Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 16, 2020

Savings for the top six U.S. banks from President Donald Trump's signature tax overhaul accelerated last year, now topping $32 billion as the lenders curbed new borrowing, pared jobs and ramped up payouts to shareholders.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Isn't this really just saying that the tax cuts provided a $32 billion windfall to people who had money in America's banks?

How is this bad exactly?

#1 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-16 03:19 PM | Reply

#1 ha ha, what?? Ha ha. Not a snowflakes chance in hell of that happening.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-01-16 04:36 PM | Reply

"Savings for the top six U.S. banks from President Donald Trump's signature tax overhaul
POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER"

I am no fan of the giant banks - but I don't understand the constant kneejerk reaction every time that the 'banks' make money. It is not like the 'bank' is a single person or a single family. It is shareholders like a vast majority of large companies. In the case of Wells Fargo:

Berkshire
Vanguard
T-Rowe Price
Fidelity

So I ask you - who owns these investors? By and large, they are big pension funds or have heavy ownership from big pension funds. We can typically draw the conclusions that: people that have pension fund account likely always contributed net positive taxes to the US government. So, the most 'diabolical' interpretation is that taxpayers rewarded themselves with the tax cut - but at least it was their own money. The libs want to take money paid in by the productive class and give it directly to the deadbeats in society. In their minds this theft of other's productivity is righteous while wanting to pay less is evil.

#3 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 09:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So I ask you - who owns these investors? By and large, they are big pension funds or have heavy ownership from big pension funds."

Ok Boomer.
One question:
Who under 40 is even offered a pension anymore?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-16 09:14 PM | Reply

"Ok Boomer.
One question:
Who under 40 is even offered a pension anymore?
#4 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Sorry, I should have stated pension funds and 401(k)s, etc, IRA, etc. But specifically to your question, a ------- of public employees in CA, TX, OH, NY through funds like CalPERS - not to mention a majority of teachers at the K-12 and university levels through things like TIAA CREF or CalSTERS.

The better question is - out of the people that have $0 invested in investment accounts utilizing the stock market - how many pay "net positive" federal tax rates? I would wager that number to be close to 0% - hence my point above.

#5 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 09:39 PM | Reply

Ira is saying we should give more money to people who already have money. Sounds pretty American to me. Ira for POTUS.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-01-16 09:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But specifically to your question, a ------- of public employees"

OK Boomer.

"The percentage of workers in the private sector whose only retirement account is a defined benefit pension plan is now 4%, down from 60% in the early 1980s."

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-16 09:52 PM | Reply

"Ira is saying we should give more money to people who already have money. Sounds pretty American to me. Ira for POTUS.
#6 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER"

No - you got it completely backwards. I am saying that we should not take so much from people in the first place. You act like if you were a store owner getting robbed for $100 at gun point each morning - and then the dude holding you up finally gets caught and goes to jail - that same dude is GIVING you $100/day. No -------, he just is no longer stealing so much.

#8 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 09:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Bruce: Grow a ----, Ira!

Ira: I would if I could!

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-16 09:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

""The percentage of workers in the private sector whose only retirement account is a defined benefit pension plan is now 4%, down from 60% in the early 1980s."
#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Approximately 6 in 10 households in the United States own securities investments"typically through taxable accounts, IRAs or employer-sponsored retirement plans.

So, I can't do a Venn diagram to test my theory stated in #5 but 60% owning securities and 50% of taxpayers paying 0% fed tax rates or lower seems to say it is likely correct and maybe even understates my case.

#10 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Bruce: Grow a ----, Ira!
Ira: I would if I could!
#9 | POSTED BY CORKY"

Can you try that again using English or after the high wears off? I am interested in what you are trying to say but I can't decode that.

#11 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:02 PM | Reply

"But specifically to your question, a ------- of public employees"

BFD. The top 1% own more wealth the the bottom 80%. Pretending the new tax code doesn't funnel money upwards is insulting. This is not a bug in the new code, it's the central intent.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-16 10:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"BFD. The top 1% own more wealth the the bottom 80%. Pretending the new tax code doesn't funnel money upwards is insulting. This is not a bug in the new code, it's the central intent.
#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

The current system does just the opposite. The current tax code takes from the top and distributes back down. You are just angry that they don't take more. But don't get that confused with the tax code 'taking from the poor' (which pay no federal taxes) to send it to the top 1%. It is physically impossible and logically stupid.

#13 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"The current system does just the opposite. The current tax code takes from the top and distributes back down."

Total bullschitt. You don't know the first thing about the equation of the new tax code.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-16 10:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Total bullschitt. You don't know the first thing about the equation of the new tax code.
#14 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Then explain how exactly the tax code takes money from people that don't pay federal taxes and 'gives it to the rich'? How exactly does that work. If you don't pay income taxes, it is impossible to 'take' your tax payments - that don't exist - and 'give' it to anyone.

#15 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"'taking from the poor' (which pay no federal taxes)"

Another whopping lie. You're pretending only CERTAIN federal taxes are federal taxes, and the rest don't count. That's a bald-faced lie.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-16 10:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#13

That's hilarious. Ira even arguing economics with Dan is hilarious.

Capitalism is an economic system that naturally flows money upwards; crony capitalism where the wealthy buy pols to write tax laws for them just makes it flow faster.

It's like a poker game where one player sits at the table with a million dollars and the other have a thousand each; there is no question who wins.

Which is why progressive taxation is as American as apple pie... and FDR; it helps level the playing field so that secretaries don't pay more in taxes than billionaires. And if it weren't for the elitist's flunkies and proxy voters like Ira, who thinks he's rich, rofl, more people could have nice things... or at least not live in poverty.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-16 10:13 PM | Reply

"Another whopping lie. You're pretending only CERTAIN federal taxes are federal taxes, and the rest don't count. That's a bald-faced lie.
#16 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Please outline them. How much of this is paid by the 50% that don't pay federal income taxes and what % of that is 'flowed up to the rich'. No emotional arguments - use numbers. How much is being stolen?

#18 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:19 PM | Reply

"Capitalism is an economic system that naturally flows money upwards"

Great - so now you want to move the goalposts because you know Douchefroth made a moronic claim. I actually agree with you - capitalism will flow upwards. It is called efficient allocation of resources.

"crony capitalism where the wealthy buy pols to write tax laws for them just makes it flow faster."

Again - I agree with you 100%. My solution to this problem is to remove the ability of government to control so much of the economy so you keep their ability to "Biden" their way into fortunes at a minimum. You seem to think the solution is to pretend it doesn't happen and empower government with even more money.

"It's like a poker game where one player sits at the table with a million dollars and the other have a thousand each; there is no question who wins."

You have clearly never played poker - or more - have never played it well.

"Which is why progressive taxation is as American as apple pie"

"more people could have nice things... or at least not live in poverty.
#17 | POSTED BY CORKY"

The people that deserve nice things because they are productive - by and large - have nice things in America. Even those like yourself sucking on the government teat have nice things - nice things you are not entitled to but given as a result of taxpayer charity.

#19 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:29 PM | Reply

"The current tax code takes from the top and distributes back down."

Not really.
Also, you're mixing policy (spending) in with the taxing, when you say "distributes," which is not math you've actually done.

Capitalism takes from the top and distributes it back down, in the form of wages. Ever got a job from a poor person?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-16 10:37 PM | Reply

Hey Danforth.

Good luck teaching IRATroll anything.

You'd have more luck teaching a pigeon to play chess.

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-16 10:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's like a poker game where one player sits at the table with a million dollars and the other have a thousand each; there is no question who wins."
You have clearly never played poker - or more - have never played it well.

Nonsense.

Every professional poker player will take the seat with the big stack, in that scenario, because of the huge competitive edge it provides.

Stop being deliberately stupid. It's boring.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-16 10:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You'd have more luck teaching a pigeon to play chess."

Did Russia ever try this? Seems like they would.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-16 10:39 PM | Reply

"Also, you're mixing policy (spending) in with the taxing, when you say "distributes," "

NO. I AM TALKING THE EFFECTIVE ------- TAX RATES. For 50%+ of the population, that is 0%. And guess what - those aren't the ones in the top 1% of income earners. And how can the country get 0% tax rates or negative tax rates from them? Because they take from the productive to give tax credits and refunds to the deadbeats.

"Capitalism takes from the top and distributes it back down, in the form of wages. Ever got a job from a poor person?
#20 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Ever start your own company? You don't need to be rich to do that. Capital creation is across all income groups - it is just the ones that are productive and smart can move from one group to the next as their wealth increases. You want an example - Steve Harvey. Dude busted his ass to get where he is today. He is part of the 0.1% and he was homeless during the middle part of his life.

#24 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:42 PM | Reply

"NO. I AM TALKING THE EFFECTIVE ------- TAX RATES."

No, you're not, because all taxes except the Federal and State income taxes are regressive, and so is the net burden, on the whole. It actually depends which state you live in, how regressive or not your taxes are. But, on the whole, they're regressive.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-16 10:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Ever start your own company? You don't need to be rich to do that."

^
This is the part where Mitt Romney advises young people to get get a loan of $50,000 from their parents, and Donald Trump mentions he got a small loan of $1,000,000 from his dad.

You need to be rich to do that.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-16 10:46 PM | Reply

NYT Bestseller:

"Art of the Troll", by Ira J. Golberg.

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-01-16 10:48 PM | Reply

"You want an example - Steve Harvey. Dude busted his ass to get where he is today. He is part of the 0.1% and he was homeless during the middle part of his life."

Sadly, the world only needs one host at a time for Family Feud, so that's not really too broad a pathway for many others to follow...
Seems about as improbable a thing to happening as someone who really loves sports making into pro sports...

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-16 10:51 PM | Reply

- Even those like yourself sucking on the government teat

Yet another example of how stupid some newbie can look when he doesn't know the players here. Also an example of their self-delusion that anyone who disagrees with their wealthier than thou BS must have less than them; it is terribly difficult for them to understand people who are not as self-concerned as they are.

It's why a wealthy person who actually cared about others than himself, and about his country, as did FDR, is so confusing for them. Of course, Ira prefers Charles Lindbergh and the original America Firsters to FDR, because, you know, Hitler was going to do right by the Jews by shipping them to death camps in Madagascar.

- You have clearly never played poker

Another example of the moronic; players with similar skills where one has multiples more cash than the others, the one with the much larger bankroll will always ultimately win.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-16 10:58 PM | Reply

""Art of the Troll", by Ira J. Golberg.
#27 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Ira plagiarized my book!?! That bastard! My lawyers will be in touch with you soon, Ira!

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-16 11:06 PM | Reply

" it is impossible to 'take' your tax payments - that don't exist - and 'give' it to anyone."

Another lie from Ira Lieburg. Dubya cited payroll tax overcollections to justify an income tax cut.

Despite what some idiots will blather, a federal tax is a federal tax is a federal tax.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-16 11:13 PM | Reply

Ira plagiarized my book!?!

And didn't learn much. He's about as subtle as a car bomb.

#32 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-01-16 11:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"by the 50% that don't pay federal income taxes"

Annnnnnd, the goalposts have been moved. "Federal taxes" have become "federal income taxes", as if the vast majority of workers (almost 70%) don't pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than they do INCOME taxes.

In Lieburg's world, the only real taxes are the ones he deems real. Republican Math at its ugliest.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-16 11:19 PM | Reply

" For 50%+ of the population, that is 0%."

First off, you're pretending the federal taxes most people pay more of, aren't federal taxes.

Second, you're conflating two systems--taxation and welfare--simply because they're on the same form. If someone pays $1000 in taxes, and receives $1005 in welfare, they've still paid $1000 in taxes. Welfare is NOT a return of tax money.

And third, there are five major reasons 50% of folks don't pay income taxes on their income tax return...can you name them? I'll even give you a hint: all five were Republican initiatives. And I've already spotted you one of the five answers.

It takes a lot of purposeful ignorance to turn the dial from hot to cold, and then bitch about the water getting colder.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-16 11:27 PM | Reply

Wisgod is right.

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-16 11:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Federal taxes" have become "federal income taxes", as if the vast majority of workers (almost 70%) don't pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than they do INCOME taxes."

Payroll taxes are a mandatory mechanism for individuals to self-fund themselves in the out years. It's dishonest to compare payroll taxes to income taxes because the benefit provided is going to be the same for a rich individual or a less-rich individual, based on contributions.

Like the VATs that fund so many services in western Europe, Payroll taxes are the only taxes that treat individuals equally, regardless of income.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 02:39 AM | Reply

$32 billion windfall to people who had money in America's banks?

How is this bad exactly?

#1 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-16 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a strong contender for dumbest post of 2020.

"The average bank interest rate for checking accounts in the United States is 0.06%; the average bank savings rate is currently 0.09%"

HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THAT WINDFALL!

#37 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-17 06:50 AM | Reply

I am saying that we should not take so much from people in the first place. You act like if you were a store owner getting robbed for $100 at gun point each morning - and then the dude holding you up finally gets caught and goes to jail - that same dude is GIVING you $100/day. No -------, he just is no longer stealing so much.

#8 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 09:59 PM | Reply | Flag

So I am taking it you are OUTRAGED that the middle class pays higher taxes than the 1% after Fat Nixon's Tax Scam.

#38 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-17 06:53 AM | Reply

The current system does just the opposite. The current tax code takes from the top and distributes back down. You are just angry that they don't take more. But don't get that confused with the tax code 'taking from the poor' (which pay no federal taxes) to send it to the top 1%. It is physically impossible and logically stupid.

#13 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry Madbomber, you have lost your title as dumbest post of 2020.

www.cbsnews.com

The 400 richest U.S. families now pay a lower overall tax rate than the middle-class, the first time that's happened in 100 years, according to economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

'taking from the poor' (which pay no federal taxes)

That is a flat out lie.

#39 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-17 06:59 AM | Reply

NO. I AM TALKING THE EFFECTIVE ------- TAX RATES.

#24 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-16 10:42 PM | Reply | Fla

Factoring in federal, state and local taxes, those ultra-wealthy households pay a total rate of about 23% " that compares with just over 24% for the bottom half of households

You are talking out your ill informed ass.

#40 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-17 07:03 AM | Reply

#37

I don't know any grown ups who are loading up their savings (or checking) accounts in order to generate a return. Do you?

"So I am taking it you are OUTRAGED that the middle class pays higher taxes than the 1% after Fat Nixon's Tax Scam."

Fact:

Average tax rate for top 1%: 26.3

Average tax rate for bottom 50%: 3.6%

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 07:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You want an example - Steve Harvey. Dude busted his ass to get where he is today. He is part of the 0.1% and he was homeless during the middle part of his life."

One person as an example of how "everyone" can do it is the myth the right loves to clutch onto.

It requires an immense amount of talent, luck and hard work. If you don't have all three, you are doing stand up at the Airport Ramada on open mic night in front of 18 traveling salesmen half in the bag while parking cars at the airport for $7.25 per hour.

Hard work used to mean something. The days of working hard for a company and being taken care of by the company have been gone for 40 years. I watched it here, the building manager made this building great, worked hard, put in the hours and made sure the tenants were taken care of. When the demands got so great and he started a family and could not work 65 hours a week any more they got him an "assistant". Once his assistant got up to speed he was "downsized" because he could no longer be as productive as he used to be when he could spend all his time here. I don't know if his former assistant is smart enough to see the pattern, but they just hired him an "assistant".

#42 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-17 07:13 AM | Reply

"Federal taxes" have become "federal income taxes", as if the vast majority of workers (almost 70%) don't pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than they do INCOME taxes."

HAHAHAHA

The payroll tax is a much heavier burden for the middle class than income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 62 percent of all taxpaying households paid more in payroll taxes than income taxes in 2017; and 67 percent of households with incomes below $100,000 in annual income paid more in payroll taxes. The average effective payroll tax rate for households in the middle quintile of the income distribution was 8 percent in 2016, well above the average effective rate of 3.5 percent for income taxes.

www.realclearpolicy.com

Does it hurt to be wrong so much?

#43 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-17 07:19 AM | Reply

Fact:

Average tax rate for top 1%: 26.3

Average tax rate for bottom 50%: 3.6%

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 07:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong www.cbsnews.com

Factoring in federal, state and local taxes, those ultra-wealthy households pay a total rate of about 23% " that compares with just over 24% for the bottom half of households.

#44 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-17 07:21 AM | Reply

44

you didn't attach the link....can I see it?

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-17 10:05 AM | Reply

"It's dishonest to compare payroll taxes to income taxes...."

Pick up a history book, for God's sake: Dubya cited payroll tax overcollections as a reason to cut income taxes. A federal tax is a federal tax is a federal tax.

"...because the benefit provided is going to be the same for a rich individual or a less-rich individual, based on contributions."

No, the benefit will not be the same. You're misunderstanding the equation.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 10:40 AM | Reply

"Payroll taxes are the only taxes that treat individuals equally, regardless of income."

