Andrew Yang for prez...

[Bat Guano 359]

2 minutes ago, the said:

Provide a source that compares all those payments to the payments made by the wealthy(like FICA through their corporations) and then get back to us. I'm not doing the math for you, since YOU are disputing it, provide a source. Like I did. Apples for apples. 

Your estimations/opinions aren't valid here, sorry. 

 

I'm using your number for the 27%. I'm pretty sure most of the 1% are not paying their employees' FICA taxes out of their own pockets, although I suppose a few individually owned private corporations may try to argue that. That deductible expense comes out of the corporation, so the CEO isn't paying it out of his salary. You may know this, but then again you sound like you're 12 years old, so maybe not.

If you don't like my numbers, find your own. You didn't seem to have a problem with the Fed. tax rates.

[Bat Guano 359]

11 minutes ago, the said:

LOL. But that money is transferred to the govt instead of showing up in profits which would boost the EPS which would then show up in the price of the stock if it were a publicly traded corporation. Amazon for example has 613,300 employees X (low estimate of average Amazon salary) $60,000 X 7.65% in FICA = $2.8 billion in FICA alone. 

Amazon's total profits in 2017 year were $2.2 billion so if Amazon wasn't contributing towards their employees' FICA, their profits in 2017 would've more than doubled at ~ $5 billion. That has an impact on stock and stockholders but then again, you stupid progressives have no understanding of accounting, the way a stock performs or math in general so.....

Again, these are very real expenses for the 1% so touting that the bottom 50% pays it as well is laughable because the Top 1 percent pays it many times over. And by loose math since majority of bottom 50 are employees somewhere, I'd say the top one percent pays it somewhere to the tune of 40-50 times. But I wont include that since I don't have a source, if you do, provide it. If not, STFU and stop making up shit.

Amazon, huh? How much tax did they pay this year, again? Well, I'm sure their FICA writeoff was a contributing factor.

In any case, since you're insisting that we compare apples to apples, what do you think Jeff Bezos' effective tax rate is? I'm guessing it's right around the capital gains rate of 20%. Which means a $12.50/hour worker in Amazon's Hartford, CT warehouse is paying a higher effective rate than he is.

[Bat Guano 359]

9 minutes ago, the said:

First of all capital gains rate is a different conversation. I'm more agreeable with you there and do believe that it should be a bit higher. Operative word here is "bit". 

And lulz. A $12.50/hour worker isn't paying anywhere near the 20% tax rate. Would you please for your and America's sake understand taxes? 

A single $12.50/hour full time worker with zero dependents and zero deductions in CT would pay a fed income tax of $1,370 or $115/month at an effective rate of 5.48%. 

If he were head of household with 2 kids, he'd get a refund of ~ $4,000 resulting in a NEGATIVE tax rate of 16%.

So...wtf are you talking about?

Scroll up 5 posts. Apples to apples, bro.

Capital gains is part of the conversation since a large portion, very often a large majority, of executive compensation is in the form of stock options. You think Bezos takes a multi-billion dollar salary? Lulz.

[Bat Guano 359]

19 minutes ago, the said:

LOL. Glad you've moved on from your stupid stance of how poor pay the same amount of taxes. 

And no its well documented that Bezos takes no salary but owns about 16%(now 8% due to divorce) of the company. He gets charged a capital gains tax which is still significantly higher than bottom fifty percent. Although you and I do have a common ground here that maybe it should be higher.

Who the fuck ever said the poor pay 'the same amount?' Quit making shit up. Obviously the rich pay more in absolute dollars, because - and stay with me here, I know this is complicated -  they have more money. But in terms of effective rates - the percentage of their gross income that goes to taxes of any kind - they don't pay that much more. Sometimes they pay less; with the carried-interest loophole the billionaire hedge fund guys are paying 15%. I think a guy making $5 million a year can afford to have a bit more taken out of his gross, because he's benefited disproportionately from the system already. You'd rather stick your tongue up his ass because the corporation he works for pays the FICA tax for his workers, who are making him money - and then it deducts that payment anyway. When you take 15 to 20 percent of a minimum-wage worker's income, it hurts - it makes it hard to afford rent or food. That's not a problem for the 1%, though, is it? I think for the good of society a progressive tax system is not a bad thing - in fact it's pretty much essential.

[Bat Guano 359]

2 minutes ago, the said:

No one is arguing against the progressive tax system. Like I've said in my posts above, I'd even support a higher capital gains tax. I said you and I have a common ground there. 

What I have a problem with is your(and other progressives') dumb rhetoric that the rich aren't paying their "fair share". As I've illustrated quite a number of times, they are pretty much the only ones paying their fair share and then some. Its the lower middle class and poor that do not pay taxes. Heck the bottom twenty are negative tax earners. Numbers do not lie, if you disagree, provide a source. Which you still haven't.

 

We should debate what's a fair share. That's part of what Yang is trying to do. My original post on this subject was to call out your misleading bullshit about the bottom 50% only paying a 3% effective rate - kind of like you and other right wingers' dumb rhetoric that the poor have "no skin in the game." As I pointed out, and you haven't acknowledged, that's only true if you leave out most of the taxes they pay. Here's a hint: if the government takes it out of your paycheck, or charges you for it at the cash register, or sends you a bill for it, it's a tax. Federal income tax is not the only tax; the working poor pay a significant percentage of their income in taxes, and to try to minimize that fact is disingenuous.

[elfenix 34171]

4 hours ago, the said:

 

Your misunderstanding of basic principles does not mean someone is being disingenuous, it just means you don't understand it. 

[elfenix 34171]

6 minutes ago, the said:

Enlighten me then instead of following me around on several threads with dumb pictures. I'm happy to learn, no one knows everything but its clear that all you know is to host images and then post them on here. 

it was in the other thread a couple pages before you started bukkakeing it with hot takes.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by elfenix

[Bat Guano 359]

11 minutes ago, the said:

But by that account the wealthy pay far far more than the poor. Like I've illustrated with examples earlier, if you are going to claim FICA for the poor you're going to have to claim FICA paid by the wealthy not only on their own income but also on the income of the poor via their corporations. Same goes with sales taxes, property taxes etc. etc. Do you want to calculate the amount of property taxes paid by Walmart on their stores around the country? That amounts to a ridiculously high number which would again dwarf the contributions made by the poor. 

What Yang is trying to do is a non starter. We do not have $2.4 trillion to give away. He might as well promise a 5000 sqft mcmansion, a Ferrari and a hot wife for every citizen. 

What the fuck are you babbling about? Why the fuck should a random exec of a company get credit for the FICA taxes his company pays for its employees, including him? That makes no sense whatsoever. Where are you getting this shit? And in any case the main part of FICA, the SS portion, is capped at $128,000, so it's a regressive tax. And as I keep telling you, the company share of FICA is deductible, so that lessens its burden considerably for the corporation. And why shouldn't Walmart pay property taxes - I mean besides whatever tax reduction deal they can negotiate with the city or state? Are you really this stupid?

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Bat Guano

[Bat Guano 359]

9 minutes ago, the said:

Are you that dense or just trying to be that dense? You want to take credit for every tax paid by someone that is poor however want to take away the same taxes paid for by a corporation? If Walmart paid $2 billion in property taxes and their profits were $10 billion before that deduction, now their profits would be $12 billion. 

Now,

Do you understand how a tax deduction works? Instead of incurring a complete loss of 2 billion they would only lose the income tax paid on those added $2 billion at 21% (corp income tax for 2018) which would mean they would still see ~$1.58 billion in profits from that 2 billion AFTER taxes. 

Those profits would then be added to the EPS and then multiplied by their said multiple which would determine the stock price, resulting in it going higher.

Why the fuck do you keep coming back just to execs? Its the owners of the company that pay that, you know the Waltons and other stockholders that you so despise.  

Same with FICA, and every other tax paid for by a corporation.

 

OK, you're either trolling or you really are that stupid. Either way I'm done wasting time on this.

You started off with the lie that the bottom 50% only pay a 3% effective tax rate. I pointed out that they pay more than that, and my back-of-the-envelope estimates put it about 20%, which was compared to your number of 27% paid by the rich. We were talking about effective rates paid by individuals. You haven't disputed any of that. Taxes paid by corporations have NOTHING to do with effective rates paid by individuals. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. It's a nice obfuscation technique, but that's all it is, so I'm done.

[elfenix 34171]

22 minutes ago, the said:

Are you sure you're quoting the right paper? Because the paper is actually advocating for a flat tax over progressive tax rate. Which is far away a very right opinion which even I disagree with. 

This is the direct quote from the article you quoted:

However, the modern workforce is seen to display some elasticity of supply; and to that extent, it must be assumed that workers will respond to higher tax rates by taking more leisure, and the quantity of labor supplied would fall. A reduced workforce would lower the productivity of the capital stock, suggesting that some of the ultimate burden of a tax on labor would fall on capital owners. (Just as the productivity of a given number of workers is enhanced if they have more capital to work with, the productivity of a given amount of capital is enhanced if there are more workers, particularly more skilled workers, to utilize it. Conversely, if fewer skilled workers were available, the productivity of capital would decline. Think of what would happen to the earnings of the fifth truck at a small trucking company if one of the five truck drivers called in sick.) However, the capital stock may contract in response to a drop in its productivity and rate of return in order to restore its former rate of earnings (see below), which would shift the burden back onto the work force.

Secondly it doesn't take into account the third variable, that of automation between elasticity and inelasticity of labor demand which is the root cause for this thread. 

the whole point of that article is that the legal incidence of the tax isn't necessarily who pays it.  you've somehow completely missed that. 

[elfenix 34171]

9 minutes ago, the said:

No, given that this is a uber right wing heritage org article the whole underlying point of that article is that we should move to flat tax instead of a progressive one. That's a dumb idea. 

This article completely discounts other variables while at the same time opposes what you seem to claim about the tax burden. Yet you seem to derive philosophical meaning from it. Sorry we won't be discussing philosophy here.  

blah blah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

[SKJ 1305]

9 hours ago, the said:

You continue to make yourself look like a petulant child that keeps throwing a tantrum because he's not getting what he wants. The invisible hand has indeed reached and helped out the middle class and the poor. You and your dumbass progressives love to throw around the term economic inequality, rich not paying their "fair share" and claiming that somehow the prosperity hasn't reached the masses. Let me educate your dumbass with some facts:

Top 50 percent in this country pays about 97% of all the federal income tax generated, Bottom 50 pays about 3%. Top 1 percent pays about 40% of all the income tax revenue.

Bottom 50 has a total income of over $1.14 trillion dollars, if they were a country by themselves, they would be ranked 6th in the world. Again, paying a 3% effective tax rate. Let me repeat it for your dumb,  immature bad at math progressive dumbass, 3%. Per capita, they earn $14,250, for reference average Sweden income is $25,404 at a tax rate of around 30%(minimum). Even the poorest Swede earning something will pay a 29% tax rate.

Bottom 25 actually have a negative tax rate, to simplify it for you, you dumb motherfucker, it means they get handed out money just for breathing. 

But beyond all of that, your $2.4 trillion bill for this UBI is a non starter. Income taxes wont pay it, VAT won't cover it. If it does it will take away the exact same money that it hands out and all it will do is create bureaucracy jobs in the govt. Which is a win I guess for you dumbass progressives.

Honestly, go get a job or something and stop asking for handouts. Oh and shut the fuck up motherfucker.

I have a job.

I would also like you to understand that none, absolutely zero of what you said responded to what I said.

I'm done with you. But don't get it twisted, the revolution will end this nation if automation takes away 35% of jobs.

And your assertion that the poor are to lazy to start blowing shit up is completely idiotic.

And I would also like to add that your assumption of who and what I am are probably quite a bit off. Should the revolution start, you should beware of people like me 

[SKJ 1305]

Please. Let's let this troll move on to greener pastures.

He just keeps changing the subject and arguing non sequiturs

[SKJ 1305]

Yang on cavuto

 

[SKJ 1305]

Continuing to fuck

 

[SKJ 1305]

From yang2020:

I am doing an AMA on Reddit /r/politics this Thursday, along with Tucker Carlson on Friday, and much more press this week. Then I'm off to Austin, Texas, for SXSW and a big rally—let your friends in the area know.

@the looks like you could ask him yourself

[SKJ 1305]

I won't copy and paste it, because I'm not a fucking regard, but here is an article from Forbes, a right-leaning group

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/04/of-course-we-can-afford-a-universal-basic-income-do-we-want-one-though/amp/

[David Dennison 18661]

7 minutes ago, SKJ said:

I won't copy and paste it, because I'm not a fucking regard, but here is an article from Forbes, a right-leaning group

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/04/of-course-we-can-afford-a-universal-basic-income-do-we-want-one-though/amp/

Call me crazy, but if there's a way to get people who don't want to work out of the workforce, thus removing shirkers and malcontents, businesses might be a tad more efficient and more profitable.

I would think it would be better for capitalism to have more ambitious people in the labor market.

Edited February 28, 2019 by David Dennison

[SKJ 1305]

I read the article.

In Yang's method, it would replace the bulk of those programs, for those that opt in. Which would pay for most of it. Then the VAT would recoup the bulk of the rest through a tax on robots and software that are taking roughly over third of the jobs in the next decade.

What other plan would help to offset one third of the population being out of work due to automation? A larger welfare plan? 

You keep trying to be insulting, which shows me you're the type that likes to talk a lot of shit. In this life, though, that might get you feeling superior on a message board, but could get you in a grave situation should you let that bleed over into the real world.

It speaks volumes to the type of person you are.

Edited March 1, 2019 by SKJ

[SKJ 1305]

https://www.wmur.com/article/conversation-with-the-candidate-with-andrew-yang-online-exclusive/26575814

[Bat Guano 359]

2 hours ago, the said:

If you read the article then why did you post it? On one end you claim to be progressive and on the other end you post something that suggests eliminating ALL the safety nets, including Social security and Medicaid? Lulz.

Tax the robots? Tax the software? Where the fuck do you dumb progressives come up with this? The total profits of ALL S&P 500 put together last year was a trillion dollars. How will you tax that to turn it into a minimum 2.4 trillion?

What happens when we end up in a recession and those companies aren't making anywhere near a trillion dollars the year after or the year after that? And the year after that?

Like I keep stating, stupid progressive math is stupid.

You don't know how a VAT works, apparently.

[Bat Guano 359]

Just now, the said:

Go ahead, explain it. Explain how VAT is going to cover 2.4 trillion. 

Spoiler alert: You won't be able to. 

Here's a hint: it's not based on corporate profits.

[Bat Guano 359]

3 minutes ago, the said:

Did you read the post I was responding to? It said tax the robots, tax the software. How do you tax the robots and software(i.e corporations) any further? By dipping into their already existing profits....which are around a trillion. Too bad P/L statements aren't something you progressives used to looking at or understanding otherwise you'd know how dumb this idea really is.

It's really not hard to find out information about things you don't know. There's this thing called the internet, and you can look up all kinds of things. You should try it sometime.

[Bat Guano 359]

5 minutes ago, the said:

I know, it still isn't stopping you progressives from making stupid and unrealistic statements. Its like talking to a child. Now, do you concede that we will be taxing the corporations further by indirectly saying tax the software and robots? 

And if so, how are you magically going to generate 2.4 trillion from a total of 1 trillion profit. You still haven't explained it, I'm thinking because you cannot. If you can, go ahead.

This is something I cannot find on the internet, because its a figment of progressive's imaginations along with Santa and Easter bunny. 

 

19 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Here's a hint: it's not based on corporate profits.

 

11 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

It's really not hard to find out information about things you don't know. There's this thing called the internet, and you can look up all kinds of things. You should try it sometime.

 

[SKJ 1305]

28 minutes ago, the said:

Go ahead, explain it. Explain how VAT is going to cover 2.4 trillion. 

Spoiler alert: You won't be able to. 

Here's a novel idea.

 

Why don't you ask him? I'm positive he'd love to respond to you on any social media... Or go ask him in Austin at his town Hall?

You want to debate to the penny, go debate him how every nickel will be had.

His numbers aren't vague enough, yet you still won't stop trying to debate this shit. Amazon alone would be taxed 10% of it's revenues... Google... Facebook... We would be actually getting tax dollars from these corporations where they pay little to none at the moment. But I'm sure you'll change the subject to suit your point.

Fucking troll about thread.

Here's the stated numbers. He estimates 1 trillion in revenue from a VAT

800b redirected from programs

The other 600b coming from new tax receipts and savings in other areas.

Prove that wrong.

Debate those figures with him.

Do anything but sit here and ask me, as I've accepted those numbers, even though I don't have time to forensically break them down. 

You seem to love to condescend to me. That's because you're a weak, ineffectual, internet tough guy who likes to aggressively debate people while changing the subject to fit your facts.

Trust me when I tell you this: you're making yourself look like a piece of shit

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by SKJ

[SKJ 1305]

Ok. You won't stop.

Seems we're at an impasse. 

You really should be more civil, because you're making yourself look horrible.

If you ever would like to be real world tough, shoot me a pm.

[Bat Guano 359]

5 minutes ago, the said:

So you got nothing. Gotcha!

Well, I know how a VAT works, so I got that going for me.

Ignorance must really be bliss, from the way you're chasing it.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Arguing with conservatives to try to convince them of spending money on the well-being of Americans is a completely pointless endeavor. They are not smart and they are not operating in good faith.

[SKJ 1305]

It's obvious you don't know me. 

Ha ha ha if you think I'd run away, you're not smart. I'd love to tussle with you. Ha haha ha. 

You're really showing your ass

[SKJ 1305]

You're good at math.

How do you think this neg war is going to turn out?

 

[Bat Guano 359]

5 minutes ago, the said:

No you don't. You're also bad at Math, like other progressives. 

2+2 is 4 and not pizza. You're welcome.

Did you ride the bus to school today? How many seats were on the bus?

[SKJ 1305]

I live in Oklahoma.

We could get into a gym and sign a contract if you like.

I know it's a new account. It's obvious by your history. 

[Bat Guano 359]

1 minute ago, the said:

Since you disagreed, explain how taxing the robots and software isn't taxing the corporations? 

What did I disagree with?

[SKJ 1305]

Ha ha ha

You should come up here and let's sign a contract. I don't have the time to travel since I work too much.

[bad_teammate 13132]

*video of IRS Gestapo beating Amazon warehouse robots for not paying their robo-taxes*

"This is the future liberals want."

Edited March 1, 2019 by bad_teammate

[SKJ 1305]

What is the difference between revenues and profits?

[Bat Guano 359]

1 minute ago, the said:

I posted this:

And then you posted this in response: 

You clearly disagreed that it isn't going to come from taxing corporation profits, then how? Go ahead, explain. 

Look up how a VAT works. You don't even have a rudimentary idea of what it is, so any explanation would be a waste of my time. Aggressive stupidity isn't going to get you very far, here or in life.

[SKJ 1305]

Let me put it to you like this.

I'm not FROM Oklahoma, I live here. I moved here for work. It made more sense to move here for the same money I was getting in a much more expensive state.

 

[SKJ 1305]

Just now, the said:

You're too stupid, too demotivated and too much of bitch for that. 

Meth right?

Ha ha ha keep talking.

 

[Bat Guano 359]

1 minute ago, the said:

VAT isn't going to cover 2.4 trillion. Explain how else are you going to raise 2.4 trillion. 

Bonus points for using the word rudimentary. 

If you have a point, make it instead of tap dancing around it.

Does your teacher know you're posting here instead of paying attention in class? Isn't it time for lunch? Recess and then nap time afterward, yay!

[SKJ 1305]

1 trillion from a VAT. (Already stated)

800 billion from welfare programs.(already stated)

600 billion from new tax receipts and other savings from other programs. (Already stated)

2.4 trillion

Edited March 1, 2019 by SKJ

[Bat Guano 359]

2 minutes ago, the said:

So still no idea how to raise 2.4 trillion? Not surprised.

You don't read so good, do you? This is at least the third time he's posted this info:

2 minutes ago, SKJ said:

1 trillion from a VAT. (Already stated)

800 billion from welfare programs.

600 billion from new tax receipts and other savings from other programs.

2.4 trillion

Edited March 1, 2019 by Bat Guano

[SKJ 1305]

Why don't you debate him on that?

You saying it won't happen is just as true as him saying it will, except he's done the math, judging from his history.

He's a really, really smart guy. I'd love to see you debate those numbers with him.

You're also missing the point that: I'm not making the claim, he is.

He welcomes the debate, he's said it many times.

Edited March 1, 2019 by SKJ

[Bat Guano 359]

6 minutes ago, the said:

Lulz, fairy tale math. Response posted, check above.

[SKJ 1305]

Just now, the said:

OK, good idea! Should I send him an email, I'm available next week on Monday and Thursday after 2pm. Should I pencil that in? 

He is like Trump, he knows he wont get elected so why not make a stupid claim where you're offering everyone money. Literally! And gain notoriety to further his brand. 

Fools seem to be onboard. 

He's on social media.

He's at Town Halls.

He'll be in Austin pretty soon.

He's stated his availability many times (if you watched what I've posted)

[SKJ 1305]

Anyway, you ever want to see if I'll run away, let me know.

Just so you know, I've told you nothing but the truth.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Yang was on Tucker Carlson tonight.

I didn’t watch but here’s the chyron:

[SKJ 1305]

It was short, but man, Tucker Carlson seems like a fan:

I mean, sure, they didn't get into the UBI aspect, but what a glowing praise from the asshole

Edited March 2, 2019 by SKJ
Links

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

I might consider voting for him if he starts referring to himself as “The Yangster”.

[horncyclist 1386]

5 hours ago, SKJ said:

It was short, but man, Tucker Carlson seems like a fan:

I mean, sure, they didn't get into the UBI aspect, but what a glowing praise from the asshole

My favorite  part of this is Tucker says " why isn't anyone else talking about this and instead talking about issues that don't really  matter" and then for the next segment he turns to the camera and says "MS-13...."