Former President Trump Thread

[strawman]

"Percent change in after tax income" --> tip the scale towards the rich and then complain that the rich are getting bigger cuts.

So a person making $25k gets a 3% cut in their bracket, from 15% to 12%
$50k --> 3%, from 25% to 22%
$100k --> 3%, from 28% to 24%
$250k --> 2% INCREASE, from 33% to 35%
$500k --> 4.6%, from 39.6% to 35%
$501k and up --> 2.6%, from 39.6% to 37%
(data from https://www.fool.com/taxes/2017/12/19/heres-what-the-2018-tax-brackets-will-be-if-the-go.aspx )

There is an area within what most would call "wealthy" that the tax cuts are larger than the 3% most people get, but there's also an area where taxes go up quite a bit. Both of these are due to the new bracket ranges (which have to change from time to time anyway due to inflation).

So yes, keep on complaining about the tax cuts because the "percentage change in after tax income" makes the rich look richer even though their tax cuts aren't substantially different than anyone elses, and they're still paying a lot more taxes than the other brackets.

If you're going to go ahead and use change in after tax income as a measuring stick, you should turn around and use that in all comparisons, and stop using percentages altogether.

If you're making $50k, then your taxes next year are 22%, or $11,000.
If you're making $500k, then next year your taxes are 37%, or $175,000.

But hey, the rich aren't pulling their load even though their taxes are 15% higher, or in other words a 10x increase in income results in a 16x increase in taxes.

You're getting a tax cut. Full stop. It doesn't accomplish what you want, which may include many things but seems mostly to include radical income redistribution, above and beyond what the tax system already does in terms of income redistribution.

 

[blotsfan]

You're getting a tax cut. Full stop.

But im not. Not even in year 1.

 

[PatrThom]

But I'm not using misleading data visualization.

My intent was to show that this means richer people get to keep more absolute dollars than poor people. That's the root of the actual problem, in my opinion. When designing a plan that purports to have a purpose of helping people who don't have enough, one should take steps to ensure that the changes being made actually bring sufficient benefit that it brings them closer to having enough while simultaneously not negatively impacting those who do have enough to the point where they suddenly won't have enough. It should not be designed in such a way that people who already have enough, or especially those who have way more than enough also end up receiving a corresponding increase to their benefit or, as is demonstrated by the figures I posted, a disproportionately large increase to their benefit.

In reality, the "misleading data" is in the wording of the act itself, which describes the cuts in language that obfuscates the magnitude of the benefit to the rich. I mean, you're more likely to say yes if your boss says to you, "How about everyone gets a 4% raise this year" than "How about if I give you a $50/wk raise but I give myself a $200/wk raise" even if both sentences technically say exactly the same thing. The rich do not need this benefit, so it should not benefit them more than the people it ostensibly was created to help. And yet it does.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

But im not. Not even in year 1.

I'm not either*. Yay us.

*Child tax credit already eliminates my federal income taxes. It's not a savings, though, since I spend far more than that per child throughout the year!

 

[blotsfan]

I'm not either*. Yay us.

*Child tax credit already eliminates my federal income taxes. It's not a savings, though, since I spend far more than that per child throughout the year!

My hunch is that people like you are more of an outlier than people like me.

 

[strawman]

The rich do not need this benefit

Rather than assuming what your goal is, then, can you tell me:

What are your proposed tax brackets?

 

[blotsfan]

Rather than assuming what your goal is, then, can you tell me:

What are your proposed tax brackets?

If they make more than 1 million per year, then lop off the top 25% of their body

 

[strawman]

My hunch is that people like you are more of an outlier than people like me.

1.27% of households have 7 or more persons. What percentage is your group?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/242189/disitribution-of-households-in-the-us-by-household-size/[DOUBLEPOST=1513797049,1513796951][/DOUBLEPOST]

If they make more than 1 million per year, then lop off the top 25% of their body

California is not going to vote for your proposal.

http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article2584745.html[DOUBLEPOST=1513797085][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, that's more than a pound of flesh.[DOUBLEPOST=1513797142][/DOUBLEPOST]But soylent is based in California, so I'm sure it'll all work out in the end.

 

[PatrThom]

If they make more than 1 million per year, then lop off the top 25% of their body

Seems ... harsh.

--Patrick

 

[Eriol]

But I'm not using misleading data visualization.

My intent was to show that this means richer people get to keep more absolute dollars than poor people. That's the root of the actual problem, in my opinion. When designing a plan that purports to have a purpose of helping people who don't have enough, one should take steps to ensure that the changes being made actually bring sufficient benefit that it brings them closer to having enough while simultaneously not negatively impacting those who do have enough to the point where they suddenly won't have enough. It should not be designed in such a way that people who already have enough, or especially those who have way more than enough also end up receiving a corresponding increase to their benefit or, as is demonstrated by the figures I posted, a disproportionately large increase to their benefit.

In reality, the "misleading data" is in the wording of the act itself, which describes the cuts in language that obfuscates the magnitude of the benefit to the rich. I mean, you're more likely to say yes if your boss says to you, "How about everyone gets a 4% raise this year" than "How about if I give you a $50/wk raise but I give myself a $200/wk raise" even if both sentences technically say exactly the same thing. The rich do not need this benefit, so it should not benefit them more than the people it ostensibly was created to help. And yet it does.

--Patrick

Patrick, I'm reading this as "as long as someone who is 'rich' is 'comfortable' they should get no tax breaks ever until everybody less wealthy than them has 'needs' the government 'needs' that money for more than the 'rich' person." That seems rather extreme.

 

[GasBandit]

I'd just like to put forth my "every year you execute the single richest person" plan again. Prime those charitable giving pumps!

 

[DarkAudit]

Patrick, I'm reading this as "as long as someone who is 'rich' is 'comfortable' they should get no tax breaks ever until everybody less wealthy than them has 'needs' the government 'needs' that money for more than the 'rich' person." That seems rather extreme.

The government "needs" the money for infrastructure repair more than any rich idiot "needs" another gold plated toilet or Rolls Royce.

And for extra Appeal to Emotion, this week was the 50th anniversary of the Silver Bridge collapse.

 

[Krisken]

It’s really, really hard for me to feel sorry for the ultra wealthy. That is an interesting tactic you are employing.

 

[PatrThom]

Rather than assuming what your goal is, then, can you tell me:
What are your proposed tax brackets?

My aim was more one of stating, "When making policy decisions that are supposed to help the poor and middle-class, make sure they help the poor and middle-class to a greater degree than they help the rich."
I had nothing specific nor even general regarding tax brackets in mind, though I suppose if pressed, my recommendation would be unpopular with the rich, though perhaps not as unpopular as it was in the 50's.

Patrick, I'm reading this as "as long as someone who is 'rich' is 'comfortable' they should get no tax breaks ever until everybody less wealthy than them has 'needs' the government 'needs' that money for more than the 'rich' person." That seems rather extreme.

You are reading too much into what I am saying.
Rich people are not prohibited from having tax breaks. I can think of plenty of examples I would be happy with.
However, if a tax break/program/credit/whatever is called "The Help The Poor Act of 2017," then it had damn well better ultimately help the poor to a greater degree than it helps the rich. Otherwise it's just bribing the poor to enact graft, and people who are poor enough will of course say yes to anything, so long as it has some/any benefit to them at all, even if they know it will unfairly benefit other people more.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

The government "needs" the money for infrastructure repair more than any rich idiot "needs" another gold plated toilet or Rolls Royce.

If it actually went to infrastructure repair, that might sway me a little more.

 

[strawman]

ultra wealthy

Ultra wealthy - A new player has entered the ring!

I suspect we're all going to go around and around in circles because we all have different ideas about wealth.

Suggest some tax brackets, people![DOUBLEPOST=1513798913,1513798754][/DOUBLEPOST]

My aim was more one of stating, "When making policy decisions that are supposed to help the poor and middle-class, make sure they help the poor and middle-class to a greater degree than they help the rich."

Ah, see I don't think that's the purpose of these cuts. I think these cuts are being made because that what' the republicans want (smaller government, lower taxes) and this is one lever they can pull towards that end.

They may be selling it by saying, like Oprah, You get a cut! You get a cut! Everyone gets a cut!

But I think you already know that helping the poor and middle class isn't their goal with these cuts.

 

[HCGLNS]

Has there been any attempt to explain why such an important bill is moving so quickly?

(I mean actual attempts, not simplistic ones)

 

[PatrThom]

I suspect we're all going to go around and around in circles because we all have different ideas about wealth.

...as well as what constitutes "enough." It's a target that keeps moving with time and location, and so without using dates and isobars, it's too slippery to define, and even if we did, people would just move!

But I think you already know that helping the poor and middle class isn't their goal with these cuts.

I only wish more of the poor and middle-class recognized it, too.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

Has there been any attempt to explain why such an important bill is moving so quickly?

(I mean actual attempts, not simplistic ones)

For two reasons -
1) The bill has been tied to continued government funding (we haven't actually had an annual budget in... I can't remember how long. 10 years?), so if it isn't passed or some other accommodation made, the federal government goes into another shutdown.
2) The republicans fear they are on the cusp of losing their majority. So, while they are still driving the bus, they're trying to fast-track their agenda.

 

[PatrThom]

2) The republicans fear they are on the cusp of losing their majority. So, while they are still driving the bus, they're trying to fast-track their agenda.

Especially since, what with recent news stories and all, the GOP as we know them now may never again wield the sort of influence they currently possess.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

Same reasons the ACA was rushed, though gas missed one- so it wouldn’t have time to be heavily scrutinized before passage.

 

[Dei]

Same reasons the ACA was rushed, though gas missed one- so it wouldn’t have time to be heavily scrutinized before passage.

Compared to this bill, the ACA was slow. The Senate version was especially egregious.

I mean, they already had to revote on the completed version because they didn't take the time to make sure the whole thing was kosher.

 

[PatrThom]

I'd just like to put forth my "every year you execute the single richest person" plan again. Prime those charitable giving pumps!

How about instead if the richest person was only allowed to save as much of their income every year as poor folks can? Just tie the two together. "I know you made 16 million dollars last year, but because the average increase in savings of the lowest quintile was only $86, you're going to have to give up the remaining $15,999,914."
That way they're still alive to "kill" again the following year.

--Patrick

 

[Dave]

Same reasons the ACA was rushed, though gas missed one- so it wouldn’t have time to be heavily scrutinized before passage.

Wrong.

https://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/

Almost a year: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/index.html

 

[Eriol]

How about instead if the richest person was only allowed to save as much of their income every year as poor folks can? Just tie the two together. "I know you made 16 million dollars last year, but because the average increase in savings of the lowest quintile was only $86, you're going to have to give up the remaining $15,999,914."
That way they're still alive to "kill" again the following year.

This whole thing of "they don't need it, tax it out of them" is premised on the idea that "The Government" will spend the money responsibly.


Think about that for a minute.



Also, why does the government have a right to a greater percentage of my income than yours? Because somebody else needs it more than me? Do I deserve my money LESS because I earned more to begin with? And what if I say the government using it irresponsibly (or worse yet, immorally)? If I donated to a charity I can choose a different one. When this "forced charity" is taken from me, my "say" in where it goes is minuscule, and many causes I may oppose. Some government is needed, but if you look at ANY social problem and think "why isn't the government doing a better job helping those people?" then you're (probably) already too far gone, as you've already predicated that the correct solution is "government" to virtually any problem.

 

[Krisken]

Wait, I have to argue about what counts as ultra wealthy? Are we REALLY there now?

 

[blotsfan]

Do I deserve my money LESS because I earned more to begin with?

Cutting the estate tax by its very definition is cutting taxes on people that didn't earn the money.

 

[GasBandit]

Same reasons the ACA was rushed, though gas missed one- so it wouldn’t have time to be heavily scrutinized before passage.

Also true.

 

[Dave]

Also true.

Also wrong for the same reasons I posted above. The ACA was not rushed through and took nearly a year from introduction to passage.

 

[Gruebeard]

Also, why does the government have a right to a greater percentage of my income than yours?

I'm really hoping that the government with a right to a portion of @PatrThom's income never has a right to any of yours.

 

[GasBandit]

How about instead if the richest person was only allowed to save as much of their income every year as poor folks can? Just tie the two together. "I know you made 16 million dollars last year, but because the average increase in savings of the lowest quintile was only $86, you're going to have to give up the remaining $15,999,914."
That way they're still alive to "kill" again the following year.

--Patrick

No, there needs to be actual death.

 

[Krisken]

@Dave , you are invisible

 

[MindDetective]

I greatly dislike the word "deserve". I mean as a rule, not just in the context of this conversation. It is such a passive descriptor but it implies a granting agent (usually oneself) that adjudicates deservingness. Why does owning of any material goods imply those goods were deserved in the first place? See, I don't even like the word in that rhetorical question. It is too damned slippery.

 

[Dave]

@Dave , you are invisible

I'm not, just my facts that refute their established views.

 

[GasBandit]

Also wrong for the same reasons I posted above. The ACA was not rushed through and took nearly a year from introduction to passage.

Except for that part where, you know, they made last minute changes christmas eve for the senate vote, a desperate scramble because their supermajority was in jeopardy. Just because it took a year from initial introduction to passage doesn't mean they gave time to re-read the 20,000 page bill's revisions before each vote was called.

"We need to pass it so you can learn what's in it." -Nancy Pelosi