Federal Income Tax Reform Proposal - Effect on Californians (car registration, big house)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Too late. You have half of the population dependent on the welfare state in some way. It's going to be hard to take away their "free money", at least not without a fight.

uh huh..and what did you have to call a "welfare program" to come up with that number, medicare and Social Security?

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You should be a salad chef at Taco Bell ... what you do with words goes well with indigestible fast food. And completely misses the point I made. The 1%, the 5%, the 20% don’t NEED any breaks ... and feeding them while starving the plebeian masses starves the system you love.

I think I need breaks. The plebeian masses aren't starving.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bad debt

I think I need breaks. The plebeian masses aren't starving.

“Starving” as in cutting off their supply of expendable income ... which cuts off consumerism which feeds the capitalist economy.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Oh? Good decisions, eh? Like decisions to rape and pillage the environment, produce pharmaceuticals that are mostly unnecessary and deposit “forever chemicals” in our water and soil (you know: where our foods come from), create mortgage schemes that crash the economy, foster endless wars, extort workers’ income for unnecessary healthcare management, ... ... ... I can go on all day ... yes, “good decisions” at every turn of our consumer capitalist culture indeed!

And “hard work”!? Bubba, no Fortune 500 executive puts in a day that can compare with your average teacher, ditch digger, day care worker, iron worker, cop on the street, firefighter, or even a retail clerk putting up with cranky customers at a shoe store.

And no ditch digger has the IQ, temperament, personality type and to do the job (or follow the career path) of a F500 CEO.

The world isn't fair. Equal outcome isn't happening.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

“Starving” as in cutting off their supply of expendable income ... which cuts off consumerism which feeds the capitalist economy.

Spending and credit card debt is hitting an all time high =) Everything is fine!

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bad debt

And no ditch digger has the IQ, temperament, personality type and to do the job (or follow the career path) of a F500 CEO.

The world isn't fair. Equal outcome isn't happening.

I don’t agree with your assessment re: IQ ... not one bit. Plenty of brilliant people haven’t the slightest inclination to pursue business. And some of them are happy digging ditches instead. Perfectly healthy way to live.

As to temperament and personality type, you say that as if the F500 CEO type is somehow more desirable and worthy. To which I respond: hogwash.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bad debt

Spending and credit card debt is hitting an all time high =) Everything is fine!

Lmao ... right ...

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I don’t agree with your assessment re: IQ ... not one bit. Plenty of brilliant people haven’t the slightest inclination to pursue business. And some of them are happy digging ditches instead. Perfectly healthy way to live.

As to temperament and personality type, you say that as if the F500 CEO type is somehow more desirable and worthy. To which I respond: hogwash.

The discussion is not whether it's more worthy or not. The bottom line is that it takes a specific drive, IQ, motivation, determination, personality, etc etc etc to be a F500 CEO. It's multifactorial. And they get highly compensated for having that and delivering consistent profits to the owners of those companies.

As you mentioned there are plenty of people that have 150+ IQs that aren't CEOs of F500 companies for a multitude of reasons. You can be the smartest person in the world and if you don't want to be a F500 CEO, then guess what? It's not very likely that you're going to be a F500 CEO. On the other hand, if the ONLY thing you want to do in the world is be a F500 CEO and you only have an 80 IQ, it's not happening either no matter how badly you want it and work towards that goal.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bad debt

The discussion is not whether it's more worthy or not. The bottom line is that it takes a specific drive, IQ, motivation, determination, personality, etc etc etc to be a F500 CEO. It's multifactorial. And they get highly compensated for having that and delivering consistent profits to the owners of those companies.

As you mentioned there are plenty of people that have 150+ IQs that aren't CEOs of F500 companies for a multitude of reasons. You can be the smartest person in the world and if you don't want to be a F500 CEO, then guess what? It's not very likely that you're going to be a F500 CEO. On the other hand, if the ONLY thing you want to do in the world is be a F500 CEO and you only have an 80 IQ, it's not happening either no matter how badly you want it and work towards that goal.

Pretty much. Nevertheless, the “discussion” (before your comment) was referencing the value of corporate CEO’s as if they are “more worthy” or not. And I pointed out that the “worthiness” being assigned to them ignores the wholesale destruction their “work” levies on the planet and, frankly, humanity. Facts are: we don’t need hardly any of the crap being produced and sold. We don’t need 7 - 8 billion people either. What civilization is living now is unnecessary madness ... mostly driven by the personality types you are lionizing.

Personally, in any case, I’ll value an 80-IQ with loyal, sincere, service oriented, honest character and simplicity any day over a 150-IQ amoral / immoral opportunist.

[Bolanders]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Ok, now prove it.

Very fair.

I want to use your exact quote:

"The problem is that when Trump lowers tax rates on corporations and billionaires, someone else has to make up for that, and the current plan is to suck everything he can from the poor and disabled...what a guy"

What we should see is that the burden on the top group ha gone down and the burden on the lower group has gone up.


2018 numbers for top 5% and top 1% aren't out by the tax foundation yet but should be in the next few months and I would be glad to run the numbers when they are released but the top 20% numbers are available.

Using 2016 as a comparison for the old tax rates makes the most sense.

In 2016 $1.442T dollars was collected in federal income taxes. There were 140,888,785 total tax payers. The top 20% of federal taxpayers would be the highest 28,177,757 number of tax payers. Those 28,177,757 paid $1.26896 Trillion dollars in taxes. To put it in easier fashion their burden was $45,034 per tax payer. The bottom 80% would have been 112,711,028 tax payers that paid total taxes of $173.04 Billion dollars. Their tax burden would have been $1535 per taxpayer.


Using your quote we should expect to see 1 of 3 things:

1). The top 20% should have a tax burden that went down while the bottom 80% had a tax burden that went up.. Example would be the $45,034 burden on the top 20% went down to 43,000 and the burden on the bottom 80% went up by $100 to $1635
2). The top 20% should have a tax burden that went up by a lesser amount (total $) than the tax burden the top 80% went up. Example of this would be the $45,034 went up to $45,124 ($100 more) while the $1535 went up to $1735 ($200 more)
3). Unchanged for the top 20% and a higher burden per taxpayer for the bottom 80%.


Now let's look at 2018 numbers after the tax cuts:

In 2018 $1.700T dollars was collected in federal income taxes. There were 140,900,000 total tax payers. The top 20% of federal taxpayers would be the highest 28,180,000 number of tax payers. Those 28,180,000 paid $1.479 Trillion dollars in taxes. To put it in easier fashion their burden was $52,484 per tax payer (an increase of about $7,000 per tax payer). The bottom 80% would have been 112,720,000 tax payers that paid total taxes of $221.0 Billion dollars. Their tax burden would have been $1961 per taxpayer (an increase of about $370).

In other words what you said is patently false. There was a far great true dollar burden on the top 20% by about $6500+ on the top 20%. Incomes were up over all taxpayers which is shown by the greater burden of all. SO Trump did not make it up by giving the rich more $ back and taking it from the poor. In fact the poor simply do not have enough $ to cover what the rich pay. Because the tax rates for the bottom 80% are lower than the tax rates on the top 20% the extra income earned in 2018 over 2016 was taxed far higher on the top 20% than on the bottom 80%.

It is fairly obvious that people here do not understand how progressive tax rates work.