1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#402 Jan 16 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They made money because most of the companies didn't fail (over 3/4ths didn't). So on total, they made more money than they lost because on total they saved more companies than they didn't.]


You seem pretty confident in this.

Please list every company Bain invested in and their +/- for each.

You do have that info, right? To back your statement up?


Huh? No. I don't.


Here's a crazy thought: If you can't back up a flat, declarative statement DON'T MAKE IT.


*cough* I didn't claim that I knew the details of dollars gained/lost by every single company Bain invested in. You injected that little strawman all by yourself.

What I claimed was that over 3/4ths of the companies Bain invested in did not fail. And I provided data to back that up.

Quote:
In case you're missing the point, I could give two sh*ts about Bain's profit/loss.


Then why bother asking about it? Seems like you cared a bit right up until I linked the WSJ article which supported everything I said. Now suddenly it doesn't matter that the cases being made were not typical results of Bain's work and that those attacking Romney on this are omitting facts in order to misconstrue what really went on? Seemed to me like that was the key issue.

Quote:
I do care when people make statements they claim to be true and can't back them up. Where I'm from, that's called "making things up"...or - y'know - lying.


I said that over 3/4ths of the companies they invested in didn't fail. That statement wasn't made up.

I also said that they made most of their money by saving companies and not by making them fail. I also didn't make that up (it's in the WSJ article as well).


So wtf are you talking about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#403 Jan 16 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
What I claimed was that over 3/4ths of the companies Bain invested in did not fail. And I provided data to back that up.
No, you provided an article that clearly states it doesn't have any investment info from Bain because they won't release it. What the article has is an admitted "best guess" based on a German banks' info regarding less than 100% of Bains' total investments. "Data" would be *all* the numbers from *all* the investments.

You literally have no way of knowing if the unreported 10% involved investment in a single company or hundreds of them. You also have no way of knowing if they were successes of failures.
gbaji wrote:
Seems like you cared a bit right up until I linked the WSJ article which supported everything I said.
Actually I didn't read the article until just now, as I failed to notice the link.

The only way that article supports your "3/4" claim is if you automatically assume that Bain is telling the absolute truth.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#404 Jan 16 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What I claimed was that over 3/4ths of the companies Bain invested in did not fail. And I provided data to back that up.
No, you provided an article that clearly states it doesn't have any investment info from Bain because they won't release it.


And which also clearly states that they do know what percentage of businesses succeeded or failed *and* which percentage of businesses that Bain made the greatest profits from succeeded or failed. And that data supported the statement I made.

You're demanding information which isn't required for me to support my position, then trying to insist that I was wrong because I can't provide it. Kinda iffy logic IMO.

Quote:
What the article has is an admitted "best guess" based on a German banks' info regarding less than 100% of Bains' total investments. "Data" would be *all* the numbers from *all* the investments.


Er? What the article has is information about what happened to the companies Bain invested in. Given the accusations of so-called "vulture capitalism", this would seem to be incredibly relevant information. If someone's arguing that Bain's methodology for making money was to essentially strip companies of everything of value, sell it off, and then let them go belly up, data showing that over 3/4ths of the companies Bain invested in didn't go bankrupt is sufficient to show that this *wasn't* their standard methodology.

As I said earlier, if they had some magical means to make money by causing companies to fail, wouldn't they have caused them all to fail? Occam's razor suggests that Bain was trying to save those companies, but were not always able to do so. It makes no sense to assume that they somehow intentionally caused them to fail.

Quote:
You literally have no way of knowing if the unreported 10% involved investment in a single company or hundreds of them.


Um... Ok. And that literally has no relevance to the broader statements I made.

Quote:
You also have no way of knowing if they were successes of failures.


Huh? Of course I do. So does the WSJ. While the internal details of a bankruptcy may not always be publicly available, the fact that one occurs *is*. Ergo, we absolutely can look at the ratio of companies invested in, to bankruptcies which resulted. Do you think that the WSJ was just guessing? Did you bother to read the article?



Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Seems like you cared a bit right up until I linked the WSJ article which supported everything I said.
Actually I didn't read the article until just now, as I failed to notice the link.

The only way that article supports your "3/4" claim is if you automatically assume that Bain is telling the absolute truth.


Um... Or by looking up which companies filed for bankruptcy. Are you really unaware of this, or are you deliberately pretending to be so as to avoid admitting you are wrong?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#405 Jan 16 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
****
4,395 posts
Its amazing. I haven't read here in ages and it took me a few seconds to figure out what has been going on the past few years.

What a bunch of humps.
____________________________
I voted for the other guy.
#406 Jan 16 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Tacosid wrote:
Its amazing. I haven't read here in ages and it took me a few seconds to figure out what has been going on the past few years.

What a bunch of humps.


A few seconds? You're slowing down old man!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#407 Jan 16 2012 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
****
4,395 posts
I blame it on 10 years teacing public school. In the past I could have had it pegged just by typing the forum url.

As always I hope the GOP picks up a supermajority in the house and senate and sends Obama the way of Jimmy Carter.
____________________________
I voted for the other guy.
#408 Jan 16 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
I wrote:
You literally have no way of knowing if the unreported 10% involved investment in a single company or hundreds of them.
Um... Ok. And that literally has no relevance to the broader statements I made.
Of course it does. If the unreported 10% involved 40 small companies and they all were closed (regardless of profit or loss) then your 75% statement is wrong.

Are you really that dense?





And again, since you seem to be unable to grasp this: A WSJ article is not *data*.

____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#409 Jan 16 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,000 posts
Silly Bijou, anything Gbaji wants to be data is data, like anecdotes.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#410 Jan 16 2012 at 9:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I wrote:
You literally have no way of knowing if the unreported 10% involved investment in a single company or hundreds of them.
Um... Ok. And that literally has no relevance to the broader statements I made.
Of course it does. If the unreported 10% involved 40 small companies and they all were closed (regardless of profit or loss) then your 75% statement is wrong.


Except that the report says that the "unreported" 10% was for investments which were not buyout investments. So we could speculate that they lost money investing that 10% in random small businesses, but since those investments were not controlling or even large share investments, we can't say that they somehow used those investments to cause those companies to fail (with some undefined means of somehow making money on this to boot!).

So that 10% in no way affects my point, right? Keep your eye on the ball here. I'm countering arguments that Bain invested in companies and then deliberately caused them to fail somehow. That can only even theoretically be possible in the investments in which they took an active controlling role over.

Quote:
Are you really that dense?


No. I discounted that 10% because it's irrelevant to the "vulture capitalism" claim being examined. Do you see how? You're grasping at straws.

Edited, Jan 16th 2012 7:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#411 Jan 16 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Except that the report says that the "unreported" 10% was for investments which were not buyout investments.
You mean this?
WSJ wrote:
For its analysis, the Journal used a list of 77 Bain investments inked from 1984 through 1998 that were included in a document that a unit of Deutsche Bank AG circulated in 2000, while soliciting participants in a fund to invest with Bain. The document—which cites Bain as a source—appears to be the most authoritative available for Bain's activities, and says that the deals accounted for about 90% of the money Bain invested during that period. The Journal obtained updated information from a similar 2004 prospectus.


If you're not referencing that, please quote what you are referencing.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#412 Jan 17 2012 at 6:47 AM Rating: Excellent
From Colbert's PAC:

____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#413 Jan 17 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Romney today told reporters that his income tax rate was "probably" about 15%.

For comparison, that's the average rate paid for a single filer at $38,700 or a married family (filing jointly) at $77,500.

Edited, Jan 17th 2012 1:51pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#414 Jan 17 2012 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except that the report says that the "unreported" 10% was for investments which were not buyout investments.
You mean this?
WSJ wrote:
For its analysis, the Journal used a list of 77 Bain investments inked from 1984 through 1998 that were included in a document that a unit of Deutsche Bank AG circulated in 2000, while soliciting participants in a fund to invest with Bain. The document—which cites Bain as a source—appears to be the most authoritative available for Bain's activities, and says that the deals accounted for about 90% of the money Bain invested during that period. The Journal obtained updated information from a similar 2004 prospectus.


If you're not referencing that, please quote what you are referencing.


Sigh... I forget that you have bad eyes.

the next paragraph wrote:
The list focused on larger "private equity" investments—typically deals in which Bain took control of a business, or in some cases worked with another buyout firm to do so, aiming to improve the target business's performance. Deutsche Bank lumped into a single line all of Bain's investments of less than $2 million and those that were more of a venture-capital nature, which generally involved buying minority stakes in promising small companies such as Staples.


The remaining 10% not included in that document were not of the same sort of "buy out failing companies" investments that is the heart of the discussion here. They were normal "buy some shares of a company we think is going to do well all on its own" type of investment.

Given that the claim is that Bain bought controlling interests in failing companies and then somehow deliberately made them fail in order to somehow make money, we should only look at cases where they were buying controlling interests in companies. It just seems silly to even speculate that there's some conspiracy to hide something in that other 10%, and even more silly to assume that since the spending that matches the pattern we're looking at doesn't support the claims being made, that something untoward must have been going on with that other set of investments.


You're starting with the assumption that something sinister was done and then looking for it. And when you don't find it where it would be if there was anything to find, you're speculating that it must be hidden somewhere. At what point do you maybe conclude that the assumption you started with is wrong? Or heck. Start by looking at the available facts and *then* draw a conclusion, rather than the other way around? Just a suggestion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#415 Jan 17 2012 at 3:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Romney today told reporters that his income tax rate was "probably" about 15%.

For comparison, that's the average rate paid for a single filer at $38,700 or a married family (filing jointly) at $77,500.


That's the average top rate. That's *not* the average total income tax as a percentage of their total income. You do understand how income tax rates are applied, right? I'm a single filer making over 100k. Last year my total income taxes was 17% of my total income. I can guarantee you that a single filer earning 40k pays closer to 8-10% in actual income taxes.

I'll also speculate that while the term "income tax rate" is used, Romney was probably talking about the total federal taxes paid. Much of which is certainly capital gains. I'm not aware that Romney has a day job for which he earns a salary. Apples to oranges.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#416 Jan 17 2012 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hahahaha.... no. But good work getting it wrong. Gotta circle those wagons post-haste, no time for facts!

The top rate for those income brackets is 25%. The AVERAGE rate for those amounts is 15%.

Here's a calculator that lets you see for yourself. Enter in $38,700 for single filer (which puts you in the 25% bracket) and... Presto-Chango! 15% tax as percentage of income!

Quote:
You do understand how income tax rates are applied, right?

Well, one of us does. Too bad it's not the Romney acolyte Smiley: laugh

Now, what it doesn't include is deductions. Hence my saying that it's the average rate paid at $38,700; i.e. at $38,700 of taxable income. You may wind up making more than and getting some breaks through deductions but that varies from person to person.

Edit: If you actually only paid 17% average income tax, that would mean you declared $48,500 in taxable income. Or a significant portion of your earnings were taxed as something besides standard income.

Edited, Jan 17th 2012 4:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#417 Jan 17 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hahahaha.... no. But good work getting it wrong. Gotta circle those wagons post-haste, no time for facts!

The top rate for those income brackets is 25%. The AVERAGE rate for those amounts is 15%.


Uh... Only barely Joph. Forgive me for not checking the exact cutoff. For a single filer, the tax bracket is 10% on the first 8.5k, then 15% up to 34.5k. Then that last 3.2k is taxed at 25%. So while you're correct that his top rate is 25%, the bulk of his taxes is going to be paid at 15% or lower. I was off by a few thousand on the bracket cutoff. Big deal.

Quote:
Now, what it doesn't include is deductions.


Yeah. That's kinda significant, given that deductions come off the top dollar amounts first, right? So $5.8k in deductions drops that guy down to 22.9k and he's no longer in the 25% bracket at all anymore. Even standard deductions become significant at low to mid income levels. Add to that potential EITC (might not apply at these particular levels though), and other tax credits, and it's not uncommon for that tax rate to actually be much much lower.

I can't find the article right at the moment, but I seem to recall we already discussed this. The "effective income tax rate" (which is the most relevant because it's what you actually pay relative to your income) is much lower than the tax brackets would indicate. The average for those earning less than 50k is under 10%.

Even just taking the standard deduction, with no other credits involved, that hypothetical person with 38.7k income would only pay taxes on 32.9k. That would result in $4,510 in tax. That is 11% of the $48.7k original total. And that's the highest real percentage tax rate possible. Many (most) will pay less.

Quote:
Hence my saying that it's the average rate paid at $38,700; i.e. at $38,700 of taxable income. You may wind up making more than and getting some breaks through deductions but that varies from person to person.


But that actual average is lower than just assuming all their income is taxable. And if you're really just looking at taxable income, then you're playing games with the numbers because the *actual* earnings of any given person would be higher than what you're talking about.

Quote:
Edit: If you actually only paid 17% average income tax, that would mean you declared $48,500 in taxable income. Or a significant portion of your earnings were taxed as something besides standard income.


Huh? Are you smoking crack? Assuming I start with a total $100 in income, 17% is $17,000. To pay that much tax, you must report $83,500 (plug it into the calculator if you're unsure). So I started at $100k and managed to get $16,500 in deductions (mortgage deduction mostly). It's not rocket science Joph.

Even if I'd done nothing but take a standard deduction, I'd have paid taxes on $94,200, resulting is just under 20% total tax rate.

Edited, Jan 17th 2012 4:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#418 Jan 17 2012 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uh... Only barely Joph. Forgive me for not checking the exact cutoff.

So you're saying that, as usual, you decided to go into your cute little lecture mode without having a clue.

Understood. I'd say "Don't let it happen again" but who are we fooling Smiley: laugh
Quote:
Huh? Are you smoking crack? Assuming I start with a total $100 in income, 17% is $17,000. To pay that much tax, you must report $83,500 (plug it into the calculator if you're unsure). So I started at $100k and managed to get $16,500 in deductions (mortgage deduction mostly). It's not rocket science Joph.

So you didn't have $100k in taxable income. You had $83,500 in taxable income, upon which you paid 20.36% in taxes.

Wow, you really didn't understand this at all, did you? Well, at least you didn't embarrass yourself trying to lecture us all about it! Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jan 17th 2012 5:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#419 Jan 17 2012 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uh... Only barely Joph. Forgive me for not checking the exact cutoff.

So you're saying that, as usual, you decided to go into your cute little lecture mode without having a clue.


And you, as usual, are patting yourself on the back for playing word games. Whatever.

Quote:
Quote:
Huh? Are you smoking crack? Assuming I start with a total $100 in income, 17% is $17,000. To pay that much tax, you must report $83,500 (plug it into the calculator if you're unsure). So I started at $100k and managed to get $16,500 in deductions (mortgage deduction mostly). It's not rocket science Joph.

So you didn't have $100k in taxable income. You had $83,500 in taxable income, upon which you paid 20.36% in taxes.


I didn't say I made $100k in taxable income. I said I was a single filer earning over $100k (just over in this case). You get that most people express their income in total income and *not* taxable income? More to the point, when Romney said he paid about $15%, do you think he's talking about relative to taxable income or total income? ****. When people argue how little "the rich" pay, don't they complain about unfair deductions and tax shelters? Aren't those people arguing about taxes paid as a share of total income and not just taxable income?

Now, suddenly you're going to inject a term which no one else uses when arguing about whether someone's paying enough or too much taxes? You're kidding, right?


And just for fun, why don't you tell me where you got that $38,700 number Joph? Is that some sort of average or median income number? And is it supposed to represent total income, or taxable income?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#420 Jan 17 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And you, as usual, are patting yourself on the back for playing word games. Whatever.

I guess when you're confused and trying to cover for your ignorance, talking about stuff accurately counts as "word games". Smiley: laugh

Quote:
I didn't say I made $100k in taxable income.

So saying you paid 17% taxes on it was inaccurate. Especially since you referred to the calculator which states "To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000..."

So saying "Put in $83,500 and you'll see how it's only $17,000 and so that's only 17% of $100k!!" was pretty fucking retarded, wasn't it?

Oh, I'm sorry. I was using some real math there so I guess it was just "word games" Smiley: frown

Quote:
When people argue how little "the rich" pay, don't they complain about unfair deductions and tax shelters?

Your argument is that it's wrong for people to mention lowering your taxable income via "unfair deductions and tax shelters" when discussing "the rich" not paying their fair share of taxes? This was your go-to argument to try to cover you not knowing what you were talking about? Really? Want a do-over on that one?

Quote:
And just for fun, why don't you tell me where you got that $38,700 number Joph?

I put in a plausible seeming number and jiggered it until I hit 15% average taxes. And I already clarified that it was taxable income. Remember? Then you started crying about "word games"? It was only a post ago... look it up!

Edited, Jan 17th 2012 6:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#421 Jan 17 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
And just because you seem to have lost track of what you're arguing against, here's what I originally said:

gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Romney today told reporters that his income tax rate was "probably" about 15%.

For comparison, that's the average rate paid for a single filer at $38,700 or a married family (filing jointly) at $77,500.


That's the average top rate. That's *not* the average total income tax as a percentage of their total income.


Note, I was not speaking of the percentage of taxable income paid. That would be a silly argument given that no one's disputing the actual tax brackets, but what people actually pay relative to the total amount of money they actually earn.

Quote:
You do understand how income tax rates are applied, right? I'm a single filer making over 100k. Last year my total income taxes was 17% of my total income.


Were you really confused by that statement and thought I said total income but really meant "taxable income"? Why? What possible reason would there be to argue about relative taxable income? ****. If that's your argument than "the rich" *always* pay a higher tax rate, right? The assumed argument for Romney (or any rich person) not paying enough is that he uses deductions, credits, and shelters to avoid paying his fair share.

If it was just about taxable income, then there's nothing to argue about.

Quote:
I can guarantee you that a single filer earning 40k pays closer to 8-10% in actual income taxes.


Yeah. And actual data from the IRS bears this out btw. Again though, we have to look at the actual income rate (meaning incomes taxes as a percentage of total income).

Quote:
I'll also speculate that while the term "income tax rate" is used, Romney was probably talking about the total federal taxes paid. Much of which is certainly capital gains. I'm not aware that Romney has a day job for which he earns a salary. Apples to oranges.



Funny also that you just ran right past this, even though this is the far more relevant point. Most (all?) of Romney's earnings are in the form of capital gains. We can argue about the relative tax that results, but that's a total different argument than comparing that number directly to someone's income tax rate. But you knew that, which is presumably why you avoided the subject.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#422 Jan 17 2012 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
And just because you seem to have lost track of what you're arguing against

Right, so you just misunderstood the whole thing from the top. Why didn't you just say so? You were responding TO ME with inaccurate numbers. I wasn't arguing with you, you just came in and responded to my post by lecturing about stuff you never understood. And now you cry about me not responding the way you wanted when you never even understood what you were responding to Smiley: laugh

Here's a tip: Next time you want to say "You do know" or "You do understand" or any variant, just don't. You never come across seeming more knowledgeable and usually just make everyone laugh at you. Maybe you can find a Firefox plug-in or something to block you from entering that text string.

Edited, Jan 17th 2012 6:37pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#423 Jan 17 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I guess when you're confused and trying to cover for your ignorance, talking about stuff accurately counts as "word games".


Accurately? Really? So when I say that I paid X% of my total income in taxes and then you pretend that I said taxable income instead, that to you is accurate? Smiley: lol

Quote:
Quote:
I didn't say I made $100k in taxable income.

So saying you paid 17% taxes on it was inaccurate. Especially since you referred to the calculator which states "To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000..."


And? I'm well aware that the tax brackets are applied to "taxable income". But if that's the only number we're allowed to discuss, then what the **** are you arguing? So Buffet earned zero (income) taxable income, so by your argument he's poor and shouldn't pay any taxes, right? Why then are people arguing that him (or Romney) paying 15% is low?


Could it be that people are talking about the percentage of "total income" (or total earnings)? Isn't that what this entire debate is about? WTF?

Quote:
So saying "Put in $83,500 and you'll see how it's only $17,000 and so that's only 17% of $100k!!" was pretty fucking retarded, wasn't it?


No, it wasn't. Because I'm talking about what percentage of my total income I paid in taxes. I have no f'ing clue what the **** you're talking about. I didn't earn $83,500 dollars last year Joph. I earned $100k (actually more like $103, but whatever). Taxable income is a made up number based on the current tax rules. Assuming we're debating the fairness of those rules then isn't it kinda stupid to look only at taxable income?

Quote:
Oh, I'm sorry. I was using some real math there so I guess it was just "word games" Smiley: frown


No. You were playing word games. What else do you call it when I say "total income" and you change that to "taxable income" and argue about that instead? I said precisely what I intended to say. You tried to pretend I said something different. What is that if not a word game?

Quote:
Quote:
When people argue how little "the rich" pay, don't they complain about unfair deductions and tax shelters?

Your argument is that it's wrong for people to mention lowering your taxable income via "unfair deductions and tax shelters" when discussing "the rich" not paying their fair share of taxes? This was your go-to argument to try to cover you not knowing what you were talking about? Really? Want a do-over on that one?



Um... Isn't that assumed when someone argues that Romney paying only 15% is somehow wrong? What else could they be arguing about? It can't be about taxable income and the tax brackets, because that doesn't allow a rich person to pay a lower rate than a poor person. It's only when you compare total income/earnings to total taxes paid that this case can happen, so how can it be wrong to look at that total income to total tax comparison.


I'll ask again: Do you think that the 15% Romney paid was the result of applying his "taxable income" against the tax calculator you linked? If not, then isn't there more to this than just those things?

Quote:
Quote:
And just for fun, why don't you tell me where you got that $38,700 number Joph?

I put in a plausible seeming number and jiggered it until I hit 15% average taxes. And I already clarified that it was taxable income. Remember? Then you started crying about "word games"? It was only a post ago... look it up!


So even though the discussion is clearly about total taxes paid on total income you decided to use taxable income instead? Why? What possible argument could you have been trying to make here?


Edited, Jan 17th 2012 5:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#424 Jan 17 2012 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh

Spin harder, Professor.

Sorry, no point by point. You already made my argument for me. Go ahead now and comfort yourself by saying "See!? I won!" while everyone laughs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#425 Jan 17 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Sigh. Let's do this again:

gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Romney today told reporters that his income tax rate was "probably" about 15%.

For comparison, that's the average rate paid for a single filer at $38,700 or a married family (filing jointly) at $77,500.


That's the average top rate. That's *not* the average total income tax as a percentage of their total income. You do understand how income tax rates are applied, right? I'm a single filer making over 100k. Last year my total income taxes was 17% of my total income. I can guarantee you that a single filer earning 40k pays closer to 8-10% in actual income taxes.



I'm sorry. Could you show me where you specified that you were speaking only of "taxable income"? You didn't. I, on the other hand, was very clear that I was speaking of total income.


You're making this up after the fact Joph (or you're incredibly confused). Using taxable income as your measurement makes no **** sense. Do you think that Romney paid 15% of his "taxable income" or his "total income"? Total, right? So why would you compare it to income tax rates paid by various other "taxable income" levels? That doesn't even make sense.



If you actually intended to make your argument using taxable income, then you were deliberately making a false comparison. It's irrelevant what 15% works out to in terms of taxable income. You, I, and everyone reading this knows you were making a comparison to relative wealth/income and suggesting that someone with a lowish middle class salary pays as much in relative taxes as Romney. But that's not true at all, is it? So stop playing word games and be honest here.


The 15% Romney paid is relative to his total income. That's much more equivalent to what someone earning a high 5 figure salary would pay relative to his total income. And there's nothing wrong with that. You don't hear me complaining that I paid a 2% higher total tax rate than Romney did, do you? Yet you're perpetuating the false argument that a bunch of poor people should be upset because they pay a higher rate. But they don't. You know it. I know it. Everyone who's honest about this issue knows it. But you repeat the falsehood anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#426 Jan 17 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
I'm more amused by Romney saying that he's made some money, not a lot, from speaking fees and such.

Estimate of speaking fees he's made is about $360,000.

I guess when you have $200 million dollars, that's not a lot of money, but that's more than I've made in my entire adult life so far.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (57)