|
Replies: 42
| visibility 1
|
Gridiron Giant [15498]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 18417
Joined: 2014
|
Why I think people support Trump
Apr 30, 2017, 9:04 PM
|
|
His rhetoric during the campaign hit a nerve with a lot of Americans. His ideas of draining the swamp and creating a level playing field in the economy sounded good. It's too bad that he's abandoned that altogether. The healthcare plan he tried to push through was killed by Republican's because 83% of Americans were against it. His tax plan is aimed squarely at the top 1%...yet his supporters still believe the rhetoric and ignore what he's actually doing.
Now he's invited Duerte to visit the WH and he said he "admires Kim Jung Un for taking power at such a young age, and called him a 'pretty smart cookie'."
https://news.vice.com/story/president-trump-praises-duterte-and-kim-jong-un-before-spending-sunday-at-golf-club
|
|
|
|
 |
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103079]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99028
Joined: 2009
|
Has he gone on his apology tour yet?
Apr 30, 2017, 10:55 PM
|
|
asking for an Obama fan
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [121562]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 77879
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Has he gone on his apology tour yet?
Apr 30, 2017, 11:32 PM
|
|
donald trump has never used the words I am sorry, ever. I think he told Meghan Kelly oops, that is as close as he has gotten. He is a child that does not take accountability for anything and blames others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103079]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99028
Joined: 2009
|
He's not at all like Obama.
Apr 30, 2017, 11:45 PM
|
|
Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [121562]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 77879
Joined: 2003
|
Re: He's not at all like Obama.
May 1, 2017, 12:34 AM
|
|
nope
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4035]
TigerPulse: 97%
35
|
Re: Why I think people support Trump
May 1, 2017, 9:31 AM
|
|
I like his style and I like how he goes after you bunch of pansies and makes you cry hours on end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Lulz at pawski talking about anyone's thin skin.***
May 1, 2017, 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27842]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 48316
Joined: 2010
|
Plastic surgery? He looks different in that selfie vid...***
May 1, 2017, 10:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
So a tax plan with very few details has already been...
May 1, 2017, 10:05 AM
|
|
proclaimed to be aimed at the "1%"?
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48079]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 49059
Joined: 2004
|
I guess just the details we've heard about benefit...
May 1, 2017, 10:13 AM
|
|
the 1% too much in some people's eyes. Nobody knows all the details yet as you stated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
how so?***
May 1, 2017, 10:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48079]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 49059
Joined: 2004
|
You would have to waatch the CNN breakdown this morn.
May 1, 2017, 10:26 AM
|
|
I don't care either way. Anyway, they were showing how Trump would save 100's of millions in taxes. Obviously take that with a big grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
They haven't given enough details to know that yet...
May 1, 2017, 12:35 PM
|
|
and stating tax reduction in absolute $'s is normally a red flag for incorrect analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48079]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 49059
Joined: 2004
|
They think different for some reason.
May 1, 2017, 1:35 PM
|
|
They even went as far to call Trump irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
certainly....
May 1, 2017, 1:08 PM
|
|
2001 tax cuts were across all brackets (and created new lower brackets) and were accelerated in 2003. Not only were the rates cuts somewhat proportional over all brackets, the data from subsequent years show that the federal income tax burden increased from 2002 on. Top 1% income tax burden from 2001 to 2007 was:
33.09
33.69
36.28
38.78
39.36
39.81
Top 0.001% over the same period:
2.11
2.30
2.59
2.92
3.02
3.47
3.22
Not sure how one would classify the 2010 plan, which extended all 2001 brackets along with other things, since it was opposed in much higher % by the dems in Congress.
You can find income tax share under source data A here:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Summary%20of%20Latest%20Federal%20Income%20Tax%20Data%202015.xlsx
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
I mean if you just want to make #### up . . .***
May 1, 2017, 1:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
So it wasn't really an honest question?***
May 1, 2017, 1:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Calling the Bush tax cuts more progressive in structure
May 1, 2017, 1:32 PM
|
|
is a stretch. The increase in income inequality during that time led to the increase in percentage paid, not lowering the rates less for top earners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
Did I call the tax cut more progressive?...
May 1, 2017, 2:03 PM
|
|
I said that all brackets were cut in addition to new lower bracket. I didn't say that upper brackets were lowered less. I know they weren't.
And I dang sure also know that the cut wasn't skewed to the wealthy either, which is the original question you asked.
The 2001/2003 changes:
-10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000
- the 15% bracket's lower threshold was tied to the new 10% bracket
- the 28% bracket lowered to 25% - 10.7% reduction
- the 31% bracket lowered to 28% - 9.7% reduction
- the 36% bracket lowered to 33% - 8.3% reduction
- the 39.6% bracket lowered to 35% - 11.6% reduction
The bush tax rate changes started in 2001 and were completed phased-in in 2003. So if you compare the tax rate in 2000 and 2003:
Top 1% paid avg 27.5% rate in 2000 and 24.4% in 2003...that's a reduction of 11.3%.
Top 25% paid avg 19.1% rate in 2000 and 15.4% in 2003...that's a reduction of 19.4%.
Top 50% paid avg 16.9% rate in 2000 and 13.4% in 2003...that's a reduction of 20.7%.
Now...can you make a case that these rate changes disproportionately benefited top earners?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Easily.***
May 1, 2017, 2:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
Then do it***
May 1, 2017, 2:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9174]
TigerPulse: 69%
44
Posts: 14647
Joined: 2002
|
{waving hands in the sky}
May 1, 2017, 4:29 PM
|
|
Shooing away the buzzards circling robertn's carcass.
-Doc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15498]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 18417
Joined: 2014
|
Re: {waving hands in the sky}
May 1, 2017, 4:52 PM
|
|
Those aren't buzzards....those are Angels agreeing with RobertTN 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Didn't see your response. Along with the tax cuts with saved
May 1, 2017, 8:45 PM
|
|
those earning $10,000,000 or more $500,000 on average there were tax cuts on investments which also disproportionately benefited those at the top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
Please...if you want to discuss tax cuts and effects...
May 1, 2017, 8:59 PM
|
|
don't cite absolute $'s. It doesn't show anything. It has to be evaluated in %.
Also, I think you're talking about the change in tax rate on long-term capital gains. Cap gains amounts are included in the adjusted gross income amounts that make up the % classes (top 1%, top 5%, etc...) and they are also included in the average tax rate for those groups that I listed.
When you compare the avg tax rates of the top 1% vs top 25% or top 50%, the top 1% average rate decreased less than the other groupings.
Ok, what else ya got?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
If I make $100,000 and pay 4% less in taxes that's $4,000.
May 1, 2017, 9:05 PM
|
|
If I'm making $10,000,000 and pay 3% less, I'm saving $300,000.
Who is benefiting more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
Actually, you aren't using the right terms in your example..
May 1, 2017, 9:55 PM
|
|
In order for the $100k person to save $4k in taxes that would be a 4 point or 4 percentage point reduction, not "4% less".
If you're going to just tax impact in absolute $'s, then it's going to be very difficult to have a .eaningful discussion.
First, I would say the $100k guy saving $4k has a bigger impact on their lives than the $10MM guy saving $300k.
Second, if we use your "logic" the $100k guy could have his tax rate taken to 0% and the $10MM guy's rate could be reduced by 1 percentage point and you would say the tax break was skewed to the $10MM!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Having your tax rate reduced 4% while making $100k seems
May 1, 2017, 9:59 PM
|
|
like it would be putting $4k in your pocket. But that's just me trying to math.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
It's semantics, but...
May 2, 2017, 8:47 AM
|
|
reducing you tax rate by 4% means:
For example, if taxable income is $100k and original tax rate was 15%, a reduction of 4% means new tax rate is 15% - (15%*4%) = 14.4%. So that's $15k in taxes vs $14.4k in taxes...which is 4% less.
If the new tax rate is reduced by 4 points or 4 percentage points, then that is 15 - 4 = 11%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
The crux of the matter comes down to this. Stop giving tax
May 1, 2017, 10:05 PM
[ in reply to Actually, you aren't using the right terms in your example.. ] |
|
breaks to the wealthy. They do not benefit the economy with the savings. They hoard wealth.
Give tax breaks to middle class earners who put that money directly back into the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
That's a talking point with no actual evidence to back it...
May 2, 2017, 8:55 AM
|
|
you think wealthy people stick sizable amounts of money in bank savings accounts and just sit on cash? Show me where that is the case.
Smart ones hold some cash as we all should, but if their taxes get reduced, they spend it on things and/or invest it. Both of which help the economy. And what does "hoard wealth" actually mean? If they use that additional income (from reduced taxation) to buy a vacation home, does that not help the economy, while also adding to that persons wealth? Or if they buy a boat or if they invest in a company, etc...I'm assuming by 'wealth' you're referring to one's net worth, right?
If taxes are going to be reduced, in my opinion, it should be across the board cuts. I think our current rate structure is about right in its progressiveness. The whole line about the rich not paying their "fair share" is complete and utter BS by any reasonable measure of income tax burden and share of AGI.
I believe in the mantra that the federal government has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. I also am a supply-sider that believes when conditions are correct, cuts in federal income tax will spur economic growth with the long-term impact of more people working and an increase in federal income tax revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [36222]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 34650
Joined: 1999
|
That response didn't address the question.***
May 1, 2017, 1:36 PM
[ in reply to certainly.... ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
Sure it did....
May 1, 2017, 2:05 PM
|
|
I said "2001 tax cuts were across all brackets (and created new lower brackets) and were accelerated in 2003. Not only were the rates cuts somewhat proportional over all brackets,"
The rest showed part of the impact...I listed some more facts below that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 58393
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
I guess it would be the case for all tax cuts if you cut
May 1, 2017, 1:18 PM
|
|
taxes on everyone. However, we don't need to cut taxes on everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [36222]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 34650
Joined: 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3609]
TigerPulse: 89%
35
|
You don't know what Trump is doing?***
May 1, 2017, 9:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [121562]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 77879
Joined: 2003
|
Re: You don't know what Trump is doing?***
May 1, 2017, 11:21 PM
|
|
neither does trump
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3609]
TigerPulse: 89%
35
|
Try again. That dog won't hunt.***
May 2, 2017, 6:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15195]
TigerPulse: 83%
50
Posts: 23620
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Why I think people support Trump
May 2, 2017, 7:10 AM
|
|
he hasnt abandoned anything. he is up against a wall of supposed republicans that are blocking everything they can. they know that life as they know it in washington is over if trump gets his way. and he will. it will just take time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35199]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39312
Joined: 2003
|
riiiight....they're "supposed Republicans"...
May 2, 2017, 9:10 AM
|
|
because they don't agree with a supposedly reformed liberal democrat President?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 42
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
