ravenshrike: So very sad, your inability to understand that statistics are not a simple matter of percentages comes to the fore once again. In order to know whether the fact that 62% of the cuts come from programs that benefit the poor vs programs that benefit the rich is in anyway UNFAIR, one would have to look at how many government programs benefit the poor vs programs that benefit the rich in toto. Then there's the fact that your little chart is utter fucking horseshit as it measures change in after tax income, a useless metric by any sane standard. But then, leftist shills often use useless metrics. After all, how ELSE would they be able to hoodwink people into thinking things like Buffet paying less taxes than his secretary. Honesty certainly wouldn't get them there.
The rich don't need programs when they get tax cut after tax cut to not create jobs.
TPC looked only at the tax reductions in Ryan's plan, which also included offsetting-but unidentified-cuts in tax credits, exclusions, and deductions. TPC found that in 2015, relative to today's tax system, those making $1 million or more would enjoy an average tax cut of $265,000 and see their after-tax income increase by 12.5 percent. By contrast, half of those making between $20,000 and $30,000 would get no tax cut at all. On average, people in that income group would get a tax reduction of $129.
Keep on fuckin' that chicken, GOP shill.
Anyone who will attempt to deny that the Ryan budget isn't a massive giveback to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class is a liar or an idiot, full stop.
When presented with the fact that your metric means NOTHING, continue using it. I do admire your tenacity. As for GOP shill, that's even fucking funnier.
ravenshrike: When presented with the fact that your metric means NOTHING, continue using it. I do admire your tenacity. As for GOP shill, that's even fucking funnier.
It's funny because it's true. You're just as bad as Seekster when it comes to carrying water for your beloved Republican party.
My metric "means nothing" only because it shows how ridiculously wrong you are. You can scream all you want that it "means nothing," but you're wrong. It's patently obvious what it means. The rich get richer, and the poor get fucked up the ass. Which you don't care about, since you're a Republican and therefore hate poor people. Because Republicans hate the poor. I said it, and I mean it.
ravenshrike: When presented with the fact that your metric means NOTHING, continue using it. I do admire your tenacity. As for GOP shill, that's even fucking funnier.
It's funny because it's true. You're just as bad as Seekster when it comes to carrying water for your beloved Republican party.
My metric "means nothing" only because it shows how ridiculously wrong you are. You can scream all you want that it "means nothing," but you're wrong. It's patently obvious what it means. The rich get richer, and the poor get fucked up the ass. Which you don't care about, since you're a Republican and therefore hate poor people. Because Republicans hate the poor. I said it, and I mean it.
Measuring the relative fairness of tax cuts by after-tax income delta is like measuring watts of electricity in ft-lbs produced by a nearby electric motor. It makes no fucking sense.
To answer the OP:s question in the thread title: "Who's ready for a 5 trillion dollar deficit?" Good question. I dont know. But I can tell you that a country where people are so deeply mired in ideology that they cannot for THEIR LIFE even compromise the slightest and where they belive belive to THEIR VERY CORE that the other side is evil incarnate and the ones solely responsible for all the grief their country has suffered, to the point where it dominates the entire political process and grinds it to a halt and just ends up a mud-slinging contest........that's a country that is NOT ready for a 5 trillion deficit.
ravenshrike: When presented with the fact that your metric means NOTHING, continue using it. I do admire your tenacity. As for GOP shill, that's even fucking funnier.
It's funny because it's true. You're just as bad as Seekster when it comes to carrying water for your beloved Republican party.
My metric "means nothing" only because it shows how ridiculously wrong you are. You can scream all you want that it "means nothing," but you're wrong. It's patently obvious what it means. The rich get richer, and the poor get fucked up the ass. Which you don't care about, since you're a Republican and therefore hate poor people. Because Republicans hate the poor. I said it, and I mean it.
Measuring the relative fairness of tax cuts by after-tax income delta is like measuring watts of electricity in ft-lbs produced by a nearby electric motor. It makes no fucking sense.
If you insist. Pointing out that the rich, after taxes, will be making more money and the poor, after taxes, will be making infinitesimally more or actually less is totally meaningless.
We still have 15 million people here illegally, taking jobs away from actual legal residents and citizens. Obama's uncle is one of them!
Because those immigrants held the employers at a gunpoint and coerced them into not giving a job to you, right?
And how's Obama's uncle being one of them relevant? I mean, one of my relatives may be a habitual gambler and a junkie. Does that mean I'm a terrible, terrible person?
Do you use your political power to shield him from the consequences of DUIs?
I dunno, maybe I know that if I didn't, the righties are going to chew me out how I don't even care enough about my own family to take care of it, so I'm in no way fit to run the county.
Or maybe I'm not, and he's just a crafty resourceful bugger who knows when and how to hide. Many variables there.
ravenshrike: Measuring the relative fairness of tax cuts by after-tax income delta is like measuring watts of electricity in ft-lbs produced by a nearby electric motor. It makes no fucking sense.
Well, your analogy makes no sense. Electricity wattage of a motor could be directly compared to its corresponding ft-lbs output such that one could easily calculate the former by the latter.
After tax income is precisely the sort of thing people really care about. It is a decent way to measure a "bottom line" that we very much care about: what difference does it make to our take-home pay? Hence it might not be a perfect or comprehensive measurement, but it sure as hell makes sense.
ravenshrike: Measuring the relative fairness of tax cuts by after-tax income delta is like measuring watts of electricity in ft-lbs produced by a nearby electric motor. It makes no fucking sense.
Well, your analogy makes no sense. Electricity wattage of a motor could be directly compared to its corresponding ft-lbs output such that one could easily calculate the former by the latter.
After tax income is precisely the sort of thing people really care about. It is a decent way to measure a "bottom line" that we very much care about: what difference does it make to our take-home pay? Hence it might not be a perfect or comprehensive measurement, but it sure as hell makes sense.
Not without knowing the efficiency of the motor and whether it's the only motor operating off of the generator in question. You need other metrics in order to determine the utility of the metric in question.
Big_Willie_Styles: You do realize all the Paul Ryan plan does is cut the growth rate of the federal entitlement programs? That's something you're not going to hear many places that discuss it.
Because it's not true.
62 percent of the Ryan budget's cuts come from programs designed to benefit low-income families. Now, I know you don't give a fuck about them, because you're a Republican, but this notion that all of the Ryan cuts come from "cutting entitlement growth rate" is worse than bullshit. Bullshit is obfuscation. It's a LIE.
The Ryan budget is nothing more than a massive tax cut for the wealthy.
You fucking lying ass lying fucking liar.
Yes, a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-wing think tank. It's conclusions are immediately put into question.
Let's rehearse this: The bottom 50% pay nothing in federal income taxes. In other words, the top 50% will get a lot more in tax relief than the bottom 50%. Simple math. The funny part is, that chart doesn't put the relief in percentages of income. That would be the best form of analysis, not the raw numbers. I also don't see any analysis in the piece at the CBPP on how the taxes for the poor go up. They list zero specifics. So much for having a gilded source.
The way the other report from the CBPP is phrased calls it "reductions," in reality, said "reductions" are cuts in the growth rates of the plans because the baseline comparison for the Ryan plan is changing absolutely nothing, a wholly dishonest comparison (as it can't work in that form.) Cutting growth rates is not cutting spending.
Hilarious, also, is that the only sources the CBPP seems to use is itself.
Long story short (too late,) your source is complete and utter political bullshit. Find me one on my economic level.
Big_Willie_Styles: You do realize all the Paul Ryan plan does is cut the growth rate of the federal entitlement programs? That's something you're not going to hear many places that discuss it.
Because it's not true.
62 percent of the Ryan budget's cuts come from programs designed to benefit low-income families. Now, I know you don't give a fuck about them, because you're a Republican, but this notion that all of the Ryan cuts come from "cutting entitlement growth rate" is worse than bullshit. Bullshit is obfuscation. It's a LIE.
The Ryan budget is nothing more than a massive tax cut for the wealthy.
You fucking lying ass lying fucking liar.
Yes, a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-wing think tank. It's conclusions are immediately put into question.
Let's rehearse this: The bottom 50% pay nothing in federal income taxes. In other words, the top 50% will get a lot more in tax relief than the bottom 50%. Simple math. The funny part is, that chart doesn't put the relief in percentages of income. That would be the best form of analysis, not the raw numbers. I also don't see any analysis in the piece at the CBPP on how the taxes for the poor go up. They list zero specifics. So much for having a gilded source.
What are you talking about, the chart uses the percentages that are saved. Someone paying tax on $75k will get a cut of 1.9%. Someone paying tax on $1 million will get a tax cut in the region of 12.5%.
The source is not at your economic level because it makes sense. Every single tax plan proposed by Republicans in the last couple of decades has significantly cut tax for the wealthy, the Ryan plan is no different.
Well, your analogy makes no sense. Electricity wattage of a motor could be directly compared to its corresponding ft-lbs output such that one could easily calculate the former by the latter.
After tax income is precisely the sort of thing people really care about. It is a decent way to measure a "bottom line" that we very much care about: what difference does it make to our take-home pay? Hence it might not be a perfect or comprehensive measurement, but it sure as hell makes sense.
Not without knowing the efficiency of the motor and whether it's the only motor operating off of the generator in question. You need other metrics in order to determine the utility of the metric in question.
Then it might have helped had you mentioned the generator in the first place.
Not that it changes the fact that presenting the change in after-tax income is still a reasonable way to look at the 'fairness' of a tax cut anyway. Not comprehensive as I said, but not unreasonable either.
62 percent of the Ryan budget's cuts come from programs designed to benefit low-income families. Now, I know you don't give a fuck about them, because you're a Republican, but this notion that all of the Ryan cuts come from "cutting entitlement growth rate" is worse than bullshit. Bullshit is obfuscation. It's a LIE.
The Ryan budget is nothing more than a massive tax cut for the wealthy.
You fucking lying ass lying fucking liar.
Yes, a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-wing think tank. It's conclusions are immediately put into question.
Let's rehearse this: The bottom 50% pay nothing in federal income taxes. In other words, the top 50% will get a lot more in tax relief than the bottom 50%. Simple math. The funny part is, that chart doesn't put the relief in percentages of income. That would be the best form of analysis, not the raw numbers. I also don't see any analysis in the piece at the CBPP on how the taxes for the poor go up. They list zero specifics. So much for having a gilded source.
What are you talking about, the chart uses the percentages that are saved. Someone paying tax on $75k will get a cut of 1.9%. Someone paying tax on $1 million will get a tax cut in the region of 12.5%.
The source is not at your economic level because it makes sense. Every single tax plan proposed by Republicans in the last couple of decades has significantly cut tax for the wealthy, the Ryan plan is no different.
*Facepalm.* THE RICH PAY THE MOST IN TAXES! What about that don't you understand?
Big_Willie_Styles: Yes, a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-wing think tank. It's conclusions are immediately put into question.
What are you talking about, the chart uses the percentages that are saved. Someone paying tax on $75k will get a cut of 1.9%. Someone paying tax on $1 million will get a tax cut in the region of 12.5%.
The source is not at your economic level because it makes sense. Every single tax plan proposed by Republicans in the last couple of decades has significantly cut tax for the wealthy, the Ryan plan is no different.
There's also a report on the Ryan Plan by the Tax Policy Center you could try, which says a very similar thing to the CBPP.
