Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    TracyMorganFreeman

    + friends - friends
    1,161 link karma
    179,470 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Camille Paglia Says that Women's and Gender Studies Departments Should be Defunded - Breitbart TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in MensRights

    I think Paglia has a point. A bunch of feminists in the 70s pushed for women in academia which seems to fall in line with the path of politicization of the social sciences. It also falls in line with the creation of the department of Education though, although one could say the two compounded one another's impact.

    [–] Work smarter, not harder. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BetterEveryLoop

    The same laws of physics just means gravity works the same way, not that Earth will have the same mass.

    [–] Feminist author Alice Randall now opposes To Kill A Mockingbird in schools because "the text encourages boys and girls to believe women lie about being raped." TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in MensRights

    What if a large portion of the reported rapes are false which due process prevents convictions of, and those who are actually victims of rape don't come forward because they don't expect justice due to the low conviction rate, while the 2-8% figure is what can be demonstrated to be false. The conviction rate for those coming to trial is about 62%-similar to murder-but that doesn't mean that at minimum 38% of rape cases are false accusations simply due to lack of ability to demonstrate it.

    If so, you would be remiss in actually fighting rape and bringing justice to victims to handwaive false accusations away. The problem is that rape is hard to prove, and false accusations of rape are also hard to prove.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago * (lasted edited 6 hours ago) in BlueMidterm2018

    Hmm seems very cherry picky to me.

    For example, Pfizer's employment varies up to and exceeding 10,000 a year.

    In fact, the CRS report said overseas corporate profits actually swelled after the 2004 holiday.

    Um of course they did. The taxes weren't repatriated at a tax rate of over 100%. Dividends come out of post corporate tax profits anyways.

    Further, without considering the timing of the repatriation and the regular intervals of stockholder dividends being given out expecting there not to be a holiday, one shouldn't be surprised for the distribution to be different.

    Pfizer's net profit in 2005 was 8 billion and their revenue 51 billion, so the real question what if it that 37 billion is just years if not decades(not sure when the last repatriation holiday was) of accrued non patriated profits already earmarked, and people are just balking at big numbers without context for time for the rest of that year as well as previous years.

    There is another, less sinister possibility. Pfizer was using its domestic profits primarily to invest and expand-as it is a more predictable source of revenue, promising shareholders a bigger piece of the repatriated pie when it came down the line, and by virtue of maintaining growth via reinvestment the company can remain solvent and hold out for a holiday.

    [–] Japanese men in their twenties want male-only train cars to avoid false accusations of sexual harassment. TracyMorganFreeman 19 points ago in MensRights

    Well, it's more both are seen as misogyny, which is really their projection of their insecurity and entitlement.

    I think it was best said when a number of modern western women are so privileged they feel entitled to decide not only when they are sexualized, but by whom.

    [–] Japanese men in their twenties want male-only train cars to avoid false accusations of sexual harassment. TracyMorganFreeman 33 points ago in MensRights

    Also not complimenting or paying attention to women makes them ugly and depressed.

    Basically people have lost sight of realistic expectations.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    I am actually not against lower corporate tax rate, that's fine as long as some of the deductions are eliminated.

    That's exactly what happened in the 60s.

    People should understand though that if the rates are really cut then the income will go down unless the growth compensates for it. And the cut in this case is in Medicare/Medicaid plus increased deficit.

    If the growth projections are not realized then there will be permanent cuts to government spending, which some (GOP) see as a good thing, but I think people who use Medicare/Medicaid and other government programs will soon realize is not that good for them.

    People should understand the crowding effect these programs have, keeping alternatives from being viable, thus making their necessity superficially apparent.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    Not really. The mess before was overstated.

    Anything seems worth it when you're spending someone else's money, and if you fail to consider the context and valuation that is subjective, and just follow dollars blindly, you arrive at all sorts of fallacious but superficially good results.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    That's because GDP includes government spending, and we treat a reduction in government spending as necessarily bad, as if government spending will always be a good investment, which is absurd.

    It's based on playing accountant, not economic analysis.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    What? This logic makes no sense. Why does reduced spending mean that we have to tax rich people less? These are two completely separate ideas.

    Because you can achieve political capital and goodwill to different constituencies with both and theoretically, while being revenue neutral.

