patrick.net

Apparently, Chucky reads the same Opinion pieces at Bloomberg like the OP.

From Lefty, Liberal Politifact:

Does Trump's tax plan do nothing for low income earners?
https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/oct/08/charles-schumer/does-trumps-tax-plan-do-nothing-low-income-earners/

We rate Schumer's statement False.

Another DATA point (we know Liberals hate facts and data)

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/

Goran_K says

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

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?

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?

Left off what part of the sentence? That was the whole thing..



See something missing there from the sentence? Didn't think so.....

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

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

Any idea what the definition of "Primarily" could be?

So, two different DATA sources (not Opinion pieces), claim "largely reflects" and "primarily reflects" INCREASES in wages and salaries, yet you're going to accuse me of:

LeonDurham says

trolling?

There isn't a single poster here that can top you in that category!

MrMagic says

That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

What withholding schedules? Unless you update your W-4, I'm not sure what would change for your typical employee. 98% of people that have the same job, withheld the same amount for federal taxes in 2018 as they did in 2017 as a percentage. A 9% increase is a good sign for the economy, but there's not a person here that can judge this whole thing until about this time next year.

I'm hopeful, but claiming victory before the game is over is a bit simplistic. And handing out participation trophies to Trump before there are tangible, LONG term results is also simplistic. Give it time. Anyone here shitting on or praising the tax plan should probably just stick to their day job and comment on stuff they understand.

WookieMan says

What withholding schedules? Unless you update your W-4, I'm not sure what would change for your typical employee.

Updated Withholding Calculator, Form W-4 Released; Calculator Helps Taxpayers Review Withholding Following New Tax Law
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/updated-withholding-calculator-form-w-4-released-calculator-helps-taxpayers-review-withholding-following-new-tax-law

My suggestion, just stop posting while you're ahead.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Department on Wednesday unveiled a tax calculator created after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

“The tool will help taxpayers determine whether they should update their W-4s,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a press conference, referring to the form that employees use to determine the amount withheld. “It will also be a tool taxpayers can use to figure out, to update their information as they experience life changes.”
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/irs-unveils-tax-calculator-does-your-w-4-need-to-be-updated

MrMagic says

Left off what part of the sentence? That was the whole thing..

No, it's because the lying source that you copy and paste cut it off. (I'll note you don't link to it like everyone else does)

The entire sentence is the one I posted.

MrMagic says

So, two different DATA sources (not Opinion pieces), claim "largely reflects" and "primarily reflects" INCREASES in wages and salaries, yet you're going to accuse me of:

No, they claim:

LeonDurham says

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

┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

Left off what part of the sentence? That was the whole thing..

No, it's because the lying source that you copy and paste cut it off. (I'll note you don't link to it like everyone else does)

The entire sentence is the one I posted.

WTF are you talking about, I did a screen grab of the source? Do you need your glasses cleaned?

MrMagic says

My suggestion, just stop posting while you're ahead.

Lol! Comedy isn't your bit. Please tell me you're not serious?

MrMagic says

“The tool will help taxpayers determine whether they should update their W-4s,”

Which 98% of Americans won't do. As mentioned and clearly ignored. Nobody is adjusting their withholdings. So the withholding "schedules" mean nothing and you know it. Not sure why what I posted even warranted a response from you either.

WookieMan says

98% of people that have the same job, withheld the same amount for federal taxes in 2018 as they did in 2017 as a percentage.

We can either have a conversation or you can continually throw darts at ANYONE here that challenges your views. If you were that right all the time and brilliant, you surely wouldn't be here (no offense meant Patrick).

I clearly said the 9% increase is a good sign. It means SHIT until this time next year unfortunately. I have no intention of giving Trump a participation trophy like most Boomers do with him and their kids. I'm doing good and it seems most are. The dude fucking just SIGNED his FIRST budget and we're going to go along like the place is 100% better?

Fact is, I do good. I don't need a fucking president to do anything for me. But if that's your tit to suck on, by all means do it. I make my own way.

WookieMan says

Which 98% of Americans won't do. As mentioned and clearly ignored.

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

WookieMan says

We can either have a conversation or you can continually throw darts at ANYONE here that challenges your views.

That's really funny, coming from someone who won't back up statements with facts or data.

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

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

So, two different DATA sources (not Opinion pieces), claim "largely reflects" and "primarily reflects" INCREASES in wages and salaries, yet you're going to accuse me of:

No, they claim:

LeonDurham says

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

Care to scroll back up where I posted this in post #24:

MrMagic says

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

Which part did I leave out again?

MrMagic says

Any idea what the definition of "Primarily" could be?

So, two different DATA sources (not Opinion pieces), claim "largely reflects" and "primarily reflects" INCREASES in wages and salaries, yet you're going to accuse me of:

LeonDurham says

trolling?

There isn't a single poster here that can top you in that category!

and I'll go one step further in supporting that statement.

From the bea tables:




Please point out which part of "wages and salaries. personal dividend income, and nonfarm proprietors’ income" is the largest in that table.

Does that fit the definition of "largely reflects" and "primarily reflects" INCREASES in wages and salaries? Inquiring minds want to know.

MrMagic says

WTF are you talking about, I did a screen grab of the source? Do you need your glasses cleaned?

No, your source didn't grab the entire quote. That's my point.

MrMagic says

Which part did I leave out again?

MrMagic says

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

Does that help?

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

Which part did I leave out again?

MrMagic says

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

Does that help?

Huh.???

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

WTF are you talking about, I did a screen grab of the source? Do you need your glasses cleaned?

No, your source didn't grab the entire quote. That's my point.

The ENTIRE sentence and quote from the article is up in my comment #36. WTF are you looking at? The article link is there too, plus I did the screen cap of the page.

Seriously, is this the best you can do?

I'm still waiting for this answer:

MrMagic says

Please point out which part of "wages and salaries. personal dividend income, and nonfarm proprietors’ income" is the largest in that table.

Does that fit the definition of "largely reflects" and "primarily reflects" INCREASES in wages and salaries?

Bueller?

MrMagic says

The ENTIRE sentence and quote from the article is up in my comment #36. WTF are you looking at? The article link is there too, plus I did the screen cap of the page.

Seriously, is this the best you can do?

I'm still waiting for this answer:

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.

This is a lesson for those at Pat.net who continually claim bias in sources. When doing so, one has to also show what the source misrepresented in order to have any real merit. In this case, I showed that the source purposely left off part of the quote to mispresent what was said. That is source bias.

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.