patrick.net

Aphroman says

Patrick is this true? Where can we go to read your new rules?

Are we supposed to mark trolling posts as personal?

@Aphroman the rules are here:

https://patrick.net/post/1315267/2018-04-14-patrick-net-moderation-policy

Please don't mark a post as personal unless it is personally about another user. The tipoff is usually the word "you".

LeonDurham says

Since the 1% don't earn wages, they get compensated in other ways

Actually, most of the 1% in terms of income do earn wages. Lots of doctors and lawyers in there. And the majority of people are in the 1% of income at some point in their lives, so I've heard.

The important point, never mentioned in the press, is that the distribution of assets is spectacularly more lopsided than the distribution in incomes.



Income is pretty much irrelevant.

The Trump plan is not driving down wages. It just isn't doing anything to stop the trend. I doubt there is much that any lefty or righty policy can do. The 1% are doing well by it though.

HowdyThere says

The Trump plan is not driving down wages. It just isn't doing anything to stop the trend. I doubt there is much that any lefty or righty policy can do. The 1% are doing well by it though.

I think this is partially to mostly true. But it is striking how much real wages have gone down since the Trump tax plan went into effect.

Patrick says

Lots of doctors and lawyers in there

The vast majority of lawyers in the top 1% aren't there because of their wages....

LeonDurham says

I'm not sure how to explain this to you any more clearly. The entire quote from the CBO is what I keep showing you. The source you posted conveniently left off the end of the quote.

You're still confused, I guess we'll have to go back to square one. You're mixing up the two articles and data

I posted Two different articles from Two different sources with the same result. I didn't leave anything out, so I'll requote each one for you:

The first one, from the BEA, I highlighted the questionable sentence in bold:

MrMagic says

How's this for DATA:

Personal income increased $60.0 billion (0.4 percent) in May according to estimates released today by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Disposable personal income (DPI) increased $63.2 billion (0.4 percent)
and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $27.8 billion (0.2 percent).

The increase in personal income in May primarily reflected increases in wages and salaries, personal dividend
income, and nonfarm proprietors’ income.

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm

Now, the second one, from Investors and data from the CBO:

MrMagic says

Income Tax Revenues Are Up 9% This Year .

The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

The CBO says the gain "largely reflects increases in wages and salaries."

The Treasury Department, which issues a separate monthly report, says it expects federal revenues will continue to exceed last year's for the rest of the 2018 fiscal year.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/income-tax-revenues-trump-tax-cuts-economic-growth/

See, in both comments, the sentences are intact and complete, you're confusion comes from not understanding that one came from the BEA and one from the CBO. They both had the same end conclusions, wages and salaries have risen, contrary to your OP.

Do you see the difference in the two sentences yet and the two articles from two different sources?

Then you post this:

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

The CBO says the gain "largely reflects increases in wages and salaries."

Funny you left off the last part of that sentence. Why is that?

Could it be because you're trolling?

So, you'll insinuate that I'm a liar and a troll because you're having difficulties with reading comprehension between two different articles.. That's OK, you can call me a troll, everyone here knows that's just projecting. I know how important the OP was, since it was an opinion hit piece coming from the Trump hating Liberal Bloomberg, and that's really important to keep promoting that narrative.

lol--the CBO didn't comment on it at all, it was almost certainly the BEA. So, the article you posted actually got the source and the quote wrong.

Again that's called source bias.

MrMagic says

So, you'll insinuate that I'm a liar and a troll because you're having difficulties with reading comprehension between two different articles.. That's OK, you can call me a troll, everyone here knows that's just projecting. I know how important the OP was, since it was an opinion hit piece coming from the Trump hating Liberal Bloomberg, and that's really important to keep promoting that narrative.

No, I stated that the source you posted is biased and wrong. Then I wondered why it is that you didn't link to it so we could read the entire article and see what the source is.

LeonDurham says

No, I stated that the source you posted is biased and wrong.

So, you're insinuating that sentence didn't come from the CBO and I'm lying?

LeonDurham says

Then I wondered why it is that you didn't link to it so we could read the entire article and see what the source is.

You don't see the hyperlinks to both articles?

MrMagic says

Because it's not backed by facts or links, just ypur hyperbole.

Lol!, thanks for the laugh: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/55-percent-of-americans-cant-describe-a-w-4-tax-form.html

MrMagic says

Please post the data stating where 98% of Americans won't update or look at their W-4. I'll be waiting....

Anytime you want to prove the 9% jump was a result of the tax withholding "schedules" please feel free to prove it. It's a two way street bra. Nobody changed their W4 and you know you can't prove it.

It was your statement anyway. 9%, tax schedules and all. PROVE it yourself.

@Patrick - Why is @sniper allowed to change usernames? Or any user? Seems like they lost either an argument or something else here and had to rename themselves to hide. There are others here that have done it as well. Others I like. I guess I just don't get why people do it. You're not asking, but my $0.02 is that usernames should be permanent. Up to you, but it is annoying for the people that are frequent visitors, but will take a break for a month or so to live life.

MrMagic says

You don't see the hyperlinks to both articles?

This is when you know someone is 60+ years old. Mail it in bra. They're called links.

Aphroman says

What would happen if we went back to the good old days of no moderators?

I'd have no problem with that.

Aphroman says

I can only speak for myself, as someone who used to post under a different alias.

You're one of the one's I reference essentially in the comment. Don't agree with you 100% of the time (as is natural) but you have solid input. I dislike users that change names to hide from their lies. I'm not saying you're lying, but I'll be straight and say I don't like the username change. It's your choice and Patrick has allowed for it so I don't really much care in the grand scheme of things. We all know one user here has changed names coming on close to a dozen times and has had his IP blocked at one point. If the name had never changed people would just ignore him or tell him to fuck off.

I'm a mod (or so I think I still am) and can delete what I want. I don't even delete shit that is a direct attack on me. Hell, I've been enjoying the summer and don't think I've deleted a damn thing since March of this year. Have fun in life, Patnet is cool at times, but at other times it's a cesspool. And we all know who and where the rot is coming from.

Patrick says

LeonDurham says

Since the 1% don't earn wages, they get compensated in other ways

Actually, most of the 1% in terms of income do earn wages. Lots of doctors and lawyers in there. And the majority of people are in the 1% of income at some point in their lives, so I've heard.

The important point, never mentioned in the press, is that the distribution of assets is spectacularly more lopsided than the distribution in incomes.



Income is pretty much irrelevant.

It’s because the whole concept of the “1%” is a political propaganda ploy whose original intent was to get voters to back government redistribution of money.

What is necessary to support such an idea is the false notion that the money pie remains a constant.

WookieMan says

Lol!, thanks for the laugh: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/55-percent-of-americans-cant-describe-a-w-4-tax-form.html

MrMagic says

Please post the data stating where 98% of Americans won't update or look at their W-4. I'll be waiting....

So, 98% has changed to 55%... time to move the goal posts..

WookieMan says

Anytime you want to prove the 9% jump was a result of the tax withholding "schedules" please feel free to prove it.

Reading comprehension is so difficult it seems:

MrMagic says

The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

Any chance you can read that bold part above where it says "Revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher" even though the new lower withholding schedules went into affect?

WookieMan says

MrMagic says

You don't see the hyperlinks to both articles?

This is when you know someone is 60+ years old. Mail it in bra. They're called links.

Wrong again:

Hyperlink

A hyperlink is a word, phrase, or image that you can click on to jump to a new document or a new section within the current document. Hyperlinks are found in nearly all Web pages, allowing users to click their way from page to page. Text hyperlinks are often blue and underlined, but don't have to be.
https://techterms.com/definition/hyperlink

WookieMan says

It was your statement anyway. 9%, tax schedules and all. PROVE it yourself.

OK, how's this?



https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-07/54126-MBR.pdf

What other confusion of yours can I help clear up? I'm just here to help!

and guess what, that CBO reference I just posted is a Hyperlink.... imagine that!

LeonDurham says

lol--the CBO didn't comment on it at all, it was almost certainly the BEA. So, the article you posted actually got the source and the quote wrong.

Again that's called source bias.

Wrong again, the CBO publishes a Monthly Budget Review each month with data from the Treasury, and Investors pulled the data and statements from it to make their article.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-07/54126-MBR.pdf

Is that "source bias"?

WookieMan says

Nobody changed their W4 and you know you can't prove it.

Even these people?

Duration of Employment Relationships
The length of time a worker remains with an employer increased with the age at which the worker began
the job. Of the jobs that workers began when they were 18 to 24 years of age, 69 percent of those jobs
ended in less than a year and 93 percent ended in fewer than 5 years. Among jobs started by 35 to 44
year olds, 36 percent ended in less than a year, and 75 percent ended in fewer than 5 years.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf

Apparently "nobody" changes jobs during the year and fills out a new W-4.

Aphroman says

What would happen if we went back to the good old days of no moderators?

Iwog would tell you're your stupid.

Aphroman says

. I thought that changing my name might help out with my posts being censored by the moderator(s)

It's not the name of the poster, it's the content of the post that gets you censored.

Argue ideas not personality.

Aphroman says

Bitter, jealous people will do anything to try and cut down successful people

Yep.

LeonDurham says

Trump tax plan is driving wages down

So you're telling me government can't fix my life?

You've gotta stop contradicting yourself. Not a good look.

MrMagic says

Because it's not backed by facts or links

MrMagic says

Wrong again:

Hyperlink

A hyperlink is a word, phrase, or image that you can click on to jump to a new document or a new section within the current document. Hyperlinks are found in nearly all Web pages, allowing users to click their way from page to page. Text hyperlinks are often blue and underlined, but don't have to be.
https://techterms.com/definition/hyperlink

Again, you're showing your age.

MrMagic says

Reading comprehension is so difficult it seems:

MrMagic says

Any chance you can read that bold part above where it says "Revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher" even though the new lower withholding schedules went into affect?

I've never stated the revenue was higher because of the tax "schedules" being reduced. That's you. The reason revenues increased could be a ton of things. To attribute the entire 9% increase to tax withholdings (schedules), even though most people don't touch their W-4 throughout the year is absurd. Regardless of getting a new job. Most people don't even know how to fill the damn form out.

It's very likely a lot of high income earners with increased wages bumped it, keeping their withholdings (W4) the same, and the bottom tier keeping their same salary and therefore the tax revenues increased. Has nothing to do with tax "schedules" as you mention. Unless you're a CPA, nobody is adjusting their withholdings (up or down) based on the new tax law. It's just up because the economy is better and income is up. You can mention "schedules" until you're blue in the face, but it makes zero sense.

MrMagic says

Apparently "nobody" changes jobs during the year and fills out a new W-4.

Lol as usual. Most people, even if they change jobs every year will fill out a W-4 the exact same every year. The economy is good, that's why tax withholdings are higher. Get off the "schedule" thing man.

The confusion never ends for some.

Let's see if I can make it even simpler. First, I made this statement.

MrMagic says

The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

What does that mean. It means that Federal Income Taxes (collected from wages) are 9% higher even though the new LOWER withholding schedules went into affect.

For the simple minded here, that means PEOPLE ARE MAKING MORE MONEY (WAGES), because the Federal Government is collecting higher taxes compared to last year, even with lower withholding tax rates.

Which part of "People are making more money" (contrary to the OP of this thread) isn't clear?

MrMagic says

For the simple minded here, that means PEOPLE ARE MAKING MORE MONEY (WAGES), because the Federal Government is collecting higher taxes compared to last year, even with lower withholding tax rates.

No shit Sherlock. I've said revenues are up because of income. You seem to think everyone adjusted their W-4 to withhold less AND revenues are 9% higher. It's simply more income from revenues and people keeping their withholdings the same. When people adjust their withholdings, the revenue will drop, you do understand that, right?

WookieMan says

It's very likely a lot of high income earners with increased wages bumped it, keeping their withholdings (W4) the same, and the bottom tier keeping their same salary and therefore the tax revenues increased. Has nothing to do with tax "schedules" as you mention.

You do this shit all the time. READING COMPREHENSION apparently isn't your strong suit. The increase in revenue does not mean that the new tax plan automatically reduced peoples tax withholdings (W4). You have to fill out a new W4. Stop talking about tax schedules, it makes ZERO sense as does your statement (I won't even call them arguments, because I genuinely hope they're not - they're bad).

WookieMan says

The increase in revenue does not mean that the new tax plan automatically reduced peoples tax withholdings

Lighten Up Francis, I never said that was the reason. That was part of a complete PARAGRAPH I posted above.

Go scroll up, everything I posted was regarding wages and salaries going up, PERIOD, This is a DIRECT respond to the OP Fake news article saying wages went down.

It's YOUR hardon about tax schedules, go scroll up and see the COMPLETE article repost from the BEA and CBO that I made above. You jump in at the END of a discussion and start with the BS, try following along in the COMPLETE discussion.

MrMagic says

It's YOUR hardon about tax schedules, go scroll up and see the COMPLETE article repost from the BEA and CBO that I made above. You jump in at the END of a discussion and start with the BS, try following along in the COMPLETE discussion.

Why mention tax schedules then? I appreciated tax cuts, more money in my pocket. The problem is that nobody knows what the eventual outcome will be. Regardless of how many paragraphs typed, you're insinuating that people have reduced their withholdings and that revenues are up 9% with zero proof that even a significant number of people have changed their withholding.

Basically, you're saying tax revenues are up and people are paying less due to the tax cuts. It's just not true. They're just going to get a bigger return next year (outside of IL, CA, NJ & NY for the most part). Most people that make what would be considered good money won't touch their W4 if they're smart and wait to see how this all settles down come April-June of 2019.

It's just one sentence. Tax revenues are up because incomes are up. Revenues aren't up because you can now withhold less. That sounds like a party talking point fed to the sheep. I don't agree with the OP, but lets not muddy the water and completely shit on the reality of the situation.

CovfefeButDeadly says

What is necessary to support such an idea is the false notion that the money pie remains a constant.

Whatever the pie is doing, it is clear that the lower 60% are getting not only a lower share of the pie, but also just less in real term.
Consider the cost of housing and healthcare, which they can't avoid. The rising cost of food.
Consider stagnating low wages.
Consider disappearing pensions.
Consider the hyper competition of workers for low skills jobs, and the constant job insecurity.
Consider the shrinking levels of upward social mobility.
This represents a catastrophic collapse of standards of living for the bottom 60%.
While the rich takes more and more.
A meme like "yeah but the pie is growing" is utter BS and propaganda.

Heraclitusstudent says

Consider the hyper competition of workers for low skills jobs, and the constant job insecurity.

Laziness. If you are competing for low skilled jobs your entire life, it simply means you never sought to improve your skill set or make something better of yourself.

The OP is a chart from payscale.com with no explanation of data or processes to get that data and calc the figure.

So....making assumptions from a figure that you dont understand isn't wise. Perhaps the OP can suggest exactly what that chart is representing? I doubt it

OK, one last time....

WookieMan says

Tax revenues are up because incomes are up.

Correct. Which is exactly MY point which conflicts with the OP narrative.

WookieMan says

Revenues aren't up because you can now withhold less.

Revenues are up 9% from last year, where do revenues come from? Tax withholding on wages. Even though the lower withholding rates kicked in this year, which means the Feds get LESS income from income taxes, the revenues are still up 9%. If wages were dropping, like the OP claims, the revenue numbers would be in the minuses, even before the lower withholding rates.

How much would revenues to the .Gov be up if the old, higher withholding tables were still active? Probably MORE than 9%.

CBOEtrader says

The OP is a chart from payscale.com with no explanation of data or processes to get that data and calc the figure.

I was going to reference that. They use some obscure Payscale Index (which no one knows how or where the data comes from) to determine their report.

Then, the Opinion author from the Trump hating Bloomberg tries to "sell it" as some factual data chart.

It's so laughable,,,,,,

CBOEtrader says

Perhaps the OP can suggest exactly what that chart is representing?

I'd like to hear that too!

Goran_K says

Laziness. If you are competing for low skilled jobs your entire life, it simply means you never sought to improve your skill set or make something better of yourself.

This is the kind of easy rationalizations that keeps people from seeing the picture in front of them.

1 - First, it requires to believe that 2/3 of the population of the US became lazy and stupid, and unable to adjust. Why is it suddenly the case?
2 - There was a time when for example being a cook was a skill, now most jobs have been commoditized i.e. emptied from any skills and reduced to simple robotic gestures: you don't cook, you flip burgers. And anyone can do it. And there are hundreds of millions of people that are waiting to do it. The real restaurants that require real cooks are increasingly very few.
3 - not only these jobs are commoditized, they are increasingly automatized. Leaving less possibilities for people at the bottom.
4 - The jobs that require skills, like data scientists require so much of it that they can't be done by the average schmuck. These jobs get most of the pay gains. The top 10% get most of the gains. It doesn't mean that if 50% of people could do the job, they would get similar jobs, with these salaries. Instead only the best 1 in 10 get these jobs. It doesn't matter how hard you worked, if someone who is better than you, or more connected, took your job.

Heraclitusstudent says

Consider the hyper competition of workers for low skills jobs, and the constant job insecurity.

That's mainly an illegal immigration issue. Wages have gone up since the crackdown and you can now make significantly more for basic jobs while the globalist run panicked article after article how nobody is there to do the illegals jobs, crops wilt etc. etc. For example in SF a babysitter makes $20+/hour easily, you have to be extremely lucky to find somebody for $15. Many don't declare. That's actually not bad. Car mechanics and plumbers make great money here, often more than techies. If you have some vocational talent and are willing to put sweat in and learn such a skill you're basically set. The problem is not that there aren't enough jobs, the problem is that everybody has been duped into getting a degree in liberal arts or genders studies, then ends up in debt working minimum wage jobs. Learn how to fix HVACs, cell phones etc. and you're golden.

How come that chart looks like this?

That chart above could be the worst chart of 2018

We haven't even had a single year for those tax effects to work their way through the system. No conclusions can be drawn yet, good or bad.