Trump tax plan
- Thread starter CommuterBob
- Start date
Umm...no. Minimum wage in 1987 was $3.25/hr. It's more than doubled since. Entry level positions in my field were $30K/yr in 1996, now they're double that. Sure there are professions where wages haven't increased, but that's more to do with supply and demand than evil corporations holding wages down.
Besides, there's a reason the average person isn't wealthy and it has nothing to do with anything but lack of will. I can look at the folks in my extended family and there's a huge range of wealth. The bottom line is that those who work hard and want to move up do so. The ones who change jobs because they don't want to work hard are not moving up.
Millenial takes out $130K to attend snooty private college, obtain Art Degree
Millenial graduates to take job paying $30K a year
Millenial must live in urban hipster playland; pays $1500/month for studio apartment
Millenial finds that low paying Art job doesn't cover expenses or debt repayment
Millenial whines about rich people, tax cuts, and ponders why they can't build wealth
Millenial campaigns for senile socialists promising free everything
Millenial graduates to take job paying $30K a year
Millenial must live in urban hipster playland; pays $1500/month for studio apartment
Millenial finds that low paying Art job doesn't cover expenses or debt repayment
Millenial whines about rich people, tax cuts, and ponders why they can't build wealth
Millenial campaigns for senile socialists promising free everything
It's funny . You always back up your posts on these topics with relevant facts and links . He must be mad because you aren't there to read them to him
This is funny because his "relevant facts" in his last post are completely hilarious and you're too dumb of a redneck to know why.
Can you just go on an unprivileged faux rage and kill yourself already? You're driving around in a 40-50k Lincoln and live in an overpriced hipster neighborhood and are still complaining about inequities. STFU. Go live in Parramore with a bicycle on 15k a year before you try and rage about the rich again.
He also was caught crying to his like minded friends in a circle jerk on Facebook where he vowed to leave this board and yet lies about that and continues to post.
Chalk up 2 more idiots who don't know why CommuterBob's post is dumb. And now all you have left is poor insults.
Why do you guys still support economic policies that have failed more than 90% of the population, even though you are in that 90% of the population?
Why do you guys still support economic policies that have failed more than 90% of the population, even though you are in that 90% of the population?
It's very simple, most on this board feel it is up to the individual to lift themselves up, you feel it is up to government. There is ZERO chance that the government failed 90% of its citizens through economic policy. More than half of those you say were failed never even tried to improve themselves.
Sorry CommuterBob but your example is actually bad. After 30 years, entry level positions should be at least 2.4 times what they were in 1987 (assuming 3% increase per year)
How bout dat? Somebody in this forum actually understands inflation.
The minimum wage right now is actually lower than it was in 1987.
But, the argument isn't even about those making minimum wage. It is about the 90+ percent of Americans who have achieved economic stagnation over the last 35 years.
Awwww... the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" cliche. Beautiful stuff.
Our country currently holds the most wealth ever, but over 90% of the population haven't had their wealth increase along with the trend. You can try and tell yourself that those people are simply lazy, but laziness can't account for MORE THAN 90% OF THE POPULATION, no matter how many times you try and tell yourself that.
The economic system is failing, and has been for more than 35 years. It already failed once, in the early 1900s, but people like you continue to ignore the failures and choose to double-down on the policies that cause them.
It isn't about fairness. It isn't about minimum wage workers earning $15 an hour. It isn't about taxing the evil rich people.
It is about sustainability of an economy. Our economy will not sustain itself much longer at the current rate of shrinking middle class, growing lower class, stagnant wages for 90+ percent of the population, and a top 1% that keeps growing their own pockets. Trickle-down doesn't work. It never has. But you guys want to double-down on it.
True, but chemmie didn't say that it was inflation adjusted. And inflation hasn't been 3% for most of the last decade.
Chemmie is correct in saying the wealth disparity is greater than it's ever been. Moving more wealth to the middle class will help the economy. The problem is that government currently only moves it to the lower class.
Awwww... I guess this means you have nothing more to add. Not that you had anything of substance to add at any other time.
Now we're getting somewhere...
I disagree that government currently only moves money to the lower class. If anything, our government currently moves money to those at the top.
There are a lot of simple minded people out there who want you to believe that people want the government to redistribute wealth. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The government still is incredibly inefficient at doing just about anything. But, with that said, the alternative is a complete collapse of our economic system.
Capitalists, especially those who hold over 50% of the total wealth of the nation, refuse to voluntarily "trickle down" the money. Employee wages aren't going up, benefits are being cut, retirements are being sucked dry... all in the name of shareholder profits. Capitalism will not work when shareholder profits are more important than the product itself, or the workers producing that product.
It is a pretty simple solution... those who hold the vast majority of the capital need to ensure that capital makes its way to those in the middle and at the bottom. They haven't done it for a long, long, time. But we still have guys like 85 trying to tell us they will do it, if we just give them more.
There's nothing left you even argue with you about. You're delusional. Really. You're arguing with people who are saying "No, really, I have really seen my wages and assets increase over the past 10-20 years" by saying "NO! NO WAY! YOU'RE IN MY 90% AND YOU ACTUALLY AREN'T ANY WEALTHIER! EVERYTHING SUCKS!"
You are literally telling people to deny what they know to be factually indisputable. You're nuts.
It's clear that you're angry with your own shortcomings in life. You want to project these onto everyone else, most easily by projecting 90% of all Americans as poor little victims that will just never get ahead. If only we had a 50% tax rate - then we'd all be saved!
It's funny, you're such a bigoted anti-religious person yet you whole heartedly subscribe the the religion of Government.
Bullshit. When lower class people can get a larger tax refund than they paid in taxes and the middle and upper class cannot, when the lower class can get food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, and the middle and upper class cannot, and when the middle class cannot even deduct student loan interest or child care expenses from their taxes because they make too much, let alone the upper class, while the lower class can, the government takes from the rich via taxes and gives to the lower class via a large number of programs.
And those same shareholder profits you shame are the same ones funding public service pensions, countless 401ks, college endowments, insurance companies trying to keep premiums low, etc. They benefit far more than just the rich. If companies aren't trying to make money, then they aren't companies - they're charities, and since they don't get donations, they'll be out of business.
No way! Companies are only invested into by the evil mega rich people!
And they should all be charities! Why they even try to turn profits is downright EVIL
So, you're deliberately obtuse.
Facts mean nothing. Personal anecdotes win.
...and you wonder why I call you an idiot?
The middle class aren't guaranteed to save money with the proposed tax plan. Sure, the 30k standard deduction for Married couples is great, but it's offset by personal exemptions going away. If you're a family of 4, you're about break even (4 exemptions at 4k each plus 13k standard deduction) at 29k vs 30k. I don't know how you would itemize >30k in deductions with most of the deductions going away so you're likely going to have a 30k standard for most filers. That does simplify things but it's not a big tax savings for the middle - upper middle class.
Well... here's proof of at least 90% of the population. Knowing the top 1% own roughly 35%-40% of the nation's wealth, it isn't hard to conclude that the trend continues for that other 9%.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/presentation/52373-presentation.pdf
I think the wealth gap growth has more to do with what people are doing with their money. The wealthy tend to save and invest more while just about everyone else spends it. We're in the middle of a bull market and the majority of the country is not invested to see the gains. Add in the fact that many American's "retirement" is Social Security, which is getting a negative real return, and the results aren't surprising.
From '89 to '13, the S&P has more than quadrupled in value.
You point to an income problem, I point to a spending problem.
I tried to like this multiple times but only one is allowed
Well, you already liked one dumbass post from him. I guess you should be allowed to multi-like a second dumbass post from him.
I liked this post of yours so for once you'd be right about something . Now I've liked a dumbass post from a dumbass .
He wasn't trolling when he cried in his circle jerk and vowed to leave here on Feb 28.
This is true. But honesty has never been a pillar of liberalism. In his specific case, no one could really be surprised at his lack of integrity and self-discipline to abide by his word.
Excuses are tools of incompetence used to build mounds of nothingness. The power of thought can overcome any obstacle you face. Quit blaming your problems on others and the environment you live in. Change the way you think and you can reach your own successes versus depending on others to falsely provide that for you.
You should read Outwitting the Devil; amazing book and it will get you through these tough times, Chemmie.
You should read Outwitting the Devil; amazing book and it will get you through these tough times, Chemmie.
Here is further proof that cutting taxes does NOT decimate federal tax revenue streams, as the socialists like chemmie would want you to believe. Supply side theory does work and it's proven out in this chart from the St Louis Federal Reserve.
If you look at the 80's following the Reagan tax cuts, revenue as a % of GDP is actually higher than many, many previous years, going back to the 50's, when we had asinine and immoral tax rates of 60-90% on some income tax brackets. If you look at revenue as a % of GDP after 2003, when the tax cuts passed, we have 4 consecutive years of GROWTH in revenues' percentage, until we got gobsmacked by recession.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
For people like chemmie to be right, revenues as a % of GDP would have to fall off a cliff following tax cuts. But they don't. They never have.
If you look at the 80's following the Reagan tax cuts, revenue as a % of GDP is actually higher than many, many previous years, going back to the 50's, when we had asinine and immoral tax rates of 60-90% on some income tax brackets. If you look at revenue as a % of GDP after 2003, when the tax cuts passed, we have 4 consecutive years of GROWTH in revenues' percentage, until we got gobsmacked by recession.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
For people like chemmie to be right, revenues as a % of GDP would have to fall off a cliff following tax cuts. But they don't. They never have.
It's all about the time period you analyze. The Reagan cuts took 7 years to pay for themselves. If you use that measure on the Bush Tax cuts and look at the tax revenue as a share of GDP, the line started going back up at year 3 and was on track to return to pre-tax cut levels at year 8. However, the housing market crisis hit in year 6. You can't claim it to be a failure considering any tax plan would have failed in that time period due to the impending recession.
Trickle down economics was a term invented by democrats to try to marginalize the Reagan policy. Democrats like Chemmie use it today as if Reagan coined it. The country emerged from that recession rather quickly into a boom. We've only had one period surpassing 3% growth in the Obama "recovery". But hey, wealth envy, corporatism, racism, and whatever deflection is necessary to preserve a skewed worldview.
We ignored it because we were talking about how wages and wealth for 90+% of the population has been stagnant for 35 years and you think we should double-down on that same policy. Your cherry picked statistic adds nothing to the conversation, but you're such a moron you think you showed us.
Similar threads
