Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, September 24, 2021

Billionaires sit on vast pools of money and assets, and only a tiny portion of their wealth goes toward federal incomes taxes " they've paid an average income tax rate of 8.2% over roughly the last decade.

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.

Tangentially related...

How Accounting Giants Craft Favorable Tax Rules From Inside Government
www.nytimes.com

... Lawyers from top accounting firms do brief stints in the Treasury Department, with the expectation of big raises when they return.

For six years, Audrey Ellis and Adam Feuerstein worked together at PwC, the giant accounting firm, helping the world's biggest companies avoid taxes.

In mid-2018, one of Mr. Feuerstein's clients, an influential association of real estate companies, was trying to persuade government officials that its members should qualify for a new federal tax break. Mr. Feuerstein knew just the person to turn to for help. Ms. Ellis had recently joined the Treasury Department, and she was drafting the rules for this very deduction.

That summer, Ms. Ellis met with Mr. Feuerstein and his client's lobbyists. The next week, the Treasury granted their wish " a decision potentially worth billions of dollars to PwC's clients.

About a year later, Ms. Ellis returned to PwC, where she was immediately promoted to partner. She and Mr. Feuerstein now work together advising large companies on how to exploit wrinkles in the tax regulations that Ms. Ellis helped write.
...



#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-24 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Billionaires Pay 8% Income Tax Rate

That's because billionaires can afford to brainwash millions of broke morons into voting for their puppet candidates who will obediently cut their taxes.

There's broke losers on this very site fighting to cut billionaires' taxes which will raise their own costs.

#2 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-24 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But AOC's dress!?!? Don't focus on the message!

#3 | Posted by Brennnn at 2021-09-24 03:55 PM | Reply

Think how much more tax revenue we would collect if we lowered that to 0%, allowing Job Creators to invest more of their money in the economy, creating lower paying jobs that do pay income taxes!
--Republicans

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-24 04:05 PM | Reply

"It's a lie! It's a lie!" - Madboazsniper

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-24 04:19 PM | Reply

It's funny. Whenever the topic of 'the rich pay so little in taxes' come up, the implication is that it's the rich's fault.

They are only taking advantage of tax laws written by people everyone elects, whether they elected a Democrat or Republican.

Of course the rich own Congress and dictate how they vote, so maybe it is the rich's fault.

#6 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-24 04:23 PM | Reply

They are only taking advantage of tax laws written by people they paid to write said tax laws.

Fixed that for you.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-24 04:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- the rich own Congress and dictate how they vote, so maybe it is the rich's fault.

Well, duh!

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-24 04:30 PM | Reply

@#6 ... Whenever the topic of 'the rich pay so little in taxes' come up, the implication is that it's the rich's fault. ...

I don't see that implication.

The implication I do see is that it is the Republicans who put the wealthy-favorable tax laws into place.


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-24 04:31 PM | Reply

#9 - both parties are responsible for the tax laws.

The top tax rate has been cut six times since 1980 " usually with Democrats' help

www.washingtonpost.com

#10 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-24 04:41 PM | Reply

Billionaires are worshiped in this country like India worships cows. There really isn't a practical point to it and it makes starving people suffer.

#11 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2021-09-24 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"both parties are responsible for the tax laws. "

Republicans have been the authors for the cuts, with a few Dem votes back in 81 and 86 under Reagan. The Clinton increases had D votes, of course, but that's where the "both parties" concept ends.

From there, the GW Bush cuts had almost zero D votes, the "Obama increase" was just the sunset the Republicans wrote, and the Trump code didn't get a single Dem vote.

Ultimately, Dems voted to get America on the path to Surplusville. Rs changed the fiscal sites to Debtsylvania. The "both parties" claim is debunked by the equation.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-24 04:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#10 ... both parties are responsible for the tax laws. ...

The article you cite pretty much confirms my view that it is Republicans who put into place the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yes, Democrats also vote in favor, but the Republicans are usually the majority behind the tax cut and, except for one instance noted in the article, also occupy the White House.

As the headline of the article says, "usually with Democrats' help," implying that the cuts were driven by the Republicans.



#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-24 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, pretending one "tax cut" is like another is ludicrous.

The most lopsided tax code I thought I'd ever see was the GWB second code. Fully 27% went to the top 1%. But that's peanuts: once Trump's code comes to fruition, it's 83% to the top 1%...with 60% going to the top .1%.

And since it's on top of a deficit budget, it's all newly borrowed money. Another 10% of all the debt we've rung up since 1776. We're literally borrowing money to give away to the world's richest 1%.

Where are the deficit hawks, wanting to enforce a debt ceiling now???

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-24 04:55 PM | Reply

#13 - it doesn't matter who "drives" it. What matters is who votes for it. Both parties must serve their corporate and billionaire masters or they lose their campaign contributions. It's not in the best interest of either party to tax the rich. That's why the rich pay so relatively little in taxes.

#15 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-24 04:55 PM | Reply

"implying that the cuts were driven by the Republicans."

That's only because the cuts were driven by the Republicans.

Authors, and all....

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-24 04:56 PM | Reply

"it doesn't matter who "drives" it."

Nonsense; of course it does. It matters who writes it and who champions it. You can't pin any of the Trump giveaway on the party of zero votes.

The scale also matters; if one code raises a few taxes here and there, and another slashes taxes everywhere at three times the cost, the latter incident is much more impactful.

And it matters for the reasons as well: the more societal credits are jammed onto the 1040, the "percentage who don't pay (income) taxes" goes up. Guess which party writes a law excluding more folks from income taxes one day, then complains a higher percentage "don't pay taxes" the next?

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-24 05:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#15 ... it doesn't matter who "drives" it. ...

Yes, it does matter who drives it. It is their bill.


... What matters is who votes for it. Both parties...

Who votes for it is significantly Republican.

The continued attempts of your comments to paint the Democrats on an equal basis with Republicans on this topic is weak.


#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-24 05:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To deny that that the Democrats don't have an interest in passing favorable tax laws to help the rich is lame.

on the "driving": The Republicans can drive the hell out of something, but if they don't get the needed votes, it's for naught. And they almost always need Democrats to pass tax laws.

Tell me, how many tax laws that raised taxes on the rich have the Democrats passed when they had full control of the executive and legislative branches of the government? Last time that happened was the first two years of the Obama administration. (111 congress) At that time, Bush's tax cuts were extended.

#19 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-24 06:23 PM | Reply

It's funny. Whenever the topic of 'the rich pay so little in taxes' come up, the implication is that it's the rich's fault.

They are only taking advantage of tax laws written by people everyone elects, whether they elected a Democrat or Republican.

Of course the rich own Congress and dictate how they vote, so maybe it is the rich's fault.

#6 | Posted by jakester

Instead of debating yourself, just delete every sentence instead of the last one.

It must be hard for you to fight your instinct to just defend plutocrats and republicans on every thread though.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-24 07:03 PM | Reply

#13 - it doesn't matter who "drives" it. What matters is who votes for it. Both parties must serve their corporate and billionaire masters or they lose their campaign contributions. It's not in the best interest of either party to tax the rich. That's why the rich pay so relatively little in taxes.

#15 | Posted by jakester a

Which party wants to raise taxes on the rich and which ones to cut them?
Which party created the consumer financial protection bureau and which is trying to destroy it?

You realize basic facts exist right? And people can just look them up and see what a liar you are.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-24 07:05 PM | Reply

Tell me, how many tax laws that raised taxes on the rich have the Democrats passed when they had full control of the executive and legislative branches of the government? Last time that happened was the first two years of the Obama administration.
#19 | Posted by jakester

Yeah so the VERY LAST TIME dems had control they raised taxes on the rich.

Now they have control again and they're doing it again.

And when repubs get control they cut them.

Then a moron like you comes in and tries to say both sides are the same as if we're all as dumb as you.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-24 07:06 PM | Reply

That 8% number seems high. The actual real number is likely exactly 0%.

#23 | Posted by a_monson at 2021-09-25 02:25 AM | Reply

That 8% number seems high. The actual real number is likely exactly 0%.

#24 | Posted by a_monson at 2021-09-25 02:27 AM | Reply

I've been trying to follow this.

To me it soulds like a stupid policy intended to appeal to stupid people.

My big question however is if unrealized looses (or a percentage of unrealized losses) could be deducted from a household's tax bill. Overall, the value of my investments has decreased in 2021.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-25 04:27 AM | Reply

"But AOC's dress!?!? Don't focus on the message!"

The one she wore to the $30k met gala?

Reminds me of a certain pig named napoleon.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-25 04:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#36 - exactly.

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts?
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt,
Always have clean shirts to play around in

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat the bacon

#27 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-25 08:01 AM | Reply

^ referenced post #26, not #36.

#28 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-25 08:07 AM | Reply

"Both parties must serve their corporate and billionaire masters or they lose their campaign contributions. It's not in the best interest of either party to tax the rich. That's why the rich pay so relatively little in taxes."

The top 1% of income earners is paying both of our fair shares.

And if you want more fairness, do what the rest of the world has done and demand that your lawmakers enact a VAT.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-25 09:31 AM | Reply

"The top 1% of income earners is paying both of our fair shares."

Nonsense. Especially if they pay 8%, and you pay 28%.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-25 12:49 PM | Reply

"The top 1% of income earners is paying both of our fair shares."

In that case, you and I are overpaying dramatically.

If they're paying my fair share, my income tax rate should be zero. Yours too.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-25 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But AOC's dress!?

AOC is fkkked.

Short of living like Mother Teresa, she's going to get attacked by the dumbest of Americans for trying to help make their lives better.

The DR morons living out of their mom's basement sure do hate her.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-09-25 03:07 PM | Reply

"The DR morons living out of their mom's basement sure do hate her."

I think I might go as AOC for Halloween this year.

www.bing.com

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-25 03:17 PM | Reply

And I'll pay proletarian prices for the same dress.

I'll be in Vegas.

Maybe I'll wander up and down the strip saying stupid ----.

Maybe they'll think I'm her.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-25 03:18 PM | Reply

"Nonsense. Especially if they pay 8%, and you pay 28%."

Would you rather have 8% of what they make or 28% of what I make?

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-25 03:19 PM | Reply

"Would you rather have 8% of what they make or 28% of what I make?"

I'd rather the tax code not funnel money upward. Consider these facts:

Warren Buffet pays a lower effective rate than his secretary.

A 25 yr old Trust Fund Baby earning $50,000 in Wal-Mart dividends owes no federal taxes. Meanwhile, a janitor profiting $50,000 from sweat-of-the-brow labor owes over $10,000 in federal taxes.

Sheldon Adelson's family saved $2.3 Billion in inheritance taxes by using GRATs, also used by the Walton family, Mark Zuckerberg, Ralph Lauren, etc., etc.

And the IRS has announced that, as things currently stand, they can't afford to audit the rich.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-25 03:30 PM | Reply

"I'd rather the tax code not funnel money upward."

So then you would favor a VAT.

Me too.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-25 03:47 PM | Reply

"So then you would favor a VAT."

No, I'd favor a more progressive income tax code with less loopholes. I'd also fund an IRS high-income wing.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-25 03:53 PM | Reply

My big question however is if unrealized looses (or a percentage of unrealized losses) could be deducted from a household's tax bill.

If you are going to tax unrealized gains that would make sense.

Overall, the value of my investments has decreased in 2021.

Ouch, if you want a new investment advisor I'm available. I'm up 23% in 2021.

#39 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-09-25 04:03 PM | Reply

"Would you rather have 8% of what they make or 28% of what I make?"

8% of a billion is... 80 million.

Which is more than we'll earn in this life.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-25 04:26 PM | Reply

As I said on another thread a few days ago - propose a tax that actually hits billionaires or those with annual income over $100M and you will have no opposition. But, Biden won't do that because he wouldn't have his rich oligarchs funding his campaign. If I look at the list of billionaires in the US, I see a bunch of Democrats and Never Trumpers. So, they should be in full support of the Dems raising their taxes - so why doesn't Biden actually propose that? Why is there still a carried interest deduction and legal insider trading by Congress? It is because the Democrat party of the dumb political muscle of the Billionaire class in the US. They are laughing at you because you are so easy to distract. Horseteeth Cortez wears are $35K dress to a $30k/ticket gala and she is supposedly the one on your side that is going to reign it the billionaire class?

If you want to actually tax the rich, you propose a 'long term holding tax' in which you pay capital gains on any stock you held for 10+ years even if you still hold it. Think of it as a pre-payment on capital gains when the actual sales take place as we know the stock will pass through phony charities to avoid EVER paying those capital gains taxes that the Democrats demand of the little people. Buffett with have an aneurysm along with Trump and Bezos.

#41 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 07:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"No, I'd favor a more progressive income tax code with less loopholes. I'd also fund an IRS high-income wing."

Really?

You're in favor of a system where an even smaller number of people pay the majority of taxes?

So, if you're born in the US and you can draw breath, someone should be obligated to pay your bills?

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-26 10:21 AM | Reply

"You're in favor of a system where an even smaller number of people pay the majority of taxes?'

Don't you?
You already said the rich pay our share.
So, why do we still have to pay?

The tax man should keep us on the bench until we can score more points that the top tier performers, just like fantasy football.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-26 10:27 AM | Reply

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $540,009) paid over 40 percent of all income taxes. Despite the tax rate reductions associated with TCJA, this figure is up slightly from the previous tax year's 38.5 percent share.

Who Pays Income Taxes? - Foundation - National Taxpayers ...

This means that the remaining 99% of taxpayers are paying the remaining 60%,,,,,Seem a little lopsided to me, but the again I've not got the wealth envy of the lefties.

#44 | Posted by MSgt at 2021-09-26 01:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So, if you're born in the US and you can draw breath, someone should be obligated to pay your bills?
#42 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER "

You really have to ask that question of this crowd? The answer is a resounding yes - and not just for the necessities. You are expected to subsidize their poor life choices on top of it all too.

#45 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 09:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

These Randian rwingers all hate democracy and the will of the People.

FDR was elected 4 times because his policies gave the People who voted for them a New Deal.

And rwingers are still butt-hurt about it.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-26 09:36 PM | Reply

These Randian rwingers all hate democracy and the will of the People.

FDR was elected 4 times because his policies gave the People who voted for them a New Deal.

And rwingers are still butt-hurt about it.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-26 09:36 PM | Reply

"While income inequality is a fundamental component of the U.S. capitalist economy, a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 61% of Americans think that it has gone too far." www.usatoday.com

Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and "Liberals" make up the 39% who don't think it's gone too far.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-26 09:45 PM | Reply

"#48 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

I think it has gone too far as well. However, this is due to the billionaire class getting too rich without ever paying the taxes everyone has to pay. Unfortunately, the braindead libs celebrate the crumbs they toss out and never call for any type of reform.

I think a big part of this is that the billionaires are only a 'concept' in that they never interact or see these people. So, despite their wealth being so overwhelming, the Dems don't ever mention them and actually celebrate guys like Bezos, Buffett, or Gates that will use every loophole available to them to shield their wealth from taxes.

Meanwhile, the libs see the guy down the street with the nicer house, nicer car - maybe owns his own business. He might be pulling $400k in family income and scraping together enough money to provide some advantages in life to his kids and grandkids - that is the guy that Liberals HATE and want to punish with taxes. His success is like him spitting in their eye as it shines a light on their own failings. They want to believe that rich people got that way through inheritance - somebody that did it without makes them reassess why they have failed in life. So, they want to punish him. They want to tax his income so that he can never amass capital gains.

If you want to to address income equality by taxing billionaires and stopping multi-generational wealth by getting rid of estate planning loopholes like the Gates Foundation fraud, I am all for it. However, if you want to end it by punishing the guy making $400K and then transferring that money to people that refuse to work and/or better themselves - no, I am not for that. By libs focusing on the guy making $400k because their minds are controlled by social media owned by the billionaires, it guarantees nothing will get done.

