As we've been over repeatedly, you aren't.

Liar, nostrils aren't large enough to support humans that can reach the top shelf.

Trump making it ok to say "Merry Christmas" again is code for it being ok to say "Lol dinosaurs were impossible. Their nostrils were too small."

Trump: Making it OK to be an idiot again!

The counter-argument to your thesis is that your customers are not going to spend appreciably more than they are spending now when they get a tax cut, and the excess money will essentially go into a mattress, which, if they are savvy, is located in a bank in the Cayman Islands.

That's why tax cuts like this don't work. The people who get the extra money already spend as much as they are going to spend. No one is saying that rich people don't spend a lot of money. But what people don't understand is that the spending habits of the super wealthy aren't really influenced by having additional money. More of it just goes into their bank accounts.

Companies act the same way. Especially since salaries for CEOs are based on profit margins. All this tax bill is going to do is boost profits, which in turn will benefit shareholders and top employees far more than the overall economy. It is what has happened every time in the past that tax cuts like this have been tried.

A bigger problem is that, increasingly, the ultra wealthy don't pay a lot of taxes to begin with as a percentage of their income. Here's an article that shows this. In a nutshell, the more money you make, the less you end up paying in taxes as a percentage of your income.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c1ef91a9d1d2

You know this how?

There was one true whale this year who was able to write blank checks. Everyone else has a budget, and their vision almost always has to pruned back to their financial reality. If any of you know an architect, just ask them. Even the 1% has eyes bigger than their wallets, and if you give them more, they'll be happy to spend it.

I'm sure home remodeling spending habits translate into other industries where the wealthy splash around.

One other important thing to note is that mattresses pay pretty **** interest. Their bank accounts get put to work, too. Have you ever seen It's A Wonderful Life?



Did you actually read this, or just Google "rich people pay less in taxes"?



This was by design. If the rates were higher, there's more incentive to stick that money in a mattress-level investment vehicle to eliminate risk.

Nostrildamus is guessing people's heights over the internet itt.

Poor people are poor because they spend all their money. Rich people are rich because they save their money therefor we should give rich people more money so they'll spend more? Even by 5th grade conservative logic money's going to be saved and not spent or rather it'll be put into investing and not consumption.

Your wording here says a lot about how you think, and why we'll simply never agree with one another.

The tax payer gives money to the taxing entity, not the other way around. The leech does not give blood to the host.

The leech doesn't give roads or social security to the host either.

TAXATION IS THEFT.

i highly recommend searching out inso's thoughts on noah's ark if you have a spare 15 mins and fancy a giggle

Velocity of money

As to the first point, my argument is that tax policy has contributed greatly to income inequality in the US, and this latest tax bill will continue to make that problem worse. I can provide any number of articles or sources to back up this argument. I believe the reason it has contributed to income inequality is that, as rich people have acquired more wealth, they haven't spent it in ways that has helped the overall economy. Maybe you have a better explanation. If so, I would like to hear it.

As far as the Washington Post article goes, they didn't do a great job of explaining a lot of the nuts and bolts of the problem. To be honest, the US media is crap at reporting most of this stuff. The Guardian does a much better job. But the article illustrated my basic point, which is that a person's effective tax rate actually decreases as he or she acquires more wealth, which is a pretty massive problem if you want to address the issue of income inequality.

Especially since the universal opinion of economists is that this tax bill is going to make this problem much, much worse.

Also, this quote - "This was by design. If the rates were higher, there's more incentive to stick that money in a mattress-level investment vehicle to eliminate risk" - clearly illustrates you may be somewhat out of your depth here.

Read this article. this will help you understand the scope of the problem we are dealing with.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederi.../#698823056ba6

The tldr version is that people aren't sticking $21 trillion in wealth under their mattresses. Also, this money does keep the world's economy working, just not in a way that is sustainable unless you believe that a few people having all the money int he world is a good thing.

Lol. “The lower end of the economy spends 110% of what they earn....” I wonder why they’re poor?

Cliff notes for those interested:

- Bring adolescents. Smaller, more resilient, eat far less.
- Grab sets from the Family level of classification and let genetics handle diversification afterward.
- Coupled with the first point, it reduces space requirements to something like 20 standard train cars. Still a big boat.
- In biblical canon, there were no pure carnivores until after the flood.
- Remember that the story is based in a world where a ****ing omnipotent being exists, so sprinkle in some magic pixie dust to fill in the gaps as needed

The end.

The logistics of an Ark aren't even the hard part. The first 3 bullets above math out just fine. The biggest question is where all the water came from. Your options are limited there, but I've seen a few interesting theories, none of which are impossible from a geological standpoint.

Most non-religious people who are honest with themselves simply acknowledge that they have no clue if God exists, and they probably don't care.

I'm not in the habit these of arguing origin theories on the internet. It's not the highest and best use of my time. Posting on 2p2 in general isn't either, but that's become an entertaining habit.

Still, I don't see what any of that has to do with letting earners keep more of the money they've worked for.

Nailed the 5th grade conservative logic.

Trickle down is and was always bull**** and the people who advocate it want nothing more than to maximize inequality and punish the wicked.

So provide these super-rich the incentive to bring that money home and put it to work. Telling them that it'll be taxed at 30% or 40% if they take it out of hiding is not a good way to do that.

If you dig further into that article you'll find gems like this:

I am sure that woman uttered that quote with a straight face, too. Ol' Philip Green pays a metric ****ton of taxes, I'm sure. FAR more than his fair share of the overall burden as far as use goes. But I'm not from the UK, so maybe that dude in particular is a grade A ****bag and quite literally hides all his income in a legal way to avoid paying any taxes altogether. If that's the case, maybe the UK needs to invest in better auditors. The guy is in the retail business ffs.

Middle school understanding of what government does. Rich people use a ton of government services. They don't get school lunches and consume those services so much in person, but their money consumes government services and their burden is largely proportional to their wealth. All those things their money is out there doing, investing in, insured by, roads traveling on, contracts enforced by courts is all using government services. And the services that go to non-wealthy people are using them to support lives which generate more wealth for the wealthy. Also, without the government they'd get guillotined.

Ins00000000000 styling and profiling

I'll give them an incentive. It's called jail, and it's where people who steal belong. And not paying your taxes is stealing.

The problem is, really rich people make the laws. How much did the Koch Brothers spend pushing this legislation through?

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/tax...ard/1513859346

And the guy selling the bill to people like you is the greatest BS artist of all time. This bill literally will make him hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet, even though he is a person who has never done anything in his entire life that hasn't somehow contributed to him being able to crap on a golden toilet, you think he suddenly is looking out for the little guy.

As far as your statement: "the government should hire auditors." Yeah, rich people have that covered. Here's another article that I allegedly didn't read that covers that.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ort-on-the-u-s

You may have to dig a little to find the appropriate sentence, so I will save you the trouble.

"While funding for the IRS to audit wealthy taxpayers has been reduced, efforts to identify welfare fraud are being greatly intensified," he says.

He's referring to the hundreds of millions of dollars cut from the IRS budget, which still has the resources to chase poor people. Here's that article.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/21/57232...-irs-gets-busy

Inso straight up lying about rich people spending more due to tax cuts. Maybe if he’s talking about well off people this is true but certainly not of the actual rich people. Most of them bought everything they wanted then and still buy everything they want. I can’t think of anything that the really rich people I interact with buy when their investments are appreciating rapidly or will buy when they get tax cuts that they haven’t been buying already. They will just have more money left over at the end.

Also I’m curious as to how much inso’s “obscene” bonus is and how much it will be next year once we see the effect of these taxes.

I kind of feel like a $100 bonus for Inso would be obscene unless he's just putting on an act in this forum and he's not actually a complete dummy.

Jbrochu with the sick burns.

Flames are shooting out of my tiny nostrils.