Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
The Debate
Topic Started: Sep 25 2016, 02:00 PM (2,891 Views)
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Axtremus
Sep 27 2016, 01:51 PM
Luke's Dad
Sep 27 2016, 12:43 PM
But...But...Wealth inequality!
No "but" about it. Wealth and/or income inequality is indeed the counter argument to the sort of stuff that George quoted from Forbes. The rich still pays proportionally less tax if their tax liability goes up proportionally less than their wealth and/or income.

Consider this very simple example to illustrate the point:

At year 2000, suppose Mr. Rich owned 25% of the nation's wealth and paid 10% of the nation's taxes.

Fast forward to year 2015, suppose Mr. Rich owned 50% of the nation's wealth and paid 15% of the nation's taxes.

If you only look at the tax portion going from 10% to 15% (as a percentage of total taxes in the nation), it may look like Mr. Rich has paid 50% more taxes. But if you also see that Mr. Rich's assets have grown from 25% to 50% (as a percentage of total wealth in the nation), that's 100% growth in his share of the nation's wealth. Comparing a 100% growth in his share of the nation's wealth to only a 50% growth in his share of the nation's taxes, I think most English speakers will agree that Mr. Rich has enjoyed a "tax cut" as a manner of speaking.
One basic underlying flaw in your argument. You are looking at Mr. Rich as taking a percentage of the nation's wealth instead of generating wealth. Oh, and it's not us taking a percentage off the nation's wealth, it's the nation taking a percentage of our personal wealth.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

Quote:
 
Lester Holt spins debate for Hillary six huge ways, plays 'Gotcha' with Trump

Journalists got their wish. Presidential debate moderator Lester Holt hoisted Hillary Clinton’s campaign high in the air like Atlas. Holt repeatedly called out Trump, as both the Clinton campaign and the liberal media had begged him to do.

Holt reminded viewers he’s liberal – from pushing the birther issue to harassing Trump about his tax returns to a wildly biased question about Clinton as “the first woman nominated by a party” not having “the look.” Clinton skated by with a 15-second response on her emails while Trump was asked repeated follow-up questions while Hillary was not. There was no “deplorables” question and Holt promoted the birther meme without noting its origin in the Clinton camp.

Clinton discussed fact-checking three times, even imploring her media friends: “Well, I hope the fact checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard.” Holt sure was. He dragged the debate to the left in six major ways:

1. Jobs: Holt pressed Trump with two questions on how he was going to add jobs even though the first answer discussed renegotiating trade deals.

2. Taxes: He portrayed the tax plans from the left – Clinton wanting to tax the rich and Trump “calling for tax cuts for the wealthy,” forcing Trump to correct him.

3. Tax Returns: Trump got hit hard with tax return questions for “business conflicts” while Hillary got a slide on emails, her hidden speeches and Clinton Foundation business conflicts.

4. Birthers: Holt asked a “birther” question that lasted longer than Clinton’s email answer. He then added three separate follow-ups to jam up Trump.

5. Iraq: He hammered Trump for supporting the Iraq War, downplaying how Hillary had voted to do the same.

6. Hillary’s Gaffe: When asked about biased policing, Clinton said, “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.” Holt ignored it, rather than challenge the idea everyone is bigoted.

The New York Times said Holt “Opted for Restraint,” and called him a “minimalist moderator.” The paper liked some of Holt’s approach, given the “news media tempest over how aggressively a moderator should fact check candidates.” Still, the Times called it “a split decision” for Holt.

USA Today summed it up with the magic words: “Holt fact-checked Trump.” Right-leaning HeatStreet called Holt the “third debater.” Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell III (Hint: My boss), said, “Holt failed in his role as a moderator. Period.”

The news media have been shouting “fact check” in desperate cries for relevance. More than a dozen outlets fact-checked the debate as a result. CNN "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter, also formerly of the Times, focused on the fact-check strategy to target Trump during his Sunday show. “Does a unique candidate like Donald Trump require a different kind of moderating?” he asked a guest before being told, “No, no absolutely not,” by long-time debate moderator Jim Lehrer.

Bloomberg TV, owned by left-wing media baron Michael Bloomberg, ran on-screen fact checks for its tiny audience. The Times “assembled a team of 18 fact-checkers,” generating a 2,400-word fact-check. The paper even had a correspondent “watching for gender moments.”

The paper pushed hard for fact-checking while it pushed hard for Clinton. Its official endorsement dropped one day before the debate – as certain as death and taxes. It’s opinion page Twitter account oozed pro-Hillary headlines during the debate, such as: “What a fantastic moment, to see Donald Trump self-destruct.”

Left-wing Fusion was worse, calling out Trump for “MANTERRUPTING HILLARY CLINTON.” And The New Yorker complained Holt didn’t attack Trump enough: “CNN LAUNCHES MANHUNT AFTER LESTER HOLT VANISHES FROM DEBATE.”

Journalists have demanded their industry give up neutrality throughout the campaign. It’s a laughable conceit for anyone who recalls Candy Crowley’s 2012 bias or the 2016 CNBC GOP primary debate. Univision anchor Jorge Ramos turned from journalist to crusader with barely any professional criticism. Reporters might as well wear blue jerseys with “I’m With Her” on the back.

Back in August, Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg argued the paper had to sacrifice its alleged neutrality. If you think “Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies,” then “you have to throw out the textbook American journalism,” he wrote.

By Monday, that had escalated into an industry-wide demand for debate moderators to attack Trump misstatements. As Rutenberg explained, that would “require the debate moderators to interject with the truth.”

Journalists have skewered anyone soft on Trump. NBC' the "Today" show’s Matt Lauer faced a “Storm of Criticism Over Clinton-Trump Forum” because he didn’t play the fact-check game. Even "Tonight Show" host Jimmy Fallon was bashed for mussing Trump’s hair instead of smacking him upside the head.


The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
He has a job to do.

Leave Lester alone (even if he is a registered Republican).
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Luke's Dad
Sep 27 2016, 02:37 PM
Axtremus
Sep 27 2016, 01:51 PM
Luke's Dad
Sep 27 2016, 12:43 PM
But...But...Wealth inequality!
No "but" about it. Wealth and/or income inequality is indeed the counter argument to the sort of stuff that George quoted from Forbes. The rich still pays proportionally less tax if their tax liability goes up proportionally less than their wealth and/or income.

Consider this very simple example to illustrate the point:

At year 2000, suppose Mr. Rich owned 25% of the nation's wealth and paid 10% of the nation's taxes.

Fast forward to year 2015, suppose Mr. Rich owned 50% of the nation's wealth and paid 15% of the nation's taxes.

If you only look at the tax portion going from 10% to 15% (as a percentage of total taxes in the nation), it may look like Mr. Rich has paid 50% more taxes. But if you also see that Mr. Rich's assets have grown from 25% to 50% (as a percentage of total wealth in the nation), that's 100% growth in his share of the nation's wealth. Comparing a 100% growth in his share of the nation's wealth to only a 50% growth in his share of the nation's taxes, I think most English speakers will agree that Mr. Rich has enjoyed a "tax cut" as a manner of speaking.
One basic underlying flaw in your argument. You are looking at Mr. Rich as taking a percentage of the nation's wealth instead of generating wealth. Oh, and it's not us taking a percentage off the nation's wealth, it's the nation taking a percentage of our personal wealth.
Not at all. I used the word "grown."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Sep 27 2016, 02:14 PM
Axtremus
Sep 27 2016, 02:09 PM
BTW, if that's the worst the fact-checkers can do with everything that Hillary Clinton has said in the debate, then she was being very much truthful throughout that debate. :)
Wanna address your comment?
Quote:
 
Absolute numbers are even worse. Inflation itself can easily make the absolute number bigger without the rich paying a proportionally bigger fraction of the nation's taxes.
It's pretty easy to understand, no?
With no real growth, a 10% of $1000 total tax is $100 as an absolute number.
Factor in 10% inflation, the $1100 becomes $1100 post inflation, and 10% of that becomes $110 as an absolute number.
$110 as an absolute number is greater than $100 as an absolute number.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
No.

Because, the percentage of total taxes paid is greater for the numbers cited. The top 0.1% and 1% paid more of the total tax burden than the lower 99% during that time period.

You're conflating absolute tax paid with the percentage. Which do you wish to discuss? Did the top 1% pay more of the total over the 4 years 2003-2007? Yes, they did. Their share went up about 20%.

Did they pay more in absolute dollars? Yes, again. By about 40%.

You can inflation adjust if you wish, but the percentages won't change.

Pick a baseline, and we can discuss. Show your work.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I'm a little puzzled by Trump's after-debate behavior. He's come out saying next time he's going to hit Clinton harder, and be nastier etc.

If that's the plan, why give it away ahead of time? Or is he perhaps sending a message to his team that he thinks they messed up with their approach?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
John D'Oh
Sep 27 2016, 05:01 PM
If that's the plan, why give it away ahead of time?
He's following the Obama strategery for Iraq and Afghanistan.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Already explained the reasoning in post #119.

If you ask me to pick a baseline, then consistent with post #119, I would pick this:

Fraction of taxes paid (relative to that paid by the entire population) proportionally adjusted to fraction of wealth owned (relative to total wealth of the entire population).

Define:
T(X) as fraction of taxes paid by "the rich" relative to the taxes paid by the entire population in year X.
W(X) as fraction of wealth owned by "the rich" relative to the wealth owned by the entire population in year X.

Then for any given time period between year X1 and year X2 where X2 > X1, "the rich" is said to have paid "lower taxes" if the following is true:

T(X1)/W(X1) > T(X2)/W(X2)

The rest is just about finding the data to plug into T(X) and W(X).

(If you’re wondering what happened to "absolute number" or "inflation," the formulation above deals with proportions, so no worry about "absolute number" or "inflation." If you go back and look, post #119 also does not say anything about "absolute number" or "inflation.")

It’s hard to find good data source for wealth distribution over the years, so for expedience, the remainder of this post will use income as a proxy for wealth instead.

Define:
W’(X) as the fraction of income received by "the rich" relative the total income received by the entire population in year X

Using data from http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data and defining "the rich" as the "top 1%," we have the following:

T(2003) = $251B/$746B = 33.64%
T(2007) = $443B/$1112B = 39.84%
W’(2003) = $1030B/$6150B = 16.75%
W’(2007) = $1971B/$8622B = 22.86%

T(2003)/W’(2003) = 33.64%/16.75% = 2.001
T(2007)/W’(2007) = 39.84%/22.86% = 1.743

Since T(2003)/W’(2003) > T(2007)/W’(2007) , "the rich" is therefore said to have paid "lower taxes" going from year 2003 to 2007.

Would love to see how the number turns out for more recent years, but haven’t find data set that I can conveniently use to plug into the model above. If you come across such data sets, let me know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Axtremus
Sep 27 2016, 05:17 PM
If you go back and look, post #119 also does not say anything about "absolute number" or "inflation."
But the rabbit hole you led to is in post #122.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Sep 27 2016, 05:35 PM
Axtremus
Sep 27 2016, 05:17 PM
If you go back and look, post #119 also does not say anything about "absolute number" or "inflation."
But the rabbit hole you led to is in post #122.
You brought up "absolute number." Post #122 tells you that it's a bad idea to go with "absolute numbers."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
And you brought up inflation.

And the "absolute dollar amount" was brough up in the article I quoted (post #115).

But, all that aside, is it your thesis that the top 1% paid less in taxes (as a proportion of total taxes paid) in 2007 than 2003?

Pick a standard - actual dollars, inflation-adjusted dollars, or percent of all taxes paid.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Regardless of Ax's favorite rabbit hole, what I do know with utter certainty is this: Money is like water. Meeting too much resistance, it will simply flow to another place of lesser resistance, possibly leaving dryness in its wake.

The perfect example is how the Feds killed the yacht building business in the U.S. The 10% luxury tax, on top of everything else, cost 100,000 jobs that never came back. But it put a lot of money into foreign boat builder's pockets.

So go ahead, Hill, tax the Hell out of the rich.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
Sep 28 2016, 04:45 AM
Regardless of Ax's favorite rabbit hole, what I do know with utter certainty is this: Money is like water.
To be honest, the concept of trickle-down economics always makes me think of a different fluid than water.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Actually, "trickle down economics" not only works, it's the very reason there's any middle class at all.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Jolly
Sep 28 2016, 04:45 AM
So go ahead, Hill, tax the Hell out of the rich.
Have you even looked at her tax plan or are you just reading silly stuff?

She does not plan on taxing the Hell out of "the rich"; For the vast, vast majority of the rich in America, their taxes will not change. Taxes will go up for the ridiculously rich, that's true, but aren't you all worried about the deficit?
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I'm worried about the deficit. But taxing the top 1% isn't going to do anything to help with the deficit - in fact, if you took 100% of the top 1%'s assets away from them and left them homeless with absolutely nothing, it wouldn't help reduce the deficit at all. In fact, if you took 100% of all the money over 1 million a year from everyone, and made 1 million dollars the absolute most anyone could keep for themselves, it wouldn't pay a third of the deficit created this year alone.

It isn't about taxing - it's about spending. Money earned belongs to those who earned it, not the government. It makes some people feel good to think "Yeah, let's take all the money away from those rich people", but the truth is, it does more harm than good.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Larry
Sep 28 2016, 05:00 AM
Actually, "trickle down economics" not only works, it's the very reason there's any middle class at all.
The class system's always been there in one form or another. In the good old days some people used to be wealthy land-owners. Some people were well educated, and some people were manual labourers and servants. The people who did all the actual work were the middle class and lower classes. The wealthy land-owners got their positions due to accidents of birth and mostly sat around telling everybody else what to do and drinking expensive port and so on.

The one thing that has united all the classes since time immemorial is the need for a good healthy bowel movement.

Without the middle and working classes, the aristocrats would have had to clean up their own sh!t, which was clearly out of the question. Hence - trickle-down.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Sep 27 2016, 05:54 PM
Pick a standard - ...
Already did in post #134. You just don't like the standard I picked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Post 134 is an example of what's called "mental masturbation". Or like asking someone who has been blind from birth describe the color blue. You probably got an erection from typing all those math formulas, but other than that, it was pretty much worthless.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Larry
Sep 28 2016, 05:20 AM
I'm worried about the deficit. But taxing the top 1% isn't going to do anything to help with the deficit - in fact, if you took 100% of the top 1%'s assets away from them and left them homeless with absolutely nothing, it wouldn't help reduce the deficit at all. In fact, if you took 100% of all the money over 1 million a year from everyone, and made 1 million dollars the absolute most anyone could keep for themselves, it wouldn't pay a third of the deficit created this year alone.
It's not even that. She's not even proposing to tax the top 1%. More like the top 0.5%. (Again, I'm not voting for Clinton, but we might as well get her plan straight.)

Quote:
 
It isn't about taxing - it's about spending. Money earned belongs to those who earned it, not the government. It makes some people feel good to think "Yeah, let's take all the money away from those rich people", but the truth is, it does more harm than good.


Way I see it, the rich won't go poor or middle-class from the taxes. They'll still stay ridiculously rich, especially because of so many tax shelters and other loopholes. They're not at all at risk of anything, because we're not talking about people who have a lot of money, like Jolly's yachting industry example. Those people will have the same tax rates. We're talking about the top 0.5%.

I have no problem raking in more taxes from those people. They can more than afford it and still remain filthy-wealthy. I start asking questions when it comes time to spend the money.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
And I am fine with raising taxes AFTER the required spending cuts are made. Until that time we are just throwing good money after bad.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I see zero chance of any genuine spending reduction from either candidate.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
this is absolutely post #149

absolutely
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Michael Moore Declares That Donald Trump 'Won' The Debate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-moore-trump-won-debate_us_57ebc7c5e4b024a52d2ba5e2
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6