@mott-the-hoople saidGod. Fools indeed.
"Bit of a stretch there, but yes, taxing any industry will result in higher costs for that industry's customers. So what?"
Did this fool really just say this?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNote how Marauder pulls one piece of data out of our past and hangs his hat on it.
In 1952, Corporate taxes as a share of GDP were 6%; now they are less than 1%. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/04/six-charts-that-show-how-low-corporate-tax-revenues-are-in-the-united-states-right-now
Obviously individual taxpayers have had to make up the difference either through increased taxes now or deficit spending (a tax on future generations).
He says " 6%, now 1%," as if this fact will be the basis for conversation on this matter? Ignoring all other countering data that may have existed?? Does he think we are that stupid?
A Marauder answer: "Yes you are stupid." That answer means he has been put down.
@soothfast saidThis is what I mean.
Not buying into AverageJoe's crocodile tears about a possible increase in the cost of living for the "little guy" because of a tax on the coal industry. Also, not going to ooh and aah that somehow he has discovered a Great Truth in his twilight years that usually is unearthed in a high school economics class.
@averagejoe1 saidPut up some "countering data" then; this is a Debate Forum, not the Ranting and Raving Forum you think it is.
Note how Marauder pulls one piece of data out of our past and hangs his hat on it.
He says " 6%, now 1%," as if this fact will be the basis for conversation on this matter? Ignoring all other countering data that may have existed?? Does he think we are that stupid?
A Marauder answer: "Yes you are stupid." That answer means he has been put down.
The "socialists" at Moody's Analytics concluded the Schumer-Manchin bill if passed would:
" Broadly, the legislation will nudge the economy and inflation in
the right direction, while meaningfully addressing climate change and reducing the government’s budget deficits."
https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2022/assessing-the-macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-inflation-reduction-act-of-2022.pdf
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWithout bothering to open the link, I just read the link.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/31/senate-gop-argues-data-shows-schumer-manchin-deal-raises-taxes-on-earners-under-400k/
Y'all need to keep up. You have to understand this bill, it raises taxes on the common man. If Coal is taxed, the cost incurred by the electric company will pass to the consumer.
Think big, kids. It is not like a tax collector will come to your door.
Geeez
Senate-gop-argues....
Should I bother ??
And stop talking about lying !!
You worship someone who lies like it is a bodily function.
@averagejoe1 saidLINK?
But he promised to not do it. and his spending plan cannot reduce inflation . You might look up what he is going to do with the money. Ouch. Take care of the aliens, leave the homeless to die in the streets.....
You who make less than $200K a year will pay $16.7 Billion total.
You who make between $200K and $500k will pay $14.1 Billion total.
Joe lied! Suzianne? Sonhouse?
@averagejoe1 saidIt is....Check corporate tax rate back then...
Note how Marauder pulls one piece of data out of our past and hangs his hat on it.
He says " 6%, now 1%," as if this fact will be the basis for conversation on this matter? Ignoring all other countering data that may have existed?? Does he think we are that stupid?
A Marauder answer: "Yes you are stupid." That answer means he has been put down.
1951---Over $25,000........Tax rate---50.75%
2020---All taxable income........Tax rate---21%
https://taxfoundation.org/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/
@no1marauder saidThose damned Socialists at Moodys and Morningstar.
The "socialists" at Moody's Analytics concluded the Schumer-Manchin bill if passed would:
" Broadly, the legislation will nudge the economy and inflation in
the right direction, while meaningfully addressing climate change and reducing the government’s budget deficits."
https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2022/assessing-the-macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-inflation-reduction-act-of-2022.pdf
@Mott-The-Hoople
But the idea we actually NEED more cash in fed money so they can try to reduce the ND, OFF with their heads. You are one putrid human being, if you are not actually a Russian bot.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYes, a debate, which goes off course when a debater does not close his points.... Does not 'cherry pick' his demonstratory evidences and leave others in the dust.
Put up some "countering data" then; this is a Debate Forum, not the Ranting and Raving Forum you think it is.
And there is life-changing activity going on at present, so much so that people like me don't go digging in the past. Decisions are made on current statistics, when everything is much different than the past. Eisenhower prob would not have been into printing money willy nilly, for instance. So past facts do not apply in the present.
Whew .
@mghrn55 saidBut their point in the 'argument' is undeniable. That's what they do there, Mgr. Passage of this thing will bring untold new expense down on your fellow citizens. You are aware that just the printing of money would do that.
Without bothering to open the link, I just read the link.
Senate-gop-argues....
Should I bother ??
And stop talking about lying !!
You worship someone who lies like it is a bodily function.
@averagejoe1 saidActually it will save expenses for the vast majority.
But their point in the 'argument' is undeniable. That's what they do there, Mgr. Passage of this thing will bring untold new expense down on your fellow citizens. You are aware that just the printing of money would do that.
It will cut down the costs of climate change.
It will reduce the price of pharmaceutical drugs.
It will ensure that companies that make a $1 billion in profit in one year will pay some tax (about 200 companies who did so last year paid none) thus reducing the burden on other taxpayers.
It will add more IRS agents to collect unpaid taxes.
And on and on.