Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
How many times did this happen under Obama leadership?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="k4ylr" data-source="post: 3191428" data-attributes="member: 40231"><p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/30/two-charts-show-trumps-job-gains-are-just-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/#60075ed41af3" target="_blank">Like when you compare them out as a trend like Forbes has done?</a> They're great jobs numbers. Full stop. But being misleading is really disingenuous. They're literally following the same trend; <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/01/04/312000-jobs-added-in-december-manufacturing-growing-714-faster-under-trump-than-obama/#34ac7a425b50" target="_blank">and quite close over all, outside of Manufacturing.</a></p><p></p><p>Also, the 70% tax isn't a flat tax. We have a progressive tax system. AOC isn't going to take a flat 70 cents of your dollar. The 70% bracket is for income <em>above a certain threshold</em>. I know progressive tax systems are convoluted and the US does a poor job of explaining it to people but c'mon guys; getting your jimmies rustled and puffing your chests because "lol dems so stupid" when you're missing the point is disappointing and in bad faith.</p><p></p><p>On top of that; the <em>vast</em> majority of people that would affect, are sheltered since their income is generally cap gains; which is taxed at a paltry sum when compared to yours or my income <em>via wages.</em> The ultra-wealthy, which this plan is aimed at, don't got time for <em>wages</em>; they are rolling in passive income, which funny enough, also got a massive deduction in the tax bill.</p><p></p><p>So, if she's aiming it wages, it's likely to not accomplish anything at all. If it's going after capital gains and pass-through income, it'll actually have some teeth.</p><p></p><p>Thus,all of your wages are unaffected, unless you somehow are rolling in massive wage incomes; you might be affected.</p><p></p><p>And the whole call out for the market being up is a poor attempt at trying to fluff already good numbers and is more of a foot in mouth scenario. The market got annihilated by the end of 2018 and had one of the worst Decembers on record. I highly doubt anybody here finished in the green in their accounts unless you were inverse leveraged heavily (props to your broker), shorted the markets or only held cash.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="k4ylr, post: 3191428, member: 40231"] [URL='https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/30/two-charts-show-trumps-job-gains-are-just-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/#60075ed41af3']Like when you compare them out as a trend like Forbes has done?[/URL] They're great jobs numbers. Full stop. But being misleading is really disingenuous. They're literally following the same trend; [URL='https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/01/04/312000-jobs-added-in-december-manufacturing-growing-714-faster-under-trump-than-obama/#34ac7a425b50']and quite close over all, outside of Manufacturing.[/URL] Also, the 70% tax isn't a flat tax. We have a progressive tax system. AOC isn't going to take a flat 70 cents of your dollar. The 70% bracket is for income [I]above a certain threshold[/I]. I know progressive tax systems are convoluted and the US does a poor job of explaining it to people but c'mon guys; getting your jimmies rustled and puffing your chests because "lol dems so stupid" when you're missing the point is disappointing and in bad faith. On top of that; the [I]vast[/I] majority of people that would affect, are sheltered since their income is generally cap gains; which is taxed at a paltry sum when compared to yours or my income [I]via wages.[/I] The ultra-wealthy, which this plan is aimed at, don't got time for [I]wages[/I]; they are rolling in passive income, which funny enough, also got a massive deduction in the tax bill. So, if she's aiming it wages, it's likely to not accomplish anything at all. If it's going after capital gains and pass-through income, it'll actually have some teeth. Thus,all of your wages are unaffected, unless you somehow are rolling in massive wage incomes; you might be affected. And the whole call out for the market being up is a poor attempt at trying to fluff already good numbers and is more of a foot in mouth scenario. The market got annihilated by the end of 2018 and had one of the worst Decembers on record. I highly doubt anybody here finished in the green in their accounts unless you were inverse leveraged heavily (props to your broker), shorted the markets or only held cash. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
How many times did this happen under Obama leadership?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom