Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[BluesLegend]

Its not my fault your dream of a 90% punishment tax on the wealthy is a fantasy that will never come true.

Why do you care what the top tax rate is? Do you fancy yourself a temporarily embarrassed billionaire?

My sense of right and wrong, something that confuses many liberals.

 

[The Derp]

From the report: we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent.

And what about the hours worked in higher-wage jobs? What happened there? Did it increase? Why yes it did. So you are being dishonest. You're pretending that the drop in low-wage hours worked was in a vacuum and that those hours worked weren't made up elsewhere in higher-paying jobs.

Of course the number of low-wage hours worked declined...wages increased. Was there a corresponding increase in the hours worked for higher-wage jobs? YES!

 

[The Derp]

When was the last time black unemployment was lower than white unemployment in America? I realize you may not believe black unemployment has ever been lower than white unemployment but it was at one time. Can you tell us when?.

When they were slaves.

 

[The Derp]

The average tax on corporate profit in the US economy is about 22.6% from 2010-2016.Nobody will change their behavior if it's suddenly 95%. DURR!

Why would consumers change their behavior based on the income tax rate for corporations?

80% is more.

You didn't ask that. So you asked a question, didn't get the answer you wanted, so you just change the question. Bullshit move.

 

[The Derp]

Hours worked were reduced?
I guess DERP lied when he said those jobs became full time..............

What was the hourly wage for the full-time workers?

 

[The Derp]

Every analysis that I have seen of the proposed tax cuts has my family paying several thouand dollars less in filthy Federal government taxes.

What analysis? Link, please. Because Trump's team never put an analysis forth, despite promising they would.

 

[The Derp]

My sense of right and wrong, something that confuses many liberals.

Your "sense of right and wrong"? So it's wholly subjective then. Got it.

 

[Flash]

Every analysis that I have seen of the proposed tax cuts has my family paying several thouand dollars less in filthy Federal government taxes.

What analysis? Link, please. Because Trump's team never put an analysis forth, despite promising they would.

I have posted links to the calculations in other threads. I am not going to bother to do it now since we don't know if it will be the Senate version or the House version or a combination that will go to Trump for signature. Every time I did one of these calculations it shows me saving several thousand.

There is a lot of fake news put out about how it will effect tax payers so I discount the lies from the anti Trump assholes.

For my middle class retirement income where I don't itemize any more because I paid off my house and live in a state without high taxation the greater deduction and lower tax brackets should save me a few thousand.

I am glad of the corporate tax decrease because that will greatly stimulate the economy and fatten my 401K.

I would much rather spend the money that I have earned for my retirement than to give it to some filthy ass government asshole to be redistributed to welfare queens and illegals, wouldn't you?

I am also very glad the proposed tax plan does away with that stupid Obamacare mandate. The last thing we need is for the filthy oppressive government to be forcing people that neither want or need insurance to buy it, wouln't you agree? That is anti liberty, isn't it? Hope it stays in and not negotiated away.

 

[The Derp]

I have posted links to the calculations in other threads

Bullshit. You haven't posted shit. Here's the tax cut effect, and how your taxes will be raised by 2021. This comes directly from the JCT:

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase
In 2021, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2023, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2025, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2027, those making up to $75,000 will see a tax increase

You claim to be "middle class". $75K is middle class. So you're going to see a tax increase.

 

[The Derp]

There is a lot of fake news put out about how it will effect tax payers so I discount the lies from the anti Trump assholes.

Of course you do because you're a zealot whose weak mind is easily influenced by bias-confirming propaganda.

For my middle class retirement income where I don't itemize any more because I paid off my house and live in a state without high taxation the greater deduction and lower tax brackets should save me a few thousand.

If you make less than $75K a year, by 2027 you're going to be paying more in taxes than you do now. The reason is because the plan has to raise your taxes by then because otherwise, it would have to require 60 votes in the Senate as the bill extends the deficit past 10 years.

What you also don't know, mostly because you're inexperienced and not a homeowner, is that the various housing deductions are baked into home values. So if you remove the deductions, you reduce everyone's home values. And since the real estate market isn't something that is sequestered to regions, home prices dropping in one state means home prices will drop in others. It's why we had a housing crisis in 2008; home prices tanked because of mass foreclosures. When home prices fall, a housing crisis ensues, and when a housing crisis ensues...well...we just lived through that 8 years ago.

I am glad of the corporate tax decrease because that will greatly stimulate the economy and fatten my 401K.

How does a corporate tax cut stimulate the economy? How does a corporate tax cut cause increased consumer spending? Take me through that, because in no world has that ever been the case.

I would much rather spend the money that I have earned for my retirement than to give it to some filthy ass government asshole to be redistributed to welfare queens and illegals, wouldn't you?

First of all, if you're middle-class, your tax liability is probably close to 0 already. So you're not paying for shit. Secondly, if you're middle-class, your taxes will be going up by 2027 under this plan. Thirdly, it's not illegals and welfare queens sucking up government dollars, it's Conservative red states that use welfare to pay for tax cuts.

I am also very glad the proposed tax plan does away with that stupid Obamacare mandate. The last thing we need is for the filthy oppressive government to be forcing people that neither want or need insurance to buy it, wouln't you agree? That is anti liberty, isn't it? Hope it stays in and not negotiated away.

You're going to be paying for people's health care one way or another. Would you rather pay a little bit now or a lot later?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The average tax on corporate profit in the US economy is about 22.6% from 2010-2016.Nobody will change their behavior if it's suddenly 95%. DURR!

Why would consumers change their behavior based on the income tax rate for corporations?

80% is more.

You didn't ask that. So you asked a question, didn't get the answer you wanted, so you just change the question. Bullshit move.

Why would consumers change their behavior based on the income tax rate for corporations?

Who said anything about consumers? But if you'd like, we can talk about them.

Raise the individual tax rate to 95% on income above $30,000.
Does that change anyone's behavior?
Hey, over $30,000 you still get to keep 5%, right?

You didn't ask that.

I didn't ask about tax rates changing behavior? Are you sure?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hours worked were reduced?
I guess DERP lied when he said those jobs became full time..............

What was the hourly wage for the full-time workers?

For minimum wage workers, it increased.
Oddly, their hours worked shrank.
Which refutes your claim that their hours increased.

 

[The Derp]

Who said anything about consumers?

That's what we're talking about. You're insistence is that cutting corporate taxes will somehow result in magical growth (somehow) that ends up paying for the tax cut. How does it do that?

Raise the individual tax rate to 95% on income above $30,000.
Does that change anyone's behavior?
Hey, over $30,000 you still get to keep 5%, right?

So...you have this nasty habit of going to hyperbolic extremes because that's the only way you can get your shitty point across. You construct straw men and then argue those straw men. And you switched the topic of this conversation. You've jumped twice between individual taxes and corporate taxes, all to avoid answering the question of how exactly does corporate tax cuts result in increased growth? You can't answer that question truthfully, because the answer is that it doesn't. And since it doesn't, then there's no justification for cutting corporate income taxes. One way or another, your fiscal policy relies on the trickling down of spending by the top and corporations to "pay for" the tax cut. You can deny it, but that's what you're arguing.

So I want to know why you keep jumping from non-sequitur to non-sequitur like that? How come you can't stay on one topic?

You insist that cutting corporate income taxes will result in growth. You can't say how. You won't say how. For growth to occur, consumer demand has to increase. What you've been unable to do is tie the corporate income tax rate to consumer demand. And you'll never be able to do it because they're not intrinsically linked at all.

I didn't ask about tax rates changing behavior? Are you sure?

No, you didn't ask about that specific rate. So you did that thing you always do, which is go to hyperbolic extremes just because you didn't get the answer you wanted.

How does lowering or raising corporate income taxes affect consumer demand? That's the question. One you cannot answer.

 

[The Derp]

For minimum wage workers, it increased.

And it increased for full-time, higher-paying workers too. That's what the data shows. That's what that link said. Wages for everyone in Seattle went up. Hours worked for higher-wage jobs increased. The unemployment rate declined. So not sure what point you're arguing, but it sounds like you are arguing in favor of low-wage, part-time work.

Oddly, their hours worked shrank.

Yeah, because there are fewer low-wage workers because they became higher-wage workers thanks to the increase in wages. So the number of low-wage workers declined, ergo the hours worked by low-wage workers declined. While at the same time, the number of higher-wage workers increased, and the hours worked by higher-wage workers increased.

The overall unemployment rate declined as well.

So what's your point? That you're upset Seattle has fewer low-wage workers and those low-wage workers work fewer hours.

Which refutes your claim that their hours increased.

THE LINK ITSELF SAYS THE HOURS WORKED BY HIGH-WAGE WORKERS INCREASED.

THE LINK ITSELF ALSO SAYS THAT UNEMPLOYMENT DROPPED.

THE LINK ITSELF ALSO SAYS THAT AVERAGE WAGES ROSE FOR THE CITY

You ignored all that because you're a sophist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have posted links to the calculations in other threads

Bullshit. You haven't posted shit. Here's the tax cut effect, and how your taxes will be raised by 2021. This comes directly from the JCT:

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase
In 2021, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2023, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2025, those making up to $40,000 will see a tax increase
In 2027, those making up to $75,000 will see a tax increase

You claim to be "middle class". $75K is middle class. So you're going to see a tax increase.

In 2019, those making up to $30,000 will see a tax increase

Is that an actual increase in the amount the Federal government takes out of their paychecks?
Or is it a reduction in the amount the government spends on Obamacare subsidies for people
who freely choose to stop getting Obamacare or stop paying the penalty.

That would be a typical liberal lie, eh?
People have more in their paycheck from reduced rates. More in their pocket from no more Obamacare penalty and the Dems twist that into a tax hike.

 

[The Derp]

Is that an actual increase in the amount the Federal government takes out of their paychecks?

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.

Or is it a reduction in the amount the government spends on Obamacare subsidies for people

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.

who freely choose to stop getting Obamacare or stop paying the penalty.

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.

People have more in their paycheck from reduced rates. More in their pocket from no more Obamacare penalty and the Dems twist that into a tax hike.

Not everyone. Those who make up to $30,000 will pay more in taxes by 2019. Those who make up to $40,000 will pay more in taxes by 2021. Those who make up to $75,000 will pay more in taxes by 2027. That's how they can pass this bill with 50 votes. That's what the JCT said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who said anything about consumers?

That's what we're talking about. You're insistence is that cutting corporate taxes will somehow result in magical growth (somehow) that ends up paying for the tax cut. How does it do that?

Raise the individual tax rate to 95% on income above $30,000.
Does that change anyone's behavior?
Hey, over $30,000 you still get to keep 5%, right?

So...you have this nasty habit of going to hyperbolic extremes because that's the only way you can get your shitty point across. You construct straw men and then argue those straw men. And you switched the topic of this conversation. You've jumped twice between individual taxes and corporate taxes, all to avoid answering the question of how exactly does corporate tax cuts result in increased growth? You can't answer that question truthfully, because the answer is that it doesn't. And since it doesn't, then there's no justification for cutting corporate income taxes. One way or another, your fiscal policy relies on the trickling down of spending by the top and corporations to "pay for" the tax cut. You can deny it, but that's what you're arguing.

So I want to know why you keep jumping from non-sequitur to non-sequitur like that? How come you can't stay on one topic?

You insist that cutting corporate income taxes will result in growth. You can't say how. You won't say how. For growth to occur, consumer demand has to increase. What you've been unable to do is tie the corporate income tax rate to consumer demand. And you'll never be able to do it because they're not intrinsically linked at all.

I didn't ask about tax rates changing behavior? Are you sure?

No, you didn't ask about that specific rate. So you did that thing you always do, which is go to hyperbolic extremes just because you didn't get the answer you wanted.

How does lowering or raising corporate income taxes affect consumer demand? That's the question. One you cannot answer.

That's what we're talking about.

No, we're talking about corporate rates.
And your moronic claim that corporations and their investors don't change their behavior
when tax rates change. That no behavior would change, even with a 95% corporate rate.

You're insistence is that cutting corporate taxes will somehow result in magical growth (somehow) that ends up paying for the tax cut.

Where did I say there would be magical growth? Or that the added growth would pay for the tax cut?
Put up or shut up....liar.

all to avoid answering the question of how exactly does corporate tax cuts result in increased growth?

Ireland cut their corporate tax rate. Ireland saw huge growth.
Do you deny either point?

You insist that cutting corporate income taxes will result in growth.

It will.

You can't say how.

Corporations will invest here when they see they can keep more of their profits.
More hiring, more wage hikes.
Higher profits will mean higher dividends and higher stock prices.

For growth to occur, consumer demand has to increase.

More jobs, higher wages, more dividends, more capital gains.
People spend that money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For minimum wage workers, it increased.

And it increased for full-time, higher-paying workers too. That's what the data shows. That's what that link said. Wages for everyone in Seattle went up. Hours worked for higher-wage jobs increased. The unemployment rate declined. So not sure what point you're arguing, but it sounds like you are arguing in favor of low-wage, part-time work.

Oddly, their hours worked shrank.

Yeah, because there are fewer low-wage workers because they became higher-wage workers thanks to the increase in wages. So the number of low-wage workers declined, ergo the hours worked by low-wage workers declined. While at the same time, the number of higher-wage workers increased, and the hours worked by higher-wage workers increased.

The overall unemployment rate declined as well.

So what's your point? That you're upset Seattle has fewer low-wage workers and those low-wage workers work fewer hours.

Which refutes your claim that their hours increased.

THE LINK ITSELF SAYS THE HOURS WORKED BY HIGH-WAGE WORKERS INCREASED.

THE LINK ITSELF ALSO SAYS THAT UNEMPLOYMENT DROPPED.

THE LINK ITSELF ALSO SAYS THAT AVERAGE WAGES ROSE FOR THE CITY

You ignored all that because you're a sophist.

Hours worked for higher-wage jobs increased. The unemployment rate declined.

And hours worked for low wage workers declined.
Declined so much, that even with the hiked minimum wage, total take home declined.
Great job, assholes!

Yeah, because there are fewer low-wage workers because they became higher-wage workers thanks to the increase in wages.

Moron!
Minimum wages workers are low wage workers before and after the hike.

So what's your point? That you're upset Seattle has fewer low-wage workers and those low-wage workers work fewer hours.

I'm upset that assholes with no clue about economics, that includes you, thought they'd help low wage workers by boosting the minimum wage. What could go wrong? Apparently the workers the morons tried to help ended up getting hurt.

Typical liberal morons.

 

[The Derp]

Which refutes your claim that their hours increased.

THE LINK ITSELF SAYS THE HOURS WORKED BY HIGH-WAGE WORKERS INCREASED.

There's also this inconvenient fact:

Seattle Sees Fastest Wage Growth in the U.S. in October
Tied with San Francisco for best in the nation, Seattle's wages grew 2.1 percent from October 2016 to October 2017 to a median salary north of $60,000.
...
Barista (up 5.8% to a median salary of $29,172)​

And this:

Seattle Unemployment Rate Matches All-Time 2.8% Low​

May 7, 2017

So not sure what shit points you're trying to make, but following Seattle's minimum wage increase, the city saw the fastest wage growth and record-low unemployment.

But keep screeching nonsensically about low-wage workers, even though Baristas saw their wages increase too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that an actual increase in the amount the Federal government takes out of their paychecks?

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.

Or is it a reduction in the amount the government spends on Obamacare subsidies for people

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.

who freely choose to stop getting Obamacare or stop paying the penalty.

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.

People have more in their paycheck from reduced rates. More in their pocket from no more Obamacare penalty and the Dems twist that into a tax hike.

Not everyone. Those who make up to $30,000 will pay more in taxes by 2019. Those who make up to $40,000 will pay more in taxes by 2021. Those who make up to $75,000 will pay more in taxes by 2027. That's how they can pass this bill with 50 votes. That's what the JCT said.

It is a marginal rate increase from 10% to 12%.

Since the rate doesn't change from 2019-2020-2021 etc, that doesn't explain the steady increases.
And the fact that the standard deduction is doubled more than offsets the 2% hike.