Weird
Must be using the same math to calculate “no inflation”
Must be using the same math to calculate “no inflation”
Money & Economics
- Thread starter bigredfish
- Start date
You do realize that the poorest 40% or so have a net tax bill of zero or less prior to these tax cuts, right? Therefore, it you aren't paying anything to begin with, you can't get any more back.
People earning $30K to $55K don't pay taxes? And how about those earning $55K to $157K... why should they get less share of the tax cuts than the richest?
Is the share measured in absolute dollars of the cut, or percentage of prior tax? I think this is one case where you can produce opposite results based on what data you're using.
I pretty sure the shares are measured as the average net tax cut for each group a.k.a. absolute dollars.
I'm not sure what you mean by "opposite" results? Different yes, but opposite I can't see how.
In any case, I'd assume that most people won't be happy with this arrangement... seems to me we would be better off without the tax cuts... let the money go to paying off the national debt... or not increasing it LOL... can't say how I would feel if I was part of the "Richest" group
By opposite I mean either those earning $55K to $157K either got less share of the tax cuts than the richest, or they got more share than the richest.
I've seen graphs showing the "middle class" get a bigger percentage than the rich, and graphs showing the opposite. Most of them pollute the absolute numbers by using "buying power", taxes plus "social benefits", and other gimmicks to get the result they want. Perhaps the best "expert" illustration of what I'm trying to say is:
I am not even attempting to debate who did or didn't get the biggest increase. My point is that a statement of who got what without also disclosing what was measured is meaningless. But I'm even worse, because even if what was measured is disclosed I still don't believe it because it's all just biased propaganda. An example of this is I'm still paying tax on social security even though there's no tax on social security.
I generally agree with paying off the debt, other than it's politically impossible and probably real-life impossible.
I've seen graphs showing the "middle class" get a bigger percentage than the rich, and graphs showing the opposite. Most of them pollute the absolute numbers by using "buying power", taxes plus "social benefits", and other gimmicks to get the result they want. Perhaps the best "expert" illustration of what I'm trying to say is:
I am not even attempting to debate who did or didn't get the biggest increase. My point is that a statement of who got what without also disclosing what was measured is meaningless. But I'm even worse, because even if what was measured is disclosed I still don't believe it because it's all just biased propaganda. An example of this is I'm still paying tax on social security even though there's no tax on social security.
I generally agree with paying off the debt, other than it's politically impossible and probably real-life impossible.
This isnt new. Practically every analysis by every organization since March has said the same.
I’m not saying it’s the ONLY thing. It’s a piece of long standing policies that advantage the wealthy. Also see the other data. I’m simply saying the fallacy that the Big Bullshit Bill floated all boats is pure, well, bullshit.
I think SALT and Estate tax along with various caps have a lot to do with that particular legislation that also added approximately $2T per year to the debt.
I have nothing against the wealthy. We’re quite comfortable.. and I voted for the con-man in Chief 3X.
itep.org
www.cbsnews.com
I’m not saying it’s the ONLY thing. It’s a piece of long standing policies that advantage the wealthy. Also see the other data. I’m simply saying the fallacy that the Big Bullshit Bill floated all boats is pure, well, bullshit.
I think SALT and Estate tax along with various caps have a lot to do with that particular legislation that also added approximately $2T per year to the debt.
I have nothing against the wealthy. We’re quite comfortable.. and I voted for the con-man in Chief 3X.
Analysis of Tax Provisions in the House Reconciliation Bill: National and State Level Estimates
The poorest fifth of Americans would receive 1 percent of the House reconciliation bill's net tax cuts in 2026 while the richest fifth of Americans would receive two-thirds of the tax cuts. The richest 5 percent alone would receive a little less than half of the net tax cuts that year.
itep.org
Some state residents could enjoy bigger tax cuts next year. See where.
The typical U.S. taxpayer could see their taxes decrease by more than $3,750 next year thanks to fresh cuts, deductions and other provisions, according to a recent analysis.
www.cbsnews.com
They never define what a "Typical US Taxpayer", or "Average American" is. I say neither exists, other than in the eyes of whoever is defining them in the way they want, to back up the phony claim they are making.
Actually they define it as share of income. I would assume the "Middle" percentile is the "typical"
Bottom line the rich are getting richer, normal perhaps. But at a much faster pace than ever before, leaving the bottom 50% in the dust. Thus inflation and monetary policy has an oversized effect on that bottom percentile. The problem is as most of us know, what used to be the "Middle Class" is evaporating.
We see it clearly in spending
I'm not saying its Good or Bad, just what it is, like the original post said.
Again:
"Consumers in the top 10% of the income distribution accounted for 49.2% of total US spending in Q2, up from 48.5% in Q1, reaching the highest level in data going back to 1989
Meaning the economy is relying increasingly on a smaller group of wealthy people.
Its not sustainable.
And the lower end is treading water
Bottom line the rich are getting richer, normal perhaps. But at a much faster pace than ever before, leaving the bottom 50% in the dust. Thus inflation and monetary policy has an oversized effect on that bottom percentile. The problem is as most of us know, what used to be the "Middle Class" is evaporating.
We see it clearly in spending
I'm not saying its Good or Bad, just what it is, like the original post said.
Again:
"Consumers in the top 10% of the income distribution accounted for 49.2% of total US spending in Q2, up from 48.5% in Q1, reaching the highest level in data going back to 1989
Meaning the economy is relying increasingly on a smaller group of wealthy people.
Its not sustainable.
And the lower end is treading water
Last edited: