Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: EvenBobKanye Effect: Black Male Approval of Trump Doubles in One Week
OH! So now the polls are real and accurate and not fake news?? Haha... you people crack me up.
"A poll taken on April 22, 2018 had Trump’s approval rating among black men at 11 percent, while the same poll on April 29, 2018 pegged the approval rating at 22 percent. It should be noted that Reuters only sampled slightly under 200 black males each week and slightly under 3,000 people overall."
So let's do the math on this... 11% of 200 black males is 22. 22% of 200 black males is 44. So, Reuters found 22 more black guys that said they approve of Donald Trump, and that's big news to you.... haha... okay. And Reuters was the same poll that gave Hillary a 95% chance of winning the election. That was "fake news" according to you, EvenBob. Why do you believe Reuters now?
Quote:
"If this stat is correct, it is not so much that Kanye West is changing minds, it is more that he is making it okay to admit what you believe. In other words, he is legitimizing a line of thought in black America that has been declared off limits.
Declared off limits by black Americans themselves....
Quote:That, of course, terrifies the organized left and the media more than anything."
LOL... I seriously doubt that. This will be forgotten about by the end of the day.
Quote: SteverinosYou're ridiculous. No sense in talking to you at all. I post two articles and videos with relevant information that contributes to the discussion, and you turn around and post this horse s**t.
By the way, Russia is flat-taxed.
Bruh, let's at least try to be civil in our disagreements.
Quote: RSBruh, let's at least try to be civil in our disagreements.
I am.
Quote: ams288Quote: rsactuaryQuote: EvenBobKanye Effect: Black Male Approval of Trump Doubles in One Week
"If this stat is correct, it is not so much that Kanye West is changing minds, it is more that he is making it okay to admit what you believe. In other words, he is legitimizing a line of thought in black America that has been declared off limits. That, of course, terrifies the organized left and the media more than anything."
so instead of one black male supporting Trump (Ben Carson), there are now two (Ben Carson and Kanye West). I'm not concerned.
That's funny.
What's funnier is AZD's post right after mine.
Quote: ams288
That's funny.
What's more than funny is, this is
why you were so shocked when
Hillary lost. You all thought facts
like this were irrelevant and when
they show up in election results,
you just can't believe it.
Because of people like Diamond
and Silk, and Kanye, the Black
vote for Dems is slowly eroding.
Drip drip drip, soon it will be a
flood.
Nuff Said.
....that were taken hostage while Trump was in office....
Quote: TigerWuTrump complains that the Obama administration was unable to free two hostages from North Korea.....
....that were taken hostage while Trump was in office....
It's embarrassing. But his supporters don't care that he tells several lies a day.
When your net worth is over X, your income tax should be 100%
Quote: Dalex64I guess trump is a trend setter.
When your net worth is over X, your income tax should be 100%
Hyperbole much?
Quote: rsactuaryHyperbole much?
I think it was a joke about Trump donating his salary
Quote: gamerfreakI think it was a joke about Trump donating his salary
oops :-)
Quote: Dalex64It also shows how a person of greater wealth does not need a larger percentage of his income compared to a person of lesser wealth.
Income should not be taxed at all. Wealth should be taxed. If you are in debt $200k from your Ivy League degree and making $70k per year you should not be taxed at all until you have a net positive net worth. And an old guy like me once I retire will be hardly taxed at all but will have a boatload in the bank, earning a few percent tax free if I so chose. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to do in practice (paintings, coins, Grand Cayman Island accounts, etc...) as wealth can be hidden easier than income. But conceptually a 'wealth' tax makes far more sense than an 'income' tax.
Quote: SOOPOOIncome should not be taxed at all. Wealth should be taxed. If you are in debt $200k from your Ivy League degree and making $70k per year you should not be taxed at all until you have a net positive net worth. And an old guy like me once I retire will be hardly taxed at all but will have a boatload in the bank, earning a few percent tax free if I so chose. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to do in practice (paintings, coins, Grand Cayman Island accounts, etc...) as wealth can be hidden easier than income. But conceptually a 'wealth' tax makes far more sense than an 'income' tax.
I disagree with this concept. By taxing income, you really are taxing wealth.. but you make sure you only do it once. Whereas taxing wealth will result in repeated taxation on the same money. Don't like that idea.
Quote: SteverinosWe just have a fundamental disagreement about where the economic loop STARTS. In my opinion, it starts with.......................wait for it..................wait for it................................WORKERS, not shareholders.
Not workers. Consumers.
"When the middle class thrives, businesses grow and owners profit."
"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle class consumers." -Hanauer
Which is the purpose of Trump’s tax cuts. Put more cash in the pockets of the consumers, and you increase personal consumption. Unlike the $4 trillion in QE that went directly to the banks and corporations, and spent largely on stock buybacks.
It’s more like a pie, not a loop. Components of GDP
This time around, the Trump tax windfall is going to Capex, way faster than stock buybacks.
That creates jobs = consumers.
Increase personal consumption and business investment, and you increase the size of pie.
Quote: TankoNot workers. Consumers.
"When the middle class thrives, businesses grow and owners profit."
"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle class consumers." -Hanauer
Which is the purpose of Trump’s tax cuts. Put more cash in the pockets of the consumers, and you increase personal consumption. Unlike the $4 trillion in QE that went directly to the banks and corporations, and spent largely on stock buybacks.
It’s more like a pie, not a loop. Components of GDP
This time around, the Trump tax windfall is going to Capex, way faster than stock buybacks.
That creates jobs = consumers.
Increase personal consumption and business investment, and you increase the size of pie.
Thats always been my theory for why poor should be subsidized
Welfare people spend that money = jobs needed = wealthy people hiring and expanding their business
In every poor neighborhood i have visited there are McDonald's and hair salons and sneaker stores. You think well to do people are travelling to poor neighborhood for shopping
Its welfare people spending their subsidies. Its a good thing!
Quote: darkozQuote: TankoNot workers. Consumers.
"When the middle class thrives, businesses grow and owners profit."
"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle class consumers." -Hanauer
Which is the purpose of Trump’s tax cuts. Put more cash in the pockets of the consumers, and you increase personal consumption. Unlike the $4 trillion in QE that went directly to the banks and corporations, and spent largely on stock buybacks.
It’s more like a pie, not a loop. Components of GDP
This time around, the Trump tax windfall is going to Capex, way faster than stock buybacks.
That creates jobs = consumers.
Increase personal consumption and business investment, and you increase the size of pie.
Thats always been my theory for why poor should be subsidized
Welfare people spend that money = jobs needed = wealthy people hiring and expanding their business
In every poor neighborhood i have visited there are McDonald's and hair salons and sneaker stores. You think well to do people are travelling to poor neighborhood for shopping
Its welfare people spending their subsidies. Its a good thing!
You forgot the tobacco companies.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/105550/among-americans-smoking-decreases-income-increases.aspx
Quote: ams288deleted
This was the post where you fell for the FAKE NEWS that Cohen's phone was tapped.
While the post is gone and the story was wrong, the good news is it saved someone from "making you happy" as I would assume you couldn't contain your excitement.
Quote: BozThis was the post where you fell for the FAKE NEWS that Cohen's phone was tapped.
While the post is gone and the story was wrong, the good news is it saved someone from "making you happy" as I would assume you couldn't contain your excitement.
At least NBC news corrected their story, unlike Fox News or the President and his staff.
Quote: SOOPOOIncome should not be taxed at all. Wealth should be taxed. If you are in debt $200k from your Ivy League degree and making $70k per year you should not be taxed at all until you have a net positive net worth. And an old guy like me once I retire will be hardly taxed at all but will have a boatload in the bank, earning a few percent tax free if I so chose. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to do in practice (paintings, coins, Grand Cayman Island accounts, etc...) as wealth can be hidden easier than income. But conceptually a 'wealth' tax makes far more sense than an 'income' tax.
That would be a terrible idea.
I have zero debt, and I make less than $40k a year. So with your idea, I would be taxed, but the CEO on Wall Street making millions a year might not be taxed at all if he's in debt for some reason.
Many rich people are rich because they DO have debt, and use it as leverage to generate income.
Or what about someone who has no debt, but also has no wealth because they spend all their money on food, vacations, travel, charitable donations, or any number of other non-tangible, non-wealth accumulating things? Why should they not have to pay taxes?
Quote: SOOPOOIncome should not be taxed at all. Wealth should be taxed. If you are in debt $200k from your Ivy League degree and making $70k per year you should not be taxed at all until you have a net positive net worth. And an old guy like me once I retire will be hardly taxed at all but will have a boatload in the bank, earning a few percent tax free if I so chose. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to do in practice (paintings, coins, Grand Cayman Island accounts, etc...) as wealth can be hidden easier than income. But conceptually a 'wealth' tax makes far more sense than an 'income' tax.
I would be completely against this. Not only would it incentivize taking on more bad debt (student loans, credit cards for consumption) but it is confiscatory and kind of mean. Instead I would tax consumption and imports. We should encourage building wealth, not punish for it.
Quote: darkozIts welfare people spending their subsidies. Its a good thing!
San Francisco used to give out a monthly $362 cash stipend to single homeless adults, with the idea they would use it for food and housing. It turned into a disaster, when every junkie and wino within a thousand miles hitched a ride to 'Frisco for their guaranteed free highs for life.
Those people tend not to be good money managers.
Mayor Newsom changed the policy in 2004, to a "Care, not cash" policy.
Quote: BozThis was the post where you fell for the FAKE NEWS that Cohen's phone was tapped.
While the post is gone and the story was wrong, the good news is it saved someone from "making you happy" as I would assume you couldn't contain your excitement.
I have no idea what you're talking about. :p
Quote: TankoSan Francisco used to give out a monthly $362 cash stipend to single homeless adults, with the idea they would use it for food and housing. It turned into a disaster, when every junkie and wino within a thousand miles hitched a ride to 'Frisco for their guaranteed free highs for life.
Those people tend not to be good money managers.
Mayor Newsom changed the policy in 2004, to a "Care, not cash" policy.
Key words: every junkie and wino
Sure there are probably a larger percentage of those amongst poorer class but dont examine the proclivities of junkies and winos as indicative of poor and lower class activity
Middle class junkies and winos have a similar history of ruining their families and lives
Quote: darkoz
Sure there are probably a larger percentage of those amongst poorer class but dont examine the proclivities of junkies and winos as indicative of poor and lower class activity
Middle class junkies and winos have a similar history of ruining their families and lives
I don't think anyone says they don't. But one thing is for sure, nobody ever became rich being a junkie. But plenty lost everything by being one.
But like so many other taxes, liberal see it as “cruel and unfair”.
Quote: TankoNot workers. Consumers.
"When the middle class thrives, businesses grow and owners profit."
"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle class consumers." -Hanauer
Which is the purpose of Trump’s tax cuts. Put more cash in the pockets of the consumers, and you increase personal consumption. Unlike the $4 trillion in QE that went directly to the banks and corporations, and spent largely on stock buybacks.
It’s more like a pie, not a loop. Components of GDP
This time around, the Trump tax windfall is going to Capex, way faster than stock buybacks.
That creates jobs = consumers.
Increase personal consumption and business investment, and you increase the size of pie.
I always appreciate your posts. Well sourced and packed with information.
I prefer to think of the economy as an ecosystem, a cycle, or a loop. To each their own. When I say workers, I mean consumers. That's where dems think the economic loop starts. Republicans think it starts with the business. Fine. A fundamental disagreement between the two parties. But like any good capitalist knows, "hiring more people is a LAST RESORT, something that you do when, and only when, consumer demand requires it." What increases consumer demand? More money in people's pockets that are MORE LIKELY to spend it, not stash it.
I disagree that the tax cuts were designed to put more money into consumer pockets. If that were true, 80% of the benefits of that bill would not have gone to the top. But they did. My wife and I are smack dab in the middle of middle class. We saw our monthly income go up $120 from the tax cuts. Better than nothing? Sure. Of course. Big enough incentive to increase spending on anything? Buy new furniture? Car? Replace the flooring in the living room? lol No, it wasn't. And we are not alone. I know it's Q1 and it's not the best of indicators, but it's the only data we have to go off:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-retail-sales-rose-0-6-in-march-1523881918
https://nypost.com/2018/04/27/the-big-tax-cuts-havent-goosed-consumer-spending/
A good analysis on where the gains from the tax bill are concentrated:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/19/who-wins-and-who-loses-tax-bill/
Quote: Steverinos
And I completely disagree that the tax cuts were designed to put more money into consumer pockets. If that were true, 80% of the benefits of that bill would not have gone to the top. But they did.
The top pays most of the income taxes, the bottom pays virtually nothing. So no matter what you do, benefit has to skew to the top.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe top pays most of the income taxes, the bottom pays virtually nothing. So no matter what you do, benefit has to skew to the top.
Disagree. No matter what? No matter?
You couldn't pass a bill that cut taxes for every bracket BUT the top? You couldn't pass a bill putting the marginal top rate back at 91%, where it was before the country started accumulating massive amounts of debt? When the country, in Trump world, ya know, was "great"?
https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/
There's a whole lot of things we could do that doesn't HAVE to skew to the top. That was a choice. Trickle-down is just bad economic policy. It has never trickled down and has made income inequality a very real and dangerous problem.
Quote: BozI am for a VAT or National Sales Tax which many are against..... But like so many other taxes, liberal see it as “cruel and unfair”.
Wait... Don't you mean CONSERVATIVES don't want VAT? Some of the most liberal/socialist countries on Earth use a VAT... and in Europe it has led to the increase of welfare dependency. That doesn't sound like something conservatives would be into.
And what do you mean liberals think taxes are "cruel and unfair?" Aren't liberals the ones wanting to RAISE taxes, according to conservatives?
Quote: TigerWuWait... Don't you mean CONSERVATIVES don't want VAT? Some of the most liberal/socialist countries on Earth use a VAT... and in Europe it has led to the increase of welfare dependency. That doesn't sound like something conservatives would be into.
And what do you mean liberals think taxes are "cruel and unfair?" Aren't liberals the ones wanting to RAISE taxes, according to conservatives?
No liberals hate taxes that are equal percentage levels for everyone. They call it a tax on the poor.
Quote: BozNo liberals hate taxes that are equal percentage levels for everyone. They call it a tax on the poor.
Well, it IS regressive, is it not?
Quote: SteverinosDisagree. No matter what? No matter?
You couldn't pass a bill that cut taxes for every bracket BUT the top? You couldn't pass a bill putting the marginal top rate back at 91%, where it was before the country started accumulating massive amounts of debt? When the country, in Trump world, ya know, was "great"?
This is the statement of a very selfish and greedy person.
The kind of person who found a genie and was told he got one wish but the brother he hates gets twice what he gets.
"BLIND ME IN ONE EYE!"
Some true numbers on taxes
Less than 1 million people pay 39% of all taxes.
Less than 2 million pay 70% of all taxes.
45% pay ZERO taxes! (remind you of a number from 2012?, one that got lefties upset?)
The bottom 50% pay less than 3% of income taxes.
Yet with all this, you say, "NOT ENOUGH!"
Get over the hate, it just holds you back.
Quote: SteverinosWell, it IS regressive, is it not?
No, a flat rate is not regressive. It is a flat rate.
The government requiring everyone to buy only approved health insurance, that is an example of regressive.
Quote: AZDuffmanGet over the hate, it just holds you back.
It's not hate, it's concern. My boys will have to clean up the mess you boomers have left.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, a flat rate is not regressive. It is a flat rate.
Regressive Tax - a tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners.
Larger...percentage...of...income
http://gettrumpybear.com/
Quote: SteverinosRegressive Tax - a tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners.
Larger...percentage...of...income
Lets review:
Quote: BozNo liberals hate taxes that are equal percentage levels for everyone. They call it a tax on the poor.
Then you said:
Quote: SteverinosWell, it IS regressive, is it not?
So, how is an equal percentage "regressive?"
Quote: SteverinosIt's not hate, it's concern. My boys will have to clean up the mess you boomers have left.
Not really, it is pure hate.
Want proof?
Agree or disagree? To raise more revenue we should eliminate loopholes that let 45% of the population pay no income tax.
Isn't it unfair that so few people pay so much of the burden?
Quote: billryanIsn't it better that a young struggling family not be able to buy a tv because of an increased tax burden than a multi-millionaire not be able to get that third Ferrari? Success must be rewarded, and sloth punished.
There are tons of TVs out there people are giving away, But when you hit the employer for more taxes to "get even" then people get laid off as demand gets cut back.
BTW: The struggling family of note is probably paying $0 in income taxes.
Quote: AZDuffmanLets review:
Then you said:
So, how is an equal percentage "regressive?"
I'm wording it wrong. My apologies...
What I'm trying to say is that a poor person's baseline cost of living is the same as a rich person's. But they are using a greater percentage of income on just living. So if they are being taxed flat, AND paying other taxes, it becomes regressive in combination.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really, it is pure hate.
It is not hate. It's math.
Dems understand this. It's probably why the economy does better under them.
because of Slutty 'Sloppy' Daniels lawyer.
He's been on CNN 59 times in the last
60 days and people are sick of him, he's
like a broken record. One viewer said it
felt like he was stuck in the movie 'Groundhog
Day', that the same day was repeating
over and over.
LOL
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is the statement of a very selfish and greedy person.
Considering the views you hold on most things, this is one of the highest compliments you can pay anyone. I think nearly every position you hold politically is let the other guy worry about it as long as I get mine and leave me alone. Selfish and greedy as they come can't be an insult, right?
Quote: rxwineConsidering the views you hold on most things, this is one of the highest compliments you can pay anyone. I think nearly every position you hold politically is let the other guy worry about it as long as I get mine and leave me alone. Selfish and greedy as they come can't be an insult, right?
I thought greed was good on the last planet on the right?
Quote: rxwineConsidering the views you hold on most things, this is one of the highest compliments you can pay anyone. I think nearly every position you hold politically is let the other guy worry about it as long as I get mine and leave me alone. Selfish and greedy as they come can't be an insult, right?
Selfish is about wanting what someone else has just because they have it. Same with greed.
Wanting someone to pay even more because it is "not fair" that they get a bigger tax cut because the lower income person is paying little to nothing is the height of selfishness.