#49 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 10:19 PM | Reply

"FDR was elected 4 times because his policies gave the People who voted for them a New Deal.
And rwingers are still butt-hurt about it.
#47 | POSTED BY CORKY"

If FDR were alive today, the Dems would demonize him because his programs included work requirements, not just handouts. Liberals today don't want a decent job - they want to be paid to stay home and smoke weed all day. FDR is much closer to Donald Trump than Joe Biden.

#50 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 10:21 PM | Reply

"If FDR were alive today, the Dems would demonize him because his programs included work requirements, not just handouts."

Are you actually dumb?

TANF is a federal flexible block grant to states, with a range of goals, notably to provide income support that allows children to be raised at home, to promote work, and to encourage marriage. ... The only measure of performance for which states are held accountable is the work participation rate (WPR). www.clasp.org

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-26 10:31 PM | Reply

- FDR is much closer to Donald Trump

rofl! Your delusions are grandiose, Ima Goldbrick. FDR just threw up in his mouth a little... as did Trump.

You are the kind of moron that swallowed Reagan's Cadillac-driving Black Welfare Queens bit whole. And you are still carrying that weight, I see.

Here in FL, people like you spend lots of money testing welfare recipients for drugs, because, you know, they're all druggies. Of course, when less than 3 percent tested positive, the taxpayers had to eat the cost of these racist paranoid policies.

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-26 10:32 PM | Reply

"TANF is a federal flexible block grant to states, with a range of goals, notably to provide income support that allows children to be raised at home, to promote work,
#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Exactly as I said - a whole lot different from the WPA that FDR created. The WPA did major infrastructure builds - your lib programs today only shuffle money to China for cheap electronics and weed stores. More importantly than the infrastructure that the WPA provided was kids growing up in homes seeing the parents actually WORK. This is something the libs don't want. They want their lazy voters to stay at home completely dependent on handouts and then import Mexicans to do the construction. FDR would be ashamed.

#53 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 10:51 PM | Reply

"Of course, when less than 3 percent tested positive, the taxpayers had to eat the cost of these racist paranoid policies.
#52 | POSTED BY CORKY"

Less than 3% test positive because lazy people are still smart enough to know that if you are doing drugs, stop applying for the program. Which was the goal to begin with.

#54 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 10:53 PM | Reply

This is something the libs don't want. They want their lazy voters to stay at home completely dependent on handouts and then import Mexicans to do the construction. FDR would be ashamed.

So who is running the sock puppet tonight?

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2021-09-26 10:59 PM | Reply

#54

So.. what they say is true; you aren't really very bright, are you. (not a question)

Even the Republican legislators admitted that your lie wasn't true, as there was no significant drop off of the number of people in the program.

You are just wrong, always have been wrong, and always will be wrong.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-26 10:59 PM | Reply

"Even the Republican legislators admitted that your lie wasn't true, as there was no significant drop off of the number of people in the program.
#56 | POSTED BY CORKY"

The program was never truly implemented. They only tested a small sampling and the ACLU got the program shut down. If the ACLU didn't believe people were abusing drugs while on welfare, why do you think they fought the program tooth and nail? Just admit the truth - you want people on welfare without work requirements so they can sit home and smoke weed.

#57 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 11:07 PM | Reply

Still wrong... still lying.

"The 11th Circuit found that only about 2.6 percent of Florida welfare applicants failed the drug test during the four months the law was in effect, almost half for marijuana use."

"After nearly four years of litigation, this ugly attack on poor Floridians has finally come to an end," Simon said Wednesday. "This law was always about scoring political points on the backs of Florida's poor and treating them like suspected criminals without suspicion or evidence."

www.cbsnews.com

The 4 month statistical result while THE LAW WAS IN EFFECT was predictive of what a full year percentage would be

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-26 11:22 PM | Reply

"The 4 month statistical result while THE LAW WAS IN EFFECT was predictive of what a full year percentage would be
#58 | POSTED BY CORKY"

I don't debate that fact. However, it says nothing about the total number of people that would stop trying to claim benefits because they choose to do drugs. However, you assume that this proves both - it doesn't. This has been covered again and again and the data you want to hold up does not prove your point so stop insisting that it does.

