Nice to see liberals acting like conseratives

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 9, 2009
10,759
2,086
136
Yeh, that explains Repubs' tax giveaway to the wealthiest how, exactly? Their attack on the healthcare system & soon to be Medicare, Medicaid & the rest of it? Tearing down the EPA, the State Dept, the FBI, DoJ & our intelligence agencies? Trump's attack on the common decency of DACA?

I could go on but it seems clear that you'll defend them at any cost by casting aspersions on the opposition.
One thing it's not a "tax giveaway to the wealthiest" to make the claim is a lie. Over 80% of the country will keep more of their money because of the tax cut. You know that though and you know you're lying about the rest, it's who you are. A sick, lying , stanky piece of shit.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,735
17,383
136
One thing it's not a "tax giveaway to the wealthiest" to make the claim is a lie. Over 80% of the country will keep more of their money because of the tax cut. You know that though and you know you're lying about the rest, it's who you are. A sick, lying , stanky piece of shit.

You are projecting again. Just look at your own weasel words. You used a meaningless statistic to ignore his point. His point wasn't that no one except rich people were getting tax cuts, his point was that a majority of the tax cuts are going to the rich and that's a fact. A fact that a piece of shit like you, who doesn't have the balls to address that point let alone even acknowledge it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bowfinger and pmv

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,258
9,327
136
One thing it's not a "tax giveaway to the wealthiest" to make the claim is a lie. Over 80% of the country will keep more of their money because of the tax cut. You know that though and you know you're lying about the rest, it's who you are. A sick, lying , stanky piece of shit.
By 2027, the middle class will be paying MORE in taxes than they are right now.

Meanwhile, the rich will be paying LESS.

You know that though and you know you're lying about the rest, it's who you are...or actually, you may not know that, because you're either willfully ignorant, or disavow learning about things you aren't capable of understanding.

Either way, keep on keepin' on, clown.

12-19-17tax-f2.png
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
You are projecting again. Just look at your own weasel words. You used a meaningless statistic to ignore his point. His point wasn't that no one except rich people were getting tax cuts, his point was that a majority of the tax cuts are going to the rich and that's a fact. A fact that a piece of shit like you, who doesn't have the balls to address that point let alone even acknowledge it.

Taj isn't sincere. About anything. He's a talking points repeater. He just doesn't have very good ones at the moment. He'll get more as soon as they're formulated.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,759
2,086
136
Huddled in a corner, rocking back and forth, muttering, "Hillary. Hillary. Hillary".
Sorry, but hopefully by that time Hillary will be dead and I promise not to say a bad thing about her in a RIP thread.

You cannot wish for the death of anyone here. It is a bright line we strictly enforce.

Perknose
Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
One thing it's not a "tax giveaway to the wealthiest" to make the claim is a lie. Over 80% of the country will keep more of their money because of the tax cut. You know that though and you know you're lying about the rest, it's who you are. A sick, lying , stanky piece of shit.

And yet 83% of the money goes to the top 1%. That’s a tax giveaway to the wealthiest by any reasonable description.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publ...nference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full

You’re a terribly dishonest person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
At least you've stopped lying about what the tax cut is about. So, thanks for that.

It’s pretty funny that the best he can muster for a $1.5 trillion tax cut bill is ‘look! It won’t RAISE my taxes!’
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
And yet 83% of the money goes to the top 1%. That’s a tax giveaway to the wealthiest by any reasonable description.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publ...nference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full

You’re a terribly dishonest person.

Such a deal we have for you! Borrow $1.5T from us, give us 83% of that as tax cuts so we can grow the economy & it'll all trickle back down to you! Honest!

Up next- putting the stink eye on social spending because deficits have to be controlled, of course. Growth will be so tremendous that you won't need 'em anyway, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z and pmv

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,043
136
He's right though, the "Hate America" crowd like yourself hates, literally hates, the fact that the United States is doing well politically and financially.


Hardly. There's part of me, the anti-American bit, or possibly the Joker in me, who likes the idea of capitalism in crisis, who slightly enjoys the spectacle of a weird nutcase taking the US in a disastrous direction.

But the rational part of me rises above that and realises that it means a lot of people suffering, and that the US has sometimes been, and can be again, a powerful force for good, and that a dominant China or Russia would not be an improvement, so it would be a disaster to see the US go down the tubes.

In any case, the point is the 'hate America' people are quite happy to see Trump at the wheel. Hard-line Marxists, if there are any left, will, at heart, even if they don't admit it, be seeing him as an exciting development.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,258
9,327
136
Bullshit. I've only told the truth, it's people like you that pretend it only helps Billionaires that lie about it.
This tax cut is directed at giving corporations and the wealthy the majority of tax cuts NOW. With crumbs for the middle class.

By 2027, the ONLY people receiving any tax cut at all are people making over 100k a year.

I haven't lied about anything, or made any false claims. You're still a fucking liar though.

Keep on keepin' on, clown. Fluff your oligarch overlords real good, champ.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
CATO Institute :

The third column shows the percentage cuts. Households at the bottom do not pay income taxes in aggregate, so they are “n/a.” Under the Senate tax plan in 2019, middle-income households would receive much larger percentage cuts than higher-income households.

As a percentage of income, households with between 40,000 and 100,000 are by far getting the largest tax cuts. And it's significant with a 51% cut for households making 40k - 50k.


senate_tax_bill.png
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
CATO Institute :

As a percentage of income, households with between 40,000 and 100,000 are by far getting the largest tax cuts. And it's significant with a 51% cut for households making 40k - 50k.


senate_tax_bill.png

That is not what your chart says and regardless it is extraordinarily misleading. That chart is showing the percentage decline in the amount of federal corporate and income taxes paid, not tax cuts as a percentage of income. As federal corporate and income taxes represent a smaller percentage of the tax burden for lower income people even modest cuts in those appear large despite the actual dollar amounts they are getting being trivially small. Lower income people's taxes are mostly payroll, state, and local taxes.

As Paratus said this is another one of those attempts by conservatives to make their tax bills look less horrible by only talking about federal income taxes as opposed to all taxes. CATO just took the dishonesty to the next level by calculating it as a percentage of federal taxes paid.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
WaPo Article, if you believe anything they say :

The CBO and JCT analyses make it seem as if a family is actually getting money taken away from them, but in reality, most of these families making under $30,000 don’t pay any income tax. The credits and subsidies they received to help them buy health insurance were typically sent directly from the government to the insurance company. So these families are unlikely to see any changes to their tax bills.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
WaPo Article, if you believe anything they say :

I mean why wouldn't you believe the Post? They are a highly credible source. Only extreme, extreme partisans would try and argue that.

As for the article, you should quote the entire passage. They are saying (correctly) that a number of families in those income brackets will lose their health insurance as a result of this bill. To any reasonable person that's making them worse off.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
...

As for the article, you should quote the entire passage. They are saying (correctly) that a number of families in those income brackets will lose their health insurance as a result of this bill. To any reasonable person that's making them worse off.

Goal post shift much fskimo?

I was responding to the fiction in this thread that this is a tax cut for the rich. It will only be so if it makes it to 2027+, and what are the odds of that?

The other fiction you're pushing, about lowering benefits, is a presumed increase in ACA costs due to eliminating single payer mandates, and then forcing low income earners out?

Perhaps you should read this, from Time in 2016 before the tax cuts. Doesn't really look much different. 6% per year increase in cost each year for the next 10 years, borne by tax payers. ACA is and was a failure.

In any case you are equating not doing as large of a freebie hand-out to people who effectively pay no tax, with this being a tax cut for the rich.

It demonstrably is a significant tax cut for middle income households.

How about this - the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of taxes. Any tax cut is not going to affect the bottom 50% much because, well, they don't pay taxes.

So in your world, any tax cut must be evil, right?

taxfoundation-irsdata-2008.jpg
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
Goal post shift much fskimo?

Nope, just correcting the misleading or incomplete statements you're making.

I was responding to the fiction in this thread that this is a tax cut for the rich. It will only be so if it makes it to 2027+, and what are the odds of that?

The top 1% of households get 83% of the benefit from this tax cut which is by any rational definition a tax cut for the rich. You are trying to peddle the fiction that it is somehow not. If you want to argue that the top 1% of the population getting 83 times their relative share of the tax cut isn't a tax cut for the rich I'm excited to hear you make that argument. :)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publ...is-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act

As for it surviving to 2027, the idea that we should evaluate a tax plan more favorably because future congresses will cut out the awful parts is ridiculous and you know it. If they didn't want those tax increases to be law then they shouldn't have made them law. They did, and so that's what they should be evaluated on.

The other fiction you're pushing, about lowering benefits, is a presumed increase in ACA costs due to eliminating single payer mandates, and then forcing low income earners out?

Perhaps you should read this, from Time in 2016 before the tax cuts. Doesn't really look much different. 6% per year increase in cost each year for the next 10 years, borne by tax payers. ACA is and was a failure.

This is a non-sequitur. If you want to debate the ACA I'm down to do that as it's been a tremendous success but that's not related to this tax bill.

In any case you are equating not doing as large of a freebie hand-out to people who effectively pay no tax, with this being a tax cut for the rich.

Nope, I'm simply saying that this bill reduces incomes and benefits to low income households relative to current law. As for them paying 'effectively no tax' this is yet another fiction you're peddling where you try to make paying no federal income tax equal paying no tax. This is demonstrably false. In fact, when you count in fees and state/local/sales taxes those lower income brackets pay nearly the same proportion of their income in taxes as the rich do. (slightly less)

And again as we already covered since the top 1% of households get 83% of the benefit it's a tax cut for the rich.

It demonstrably is a significant tax cut for middle income households.

It is demonstrably not. About 44% of households will see their taxes reduced by more than $500 next year. About 40% of households will see their taxes go up. By 2027 only 16% of Americans will see a tax cut, and those are overwhelmingly the rich.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-the-senate-gop-plan/?utm_term=.eb67ce5cdbb3

How about this - the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of taxes. Any tax cut is not going to affect the bottom 50% much because, well, they don't pay taxes.

So in your world, any tax cut must be evil, right?

Yet another fiction! The top 50% of income earners may pay 97% of FEDERAL INCOME taxes, but there are many different types of taxes. As for a tax cut not affecting the bottom 50% that's comically ignorant. There are tons of ways they could cut taxes for the lower 50% if they wanted to, but they didn't want to. You could reduce payroll taxes, you could increase tax credits for child care, you could up the EITC, you could give more aid to states in exchange for them lowering their regressive tax rates, etc, etc. Hell, even if they wanted to just concentrate on people paying federal income taxes they could have started lowering/eliminating tax brackets from the bottom up. That way everyone who paid federal income taxes would get the same tax break.

Why is it that I can come up with all these ways to cut taxes for the bottom 50% yet all these super smart Republicans can't? lol. They didn't do that because they didn't want to cut taxes for regular people. They wanted to cut taxes for the rich. This is common among conservatives who are trying to find ways to rationalize their clear desire to give money to rich people as if they had no other choice. They had plenty of other choices that they chose not to make.

So in my world where I look at all of taxation instead of only the types that allows me to dishonestly frame my argument in favorable ways I can think of loads of good tax cuts. Strangely enough conservatives aren't interested in those. Gee, I wonder why. ;)