Tax rate on richest 400 lower than every other group
For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data.
Comments
-
Who knew? Investment income is taxed at a lower rate than payroll income. Do you have anymore bombshells? Btw, still waiting for that "promise" you claimed was in the Complaint.GDS said:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html
For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data. -
Sad!
-
Same old stal lie. Soros stunning out of talking points for the Bros?SFGbob said:
Who knew? Investment income is taxed at a lower rate than payroll income. Do you have anymore bombshells? Btw, still waiting for that "promise" you claimed was in the Complaint.GDS said:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html
For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data. -
-
I’m for “The Fair Tax”, most of this crap would go away.
-
It's clear most of you didn't read the article.
-
I read it.2001400ex said:It's clear most of you didn't read the article.
-
Outside of the fact that the opinion piece was not factual – it’s spot on. Look, half the US public doesn’t pay federal income tax. They do pay 7.65% on their wages for social security and medicare. So, the bottom half of the US public doesn’t pay more than the 23% rate that the article alleges that the wealthy pay. And then, if you made $50,000 in wages and then paid $3,825 in payroll taxes that is a little different than having a $10 million capital gain and paying $2 million in capital gains tax. Someone seems to be paying their fair share.
As has been pointed out, dropping the corporate tax rate to 21% puts the US in line with the other countries that US corporations compete with. The article doesn’t talk about making the US competitive with other countries. It also ignores the fact that corporate taxes are a cost of doing business and thus are largely passed on to US consumers.
In the good old days of 70% tax rates, the tax code was crammed full of loopholes and tax shelters which have largely been eliminated. Feel free to impose a 70% tax rate on US businesses if you want to go full boat Venezuela. The Laffer curve is a real thing. You can debate on which side of the curve a top US individual rate of 37% is. You can’t debate where a 70% tax rate is.
-
Other than the fact you had to lie to make you make your point you absolutely nailed it. Adding local and state taxes like property tax, sales tax and state income tax to medicare and social security taxes it's easy to get to over 23%. I've seen data showing anywhere between 21 and 25% total tax rate on the poorest Americans. For the first time on record the richest 400 Americans are paying a lower total tax rate than any other income group. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos really need it as well...
The idea that any significant percentage of corporations out there was actually paying 35% is stupid. More corporations paid 0% than paid 35%. -
Is that like the "promise" you saw in the Complaint?GDS said:Other than the fact you had to lie to make you make your point you absolutely nailed it. Adding local and state taxes like property tax, sales tax and state income tax to medicare and social security taxes it's easy to get to over 23%. I've seen data showing anywhere between 21 and 25% total tax rate on the poorest Americans. For the first time on record the richest 400 Americans are paying a lower total tax rate than any other income group. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos really need it as well...
The idea that any significant percentage of corporations out there was actually paying 35% is stupid. More corporations paid 0% than paid 35%.
Poorest Americans are paying sales taxes and gas taxes. They aren't paying any Federal or State income taxes. And given the fact that most of them are receiving "free" healthcare and other forms of welfare they receiving far more in benefits than they are paying in taxes -
You could definitely say that both the old 70% rate with multiple deductions, exemption and loopholes was on the side of the curve where the economy still grows and tax revenues increase and you can definitely say that the present 37% is on that same side. In fact, you can definitely say that the previous 39.6% was on that side. There's a "laboratory" out there, remember Gasbag? History, facts and shit?WestlinnDuck said:Outside of the fact that the opinion piece was not factual – it’s spot on. Look, half the US public doesn’t pay federal income tax. They do pay 7.65% on their wages for social security and medicare. So, the bottom half of the US public doesn’t pay more than the 23% rate that the article alleges that the wealthy pay. And then, if you made $50,000 in wages and then paid $3,825 in payroll taxes that is a little different than having a $10 million capital gain and paying $2 million in capital gains tax. Someone seems to be paying their fair share.
As has been pointed out, dropping the corporate tax rate to 21% puts the US in line with the other countries that US corporations compete with. The article doesn’t talk about making the US competitive with other countries. It also ignores the fact that corporate taxes are a cost of doing business and thus are largely passed on to US consumers.
In the good old days of 70% tax rates, the tax code was crammed full of loopholes and tax shelters which have largely been eliminated. Feel free to impose a 70% tax rate on US businesses if you want to go full boat Venezuela. The Laffer curve is a real thing. You can debate on which side of the curve a top US individual rate of 37% is. You can’t debate where a 70% tax rate is.
-
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple. -
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple. -
Keep ass phu*cking that strawman counselor. I didn't say spit about the Laffer curve in the 50s. I distinctly said that under the current rules a 70% rate would be on the other side of the curve. You can vote for the fake Indian and we can find out how she is the more fiscally responsible alternative. I pity your clients.
-
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple. -
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today. -
Revenue is up liar2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today. -
Did you even read what I wrote? Reading is tuff for you and Mike today.RaceBannon said:
Revenue is up liar2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today. -
2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today. -
2001400ex said:
Did you even read what I wrote? Reading is tuff for you and Mike today.RaceBannon said:
Revenue is up liar2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Has the federal government collect more dollars or not?
Facts are hard fur you. -
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit. -
It is not the government’s inherent right or purpose to increase taxes at the rate of economic growth.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
-
That's a completely different discussion than the one we are having. In the context of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Revenues have to increase at least as fast as, or faster than, the economy. Look at the 90s for instance. It's not a coincidence than there was a tax increase, spending cuts, and great growth that led to a balanced budget.PurpleThrobber said:
It is not the government’s inherent right or purpose to increase taxes at the rate of economic growth.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit. -
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue. -
And a pretty sweet bubble that popped at the end.2001400ex said:
That's a completely different discussion than the one we are having. In the context of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Revenues have to increase at least as fast as, or faster than, the economy. Look at the 90s for instance. It's not a coincidence than there was a tax increase, spending cuts, and great growth that led to a balanced budget.PurpleThrobber said:
It is not the government’s inherent right or purpose to increase taxes at the rate of economic growth.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit. -
No. No they don’t. Govt Revenue does NOT have to keep pace with ‘the economy’2001400ex said:
That's a completely different discussion than the one we are having. In the context of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Revenues have to increase at least as fast as, or faster than, the economy. Look at the 90s for instance. It's not a coincidence than there was a tax increase, spending cuts, and great growth that led to a balanced budget.PurpleThrobber said:
It is not the government’s inherent right or purpose to increase taxes at the rate of economic growth.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
Revenues need to outpace expenditures (at a base level, BARELY outpace expenditures. There is no mandate or requirement that expenditures need to keep pace with GDP or any other measure of economic growth. Yours is an absolute fallacy which is probably the primary reason the deficits keep growing - it’s almost the very basis of year over year budgeting with no recognition of actual expenditures. Government agencies feel they are being good stewards by ‘only’ spending a wee bit more than last year percentage-wise or keeping pace with GDP or inflation.
It’s total bullshit. No corporate restructuring or reorganization would ever take that approach. They’d look at actual spending. Real dollars. Not pegging a percentage on some index. That’s just fucked up finance.
-
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House. -
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House. -
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House. -
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.2001400ex said:
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.2001400ex said:
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.PurpleThrobber said:Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
