Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, May 09, 2022

The Biden administration announced Monday that 20 leading internet service providers have agreed to offer basic low cost plans that will be free for millions of Americans after a refund.

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.

"The 20 companies, including AT&T (T), Comcast (CMCSA), and Verizon (VZ), cover more than 80% of the U.S. population. They will immediately provide at least one plan that costs no more than $30 a month and provides download speeds of at least 100 mbps.

The White House says that 40% of the U.S. population, about 48 million households, will be eligible to sign up through an existing program called the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).

The program is aimed at lower income Americans and offers participants a discount of up to $30/month on their internet bill, meaning they'll effectively get free service if they can get online with one of these participating companies.

Monday's news come largely thanks to $65 billion set aside for high speed internet in the Bipartisan Infrastructure law. That money has helped fund the ACP and is also being directed towards parallel efforts to increase coverage areas and speeds.

"High speed internet at home is no longer a luxury: it's a necessity for children to learn, workers to do their job, seniors and others to access health care through telemedicine, and for all of us to stay connected in this digital world," a senior administration official told reporters in previewing the announcement."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 12:05 PM | Reply

-They will immediately provide at least one plan that costs no more than $30 a month and provides download speeds of at least 100 mbps.

Currently, Cox charges me $100 a month for a plan that has a monthly limit on usage. If you go over...you pay even more.

Now they are going to drop that down to $30?

I'll believe it when I see it.

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sorry about your low income status, Bev.

Thank Brandon you will be able to get Teenage Mutant Ninja Post Turtles reruns now!

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 12:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Currently, Cox charges me $100 a month for a plan that has a monthly limit on usage. If you go over...you pay even more.

Are you talking about your phone plan or your internet service?

This is for internet service.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 12:16 PM | Reply

internet. I cancelled phone and cable some time back.

I've agreed to switch my internet when another company (on that list of 20 companies) finishes their buildout in our neighborhood.

For the same price but much more data.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 12:22 PM | Reply

I know someone who pays 25 dollars a month for Visible (Verizon) phone service, and uses the phone hotspot for internet free.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 12:27 PM | Reply

"after a refund"

because if there's one thing poor people are good at, it's paperwork and navigating government bureaucracy.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Internet should be a utility. And everyone should have access.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 01:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

I'm sure what you guys mean to say is, "Good job, Joe!".

I mean, ya'll not be Puritopians and all.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 01:46 PM | Reply

Nice to have a president who gives things to Americans rather than taking them away.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-09 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Look at inflation and the stock market. Bidenomics, 'demand side' economics, free ain't free. Please Joe we can't afford anymore free stuff.

#11 | Posted by visitor_ at 2022-05-09 02:06 PM | Reply

#10 It's not a giveaway, it's a payment for a vote. Plus when has the Fed government done a good job with handing out cash. It is corrupted everyday. They are saying that over 4 billion was wasted on PPE.

#12 | Posted by fishpaw at 2022-05-09 02:08 PM | Reply

Nice to have a president who gives things to Americans rather than taking them away.

Wow. That's a loaded liberal troll statement....

But I'll bite...

How is Biden "giving" anything? Did he pay for it?

Why are you always looking to be "given" something?

Are you a bum?

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2022-05-09 02:08 PM | Reply

" It's not a giveaway, it's a payment for a vote."

Remember when you made the same complaint about the $2.3 Trillion tax giveaway?

NO ONE ELSE DOES EITHER.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 02:13 PM | Reply

#10 It's not a giveaway, it's a payment for a vote. Plus when has the Fed government done a good job with handing out cash. It is corrupted everyday. They are saying that over 4 billion was wasted on PPE.

#12 | Posted by fishpaw

Just like every republican who ever promised tax cuts.

You hate when politicians give to poor people instead of rich people because you actually think you're on the rich people team when you're just a useful idiot to them.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Look at inflation and the stock market. Bidenomics, 'demand side' economics, free ain't free. Please Joe we can't afford anymore free stuff.

#11 | Posted by visitor_

Are you referring to WORLDWIDE inflation? Man biden must be a wizard!

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 02:15 PM | Reply

But what about all of us that have paid for it all these years? That's unfair!

#17 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-05-09 02:17 PM | Reply

Weird to see data caps on home internet service.

California has had a plan in place for a while which provides free internet for people on government programs such as SSI.

Seems like Biden is extending that nationally.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 02:20 PM | Reply

How is Biden "giving" anything? Did he pay for it?

Considering the amount of government subsidies telecom companies receive, and will continue to receive, from the government.

The answer is, we the American people have paid for it.

Hundreds of times over.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

" Please Joe we can't afford anymore free stuff."

Didn't see you complain when TRYMP PASSES MULTI-TRILLION DOJJAR TAX CUTS FOR THE RYCH.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2022-05-09 02:30 PM | Reply

" Remember when you made the same complaint about the $2.3 Trillion tax giveaway?"

Government taking less from a person's income.

"vs"

Government taking from all tax payers and targeting a specific demographic it seeks favor and then funnels some confiscated tax dollars to try and buy some votes.

That is some Republican math comparison right there.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 02:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just like every republican who ever promised tax cuts.
You hate when politicians give to poor people instead of rich people because you actually think you're on the rich people team when you're just a useful idiot to them.

#15 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2022-05-09 02:14 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Remember when you made the same complaint about the $2.3 Trillion tax giveaway?
NO ONE ELSE DOES EITHER.

#14 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2022-05-09 02:13 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

You two want to debate the effects on the economy after the tax breaks vs the stimulous payments? The effect on the lower class and POC?

#22 | Posted by fishpaw at 2022-05-09 02:31 PM | Reply

#20

They never complain about things that their Massa's want passed.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 02:32 PM | Reply

thehill.com

#24 | Posted by fishpaw at 2022-05-09 02:33 PM | Reply

The mentality that Americans who (accumulatively) pay billions of dollars in taxes, yearly, don't deserve anything in return is absolutely re tar did.

But it's something conservatives fully embrace.

Apparently they want all our taxes subsidizing corporations and funding the military industrial complex.

Conservatives are morons. The rich fleece them.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Didn't see you complain when TRYMP PASSES MULTI-TRILLION DOJJAR TAX CUTS FOR THE RYCH.

#20 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2022-05-09 02:30 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Right, because it wasn't paying out, it had the potential of not taking in as much but it ended up taking in more in taxes, plus the corp drop kept companies from going overseas.

#26 | Posted by fishpaw at 2022-05-09 02:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#25

Spot on post.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 02:37 PM | Reply

- kept companies from going overseas.

What? Your Super Patriot Super Citizen Masters might go overseas if they don't get what they want?

Imagine that.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 02:38 PM | Reply

"High speed internet at home is no longer a luxury: it's a necessity for children to learn, workers to do their job, seniors and others to access health care through telemedicine, and for all of us to stay connected in this digital world," a senior administration official told reporters in previewing the announcement."

That's interesting. 100mbs is a requirement.

I just did a speed test on my internet here in Germany. I'm at about 7 mbps. And that's pretty fast for where I live. In some places there is no internet at all.

But, I guess the ability to download a video game in minutes, or stream Netflix on multiple devices are now human rights.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 02:45 PM | Reply

plus the corp drop kept companies from going overseas.

What are you talking about?

The Trump Tax Cut for billionaires incentivizes moving corporations overseas.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 02:46 PM | Reply

"The rich fleece them."

Sheeeeiiitttt,

The rich are paying your taxes and mine.

Technically we're fleecing them. Or rather the government is fleecing them on our behalf.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 02:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#29

Those are the standard speeds the companies already provide, and it would not be cost effective to reset their model.

So, you'll need a different whine.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 02:48 PM | Reply

I just did a speed test on my internet here in Germany.

Oh man. Just how little I give a shht about a German's opinions of Americans I couldn't express more.

Fkk off Nazi.

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 02:49 PM | Reply

The rich are paying your taxes and mine.

Speak for yourself, -----.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 02:50 PM | Reply

Free internet is one of those things that I'm on the fence over.

One one hand, I have trouble supporting a system that caters to and rewards the lowest common denominator. Especially in this case, where it seems that the government's position is that lower income people shouldn't have to pay as much for their video games and movies.

On the other hand, it may increase the amount of digital commerce. I tend to wonder if Amazon has ever done a study on the impact on business if they were to give away cell phones with the Prime App pre-loaded. Especially in markets where Amazon might not be as big.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 02:51 PM | Reply

"Those are the standard speeds the companies already provide, and it would not be cost effective to reset their model."

That's a fair point, but not how I read it in the article. The article seemed to imply that this was a mandated speed. Along with the comment that "high speed internet is no longer a luxury." Sure it is. A luxury that I don't even have access to.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 02:53 PM | Reply

"Fkk off Nazi."

Reactionary Bourgeoise Nazi. You forgot the first part.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 02:54 PM | Reply

"Speak for yourself, -----."

What's next? ---? Pollock?

Stay classy, champ.

Oh, and over here it really isn't the rich paying everyone's taxes. Tax rates are more evenly distributed than in the US.

In other words, unlike the US, lower income earners tend to pay more of their fair share.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 02:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- a mandated speed.

You are just used to a lifetime of reading orders and blindly obeying them. The legislation used current speed rates of the companies.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 02:56 PM | Reply

Free internet is one of those things that I'm on the fence over.

Oh yea?

Thanks for sharing.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 02:56 PM | Reply

This program isn't just based on income. It may be worth looking into for many of you even if you know you don't qualify based on income. If you having someone living in your house who already receive federal assistance, i.e. pell grant, SSI, military/survivors pension, etc then you may qualify.

#41 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-05-09 03:01 PM | Reply

You two want to debate the effects on the economy after the tax breaks vs the stimulous payments? The effect on the lower class and POC?

#22 | Posted by fishpaw

Sure as long as you dont think you can count adding trillions to the deficit as not harmful to the whole country. Putting something on your credit card doesn't mean you dont have to pay for it, even if your plan is to leave the bill to your kids.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:04 PM | Reply

Are you a bum?

#13 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Do you kill people for farting?

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-09 03:05 PM | Reply

Technically we're fleecing them. Or rather the government is fleecing them on our behalf.

#31 | Posted by madbomber

Only an utter moron can look at what has happened with wealth inequality since reaganomics was invented and conclude its the rich who are getting fleeced.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Currently, Cox charges me $100 a month for a plan that has a monthly limit on usage. If you go over...you pay even more.
Now they are going to drop that down to $30?
I'll believe it when I see it.
#2 | POSTED BY EBERLY

$99/month from Cox is their 2nd highest tier of service so if you read the article then you'd know they aren't talking about your existing plan.

#45 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-05-09 03:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Sure as long as you dont think you can count adding trillions to the deficit as not harmful to the whole country."

That's a good point.

The government shouldn't be spending money it doesn't have.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:09 PM | Reply

" Remember when you made the same complaint about the $2.3 Trillion tax giveaway?"

Government taking less from a person's income.

"vs"

Government taking from all tax payers and targeting a specific demographic it seeks favor and then funnels some confiscated tax dollars to try and buy some votes.

That is some Republican math comparison right there.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger

Government taking tax funds and giving them to the needy - BAAAAD!
vs
Government taking tax funds and giving them to the rich - GOOOOD!

That's some republican MORALITY right there.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:11 PM | Reply

"Only an utter moron can look at what has happened with wealth inequality since reaganomics was invented and conclude its the rich who are getting fleeced."

Ah, rich people bitching about richer people.

That sounds like a rich people problem to me. Like picking out your taxpayer-funded high speed internet plan.

But I suppose you could ban or penalize UHWN individuals from engaging in those activities that contribute to income inequality.

Do we really need Tesla or Amazon? Apple?

Probably not.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:11 PM | Reply

The government shouldn't be spending money it doesn't have.

#46 | Posted by madbomber

That's why the rich need to pay more.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:11 PM | Reply

#47

To the needy?

You mean the ones who can't afford to quickly download movies and video games on their own dime?

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:12 PM | Reply

"Only an utter moron can look at what has happened with wealth inequality since reaganomics was invented and conclude its the rich who are getting fleeced."

Ah, rich people bitching about richer people.

Probably not.

#48 | Posted by madbomber

Oh so you're retreating to your old "you have an fridge and an iphone so you're "rich" and therefore can't complain about the top .01% getting vastly richer by making everyone else suffer" defense.

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:13 PM | Reply

You mean the ones who can't afford to quickly download movies and video games on their own dime?

#50 | Posted by madbomber

Totally. Because that's all the internet is.

Moron.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:13 PM | Reply

"That's why the rich need to pay more."

That's why the government needs to spend less.

And technically, it's the poor who need to pay more. In the US, the poor pay almost nothing compared to those earning a comparable income in western Europe.

There's not much else you could statistically squeeze out of the rich.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

rich people bitching about richer people..
#48 | Posted by madbomber

If only they could all move to Honduras.

#54 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 03:15 PM | Reply

One one hand, I have trouble supporting a system that caters to and rewards the lowest common denominator. Especially in this case, where it seems that the government's position is that lower income people shouldn't have to pay as much for their video games and movies.
#35 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

What is this lowest common denominator you speak of? Is the single mother who is going to college on a pell grant while she supports a kid or few the lowest common denominator? Is my buddy who is retired Navy and then worked in construction for 10+ years until he fell 1.5 stories and is now wheel chair bound the lowest common denominator because he receives military pension and SSI disability?

#55 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-05-09 03:16 PM | Reply

"Oh so you're retreating to your old "you have an fridge and an iphone so you're "rich" and therefore can't complain about the top .01% getting vastly richer by making everyone else suffer" defense."

Did you consider the logic of the argument you just presented?

The income earning potential of the top .01% has absolutely no income on the income earning potential of the remaining 99.99%. None.

And you'll need to explain to me how the .01% is making the 99.99% suffer.

I'm part of that demographic. I'm not suffering. Maybe you feel like you're suffering because you want to be part of that demographic but can't get there on your own merits?

Maybe?

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:17 PM | Reply

"That's why the rich need to pay more."

That's why the government needs to spend less.

And technically, it's the poor who need to pay more. In the US, the poor pay almost nothing compared to those earning a comparable income in western Europe.

There's not much else you could statistically squeeze out of the rich.

#53 | Posted by madbomber

Spend less on what? Go ahead and say what you want to cut.

The rich are richer than every before and you're saying they're suffering. The middle class is poorer than it's been in decades and you think they're the ones who need to pay more. You couldn't look dumber if you tried.

#57 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:17 PM | Reply

"Totally. Because that's all the internet is. Moron."

No. That's what high speed internet is for.

You don't need high speed internet to pay your bills or look at facebook.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:18 PM | Reply

Our tax rates need to fully fund government That requires across the board increases.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 03:19 PM | Reply

Those are the standard speeds the companies already provide, and it would not be cost effective to reset their model.
So, you'll need a different whine.
#32 | POSTED BY CORKY

100 mbps is the highest AT&T speed without switching to fiber.

Their site says it's enough for up to 10 devices for streaming, gaming, video conferencing and messaging.

I'm sorry, but that's absurd and seems way over powered, especially since it's for any household making less than $55K.

Essentially all households at near median income level and less will get free internet.

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 03:19 PM | Reply

And you'll need to explain to me how the .01% is making the 99.99% suffer.

I'm part of that demographic. I'm not suffering. Maybe you feel like you're suffering because you want to be part of that demographic but can't get there on your own merits?

Maybe?

#56 | Posted by madbomber a

Oh we have to go back to basics like that?

They buy the government idiot. They write laws that favor themselves. They design complex financial systems that only those with lawyers and accountants and a huge nest egg can take advantage of. And they cut funds for the things that allowed class mobility like health, education, and research.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:19 PM | Reply

There's not much else you could statistically squeeze out of the rich.
#53 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Sure there is. For starters we could tax earned income at the same rates we charge wages. We could also institute a estate tax so the descendants of the wealthiest Americans can't just get away with living off the fortune earned by dead relatives for generations to come.

#62 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-05-09 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Our tax rates need to fully fund government That requires across the board increases.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger

RAISE TAXES ON THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS! VOTE REPUBLICAN 2022!

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:20 PM | Reply

The legislation used current speed rates of the companies.
#39 | POSTED BY CORKY

AT&T offers 50 and 25 mbps rates.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 03:20 PM | Reply

"If only they could all move to Honduras."

I don't think Honduras regards free high speed internet as a human right.

I know when I lived there I was paying $80 a month for internet. And it wasn't very high speed.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:21 PM | Reply

Wealthy corporations have made out like bandits during the pandemic and now this war... but Myth Bomber can't stand the idea of them paying more taxes in a system that naturally flows wealth upwards?

They let blind people fly jets now?

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-09 03:21 PM | Reply

Government taking less from a person's income.

While increasing outlays and deficit spending by trillions of dollars, even though receipts remained stagnant. Sounds like a failure to understand basic economics from the party of "fiscal responsibility."

"vs"Government taking from all tax payers and targeting a specific demographic it seeks favor and then funnels some confiscated tax dollars to try and buy some votes.

What you fail to understand is that if spending remains the same or goes up, a tax cut is no different than an outlay of cash because in either case we are just borrowing from our grandchildren. If we are going to do that in the first place, i'd rather see it go to needy people than billionaires, but i'm not a ---- to the rich like you.

#67 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-09 03:21 PM | Reply

"The government shouldn't be spending money it doesn't have."

Then why were you silent about the $2.3 Trillion tax giveaway?

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 03:24 PM | Reply

"And they cut funds for the things that allowed class mobility like health, education, and research."

Ah, so what you're saying is that the richer make the less rich suffer by not paying more of their bills.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:25 PM | Reply

Essentially all households at near median income level and less will get free internet.
#60 | POSTED BY JPW

Cool.

As it should be.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-09 03:27 PM | Reply

Sorry, I don't agree.

A minimum standard shouldn't be a luxury level service.

25 mbps is more than adequate to be connected for work and a significant amount of play.

And $55K a year is more than adequate to pay for it.

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 03:31 PM | Reply

#62

So...there is a lot of stuff you could do. The question is A) would it achieve the desired effect, and B) what are the negative outcomes going to be from new policy.

Remember, income taxes are basically voluntary. You have to engage in wealth creating activities in order to earn an income, and that income has to be earned before it can be taxed. Statistically, effective tax rates in excess of 45% result in a decline in revenues, because the incentive to engage in wealth creating activities decreases. The other more insidious loss may be the services that resulted in high incomes. For instance, a highly paid surgeon may choose to limit the amount he/she works at higher tax rates. So not only do you lose tax revenues, you also lose that surgeon's medical abilities.

When Reagan passed TRA 86, it was high income earners who complained the most. In the old system, there were sufficient deductions that they more than accounted for the higher marginal rates. So rates do matter to those people.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:32 PM | Reply

I'm sorry, but that's absurd and seems way over powered

If the provider can afford to give it away for $30 even before a subsidy kicks in, then who cares? Most people are paying twice that as it is for slower speeds, so this is still a good thing.

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-09 03:33 PM | Reply

"25 mbps is more than adequate to be connected for work and a significant amount of play."

I'm at 7 mbs right now in my house. In addition to me being on the computer, there is at least one TV going that I can hear, probably 2-3. And we can only stream. We don't have cable or anything else.

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:33 PM | Reply

"Then why were you silent about the $2.3 Trillion tax giveaway?"

Are you talking the COVID payments they gave out to everyone? Over, and over, and over again?

They probably shouldn't have done that.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 03:34 PM | Reply

" Our tax rates need to fully fund government That requires across the board increases."

STFU. You had your chance when Republicans wrote a tax bill BORROWING an additional 10% of all the debt we'd rung up since 1776.

Instead, you were dead silent, and then registered your ire by voting for those folks again.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 03:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Are you talking the COVID payments "

No, I'm talking about the US Tax Code.

You know ... the subject.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 03:38 PM | Reply

"Remember, income taxes are basically voluntary."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 03:39 PM | Reply

JPW, another thing to consider is that providers have been increasing their speeds over the years and that 100MBPS may soon be the barebones plan if it already isn't. I moved recently and the promotional service for $40/mo was 400MBPS. And it actually is that fast, i just ran a speedtest to confirm.

#79 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-09 03:39 PM | Reply

Ah, so what you're saying is that the richer make the less rich suffer by not paying more of their bills.

#69 | Posted by madbomber

THEIR BILLS? Having a healthy educated society isn't something YOU benefit from?

Oh right I forgot you need everyone to be stupid so they'll vote for fascist con men.

#80 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:42 PM | Reply

" Statistically, effective tax rates in excess of 45% result in a decline in revenues ... "

I'll believe that the next time I hear a high-end client make that claim.

So far, zero, in 35 years.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 03:42 PM | Reply

"Then why were you silent about the $2.3 Trillion tax giveaway?"

Are you talking the COVID payments they gave out to everyone? Over, and over, and over again?

They probably shouldn't have done that.

#75 | Posted by madbomber

Yeah they probably shouldnt have saved millions of lives and kept the healthcare system from collapsing. dollars are more important.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:43 PM | Reply

If the provider can afford to give it away for $30 even before a subsidy kicks in, then who cares? Most people are paying twice that as it is for slower speeds, so this is still a good thing.

#73 | POSTED BY JOE

I'll believe this when I see no price increases on other plans.

But I'm betting there will be.

#83 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 03:43 PM | Reply

"No, I'm talking about the US Tax Code.
You know ... the subject."

I thought it was free internet.

Do they have similar programs like this one being proposed where it's free if you're in need and below certain income?

For telephone, gas, electric, etc....other "utilities"?

I am for the govt working with private industry to make broadband available everywhere.

They're doing that now and have been for some time. This makes it possible for a private internet provider to build out the infrastructure and not need $400 a month from subscribers.

But once we get that done in areas...then we need to make it free? After the govt subsidizes the cost to build it....they we need to make access free?

free?

#84 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well like i said downthread. 100 appears to be slow, at least in my area. If i pay $40 for 400 then it's feasible they could be kicking out 100 for $30 without batting an eye.

#85 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-09 03:47 PM | Reply

"Statistically, effective tax rates in excess of 45% result in a decline in revenues"

Do we get to see these statistics?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 03:48 PM | Reply

83

You and I are in agreement....sorry about that.

But you probably don't trust the private broadband providers any more than I do.

#87 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 03:48 PM | Reply

From the link in #24:

"Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent.

By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent."

^
Everyone put on your Republican Math thinking caps and tell me:
Would you rather have 17% of $50,000 or 9% of $500,000?

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 03:50 PM | Reply

I'll believe this when I see it happen. A government program they had for low income families to be assisted by the government for pay was required. A radio program talked of it. Yet when I went to the AT&T website, no where could you find that program. It was well hidden where it would not be likely to be found.

Since I had just moved in, I was getting set up for internet. I asked the AT&T representative about the program only to be told I didn't live in the right place to get it. I was quickly steered towards a more expensive internet package.

AT&T was such a PNA to deal with when it came to customer service and coupled with very poor speeds, it just wasn't worth it for me. At the time they were doing fiber upgrades to the nodes but not the last mile. They closed down the process for hurricane evacuation, rehooking all the neighborhood but left mine not reconnected. I was 'offered' two free months of connection for compensation, only if you have no internet then having two months free of no internet is no bargain.

Even contacting them was a problem, I had VOIP and without internet I had no phone. I had to go to the public library just to contact them. After 20 minutes of round and round about a phone number that couldn't be reached, I had reached my limit of patience. I wanted to know just what to do to return their equipment and drop their whole service.

A new independent came in, giving them competition and I promptly dropped them, getting a fine speed boost and the dropping of caps to go with it.

Given my past experiences, I never, ever, want to deal with AT&T again.

#89 | Posted by BBQ at 2022-05-09 03:50 PM | Reply

#2 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Depends what else is available in your area but that sounds like way too much. I pay about $80 for a 500 mbps plan, no limits. Or as Corky suggested, get an unlimited plan for your phone and use it as a hotspot.

#90 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-09 03:53 PM | Reply

"The income earning potential of the top .01% has absolutely no income on the income earning potential of the remaining 99.99%. None."

Potential?

We're talking about actual income.

It goes without saying that if the CEO was paid less, there would be more money for everyone else.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

90

For many years we bundled phone, cable and broadband. Then we cut it all except broadband...so the price went up.

but I think it is too much as well. I'll check into it but I'm going to switch soon anyway to another provider because they are locally owned, and they are the reason why the price is going down for my neighborhood.

Competition....it's a good thing.

#92 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 03:58 PM | Reply

100MBPS may soon be the barebones plan if it already isn't

If you or someone else in your home takes online classes, which include timed tests and essays, you may need at least 50mbps download/25mbps upload. That's what my classes require. Zoom or Teams calls don't work well at less than about 25, 50 is better. So yes, to consistently have 25-50 you need a 100mbps plan.

#93 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-09 04:00 PM | Reply

-It goes without saying that if the CEO was paid less, there would be more money for everyone else.

money saved from not paying the CEO could go to.....

new equipment
purchase of another company
pay higher dividends to stockholders
give to charity

and yes....pay higher wages.

but who would do that if they didn't have to?

#94 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 04:00 PM | Reply

Competition....it's a good thing.
#92 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Notably, cable providers were granted exclusive franchise areas to get them to invest in building the infrastructure.

So, assuming you liked having cable TV and like having cable internet, government mandated monopoly is a good thing too.

It was Judge Robert Bork who oversaw the cable franchising, by the way.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 04:01 PM | Reply

money saved from not paying the CEO could go to.....
....pay higher wages.
#94 | POSTED BY EBERLY

^
Dis nilla spittin'.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 04:02 PM | Reply

-So, assuming you liked having cable TV and like having cable internet, government mandated monopoly is a good thing too.

It wasn't a monopoly in my area when my cable company approached me and said, "hey, would you like to bundle your phone service, internet and cable all into 1 service and save 30%?"

I looked at the Southwestern Bell bill, my long distance bill, my cable bill and my internet bill......seemed like a good idea.

It was competition that delivered that option. The govt made that possible and everybody won.

So that's not a dig on the govt.

#97 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 04:04 PM | Reply

#92 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I bundled services for a long time too. Then gradually started dropping them. Phone first, then most recently cable, now that I can get the NFL on Hulu + Live. I'm OK with the price and service for internet now. As it keeps increasing so will my motivation to look elsewhere.

#98 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-09 04:06 PM | Reply

"It wasn't a monopoly in my area when my cable company approached me"

That was probably about 40 years after the monopoly was granted.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 04:22 PM | Reply

"It was competition that delivered that option."

Yep.
And it was the government granted monopoly that delivered cable in the first place. Forty-ish years ago.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 04:23 PM | Reply

99

agreed.

#101 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 04:24 PM | Reply

For those who have it available to them, I switched to t-mobile 5g home broadband last fall. $50+tax/month, no fees or equipment costs, not contract, no caps, no installation. I'm saving $25 a month over what I was paying spectrum and getting about 10x average download speeds.

This is not an ad. I was not compensated in any way for posting this. I have no affiliation with t-mobile other than being a happy customer who wanted to share my experience with the rest of you.

#102 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-05-09 04:31 PM | Reply

" Statistically, effective tax rates in excess of 45% result in a decline in revenues ... ""

Realistically no wealthy person was paying that rate unless they wwere braun dead.

#103 | Posted by danni at 2022-05-09 05:03 PM | Reply

Thanks for the tip Johnny, I am a T-Mobil customer already. xWill I need to buy a WIFI router? I rent one from comcast now.

#104 | Posted by danni at 2022-05-09 05:10 PM | Reply

WiFi is included Danni.

www.t-mobile.com

You receive service through a 5G Gateway device (which combines the capabilities of a router and a modem), the Gateway device then converts the 5G signal to Wi-Fi, and provides a Wi-Fi signal accessible by all the devices in your home.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 05:20 PM | Reply

No brainer DEMO's offer Free internet.
What do the GOP offer? Oh that's right! Take away women's rights to their own bodies.

#106 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2022-05-09 06:22 PM | Reply

"Monday's news come largely thanks to $65 billion set aside for high speed internet in the Bipartisan Infrastructure law. That money has helped fund the ACP and is also being directed towards parallel efforts to increase coverage areas and speeds"

Oh yeah, it ain't free for sure. And those of us who make over $55,000/year pet the pleasure of paying for it.

This is good news for snoofy and speaks tho.

#107 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 06:24 PM | Reply

Work pays for my internet, loser.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 06:24 PM | Reply

When will people realize that corporate welfare is thousands of time larger than welfare for poor people.?

#109 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2022-05-09 06:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's partly because they can't talk about policy.

They can only talk about people the despise. Like the poor, and immigrants.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 06:29 PM | Reply

You and I are in agreement....sorry about that.
But you probably don't trust the private broadband providers any more than I do.

#87 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I'm never offended by someone agreeing with me.

I have no experience with private outfits, just the larger national telecoms. If the privates are anything similar then yes, I wouldn't trust them one bit.

#111 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 06:33 PM | Reply

Given my past experiences, I never, ever, want to deal with AT&T again.

#89 | POSTED BY BBQ

They upgraded my neighborhood to fiber that I'm told is really fast.

I just can't ever be an AT&T customer again. I had them for 10 years and when I dropped their internet (slow and fairly regular disruptions) they made me mail the modem back. I did on time and (luckily) kept all the paperwork proving it shipped and was received.

Six months later their internal collection agency contacted me claiming I owed $160ish for untreturned equipment. Was assured three times by customer service that they were investigating why my equipment wasn't registered as received (still had paperwork and sent it to them to prove it).

Weeeellllll...a week after the third failed "investigation" the debt collectors called my wife. I took the phone from her, told them to go ---- themselves and promptly filed a complaint with my state AG.

About four days later I received a phone call from a regional VP apologizing for my experiences, asked for me to email a copy of the receipts/shipping documents and promised me the debt collectors would stop calling.

Finally happened.

If you search for this topic you'll find thread after thread after thread of people complaining about this tactic. It seems super common and they probably make tons of cash from people who just pay to make it go away.

#112 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 06:45 PM | Reply

#112 I had the same experience with AT&T. Because of the horror stories about returns, I even recorded my visit to FedEx sending the equipment back. After being harassed I ended up with an "On You Side" TV reporter and boy howdy after they aired the segment with all my paperwork proof and the video of sending their crap back, they apologized and the harassment stopped.

#113 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2022-05-09 06:56 PM | Reply

AT&T is best. Comcast is Nazis. Verizon is potato.

~Effete

#114 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-05-09 07:10 PM | Reply

"From the link in #24:"

Thanks for pointing out the Republican Math in the article. The authors literally use a larger percentage of a smaller number to pretend cuts to folks getting less, were greater.

They also cherry-pick THE FIRST YEAR ONLY, before the workers' tax rates started creeping up again. In fact, at fruition, workers will owe MORE taxes than before the Trump code.

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 07:23 PM | Reply

"And those of us who make over $55,000/year "
.
#107 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You ------- unemployed loser!!!!

#116 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-09 08:44 PM | Reply

111

They're all private. Meaning they aren't publicly owned nor a cooperative.

#117 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-09 08:57 PM | Reply

Work pays for my internet, loser.

#108 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-05-09 06:24 PM |

By "work" you mean making grocery runs for your mom.

#118 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:08 PM | Reply

It's partly because they can't talk about policy.
They can only talk about people the despise. Like the poor, and immigrants.

#110 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-05-09 06:29 PM | REPLY |

Oh, I'd love to talk about it.

"Nothing will fundamentally change" Joe Biden to a group of billionaires at a dinner in NYC.

#119 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:10 PM | Reply

By "work" you mean making grocery runs for your mom.
#118 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

^
It's funny when a third generation whatever tries to put down working for your parents.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:12 PM | Reply

#116 | POSTED BY LEGALLYYOURDEAD AT 2022-05-09 08:44 PM

Some of made enough money that we work when we want to. Now, finish rotating that stock, Dorky boy.

#121 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:12 PM | Reply

"Nothing will fundamentally change" Joe Biden to a group of billionaires at a dinner in NYC.

Whereas the other guy will make abortion illegal.

I can see why you think that's better.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:13 PM | Reply

It's funny when a third generation whatever tries to put down working for your parents.

#120 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-05-09 09:12 PM |

It's funny when a 1st gen. who sits in his moms basement calls someone else a loser.

#123 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:14 PM | Reply

I'm enjoying our little policy discussion. Chesterton's Fence, you know what that is? In this scenario, it's the wall protecting your Right To Privacy. The wall Republicans and you want to tear down so they can get at abortion. What else is behind that fence, any thoughts?

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:15 PM | Reply

Whereas the other guy will make abortion illegal.
I can see why you think that's better.

#122 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-05-09 09:13 PM | REPLY

That's not what you were talking about. Now you have an open discussion, and you run like a dipschitt.

#125 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:15 PM | Reply

Huh? You're not talking about policy. You're still doing this:

"They can only talk about people the despise. Like the poor, and immigrants."

And Snoofy.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:18 PM | Reply

Huh? Tax policy on billionaires...

"Nothing will fundamentally change" Joe Biden to a group of billionaires at a dinner in NYC."

~ Lft

#127 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:19 PM | Reply

I opened the discussion because you said people couldn't talk about this policy.

And the first thing you did is whatabout abortion... dipschitt

#128 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:21 PM | Reply

Please Proceed, Governor.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:22 PM | Reply

Millions of Americans are getting free internet.

Does that fundamentally change things for the billionaires Biden was talking to?

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:24 PM | Reply

#113 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

I'm sure they try it with a large % of customers. As a "thank you for your business" send off when you cut their cord.

I'd like to say "I wish I knew how they haven't suffered more serious consequences for it" but I know the answer already.

#131 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 09:25 PM | Reply

You voted for someone who vowed to do nothing about corporate welfare then you blame republicans and independents like myself. Like to explain that one?

You remind me of Oliver North.

#132 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:26 PM | Reply

Does that fundamentally change things for the billionaires Biden was talking to?

#130 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-05-09 09:24 PM | REPLY

Yes it does, it guarantees them more business because the taxpayers are footing the bill so that more people can get internet. Remember the $65 billion in the bill?

#133 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:28 PM | Reply

Getting more business isn't really a fundamental change. And it's certainly not the kind of negative change Biden was assuring them wouldn't happen.

You can't possibly be trying to connect Biden's quote to Biden's free internet initiative, can you? Did Obamaphones fundamentally change things for the billionaire class too... and for the better?

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:31 PM | Reply

"You voted for someone who vowed to do nothing about corporate welfare then you blame republicans and independents like myself. Like to explain that one?"

Pretty easy. Republicans make it worse.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:32 PM | Reply

"Getting more business isn't really a fundamental change"

It isn't a change from his promise to leave their tax structure alone, it's simply $65 billion for them to add to their bottom lines at the tax payer expense.

Now I'm sure you won't mind admitting that not only did Biden get on his knees and promise not to fool around with their taxes, he also had a bit ole $65 billion dollar meatball for them.

#136 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:38 PM | Reply

"Did Obamaphones fundamentally change things for the billionaire class"

IIRC those were around under W. before Obama was blamed.

#137 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-09 09:39 PM | Reply

"Now I'm sure you won't mind admitting"

Jesus. Stop trying to make this about me.

Of course the $65 billion is going to internet companies. They're the ones upgrading their systems to reach the goal. That's how carrots work. I mean, Bork is the one who poofed these companies into existence by granting exclusive franchise areas to cable operators. This is how government gets business to do things. The same way businesses get people to do things. By giving them money to do it.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:51 PM | Reply

When will people realize that corporate welfare is thousands of time larger than welfare for poor people.?

Not as long as the rich control the media.

They've convinced the dumbest among us, the conservatives, that any taxes spent on the poor is theft.

As far as corporate welfare, they call them subsides. It sounds much nicer.

#139 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-10 03:19 AM | Reply

independents like myself.
#132 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTURDS

You too embarrassed to admit you're a Trumper?

Don't worry Turds, you're only lying to yourself.

#140 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-10 03:22 AM | Reply

You too embarrassed to admit you're a Trumper?

Don't worry Turds, you're only lying to yourself.

#140 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2022-05-10 03:22 AM

I'm guessing you either haven't read the last 20 posts or you're wishing you hadn't.

#141 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-10 07:43 AM | Reply

The rich are paying your taxes and mine.

Technically we're fleecing them. Or rather the government is fleecing them on our behalf.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-09 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag

And there you have just how incredibly powerful the GQP propaganda really is.

A small business owner pays 47% in taxes. Fat Donnie Fail pays 1% in taxes and mythbummer says he is paying his taxes AND MINE.

PT Barnum was spot on.

#142 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-05-10 08:48 AM | Reply

since reaganomics was invented and conclude its the rich who are getting fleeced.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Minimum wage 2015 $7.25

Jeff Bezos net worth 2015 $50,000,000,000

Minimum wage 2021 $7.25

Jeff Bezos net worth 2021 $213,000,000,000.

Amazons tax rate for 2021 - 6%.

"Key Points:

Amazon avoided about $5.2 billion in corporate federal income taxes in 2021.
The company reported record profits of more than $35 billion (75 percent higher than its 2020 record haul) and paid just 6 percent of those profits in federal corporate income taxes.
If Amazon had no tax breaks, it would have paid 21 percent of its profits in corporate income taxes, or more than $7.3 billion. Instead, it paid $2.1 billion."
itep.org

They sure are getting fleeced.

#143 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-05-10 08:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When will people realize that corporate welfare is thousands of time larger than welfare for poor people.?

Posted by Wildman62 at 2022-05-09 06:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"However while renewables do now receive the most in terms of subsidies, the fossil fuel industry still claims a huge amount of taxpayer money to help keep their prices low. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute found that the US government alone spends $20 billion every year on direct fossil fuel subsidies. Of that figure, around $16 billion goes towards oil and gas, while the remaining $4 billion benefits the coal industry."
en.as.com

#144 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-05-10 09:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Our tax rates need to fully fund government That requires across the board increases."

That is ripe.

Before we do anything across the board...how about lifting the social security cap?

How about making S Corp profit distributions SE income?

1979 Lowest tax bracket 14% .... top tax bracket 70%.

2022 lowest tax bracket 10% ... top tax bracket 37%.

Across the board my ass.

Reset them to 1979 rates and then make social security tax exempt again.

#145 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-05-10 09:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm guessing you either haven't read the last 20 posts or you're wishing you hadn't.
#141 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTURDS

Why? Did you finally admit you're a dumb fkkking moron for supporting Trump and the Republican Party?

Citation necessary.

#146 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-10 10:39 AM | Reply

Why? Did you finally admit you're a dumb fkkking moron for supporting Trump and the Republican Party?
Citation necessary.

#146 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2022-05-10 10:39 AM |

Look, if you have something to say about the debate, go ahead and say it or at least admit you have nothing to stand on.

What citation are you speaking of? What confirmation are you looking for?

#147 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-10 12:12 PM | Reply

"The rich are paying your taxes and mine."

Not according to the equation.

But if, like you say, the rich are paying...they're underpaying, since we're running deficit budgets.

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-10 02:10 PM | Reply

"Not according to the equation."

Is that something you made up?

According to you?

In 2019, the top 1% covered 38% of the total federal income tax burden. The bottom 50% paid a little over 3%. In 2015, the top 1% had an average effective tax rate of 33.3%. The lowest Quintile was 1.5%.

"But if, like you say, the rich are paying...they're underpaying, since we're running deficit budgets."

If you think the rich are underpaying, the poor are under-underpaying. The rate paid by the top 1% is more than 20x higher than the lowest quintile.

#149 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-10 03:14 PM | Reply

"Reset them to 1979 rates and then make social security tax exempt again."

And that would probably be perfectly reasonable if those new rates were accompanies by the deduction options that were available in 1979.

It was high income earners that were against TRA 86. The marginal rates may have been lower under the new plan, but they lacked the deduction opportunities available under the old plan, so their effective rates went up.

#150 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-10 03:17 PM | Reply

"The rate paid by the top 1% is more than 20x higher than the lowest quintile"

Their income is more than 20x higher too, right?

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-10 03:19 PM | Reply

"Their income is more than 20x higher too, right?"

I depend on if you calculate their income before or after taxes and transfers.

The bottom three quintiles actually have a higher income after taxes and transfers.

But to answer your question, the bottom quintile is ~ $25k and below. The top 1% starts at 504K. So it's pretty much a wash as metric goes, meaningless as it is.

#152 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-10 03:43 PM | Reply

Feel like doing Federal payroll taxes next?

#153 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-10 03:58 PM | Reply

"Feel like doing Federal payroll taxes next?"

Me?

I don't need to.

It's already been done.

taxfoundation.org

#154 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-10 04:04 PM | Reply

Payroll tax turns out to be regressive.
As does every tax that isn't income tax.

#155 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-10 04:17 PM | Reply

In 2019, the top 1% covered 38% of the total federal income tax burden.

#149 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I'd say that sounds about right.

Nationwide, the top 1% of earners account for 38.3% of the nation's total income. www.usatoday.com

#156 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-10 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#156

There you go again.... being all factual and stuff.

#157 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-10 04:28 PM | Reply

White House: Millions of Americans will Get Free Internet

so low income folks get this for free or nothing while middle to high income folks get to pay the premium price

once again the Democrat's want to reward the Nonproducers and penalize the Producers. Just like ObamaCare

#158 | Posted by Maverick at 2022-05-10 07:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"In 2019, the top 1% covered 38% of the total federal income tax burden. "

And you're pretending the "federal income tax burden" is all-inclusive.

Fact is, the vast majority of workers (about 70%) pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than income tax.

You're also ignoring Dubya citing payroll tax overcollections as a reason to cut YOUR income tax, as he reset the fiscal sights from surpluses to deficits.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-10 07:20 PM | Reply

"The bottom three quintiles actually have a higher income after taxes and transfers."

That's some SERIOUS Republican Math!

#160 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-10 07:21 PM | Reply

"Nationwide, the top 1% of earners account for 38.3% of the nation's total income"

From the article:

"Today, the top 1% of earners in the United States account for about 20% of the country's total income annually."

#161 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 01:28 AM | Reply

"There you go again.... being all factual and stuff."

You didn't read the article, didya?

#162 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 01:28 AM | Reply

"Fact is, the vast majority of workers (about 70%) pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than income tax."

That's because around 60% see no change to income or see income increased after taxes and transfers. Unlike most taxes, payroll taxes are fair. They're like a VAT. Everyone pays the same percentage, and they're pretty much unavoidable.

#163 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 01:30 AM | Reply

Another good chart

files.taxfoundation.org

#164 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 01:33 AM | Reply

"Unlike most taxes, payroll taxes are fair."

What's "fair" about payroll taxes, or VAT taxes?

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 01:43 AM | Reply

"What's "fair" about payroll taxes, or VAT taxes?"

Everyone pays the same rate.

Personally, I favor progressive taxation, but I certainly see how a flat tax or a VAT is fair.

#166 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-11 01:57 AM | Reply

From MadBomber's link in #154:

"In contrast to the income tax, the payroll tax is regressive, with lower-income individuals facing higher average tax rates."

^
MadBomber calls that "Fair."

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Unlike most taxes, payroll taxes are fair."

What's "fair" about payroll taxes, or VAT taxes?

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 01:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

That the poor pay a greater share of their income on them.

#168 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-05-11 10:04 AM | Reply

"Everyone pays the same rate."

No, they don't.

Are you unaware, or are you signaling you're not in a serious discussion?

#169 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-11 10:09 AM | Reply

" Another good chart"

No, just another chart that assumes INCOME tax is the ONLY tax.

#170 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-11 10:14 AM | Reply

In 2019, the top 1% covered 38% of the total federal income tax burden.

#149 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

That's meaningless propaganda to convince morons the rich are overtaxed.

Here's why it is meaningless:

100 people. 99 of them earn $1, one earns $10,000. Tax rate is 10%.

99 people pay .10 one person pays $1,000. Total taxes is $1,009.90. The top 1% pays 99% of the taxes. Again a meaningless statistic.

nymag.com

"The Stat is literally true. But it is deeply misleading " so misleading, in fact, that it routinely fools even the people who are citing it into thinking it indicates something other than what it actually means.

The first problem with The Stat is that it makes no reference to the proportion of income the rich earn. The juxtaposition between one percent and 40 percent is meant to convey the idea that a small number of people are carrying a gigantic and disproportionate burden, but the figure lacks any context when it omits how much money they earn in the first place.

Second, and worse still, The Stat ignores the fact that income taxes are just one component of the federal tax system, and federal taxes are just one component of the total tax system. The federal tax system is far more progressive than state and local taxes, which rely heavily on regressive burdens like sales taxes. (It's harder to impose progressives taxes at the state or local level, since rich people moving to a different town or state is relatively easy, while leaving the country is more burdensome.)"

#171 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-05-11 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#171 - thank you for that. This is a great example of how "common sense" leads people astray.

#172 | Posted by YAV at 2022-05-11 01:27 PM | Reply

"What's "fair" about payroll taxes, or VAT taxes?"

They are evenly applied across all taxpayers.

#173 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:17 PM | Reply

"MadBomber calls that "Fair."

It's absolutely fair. It's intended to be fair.

And the only reason lower income earners pay a higher rate for payroll taxes is because the benefits they pay for are capped. Paying more payroll taxes wouldn't result in a bigger social security check. It's that way by design.

#174 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:20 PM | Reply

"They are evenly applied across all taxpayers."
--MadBomber

"the payroll tax is regressive, with lower-income individuals facing higher average tax rates."
--MadBomber's link

These say the same thing, MadBomber?

Evenly applied, and the poor pay a higher rate?

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:20 PM | Reply

"That the poor pay a greater share of their income on them."

Which is the mathematical outcome when payroll taxes are capped.

#176 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:21 PM | Reply

"Are you unaware, or are you signaling you're not in a serious discussion?"

I'm unaware.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

#177 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:21 PM | Reply

How is that "evenly applied" like you claimed?

#178 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:21 PM | Reply

"That's meaningless propaganda to convince morons the rich are overtaxed."

These numbers are coming from the IRS. Are they in the business of creating meaningless propaganda?

"99 people pay .10 one person pays $1,000. Total taxes is $1,009.90. The top 1% pays 99% of the taxes. Again a meaningless statistic."

It would certainly be true...so why would it be meaningless?

#179 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:26 PM | Reply

"The first problem with The Stat is that it makes no reference to the proportion of income the rich earn."

But I provided that to you. It's 20.4%. It's not a hard number to find. And even then, it doesn't matter.

#180 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:27 PM | Reply

"Second, and worse still, The Stat ignores the fact that income taxes are just one component of the federal tax system, and federal taxes are just one component of the total tax system."

That's true, interesting, but not compelling. First, you can't do an apples-to-apples comparison if you include state taxes. Second, they don't matter as much because state tax rates are part of one's decision calculus to live in a specific state.

This is where-when someone like Bernie says he wants western European-style economic policy...he's lying. The poor pay taxes in Europe. Far more than in the US. And they pay a VAT. There are one or two progressive contributors to this site who have voiced support for a VAT, but the vast majority are as violently opposed as conservatives. Why? Because while a VAT may provide benefits for low-income earners, it really doesn't punish the rich. Which is what many US progressives are really after.

#181 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:31 PM | Reply

"Evenly applied, and the poor pay a higher rate?"

I'm not sure what you're asking? Low-income earners pay the same payroll tax rate as anyone else. Just like low-income earners here in Germany pay the same VAT rate as anyone else.

#182 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:33 PM | Reply

"How is that "evenly applied" like you claimed?"

Again...not sure what you're asking?

#183 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:33 PM | Reply

MB needs to brush up on the failure of his rwing economics....

www.theguardian.com

#184 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-11 02:34 PM | Reply

#184

Dude, all I can say is review the abject failures of socialism in the past two hundred years.

The good news is that if you still don't like Capitalism. There's still Cuba. There's still North Korea.

Piketty, like most of you. Is a rich person bitching about richer people? And the guy is boring. If you like socialism, get old skool. I think you can get Das Kapital on Kindle. I know you can, actually, because I have it on Kindle.

#185 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 02:42 PM | Reply

"Again...not sure what you're asking?"

You say it's evenly applied.
Your link says the poor pay more.

Who is right, and who is wrong?

#186 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 02:49 PM | Reply

#185

Why is it that extremists only see black and white? Crony Capitalism and Marxism are not the only real world choices.

The real world is many shades, and both strict capitalism and stringent socialism need not be so brutal and unfair. Canada and the northern European social democracies are just some examples of how both can be a part of a rational, fair, equitable, and humane social and economic construct.

Of course, seeing the world in 2 dimensions is easier for the simple minded to digest.

And btw, whining about what an economist says isn't an argument to the premise he puts forth.

#187 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-11 03:14 PM | Reply

"You say it's evenly applied. Your link says the poor pay more."

I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "pay more."

As a progressive, you don't understand economics. I think you need to be a bit more clear when you say "pay more."

#188 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 03:15 PM | Reply

"Why is it that extremists only see black and white? Crony Capitalism and Marxism are not the only real world choices."

You posted an article stating that capitalism didn't work. I was simply giving you options if that's what you believed.

"Canada and the northern European social democracies are just some examples of how both can be a part of a rational, fair, equitable, and humane social and economic construct."

Huh.

My read was that you wanted no part of that. First, A), every last thing in those countries is fully funded by capitalism. And B) they all tax low-income earners far more than in the US.

If you buy Piketty's argument that capitalism doesn't work, then you buy the argument that the west has failed. Really that the world has failed, because income inequality, which Piky gets picky over, occurs even in countries who economies are rigidly controlled.

He kinda sounds like an old school Marxist idealogue. Kinda like Bernie.

#189 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 03:20 PM | Reply

#189

You sound like the bastard child of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises... dazed and confused by having more than one choice or the combination of choices.

But then, rwingers still hate FDR for saving America from the Great Depression, caused by the unfettered capitalism of the Gilded Agers, and defeating the AXIS powers, who fought over the marketplace, so I guess there's no surprise when anything that regulates the MIC even a tiny bit upsets them so.

#190 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-11 03:36 PM | Reply

"You sound like the bastard child of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises... dazed and confused by having more than one choice or the combination of choices."

I would accuse you of thinking socialism can be represented outside of Soviet Socialism or National Socialism. How much does socialism have to suck, how many does it have to kill, how many does it have to enslave before you finally abandon it? You're like an abused spouse who can't help but love those who would enslave you.

And we can have a longer convo on FDR if that's your thing. Many economists claim he extended the Great Depression as a result of his policies. I can get that data if you're interested. I suspect you're not. And I'm more than willing to criticize FDR's economic policies. Many were. Until the Japanese attacked the US. At which point most of that became ballwash and a secondary concern to going and ------- up the ----. To which effort FDR granted ridiculous latitude to the joint forces to get after the problem. which of course they did.

#191 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-11 03:56 PM | Reply

#191 |

Yes, yes. Norway, Finland, the Netherlands... Canada, all pure Soviet style Socialism, when they aren't being Maoists, that is, rofl!

Perhaps we could get your CO to order you to have, what for you, would be an original thought outside the black and white lines others have drawn for you?

- Many economists claim

Many rwing nutjob economists claim... ft/nc

#192 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-11 04:21 PM | Reply

Rethinking FDR as Commander in Chief
A new book reveals that President Franklin D. Roosevelt's role in winning World War II was much greater than previously thought.

www.history.com

#193 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-11 04:27 PM | Reply

"You say it's evenly applied. Your link says the poor pay more."
I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "pay more."
As a progressive, you don't understand economics. I think you need to be a bit more clear when you say "pay more."
#188 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Your link explains it well enough.
The rate for the poor is higher.
How is it being evenly applied when the rates aren't even?

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-11 06:25 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 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort