• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax benefits should bubble up, not trickle down

Of course you will because you have been indoctrinated well and have such low expectations. Obama's slow rate cost millions of Americans their jobs but that is ok, you have yours. You really don't understand the economy and the left loves having people like you
Cost Americans their jobs? 95% of Obama's terms were positive job growth.

jobs2016-e1513207276775.jpg

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-to-the-obama-economy/?utm_term=.5ce69dc82bf3
 
Cost Americans their jobs? 95% of Obama's terms were positive job growth.

jobs2016-e1513207276775.jpg

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-to-the-obama-economy/?utm_term=.5ce69dc82bf3

As usual context doesn't matter nor does bls data. Thank you Obama for giving us a GOP Congress in 2014-2016 and Trump!!

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Years: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 4279 4220 4253 4313 4473 4342 4410 4576 4521 4325 4494 4618
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8046 8796 9145 8908 9113 9024 8891 9029 8847 8979 9114 9098
2010 8530 8936 9233 9178 8845 8577 8500 8800 9246 8837 8873 8935
2011 8470 8464 8645 8652 8576 8427 8281 8788 9166 8657 8447 8171
2012 8305 8238 7775 7913 8101 8072 8082 7974 8671 8203 8166 7943
2013 8074 8119 7658 7936 7864 8096 8083 7804 8011 7995 7730 7792
2014 7298 7262 7403 7466 7170 7469 7430 7173 7123 7033 6870 6819
2015 6836 6664 6646 6563 6544 6463 6292 6438 6031 5734 6113 6057
2016 6035 6019 6120 5970 6409 5820 5936 6027 5874 5850 5659 5598
2017 5840 5704 5553 5272 5219 5326 5282 5255 5122 4753 4801
 
Here is what you want to ignore along with the results of the stimulus as you continue to buy leftwing rhetoric instead of actual results


BLS.gov will show you the Reagan almost 17 million jobs from December 1980 to December 1988
Your table, which you have posted about a million times, only is really showing that as time goes to infinity, there are more people employed. Yes, population growth adds jobs.

Total_private_industries_employment.png


Let me also remind you that Reagan's growth included many new federal jobs. Clinton's was a decrease in federal jobs.

Federal_Government_employees.jpeg

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
 
Last edited:
Cost Americans their jobs? 95% of Obama's terms were positive job growth.

jobs2016-e1513207276775.jpg

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-to-the-obama-economy/?utm_term=.5ce69dc82bf3

Now the official real data from BLS.gov. Suggest that you and the Washington Post call BLS and tell them their data is wrong

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143225 143315 143319 143603 143856 144006 144318 144304 144466 143577 144536 144741
2014 145055 145102 145715 145673 145819 146222 146461 146501 146845 147426 147361 147521
2015 148061 148108 148244 148522 148792 148742 148890 149092 148932 149255 149419 150030
2016 150533 151043 151301 151028 151058 151090 151546 151655 151926 151902 152048 152111
2017 152081 152528 153000 153156 152923 153168 153513 153439 154345 153861 153918
 
Your table, which you have posted about a million times, only is really showing that as time goes to infinity, there are more people employed. Yes, population growth adds jobs.

Total_private_industries_employment.png


Let me also remind you that Reagan's growth included many new federal jobs. Clinton's was a decrease in federal jobs.

Federal_Government_employees.jpeg

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

So apparently there was no population growth after the Obama stimulus was signed in February 2009 for the next three years? So Federal job growth didn't occur under Obama? LOL, you really are being made a fool of by the left. Thank you Obama for giving us Trump

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330

2013 143225 143315 143319 143603 143856 144006 144318 144304 144466 143577 144536 144741
2014 145055 145102 145715 145673 145819 146222 146461 146501 146845 147426 147361 147521
2015 148061 148108 148244 148522 148792 148742 148890 149092 148932 149255 149419 150030
2016 150533 151043 151301 151028 151058 151090 151546 151655 151926 151902 152048 152111
2017 152081 152528 153000 153156 152923 153168 153513 153439 154345 153861 153918
 
My tax code would look like this:

No deductions on net income, these are real rates. Whatever the rate, that is what you pay. No joint filing. Everyone files as individuals whether married or not.
0% corporate rate unless profits are used for stock buy back or dividends, and then taxed like regular income
eliminate employee health insurance that companies pay by going to government single payer
tax capital gains like regular income
0% first $31,500 of net income
10% on any additional net income between $31,500-$100,000
20% on any additional net income between $100,000-1 million
30% on any additional net income above 1 million

tax negative externalities-carbon, processes foods, luxury items, etc.

$15 minimum wage


This code is extremely simple, very pro growth, very progressive, and I think would raise government revenue. It combines conservative and liberal ideas in a synergetic type way.
 
My tax code would look like this:

No deductions on net income, these are real rates. Whatever the rate, that is what you pay. No joint filing. Everyone files as individuals whether married or not.
0% corporate rate unless profits are used for stock buy back or dividends, and then taxed like regular income
eliminate employee health insurance that companies pay by going to government single payer
tax capital gains like regular income
0% first $31,500 of net income
10% on any additional net income between $31,500-$100,000
20% on any additional net income between $100,000-1 million
30% on any additional net income above 1 million

tax negative externalities-carbon, processes foods, luxury items, etc.

$15 minimum wage


This code is extremely simple, very pro growth, very progressive, and I think would raise government revenue. It combines conservative and liberal ideas in a synergetic type way.

Hmm... since the median individual income is about $42K/year and you wish their total federal income tax (FIT) to be 10% on amounts over $31.5K that makes the median FIT due only $1,050/year. It is hard to imagine a way to fund UHC on less than $100/month.
 
Hmm... since the median individual income is about $42K/year and you wish their total federal income tax (FIT) to be 10% on amounts over $31.5K that makes the median FIT due only $1,050/year. It is hard to imagine a way to fund UHC on less than $100/month.

Not universal, should have stated single payer catastrophic/cash out of pocket on minor. And a $2500 deductible. I'd also want to drastically cut waste and corruption in government. I know easier said than done but hey this is a message board. I can dream.


And I would recommend states to have simply a 10% sales tax(exempt whole food, water, rent) and a progressive property tax(exempt job creators) to be synergetic with the tax code.

So that median income may pay 100/M in income tax but a lot more in taxes like sales, carbon, junkfood, etc.

The wealthy also pay significantly higher taxes in my plan, although many will likely make more money by enlarging their income through growth.
 
Last edited:
Here is what you want to ignore along with the results of the stimulus as you continue to buy leftwing rhetoric instead of actual results


BLS.gov will show you the Reagan almost 17 million jobs from December 1980 to December 1988

Well, you won't adjust for inflation, but you will adjust for seasons? Come on now.

The same site shows the NOT seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll go from 131,808,000 in Obama's first full month (February 2009) up to 146,148,000 in Obama's last full month (December of 2016).

Again, there's a hundred ways to skin a cat.

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/vie...9542E649030C930A9E34A9AED663B43E.tc_instance6
 
Now the official real data from BLS.gov. Suggest that you and the Washington Post call BLS and tell them their data is wrong

2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013 ... 2009, falling jobs numbers (Thanks, Bush)...

2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143225 143315 143319 143603 143856 144006 144318 144304 144466 143577 144536 144741
2014 145055 145102 145715 145673 145819 146222 146461 146501 146845 147426 147361 147521
2015 148061 148108 148244 148522 148792 148742 148890 149092 148932 149255 149419 150030
2016 150533 151043 151301 151028 151058 151090 151546 151655 151926 151902 152048 152111 ... 7 years of increasing jobs numbers (Thanks, Obama)...

Your data doesn't disagree with the info MTA provided ... job losses in Obama's first year (2009) and then increasing jobs for the remaining 7 years ... :shrug

Not sure why you're saying his data disagrees with the BLS data you've provided.
 
Last edited:
Not universal, should have stated single payer catastrophic/cash out of pocket on minor. And a $2500 deductible. I'd also want to drastically cut waste and corruption in government. I know easier said than done but hey this is a message board. I can dream.


And I would recommend states to have simply a 10% sales tax(exempt whole food, water, rent) and a progressive property tax(exempt job creators) to be synergetic with the tax code.

So that median income may pay 100/M in income tax but a lot more in taxes like sales, carbon, junkfood, etc.

The wealthy also pay significantly higher taxes in my plan, although many will likely make more money by enlarging their income through growth.

My FIT reform plan is similar. A truly standard deduction of $30K with a 20% rate applied to any income (regardless of source) above that amount. On a median annual income of $42K that would be $2,400 in FIT (about a 6% effective rate on gross income) but on an annual income of $100K that would be $14K in FIT (a 14% effective rate on gross income). That is still a quite progressive system (based on gross income) but uses only two numbers making it very easy to compute.
 
My FIT reform plan is similar. A truly standard deduction of $30K with a 20% rate applied to any income (regardless of source) above that amount. On a median annual income of $42K that would be $2,400 in FIT (about a 6% effective rate on gross income) but on an annual income of $100K that would be $14K in FIT (a 14% effective rate on gross income). That is still a quite progressive system (based on gross income) but uses only two numbers making it very easy to compute.

Yes that's similar. I'd be OK with that, I like simple. I use $31,500 because that is my minimum wage $15/hr X 40 hrs a week X 52.
 
Well, you won't adjust for inflation, but you will adjust for seasons? Come on now.

The same site shows the NOT seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll go from 131,808,000 in Obama's first full month (February 2009) up to 146,148,000 in Obama's last full month (December of 2016).

Again, there's a hundred ways to skin a cat.

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/vie...9542E649030C930A9E34A9AED663B43E.tc_instance6

This has gone on long enough, how does inflation affect the job numbers? As for the seasonal adjustments, I use the same charts that you want to tout as the official unemployment numbers and give Obama credit for
 
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013 ... 2009, falling jobs numbers (Thanks, Bush)...

2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143225 143315 143319 143603 143856 144006 144318 144304 144466 143577 144536 144741
2014 145055 145102 145715 145673 145819 146222 146461 146501 146845 147426 147361 147521
2015 148061 148108 148244 148522 148792 148742 148890 149092 148932 149255 149419 150030
2016 150533 151043 151301 151028 151058 151090 151546 151655 151926 151902 152048 152111 ... 7 years of increasing jobs numbers (Thanks, Obama)...

Your data doesn't disagree with the info MTA provided ... job losses in Obama's first year (2009) and then increasing jobs for the remaining 7 years ... :shrug

Not sure why you're saying his data disagrees with the BLS data you've provided.

Because I use the same chart that provides the official numbers including the official unemployment rate but as usual you don't understand the stimulus and shovel ready jobs that Obama touted. How does employment go from 142 million to 139 million two years later with a successful stimulus and how is that Bush's fault?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902

2012 141584 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143225 143315 143319 143603 143856 144006 144318 144304 144466 143577 144536 144741
2014 145055 145102 145715 145673 145819 146222 146461 146501 146845 147426 147361 147521
2015 148061 148108 148244 148522 148792 148742 148890 149092 148932 149255 149419 150030
2016 150533 151043 151301 151028 151058 151090 151546 151655 151926 151902 152048 152111
2017 152081 152528 153000 153156 152923 153168 153513 153439 154345 153861 153918
 
Back
Top Bottom