Again, if the ACLU did not think this would have an effect, why did they fight it tooth and nail?

#59 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 11:27 PM | Reply

"However, it says nothing about the total number of people that would stop trying to claim benefits because they choose to do drugs."

Well, let's think about this one.
Was there a change in the number of people trying to claim benefits?
???

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-26 11:35 PM | Reply

- the total number of people that would stop

Is crass speculation on your part, obviously based on your racist tendencies. Reagan was wrong; it turned out that most people on welfare were white women with children... and you are just as wrong, and for the same bigoted reasons.

#61 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-26 11:43 PM | Reply

- ???

MIAMI " Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

www.nytimes.com

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-26 11:47 PM | Reply

"an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.
www.nytimes.com
#62 | POSTED BY CORKY"

Again, it only tested 4,000 people total and still have 3% pop for drugs. How many did not apply because they were on drugs? What would have been the impact if the ACLU had not fought the law and they would have tested 100%. I think the people on the welfare rolls would have drastically reduced. But, we don't know because it was never implemented. So, you can cling to your data but it does not prove what you claim that it does so stop lying about it.

#63 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-26 11:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"How many did not apply because they were on drugs?"

Why should drug users care?
Don't you believe in personal freedom?
Don't people have a right to decide what they put into their bodies, for example, a vaccine, or alcohol, or nicotine, or caffeine, or MDMA, or heroin, or cannabis?

It's sad to see you malcontents prancing around in your hero capes, with the express purpose of punishing others, always clucking and scolding, never helping.

You are a grown man. It's sad that this is all you will ever be.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-26 11:58 PM | Reply

"Why should drug users care?"

Because they want free stuff to subsidize their lifestyles. Try to keep up.

"Don't you believe in personal freedom?
Don't people have a right to decide what they put into their bodies, for example, a vaccine, or alcohol, or nicotine, or caffeine, or MDMA, or heroin, or cannabis?"

If you are paying your own way, do as you please. I would encourage you not to do drugs because drug use is linked with poor life outcomes but it would be 100% your choice.

"It's sad to see you malcontents prancing around in your hero capes, with the express purpose of punishing others, always clucking and scolding, never helping."

What is punishing? You want free stuff, I want strings attached. Why is putting any conditions on free stuff
a punishment in liberal fantasy land?

"You are a grown man. It's sad that this is all you will ever be.
#64 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

I am very proud of who I am and what I have accomplished in life. I can guess the answer to that question if I were to ask your parents about you. Drunk, high, and stupid is no way to go through life. There is still time for you to become a functioning, productive human. I doubt you will use the opportunity though - you will be dumped in the ground serving no more purpose than human feces.

#65 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 12:15 AM | Reply

#63

How many stupid things can be said in one post? I think we now have an answer.

- How many did not apply because they were on drugs?

"had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data."

- it was never implemented

It was implemented... it was the law for four months.

- your data but it does not prove what you claim that it does so stop lying about it.

Seriously? Where's my mask... the stupid in this one may be contagious.

Tell you what though, I only plonk those who have shown they can never learn, lie constantly, and never see past their prejudices, as they are a complete waste of time. I plonked you before, I'll do it again now.

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-27 12:19 AM | Reply

""had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data."

drugfree.org
"Almost 1,600 people applying for welfare benefits in Florida have declined to undergo drug testing, which is required by a new state law. According to state officials, less than one percent of the 7,028 welfare applicants who underwent screening tested positive for drugs since the law went into effect in July."

So, 1,600 people opted out and you think this had no impact? Lie some more you douche.

"Tell you what though, I only plonk those who have shown they can never learn, lie constantly, and never see past their prejudices, as they are a complete waste of time. I plonked you before, I'll do it again now.
#66 | POSTED BY CORKY "

Lol, run to your safe space Corky. Next time, try to back up your arguments with facts.

#67 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 12:39 AM | Reply

www.nytimes.com
drugfree.org

Let's make sense of the numbers using the 2 links.

We have 7028 recipients - but, children are not tested. Which drops eligible testing to 5,726 (4,086 that took it, 40 that agreed but then did not show up, and 1,600 that opted out).