Not that any of this matters that much. The Ryan plan is a load of fucking junk, and obviously so. It carries large nominal tax cuts, and claims to be budget neutral by eliminating loopholes. However, never mind not even explaining what loopholes lose what, it doesn't even say what loopholes there are - they're totally unspecified! Holy crap, you may as well claim magic will make it all okay.
Even a guy with half a degree in corporate finance should understand that's fucking bullshit.
*Facepalm.* THE RICH PAY THE MOST IN TAXES! What about that don't you understand?
Why does this matter? You could've made it a 12% cut across the board (up to the point where people aren't already paying more than 12%, at which point they just pay no income taxes). This also would've easily made more sense, economically, as putting more money into the pockets of the lower and middle class is actually very likely to increase spending on consumer goods, or even reinvestment. But no, instead, the idea is to cut around 1-2% on everyone making below 200k, and those making more get a 12% cut?
This is fair because the rich already pay the most? Oh, so you think they shouldn't? Despite the fact that they were so disproportionately rewarded by the system they are paying to support and defend? Despite the fact that they are the ones in a unique position to support so much of the system? If you're a bodybuilder and your roommate is anemic, and you both have to work together to carry a heavy couch out of your apartment, would you demand that your roommate hold up his end and lift half the couch? No! Of course not! That would be stupid! Especially when the one who uses the couch most of the time is you to begin with.
And never mind that the whole idea behind the Ryan Plan is to curb our deficit. Here's the thing though: The tax cuts included therein alone make up an estimated $10 Trillion in revenue loss (although only about half of that is from the cuts specifically from the plan; the other half is the bloody-minded insistence on continuing the Bush era tax cuts)! Wait, hang on, $10T lost, but only $5.3T in cuts? That sounds like a great way to reduce the deficit! And before you give me that "it'll come out of the loopholes" spiel again, I want you to find me which ones, and how they're worth trillions of dollars in revenue. What I'm hearing is that the Ryan Plan is rather vague on what loopholes should be closed.
*Facepalm.* THE RICH PAY THE MOST IN TAXES! What about that don't you understand?
No shit the rich pay the most taxes, they have the most money. You keep spouting on about how 50% of Americans don't pay income tax, no shit, if you don't have enough of an income you don't pay an income tax on it.
When you see that 50% of American tax payers do not pay income tax the first thing that comes into your mind should not be "we need to raise their taxes". The first thing that comes into mind should be "why the fuck are 50% of our workers not even earning enough money to pay income tax".
The top 1% of Americans pay around 38% of the income tax. Statistically they do not have that much of the income, but that is only statistically. You see, the problem is the rich can pay smart people to hide the money, or just abuse the fuck out of capital gains. They use all sorts of loopholes to lessen their taxable income. It is why that despite having 17% of the US income, they have 42.7% of the financial wealth.
When you consider things outside of taxable income the wealthy in the US are seriously under taxed. The wealthier you are, the higher your share of taxes should be. This is a simple concept based on the fact that as wealth increases its actual value decreases. However, the wealthy in America do not even pay a share of tax equivalent to their actual worth, let alone higher.
To put it another way, we tax the wealthy more because shit needs to get done. When you need money, you go where the money is. To quote a comedian, we're not a bunch of dwarves punishing a tall person by trying to cut his legs off. We're asking that person to reach up and get something off the top shelf because they're the only one who can do it.
DrVornoff: To put it another way, we tax the wealthy more because shit needs to get done. When you need money, you go where the money is. To quote a comedian, we're not a bunch of dwarves punishing a tall person by trying to cut his legs off. We're asking that person to reach up and get something off the top shelf because they're the only one who can do it.
I assume that's what you meant? Minor typo with major ramifications.
And yes, that's what the concept of progressive tax is about.
DrVornoff: Fixed. Point is that we're calling on the rich to contribute what we can't. They have the means and shit needs to get done.
I'd even go a step further than that. They have a moral obligation to pay more taxes because the system has benefited them far more than it has anyone else.
Romney is Bush 3? Um, last time I checked, he doesn't support bailing out companies that are failing. ?
I don't have the time to sort through 9 pages to see if anyone has already said this, but I remember Romney personally taking in some of the glory that the bailouts somewhat worked in Detroit. I'll find the source later.
*Facepalm.* THE RICH PAY THE MOST IN TAXES! What about that don't you understand?
No shit the rich pay the most taxes, they have the most money. You keep spouting on about how 50% of Americans don't pay income tax, no shit, if you don't have enough of an income you don't pay an income tax on it.
When you see that 50% of American tax payers do not pay income tax the first thing that comes into your mind should not be "we need to raise their taxes". The first thing that comes into mind should be "why the fuck are 50% of our workers not even earning enough money to pay income tax".
The top 1% of Americans pay around 38% of the income tax. Statistically they do not have that much of the income, but that is only statistically. You see, the problem is the rich can pay smart people to hide the money, or just abuse the fuck out of capital gains. They use all sorts of loopholes to lessen their taxable income. It is why that despite having 17% of the US income, they have 42.7% of the financial wealth.
When you consider things outside of taxable income the wealthy in the US are seriously under taxed. The wealthier you are, the higher your share of taxes should be. This is a simple concept based on the fact that as wealth increases its actual value decreases. However, the wealthy in America do not even pay a share of tax equivalent to their actual worth, let alone higher.
It's stuff like this that makes me think Islam got it right: I'd seriously consider making a person's tax liability a percentage of their net worth, no exceptions. That way you won't be able to squirrel away huge amounts of assets and avoid taxes through loopholes.
You realize that tax cutting rhetoric only works in the LONG run, right? The USA is not in any position to think about what to do for the future, it has an absolute crisis here right NOW.
You realize that tax cutting rhetoric only works in the LONG run, right? The USA is not in any position to think about what to do for the future, it has an absolute crisis here right NOW.
Hell, does it even work in the long run? Why would it?
You realize that tax cutting rhetoric only works in the LONG run, right? The USA is not in any position to think about what to do for the future, it has an absolute crisis here right NOW.
Hell, does it even work in the long run? Why would it?
In theory, it relaxes the rich corporations enough that they start new projects and initiatives, making new jobs, and expanding the tax base. Then, through "trickle-down economics" (which, on a large scale, are shaky at best), more money would flow through the workers back to the corporations, allowing for more taxes to be taken.
In THEORY. I have no idea if it would actually turn out that way, too many variables. Hence the word "rhetoric".
The main problem with it right now is that there's a dozen different loopholes you can use to legally evade taxation. Hell, I know a couple that I could get happening after a day at the lawyer's office (but I won't because that would make me a tool). Closing those loopholes should be top priority, then you'll get money actually coming in (unless all the corporations leave - TOO MANY VARIABLES).
When China and the rest come knocking for the trillions we owe, and we say 'well, we don't have it', they'll go 'well, what did you spend all that money on??'
'These piles of nuclear weapons'
'well...um...we don't need the money back RIGHT now...'
You realize that tax cutting rhetoric only works in the LONG run, right? The USA is not in any position to think about what to do for the future, it has an absolute crisis here right NOW.
Romney is Bush 3? Um, last time I checked, he doesn't support bailing out companies that are failing. ?
I don't have the time to sort through 9 pages to see if anyone has already said this, but I remember Romney personally taking in some of the glory that the bailouts somewhat worked in Detroit. I'll find the source later.
Yes, he said they needed to go through bankruptcy to restructure their debt obligations. It was a pretty dumb way to stop Obama talking about the auto bailout "success." He got it right the second time around (focusing on the unions and the billions that have not been paid back yet.)
You realize that tax cutting rhetoric only works in the LONG run, right? The USA is not in any position to think about what to do for the future, it has an absolute crisis here right NOW.
I live in Alberta, man. I've learned in the last three months that official estimates of pretty much anything are six or seven different kinds of horse crap.
I put as much faith in your tells-me-nothing chart as I have in a small child to not eat a marshmallow put in front of him. We'll know these kind of specifics when they happen, NOT before.
Also, since when is shrinking your deficit to only $600,000,000,000 acceptable?
You do realize that America has the highest corporate tax rate in the entire world?
Yes. And unlike you, I'm ALSO aware that a lot of big companies DON'T PAY A PENNY OF IT.
(And Captcha says: "Silver Spoon". If we let this thing speak in more than two words at a time, it's gonna beat the Turing Test...)
Yeah, and the reasons unions came into existence are either heavily monitored/regulated or illegal. And, on top of that, sensibilities have changed that most people see those things as gorramn awful. Doesn't make you right, politician wannabe.
Yeah, and you somehow think getting rid of all the loopholes while lowering the rate is somehow wrong. That's what I support. (Yeah, look at the companies that don't pay a penny and see which party they put their money in. I'm lookin' at you Goldman Sachs and GE.)
As a percentage of what they make relative to everyone else versus what they pay in taxes. It is very disproportionate on the rich.
Your argument sounds nice but doesn't make sense with the slightest understanding of economics.
The top fifth also creates like all the jobs. Because only someone with a certain level of income can get a line of credit (especially in this economy) to make payroll.
"Not earning enough money to pay tax" is not true. The deductions they get put them in the black. See, every bracket has a rate, it is just that all the loopholes and deductions in the tax code allow the bottom 50% to get back all of the taxes they paid during a year.
Yes, the rich people are the venture capitalists which has the highest risk available of any investment but the highest reward (risk/reward stuff) and the amount of money to be less risk averse. From Google to Facebook, the big bucks come from venture capitalists who already have tons of money. Donny, you are out of your element.
Progressive tax systems are systematically unfair by definition, if you go by the "equality equals fairness" which is a common line of reasoning of liberals.
Because wealth taxes would lead to a mass exodus of rich people to tax haven countries with lenient extradition policies.
*Facepalm.* THE RICH PAY THE MOST IN TAXES! What about that don't you understand?
Why does this matter? You could've made it a 12% cut across the board (up to the point where people aren't already paying more than 12%, at which point they just pay no income taxes). This also would've easily made more sense, economically, as putting more money into the pockets of the lower and middle class is actually very likely to increase spending on consumer goods, or even reinvestment. But no, instead, the idea is to cut around 1-2% on everyone making below 200k, and those making more get a 12% cut?
This is fair because the rich already pay the most? Oh, so you think they shouldn't? Despite the fact that they were so disproportionately rewarded by the system they are paying to support and defend? Despite the fact that they are the ones in a unique position to support so much of the system? If you're a bodybuilder and your roommate is anemic, and you both have to work together to carry a heavy couch out of your apartment, would you demand that your roommate hold up his end and lift half the couch? No! Of course not! That would be stupid! Especially when the one who uses the couch most of the time is you to begin with.
And never mind that the whole idea behind the Ryan Plan is to curb our deficit. Here's the thing though: The tax cuts included therein alone make up an estimated $10 Trillion in revenue loss (although only about half of that is from the cuts specifically from the plan; the other half is the bloody-minded insistence on continuing the Bush era tax cuts)! Wait, hang on, $10T lost, but only $5.3T in cuts? That sounds like a great way to reduce the deficit! And before you give me that "it'll come out of the loopholes" spiel again, I want you to find me which ones, and how they're worth trillions of dollars in revenue. What I'm hearing is that the Ryan Plan is rather vague on what loopholes should be closed.
Because there are different brackets. We don't have a flat tax. Also, hell naw. It went from 38.9% or so to like 30%. That's not twelve percentage points. I question those percentage points (which is what you were using, not percentages as you incorrectly referred to them as.)
Did you just use an analogy to make the "Of that which much is given, much is expected" argument that defines Marxism? Really? (Using "given" instead of "earned" just so easily reveals the complete economic illiteracy of Marx.)
You do know how long the U.S. federal tax code is, right? No one can be specific as no one knows it. See, the point would be to throw the entire damn code out and just start out with the rates Ryan wants. That's like the only way to do it without getting a thousand tax lawyers to comb out every tax credit, exception, deduction, and loophole.
You realize that tax cutting rhetoric only works in the LONG run, right? The USA is not in any position to think about what to do for the future, it has an absolute crisis here right NOW.
I live in Alberta, man. I've learned in the last three months that official estimates of pretty much anything are six or seven different kinds of horse crap.
I put as much faith in your tells-me-nothing chart as I have in a small child to not eat a marshmallow put in front of him. We'll know these kind of specifics when they happen, NOT before.
Also, since when is shrinking your deficit to only $600,000,000,000 acceptable?
Never said it was acceptable in the long-run. Outside of the plans of Rand Paul, there is no plan on the table to get completely get rid of the deficit for this year. (Personally, I'd like that plan but it is completely politically impossible.)
As a percentage of what they make relative to everyone else versus what they pay in taxes. It is very disproportionate on the rich.
Your argument sounds nice but doesn't make sense with the slightest understanding of economics.
The top fifth also creates like all the jobs. Because only someone with a certain level of income can get a line of credit (especially in this economy) to make payroll.
"Not earning enough money to pay tax" is not true. The deductions they get put them in the black. See, every bracket has a rate, it is just that all the loopholes and deductions in the tax code allow the bottom 50% to get back all of the taxes they paid during a year.
Yes, the rich people are the venture capitalists which has the highest risk available of any investment but the highest reward (risk/reward stuff) and the amount of money to be less risk averse. From Google to Facebook, the big bucks come from venture capitalists who already have tons of money. Donny, you are out of your element.
Progressive tax systems are systematically unfair by definition, if you go by the "equality equals fairness" which is a common line of reasoning of liberals.
Because wealth taxes would lead to a mass exodus of rich people to tax haven countries with lenient extradition policies.
I love debating liberals on taxes!
Like I said, if you look at direct income they do pay more taxes, but that is misleading. The wealthy do not get their money from direct income. When you look at taxes as a percentage of wealth then the wealthy are under taxed.
As soon as you start talking about 'Job Creators' you lose the argument. There is no such thing as a job creator, it is a work of fiction by the Republican propaganda machine. Jobs are not created by someone, they are a result of the economic circle. No one has ever hired workers because they had money to do so, they hired workers because they had to meet demand.
Put in simple terms, if you have a shop with 2 workers, each worker can service 20 customers a day. The business averages 35 customers a day. The business grows and soon the average customers per day is up to 50, swamping the 2 workers. A part time worker is hired to help handle the increased customers. Reverse the situation and the shop loses customers, down to 15 a day, then 2 workers are not needed, so one is fired.
What never happens is a shop is 2 workers service 35 customers, another worker is hired, so there are now 3 workers for 35 customer. It just does not happen.
There is also another aspect, the personal income of someone has zero impact on the hiring of workers. It does not matter if Rich Man A is taxed at 50% or 25%, his income is not paying for new employees, a large majority of employees are hired by business, companies and corporations, not individuals.
When deductions result in a net taxable income of $0, that is exactly what it means to not be earning enough to pay tax. The people are not scamming the system, they earn so little that the most basic of deductions puts their taxable income down to $0. When you are earning $15,000 a year you do not need to go out of your way to get it down to $0 of taxable income.
I have never heard a 'liberal' say that equality equals fairness. They are two different things. No liberal has ever argued that everyone needs to be exactly equal. The argument is about equal opportunity. This is where fairness comes into it. A kid with a millionaire parent and a kid from a poor family are not equal and the government should not make them equal, both of them should however be given a fair chance in life. This is what equal opportunity is.
