Obama's 2011 Tax Cut Was UNFAIR to the Poor

[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.

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!

No one "debunked" anything. My OP is talking about Obama's 2011 PAYROLL tax cut. Even the poorest of the poorest workers in the 47% pay the payroll tax, and they pay the same rate paid by people who make $200K. Furthermore, the math principle is irrefutably valid, regardless of the kind of tax we're talking about--it's only a matter of shifting the comparison so that we're talking about two people who both pay taxes.

The OP proves that even in the case of Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut, which was the same percentage for everyone who made under $200K, you could "prove" that it was "unfair" if you just used gross dollar amounts.

We see that lots of liberals here view everyone in the third and fourth tax brackets as being well enough off as not count and as not deserving of any tax relief. But you have lots and lots of firemen, principals, policemen, military officers, federal civil employees, and other average folks who are in those tax brackets.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

That has nothing to do with the so called poverty line.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Here is my complete post:

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]

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?

That has nothing to do with the so called poverty line.

See I obviously do need to explain things to you if you thought I was talking about the poverty line. You keep skirting around to these cherry picked arguments based on word games that you’re playing instead of addressing the topic. You either didn’t understand the point I was making or you have no substantive argument to address it so you pick these weak diversions to argue about. Like I said before, your game is transparent and weak. Queue the insults...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ed et al have had no trouble handling the silly OP or the nonsense about a none fixed income.

 

[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

Here is my complete post:

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.

You went back and edited your post AFTER I quoted it

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

That has nothing to do with the so called poverty line.

See I obviously do need to explain things to you if you thought I was talking about the poverty line. You keep skirting around to these cherry picked arguments based on word games that you’re playing instead of addressing the topic. You either didn’t understand the point I was making or you have no substantive argument to address it so you pick these weak diversions to argue about. Like I said before, your game is transparent and weak. Queue the insults...

Keep telling yourself that.

The real answer is that 10% will only have a real impact of those people spend more than 90% of their income every year.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

That has nothing to do with the so called poverty line.

See I obviously do need to explain things to you if you thought I was talking about the poverty line. You keep skirting around to these cherry picked arguments based on word games that you’re playing instead of addressing the topic. You either didn’t understand the point I was making or you have no substantive argument to address it so you pick these weak diversions to argue about. Like I said before, your game is transparent and weak. Queue the insults...

Keep telling yourself that.

The real answer is that 10% will only have a real impact of those people spend more than 90% of their income every year.

True and for many people 90% of their income goes towards paying rent, utilities, food, and interest on debt. For others those expenses are a drop in the bucket. Am I wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Here is my complete post:

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.

You went back and edited your post AFTER I quoted it

I was still writing it, which changes what you wrote to silliness.

You are as silly as protectionist on these matters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are right, Slade. Let's see if Skull Pilot can get over his pathology and admit you are right.

 

[Slade3200]

You are right, Slade. Let's see if Skull Pilot can get over his pathology and admit you are right.

He won’t, he will either take something out of context or divert to a new argument. His games are transparent and weak.

 

[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!

No one "debunked" anything. My OP is talking about Obama's 2011 PAYROLL tax cut. Even the poorest of the poorest workers in the 47% pay the payroll tax, and they pay the same rate paid by people who make $200K. Furthermore, the math principle is irrefutably valid, regardless of the kind of tax we're talking about--it's only a matter of shifting the comparison so that we're talking about two people who both pay taxes.

The OP proves that even in the case of Obama's 2011 payroll tax cut, which was the same percentage for everyone who made under $200K, you could "prove" that it was "unfair" if you just used gross dollar amounts.

No one "debunked" anything. My OP is talking about Obama's 2011 PAYROLL tax cut. Even the poorest of the poorest workers in the 47% pay the payroll tax, and they pay the same rate paid by people who make $200K.

I'm well aware the OP dealt with the SSI payroll tax and that was that to which I responded to YOUR OP in my first Post #8 going forward. Your figures were WRONG, your logic was WRONG and your conclusion was WRONG/in error.

You've ignored all my posts until now and continue to ignore the totality of their substance, being the pompous, imperious ass you are. Now that you switched to a different tax in the topic as a dodge now, you've compounded the error over and over with every post.

So you've discovered the progressive income tax is not exactly fair IN YOUR ESTIMATION. Again;

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?

The obvious answer is that that is the way the two major tribes constructed Amendment XVI which permitted that direct tax without apportionment! It's the Tribes what did it so point at your own dumb ass!

Welcome to the real word. Now if you're too damn poor to pay attention, do a little more cheating on your taxes.

 

[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.

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

Well at least you admit that the bottom bracket got no tax cut, that is a start.
~80% of tax households fall in the bottom 2 brackets and ~80 million of them paid no income tax in 2016. That means that all of the old 10% bracket and about half of the old 15% bracket got no tax cut.

 

[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.

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.

I wasn't replying to your OP, obviously, I was replying to YOUR post in reply to Jake.
So let's stick to that post with no "shifts" to anything else, OK Mr Shifty.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

That has nothing to do with the so called poverty line.

See I obviously do need to explain things to you if you thought I was talking about the poverty line. You keep skirting around to these cherry picked arguments based on word games that you’re playing instead of addressing the topic. You either didn’t understand the point I was making or you have no substantive argument to address it so you pick these weak diversions to argue about. Like I said before, your game is transparent and weak. Queue the insults...

Keep telling yourself that.

The real answer is that 10% will only have a real impact of those people spend more than 90% of their income every year.

True and for many people 90% of their income goes towards paying rent, utilities, food, and interest on debt. For others those expenses are a drop in the bucket. Am I wrong?

how many is many?

 

[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

Well at least you admit that the bottom bracket got no tax cut, that is a start.
~80% of tax households fall in the bottom 2 brackets and ~80 million of them paid no income tax in 2016. That means that all of the old 10% bracket and about half of the old 15% bracket got no tax cut.

If their tax rate went down they got a tax cut

Why is that so hard to understand?

It doesn't matter if they got a refund or not

And all the people in the 15% bracket got a tax cut because the portion of their income that was taxed at 15% is now taxed at 12%

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are right, Slade. Let's see if Skull Pilot can get over his pathology and admit you are right.

You admit that you whined about me not quoting your whole post even though you changed it after I quoted it

 

[edthecynic]

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

Well at least you admit that the bottom bracket got no tax cut, that is a start.
~80% of tax households fall in the bottom 2 brackets and ~80 million of them paid no income tax in 2016. That means that all of the old 10% bracket and about half of the old 15% bracket got no tax cut.

If their tax rate went down they got a tax cut

Why is that so hard to understand?

It doesn't matter if they got a refund or not

And all the people in the 15% bracket got a tax cut because the portion of their income that was taxed at 15% is now taxed at 12%

If they paid no taxes at 15% and they paid no taxes at 12% how much less tax did they pay at 12%?
ZERO at 15% minus ZERO at 12% equals ZERO.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Well at least you admit that the bottom bracket got no tax cut, that is a start.
~80% of tax households fall in the bottom 2 brackets and ~80 million of them paid no income tax in 2016. That means that all of the old 10% bracket and about half of the old 15% bracket got no tax cut.

If their tax rate went down they got a tax cut

Why is that so hard to understand?

It doesn't matter if they got a refund or not

And all the people in the 15% bracket got a tax cut because the portion of their income that was taxed at 15% is now taxed at 12%

If they paid no taxes at 15% and they paid no taxes at 12% how much less tax did they pay at 12%?
ZERO at 15% minus ZERO at 12% equals ZERO.

Why is that so hard to understand?

The tax rate is all that matters.

The fact that we have far too many deductions and giveaways in the tax law is a horse of a different color

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are right, Slade. Let's see if Skull Pilot can get over his pathology and admit you are right.

He won’t, he will either take something out of context or divert to a new argument. His games are transparent and weak.

I'm not changing the argument

Because it doesn't matter how much money anyone makes as long as they can keep more of it at the end of the day