Trump, the man with a dream of a Wall

[Forty Two]

Trump fought against fitting of sprinklers in apartment where man died

Property mogul spoke against retrofitting of sprinklers in Trump Tower as unnecessary and expensive

Stingy bastard.

That fire was in a private home.
Does your home have sprinklers?

Tower blocks do.

Trump Tower is not a "tower block" building, lol. It's a building where a 15.5 square (603 sq ft( meter apartment with one bedroom costs almost $2,000,000 dollars.

Also, any apartment building built after 1998 have to have sprinker systems in all common areas and apartments. Also any pre-1999 apartment building that is being renovated has to have sprinkler systems installed. The law passed in 1999 was a compromise.

A person who buys an apartment on 721 5th Avenue for between $2 million and $10,000,000 -- a 3 minute walk to Central Park, can make some decisions as to whether the apartment is worth their money, or whether another option is available.

[Forty Two]

How would a person install sprinklers in their home if their home was in a tower complex?

How many install sprinklers in their home if it isn't ?

The underprivileged and oppressed denizens of Trump Tower slums, situated waaaaayyyy upstairs from Tiffany Jewelers (fairly long elevator ride...), and blocks blocks from Saks Fifth Avenue (it's a solid taxicab ride away), and an agonizing 3 minutes walk from central park, and it's like soooo far from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Rockefeller Center ice rink and Christmas Tree....like a 15 minute walk in either direction - can you imagine the horror? These poor souls were compelled to purchase filthy hovels for their last few million dollars to their names...... they were clearly swindled.

[Forty Two]

But her emails! Crooked FBI let crooked Hillary go!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/07/politics ... index.html

She dindunuffin!

And, there was a moral and ethical obligation for FBI investigators to ensure that Trump didn't get elected! If anything, they should have been fired for failing in their primary duty in that regard...

[Forty Two]

A Trump tax success!

the top 20% of income earners now pay 87% of all income taxes. https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of- ... 1523007001

The results show how steeply progressive the U.S. income tax remains. For 2018, households in the top 20% will have income of about $150,000 or more and 52% of total income, about the same as in 2017. But they will pay about 87% of income taxes, up from about 84% last year.

By contrast, the lower 60% of households, who have income up to about $86,000, receive about 27% of income. As a group, this tier will pay no net federal income tax in 2018 vs. 2% of it last year.

Roughly one million households in the top 1% will pay for 43% of income tax, up from 38% in 2017. These filers earn above about $730,000.

The fair share has been reached!

Round of applause everyone - Trump has done it! Give the guy a hand, for pushing through that tax overhaul which placed a greater tax burden on the rich than under the previous set-up.

Lemme here ya say - yeah! Yeah! Trump's tax plan is even more progressive them before! yeah! yeah!

Anyone...

...... anyone?

But your tax revenue is going to fall, and the biggest reason for that fall will be the rich receiving the biggest share of the tax cut.

but the rich are paying even more of the tax burden than before! It's more progressive...

FY 2019 (est.) - $3.42 trillion
FY 2018 (est.) - $3.34 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.

Huh.... doesn't look like tax revenue is falling....

Must be falling in relation to spending or something... like a politicians definition of falling. Had we kept tax rates the same, it would have been higher than it is now, so even though revenues are still going up, they're going down or something

[pErvinalia]

Throw inflation in there and see how it comes out.

[pErvinalia]

Isn't he cutting taxes for the rich? I would have thought tax revenue would fall. Maybe it should be measured against GDP.

[Forty Two]

Throw inflation in there and see how it comes out.

Go ahead and do so. I thought you said "revenues were falling" not that the buying power of those increased revenues were actually projected to be less when inflation is taken into account.

If you want to make that case, go ahead. But, saying "throw inflation in there..." is neither an argument, nor an explanation. So, when the issue comes up again months down the road, understand that you have not supported this assertion, and it has not been "explained to me" before.

[pErvinalia]

Any chance you could stop being a giant baby?

[Forty Two]

Isn't he cutting taxes for the rich? I would have thought tax revenue would fall. Maybe it should be measured against GDP.

Or, he didn't "cut taxes for the rich" since, plainly, as I posted above, with supporting link, the lower income earners pay $0 and the level at which 0 is the amount paid was significantly raised. Anyone above that pays very little in taxes, UNTIL we reach the level of the rich. It's the top 20% of earners (top 20% often being referred to as "rich" in relation to those who are south of the top 20%) who are now paying 87% of all income taxes.

So, fair share has been reached, no? If not, what would be the fair share? And, if the 20% are not the rich, who are the rich?

[pErvinalia]

Is he cutting tax rates for the rich or not? Proportion of total tax revenue is irrelevant to whether revenues are falling or going up for the rich.

[Forty Two]

Any chance you could stop being a giant baby?

LOL.

Anytime you want to take a coherent position, and actually defend or support that position, that'd be greeaaaat.....

Pervin -- "throw out incorrect assertion..." ---

Receive demonstrative proof that the assertion is incorrect....

Pervin- change position to something else, to attempt to wiggle out of being wrong...

Receive demonstative proof/argument that the changed position is a different argument, and something that would be pErvin's burden to prove....

Pervin -- switch to insults.

[pErvinalia]

Any chance you could stop being a giant baby?

Revenue obviously has to be measured in a standardised way or it's irrelevant. Even you should know this.

[Forty Two]

Is he cutting tax rates for the rich or not? Proportion of total tax revenue is irrelevant to whether revenues are falling or going up for the rich.

He cut every tax bracket, so yes the upper income brackets did, also, get a tax cut.

Revenues are not falling, as I demonstrated - the US Office of Management and Budget says revenues are not failing, but going up.

The proportion of the tax revenues paid by the rich are relevant to whether they are paying their "Fair Share" of total revenue. A share is a portion or proportion of the total. So, if their "proportion" or "share" goes up, then their share is more fair than it was before, right?

[pErvinalia]

Of course. But if they are paying less gross tax than previously, they have little to complain about.

[Forty Two]

Any chance you could stop being a giant baby?

Revenue obviously has to be measured in a standardised way or it's irrelevant. Even you should know this.

You can present any argument you want.

You can either say "revenues are falling." Or, you can say something else. You chose to say "revenues are falling," and they are not.

Now, maybe you have a good argument that if you factor in inflation of the stuff government spends money on, that the buying power of the total revenues has been reduced. That would be something for you to demonstrate, which you haven't even attempted to do. Go for it. But you haven't done it, so don't pretend later that you did. Mentioning an argument or assertion is neither an explanation nor a demonstration.

So, make whatever argument you want to make. Be a man. Take a position, and argue it, FFS, without the expectation that someone is going to do it for you or assume something you must have intended to say.