Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 266: Round 2 - The Discord in Concord

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtu.be/CaxSXVnBIdE?t=9747

Have fun yall

---

The one woman basically jumps off with I don't care about New Hampshire cuz it's a bunch of white people. Lol (in my paraphrase).

---

Trump "only cares" about the rich is an argument that won't work for a President who cut taxes across the board.

---

Reuters/Ipsos has been a huge outlier (with the yougovs) disproportionately against Trump. You can see it pretty regularly in the trump approval polls. Which is why I find it odd that Nate Silver further skews it further against Trump.

Sorry it was "Morning Consult".

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html#polls

-13
-15
-15
-11
-8
-15
-12
-11
-15
-18

If you take out Ipsos and Morning Consult out, barely any of the polls ever crack double digits.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Trump "only cares" about the rich is an argument that won't work for a President who cut taxes across the board.

He really didnt

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

He really didnt

So, I am rich?

---

I mean how much do you make

---

Person you are arguing with is an idiot, imo. I think you know this. The person sitting with the host.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I mean how much do you make

70-95k

---

Reminds me of when Peaf tried to argue he couldn't donate as much or he would lose money now due to the tax cuts, and I proved it empirically wrong with actual math.

---

Corrik7 posted...

70-95k

You make ~10-30% more than the median US income and ~30-40% more than the mean income, so you are technically "upper middle class".

---

Ah basically though while you get a small % it expires in 2025 while the business ones do not and deductions were screwed with and billionaires got more

You save 1.7% on taxes.
Top 5% saved 2.2%

If they had only saved 1.7% you could have been given a 7% tax break and the government would have benefited the same


---

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

As expected, no majority is the big winner today in 538s model. More surprisingly, Biden actually went up a bit!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

More surprisingly, Biden actually went up a bit!

nate check your model its drunk

---

xp1337 posted...

nate check your model its drunk

Eh Im not sure its wrong (and Bidens gain was marginal). I imagine its likely due to things like assuming Pete really needed to win NH, deciding Warrens done, etc; meanwhile, even though Bernie won, he underperformed his polls (and thus where the model thought he was). But the numbers need to add up to 100% somehow!

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Ah basically though while you get a small % it expires in 2025 while the business ones do not and deductions were screwed with and billionaires got more

You save 1.7% on taxes.
Top 5% saved 2.2%

If they had only saved 1.7% you could have been given a 7% tax break and the government would have benefited the same

1.7% is terribly far off.

The tax cuts expiring is there as incentive to make legislature to renew them. (or to make sure you vote in republicans to do so for you).

That said, a tax cut is a tax cut.

---

2016

taxable income 74278 (This is the only year I Itemized btw over the standard)

federal income tax owed 5069

13197 itemzed over the 9300 standard deduction. (Approximately $3897 over regular deduction)

If I had standardized

5069+974= $6043

2018
taxable income 71565

federal tax owed
$3245

2019

taxable income 83729

federal tax owed
$5821

Now to put it intro comparison.

2019 was $9451 more than 2016.

If I adjust it to 2016's taxable income by subtracting that money so 74728.

My taxes would have been. $2079 less than I paid.

$5821 - $2079.

Making it $3742 owed.

2016 - 2019

$5069 - $3742 = $1327 saved (and that's not even considering the nearly 4k over the deduction I itemized in the literally only year I could have ever done it due to buying my house with points on it and while my mortgage interest was high enough to make it matter for deductions).

So despite that, I saved $1327.

Where is the 1.7% you are getting?

That is 73.82% of the total taxes I paid in 2016.

---

I just listened to Biden's speech and it sounds very much like he is still interested in Nevada. Reports earlier of him moving on to SC might have been inaccurate.

I have absolutely no clue who is the favorite in Nevada now and I feel like the next 10 days won't bring much more certainty to things.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Reuters/Ipsos has been a huge outlier (with the yougovs) disproportionately against Trump. You can see it pretty regularly in the trump approval polls. Which is why I find it odd that Nate Silver further skews it further against Trump.

Sorry it was "Morning Consult".

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html#polls

-13
-15
-15
-11
-8
-15
-12
-11
-15
-18

If you take out Ipsos and Morning Consult out, barely any of the polls ever crack double digits.

Any site that weighs Rasmussen the same as actual reputable polls is full of shit.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Any site that weighs Rasmussen the same as actual reputable polls is full of shit.

Any site that skews the Yougov and Morning Consult (MC is a big one) further away from Trump when they are outlier polls (And adjusts the Ipsos simply 1 point towards trump) when they have established themselves as pretty much clear outliers makes you question the skewing on the polls as well.


---

Yougov isn't as much as an outlier as I thought it was. But as the Rasmussen is an outlier on favor of trump, the ipsos and morning Consult polls have established they are outliers against Trump. Yet the skew is against Trump in one and barely for Trump in the other while the Rasmussen is like a whopping 6 or 7% skew against Trump. Ipsos God bless them cuz I like Reuters has established it is just as much as an outlier as the Rasmussen when it comes to Trump.

---

I think it is safe to say you could be reliable in other polls but maybe have a bias against Trump in general. Chris' argument was citing a poll that is established as an outlier against Trump by polling trends. Hence, his favorable number he was touting. I am sure, you Chris, can understand the argument against you citing the ipsos in regards to Trump by looking at the approval polls.

---

Corrik7 posted...

2016

taxable income 74278 (This is the only year I Itemized btw over the standard)

federal income tax owed 5069

How do you figure? With that amount of taxable income your tentative tax owed in 2016 would have been $14,340.

Your TXI is determined after deductions and exemptions.

And then credits, etc get involved. Are you saying you claimed 9300 in credits in 2016?

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I just listened to Biden's speech and it sounds very much like he is still interested in Nevada. Reports earlier of him moving on to SC might have been malarkey.

---

And yes I will settle for... I understand the argument but respectfully disagree if you don't want to agree you decided to cite the most favorable poll you could have. Lol

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

How do you figure? With that amount of taxable income your tentative tax owed in 2016 would have been $14,340.

Your TXI is determined after deductions and exemptions.

And then credits, etc get involved. Are you saying you claimed 9300 in credits in 2016?

My taxable wages. Was the number I said. My agi after would be the taxable wages - the itemized deduction that year.

So 74278 - 13917 - dependents or whatever I had above.

---

My taxes owed is tax on agi - credit.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I just listened to Biden's speech and it sounds very much like he is still interested in Nevada. Reports earlier of him moving on to SC might have been malarkey.

https://twitter.com/ne0liberal/status/1223762020257992705

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html

The reason why you see so many of the poor didn't get a tax cut or see them represented as a minor cut in comparison to the top classes is because so many in the lower brackets already paid $0 in taxes. Or their income was so low that the amount was more negligible because they didn't make enough for the % increase to affect it much.

Chart in link.

You can't exactly tax less or much less on people who don't owe any taxes or owed very little from the start.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You can't exactly tax less or much less on people who don't owe any taxes or owed very little from the start.

Umm, yes, you can.

---

red13n posted...

Umm, yes, you can.

I owe $0. I now owe $0. I didn't get taxed less!

Uhhh. Lol.

Now you are getting into fully refundables in which the government pays you. That is nothing to do with tax owed. You are getting into basically entitlements at that point.

---

Basically the only scenario in which you are getting taxed more on your income is one in which you heavily itemized. And, frankly, they should probably audit lower class incomes that have heavy itemization to the point that they ended up owing more money after the tax cuts lol. It is almost absurd of an itemization amount on that income.

---

Corrik7 posted...

My taxable wages. Was the number I said. My agi after would be the taxable wages - the itemized deduction that year.

So 74278 - 13917 - dependents or whatever I had above.

Oh, so you are just using terms wrong, I see.

So you are referring to your Line 1 amount, TOTAL wages.

TAXABLE income is determined much lower on the form and your tentative tax amount comes directly from the tax tables.

I literally do this for a living.

And yes, a lot of people experienced slightly reduced total tax amounts as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But because withholding from paychecks was also affected many people did not feel it when they filed (and some even owed when they previously did not) but rather they received slightly more per paycheck in 2018/2019. That is why we just rolled out a new W-4 (which I currently am not a fan of) that asks different questions to try and get paycheck withholding in a more accurate position.

And yeah, taxes are complicated, but that doesn't mean you pass the PERMANENT tax cut to corporations and give the temporary tax cut to the middle class.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Uhhh. Lol.

Now you are getting into fully refundables in which the government pays you. That is nothing to do with tax owed. You are getting into basically entitlements at that point.

But you said owe little. Someone that owes $1 now owes $0. Success.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/ne0liberal/status/1223762020257992705

The reports of his campaign's death were grossly malarkeyed.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Oh, so you are just using terms wrong, I see.

So you are referring to your Line 1 amount, TOTAL wages.

TAXABLE income is determined much lower on the form and your tentative tax amount comes directly from the tax tables.

I literally do this for a living.

And yes, a lot of people experienced slightly reduced total tax amounts as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But because withholding from paychecks was also affected many people did not feel it when they filed (and some even owed when they previously did not) but rather they received slightly more per paycheck in 2018/2019. That is why we just rolled out a new W-4 (which I currently am not a fan of) that asks different questions to try and get paycheck withholding in a more accurate position.

And yeah, taxes are complicated, but that doesn't mean you pass the PERMANENT tax cut to corporations and give the temporary tax cut to the middle class.

Probably but you get the point. I was using the income after 401k and medical. Line 38 or whatever. Pre deductions and dependent exemptions. Obviously so I could compare it to a time that has different deduction and no exemptions.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I owe $0. I now owe $0. I didn't get taxed less!

Uhhh. Lol.

Now you are getting into fully refundables in which the government pays you. That is nothing to do with tax owed. You are getting into basically entitlements at that point.

and the TCJA significantly increased Additional Child Tax Credit such that the refundable portion is now a potential 1400 per child which is a large jump up. And as long as you earned enough income to have some tax then you could benefit from the total 2000 per child. Which is pretty BS by the way.

Oh you have almost no money? Here's 1400 per child!

Oh, you made 50,000 last year? Here's 1400 per child and we'll also remove 600 in tax per child! Which is still a net effect of +2000 refund.

Fuck poor people I guess.

---

I went from what 9300 standardized 16100ish dependents + $1000 credit.

To 18600? Standardized + $2100 credit? (Maybe the dependent credit is more than $50 for non kid can't remember). And with a % decrease as well.

I saved thousands pretty much which is well below a percent or two.

---

"Other Dependent Credit" is 500 non refundable per dependent that is not a qualifying child.

So again, are you very poor, but you have dependents older than 17 years old? Fuck you, you get nothing.

Oh, you make decent money and you have dependents older than 17 years old? Here, have 500 less taxes owed!

These are the priorities, I guess :/

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

and the TCJA significantly increased Additional Child Tax Credit such that the refundable portion is now a potential 1400 per child which is a large jump up. And as long as you earned enough income to have some tax then you could benefit from the total 2000 per child. Which is pretty BS by the way.

Oh you have almost no money? Here's 1400 per child!

Oh, you made 50,000 last year? Here's 1400 per child and we'll also remove 600 in tax per child! Which is still a net effect of +2000 refund.

Fuck poor people I guess.

Oh the argument is... We didn't pay less taxes on taxes we didn't pay to start? Fuck poor people. Got it.

Like, get real. You are saying the government should be subsidizing poor people. Not that is should be taxing them less.

So if that's your argument then make it your argument and stop acting like it's something else than it is.

---

Don't argue about tax cuts and taxed less when your real argument is not that.

---

No i'm saying the government is literally giving "well off" people $2000 per child and literally giving poor people $1400 per child.

Whether that is in the form of reducing the well off person's tax by $2000 (thus allowing them to get a refund from what is now excess withholding) or not, the result is the same.

I'm saying if it's worth it for the government to determine "raising a child means you deserve X" in benefits, why is it the the worst off among us get less?

---

Taxing people that make less money less is the real argument.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

No i'm saying the government is literally giving "well off" people $2000 per child and literally giving poor people $1400 per child.

Whether that is in the form of reducing the well off person's tax by $2000 (thus allowing them to get a refund from what is now excess withholding) or not, the result is the same.

I'm saying if it's worth it for the government to determine "raising a child means you deserve X" in benefits, why is it the the worst off among us get less?

They are going into negative tax and being paid in that scenario. That isn't being mistreated. If anything, that is a handout. We aren't being handed $2000. We are being taxed less, the same as they would be also if they were paying that much, which they aren't.


---

red13n posted...

Taxing people that make less money less is the real argument.

You are arguing that being taxed $0 and being taxed $0 now is bullshit. It can't be less. There is nothing to tax less.

---

Corrik is very simpleminded when it comes to these things FD. Did x thing help him? If yes then it is good, if no then it is bad. It doesn't matter if the tax cut gave the super rich a much higher percentage off than anyone else, he got his small tax cut so he is happy. Who cares about the poor who get nothing from the mass amount of money these tax cuts will cost the government, he got his extra bit of money out of it so he is happy.

---

Corrik7 posted...

They are going into negative tax and being paid in that scenario. That isn't being mistreated. If anything, that is a handout. We aren't being handed $2000. We are being taxed less, the same as they would be also if they were paying that much, which they aren't.

Why is the $2000 a handout only if it would bring someones tax burden below 0?

If the government sent everybody a check in the mail for the amount rather than making it a deduction its not functionally any different, but your categorization treats them as different things.

---

Corrik7 posted...

We aren't being handed $2000.

You are being handed back$2000 that the government would otherwise have kept.

How do you not see it's the same?

---

hockeydude15 posted...

Corrik is very simpleminded when it comes to these things FD. Did x thing help him? If yes then it is good, if no then it is bad. It doesn't matter if the tax cut gave the super rich a much higher percentage off than anyone else, he got his small tax cut so he is happy. Who cares about the poor who get nothing from the mass amount of money these tax cuts will cost the government, he got his extra bit of money out of it so he is happy.

A .1% tax cut to the super rich is more than a 50% tax cut to me. It's like common sense.

---

Eh, it's late and I have to be up early for my job at the IRS. I'll straighten corrik out some other time.

---