Lurker > BadderHare

Purely posted...

And the dems wonder why they keep losing

yeah backing tulsi is the clear path to victory for the dems here

tulcels pls go

EzeDoesIt posted...

Reread the topic title.

Read the fucking discussion we are having jesus christ.

shockthemonkey posted...

My bad, but I think you know what I meant

I mean yeah someone like Warren Buffett would have paid a tiny bit more of his $10 million income back then. We should repeal a lot of these income tax cuts but lets be honest about how much that would actually bring in.

EzeDoesIt posted...

The article you linked is talking about the 1%, not billionaires.

...ok?

shockthemonkey posted...

Imagine thinking an extra 6% of billionaires wealth is an insignificant amount of money.

we've never taxed wealth at any point in history, for good reason

EzeDoesIt posted...

You understand more than just billionaires are in the 1%, right? Way more, actually.

this has nothing to do with anything anyone is saying

the point is you can't bring up tax rates that existed back then without talking about deductions and loopholes that existed back then

I don't think it's possible to have less self-awareness than this.

shockthemonkey posted...

This article highlights how the ultra rich paid much higher effective rates than they currently do. Youre not making the argument you think youre making.

The takeaway from the history lesson of the 1950s is not the golden age of high taxes and prosperity that supporters of the Green New Deal imagine it to be. Rather, the tax policy of this period strongly suggests that high statutory rates are only sustainable when they are accompanied by massive legal tax shelters that are written into the tax code by design.

The high statutory tax rates were just a facade obscuring a more tempered reality.

These legal loopholes reduced the effective tax burden on top earners to a manageable level. While apples-to-apples comparisons between the 1950s and the tax system today require making several assumptions about the reliability of tax-reported income data, a recent report from the Tax Foundation used an estimate of the top 1 percent income share to calculate its associated effective tax rates over time. Its findings show that this groups effective income tax rate in the 1950s was only slightly higher than today: 42 percent versus 36.4 percent.

6% really isn't "much higher" and it certainly doesn't justify what progressives are asking for.

something tells me we're not spending 738 billion on a Space Force and OP is being disingenuous!

DrizztLink posted...

Nobody is obligated to thoroughly work through a rebuttal until you actually back up your original statement with evidence.

Until there's something more than "everyone knows" to your argument, lol no is all you get.

My bad I forgot common knowledge isn't common knowledge on CE. Got to talk a little slower in these parts.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-rich-never-actually-paid-70-percent/

It should also be noted that the "research" done by Saez and Zucman was part of a book they were about to release and they also work for Warren's campaign, so they got a lot of mileage out of a false claim that the media parroted endlessly.

Snickers_Pls posted...

Lol no

Oh man nevermind this never happened since you said lol no my mistake.

Snickers_Pls posted...

lol it worked for decades when the top 1% paid shit loads more in taxes

It is common knowledge that no one ever actually paid those rates.

Less talking points guys.

Shablagoo posted...

Nah, our economy was better when billionaires were taxed.

They are taxed and you should know Zucman and Saez are notorious in the economics community and were rightly torn apart for that "study" of theirs.

PS Not everyone who is economically literate is a Republican, in fact very few are. Get an actual argument.

The most diabolically brilliant thing progressives have accomplished is to convince young people that economic illiteracy is virtuous.

CircleOfManias posted...

UBI only works if you also implement rent control.

OctilIery posted...

Tax businesses for automation

some really bad takes itt

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Pin pointing where people are going to be and headshotting them even through doors is not something anyone can easily do.

You don't have to headshot with the AWP. One hit kills you everywhere but the legs, even with armor.

But again T side has LoS on those doors from spawn, which are themselves right next to CT spawn. You know CT is going to be crossing ~two seconds into the round. That's not hitting a crazy shot out of nowhere, they know where and when you're going to be crossing. In fact you can just prefire there and not even wait to see a CT player. It's map knowledge, not just mechanical skill.

T side has LoS on those doors from their spawn, and CT spawns right next to them. You know CT is going to be crossing two seconds into the round or whatever, it's not rocket science. Bullets also go through doors.

conspiracy theories are definitely something you use when you're not mad

KINDERFELD posted...

Thank God folks aren't relying on your ability to do statistics.

Says the guy who thinks Hispanics can have such massive gains if over 60% of them aren't gaining anything.

I mean yeah sure, over 90% speak English, but how do we know that 60% of them can?????? I m very smart statistics guy :)

foreverzero212 posted...

We know. You've just been vaguely whining about leftists.

only vague thing in this topic was the OP. all I did was point out he supports a public option.

really weird that you're so mad over this.

KINDERFELD posted...

You are ridiculous and pretty much carrying on a circus.

You are like the poster child for weird online dude who handles being wrong as badly as they possibly can, and thinks digging a hole will mitigate it

Sorry I had to be the one to tell you Mexicans are assimilating, didn't know it would make you so mad

foreverzero212 posted...

But I now see this isn't driven by a substantive critique of policy.

I haven't critiqued anything I just pointed out what the incredibly misleading quote in the OP actually meant. Pete doesn't support eliminating private insurance but does support a public option, which was good when progressives supported it I guess?

And you're not dunking on anyone dude, stop being so embarrassing. You're just part of a weird online echo chamber who thinks saying such a thing is a good enough substitute for winning elections.

shockthemonkey posted...

Maybe if you troll harder well all come around and vote for whatever idiotic thing you want

It's so weird how you think I somehow lose anything from your delusion. Like believe whatever you want to dude, I don't care.

lol I love hearing that something bernie supported himself not too long ago is suddenly code for right wing healthcare plan

progressives don't like the comparison but they truly are as delusional as labour under corbyn

Neoliberalism is just a resurgence of economic liberalism.

pete supports a public option, but nice shitpost

Teddytalks posted...

Neo-liberalism is often at the anti-thesis of free markets as it won't regulate businesses.

I don't think you understand what neoliberalism is. Which is normal since its modern definition has become "whatever you hate".

imagine never hearing this banger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iqZkudmcPY

darkprince45 posted...

What is it with the anti Pete stuff lately here

bernie supporters think this is some kind of winning strategy for some reason

he's talking about his opposition to M4A ending all private insurance, but nice shitpost

I'm aware of free markets, that's why we have all that economic progress. That's what neoliberalism is.

Teddytalks posted...

All you proved is that liberalism and free trade is good. You didn't support neo-liberalism

That's... what neoliberalism is.

Mexican Americans make up over 60% of the Hispanic population in the US, but I understand you're desperate. Very rarely do people get ethered this badly.

anyway this topic sucks and is now about how comically wrong kinder is

Of all your dumb claims, I think I like "hatred of immigrants comes from college students" the most.

And no, I didn't casually dismiss your "evidence". I actually took the time to read it (you didn't) and pointed out why it didn't even address assimilation. There is zero statistical evidence showing Mexican Americans don't assimilate, you would have saved yourself a ton of time admitting you were wrong in the first place.

KINDERFELD posted...

There is statistical evidence of this dude. I posted multiple sources and you said they didn't count because they were too old.

Oh so now you're not just the messenger you actually believe in this again, based on studies you didn't read.

No, snapshots of first generation immigrants from 20 years ago do not give us an accurate picture of assimilation. You've already been told so.

PLEASE go to that job you supposedly had to be at an hour ago, you're having a nightmare of a topic.

KINDERFELD posted...

"Dude" this is what college students are learning.

I would love to see proof that outdated studies on Mexican Americans are part of every schools curriculum for some reason but something tells me you're as wrong about that as you were about your last claim.

People who are the messenger don't get this invested when they find out it's wrong. Stop digging and move on.

KINDERFELD posted...

Wait wait wait, does that change the fact that this is what is being taught in colleges throughout America?

no one cares about this claim dude

you originally said there is statistical evidence that Mexican Americans aren't assimilating, don't move the goalpost

Rebel_Patriot posted...

Yeah but if they concede that, theyll lose all ground to stand on. They have to pretend that being against unchecked and unregulated people and things to coming into our country is just people being mean and racist.

MudKip_Master posted...

The argument isn't against legal immigration.

Pretending modern right-wing movements aren't trying to prevent legal immigration was the only way to make this topic dumber, but you did it.

KINDERFELD posted...

Again, attacking the messenger.

Calling you out on posting decades old studies that you didn't even read is not "attacking the messenger".

I've said from the start that anti-immigrant sentiment is based on misinformation and you've proven that, thanks.

Teddytalks posted...

Do you know we got mainly neo-liberals in office.... Who only care about profits,

"neo-liberals only care about profits!" starter pack:

I didn't say 20 years worth of data, I said 20 year old data as your studies are literally from 1997. But yeah I'm the one who isn't thinking here.

Instead of making a fool of yourself, why not try and read up on up to date studies that actually measure data over time? No wait then you would realize English proficiency and educational attainment have dramatically risen among Hispanic Americans in the last view decades.

Pete ended her career, she can't make the debates and won't even run for reelection in Hawaii lmao

Hope the job market is good in Syria Tulsi

KINDERFELD posted...

@BadderHare where did you go?

????

Reading your 20 year old data that doesn't back up anything you said.

Stop taking a snapshot of first generation immigrants when you want to actually look at something like assimilation that takes place over time.