cheap debate points. When you can’t you jump right to the insults. So transparent

I don't need you to explain anything to me. Ever.

I understand that all the numbers used to define poverty or whatever else are completely arbitrary

They are made up numbers just like tax brackets are made up numbers.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The fact remains that the Rich are getting an unfair share of the cut, permanently, while the non-rich gets a cut temporarily.

This is a perfect example of the liberal refusal to deal with facts. The OP debunks the analytical approach--i.e., using gross dollar amounts--that liberals use as the basis for their claim that the Trump tax cuts heavily favor the rich. Now, either "Jake Starkey" does not understand basic math or he simply doesn't care.

The only valid comparison is the rate that each group is paying, i.e., the percentage, or "share," of their income that they are paying in taxes.

If Joe A makes $40K and gets his taxes cut from 12% to 4%, a drop of 8 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $4,800 to $1,600, a savings of $3,200. If Joe B makes $900K and gets his taxes cut from 37% to 33%, a drop of 4 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $33,300 to $29,700, a savings of $3,600 ($400 more than Joe A). Who got the better deal? Who is paying a smaller share/percentage of his income? Obviously, Joe A.

The OP debunks the analytical approach--i.e., using gross dollar amounts--that liberals use as the basis for their claim that the Trump tax cuts heavily favor the rich.

NO! Your false premise was well and truly debunked by a reality check of your fantasy math employed and your bait and switch of first using the SSI payroll tax as the exemplar for the math and then switching to the income tax. And you continue to ignore you dishonesty!

If Joe A makes $40K and gets his taxes cut from 12% to 4%, a drop of 8 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $4,800 to $1,600, a savings of $3,200. If Joe B makes $900K and gets his taxes cut from 37% to 33%, a drop of 4 percentage points, his federal tax burden drops from $33,300 to $29,700, a savings of $3,600 ($400 more than Joe A). Who got the better deal? Who is paying a smaller share/percentage of his income? Obviously, Joe A.

That's the nature of the progressive income tax as established. Why have both major political parties year after year validated and implemented the basic form of progressive income tax with EVERY subsequent amending bill to the Internal Revenue Code, both the major and minor revisions?

If both Joe's both made $40k, but Joe A had no dependents, but Joe B had a wife and 7 kids, who would pay the highest income tax even though both Joe's made the same? Why the Hell does life have to be so bloody unfair, Mikey?

You make up these STUPID partisan arguments conveniently leaving out critical items, or outright fabricating scenarios to salve you tribal irritations and place blame on your rival tribalists. You're a waste of air you dishonest turd!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who believes that there is not such a thing as a "fixed income" lives in a world of unreality. Anyone who refuses to listen to common sense explanation as why he is wrong is more than obstinate, he is pathological. His opinion should be discounted until he realizes that he is guided by premise not factual numbers.

 

[Slade3200]

It’s fixed to the point where it defines whether somebody is living in poverty or not. It reflects if a person is low, middle, or high class. That’s why there are tax brackets based on people’s income

It's not fixed at any point.
Poverty levels are just made up numbers so as to justify government meddling

Yes, I realize it is not a fixed amount, I was speaking to the concept that here is a base amount of money that generally covers the necessities for people to live. Housing, food, travel, clothing etc. I realize that varies per person and per area however I was speaking to a larger concept. Did you not understand the point I was making? If not then ask a question and I’ll explain. If you did understand and disagree then make a counter argument. Otherwise I’m not interested in playing little word games to win cheap debate points.

You couldn't explain your way out of a wet paper bag.

Just as I thought. You don’t care about the substance, you’re just here to pet your ego and try to win cheap debate points. When you can’t you jump right to the insults. So transparent

I don't need you to explain anything to me. Ever.

I understand that all the numbers used to define poverty or whatever else are completely arbitrary

They are made up numbers just like tax brackets are made up numbers.

Do you understand why 10% of somebody’s income who makes 30K a year is more impactful on their livelihood than 10% of somebody who makes 3 million a year? Do you understand the difference between people who live paycheck to paycheck vs somebody making payments on their third vacation home?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone who believes that there is not such a thing as a "fixed income" lives in a world of unreality.

No one's income is ever fixed.

Anyone can increase their income any time they want to