Nonsense. Payroll taxes decrease by over 80% after $138K of income.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 10:43 AM | Reply

"Average tax rate for top 1%: 26.3
Average tax rate for bottom 50%: 3.6%"

Average rate for MadBomber cherry-picking which federal taxes "count" and which federal taxes don't: 100%

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 10:49 AM | Reply

"Payroll taxes are the only taxes that treat individuals equally, regardless of income."

Excise taxes on line #1 for you. Gasoline tax on line #2. Sales tax on line #3.

If we had a line #4, Ad Valorum would be on it.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 10:55 AM | Reply

"you didn't attach the link...can I see it?"

Post #39

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 10:56 AM | Reply

"You are talking out your ill informed ass."

Sorry Nixon but I think you have Madbomber wrong. He isn't ill informed, no, he's just a liar who comes here to post talking points regularly that support an unfair tax system beneficial to the 1%. There are lots of those guys, billionaires can afford lots of them so they do.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-17 11:28 AM | Reply

"Factoring in federal, state and local taxes, those ultra-wealthy households pay a total rate of about 23% " that compares with just over 24% for the bottom half of households."

Not according to the IRS:

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.

-In 2016, 140.9 million taxpayers reported earning $10.2 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.4 trillion in individual income taxes.

-The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell slightly to 19.7 percent in 2016. Their share of federal individual income taxes fell slightly, to 37.3 percent.

-In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.

-The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

-The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).

Your link didn't work, so I was unable to read whatever it was you wanted to present.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 11:52 AM | Reply

"A federal tax is a federal tax is a federal tax."

A Federal income tax is not the same as a FICA tax. If they were the same, it would just be the federal tax. On my pay stub, they're broken out.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 11:54 AM | Reply

Funny how there has been a fix for this for decades yet Libs, who only make it an issue because it gets them votes, just choose to ignore it. I mean, I assume it's the same reason as always, it actually takes a little effort and who are we to expect Libs actually making any kind of effort, amirite?

If you don't like Banks getting all the money, start using credit unions only. They don't have stakeholders to cater to and are not-for-profit. They've existed since the early 1900s in the US and today are chartered in a way that anyone almost anyone has the ability to join one. The bigger ones offer most of the same services and their rates are comparable. If every Liberal in America were to leave banks and join CUs, a lot of your pain points wouldn't exist anymore. Even SMBs can use CUs up to a point. Even if it doesn't cause banks to go out of business, it would hurt them significantly.

Of course, if enough people moved to CUs then there would be a huge battle and most likely CUs would just turn into banks. But for now they are non-taxed, community owned, and offer what you need.

#54 | Posted by humtake at 2020-01-17 11:55 AM | Reply

"Average rate for MadBomber cherry-picking which federal taxes "count" and which federal taxes don't: 100%"

Even if you add in social security, it just changes the numbers by 7.65%. Both would go up by the same amount.

In the end, no real change.

#49

What would my sister and mother in Oregon enter on line 3?

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 12:05 PM | Reply

"Sorry Nixon but I think you have Madbomber wrong. He isn't ill informed, no, he's just a liar who comes here to post talking points regularly that support an unfair tax system beneficial to the 1%. There are lots of those guys, billionaires can afford lots of them so they do."

I posted the data. From the IRS. Any problem you have with the data is a problem with them.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 12:06 PM | Reply

"The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax..."

Stop redefining federal taxes as only income taxes.

"In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent."

Because of Five Republican Initiatives. Name them, or STFU about this meaningless stat. Or, turn the equation to just count payroll taxes, and see what happens.

"A Federal income tax is not the same as a FICA tax."

It certainly was when it suddenly became YOUR INCOME TAX CUT.

"On my pay stub, they're broken out."

So TF what? They're both federal taxes. That's like saying a Dental Benefit and a Health Benefit aren't both Health Benefits.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 12:08 PM | Reply

"I posted the data. From the IRS."

On income tax only.

"Any problem you have with the data is a problem with them."

The problem is your Humpty Dumpty impersonation.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 12:09 PM | Reply

"Even if you add in social security, it just changes the numbers by 7.65%. "

SS is 12.4%, Medicare is 2.9%. Stop using Republican Math.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 12:10 PM | Reply

On rhe day of high school graduation, some have had jobs while others have never worked.

At this moment in life, this high school has a number of students, people joining the unemployed.

Take a look at your highschool graduates. Besides those that have died, what happened to your class economically?

I went to school with 154 kids from 1st to 12th grade. I'd say 10% have passed away. 80 % are middle class, making about $25-75k.
5% are making over $75k, a few easily making $200k+. The rest are in jail or homeless.