    Well, since the lowest 80% of the country (those making less than 68,700 per year) account for about a third of the total tax income in the US, that's about 1 trillion per year.

    That math doesn't seem correct, or is conflating income taxes and payroll taxes.

    If we structured a tax plan such that ONLY those making 68,700 or less ever benefited from it, we could give those people about a 15% tax break over 10 years and that would cover the 1.5 trillion we got in savings.

    Except people who are in the bottom quintiles are on net tax recipients, not payers, so you're not saving as much as you think.

    Also why exactly do they get a tax break? They pay a smaller share taxes, especially relative to their share of total income.

    So after we make tons of cuts to save 1.5 trillion, we give 750 billion of those dollars to the 1% highest earners.

    No it isn't giving. Not taking=/=giving.

    As you say, they account for 20% of the taxes paid in the country so it makes sense that a blanket tax cut would disproportionately affect them. But why?

    Because that's how math works.

    the middle 20% of the country pays about the same 20% of our total tax income as the top 1%.

    So per person, the middle class pays less.

    I don't think the fact that contributing less means that you deserve more tax breaks. I having a greater need for money to make ends meet does though. I don't think the priority should be on giving financial aid to those already making millions per year, I think it should be on those who are struggling to make ends meet. Why do you not agree?

    Probably because I don't judge the moral standing of people based on their income.

    I'm not discriminatory like that.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    Net worth isn't income, and if you know them your income is probably similar to theirs or more; they just likely have less debt.

    That or you're making this up.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    Given the drug war is a war on drug manufacturing and selling businesses, I don't see how there being some differences means they are so different as to not be comparable along the dimension I illustrated.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    Someone could design a tax break such that a majority of the money saved was saved by those making less than 100k a year.

    A tax break that would not save as much money as you think, when looking at what portion of taxes those households pay

    These households comprise the vast majority of households, but only pay 51% of the taxes.

    If the idea is to reduce spending and have a commensurate reduction in taxes, you do so by giving breaks across the board or favoring those who pay most of the taxes-even after accounting for their portion of income the rich pay a greater share of the taxes.

    This is little more than thinking that because you contribute fewer taxes, you deserve more and larger breaks.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    I never claimed a ton. I claimed more than zero, and an amount that isn't just not captured by looking at only US tax revenues from them, but the amount is essentially used to reduce their apparent tax burden.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    The point stands though. Ignoring that skews the analysis, and further still when people are crying that companies are keeping so much money overseas.

    No other countries taxes companies' revenue generated outside their borders. For all the hullabulloo about how the US should be more like Europe, their tax structure is rarely if ever one brought up.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    No. I'm assuming you are making a joke about being on salary, but no. That's based on a 40 hour workweek. If you want a more complete breakdown I'd need more specific information about a given firm's workforce.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 2 points ago in BlueMidterm2018

    The claim was about education.

    Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, so we need to stop pushing the idea you need a degree to do anything, and stop subsidizing otherwise unnecessary degrees that reinforces that flawed perspective.

    [–] 51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut $1.5 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a Tax Cut TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago * (lasted edited 16 hours ago) in BlueMidterm2018

    No. All countries tax the income within their borders, but only the US also taxes the income OUTSIDE THEIR BORDERS.

    So if a company has say 1 billion in profits10% of which is in the UK, and the US would tax that at 30%, and the UK would tax that 100 million at 20%, the 900 million is taxed 30%(270m), plus the 100 million at 20%(20m) PLUS the 100 million at 30% MINUS the foreign tax credit (20m) so it taxes 80 million at 30%(24m) so a total of 270+20+24=314m or 31.4% of 1 billion. Looking only at the US paid taxes, it's 294 or 29.4% of 1 billion so it appears to go lower than the 30%, when in reality their overall tax burden as a US based company is higher than 30%, and fails to show the disparity in the tax burdens with other countries.

    Looking at their TOTAL profit and failing to distinguish what profit is subject to US taxation versus non-US taxation versus both makes things appear like US companies have some huge advantage tax wise when in reality they have a disadvantage tax wise, but likely still bear it because the advantage revenue wise for being based in the US.

    Increase that disadvantage more, or remove the deductions that allow US companies to remain competitive globally, and you'll just see more corporate inversions and capital flight, all because we ignore this crucial distinction.