So, if we assume the opt out and the 'changed mind' crowd did so because they were using drugs, the number of adult recipients that would have failed had they taken the test is 1,748 (1,600 opt outs, 40 that changed their mind, and 108 fails).

So, the number of drug users implied = 30.5% of the adult recipients.

What would the savings be with the opt outs?

From the NYT article, the average savings for a positive test was $489. So, $854,630 was saved in payments to drug users. This came against $119,000 in cost for paying the non-drug user $30 for passing.

So, this program saved money for the state and defunded drug users - which is why the Dems were so mad about it. So, they want to lie and say only 3% of welfare recipients are on drugs as they ignore the 1640 opt outs. Just out and out dishonest people like Corky that have no shame.

#68 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 01:05 AM | Reply

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state's net loss? $45,780.

www.tampabay.com

Scatberg lies again.

#69 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2021-09-27 01:13 AM | Reply

"The state's net loss? $45,780.
www.tampabay.com
#69 | POSTED BY REINHEITSGEBOT"

If you ignore the 1600 that opted out. Saved almost $800k. Sorry, your weed smoking pedophile buddies should be kicked off the welfare rolls.

#70 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 01:15 AM | Reply

40 opted out, pedo worshipper.

#71 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2021-09-27 01:18 AM | Reply

"40 opted out, pedo worshipper.

#71 | POSTED BY REINHEITSGEBOT "

40 agreed and then opted out. 1600 opted out entirely. I posted the links for you. Perhaps you should spend more time clicking those links rather than indulging your pedophile fantasies.

#72 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 01:20 AM | Reply

I have a relative who is a self made tech billionaire. He is single, lives fairly modestly and is treated no differently than other family members. Nobody asks him to "share the wealth". He started off with nothing more than I did, and got where he is by creating a wildly successful product By this metric you pay about $82,000,000 in federal income taxes on a billion, so he is already doing a thousand times more to help others than I am. He doesn't owe me a thing and I'd be embarrassed to ask him for a dollar.

I'm all for a progressive tax code, and maybe he should pay more, but the idea that the wealthy "don't pay their fair share" is nothing more than whipped up class warfare.

#73 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2021-09-27 09:10 AM | Reply

"I'm all for a progressive tax code, and maybe he should pay more, but the idea that the wealthy "don't pay their fair share" is nothing more than whipped up class warfare."

Class warfare isn't really about the tax code, though that's certainly a symptom.

The real issue when it comes to our "fair share" is this:

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

It's not that the top 20% doesn't pay enough taxes.
It's that the bottom 80% doesn't get enough pay.

A rising tide lifts all boats equally. Our economy lifts the biggest boats the most.

That's the class warfare.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So, the number of drug users implied = 30.5% of the adult recipients."

Even if it were 100%, so what?
What's wrong with people using drugs?
Why don't you believe freedom includes that?
???

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 09:59 AM | Reply

The real winner in Florida's drug testing corporate welfare program is... drug testing companies.

"taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs"

100% wasted money.

"What is punishing? You want free stuff, I want strings attached."

^

You want free strings.

To get them, you're punishing both the taxpayers and the people who fail your pointless and invasive morality test. And creating a whole new handout program for pee collectors.

The strings cost more to attach than they pull back. It's a negative ROI. Can't you see that?

And this isn't even addressing the immorality and double standard of saying those people over there have to get drug tested without cause to get their government check, while most everyone else who gets their government check has no such requirements.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 10:08 AM | Reply

"the idea that the wealthy "don't pay their fair share" is nothing more than whipped up class warfare."

Nonsense.

Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in federal taxes than Warren Buffet.

Meanwhile, a 25yr old Trust Fund Baby, earning $50,000 in Wal-Mart dividends owes zero federal taxes, while a janitor earning $50,000 from sweat-of-the-brow labor owes over $10,000 in federal taxes.

The current income tax code, as written, funnels money upwards. That's the equation.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-27 10:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Meanwhile, a 25yr old Trust Fund Baby, earning $50,000 in Wal-Mart dividends owes zero federal taxes, while a janitor earning $50,000 from sweat-of-the-brow labor owes over $10,000 in federal taxes.
#77 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

A janitor making $50K will pay about $4500 in federal taxes. The rest is SS, Medicare, etc - for which the janitor will get a benefit in the future.

For $50k in dividend income, the guy will pay around a 12% rate - none of which is invested as a SS contribution.

Now, if you want to argue that SS and Medicare are federal taxes regardless, then I agree that the programs should be ended so you keep more of your money.

#78 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 12:30 PM | Reply

"For $50k in dividend income, the guy will pay around a 12% rate - none of which is invested as a SS contribution."

So? Why do you ----- even bother? Why do you continue to fight against your own interests?

And what does that have to do with billionaires paying their fair share of taxes? Nothing.

As a percentage of their reported incomes, the 25 billionaires paid an average of 15.8% in taxes, ProPublica said, compared with the top individual tax rate of 37% www.barrons.com

If billionaires paid 37% like the rest of us then we could actually afford nice things in America. Like a modern infrastructure. And affordable healthcare.

#79 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-27 12:48 PM | Reply

"If billionaires paid 37% like the rest of us
#79 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY"

37% is the top marginal rate. You didn't pay 37% on a vast majority if any of your income.

#80 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 01:01 PM | Reply

" For $50k in dividend income, the guy will pay around a 12% rate"

Not true. A Trust Fund baby with $50,000 of income in W-M dividends will owe ZERO in federal taxes; neither income taxes nor payroll taxes.

I'm using the US tax code and Actual Math. What are you using???

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-27 01:07 PM | Reply

"#81 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Dividends are not taxed? News to me.

#82 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 01:09 PM | Reply

"#81 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Or are you playing fast and loose implying the money was not taxed prior to being put in the trust?

#83 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-09-27 01:11 PM | Reply

"Dividends are not taxed?"

Walmart dividends, like the vast majority of dividends, are qualified dividends. That means they're based on long-term capital gains rather than short term capital gains.

My claim is based on $50,000 of qualified dividends, for a single person, with a standard deduction. That scenario incurs zero federal income taxes, and zero payroll taxes.

Any questions?

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-27 01:14 PM | Reply

" Or are you playing fast and loose implying the money was not taxed prior to being put in the trust?"

Um ... if money wasn't taxed prior, that would make it MORE likely to be taxed, not less.

No curveballs, no kidding around.

Try it yourself with your tax prep software: create John Smithforth, make him single and 25, and give him a 1099-Div with $50K on lines 1 (Dividends) and 2 (Amount of line 1 "Qualified").

Look at your federal bill: it's zero.

Next, take that $50K out, open a Schedule C, and enter the $50K on line 1 (Gross Income).

Now look at your federal bill: over $10,000.

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-27 01:23 PM | Reply

"Dividends are not taxed? News to me."

Oh, please.

There are literally thousands of federal filers with AGIs over a million dollars with no federal taxes due. Google "triple tax-free munis" if you're interested.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-27 01:38 PM | Reply

"A janitor making $50K will pay about $4500 in federal taxes. The rest is SS, Medicare, etc.

IOW, you're saying the TF baby pays NO income, tax, while the laborer pays $4500 in income taxes. Is that fair?

"if you want to argue that SS and Medicare are federal taxes regardless..."

Well, yes...because they ARE federal taxes.

"...then I agree that the programs should be ended so you keep more of your money."

First, I never suggested that.
Second, I wouldn't be keeping "more of my money". On the contrary, it means I'd have to pay for TWO retirements. Do you understand math?
Third, SS is an equilibrium equation, overcollecting for almost two decades until we knew it'd go under water during the Obama years.
Fourth, it's within one point on both the workers' and hirers' sides for equilibrium into perpetuity.

And most important in the macro equation: historically, workers' SS taxes have been used to finance up-front income tax cuts. One group got constructive use of the money from day one, easily assumed to return 6%-8% annually over time. And in exchange, workers got ~2% bonds, having to wait an average ~25 years for redemption. Any pretense one dollar now at 6% annually equals one dollar in 25 years after 2% annually is ludicrous.

#87 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-27 02:18 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 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort