Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Study: Every tax cut for the last 20 years has only benefited top wage earners. Someone actually paid for this study?   ( thehill.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, George W. Bush, tax cuts, Bush tax cuts, Democratic Party, tax changes, Barack Obama, Trump tax cuts, biggest tax cut  
•       •       •

1234 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jul 2018 at 5:35 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-07-11 02:58:20 PM  
I'm surprised it was only the last twenty.  Or was that only the length of time they studied?
 
2018-07-11 02:58:40 PM  
 
2018-07-11 03:04:55 PM  
But what about the trickling down?
 
2018-07-11 03:37:28 PM  
I know I paid for it. I make so little money that I actually have to pay taxes.
 
2018-07-11 03:41:59 PM  

aaronx: I know I paid for it. I make so little money that I actually have to pay taxes.


Don't feel bad.  I'm, technically, worth more dead than alive when you factor in my debt.
 
2018-07-11 03:55:37 PM  
i wouldn't go so far as to say wage "earner"

Nobody "earns" billions of dollars without a great crime taking place.
 
2018-07-11 04:11:16 PM  

neritz: I'm surprised it was only the last twenty.  Or was that only the length of time they studied?


This been going on since Regan's reign, so yes more than 20 years.
 
2018-07-11 04:18:32 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: i wouldn't go so far as to say wage "earner"

Nobody "earns" billions of dollars without a great crime taking place.


When you steal $500, you're a thief. When you steal $500 thousand, you're a con artist. When you steal $500 million, you're a "job creator".
 
2018-07-11 04:19:37 PM  
I mean, we ALL paid for it, subby.
 
2018-07-11 05:20:56 PM  
The group that did the study is partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice.  Read their webpage, and then tell us all, with a straight face, that you actually think believe that this was not meant to generate a predetermined finding.

https://www.ctj.org/

A claim that you are nonpartisan is not equal to being nonpartisan.
 
2018-07-11 05:27:00 PM  

bronyaur1: The group that did the study is partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice.  Read their webpage, and then tell us all, with a straight face, that you actually think believe that this was not meant to generate a predetermined finding.

https://www.ctj.org/

A claim that you are nonpartisan is not equal to being nonpartisan.


I'm open to reading studies that claim the opposite. Post away.
 
2018-07-11 05:31:48 PM  
The fact that ITEP does not describe their methodology, or even their model, is your clue that it's BS.

No actual economist would accept a proof by assertion like this.  "Source:  ITEP Analysis". Which is based on their "micro simulation model, which is "explained" at https://itep.org/itep-tax-model-si​mple​/.

The IRS tax file upon which their "model" is based is from 1988.  I very much doubt that the dynamics of the US economy  since then have been so dependent upon tax policy that you can suss out the impacts of tax policy changes at this level of granularity.  There is a reason why this analysis was not published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

What. Crap.
 
2018-07-11 05:32:49 PM  

edmo: bronyaur1: The group that did the study is partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice.  Read their webpage, and then tell us all, with a straight face, that you actually think believe that this was not meant to generate a predetermined finding.

https://www.ctj.org/

A claim that you are nonpartisan is not equal to being nonpartisan.

I'm open to reading studies that claim the opposite. Post away.


I'm not claiming anything another than that if you accept the claims of this study blindly, you are a fool.
 
2018-07-11 05:35:40 PM  
Also, one of the tricks that any charlatan knows for assessing economic impacts is to pick a high or low water mark as the baseline.

2000 was the last year of an exceptional economic period.
 
2018-07-11 05:39:50 PM  
YADONTSAY.jpeg

/im 34, i grew up into this garbage
 
2018-07-11 05:40:02 PM  
How did the EITC help top earners?
 
2018-07-11 05:40:10 PM  
It's minwage hikes and poor kids school lunches that are the real back-breakers.

Frankly, we should be thankful for the charity done by others in these times.


img.fark.netView Full Size

 
2018-07-11 05:41:25 PM  

bronyaur1: The group that did the study is partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice.  Read their webpage, and then tell us all, with a straight face, that you actually think believe that this was not meant to generate a predetermined finding.

https://www.ctj.org/

A claim that you are nonpartisan is not equal to being nonpartisan.


Would you oppose it just as much if the National Weather Service or NASA published a paper that said the sky was blue?
 
2018-07-11 05:42:07 PM  

grokca: But what about the trickling down?


img.fark.netView Full Size


Working as intended.
 
2018-07-11 05:43:38 PM  

bronyaur1: edmo: bronyaur1: The group that did the study is partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice.  Read their webpage, and then tell us all, with a straight face, that you actually think believe that this was not meant to generate a predetermined finding.

https://www.ctj.org/

A claim that you are nonpartisan is not equal to being nonpartisan.

I'm open to reading studies that claim the opposite. Post away.

I'm not claiming anything another than that if you accept the claims of this study blindly, you are a fool.


So vote tax cuts!
 
2018-07-11 05:44:00 PM  
Given that the IRS has reported that (on average) only 53% of U.S. Citizens pay Federal income tax, and that in order to be affected by an income tax decrease you actually have to be paying something to start with.. I'm surprisingly OK with this.
 
2018-07-11 05:44:18 PM  

FatherChaos: grokca: But what about the trickling down?

[img.fark.net image 535x510]

Working as intended.


Would someone please think of the oppressed and downtrodden 19%? Why are these poor people being left out?
 
2018-07-11 05:44:18 PM  

grokca: But what about the trickling down?


Obligatory

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2018-07-11 05:45:16 PM  

BMFPitt: How did the EITC help top earners?


Well, just by reading how EITC became law, they did all kinds of farked up shiat to pensions and stuff the job creators hate.

You might even say that was a key part to the problem we face today of no retirement money.

Not 100%, but a part. At it was bipartisan. So everyone farked us in the ass. Woooooo

So, yay?
 
2018-07-11 05:46:11 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: i wouldn't go so far as to say wage "earner"

Nobody "earns" billions of dollars without a great crime taking place.


This. The wealthiest among us inherited their wealth and/or built it on the back of MASSIVE exploitation and anti-consumer business practices.  And they could lose the OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of their wealth, and not have a noticeable drop in their quality of life.

Part of the problem is that the human mind has trouble comprehending just how much money even $1 billion is. It sorta defaults to thinking that it's just the next step above a million; sure it's a lot, but not an INSANE amount.

What people need to realize is that people like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet and such could live multiple lifetimes of extreme extravagance, and still not run out of money. Their money could end, or at least severely diminish, extreme poverty, world hunger, numerous diseases...they could put the world on a path to utopia.

But they don't. They hoard money, keeping it from even circulating through the economy, while everyone else struggles. Because all that matters to these parasites is dying with the highest "score".
 
2018-07-11 05:47:50 PM  

bronyaur1: Also, one of the tricks that any charlatan knows for assessing economic impacts is to pick a high or low water mark as the baseline.

2000 was the last year of an exceptional economic period.


I wonder what happened then.
 
2018-07-11 05:49:37 PM  

bronyaur1: The group that did the study is partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice.  Read their webpage, and then tell us all, with a straight face, that you actually think believe that this was not meant to generate a predetermined finding.

https://www.ctj.org/

A claim that you are nonpartisan is not equal to being nonpartisan.


You're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. We get it. You need studies like this to go away so that when your hard work finally pays off, and you make it big, you too can coast along with a negative tax rate, buoyed on the backs of the proles and rubes that didn't invest in the lottery.

If this is such a fundamentally flawed study, please help to enlighten us unwashed poors why we should listen to our betters and call for even more tax cuts. Present us with a study that finds the opposite findings, so that we may consider that as well.

Difficulty: Since it needs to be non-partisan, and saying you're non-partisan doesn't make it so, no studies funded by Americans for Tax Reform or similar groups.

We'll wait.
 
2018-07-11 05:49:46 PM  
Yeah, capital gains aren't wages, Subby. Wages are for peons.
 
2018-07-11 05:50:44 PM  

bronyaur1: edmo: bronyaur1: The group that did the study is partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice.  Read their webpage, and then tell us all, with a straight face, that you actually think believe that this was not meant to generate a predetermined finding.

https://www.ctj.org/

A claim that you are nonpartisan is not equal to being nonpartisan.

I'm open to reading studies that claim the opposite. Post away.

I'm not claiming anything another than that if you accept the claims of this study blindly, you are a fool.


If anyone accepts the findings of ANY study BLINDLY, they are a fool.
What's your point?
I don't see that the study makes any extraordinary claims, or any it can't back up.
Can you prove it does?
 
2018-07-11 05:51:03 PM  

Zandor: Given that the IRS has reported that (on average) only 53% of U.S. Citizens pay Federal income tax, and that in order to be affected by an income tax decrease you actually have to be paying something to start with.. I'm surprisingly OK with this.


surprisingly ok with top wage earners benefiting most from tax cuts.
serves those bums in the middle and lower wage earner categories right, those lucky ducks!
 
2018-07-11 05:52:03 PM  

jso2897: If anyone accepts the findings of ANY study BLINDLY, they are a fool.


Denying the findings of any study blindly though, super cool.
 
2018-07-11 05:52:38 PM  
You can publish study after study, and it will not matter.
The average voter sees 'study' and thinks 'school', and the average voter HATES school.
Don't even get me started on the below-average voter.
 
2018-07-11 05:53:48 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: jso2897: If anyone accepts the findings of ANY study BLINDLY, they are a fool.

Denying the findings of any study blindly though, super cool.


Exactly.
 
2018-07-11 05:53:50 PM  

TigerDPD: bronyaur1: Also, one of the tricks that any charlatan knows for assessing economic impacts is to pick a high or low water mark as the baseline.

2000 was the last year of an exceptional economic period.

I wonder what happened then.


We had another Republican President who continued Reagan's work. Then when the next Democrat tried to fix shiat, the GOP stonewalled everything to make him look bad, to the detriment of the country.

The Republican party is an enemy of America, and the greatest threat the United States has ever faced. Because unlike the Nazis or the USSR (let alone the numerous 'small fry' groups we've been fighting with for the last half century), the GOP actually poses a realistic, existential threat to the United States.
 
2018-07-11 05:54:45 PM  

bronyaur1: The fact that ITEP does not describe their methodology, or even their model, is your clue that it's BS.

No actual economist would accept a proof by assertion like this.  "Source:  ITEP Analysis". Which is based on their "micro simulation model, which is "explained" at https://itep.org/itep-tax-model-sim​ple/.

The IRS tax file upon which their "model" is based is from 1988.  I very much doubt that the dynamics of the US economy  since then have been so dependent upon tax policy that you can suss out the impacts of tax policy changes at this level of granularity.  There is a reason why this analysis was not published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

What. Crap.


I don't need to read some second rate study to KNOW that their assertions are correct. If you look at things based on the tax bracket percentages alone you'd realize the truth in those assertions. The top tax rate bracket before Reagan was in the 70 percent range in 1986 he dropped it to 28 percent. Then it went back up to 39.6 percent. It is now at around 39 percent. If you were to make 1 million per year since Reagan your tax savings would be tremendous each year you would be the recipient of tax savings (from that pre Reagan 70 percent) that would equal the gross wages of at least 6 families making near the median wage.
 
2018-07-11 05:56:23 PM  

raerae1980: aaronx: I know I paid for it. I make so little money that I actually have to pay taxes.

Don't feel bad.  I'm, technically, worth more dead than alive when you factor in my debt.


Impossible.  Debt, for whatever reason, is considered an asset rather than a liability.  Somehow, large outstanding debt had not stopped Trump from accumulating more.
 
2018-07-11 05:58:04 PM  

Zandor: Given that the IRS has reported that (on average) only 53% of U.S. Citizens pay Federal income tax, and that in order to be affected by an income tax decrease you actually have to be paying something to start with.. I'm surprisingly OK with this.


The top 5% owns something like 90% of the material wealth in the US, but they only pay a tiny fraction of that in taxes (assuming their accountant is bad and they get stuck paying anything at all).

So no, they don't need to benefit from tax cuts.
 
2018-07-11 05:58:44 PM  
The study must be flawed.

That stupid $300 stimulus under GWB was across the board. (And actually just an advance on a tax credit)
 
2018-07-11 05:59:12 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: i wouldn't go so far as to say wage "earner"

Nobody "earns" billions of dollars without a great crime taking place.


But, they work so hard! And... and... job creators! Therefore, any compensation the wealthy receive is fully justified. They earned it!

That seriously seems to be how the right wing mind works. Because some people clearly do work that is worth more money than work done by other people and should thus be better compensated for it, any amount of money received is earned*. The boss makes ten times his average employee? Earned! 100 times? Earned! 1,000 times? Earned! More? Totally earned. Anyone who objects is just jealous!

* Not valid for government employees, union members, or any other group the wingnut does not like
 
2018-07-11 05:59:21 PM  

bronyaur1: edmo: bronyaur1: The group that did the study is partnered with Citizens for Tax Justice.  Read their webpage, and then tell us all, with a straight face, that you actually think believe that this was not meant to generate a predetermined finding.

https://www.ctj.org/

A claim that you are nonpartisan is not equal to being nonpartisan.

I'm open to reading studies that claim the opposite. Post away.

I'm not claiming anything another than that if you accept the claims of this study blindly, you are a fool.


Was immediately preceeded by this:

bronyaur1: The fact that ITEP does not describe their methodology, or even their model, is your clue that it's BS.

No actual economist would accept a proof by assertion like this.  "Source:  ITEP Analysis". Which is based on their "micro simulation model, which is "explained" at https://itep.org/itep-tax-model-sim​ple/.

The IRS tax file upon which their "model" is based is from 1988.  I very much doubt that the dynamics of the US economy  since then have been so dependent upon tax policy that you can suss out the impacts of tax policy changes at this level of granularity.  There is a reason why this analysis was not published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

What. Crap.


Sounds like you're claiming the study is crap.  I'll second the request for any studies claiming the opposite since you're so committed to being non-committal.
 
2018-07-11 06:00:05 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Well, just by reading how EITC became law, they did all kinds of farked up shiat to pensions and stuff the job creators hate.


Apparently way older than I thought.  Any citations for the rest of your post?
 
2018-07-11 06:05:02 PM  

LordJiro: TigerDPD: bronyaur1: Also, one of the tricks that any charlatan knows for assessing economic impacts is to pick a high or low water mark as the baseline.

2000 was the last year of an exceptional economic period.

I wonder what happened then.

We had another Republican President who continued Reagan's work. Then when the next Democrat tried to fix shiat, the GOP stonewalled everything to make him look bad, to the detriment of the country.

The Republican party is an enemy of America, and the greatest threat the United States has ever faced. Because unlike the Nazis or the USSR (let alone the numerous 'small fry' groups we've been fighting with for the last half century), the GOP actually poses a realistic, existential threat to the United States.


The rich people I know don't even try to hide it. They are all socially liberalbevause this is the northeast, plus they are mostly over educated from private high schools though advanced degrees. Though, many of them are dumber than dirt.

They've always been honest with me that they only support the GOP because of $$$. Hell, I had a friend who ran for Congress as the GOP candidate knowing he'd lose just to take the tax write offs to offset a stellar earnings year. It worked out great for him.

They a love money, but I can hear in their voice that they are scared about Trump. They are scared he's going to fark up the trade war and kill their long term investments. A lot of them flipped to housing about 8-12 months after the election. Lots of commercial land and multi families. Medical office REITS. Just to take advantage of the Corker Kickback.

Make no mistake. These people who put their own personal wealth before all else, they are a direct threat to our democracy. Especially since SCOTUS said the more money you have the more speech you have.

They are scared of what Trump will do, but they are more scared of the Democrats stealing their money. It's going to take a whole farking lot to impeach AND convict this farkface. I'm not sure we will ever see that.

Best hope? They destroy the Trump Org and everyone associated with it. I think that's the best we'll do.
 
2018-07-11 06:06:52 PM  

BMFPitt: NewportBarGuy: Well, just by reading how EITC became law, they did all kinds of farked up shiat to pensions and stuff the job creators hate.

Apparently way older than I thought.  Any citations for the rest of your post?


I'll be honest, it was just a cursory gMance at the Wikipedia for EITC... the original bill was in 1975? But the big expansion was part of Reagan's second tax cuts and there was a whole lot of wheeling and dealing there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earne​d​_income_tax_credit
 
2018-07-11 06:10:24 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Hell, I had a friend who ran for Congress as the GOP candidate knowing he'd lose just to take the tax write offs to offset a stellar earnings year. It worked out great for him.


That's beyond stupid. At some point it's just easier to pay the taxes instead of wasting your own time and just as much money as you'd be paying in taxes anyway.

Again, the rich aren't necessarily rich because they are particularly good at making money.
 
2018-07-11 06:11:41 PM  

harleyquinnical: raerae1980: aaronx: I know I paid for it. I make so little money that I actually have to pay taxes.

Don't feel bad.  I'm, technically, worth more dead than alive when you factor in my debt.

Impossible.  Debt, for whatever reason, is considered an asset rather than a liability.  Somehow, large outstanding debt had not stopped Trump from accumulating more.


Well shiat, guess I should spend more money, then.    lol
 
2018-07-11 06:14:28 PM  

Stibium: NewportBarGuy: Hell, I had a friend who ran for Congress as the GOP candidate knowing he'd lose just to take the tax write offs to offset a stellar earnings year. It worked out great for him.

That's beyond stupid. At some point it's just easier to pay the taxes instead of wasting your own time and just as much money as you'd be paying in taxes anyway.

Again, the rich aren't necessarily rich because they are particularly good at making money.


He wasted zero time. He filed and it was not contested. He committed straight tax fraud. It was reported but I don't think anything ever came from it.

He has all the illusions of a campaign, stickers, t-shirts fundraisers... but he started off his capaign with a $500,000 loan. I'm not sure how it all worked, but the loan and the loss was the key to the write off.
 
2018-07-11 06:14:53 PM  
Do you want to cut taxes? Really?

Then support living wages.
 
2018-07-11 06:16:15 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Stibium: NewportBarGuy: Hell, I had a friend who ran for Congress as the GOP candidate knowing he'd lose just to take the tax write offs to offset a stellar earnings year. It worked out great for him.

That's beyond stupid. At some point it's just easier to pay the taxes instead of wasting your own time and just as much money as you'd be paying in taxes anyway.

Again, the rich aren't necessarily rich because they are particularly good at making money.

He wasted zero time. He filed and it was not contested. He committed straight tax fraud. It was reported but I don't think anything ever came from it.

He has all the illusions of a campaign, stickers, t-shirts fundraisers... but he started off his capaign with a $500,000 loan. I'm not sure how it all worked, but the loan and the loss was the key to the write off.


I would so relish to know that it cost him more than his taxes that year.
 
2018-07-11 06:17:02 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: i wouldn't go so far as to say wage "earner"

Nobody "earns" billions of dollars without a great crime taking place.


What, you don't think the average CEO works 237.8 times as hard as the average school teacher?
 
2018-07-11 06:17:28 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report