Bernie appears to be a hypocrite on taxes

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What's interesting (in an appalling way), is that a US Senator who is running for President, is naming specific people and companies for "not paying their fair share", when those people and companies are doing the same exact thing that Bernie is doing.

It's not the "exact same thing" that Bernie is doing.

Sanders and his wife are taking the same basic deductions that tens of millions of people use to adjust their tax return.

He's accusing a small number of large corporations of abusing grey areas in the law to achieve massive tax avoidance, or influencing legislators to enable tax avoidance schemes.

It's not the same thing. As an actuarial with a class in religious studies I would have assumed you'd done the math.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not the "exact same thing" that Bernie is doing.

Sanders and his wife are taking the same basic deductions that tens of millions of people use to adjust their tax return.

He's accusing a small number of large corporations of abusing grey areas in the law to achieve massive tax avoidance, or influencing legislators to enable tax avoidance schemes.

It's not the same thing. As an actuarial with a class in religious studies I would have assumed you'd done the math.

In jims world it is the same spence. Just like a box of 100 chocolates with one bad one has the same odd as a billion to one chance of being caught in a terrorist attack.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

In jims world it is the same spence. Just like a box of 100 chocolates with one bad one has the same odd as a billion to one chance of being caught in a terrorist attack.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He deducted almost 10k for business related food expenses. Not everyone does that.

It is the same Bernie is using every legal means at his disposal to minimize his taxes. Because of that, he has no right to criticize anyone else for doing the same. Instead of calling out an actual tax dodger like Al Sharpton, Berne gets on his knees and kisses Sharpton's ring, just like every other Democratic candidate in the last 10 years.

Billion to one? Thousands of people are in the ground thanks to terrorists. How many people do you think live on this planet? How many do you think get killed by sharks?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not the "exact same thing" that Bernie is doing.

Sanders and his wife are taking the same basic deductions that tens of millions of people use to adjust their tax return.

He's accusing a small number of large corporations of abusing grey areas in the law to achieve massive tax avoidance, or influencing legislators to enable tax avoidance schemes.

It's not the same thing. As an actuarial with a class in religious studies I would have assumed you'd done the math.

"Sanders and his wife are taking the same basic deductions that tens of millions of people use to adjust their tax return."

Oh, I see. So "tens of millions of people" deduct $10,000 for food expenses like Bernie did? Because lord knows, there's no "grey area" when it comes to deciding whether or not a lunch is a 'business lunch'.

"abusing grey areas in the law"

One of his loudest complaints is that CEOs pay a lower effective rate than employees. That's bullsh*t, and you know it. The reason for that, is that wealthy people commonly receive a large share of taxable income from capital gains, which is taxed at a rate lower than wages (and for good reason). There is absolutely nohting grey, murky, or ambiguous about it. The IRS currently works for Chairman Barack, and they have decided that capital gains are to be taxed at a lower rate than wages. In case you can't connect the dots, that necessarily means that someone who gets their income from capital gains, will therefore pay a lower rate than someone who gets all their income from wages.

Is that going sufficiently too fast for you, that you can't grasp it, so you call it "grey"? It's pretty straightforward and intended.

Spence, I seem to recall a President in the late 1990's slashing capital gains tax rates significantly, and if memory serves, he had a (D) after his name, correct? Remember him, a gray-haired pervert? He was married at the time, and sure as hell, I don't recall his wife ever once bitching about her husband cutting capital gains tax rates. I also seem to recall that the economy took off, after those capital gains tax rates were cut. To the point that my golden retriever could have followed his nose into the local Wendys and walked out as an assistant manager. How about that?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, I see. So "tens of millions of people" deduct $10,000 for food expenses like Bernie did? Because lord knows, there's no "grey area" when it comes to deciding whether or not a lunch is a 'business lunch'.

I would think for someone who's on the go as much as a US Senator is coming up with 10k in qualified business meals wouldn't be that hard. I'd wager a lot of home office, self employed and small business owners go well beyond that.

One of his loudest complaints is that CEOs pay a lower effective rate than employees. That's bullsh*t, and you know it. The reason for that, is that wealthy people commonly receive a large share of taxable income from capital gains, which is taxed at a rate lower than wages (and for good reason). There is absolutely nohting grey, murky, or ambiguous about it. The IRS currently works for Chairman Barack, and they have decided that capital gains are to be taxed at a lower rate than wages. In case you can't connect the dots, that necessarily means that someone who gets their income from capital gains, will therefore pay a lower rate than someone who gets all their income from wages.

You're mixing up your outrages. The CEO gripe is primarily that they earn 300x of their workers. The effective tax rate gripe is about large corporations and hedge fund managers.

I think the CBO has studied earners above 700K and found their effective tax rate averages around 30%. It's the mega rich that are going further out of their way to avoid paying.

Is that going sufficiently too fast for you, that you can't grasp it, so you call it "grey"? It's pretty straightforward and intended.

Spence, I seem to recall a President in the late 1990's slashing capital gains tax rates significantly, and if memory serves, he had a (D) after his name, correct? Remember him, a gray-haired pervert? He was married at the time, and sure as hell, I don't recall his wife ever once bitching about her husband cutting capital gains tax rates. I also seem to recall that the economy took off, after those capital gains tax rates were cut. To the point that my golden retriever could have followed his nose into the local Wendys and walked out as an assistant manager. How about that?

The economy took off well before Clinton cut the capital gains rate due to the tech boom. It was the surge in revenues that afforded the opportunity combined with the pressure from the '94 House. If the tax cuts had such a magical impact you'd have thought they would have insulated the economy from the oncoming recession but...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I would think for someone who's on the go as much as a US Senator is coming up with 10k in qualified business meals wouldn't be that hard. I'd wager a lot of home office, self employed and small business owners go well beyond that.


You're mixing up your outrages. The CEO gripe is primarily that they earn 300x of their workers. The effective tax rate gripe is about large corporations and hedge fund managers.

I think the CBO has studied earners above 700K and found their effective tax rate averages around 30%. It's the mega rich that are going further out of their way to avoid paying.








The economy took off well before Clinton cut the capital gains rate due to the tech boom. It was the surge in revenues that afforded the opportunity combined with the pressure from the '94 House. If the tax cuts had such a magical impact you'd have thought they would have insulated the economy from the oncoming recession but...

"I would think for someone who's on the go as much as a US Senator"

You said he's doing what tens of millions of people do. Sorry if that sounds inaccurate, but you said it, not me.

"coming up with 10k in qualified business meals wouldn't be that hard"

"You're mixing up your outrages. The CEO gripe is primarily that they earn 300x of their workers."

No, sir. I hear him whining non-stop about their tax rates being too low. That's what "not paying their fair share" gets at.

As for income, for the VAST majority of large businesses, CEO compensation is nothing on the balance sheet. You know that. At least you should.

"The effective tax rate gripe is about large corporations and hedge fund managers"

First, wrong. He has whined many times that CEOs pay a lower rate than their secretaries. Second, if he doesn't like the tax rates, his beef is with his counterparts in DC who set those rates, not with people who use those rates, the same way he does, to minimize taxes.

"If the tax cuts had such a magical impact you'd have thought they would have insulated the economy from the oncoming recession "

Maybe they would have, except Clinton (not Bush) repealed Glass-Seagal, and THAT allowed banks to get involved in fishy investments. Please tell us where I am wrong on that. Go on...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Maybe they would have, except Clinton (not Bush) repealed Glass-Seagal, and THAT allowed banks to get involved in fishy investments. Please tell us where I am wrong on that. Go on...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ng-do-financi/

Sums up where you're wrong pretty well.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ng-do-financi/

Sums up where you're wrong pretty well.

Clinton says it wasn't his fault, that's good enough for me! I seem to recall he also said that he didn't touch Monica Lewinski.


Spence, th earticle you posted, also says this..."there isn’t a single what-caused-the-crisis narrative that every economist accepts"

Yet in another thread, you said Bush caused the crash. Where did you get that from?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I


The economy took off well before Clinton cut the capital gains rate ...

He cut capital gains taxes in 1997. Let's go to the numbers, shall we? GDP growth by year...

93 2.7
94 2.4
95 2.7
96 3.8
97 4.5 --> year of tax cut
98 4.5
99 4.7
00 4.1

No spike in GDP growth after the tax cut?

My intellect is only dizzying compared to some, to quote Buttercup...common sense only looks dizzying to those who turn their backs on common sense, every time common sense goes against their agenda.


http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by...DP-History.htm

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He cut capital gains taxes in 1997. Let's go to the numbers, shall we? GDP growth by year...

93 2.7
94 2.4
95 2.7
96 3.8
97 4.5 --> year of tax cut
98 4.5
99 4.7
00 4.1

No spike in GDP growth after the tax cut?

No.

You're an actuary right, someone who understands how trends would impact future performance?

How then does a tax cut magically impact the year it's implemented, GDP being calculated after the fact. Not to mention there's an already established vector? Not to mention the other variables that had a much larger impact on the economy like the tech boom.

It's time to fess up on your real job. Subway? Don't be ashamed, any work is respectable in my book.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No.

You're an actuary right, someone who understands how trends would impact future performance?

How then does a tax cut magically impact the year it's implemented, GDP being calculated after the fact. Not to mention there's an already established vector? Not to mention the other variables that had a much larger impact on the economy like the tech boom.

It's time to fess up on your real job. Subway? Don't be ashamed, any work is respectable in my book.

"How then does a tax cut magically impact the year it's implemented"

I didn't say it did. I said the economy took off after that tax cut. And I was correct.

"Not to mention there's an already established vector?"

There was? From 1993-1995 growth ws a steady +2.5% average for those three years. Not much of a vector there that I see. Please explain? Then yes, it shot up in 1997, I am not going to claim I know why, because i don't.

If in 3 years before th ecut, GDP grew by 2.7, 2.4, and 2.7, please tell me how that's an "established vector" by which anyone in their right mind would ssume that growth would shoot up to 4% or more, and stay there? I'm all ears.

"It's time to fess up on your real job. Subway?"

I was a sandwich artist in college! Great job...I also worked at headquarters in Milford CT, doing data mining (looking to see when coupons worked, seeing what impact weather had on sandwich sales, things like that). I learned to look for patterns, or "verctors" as you correctly called it.

Spence, you claim that the following data points:

2.7
2.4
2.7

constitute an increasing trend. And you question my ability to analyze data. What teacher told you that those points represent an upward vector?

Enjoy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you claim that the following data points:

2.7
2.4
2.7

constitute an increasing trend. And you question my ability to analyze data. What teacher told you that those points represent an upward vector?

A) Your numbers are wrong and B) your data range is too small. As a hogie assembling number cruncher you should have known this.