Yeah, just stating your opinion isn't an argument.
> Tax policy is written by humans, and they can do what they like with it.
Insightful!
> If you want to cut taxes for the poor, you do.
What taxes? The poor pay negative income taxes. Did you read the post you're responding to?
> If you want to cut taxes for the ultra wealthy, but make sure the statistics say poor people got a tax cut, you can do that too.
I would love for the poor to pay zero taxes. It would be an improvement over the amount they "pay" now!
> If you paid 1M in taxes, a 30% cut is 300k, and if you paid 1k itβs $300. One person will buy some bitcoin or a Porsche, the other will be lucky to buy some gas and groceries.
Okay.
> If you wanted to be an honest person
You don't have to seethe, you know. You can be wrong without letting everyone know that you're miserable and angry about an internet post.
> ... maybe you correct the poster that there were tax cuts for the poor, but also point out that the cuts heavily favored the wealthy. Which by the way, was their argument.
You're almost caught up! Now that argument was I making in response? If you tried to understand instead of trying to misunderstand (or worse, just vomiting angry words without any substance to them), you might learn something!
The USA has no negative income tax. There are programs like the EITC which provide benefits to the poor and can be larger than their tax burden depending on the specific circumstances.
The EITC was initially signed into law by Ford (R) and expanded by Reagan (R). Regan apparently called it "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress".
I'm sure you knew all this, so thanks for being honest in this post about the fact that you would like to dismantle this particular social safety net.
Seething comment sounds like projection btw, I'm not mad. The whole point of HN is to have the discussion expand in detail. Seems like it's working:
- Someone generalized
- You called them a liar
- We found out the generalization wasn't strictly correct, but basically true in spirit: the wealthy received the majority of the benefit, the poor got a small token for the sake of statistics / sound bytes.
They're called refundable tax credits. They result in people being net recipients of the income tax after refunds are paid out. This is a negative income tax.
> Someone generalized - You called them a liar
They didn't "generalize", they made a claim which is literally and undeniably untrue. That is a lie.
> We found out the generalization wasn't strictly correct, but basically true in spirit.
We found that the people he claimed didn't get a tax cut actually got a 30% tax cut. That's an obvious, blatant lie.
Yeah, just stating your opinion isn't an argument.
> Tax policy is written by humans, and they can do what they like with it.
Insightful!
> If you want to cut taxes for the poor, you do.
What taxes? The poor pay negative income taxes. Did you read the post you're responding to?
> If you want to cut taxes for the ultra wealthy, but make sure the statistics say poor people got a tax cut, you can do that too.
I would love for the poor to pay zero taxes. It would be an improvement over the amount they "pay" now!
> If you paid 1M in taxes, a 30% cut is 300k, and if you paid 1k itβs $300. One person will buy some bitcoin or a Porsche, the other will be lucky to buy some gas and groceries.
Okay.
> If you wanted to be an honest person
You don't have to seethe, you know. You can be wrong without letting everyone know that you're miserable and angry about an internet post.
> ... maybe you correct the poster that there were tax cuts for the poor, but also point out that the cuts heavily favored the wealthy. Which by the way, was their argument.
You're almost caught up! Now that argument was I making in response? If you tried to understand instead of trying to misunderstand (or worse, just vomiting angry words without any substance to them), you might learn something!