Demonstrate how progressive tax is unfair. Everyone pays exactly the same tax rates. The guy earning $1,000,000 pays the same tax rate on his first $25,000 as the guy earning $25,000. If the guy earning $25,000 gets lucky and starts earning $1,000,000 he would have to pay the exact same tax rate as the other guy. No one in a progressive system is paying a higher rate on their earnings.
The difference between a progressive system and a flat tax is that the progressive system acknowledges that as income increases the value of additional income is less. It therefore makes sense that they have to pay a higher percentage of tax on additional income for them to be paying tax of the same 'value' as those on lower incomes.
The mass exodus to tax havens is always an argument used, but it has no basis. There are people that will use tax havens and those that won't. The level of taxes seems to have nothing to do with it. America has a massive problem with the rich using tax havens compared to most developed countries, yet America has the lowest tax rates among developed countries. Tax rates themselves are not the cause of people using tax havens, it is a system that allows them to do it easily that causes people to use them.
Lastly for it to count as a debate you really need two sides that a)know what they are talking about and b)to actually have a case to argue. You neither have any idea what you are talking about and you have no case to argue. You are just making things up, we know flat taxes are worst than progressive taxes and we know that supply side economics does not work. There is no debate to be had. It is like the "evolution v creationism" debate. It is not a real debate when we already know that one side is right.
*Facepalm.* THE RICH PAY THE MOST IN TAXES! What about that don't you understand?
Why does this matter? You could've made it a 12% cut across the board (up to the point where people aren't already paying more than 12%, at which point they just pay no income taxes). This also would've easily made more sense, economically, as putting more money into the pockets of the lower and middle class is actually very likely to increase spending on consumer goods, or even reinvestment. But no, instead, the idea is to cut around 1-2% on everyone making below 200k, and those making more get a 12% cut?
This is fair because the rich already pay the most? Oh, so you think they shouldn't? Despite the fact that they were so disproportionately rewarded by the system they are paying to support and defend? Despite the fact that they are the ones in a unique position to support so much of the system? If you're a bodybuilder and your roommate is anemic, and you both have to work together to carry a heavy couch out of your apartment, would you demand that your roommate hold up his end and lift half the couch? No! Of course not! That would be stupid! Especially when the one who uses the couch most of the time is you to begin with.
And never mind that the whole idea behind the Ryan Plan is to curb our deficit. Here's the thing though: The tax cuts included therein alone make up an estimated $10 Trillion in revenue loss (although only about half of that is from the cuts specifically from the plan; the other half is the bloody-minded insistence on continuing the Bush era tax cuts)! Wait, hang on, $10T lost, but only $5.3T in cuts? That sounds like a great way to reduce the deficit! And before you give me that "it'll come out of the loopholes" spiel again, I want you to find me which ones, and how they're worth trillions of dollars in revenue. What I'm hearing is that the Ryan Plan is rather vague on what loopholes should be closed.
Because there are different brackets. We don't have a flat tax. Also, hell naw. It went from 38.9% or so to like 30%. That's not twelve percentage points. I question those percentage points (which is what you were using, not percentages as you incorrectly referred to them as.)
Did you just use an analogy to make the "Of that which much is given, much is expected" argument that defines Marxism? Really? (Using "given" instead of "earned" just so easily reveals the complete economic illiteracy of Marx.)
You do know how long the U.S. federal tax code is, right? No one can be specific as no one knows it. See, the point would be to throw the entire damn code out and just start out with the rates Ryan wants. That's like the only way to do it without getting a thousand tax lawyers to comb out every tax credit, exception, deduction, and loophole.
they know how long the tax code is. title 26 is 13458 pages and the extra part written by congress is 3387 pages for a total of 16845 pages. i know this because you can get buy a printout of the damn thing.
also the US tax code is hardly the longest in the world. you could argue it is one of the most poorly written though.
When presented with the fact that your metric means NOTHING, continue using it. I do admire your tenacity. As for GOP shill, that's even fucking funnier.