Entitlement spending makes the rich richer

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-election-democratic-republican-presidents-better-performance-economy-gdp-2020-8-1029528932

The difference in economic and stock market gains between a Democratic and Republican president can be explained by "fiscal multipliers," according to Liberum.
While Republicans aim to stimulate the economy via tax cuts and deregulation, Democrats aim to stimulate consumption (and thus the economy) with redistribution policies like increased unemployment benefits, increased child credits, and food stamp support, Liberum noted.
And those policy differences can lead to sizable differences in their economic impact.

If a tax cut introduced by Republicans led to a 1% decrease in tax income for the government, it would boost economic growth by 0.3% to 0.4%.
Read more: UBS analyzed how 900 stocks perform on positive COVID-19 vaccine news days - and concluded that these 17 are poised to jump at least 9% on the next cycle of encouraging headlines
Meanwhile, expanding unemployment benefits and other policies often pushed by Democratic presidents "has a fiscal multiplier of 1.2 to 1.7," Liberum found.
In other words, tax cuts would have to be 5x larger than increases in welfare spending to have a similar economic impact

Higher taxes means money gets taken away from the middle class and businesses (Never the rich, who have tax shelters and all kinds of tricks), and giving that money away to be spent on goods and services. This money pads bottom lines, resulting in "economic growth".

That about right?

And then the CEO's of said companies get bigger golden parachutes, and the shareholders get their lb of meat, and the only losers are those poor working stiffs paying out, so these schemers can figure out how to exploit them, the poor, and anyone else in "need", so they can get even richer.

At least until they can get another "bailout" going, and then they get to just take the money without letting the poor eat first.

Very, very evil.

😂

Moving...

Originally posted by cdtm
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-election-democratic-republican-presidents-better-performance-economy-gdp-2020-8-1029528932

Higher taxes means money gets taken away from the middle class and businesses (Never the rich, who have tax shelters and all kinds of tricks), and giving that money away to be spent on goods and services. This money pads bottom lines, resulting in "economic growth".

That about right?

And then the CEO's of said companies get bigger golden parachutes, and the shareholders get their lb of meat, and the only losers are those poor working stiffs paying out, so these schemers can figure out how to exploit them, the poor, and anyone else in "need", so they can get even richer.

At least until they can get another "bailout" going, and then they get to just take the money without letting the poor eat first.

Very, very evil.

No. That's wrong.

The top 1% pay about 40% of all taxes.

The top 10% pay almost all the taxes.

It's worse than that when you take into consideration "net taxes paid" by subtracting out the average tax-benefits people get from programs from their total taxes paid. Shocking: most Americans are net-negative tax payers.

This data is outdated because the latest data they had was from 2015. It got even worse since then.

Yes, I compiled this data myself using previous methods the tax foundation used and found the same results they did (theirs was from like...2009?). I made the chart look much better, though:

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. That's wrong.

The top 1% pay about 40% of all taxes.

The top 10% pay almost all the taxes.

It's worse than that when you take into consideration "net taxes paid" by subtracting out the average tax-benefits people get from programs from their total taxes paid. Shocking: most Americans are net-negative tax payers.

This data is outdated because the latest data they had was from 2015. It got even worse since then.

Yes, I compiled this data myself using previous methods the tax foundation used and found the same results they did (theirs was from like...2009?). I made the chart look much better, though:

Newjack I hope you are paying a lot of taxes. The government needs your money, can you pay more?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Newjack I hope you are paying a lot of taxes. The government needs your money, can you pay more?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. That's wrong.

The top 1% pay about 40% of all taxes.

The top 10% pay almost all the taxes.

It's worse than that when you take into consideration "net taxes paid" by subtracting out the average tax-benefits people get from programs from their total taxes paid. Shocking: most Americans are net-negative tax payers.

This data is outdated because the latest data they had was from 2015. It got even worse since then.

Yes, I compiled this data myself using previous methods the tax foundation used and found the same results they did (theirs was from like...2009?). I made the chart look much better, though:

Originally posted by Newjak
You're a bit of a moron aren't you :/

It was a joke dumbass

Originally posted by Newjak
You're a bit of a moron aren't you :/

Swing those pom-poms.

Originally posted by Newjak
When you came to these conclusions did you only factor in income tax and omit other taxes like sales tax, payroll tax, state and local taxes?

I didn't come to this conclusion. I replicated a study from the Tax Foundation using more current data. I have the original spreadsheet with all the data in it on my work laptop.

They account for average entitlement spending per person in each bracket. They also document average tax revenue for each person in each bracket. From there, the math is very simple: subtract entitlement spending from tax contributions.

Then you get net tax contributions. You have to replicate this for each quintile to get the final result, shown.

Because the Tax Foundation does not make it obvious that this is how they came up with their data in their earlier study, I had to painfully go through the numbers until I could replicate their 2009 result (just did this for one quintile to figure out exactly what they did). It took about 30 minutes to get it right. But once I figured it out, it was easy. Then replicate to the other quintiles.

The formulae are already done so we can simply replace all data with any year they can release in that same spreadsheet. I'm curious about how much these numbers changed especially if you consider that COVID-19 almost entirely hit the bottom 3 quintiles and almost left the top quintile completely "unmolested" after recovery from this summer.

Originally posted by dadudemon

The top 1% pay about 40% of all taxes.

They also have more than 50% of the wealth and slowly but steadily increasing that.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
They also have more than 50% of the wealth and slowly but steadily increasing that.

Isn't estate tax less than income tax? That would explain the 10% difference (40% of the taxes paid but over 50% ownership of the tangible assets - should be 50% taxes paid and 50% tangible assets owned, if it was fair).

I'm in the "sweet" spot of income where I don't make enough to invest. I'm considering posting my Year to Date income information from my job to show how I am paying greater than 50% of my income to "taxes."

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
They also have more than 50% of the wealth and slowly but steadily increasing that.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
👆 I alluded to that out too.

👆👆

Two for more assurance.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
They also have more than 50% of the wealth and slowly but steadily increasing that.

How much of someone's' wealth are you entitled to?

Originally posted by wxyz
How much of someone's' wealth are you entitled to?

If there was a fair system perhaps none or a small amount for ethical considerations. This isn’t a fair system though, it’s stacked in some people’s favor, and worse a lot of the most wealthy only have their wealth because of being already born into wealthy families. In a system that is clearly unfair from the outset the meaning of the phrase “this is my wealth” is questionable at the face of it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. That's wrong.

The top 1% pay about 40% of all taxes.

The top 10% pay almost all the taxes.

It's worse than that when you take into consideration "net taxes paid" by subtracting out the average tax-benefits people get from programs from their total taxes paid. Shocking: most Americans are net-negative tax payers.

This data is outdated because the latest data they had was from 2015. It got even worse since then.

Yes, I compiled this data myself using previous methods the tax foundation used and found the same results they did (theirs was from like...2009?). I made the chart look much better, though:

That's what they report.

I'm sure you've read the piles of reports of offshore tax havens, and how much money is really stashed there.

Originally posted by wxyz
How much of someone's' wealth are you entitled to?

How much of their wealth is generated from their own labor?