12 years we all went to school. Same teachers, same education. Guess why there are incomes of $200k going to those few. How about $75k?

Most were the top 10% at graduation. This is HS. Others busted their butts.

At the reunion, all you have to do is listen to what choices people made to be making 25-75. It's even more noticable when they tell you what their doing after the party.

Most actually are enjoying life, despite maybe some grumbling...but their current choices haven't changed their lot in life because it is a repeat.

Why are people voted most likely to succeed then? Most are that way now. Behavior, action or no action.

My 401 made $. Great.

Oh, If you give me $100 and I give you $105, I am out $5.

#60 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-17 12:17 PM | Reply

"If you give me $100 and I give you $105, I am out $5."

But you don't get to pretend I didn't give you $100.

In actuality, the real equation is you gave $100, and got back $105.
www.investopedia.com

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 12:23 PM | Reply

"Because of Five Republican Initiatives. Name them, or STFU about this meaningless stat."

It's a stat. It only has meaning if you if you care that 50% of income earners are paying 97%, while the remaining 50% pay almost nothing.

I can't name five, but the TRA of 1986 did have the impact of increasing the total amount of taxes collected from high income households, while reducing the tax burden on lower income earner.

"So TF what? They're both federal taxes."

Not really.

Federal income taxes are collected as a means of funding operations. Everything from the military to the FAA to NASA...to whatever. FICA taxes are collected, only to be returned to the taxpayer at a later time in the form of a benefit. And what they pay in FICA will be more or less proportionally returned to them.

But you know this, don't you.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 12:24 PM | Reply

"SS is 12.4%, Medicare is 2.9%. Stop using Republican Math."

Add in whatever amount you want. It's still going to change each average by the same amount.

It's still going to be 3.7+n% and 26.9+n%.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 12:26 PM | Reply

I of course despise what Trump did. But, for what it is worth, I have no doubt but that HRC would have been equally obsequious to banks and the big corporations. In 2016, the big money interests were going to win no matter who won the election.

#64 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-17 12:30 PM | Reply

If you owe $50 and the govt gives you $100 in credits, you got $50 and got $50 more you didnt pay in.

#65 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-17 12:31 PM | Reply

Technically, for the wealthy income earners, it would be 26.9+n%, with n declining as taxable income increased. But the bottom line...the undisputable fact, is that top 1% ends up paying a higher effective rate than the bottom 50%. Regardless of how you want to delineate between types of taxes.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 12:36 PM | Reply

"If you owe $50 and the govt gives you $100 in credits, you got $50 and got $50 more you didnt pay in."

More Republican math, dan?

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 12:37 PM | Reply

"I can't name five..."

You can't name ONE, and I've already given you one. Time to STFU, or name the initiatives. So far, you've proven you don't understand how the equation works.

"but the TRA of 1986 did have the impact of increasing the total amount of taxes collected from high income households, while reducing the tax burden on lower income earner""

News alert: If high income households pay a higher percentage of income taxes after tax rates were lowered...that means they control AN EVEN LARGER percentage of the wealth than before.

"It only has meaning if you if you care that 50% of income earners are paying 97%, while the remaining 50% pay almost nothing."

When you were a child, let's say your neighbors worked, and filed their income taxes, and had a $2000 liability for income taxes. Luckily, they had exactly $2000 withheld from their W-2s, so they neither got a refund, nor paid any more on April 15th. Because they didn't make much, they also, as a family, qualified for $3000 in welfare, to help feed & clothe the children, which was paid out monthly. Did these two workers pay any income tax?

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 12:43 PM | Reply

"If you owe $50 and the govt gives you $100 in credits, you got $50 and got $50 more you didnt pay in."

But enough about the red states.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 12:44 PM | Reply

"It's still going to be 3.7+n% and 26.9+n%."

That's not the equation when, at higher incomes, SS taxes go away.

It also doesn't address the large issues which move the needle, like GRATs, stepped-up basis, tax deductions for the appreciated value of assets without having to claim the income, and favorable rates for capital gains and qualified dividends. But that's just for starters.

"that top 1% ends up paying a higher effective rate than the bottom 50%."

As long as your basic assumption still ignores the five initiatives, that stat is meaningless.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 12:49 PM | Reply

"But the bottom line...the undisputable fact, is that top 1% ends up paying a higher effective rate than the bottom 50%."

Can't waste the time verifying your statistic but if it is true then that is as it should be. Hell yeah!

#71 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-17 12:56 PM | Reply

"That's not the equation when, at higher incomes, SS taxes go away."

No it doesn't. Taxable income caps out at $127k, after which point the amount you have paid for SS ($7874 @ $127k) becomes a smaller percentage of the total payments to the government. But whether you make $127k or $127m, you're always going to pay that 6.2% of $127k.

Which is kinda the point. You could increase the amount collected, but you would only have to increase the maximum benefit as well. Why?

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 01:22 PM | Reply

"Did these two workers pay any income tax?"

You only named one working family as far as I can tell. And no, they didn't pay any income tax. You literally said so yourself.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 01:25 PM | Reply

"It also doesn't address the large issues which move the needle, like GRATs, stepped-up basis, tax deductions for the appreciated value of assets without having to claim the income, and favorable rates for capital gains and qualified dividends. But that's just for starters."

All those features were included in the IRS data, because it was based on taxes filed. That 26.9% is the average effective tax rate for the top 1% of income earners based on their tax returns.

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 01:31 PM | Reply

"Can't waste the time verifying your statistic but if it is true then that is as it should be."

Yeah. Make sure not to waste time chasing reality...better to confine yourself to your own head.

And the 1% are still only paying 37.3% of the total tax burden. Don't you think it should be closer to 90%? Maybe 95%?

No more than 99% though, right. Leave em a bone to chew on in return for their efforts.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 01:34 PM | Reply

And the 1% are still only paying 37.3% of the total tax burden.
#75

They can always choose to earn less. That should lower their onerous tax burden and give them a taste of the free-balling/commando lifestyle that the rest of us enjoy.

#76 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-17 02:10 PM | Reply

"They can always choose to earn less. That should lower their onerous tax burden and give them a taste of the free-balling/commando lifestyle that the rest of us enjoy."

They sure can.

Wanna reduce inequality? Ban high income earners from engaging in activities that result in said inequality.

Surely there could be no downside to such a policy.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-17 02:36 PM | Reply

"whether you make $127k or $127m, you're always going to pay that 6.2% of $127k."

And what percent will you pay of $127m?

In addition, you pay 12.4% for SS, not 6.2%. If you don't believe that, guess what happens if your boss skips town without paying: YOU'RE LIABLE.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 04:06 PM | Reply

NO. I AM TALKING THE EFFECTIVE ------- TAX RATES. For 50%+ of the population, that is 0%. And guess what - those aren't the ones in the top 1% of income earners. And how can the country get 0% tax rates or negative tax rates from them? Because they take from the productive to give tax credits and refunds to the deadbeats.

#24 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

This is the dumbest talking point of all time.

Of Adults who don't pay income taxes:
About 60% are workers and the remaining 40% are retirees.

Workers = Productive People with Garbage Wages doing Jobs that Society would break down without
Elderly = Not Productive People but typically Republicans like Ira

And why do we have such rich people? Because they are so productive? Of course not. They wouldn't be that rich anywhere else despite being that "productive".

It's because we have 200 million people working in this country and we pay a large number of them garbage wages.

This is the Republican Lie: All an individual's wealth comes from their own hard work.

Go to Ethiopia without your family's money/connections and without all of the social benefits of living in America, and then let me know how the hard work pays off for you.

#79 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-17 04:33 PM | Reply

"Wanna reduce inequality? Ban high income earners from engaging in activities that result in said inequality."

^
This is a very convoluted way to say "Raise the capital gains tax."
But you're absolutely right.
Making labor a more attractive investment than capital would have that effect.
Why don't you want that effect?

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-17 04:36 PM | Reply

"Making labor a more attractive investment than capital would have that effect."

In the current tax code, a Trust Fund Baby opening $50,000 in dividends from Proctor & Gamble owes NO federal taxes. Meanwhile, a janitor profiting $50,000 via sweat-of-the-brow labor owes over $10,000 in federal taxes.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 05:05 PM | Reply

"And guess what - those aren't the ones in the top 1% of income earners. "

Some of them are. The IRS reports about 1470 filers with AGIs over $1 million and ZERO tax liability.

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-17 05:07 PM | Reply

Let me see if I have this correctly...

People are actually arguing whether or not the Trump tax cuts were not designed to benefit the corporations and the wealthy.

