morning mika's husband was talking about how the republican party has changed since obama was elected president...that obama's presidency was sort of a trigger for some. 

mika looked good today, btw.    

 

43 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

morning mika's husband was talking about how the republican party has changed since obama was elected president...that obama's presidency was sort of a trigger for some. 

mika looked good today, btw.    

 

I think there's a pretty easy argument to make that Republicans have gotten more radical in the last 15 years. 

The Trump years are weird, because policy wise it wasn't particularly crazy but the temperature of politics was. He was easily the most divisive political figure we've seen in (most of) our lifetimes. He exploited wedge issues with zero regard for national unity, and when he lost the election he doubled and tripled down turning that wedge into a call to war. 

No single political figure has threatened our nation more than Trump did. This is where I argue that we're past talking about policy, this is about whether our nation can be made to feel whole again. Trump didn't care for the nation to feel whole. Biden does. And that's more than enough for me, even if right-wing 'tards think "Let's Go Brandon" chants and "I did that" stickers at gas stations are clever. 

13 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think there's a pretty easy argument to make that Republicans have gotten more radical in the last 15 years. 

The Trump years are weird, because policy wise it wasn't particularly crazy but the temperature of politics was. He was easily the most divisive political figure we've seen in (most of) our lifetimes. He exploited wedge issues with zero regard for national unity, and when he lost the election he doubled and tripled down turning that wedge into a call to war. 

No single political figure has threatened our nation more than Trump did. This is where I argue that we're past talking about policy, this is about whether our nation can be made to feel whole again. Trump didn't care for the nation to feel whole. Biden does. And that's more than enough for me, even if right-wing 'tards think "Let's Go Brandon" chants and "I did that" stickers at gas stations are clever. 

lmfao it's a cult, folks.

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

lmfao it's a cult, folks.

 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

it's pretty absurd to think we've gone left on certain issues as well. taxes, for example. 

culturally there has been a big shift to the left, no doubt. and that's where a lot of people on the right seem to focus their political energy, so I get it when right-wingers complain about the leftward-lurch.

but there are issues where we've gone further right as well. intuitively I'd say those are fewer in number, but do represent some pretty powerful positions. welfare reform and deregulation in the 90s, along with tax cuts since then are among some pretty big ones. 

again, both sides cherry pick. I'm not sure why it would be surprising that someone I'm describing specifically as a radicalized leftist would focus on those particular issues when trying to make the argument.

I disagree with my friend FWIW. he's a good man, but I do fear that he's on a wayward path politically. 

We have gone massively to the "left" on tax policy almost continuously for about 20 years. This talking point from the Democrats is old, stale and completely disingenuous. They scream about cuts in marginal rates for high earners under Bush and Trump, but they never point out that both those tax law changes shifted the tax burden even more disproportionately onto the top 10%. They talk about nominal dollars in tax cuts for the rich, but never point out that the changes gave a larger percentage benefit to those at the bottom who already pay next to nothing. Morons accept this insanity, when the reality is that income taxes have only become more and more progressive continuously.

Quote

Over time, high-income Americans have shouldered a larger and larger share of the cost of government. Even the 2017 tax cuts—reviled by the political left—reduced tax bills for the lowest-income Americans by 10% while only cutting taxes for the top 1% by 0.04%. After the tax cuts, the rich pay a larger—not smaller—share of income taxes. 

----------------------------

The highest-income 20% of Americans have increasingly shouldered a larger share of the cost of government, their net contribution increasing by more than 200% since the 1980s.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

 

Quote

Since 2001, the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 33.2 percent to a new high of 40.1 percent in 2018.

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

 

So one of @JohnSnowsHair only examples of the country moving to the right over the last several decades happens to be a completely false ishlib conspiracy theory? Sounds about right.   

It's literally been a one way freight train since 1980.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

OK, fine, totally right wing. Now explain the most important half of the equation. 

I never said it was a "significant indicator of how our country was moving right".  I said it was an indicator often sited by the left, along with gun ownership, abortion restrictions and restrictions on voting, of areas where the country has moved to the right, which of course it is.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It's literally been a one way freight train since 1980.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes

18 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

We have gone massively to the "left" on tax policy almost continuously for about 20 years. This talking point from the Democrats is old, stale and completely disingenuous. They scream about cuts in marginal rates for high earners under Bush and Trump, but they never point out that both those tax law changes shifted the tax burden even more disproportionately onto the top 10%. They talk about nominal dollars in tax cuts for the rich, but never point out that the changes gave a larger percentage benefit to those at the bottom who already pay next to nothing. Morons accept this insanity, when the reality is that income taxes have only become more and more progressive continuously.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

 

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

 

You're talking about the SHARE of PERSONAL INCOME TAXES, which is true. I make the same argument: the US is very progressive in its tax code, and any attempt to institute a VAT like the European nations whose social programs are trotted out are met with cries of "regressive taxes punish the poor". And to be sure, this argument isn't one I make; one of the few times I pushed back was on this topic.

Corporate taxes being reduced and tax avoidance features available to the ultra-wealthy are what is pointed out primarily as evidence of a rightward trend.

That said, I'd point out that increased share of tax burden needs to be shown relative to increased share of overall taxable income. The reason why through years where there was no change in tax policy, HCEs have been tending towards paying more of the overall share is because their income is outpacing inflation while non-HCEs are seeing their income fall behind.

High earners who derive little income from LTCG are who are getting most screwed I suspect. 

Policy wise though, earned income taxes haven't changed THAT much over say the last 20 years. Some tinkering at the highest margins. It's had an effect to be sure, but I think the job market increasingly rewarding highly skilled knowledge workers and falling behind for lower skilled fields explains more of the above trends than actual changes in tax policy for earned income.

Anyone that is in the top 1% that is paying 40% percent in taxes needs to fire their accountants immediately.

33 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I never said it was a "significant indicator of how our country was moving right".  I said it was an indicator often sited by the left, along with gun ownership, abortion restrictions and restrictions on voting, of areas where the country has moved to the right, which of course it is.

OK, so it's just one cited by leftists, but you can acknowledge that it's an awful argument. Got it.  

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

You're talking about the SHARE of PERSONAL INCOME TAXES, which is true. I make the same argument: the US is very progressive in its tax code, and any attempt to institute a VAT like the European nations whose social programs are trotted out are met with cries of "regressive taxes punish the poor". And to be sure, this argument isn't one I make; one of the few times I pushed back was on this topic.

Corporate taxes being reduced and tax avoidance features available to the ultra-wealthy are what is pointed out primarily as evidence of a rightward trend.

That said, I'd point out that increased share of tax burden needs to be shown relative to increased share of overall taxable income. The reason why through years where there was no change in tax policy, HCEs have been tending towards paying more of the overall share is because their income is outpacing inflation while non-HCEs are seeing their income fall behind.

High earners who derive little income from LTCG are who are getting most screwed I suspect. 

Policy wise though, earned income taxes haven't changed THAT much over say the last 20 years. Some tinkering at the highest margins. It's had an effect to be sure, but I think the job market increasingly rewarding highly skilled knowledge workers and falling behind for lower skilled fields explains more of the above trends than actual changes in tax policy for earned income.

Oh, I was ready for this tired talking point as well. Look at this -- top 1% income share drops but tax burden rises...

 

And then of course there is the OECD study that I have posted many times that annihilates this BS talking point:

https://taxfoundation.org/news-obama-oecd-says-united-states-has-most-progressive-tax-system/

Quote

The table also shows that the U.S. collects more household tax revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the nation's income.

And this reflects cash paid to the government, so any "tax avoidance" is factored in.

Any more lame talking points you want to trot out?

 

44 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It's literally been a one way freight train since 1980.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes

This doesn’t show what you think it does.

Hey, let's keep having fun dunking on idiocy. Let's go to the raw IRS data, shall we? The average income share from the top 1% went from 17.41% in 2001 to 20.14% in 2019, an increase of 16%. Meanwhile, their tax burden went from 33.2% of all taxes to 38.8%, an increase of 16.7%. So yeah...the tax burden is growing faster. 

 

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares

5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

This doesn’t show what you think it does.

It shows exactly what I think it does. It just happens to destroy your ignorant views.

 

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Hey, let's keep having fun dunking on idiocy. Let's go to the raw IRS data, shall we? The average income share from the top 1% went from 17.41% in 2001 to 20.14% in 2019, an increase of 16%. Meanwhile, their tax burden went from 33.2% of all taxes to 38.8%, an increase of 16.7%. So yeah...the tax burden is growing faster. 

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares

It shows exactly what I think it does. It just happens to destroy your ignorant views.

 

 

if you really want me to explain to you what the chart illustrates I will.

12 minutes ago, Kz! said:

OK, so it's just one cited by leftists, but you can acknowledge that it's an awful argument. Got it.  

It's not an awful argument at all.  The country has moved right in certain areas.  That's the entire crux of the argument and it's undeniably true.  Militarization of police is certainly minor when compared to much larger pushes, like abortion and voting restrictions though.  Of course most freedom loving Americans would agree that voting is the most troubling concern, since the Republicans have made it clear that they're no longer interested in the US remaining a democracy.

This graph shows the growing wealth disparity in the U.S.

This is how trickle-down economics works in practice

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

It's not an awful argument at all.  The country has moved right in certain areas.  That's the entire crux of the argument and it's undeniably true.  Militarization of police is certainly minor when compared to much larger pushes, like abortion and voting restrictions though.  Of course most freedom loving Americans would agree that voting is the most troubling concern, since the Republicans have made it clear that they're no longer interested in the US remaining a democracy.

Giving PDs excess unused military equipment that they don't use is a completely retarded argument when discussing this topic, yes. Everyone knows it. Just stop.  

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

Giving PDs excess unused military equipment that they don't use is a completely retarded argument when discussing this topic, yes. Everyone knows it. Just stop.  

They definitely do use the surplus military equipment.  Though I get why you'd want to focus on that instead of the larger abortion/voting issues.

I'm not trotting out talking points, I'm looking at the data shared and interpreting. 

Even if my arguments appear absurd or wrong at times, I do attempt to argue in good faith. And if I'm wrong I'm wrong. The only real benefit I get from this place is learning something from people who know better than me.

That said, 2017 to 2018 seems disingenuous to use as an example because it's an outlier with the SALT deduction change. I don't think it's unreasonable to say this change was politically palatable because it mostly stuck it to voters who didn't broadly support Trump's populism. I'm not sure I'd consider the TCJA part of a "leftward lurch" or trend; I think this particular element (the SALT deduction elimination) is more about right wing populism. But it does get weird there because I don't consider Trump conservative or right-wing fiscally.

5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

This graph shows the growing wealth disparity in the U.S.

This is how trickle-down economics works in practice

Except for the part where we normalize for AGI and show the burden still growing.

Damn facts killing liberal talking points again...

But enjoy being poor.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 The only real benefit I get from this place is learning something from people who know better than me.

 

you're welcome. 

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I'm not trotting out talking points, I'm looking at the data shared and interpreting. 

Even if my arguments appear absurd or wrong at times, I do attempt to argue in good faith. And if I'm wrong I'm wrong. The only real benefit I get from this place is learning something from people who know better than me.

That said, 2017 to 2018 seems disingenuous to use as an example because it's an outlier with the SALT deduction change. I don't think it's unreasonable to say this change was politically palatable because it mostly stuck it to voters who didn't broadly support Trump's populism. I'm not sure I'd consider the TCJA part of a "leftward lurch" or trend; I think this particular element (the SALT deduction elimination) is more about right wing populism. But it does get weird there because I don't consider Trump conservative or right-wing fiscally.

The Bush tax cuts which the left cried about were amazingly progressive. They basically dropped the share for the bottom 50% to next to nothing. 

Without the SALT cap, the Trump tax cuts would have likely reduced the burden on the top 1%. But...you can't just ignore that. The fact that Trump did it out of spite (to punish people in states that voted for Clinton) instead of ideology is irrelevant to the actual outcome. 

And Trump isn't fiscally conservative. Trump has no actual political philosophy or principles beyond punishing those that oppose him. Or make fun of him.

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Hey, let's keep having fun dunking on idiocy. Let's go to the raw IRS data, shall we? The average income share from the top 1% went from 17.41% in 2001 to 20.14% in 2019, an increase of 16%. Meanwhile, their tax burden went from 33.2% of all taxes to 38.8%, an increase of 16.7%. So yeah...the tax burden is growing faster. 

 

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares

It shows exactly what I think it does. It just happens to destroy your ignorant views.

 

I think this largely correlates with what's colloquially referred to as the wealth gap.

More people at the top are taking a larger share of the pie. And because those shares of the pie are subject to higher tax rates, this is showing up in the tax revenue as you're showing.

This doesn't change the basic underlying truth that the US tax system is VERY progressive compared to any other advanced economy in Western nations. I'm not disputing that - I wholly agree with it.

I'm saying that it's not as though tax policy changes has led to higher income tax liabilities for HCEs. I'm saying that more income is concentrating among HCEs, so that means more overall income is subject to higher tax rates, and is showing up in the data you're sharing.