PLEASE EXPLAIN: How will I get $4000 increase in my income if corporate taxes go down?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Says the Social Security Administration, you fucktard.It's in their formula.

So why can't the formula be modified to cap benefits? Where's that rule? Nowhere. It's not my problem you lack imagination or creativity. The solve is a simple piece of legislation. Doesn't have to be more than 2 pages.

Social Security and Medicare aren't funded out of income taxes, so how will it hurt?

Well, the Trump budget cuts from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts, so clearly they are linked.

So why can't the formula be modified to cap benefits?

You want to change it into a welfare program instead of a universal program?

You're making FDR spin in his grave.

 

[Winston]

Can any explain Trump's claim that a cut in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent would boost incomes of U.S. workers by at least $4,000 a year?

The White House Council of Economic Advisers put out a paper this week that says:

"Reducing the statutory federal corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent would, the analysis below suggests, increase average household income in the United States by, very conservatively, $4,000 annually."

I suppose that if you average all of the households in America, and include the millions of dollars that the CEOs from corporations will get as well as the $0 that everyone else gets, it might average out to $4,000.

But I don't see any way that my household income will increase by $4,000.

Because every auto dealership in America will pass on their tax saving to you, the consumer. Cars will be $4k cheaper, appliances thousands cheaper, real estate will drop their commission to 2% - soon we will all become 1%ers!

Believe me!

[sarcasm alert]



At this point, Trump is a liar until someone can come forward and prove that he is not.

Because every auto dealership in America will pass on their tax saving to you, the consumer. Cars will be $4k cheaper, appliances thousands cheaper, real estate will drop their commission to 2% - soon we will all become 1%ers!

Believe me!

[sarcasm alert]

And you believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny too.

 

[SeaGal]

...taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our debt...is irresponsible, unpatriotic.

Yeah, because Bush borrowed to provide tax cuts for the rich, unwinnable wars of occupation, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and a mortgage bubble.

Soooo - by that reckoning, since Obama racked up nearly 10 Trillion dollars in debt 'all by his lonesome' he is twice as irresponsible and unpatriotic?

Oh, and umm - contending GDP growth was the same under both Obama and Bush...got a source for that?

 

[The Derp]

How much of our energy usage is supplied by solar energy today?

Solar and wind combined make up 10% of US electricity, which is up from less than 1% in 2010.

The U.S. set a new renewable energy milestone in March, in data released Wednesday. For the first time, wind and solar accounted for 10 percent of all electricity generation, with wind comprising 8 percent and solar coming in at 2 percent.​

While fossil fuels still dominate energy production overall in the U.S., solar and wind production are on a growth trajectory (especially in China, India, and some other developing countries, as well as parts of Europe). 2015 was the first record-setting year that more new infrastructure for renewable energy was installed than new infrastructure for nonrenewable energy.​

 

[kiwiman127]

Can any explain Trump's claim that a cut in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent would boost incomes of U.S. workers by at least $4,000 a year?

The White House Council of Economic Advisers put out a paper this week that says:

"Reducing the statutory federal corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent would, the analysis below suggests, increase average household income in the United States by, very conservatively, $4,000 annually."

I suppose that if you average all of the households in America, and include the millions of dollars that the CEOs from corporations will get as well as the $0 that everyone else gets, it might average out to $4,000.

But I don't see any way that my household income will increase by $4,000.



At this point, Trump is a liar until someone can come forward and prove that he is not.

Here's what has happen in the recent past using profits versus Real Dollar wage growth.
View attachment 156825
As we can see, corporate profits have increased dramatically in recent time. At the same time wages have decreased.
So that takes care of that.
Plus, we are still paying for the tax cuts from 2003, that primarily went to the wealthy. Now Trump/GOP will be adding another $1.5 trillion to the National Debt.
Where are the fiscal conservatives?
View attachment 156827
View attachment 156829

And who was the president the last 8 years? The same guy who made the RICH, RICHER and made the middle class, much POORER. And he added 10 trillion to the national debt over 8 years, what President Trump proposes could raise it by 1.5 trillion over 10 years. You are quite a stupid bunch of people.

The $1.5 trillion, is just one bill. Then there's his pledge to spend another $trillion on the infrastructure. Now. we're at $2.5 trillion with just two issues. If you think Trump will stop adding to the National Debt, you are are not living in reality.
Look at the way he ran businesses. Four bankruptcies and several other court judgements against him for not paying his own bills. What makes you think he'll change his ways, when he's spending other people's money.

"I'm the king of debt. I love debt," Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, seemingly trying to explain the comfort level he has with debt after a long business career that included four bankruptcy filings by his companies.
<SNIP>
Asked if the U.S. needs to pay its debt in full or if it could negotiate a partial repayment, Trump said: "I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal."
Donald Trump: 'I'm the king of debt'

Then there's his pledge to spend another $trillion on the infrastructure.

At least President Trump will actually put that money to infrastructure that the last president said he was going to do. Love it how easy a liberal forgets what their dude did..

http://nypost.com/2012/01/29/how-the-800b-stimulus-failed/

Nothing but a deflection. Come on; let's see if you have the smarts or balls to address my post.
Trump loves debt. He proved it by his own admission. He went bankrupt four times, plus several judgments against him. Many banks will not borrow him money, thus him getting loans from European banks.
Deutsche Bank asks for more time for U.S. query on Trump, Russia: source

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's true, those solar jobs have very low productivity.

What do you mean by "low productivity"? Is this just some general, vague term you used that allows you to wiggle around the definition parameters as it suits your argument?

Bitch move, pal.

What do you mean by "low productivity"?

FFS. Do you have no clue about economics?

One guy with a back hoe can dig a ditch much faster than 5 guys with shovels.
You can brag that your ditch company with the shovel guys creates more jobs, but they're less productive.
Do you get it now?

Raise contributions, you have to pay out more.

Says who? You? Who the fuck are you, anyway, and why should anyone give a shit what you think?

Yeah, Obama made things worse with his SS tax cut, eh?

So how will cutting income taxes for the rich "help" social security and Medicare? Because the Conservatives' budget cuts Medicare to pay for tax cuts.

Raise contributions, you have to pay out more.

Says who? You?

Says the Social Security Administration, you fucktard.
It's in their formula.

So how will cutting income taxes for the rich "help" social security and Medicare?

Social Security and Medicare aren't funded out of income taxes, so how will it hurt?

40% of Medicare is funded out of the general fund, not payroll taxes.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That's right, screw those corporations.
Raise their rates even higher.

What could go wrong?

DODGE from the fact that you know $4000 raise for workers is straight bullshit.

it's not impossible that someone's salary might go up from corps paying less taxes, but the connection is strenuous at best considering that corporations pay taxes on NET INCOME and salaries are EXPENSES that get subtracted from it.

It is bullshit. The same type of bullshit Obama and every other president spews.

 

[Siete]

It's true, those solar jobs have very low productivity.

What do you mean by "low productivity"? Is this just some general, vague term you used that allows you to wiggle around the definition parameters as it suits your argument?

Bitch move, pal.

What do you mean by "low productivity"?

FFS. Do you have no clue about economics?

One guy with a back hoe can dig a ditch much faster than 5 guys with shovels.
You can brag that your ditch company with the shovel guys creates more jobs, but they're less productive.
Do you get it now?

Raise contributions, you have to pay out more.

Says who? You? Who the fuck are you, anyway, and why should anyone give a shit what you think?

Yeah, Obama made things worse with his SS tax cut, eh?

So how will cutting income taxes for the rich "help" social security and Medicare? Because the Conservatives' budget cuts Medicare to pay for tax cuts.

Raise contributions, you have to pay out more.

Says who? You?

Says the Social Security Administration, you fucktard.
It's in their formula.

So how will cutting income taxes for the rich "help" social security and Medicare?

Social Security and Medicare aren't funded out of income taxes, so how will it hurt?

40% of Medicare is funded out of the general fund, not payroll taxes.

I have no idea why debt is even up for discussion. Two thirds of RW morons dont know the difference between debt/deficit anyway. Quoting historical data rolls off them like water on a duck.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One guy with a back hoe can dig a ditch much faster than 5 guys with shovels.

So no explanation, just a half-assed attempt at rhetoric. How exactly are solar jobs "less productive" than fossil fuel jobs? They're actually MORE productive because you only have to install the solar panel once, and the sun never runs dry.

How exactly are solar jobs "less productive" than fossil fuel jobs?

How much of our energy usage is supplied by solar energy today?

The sun will last another billion plus years, how long will fossil fuel last?

 

[The Derp]

My argument is the government spends way too fucking much money.
Your belief is immaterial to my argument.

No.

The argument was that y'all opposed Bush's spending just as you opposed Obama's...but in absence of any proof of you opposing Bush's spending at the time, we are forced to take your word for it. And you've given no reason for anyone to take your word for it. That's why I doubt your sincerity and know you're being disingenuous. Fact is, you never once gave Bush's deficits and debt a passing thought when he was President because he was your ideological compatriot. Only once he left office, and his legacy looked like shit and that would reflect poorly on you because of your support of his administration, did all you Conservatives start peacocking about debt.

You're all liars, fakers, phonies, and frauds.

ush should have spent 50% less. Obama should have spent 60% less.
Trump should spend 60% less.

LOL! Saying it now, after the fact, rings disingenuous.

 

[ColonelAngus]

OMB: Top 20% pay 95% of taxes, middle class 'single digits'

Top 20% pay 95% of taxes, middle class 'single digits'

The BOTTOM 80% OF PEOPLE PAY 5% OF THE TAXES!

Yea, the RICH are not paying their "FAIR SHARE"!!

Idiot PROGS.

No, you are the idiot. The Top 20% own almost 90% of the wealth and earn the bulk of the income so no damn wonder they pay the bulk of the taxes. But I agree, it's a problem and the solution is quite simple and has been around for years. RAISE THE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY, especially the top one percent. When marginal tax rates on the top one percent were north of 65% the top one percent only garnished ten percent of total national income. Now, with rates less than 40% they collect more than 20% of national income. If you want the rich to pay a lower share of total taxes you must initiate policies that results in them getting a lower share of total national income. The optimal marginal tax rate on the top one percent--well it's north of 90% as this study, that I know you won't read and couldn't possibly understand, indicates.

http://economics.sas.upenn.edu/~dkrueger/research/top1.pdf

OMB: Top 20% pay 95% of taxes, middle class 'single digits'

Top 20% pay 95% of taxes, middle class 'single digits'

The BOTTOM 80% OF PEOPLE PAY 5% OF THE TAXES!

Yea, the RICH are not paying their "FAIR SHARE"!!

Idiot PROGS.

No, you are the idiot. The Top 20% own almost 90% of the wealth and earn the bulk of the income so no damn wonder they pay the bulk of the taxes. But I agree, it's a problem and the solution is quite simple and has been around for years. RAISE THE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY, especially the top one percent. When marginal tax rates on the top one percent were north of 65% the top one percent only garnished ten percent of total national income. Now, with rates less than 40% they collect more than 20% of national income. If you want the rich to pay a lower share of total taxes you must initiate policies that results in them getting a lower share of total national income. The optimal marginal tax rate on the top one percent--well it's north of 90% as this study, that I know you won't read and couldn't possibly understand, indicates.

http://economics.sas.upenn.edu/~dkrueger/research/top1.pdf

Prog math.

Fucking jackasses.

If you want the rich to pay their fair share without hurting the middle class, you cant use a progressive tax structure.

You would have to tax ALL INCOME based on TOTAL INCOME.....so if you earn $1,000,000, you pay 40% ON ALL OF YOUR FUCKING INCOME.....and if you earn $50,000 you pay 20% ON ALL YOUR INCOME.

Again, without a rudimentary understanding of math because they are fucking stupid, it's challenging to talk economics with PROGS.

I have forgotten more about Economics than you will ever know and it is quite clear you struggle with basic math and misunderstand what a progressive tax system means. It does not mean that taxes get progressively higher, it means that those with higher income pay a greater amount of that income in taxes. It can be structured in any number of ways. If you want the rich to pay their fair share without hurting the middle class you simply increase the tax rate on the wealthy. Even if we accept your understanding of progressive taxes, the middle class does not get hit with a tax increase that is initiated at incomes greater than theirs. I mean like DAMN, can you really be that stupid.

What are my credentials, specifically?

You seem fucking brilliiant

 

[The Derp]

So so-called "green energy" requires more labor than all fossil fuel enery sources combined? That's not a benefit, moron.

Right now it does, but its share and efficiency continues to rise as it has since 2010. Back in 2010, less than 1% got energy from wind and/or solar. In 2017, that is now up to 10%. So it grew significantly in just 7 years and continues to grow.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can any explain Trump's claim that a cut in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent would boost incomes of U.S. workers by at least $4,000 a year?

The White House Council of Economic Advisers put out a paper this week that says:

"Reducing the statutory federal corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent would, the analysis below suggests, increase average household income in the United States by, very conservatively, $4,000 annually."

I suppose that if you average all of the households in America, and include the millions of dollars that the CEOs from corporations will get as well as the $0 that everyone else gets, it might average out to $4,000.

But I don't see any way that my household income will increase by $4,000.

Because every auto dealership in America will pass on their tax saving to you, the consumer. Cars will be $4k cheaper, appliances thousands cheaper, real estate will drop their commission to 2% - soon we will all become 1%ers!

Believe me!

[sarcasm alert]



At this point, Trump is a liar until someone can come forward and prove that he is not.

Because every auto dealership in America will pass on their tax saving to you, the consumer. Cars will be $4k cheaper, appliances thousands cheaper, real estate will drop their commission to 2% - soon we will all become 1%ers!

Believe me!

[sarcasm alert]

And you believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny too.

LOL, did you not see my alert?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much of our energy usage is supplied by solar energy today?

Solar and wind combined make up 10% of US electricity, which is up from less than 1% in 2010.

The U.S. set a new renewable energy milestone in March, in data released Wednesday. For the first time, wind and solar accounted for 10 percent of all electricity generation, with wind comprising 8 percent and solar coming in at 2 percent.​

While fossil fuels still dominate energy production overall in the U.S., solar and wind production are on a growth trajectory (especially in China, India, and some other developing countries, as well as parts of Europe). 2015 was the first record-setting year that more new infrastructure for renewable energy was installed than new infrastructure for nonrenewable energy.​

You say solar supplies 2% but takes more workers than all fossil fuels.

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

According to the EIA, larger scale solar is 0.9% of 4.08 trillion kWh, about 37 billion KhW.
Small-scale solar, another 19 billion kWh.
Call it 56 billion kWh, or about 1.4%.

Natural gas and coal, 64.2%.

Fossil fuels provide more than 45 times the power, with fewer workers.

That's why I can honestly say solar power jobs have low productivity.

 

[The Derp]

You want to change it into a welfare program instead of a universal program?

Why would imposing benefits caps turn it into a welfare program? The rich are still getting a benefit.

So your problem with removing the cap on taxable income and imposing a cap on benefits is...undefined and incoherent.

You're making FDR spin in his grave.

What you say carries no weight, no authority, and no credibility.

 

[The Derp]

Fossil fuels provide more than 45 times the power, with fewer workers

Right now they do. In ten years, they won't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's true, those solar jobs have very low productivity.

What do you mean by "low productivity"? Is this just some general, vague term you used that allows you to wiggle around the definition parameters as it suits your argument?

Bitch move, pal.

What do you mean by "low productivity"?

FFS. Do you have no clue about economics?

One guy with a back hoe can dig a ditch much faster than 5 guys with shovels.
You can brag that your ditch company with the shovel guys creates more jobs, but they're less productive.
Do you get it now?

Raise contributions, you have to pay out more.

Says who? You? Who the fuck are you, anyway, and why should anyone give a shit what you think?

Yeah, Obama made things worse with his SS tax cut, eh?

So how will cutting income taxes for the rich "help" social security and Medicare? Because the Conservatives' budget cuts Medicare to pay for tax cuts.

Raise contributions, you have to pay out more.

Says who? You?

Says the Social Security Administration, you fucktard.
It's in their formula.

So how will cutting income taxes for the rich "help" social security and Medicare?

Social Security and Medicare aren't funded out of income taxes, so how will it hurt?

40% of Medicare is funded out of the general fund, not payroll taxes.

Medicare is already broke? Worse than I thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One guy with a back hoe can dig a ditch much faster than 5 guys with shovels.

So no explanation, just a half-assed attempt at rhetoric. How exactly are solar jobs "less productive" than fossil fuel jobs? They're actually MORE productive because you only have to install the solar panel once, and the sun never runs dry.

How exactly are solar jobs "less productive" than fossil fuel jobs?

How much of our energy usage is supplied by solar energy today?

The sun will last another billion plus years, how long will fossil fuel last?

Yeah, but those solar panels on your roof will only last 20.

 

[The Derp]

Medicare is already broke? Worse than I thought.

Hold on a second...you said that Medicare wasn't funded by income taxes. So you were wrong about that, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My argument is the government spends way too fucking much money.
Your belief is immaterial to my argument.

No.

The argument was that y'all opposed Bush's spending just as you opposed Obama's...but in absence of any proof of you opposing Bush's spending at the time, we are forced to take your word for it. And you've given no reason for anyone to take your word for it. That's why I doubt your sincerity and know you're being disingenuous. Fact is, you never once gave Bush's deficits and debt a passing thought when he was President because he was your ideological compatriot. Only once he left office, and his legacy looked like shit and that would reflect poorly on you because of your support of his administration, did all you Conservatives start peacocking about debt.

You're all liars, fakers, phonies, and frauds.

ush should have spent 50% less. Obama should have spent 60% less.
Trump should spend 60% less.

LOL! Saying it now, after the fact, rings disingenuous.

I said it then for Bush and Obama.
I'm saying it now for Trump.

How are any of those after the fact?