British Election 2015 Results (unemployment, salary, borders, Minnesota)

[tom77falcons]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

No it isnt.

You pay with in your bracket, not on total income.

the brackets are

9,225 = 10%
9,226 to 37,450 =15%
37,451 to 90,750 =25%
90,751 to 189,300 = 28%
189,301 to 411,500 = 33%
411,501 to 413,200 = 35%
413,201 and above at =39.6

for example, if you made 30,000, you dont pay 15% on all your income, just on the amount over 9,226. Below that, you pay 10%.

Further more, your argument hinges on WHO pays those rates, not simply if they exist as you are arguing the whole of the subject.

The majority of americans dont pay the top tax rate,they pay the 25%,15% and 10%, that means they dont even come close to the 45% of the UK even when you include state taxes.


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

you made a very flawed argument.





actually, Democrats are proposing a 29% increase(to 10.10) in minimum wage, not 40%, but if Democrats had asked for a gain in minimum wage based on inflation and had done so in say 2009( the last time it was raised) the minimum wage would actually be over 12 dollars. Meaning the Conservatives are actually asking for more, not less than the Democrats, negating your point.



I have already proven this wrong on the above, the top tax bracket in the US in total pays about 25% after deductions.

.

Here you are arguing different context.

Support for unions does not tell the action you for or against them. Now obviously democrats are pro union, but i was just pointing out the fact that you did not in anyway mention that in context but argued something totally different.

Further more, You need to explain the context of unions in the UK before arguing reduction of powers. If the Unions in the UK are vastly more powerful than that of the UK, then a reduction in power there is not the same as wanting to reduce their power here.



The Democrats have never offered Amnesty for illegals in this nation, but on the premise that you falsely speak of, Republicans are pro immigration reform as well, negating the point you are trying to make.





Again, your fundamental understanding of politics, local issues, and the differences in levels of governance seem to be lacking. What you attempted to argue here failed miserably.

How can you stand living in AL cause you seem moderate in politics? Your state is an embarrassment for anyone that believes in a moderate leaning govt. AL isn't too far behind Texas in the whole "hating America" thing.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by tom77falcons

How can you stand living in AL cause you seem moderate in politics? Your state is an embarrassment for anyone that believes in a moderate leaning govt. AL isn't too far behind Texas in the whole "hating America" thing.

I have been told I am a moderate, but I actually consider myself quite liberal,(not so far left as to be a progressive though)

Living in Alabama is very challenging, Especially with no functioning Democratic Party. Our State Republican Party has been anti gambling for decades, all the way up to about 6 weeks ago, then we has a big local election where the 3 biggest school system in the state voted down a tax increase and even voted down the current taxes. The alternative offered and universally agreed upon was a lottery(legal gambling). No messaging for the Democratic party, no email blast, no legislation on the table. Next thing I know, the Republicans are full steam ahead backing lottery legislation and gambling offers from groups like the Porch Indians.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Camlon

How does that negate the point that top marginal tax rate is 53% in California.

BECAUSE NO ONE PAYS IT, you are arguing about a tax rate that doesnt matter in reality.

Yes you was, everyone who can read the quote can see that. If you really wasn't lying, why did you remove the quote on purpose? It was indented, it wouldn't have been removed unless you deleted it yourself.


Here you are comparing UK top marginal tax without deductions, with US average high income tax rate with deductions.

Ugh , you cant be serious. YOU argued the top tax rate and I said it didnt matter because the majority didnt pay it.

in each and every subsequent post, I reminded you of that fact and said the effective rate in the US is lower and that if you believe the same of the UK, then simply post the proof, and you never did.

I was never arguing that everyone in the UK pays 45%. I was simply stating that 45% is the only number you have ever posted for the UK and have never attempted to put forth their effective rate nor have you ever shown their local rates either.

So funny. The missing key in your graph, it does not include state taxes.

That means if you add 13.3% (california state tax) to 26% you will get about 39%. Way above UK 32%. Even if we assume they pay 26 / 39.6 = 65% of the top marginal tax. Rich people in California would then pay 35%. That is still above the UK.
Without realizing it, you posted a chart that proves you wrong.

Its not my fault that they didnt include the key, but is it really that hard for you to decipher ?

California's top tax rate of 13% starts at 1 million dollars,the US top tax rate that is 25% effective starts at 400,000. the Uk top tax rate starts at 150,000 Pounds (230,0000 dollars).

You still dont understand why your argument is flawed ?

http://www.tax-brackets.org/

Your argument begins and ends with California and Hawaii

And now you are trying to decleare yourself a winner of the debate. That is so pathetic.

Nope, im simply declaring you were wrong, which the chart clearly shows.

And I agree people in general make mistakes, but they also make mistakes in topics they don't understand very well. If you knew maths, the way to calculate percentage increase would come naturally.
And it is fine to not be amazing at maths, but then you need to realize that and be more humble when you make calculations.

You keep telling yourself that and beating a dead horse of bad math and keep negating the fact that the current British minimum wage is almost 3 dollars above that of the US and an inflation calculated increase would keep it above that of what US democrats want here, you know the point of your argument that you got absolutely wrong.

Great, then you have given up on your initial argument.And sure what you said above is true, but it is not relevant. .

No, you simply misunderstood my original argument. You are trying to compare to countries and to parties that are at different places in their political lives that has nothing to do with "left vs Right", It has to do with different environments

If minimum wage was lower, they would still increase it with inflation. Politics is dynamic, not static

thats an opinion, and we are just going to have to disagree on it.

And here the arguments get even weaker.

1. You don't lose an election, because you set new goals after winning a new mandate. That is just something you say, because you desperately try to disagree with everything I say.

You were elected on the goals you put forth in the campaign, if you go against them, you will indeed lose the next time around unless the other candidate is just horrible. How can you argue any different ????

2. Amnesty definition is
Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
Giving people work permits, instead of throwing them out, is amnesty.

Amnesty, but its very definition indicates breaking of a law. It is not illegal to not be a citizen in the US, there for they have broken no law. And by your very definition, Amnesty, would be to become a citizen and no one on either side has ever proposed that.

3. In what country is the left against immigration, and the right is in favour. Yes, it is a right and left issue. Even if you could find one country, I bet they don't have any problems with illegal immigrants or asylum seekers.

Every candidate who has announced they are running for President is Pro immigration reform, so it isnt a left right issues, its a difference of opinion and even the Conservative Party in the UK isnt against immigration.

[tom77falcons]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I have been told I am a moderate, but I actually consider myself quite liberal,(not so far left as to be a progressive though)

Living in Alabama is very challenging, Especially with no functioning Democratic Party. Our State Republican Party has been anti gambling for decades, all the way up to about 6 weeks ago, then we has a big local election where the 3 biggest school system in the state voted down a tax increase and even voted down the current taxes. The alternative offered and universally agreed upon was a lottery(legal gambling). No messaging for the Democratic party, no email blast, no legislation on the table. Next thing I know, the Republicans are full steam ahead backing lottery legislation and gambling offers from groups like the Porch Indians.

Because the idiots that dominate your state believe in one party rule. I'm sorry, but it has to be racial. Why are there no northern states where only one party rules the roost? If only we could ditch your states once and for all. I would prefer the southern states were their own country. Too different in every single way. I have no affinity or feel no kinship with southern states whatsoever.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by tom77falcons

Because the idiots that dominate your state believe in one party rule. I'm sorry, but it has to be racial. Why are there no northern states where only one party rules the roost? If only we could ditch your states once and for all. I would prefer the southern states were their own country. Too different in every single way. I have no affinity or feel no kinship with southern states whatsoever.

Got anything to say about the British election results?

[Camlon]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

BECAUSE NO ONE PAYS IT, you are arguing about a tax rate that doesnt matter in reality.

I assume you mean that no one pays 53% in income tax in California. No one in the UK pay 45% in income tax.

But how does the fact that no one pays 53% in income tax, negate the point that top marginal tax rate is 53% in California?

Ugh , you cant be serious. YOU argued the top tax rate and I said it didnt matter because the majority didnt pay it.

Nice try, but we were not talking about who or who not pays the top marginal tax rate. We were talking about your quote where you are comparing applaes to oranges.

Here is the quote. Can you manage to not click on the delete button this time?

The majority of americans dont pay the top tax rate,they pay the 25%,15% and 10%, that means they dont even come close to the 45% of the UK even when you include state taxes.

Here you are comparing UK top marginal tax without deductions, with US average high income tax rate with deductions.

Its not my fault that they didnt include the key, but is it really that hard for you to decipher ?

California's top tax rate of 13% starts at 1 million dollars,the US top tax rate that is 25% effective starts at 400,000. the Uk top tax rate starts at 150,000 Pounds (230,0000 dollars).

Sure it is not your fault, but it is your embarrasment.

And your argument is weak, because California does not need 13% to pass Britiain. They only need 6%. No matter what excuses you make, your posted a chart that proved you wrong.

You keep telling yourself that and beating a dead horse of bad math

Nope, im simply declaring you were wrong, which the chart clearly shows.

Actually these quotes are quite linked. You posted a chart that proved yourself wrong, and then declared your argument as a winner.

You also claimed that the minimum wage increase was wrong. You claimed it was 29% instead of 40%, but it turned out that you were weak at math.

Both of those incidents show that you need to be more humble. And for the rest of the argument, I have pointed out that minimum wage increases is dynamic. If UK minimum wage was 20% lower, they would still increase it with inflation.

thats an opinion, and we are just going to have to disagree on it.

You were elected on the goals you put forth in the campaign, if you go against them, you will indeed lose the next time around unless the other candidate is just horrible. How can you argue any different ????

Amnesty, but its very definition indicates breaking of a law. It is not illegal to not be a citizen in the US, there for they have broken no law. And by your very definition, Amnesty, would be to become a citizen and no one on either side has ever proposed that.

Every candidate who has announced they are running for President is Pro immigration reform, so it isnt a left right issues, its a difference of opinion and even the Conservative Party in the UK isnt against immigration.

1. No we are not. Politics is clearly dynamic, I have never heard a party say that now we have reached our goals, so now we are going to do no new reforms.

2. Because voters are smart enough to realize those campaigns are the plan during their first term. Once the term is over, they will make new goals.

3. It is illegal to enter the US illegally. If they were not given amnesty, they would have to apply for work visa like other people in the world. It is the fact they have stayed in the US illegally, that allows them to get a work permit in the US. And that work permit will lead to citizenship or at least long term residency. So, yes it is amnesty.

4. You know that immigration reform does not always mean amnesty right? And even the ones who are in favour of amnesty, wants it on much stricter terms than the Democrats. Also UK conservatives are clearly not pro-immigration.
Policy guide - Election 2015 - BBC News

Secondly, you were supposed to give us an example of a country where the left is against immigration and the right is in favour. Was it too hard? Maybe it is a right and left issue after all?

[T-310]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

Got anything to say about the British election results?

That the liberals got butt slammed without Vaseline.

[English Dave]

Originally Posted by T-310

That the liberals got butt slammed without Vaseline.

They sure did. I would think it would be very difficult to talk any other party into a coalition deal. It was a very difficult situation in 2010. No party had the majority to form a government alone. Short of calling another election, the liberals had to offer support. They feel they helped hold the mad dogs within the Conservative party back. For this, their reward was to get hammered in the General Election.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Camlon

I assume you mean that no one pays 53% in income tax in California. No one in the UK pay 45% in income tax.

But how does the fact that no one pays 53% in income tax, negate the point that top marginal tax rate is 53% in California?

It negates your point because no one pays 53% in taxes. You are arguing marginal tax rates without realizing no one pays it.

And you do realize there are local tax rates in the UK as well right ????????????

Nice try, but we were not talking about who or who not pays the top marginal tax rate. We were talking about your quote where you are comparing applaes to oranges.

I compared Apples to organges in the context of you only providing the marginal rate. Thats on you as you have still to this point not even attempted to back up your point that has been proven wrong multiple times

Here is the quote. Can you manage to not click on the delete button this time?
[indent]The majority of americans dont pay the top tax rate,they pay the 25%,15% and 10%, that means they dont even come close to the 45% of the UK even when you include state taxes.[/INDENT

Again, thats the lack of info on your part as I asked you to provide info for the effective tax in the UK when adding in local taxes as well, and you couldnt.

Sure it is not your fault, but it is your embarrasment.

And your argument is weak, because California does not need 13% to pass Britiain. They only need 6%. No matter what excuses you make, your posted a chart that proved you wrong.

Again, do you not understand the flaw in your argument? you still arent including local and National insurance cost for the UK.

45% +12% is 57% and thats not including local numbers, and even when using effective numbers which is what we should be doing, that still puts the UK above California.

Further more, the link I provided shows the state tax rates and there are only a hand full of states(maybe 6 in total) that would even be above the 33% marginal rate of the UK when you include local taxes.

Your argument is flawed on all levels mainly because you purposefully left out information.

Actually these quotes are quite linked. You posted a chart that proved yourself wrong, and then declared your argument as a winner.

The chart proved me right, as stated, you continue to leave out information arguing only the national tax rate of the Uk, but not the local taxes in the UK or the National health insurance( SSI is included in the US tax numbers)

You also claimed that the minimum wage increase was wrong. You claimed it was 29% instead of 40%, but it turned out that you were weak at math.

Which has nothing to do with the actual argument which was the amount, You are arguing a math error instead of the substance of the debate.

the current UK minimum wage is 10.05 In US dollars, thats only 0.05 less than what Democrats are proposing. If the UK conservatives get their way, the UK minimum wage will continue to pace ahead of the US and at a larger rate.

Both of those incidents show that you need to be more humble. And for the rest of the argument, I have pointed out that minimum wage increases is dynamic. If UK minimum wage was 20% lower, they would still increase it with inflation.

Again, thats an opinion, as a different political climate would cause parties to reevealuate their positions on things like that. You are arguing a hypothetical that you cant possiby prove.

1. No we are not. Politics is clearly dynamic, I have never heard a party say that now we have reached our goals, so now we are going to do no new reforms

.

the argument isnt no new reforms, but the reaching of the goal itself.

politics is indeed dynamic, but your argument seems to be that the goals themselves dont really exist, that they are a false finish line and that just isnt true. That can be true, but then it would indeed mean that your argument is flawed(go back to your original statement on goals)

2. Because voters are smart enough to realize those campaigns are the plan during their first term. Once the term is over, they will make new goals.

See, now we are making progress, you clearly misunderstood my post as I wasnt talking about making new campaign promises about what you would do in a second term.

Im talking about not fulfilling(or not even trying to) any promises you ran on in the first place.

3. It is illegal to enter the US illegally. If they were not given amnesty, they would have to apply for work visa like other people in the world. It is the fact they have stayed in the US illegally, that allows them to get a work permit in the US. And that work permit will lead to citizenship or at least long term residency. So, yes it is amnesty.

thats an arbitrary argument. Entry is illegal, but simply being here isnt. Thats what you were arguing, not the entrance. Not all illegals got here illegally.

4. You know that immigration reform does not always mean amnesty right? And even the ones who are in favour of amnesty, wants it on much stricter terms than the Democrats. Also UK conservatives are clearly not pro-immigration.
Policy guide - Election 2015 - BBC News

Obviously i know that, you are simply misusing the word amnesty.

Secondly, you were supposed to give us an example of a country where the left is against immigration and the right is in favour. Was it too hard? Maybe it is a right and left issue after all?

Actually, you proposed that I do that, I never once accepted, so i wasnt "Supposed" to do anything.

However, i did give you an example of THIS country, where you claim it is a right vs left issue and yet all the candidates for President support immigration reform, what you would call amnesty.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by English Dave

They sure did. I would think it would be very difficult to talk any other party into a coalition deal. It was a very difficult situation in 2010. No party had the majority to form a government alone. Short of calling another election, the liberals had to offer support. They feel they helped hold the mad dogs within the Conservative party back. For this, their reward was to get hammered in the General Election.

That's a parliamentary form of government for you.