Mathematical thought

[DrPizza]

20% reduction in tax rates for everyone.

That means, if you are taxed at 10%, it's reduced to 8%. If you're taxed at 15%, it's reduced to 12%. If you're taxed at 20%, it's reduced to 16%. If taxed at 25%, it's reduced to 20%. And, if you pay 30%, it would decrease by 6% to 24%.

"Everyone gets their rate cut by 20%" is a clever way of saying, "we're giving a much bigger cut to higher income people."


Or, have I interpreted what was said incorrectly?

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I believe the obvious riposte would be "It's a much bigger cut to higher income people merely because they were paying more in the first place."

 

[DrPizza]

I believe the obvious riposte would be "It's a much bigger cut to higher income people merely because they were paying more in the first place."

If everyone got the same cut - the rate decreased by 2% for everyone, it would be a much bigger cut for the wealthy than for the middle class. This language masks that it's an even bigger cut, while attempting to make it appear that the rates are cut equally.

 

[MovingTarget]

If everyone got the same cut - the rate decreased by 2% for everyone, it would be a much bigger cut for the wealthy than for the middle class. This language masks that it's an even bigger cut, while attempting to make it appear that the rates are cut equally.

I seem to recall a certain media byte where a tax cut for the rich was compared to a new Mercedes and those for the middle class was compared to the muffler that went on said new Mercedes. That was quite some time ago, but the same math still holds. Math, much like facts, no longer seems to matter in modern political discourse.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If everyone got the same cut - the rate decreased by 2% for everyone, it would be a much bigger cut for the wealthy than for the middle class. This language masks that it's an even bigger cut, while attempting to make it appear that the rates are cut equally.

But for the poor every dollar counts a lot more, so if you look at it that way they're getting ahead on the deal.

 

[Matthiasa]

You missed the part where the actual wealthy primarily pay capital gains

 

[Engineer]

But for the poor every dollar counts a lot more, so if you look at it that way they're getting ahead on the deal.

The poor pay no federal tax (part of that whole 47% thing) so they get nothing.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The poor pay no federal tax (part of that whole 47% thing) so they get nothing.

Where does the 48th percentile begin? Doesn't change my point.

 

[Engineer]

Where does the 48th percentile begin? Doesn't change my point.

Above the "poor" line. A family of 4 (man, wife and 2 kids) will not pay FEDERAL income tax all the way up to $48,000+.

Your point does stand that people in the lower classes and lower middle class will be better off with the money than those at the top. Makes a case for tax cuts for those at the bottom with none at the top, eh?

 

[Northern Lawn]

20% reduction in tax rates for everyone.

That means, if you are taxed at 10%, it's reduced to 8%. If you're taxed at 15%, it's reduced to 12%. If you're taxed at 20%, it's reduced to 16%. If taxed at 25%, it's reduced to 20%. And, if you pay 30%, it would decrease by 6% to 24%.

"Everyone gets their rate cut by 20%" is a clever way of saying, "we're giving a much bigger cut to higher income people."


Or, have I interpreted what was said incorrectly?

That's very tricky, is that Romney?

 

[NoStateofMind]

That's very tricky, is that Romney?

Thats a politician.

 

[jagec]

It's a shame that Romney backpedaled so hard on his proposed cap on itemized deductions. That's a pretty blatant giveaway to the rich that the middle class seems to think is all for them.

 

[cybrsage]

Yep, that is how math works. It works the same way for tax increases. If Obama raises taxes by 2%, the wealthy pay far more than everyone else.

 

[jagec]

Yep, that is how math works. It works the same way for tax increases. If Obama raises taxes by 2%, the wealthy pay far more than everyone else.

Talking about percentages of percentages magnifies the effect, as you well know.

It reminds me of the old quote:
In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection.

 

[cybrsage]

Talking about percentages of percentages magnifies the effect, as you well know.

It reminds me of the old quote:
In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection.

Yep, understand. Just saying it works for both the tax cuts and the tax increases. It is always why it takes money to make money.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

the giants just made it to a second world series in three years. you guys missed it

 

[Anarchist420]

I don't see how it's such a hard concept for so many to understand and the OP should read the whole post that is about to follow...

Reagan raised taxes on all but the wealthiest and even then their cut their was very meager considering all the tariffs and excise taxes they had to pay plus the fact that their payroll taxes reduced their income and increased their expenses. Reagan also taxed the poor to spend on the rich and on inefficient govt bureaucrats... he was a Hamiltonian Conservative to the core, at least after his VP had him shot.

As for the CG taxes, they probably only keep the wealthy ahead. Enough people need to realize that the deficit is an illusion and that there is no such as fair taxation... that's why we need more exemptions and deductions and even credits as long as they don't give people more than they would've had with no taxes.

If the govt tries to take everything after $100k, they won't get it. If the govt tries to take 100% of the first $5K, then they won't get it. Why do people even try to analyze the math behind it? Trying to analyze everything mathematically doesn't work... it only half works. It's just like trying to apply biology to everything... it won't work because it only half works. It's just like trying to use a calculator. Calculators can't be brighter than humanity because they were created by the brightest men and meant for any man.

All of that said, I think that too many people are worried about the deficit (which causes people to want to be taxed how they want to) and not the real issue which is the govt spending money that it doesn't have of right.

Dr. Paul's Restore America Plan was the best thing the little people had going for them, but a bunch of poor but very pro-business Republican voters wouldn't support the man with the good plan. I bet 2/3 of more of the big fat Republican business owners out there suck because they don't know how to work around the govt... liberal firm directors are a lot better than Republicans but liberals both classical and modern are in the minority unfortunately although many conservatives are progressives and vice versa and Republicans are Keynesians are from hell... they care about "growth", about deficits, about country over individual happiness, and about unemployment but not what matters. As for myself... I don't work against the govt that well, so I know to know my role which is to never in my life be a leader and to never in my life be a blind follower.

Also, Gingrich's "reformist" FlatTax plan sucked @$$, but it makes me angry how it was ridiculed for what it probably wouldn't have done (that is, "blowing holes through the deficit").

Why do people reject half or more of what the Austrians say? Why do so many people think Milton Friedman knew what he was doing? He endorsed competing currencies when he was like 90 or 92 years old (probably because he felt so bullied about it) but then he probably didn't even realize they wouldn't last in a republican national state... if you'll remember, Jefferson tried them (when he repealed the statist silver standard act to put the breaks on FBUS) and then Madison started a war and started another banking and monetary cartel less than 10 years later. Madison was quite possibly the dumbest, most aristocratic President ever and what he did to Jefferson was evil and sick... Jefferson was so sweet that he even named at least two of his kids after that asshole FFS.

 

[dank69]

I mentioned this here. Would you expect anything less from Republicans? He is telling everyone to their faces that he is going to give bigger tax cuts to the rich while saying he isn't going to give bigger tax cuts to the rich. You have to be a retard (full cybrsage retard, not just borderline retard) to vote for Republicans at this point if you don't make >$250k/yr. And if you do make >$250k/yr and still want more tax cuts while railing against Obama for the deficit then you are also a retard.

 

[Smoblikat]

If everyone got the same cut - the rate decreased by 2% for everyone, it would be a much bigger cut for the wealthy than for the middle class. This language masks that it's an even bigger cut, while attempting to make it appear that the rates are cut equally.

Wait............what? Isnt it assumed that rich pay a lower percentage? Thereforee theyre post cut rate will be closer to their original rate than the middle class who pays higher rates that get cut further. I dont understand what youre talking about.

 

[Smoblikat]

Where does the 48th percentile begin? Doesn't change my point.

Where does the 99th percentile begin?

 

[Perknose]

20% reduction in tax rates for everyone.

That means, if you are taxed at 10%, it's reduced to 8%. If you're taxed at 15%, it's reduced to 12%. If you're taxed at 20%, it's reduced to 16%. If taxed at 25%, it's reduced to 20%. And, if you pay 30%, it would decrease by 6% to 24%.

"Everyone gets their rate cut by 20%" is a clever way of saying, "we're giving a much bigger cut to higher income people."


Or, have I interpreted what was said incorrectly?

Nope, this is a long-standing inequality, as seen in tax-exempt bonds. Taking advantage of them disproportionately rewards those in higher income brackets.

 

[cybrsage]

Where does the 99th percentile begin?

Somewhere around $320,000 a year, if I remember correctly.

 

[Smoblikat]

Somewhere around $320,000 a year, if I remember correctly.

So think that only 1% of America earns between 320,000 and several hundred billion? lol, liberals.

 

[cybrsage]

So think that only 1% of America earns between 320,000 and several hundred billion? lol, liberals.

I looked it up, it is $380,000. I was close.

WHAT THE TOP 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% MAKE IN AMERICA
Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048

http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

When the non-bathers cried about the 1%, they really meant the 0.01%...but the phrase "We are the 99.9%" does not make a good bumper sticker.

 

[bfdd]

This is how I feel whenever numbers are brought up like this, it happens when they talk about cutting spending too. They never actually cut spending, they just cut next years increase in spending.