Oh Dear! Did the Trump Tax Cuts Really "Pay For Themselves"?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey moron - it's not OUR job to disprove your ignorant talking points (although Tiny is doing exactly that). Rather, the burden is on YOU to prove your own bullshit.

As I already told you, the 3 smartest guys in this forum all say you're wrong to claim the overall US tax system isn't progressive enough by global standards. That is your argument, right? It's hard to be certain what your point is, given how you flit, ramble and deflect all the time.

Here's what CM posted 6 months ago in Tiny's "how are we gonna pay for all this shit?" thread.



Do you think CM was relying on outdated data when he said that?

Go ahead and prove him wrong, if you can - the floor is yours!

I have more floggings in store for you and your repetitive, unsubstantiated bunk. But right now I'm going to relax with a Mint Julep.

What I've tried to direct both you and Tiny's attention to is income inequality. You are bringing CM's posts and taking it out of context. It did not address income inequality and our tax policy.

Here is a simple explanation...

https://mobile.twitter.com/amorygeth...59978342813702


Although the US tax-and-transfer system is more progressive, it is not progressive enough to close the huge inequality gap between the two regions.
Predistribution, not redistribution, explains why Europe is less unequal than the US today, both in pretax and posttax terms.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

As I already told you, the 3 smartest guys in this forum all say you're wrong....

I hate to assume so let me ask if you included yourself as one of the 3 ?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

You quoted me selectively. You failed to include "I'd like to see that done more at the state and local level." If I were dictator we'd have a balanced budget or close to it when times are reasonably good, e.g. there's no recession. My priorities as dictator would lean more towards helping disadvantaged children than shoveling out pork and the like.

You got my vote as long as lustylad isn't part of your economic team!

And you promise not to revert back to Reagan's Voodoo Economics!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

So if outlawing abortion which effects disproportionately the poor and single potential mothers more than the better off....one would expect even more "Parental involvement and poverty " or better verbiage "Lack of Parental involvement due to poverty" in the future.

Sounds like we should be be funding more to PP to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education, free contraceptive and generous use of Plan B.

But we will not. We will continue on with shitty to no sex education classes in this country, abolish the option of abortion for those least capable of supporting a child

Thought provoking post, thanks. OK, you've got me on board here, more or less. One possible caveat. We shouldn't have government funding of abortions. That should be done by charities and the like so people like Bambino don't have to see their tax dollars being spent on what they believe is baby killing.

Originally Posted by WTF

and continue with this sham of promoting our progressive tax system while ignoring the fact that the majority of education taxing entities are from state and local authorities....which are regressive in nature.

So yes Tiny....other countries tax and spend more on decent education than we do. Which could benefit poor and prevent a huge tax burden to funnel to the prison industry in this country.

In Texas where we live I believe it's property taxes that mostly pay for education, and I think on the whole they're progressive.

Prior to doing a little googling to reply to your post, I thought the USA was towards the top of the chart in how much we spent per student and as a % of GDP on education. And we are, on a per student basis. As a % of GDP, we're in the middle of the pack. Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, and the United Kingdom all spend about the same or less as a % of GDP, and have higher average test scores on reading, math and science than we do. I don't think the answer is necessarily more money.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Thought provoking post, thanks. OK, you've got me on board here, more or less. One possible caveat. We shouldn't have government funding of abortions. That should be done by charities and the like so people like Bambino don't have to see their tax dollars being spent on what they believe is baby killing.

Bambino wants to not only not pay for unwanted pregnancies, he wants to demand they have the child and then he wants you and I to pay more in taxes for more LE and prison....all because he did not want to contain the problem at conception!

We should be giving away Plan B pills like it's Halloween every day.

We should also institute a voter IQ test so people like bambino do not influence things above his pay grade....things like election laws and abortion.

He should stick to things like gambling odds.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

What I've tried to direct both you and Tiny's attention to is income inequality. You are bringing CM's posts and taking it out of context. It did not address income inequality and our tax policy.

Here is a simple explanation...

https://mobile.twitter.com/amorygeth...59978342813702


Although the US tax-and-transfer system is more progressive, it is not progressive enough to close the huge inequality gap between the two regions.
Predistribution, not redistribution, explains why Europe is less unequal than the US today, both in pretax and posttax terms.

I'm not sure whether this is progress or not. You finally believe the U.S. system is the most progressive. But you want to make it even more progressive and think that will magically dissolve inequality without adverse effects?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm not sure

You should have stopped there...

Income inequality has huge negative long term consequences.

Ignore it at your peril.

[dilbert firestorm]

Income inequality is a fact of life. find your niche and move up the ladder. some will go down the ladder. shit happens.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Income inequality is a fact of life. find your niche and move up the ladder. some will go down the ladder. shit happens.

I'll keep from citing anything.

Yes inequality is a fact of business. Not of life. When the damn basket is moved in favor of one group of people over another.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Haha! Please make that your last post about Mother Fucker's Day this year. You need to stay around here longer between bannings.

It'll only be an annual even. "Between bannings."












I thought about bumping my thread.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Income inequality is a fact of life. find your niche and move up the ladder. some will go down the ladder. shit happens.

So is death....yet we spend Trillions trying to put it off.


Look...if we capped dynastic wealth, it would solve a lot of inequality

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Income inequality is a fact of life. find your niche and move up the ladder. some will go down the ladder. shit happens.

correct

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I'll keep from citing anything.

Yes inequality is a fact of business. Not of life. When the damn basket is moved in favor of one group of people over another.

it's a fact of life. how may times do i need to tell you people are not equal in every way? you confuse equal rights with being mentally or physically equal which is fucking impossible dork. you'll never be LeBron James because you aren't 6'8". you might be smarter but that's kinda a low bar example.



what would you do to be equal to James? chop off his legs to make him 5'9"? how about making you 6'8"?

Originally Posted by WTF

So is death....yet we spend Trillions trying to put it off.


Look...if we capped dynastic wealth, it would solve a lot of inequality

dynastic wealth should not be capped dummy. it's a way for generations of families to improve their standard of living by building on the success of prior generations. why the fuck would you want to cap that?


give that wealth to a bunch of slacker bums? bullshit!

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You are aware that fallacy is garbage science. Right? Turns out the secret, typically missing, ingredient is Parental Involvement -- not mo munny-hunny.

Here is one example from the UK: The relationship between parenting and poverty

There are hundreds more on the topic of "Parental involvement in education" and "Parental involvement and poverty" and on and on.

All the answers to all the problems of society is not more of others peoples money. That's the recipe for Socialism.

Definitely agree on the parental involment.

Originally Posted by WTF

So if outlawing abortion which effects disproportionately the poor and single potential mothers more than the better off....one would expect even more "Parental involvement and poverty " or better verbiage "Lack of Parental involvement due to poverty" in the future.

Sounds like we should be be funding more to PP to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education, free contraceptive and generous use of Plan B.

But we will not. We will continue on with shitty to no sex education classes in this country, abolish the option of abortion for those least capable of supporting a child and continue with this sham of promoting our progressive tax system while ignoring the fact that the majority of education taxing entities are from state and local authorities....which are regressive in nature.

So yes Tiny....other countries tax and spend more on decent education than we do. Which could benefit poor and prevent a huge tax burden to funnel to the prison industry in this country.

That is where people like WYID prefer throwing away tax dollars.

To recap they prefer

To not spend on the poor on basic sex education

Which contributes to more unwanted pregnancies

Then force the poor to have these unwanted embryos

Which basically runs a continuous loop supplying our prison system with clients

How does one balance being a supporter of parental involvement with their child while on the other hand decimate a families ability to handle a circumstance that would be a burden on some families with an unforeseen pregnancy?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

correct


dynastic wealth should not be capped dummy. it's a way for generations of families to improve their standard of living by building on the success of prior generations. why the fuck would you want to cap that?


give that wealth to a bunch of slacker bums? bullshit!

How about it pays down debt... you know something they obviously didn't do in their lifetime.

Plus it incentives work instead of depending on your daddy like Trump.

Who needs more of that Klan or Kennedys?

Nobody that's who.

Let them earn their own billions.

Otherwise you get a class of people that manipulate the tax system. Kinda like now.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

correct it's a fact of life. how may times do i need to tell you people are not equal in every way? you confuse equal rights with being mentally or physically equal which is fucking impossible dork. you'll never be LeBron James because you aren't 6'8". you might be smarter but that's kinda a low bar example.

That was funny just to be funny. Not racist. Again, bravo.

what would you do to be equal to James? chop off his legs to make him 5'9"? how about making you 6'8"?

First, I like that you used this context as I referred to "moving the basket." Bravo.

I'm not competing with him on the court.

"All things being equal." Sports is a business. But if Bronny was in the grocery store, in line with me, I shouldn't accept him going to the head of the line just because he is who he is.

When I need a loan, only the paper matters. Not the "status."