I had thought it was a moot point, as Republicans have only been in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy (and, by extension, corporations).

What is the disagreement here?

#83 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-17 09:44 PM | Reply

To wit:
drudge.com

#84 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-17 09:46 PM | Reply

"What is the disagreement here?"

There's only manufactured attempts at outrage, like this gem from IraGoldberg:

If the banks get even richer through tax cuts, that will trickle down to pensioners through the bank stock price going up. Therefore, you're a bad person who hates the poor schoolteachers who had their budget slashed if you oppose corporate greed.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-17 09:48 PM | Reply

Does the IRS explain what legal deductions the Republican and Democrat Congresses over the years authorized them to take and when those laws were passed?

Is it too hard to believe that the rich benefit from tax breaks both parties, when controlling the Congress and WH, have given them and both had the chance to eliminate them?

Stop bitching that one party is responsible for tax breaks when both give tax breaks and both could have ended them.

Where are the filibusters to stop all these breaks? Where is the AMT regarding these zero taxes? Or, are we talking a certain tax wasn't owed, but other taxes were.

#86 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-18 10:12 AM | Reply

When the Trump tax cuts were done, how many filibusters were done to stop them?

#87 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-18 10:13 AM | Reply

When the Trump tax cuts were done, how many filibusters were done to stop them?

#87 | Posted by Petrous

McConnell pushed the individual and pass through tax cuts through via 'reconciliation,' which requires only a simple majority. The only portion that will not sunset in 2017 is the corporate tax rate.

Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin have stated the tax cuts would pay for themselves.

With deficits back over a trillion a year - in a 'booming economy' - they are obviously NOT paying for themselves, are they?

#88 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-01-18 10:35 AM | Reply

No, the national debt is horrendous and so are deficits. Both parties suck. I dont care which sucks more, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

I still support going back to our treaties and amend them, close bases, bring troops home, slash the military spending, and our UN contribution of troops...we start sending no more than the country sending the least.

#89 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-18 10:47 AM | Reply

Companies can grow/expand two ways [1] issue stock to raise money, and [2] borrow [take on debt [leverage] from those evil banks. Seems those banks may actually serve a purpose - go figure.

#90 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01-18 11:56 AM | Reply

"Companies can grow/expand two ways [1] issue stock to raise money, and [2] borrow [take on debt [leverage] from those evil banks. "

More borrowing is not why banks have posted larger profits; lower corporate tax rates (i.e., more borrowing, since it's ALL additional debt) is the reason.

"go figure."

I did: And since corporations get the lion's share of the tax "cuts" (additional borrowing), and they don't pay back at the same rate as the cuts, that means YOU will have to pay more in the future. Basically, every taxpayer in your household borrowed an additional $11,000. Was that worth the few extra bucks a week you get?

And before you answer, remember: most of your "larger paycheck" didn't come from tax cuts, it came from your wallet: withholding rates were lowered MORE than tax rates; the difference affects your bottom line next April 15th.

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-18 01:32 PM | Reply

"Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin have stated the tax cuts would pay for themselves. "

They knew it was a lie when they said it.

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-18 01:34 PM | Reply

"Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin have stated the tax cuts would pay for themselves. "

They knew it was a lie when they said it.

#92 | Posted by Danforth

Of course they did. Two rounds of Bush tax cuts took us from surpluses to trillion dollar deficits.

Why would they think another round would lead to anything but more trillion dollar deficits?

#93 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-01-18 01:40 PM | Reply

"Companies can grow/expand two ways [1] issue stock to raise money, and [2] borrow [take on debt [leverage] from those evil banks."

That is just not true. They can also reinvest profits instead of giving big dividends to stock holders. Duh! Which is what we were told when they passed the tax cuts though many of us laughed at that and only the dumbies believed it. You see, we saw this movie back when Bush was President, he did pretty much the same things Trump is doing. What happened in the end? You tell me. you know but it would kill your argument if you admitted that you also know the truth.

#94 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-18 01:43 PM | Reply

#94 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2020-01-18 01:43 PM | FLAG: Many of us invest in dividend paying stocks for cash flow and many of those companies consider that when paying out dividends. Oh those greedy companies, paying back shareholders for taking on risk by investing in them, terrible simply TERRIBLE!

Somehow, I get the feeling that you are not someone who is into investing to get fiscally ahead/supplement your income in life.

#95 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01-18 05:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort