Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "For The Cost Of GOP Tax Cuts All US Workers Can Get $18k/ Year" video.

Maceta, the top 10% earned only 40% of the income. There is a difference between wealth and income. I suggest you learn it.
2
Everyone is getting a tax cut. Kyle needs to study economics and learn what money is.
1
The rich have been paying most of the taxes for years.
1
Everyone is getting at tax cut. The rich pay the vast majority of taxes (the top 10% pay 70% of federal income despite earning only 40% of the income). The fact is that our tax code is unfair and complicated. It needs to be simplified. Before 1913 the federal taxes were simple, it was only a tax on the states. Since then it have become an over 7000 page mess that unless you are intelligent or can hire an accountant you will be screwed. This simplified tax code will help everyone as it will mean everyone gets a cut, there will no longer be many write offs that favor only the rich or really intelligent, and it will lead to more investment. And you may complain about the rich being able to keep more of their money. The simple fact is that they earned that money. "The bottom 90% of the country make $33k/year and have seen their adjusted average wages drop by 6% over the last 35 years," That is not necessarily true. You have to be careful here because what also happened in that time was the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and the expansion of the payroll tax a few years prior. You can blame Reagan all you want but you are placing your blame on the wrong person. "Yeah lets give the ultra rich MORE money!!!! " No one is giving them money. They are keeping what they earn.
1
"Yeah lets give the ultra rich MORE money!!!! " No one is giving them money. They are keeping what they earned. I know you ultra liberals have a huge hatred for the rich, and that you are greedy and jealous. But this has really gone too far now. This new tax plan is simple and benefits everyone. If anything it screws over the rich and people like me (an intelligent person who know what write offs I have) as it simplifies the tax code and does away with write offs.
1
" Actually I'll start with this. You forgot to include loopholes in your argument. When you figure that in, most of them pay less taxes in percentage than your average person." I addressed that with the write offs. The tax code is simplified. " You need to be sure to include all the information when you try to make points defending something rather unpopular. " I did include all the points, you just can't read which is why you led with an insult. " Oh, so that 8 people that makes more than 50% of the world's population, they earned that? " That is a very deceptive stat. You are talking about wealth, not income. Also, there are many countries with high populations of low income earners that skew that stat. But sticking to wealth. Pointing to wealth inequality is deceptive. The average US home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. A home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has very little wealth. Also, a person with no debt or assets besides $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. The reason why is debt. In the US people are able to go to debt and still be fine. I have negative wealth due to college loans but I am doing fine. Now compared me to a poor person in Ethiopia who most likely has not debt but some income. They, by definition, has more wealth than me. Now who is better off? Obviously me with negative wealth. I find it ironic you call someone intellectually dishonest but than you give a stat without putting it in proper context. "You can't work enough hours in a day to earn that. " It isn't how much you work, it is what you put in the work. You can work 16 hours a day digging holes in the desert, that creates zero wealth. You really need to think about what you are saying.
1
And I told you why that was the case. You had the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and the payroll tax increase prior to that happening. Our tax code is complicated and for years has favored people who are either intelligent enough to understand the code to get the write offs or have enough income to pay for an accountant. Even at that having a W2 is a terrible way to do taxes as you have limited write offs. The tax code needs to be simplified and that is what Trump is pushing for. The problem with many on the left is they simply look at the rates but fail to fully understand the entire code. Simplify the tax code and everyone benefits, especially the middle and lower class.
1
Most people on the top are not paid with W2's like the middle class is. The payroll tax meant that if a business pays you with a higher wage they will pay a higher tax. Thus the payroll tax hindered wage growth. Now people were paid with other methods such as benefits and healthcare insurance. But as a whole those who file with a W2 get screwed as those in the top 10% get paid in a way to where they do not have to file with a W2 but instead say a 1099. Trump's tax code should be the liberal's wet dream (minus the radical ones that want to tax the rich at an obscene amount). It is progressive so that the rich pay a higher rate, and it removes the loopholes so there are no deductions.
1
"Why before 1970 did all wages grow at the same rate. " " Then between 1970-1980 when the tax reform hit that you previously thought was to blame for this discrepancy in wages the bottom 90% actually did better than the top 1%. " A few reasons. 1. We increased our immigration rate which drove down the average wage. 2. More women were entering the work force where they are typically less skilled which drove down the wage. 3. The payroll tax made it so if a business paid a higher wage they paid a higher tax 4. Businesses grew as a whole. Let us use Walmart for example. If you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart they will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. Now I can't see how much David Glass earned in 1988 when he was the CEO but using this source http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/ And using the fact that Doug McMillon earns $19.4 million thus is paid 20% more than the average CEO I can estimate Glass's salary to be around $3.4 million. A fair assessment. Walmart employed 371,000 employees in 1992. Using the average of CEO pay between 1989 and 1995 I can say Glass made around $4.378 million. Doug McMillion makes $19.4 million, so around 4.4 times more than Glass did in 1992. But Walmart now employs 2.1 million people worldwide, and 1.4 in the US. 2.1 million is 5.66 times more than in 1992. So while McMillion makes (roughly) 4.4 times more than Glass did when he was CEO, he employs 5.66 times more people. That is one reason why he has a pay increase. He is responsible for more. You also have to consider that since 1970 things have improved as a whole. Life expectancy has gone up around 8 years. People in poverty have smart phones. Cars are better. We have high speed internet. Technology is all around better. We are having a discussion over the internet. You bring up these stats but the reality is that the car I drive, a 2006 Chevy Cobalt, is better than a rich person drove in 1970. Compare my car to a 1970 Cadillac Eldorado. My car gets better gas mileage. Better acceleration. Can last longer (depending on how you take care of it). The Eldorado may be safer just out of being heavier. But as a whole my car is better. The Eldorado was top of the line during it's time. Look at cell phones. Remember in the 90s dial up internet? I have high speed internet in my pocket. I can watch porn on my phone. We landed on the moon in 1969. My phone has more computing power than what put a man on the moon. To say that the bottom 90% are way worse off today who have not seen their wealth and/or income grow is mainly a myth. Is that to say there is not a problem? No. We do have problems and should look to improve. But to me the problem lies with the federal government. Asking for more taxes means a more complicated tax code meaning we will just compound our problems.
1
Do you want to go through more exercises? I can. This is kind of fun.
1
" Average wages stayed fairly stable between 1970-1980 so your excuse to blame it on the immigrants fails, the same applies for women working. " Why so? We saw an increase in immigration and women joining the work force at that time. "So you take a business that is notorious for not paying their workers fair compensation and forcing small businesses out of the market, as a justification why CEOs should be paid more? " Walmart pays competitive wages for retail. They pay wages comparable to Sears, Hy Vee, Raley's and other retail stores. While I do agree that they do drive out small businesses, government taxes and regulations have also done that as well. For example, the min. wage. Walmart has pushed for a higher min. wage knowing that smaller competitors can't pay it. "Do you not see what a stretch that is? They forced other people out of business and hired the exact same people. Sure it's a good business model for Walmart, but that still does not justify their absurd payments or that they get to keep even MORE money because of tax cuts. " They pay competitive wages for retail. "From 1970-2012 Productivity has gone up more than 2x, while hourly compensation only grew by 9%. You are telling me that CEOs are somehow responsible for this productivity growth and deserve the keep all the profits? " Productivity has gone up because of technology, not because workers are producing more as individuals. Those that invested in technology or learned how to use it have seen a significant increase in income. It is called "Skilled Biased Technological Change". Also, better technology means goods and services are better and cheaper. Such as cars and smart phones and movies streaming online now. "How is that relevant to wages going down for the bottom 90% while the average INCREASED 24%? " Because I earn less than my dad did when he was 29 but I have a lot more than him. That is the norm. I am 29 and everyone my age parents' did not have smart phones or high speed internet. "Cool you have a phone to distract yourself with, how does that help you if you can't afford basic living? " I can, and so do most people. You can get roommates. With the internet you can find stores with deals and get food for cheap if needed. You just have to know what you are doing. "Technically the bottom 20% get a 100$ tax cut, so they are benefiting too, never mind that the richest get the BIGGEST tax cuts and the bottom 20% when government programs have their spending cut because of this end out losing. " Loopholes are being removed, so the rich are not receiving that large of a cut. This code is simplified and helps out the middle class where most file taxes with a W2. With W2's you do not get many deductions as a business owner or someone on the top 10% will get when they file with different forms. The tax code is complicated and thus unless you are able to afford an accountant or know what you are doing you will not benefit. And even at that filing with a W2 is terrible. Trump's tax code is simple. The rich pay more and everyone gets a cut. Government programs have to be cut, period. We are in debt. We have to do something. The problem with you is the same with every ultra liberal. You do not want to cut government programs no matter how much in debt we are and you have such as strong hatred for the rich that you want to tax them at an obscene rate. Just because someone earns more than you doesn't mean you should tax them more. Our tax code is 7000 pages long, and we are seeing what you are bringing up. Maybe we should try a simplified code.
1
" Because between 1970-1980 average wages stayed steady, while for the top 1% they dipped down. " We also faced a recession during that time as well. You have to consider that. "It could be that Walmart thinks that a higher minimum wage would push out competition, but that is unknown and I have heard arguments to the contrary. It could also be that since they are the largest employer in America, they realized that increasing the minimum wage increases the purchasing power, thus increasing the profits. Or that by pushing for it(in statements they actually say that their official stance on the issue is neutral), they could dictate some of the terms. Either way you are engaged in mentalism and just speculating. " It is because increasing the min. wage kills competition. The idea that it gives people more money is a myth. The min. wage is a job killer and harms smaller competitors who do not have the resources a larger competitor like Walmart does. "Them paying competitive wages is only relevant to the extent of what constitutes competitive wages is way too low(see data I provided). You however used the example of them hiring more employees as a justification for insane CEO payments across all industries. Industries that did not have the same job gains. " They pay competitive wages. I never hear complaints about how little Hy Vee pays their employees. Also, it isn't so much jobs, it is wealth creation. Walmart hires a lot. Other businesses create a lot of wealth. That is why the CEO makes a lot. Also, across the board, if you cut CEO salaries you won't be able to pay the workers a significant amount more. So what's the point? "During that time productivity has gone up steadily at ~ the same rate it did since 1950s. Also I am not sure you remember how "awesome" computers were 20 years ago, they couldn't automate shit and assembly-belt production has been around for nearly 200 years now. " Productivity went up and so did wealth. What's your point? "Again that simply isn't true. If you had read the aneconomicsense article, you would have seen that they adjusted for several things. Among them the consumer price index. Meaning that purchasing power is taking into consideration and still 90% end up making 6% less. I am happy that you are so easily distracted by things like cars and mobile phones, however that still doesn't mean that there isn't a problem here. In most respects a poor person in America probably is living a better life than a nobleman several hundred years ago. That still doesn't mean that they can purchase "more things". Your example has other flaws such as the wealth your father and your grandfather started with. The most determining factor generally speaking for a person's success is their parents wealth. " Poor people today have it better than a rich person did in the 50s in several ways. "Might that be the reason why the top 1% live almost 15 years longer than the bottom 1%? " They live a healthier lifestyle. There are higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes with poor people. "That is the natural consequence of being forced to survive on KFC. " If you are poor you shouldn't be eating out at KFC as it is more expensive. "Do you mind backing that up with any kind of evidence? " Read his tax plan. "Meanwhile the estate tax is being cut. " So. Please stop with the military spending. That makes up less than 20% of our federal budget. We spend more on social welfare programs. Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. We spend more on education.
1