81% agree, raise taxes

[MaggieMae]

TMN also doesn't grok the concept of INFLATION and that the high rates of yesteryear applied to incredibly high levels of income in today's dollars.

i.e., in 1917, the top rate of 67% applied to incomes over $2M, which is $34.4M in 2011 dollars. Not very many people earned that much money back then.

And a gallon of milk didn't cost as much as today. Everything's relative.

Actually mAGGIE, If you bring us on the subject of Milk, The Unions destroyed that industry as well or we would still be paying much lower amounts for it! Why do I know? Because my Uncle worked for Foster farms back in the 1970's. He became a member and he watched what it did to the entire enterprise. He ended up quitting and went into business for himself as a General contractor.

Yeah it's true. I remember many days working together while listening to the stories of how those bloodsuckers turned a great successful business into a never ending nightmare of appeasement that always fell back on the shoulders of the consumer. Course, I don't for one second hold my breath in order to believe that a mentally deranged Socialist like yourself can even recognize that 1 + 1 = 2. To people like you, 1 + 1 = 3, No matter how many times reality is in front of your faces. ~BH

I was born, raised and now I'm retired in a milk producing state, and I can tell you that unions had ZERO to do with the low cost of milk milk production. Family farms could not afford the high-speed technology required to keep competitive with the output of agri-farms. So that's the end of another one of your incorrect assumptions.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, That was pointed out pages ago. You might want to read all the posts before making an idiot out of yourself. But here I'll help you out a little Maggie in case you missed it, which is a common occurence with you.

The link I asked for was concerning the 81% claim, not what tax bracket it was during Eisenhower. Why the hell do I have to explain it to you anyway? Go back and read and find out who asked for the link that you just provided. Get the right poster next time instead pretending that you know what the hell you're doing, because you don't as usual. ~BH

I don't intend to read all posts before I say anything, so good luck trying out your Little Nikita bullshit on me. Plus, this thread is so ongoing, it's more of a chat so it's impossible to stay ahead of it, genius.

So very sorry I misunderstood your question. I'll bet you now can feel real smug since you finally won one.

Hey mAGGIE? I don't need a "smug" to get the jump on a chump of a basket case left-wing know-nothing like you. How you post, respond, twist and spin your way out of the holes that you dig yourself into is a daily circus side show here which is enough for those with a brain to make their own decisions for themselves concerning your mental status. To make it easier for you to understand, You're simply a nutcase who is stuck in her own world and nobody is pating attention and nor do most here care. ~BH

I've never posted anything that couldn't be backed up by facts. You might try actually READING what I say. It usually helps. You can read and understand what you read, I presume. Or do you follow along better if people post pictures expressing their views? Interesting you use a circus as your analogy, because frankly I usually wonder what carnival people like you worked for before discovering you got more attention on the Internet.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

yeah.....but nobody cares about Bush anymore except the internet k00ks..........

Which is to bad really.

Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

So then you agree that it is ludicrous that the Obama admninistration and those on the left side of the aisle had been pushing for a second stimulus package.

Cool. We finally agree on something.

Yeah, because.....after all.......​

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter." - The DICK; Cheney

*

 

[johnrocks]

All I would like to know is one thing, why do so many support raising taxes on anyone. Shit rolls downhill and those tax increases will eventually hurt the poor,minorities,unskilled,undereducated, etc. the hardest. It seems like it hurts the very ones you would want to help.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is a faction on the right that react like this when they cant refute the facts presented.

The factds are that we have created tons of jobs and had great economies with much higher tax rates on the wealthy.

If you note when the economy is bad they say "you cant raise taxes now"


When the econony is good they say "you cant raise taxes now".


They only want them cut and cut and cut.

The are the fiscally irresponsible party.

They NEVER want the wealthy to pay their fair share no matter how much the wealthy rape the economy

At what point in history of this country has taxing the wealthy created jobs and led to prosperity? Can you name that point? Or are you following the alinsky leftist cue and presenting that point hoping people believe you?

During the boom years of the 90's, it was an EMPLOYEE'S market; if you had the skills, you could pretty much get the salary you wanted. And the top tax rate was 39.6% rather than the current 35%.

 

[Jarhead]

No it's actually quite accurate based on what I've been able to obtain on the subject. Only kool-aid drinking Randians support that claim.

Our history sure as shit doesn't.

You are researching sites or data with a left spin to it.

Would you say the Bush tax cuts did NOT work as it pertians to employment?

Until the recession, did you see an increase in unemployment?

Now be careful...do not toss out those left leaning misleading stats of employment cause I will show you how they are misleading...

But did you not see unemployment pretty much remain stable after the tax cuts?

It was a classic bubble-burst that caused the economic growth and consequential recession; In this case housing, but remember credit cards in the 80s and stocks in the 90s. As to unemployment, it's a lagging indicator; last down and last back up, same as it's always been.

I'm trying to say this without sounding indignant, but I've truly not heard serious weight given to the "Taxes on the rich damage the economy" argument outside of Republican echo-chambers. I think even nearly any 1st year ECO student could tell you that throwing money out of airplanes would give more stimulus than tax cuts for the wealthy.

If you dispute the claim, tell me why and I'll look at it, but so far you've only said I'm wrong.

In the 2000's...starting early on....

We had massive layoffs due to the dot com bubble burst.

We had an increase in technology resulting in individual employee voice mail (eliminating the need for receptionists and switchboards), boolean internet searche capabilities (eliminating the need for large research departments), advanced copiers with collating even for the smaller companies (eliminating the need for large copy staffs) advanced graphics on the pc(eliminatint the need for printing firms and printing departments within companies) advanced word processing capabilities (eliminating the needs for multiple secretaries...or less secreatries per executive) teleconferecning (eliminating travel affecting employment needs with hotels, arilines, etc)....and I can continue...
AND...we had a generous growth in population.

Yet....unemployment did not increase.

Seems there was plenty of corporate growth thanks to the tax cuts.

Curious...do those stats that claim there was no net job growth explain that there was no net job growth yet there was good reason for there to be generous job loss?

Thus what I mean when I say the stats you see are left leaning.

 

[MaggieMae]

They know you were telling the truth, they just cant refute your facts so they insult instead

All in a day's work. Sigh...

You act like you came in here and proved something? Are you off your meds again mAGGIE?

LMAO! I don't think you would know a days work if it came up and bit you on your lazy welfare collecting ass! The only time you break a swet is when you walk to the mailbox for your check, or from the taxi cab to the dope club. ~BH

Oooohh...looks like I started to really piss off the Big Guy With All The Balls!

 

[MaggieMae]

ah, its a CONSPIRACY

Isn't it always?

well, all those evil corps got together and conspired to get republicans elected
if you believe maggies nonsense
LOL
forget that corps gave about equally to democrats in the last election

Then why have they begun hiring again? Some things just write themselves, so I don't even need to do any digging at all.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is why democracies always fail. (And rest assured, the American Republic is almost gone.)

Democracies always fail? Got a historical link for that? The sky is not falling. This democracy will not fail. (Ooops, this democratic REPUBLIC will not fail.) If you're so convinced it will, then move, if you can find another country that offers all that this one does, you ungrateful fool.

You have got to be kidding. I don't know if you're joking or being serious. But if you are serious, start with Hitler's Germany. And while you're at it, take a look at my sig line.

BTW, I do have an exit plan. When nearly 50% of the American people support a man like Obama, you know the end is near.

Hitler. Nice deflection. ODR, second deflection.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is a faction on the right that react like this when they cant refute the facts presented.

The factds are that we have created tons of jobs and had great economies with much higher tax rates on the wealthy.

If you note when the economy is bad they say "you cant raise taxes now"


When the econony is good they say "you cant raise taxes now".


They only want them cut and cut and cut.

The are the fiscally irresponsible party.

They NEVER want the wealthy to pay their fair share no matter how much the wealthy rape the economy

A few hundred people in the entire country think it is a good idea to raise taxes when the economy is tettering.............virtually all can be found in the twilight internet zone.........although some public k00ks exist out there like that nut Garafalo and Michael Moore, who by the way is one of the top stories on DRUDGE right now for some genius public.statement he made today

Michael Moore, another leftist who hates capitalism even though he has made Millions off of capitalism. He is a fat bastard retard.

In the same mold as Rush Limbaugh, on both counts.

 

[MaggieMae]

Isn't it always?

well, all those evil corps got together and conspired to get republicans elected
if you believe maggies nonsense
LOL
forget that corps gave about equally to democrats in the last election

Maggie sure is delusional isn't she? I mean, I guess with all her superior Liberal knowledge, somehow her red diaper doper baby NYU professor left out of his marxist rantings the fact that anyone who gets elected in The United States of America, was backed by the corporations, just as well as her slimey Unions. WOW! Imagine that! Talk about stuck on stupid? She Gone!!! ~BH

Where did I unquestionably support unions and politics? Does making up shit make your balls fall off from laughing at your own crap? Good grief, they must be beyond repair at this point. I hope your health insurance covers scrotum prostheses.

 

[gekaap]

Got a link? Oh I guess if you did you would have provided it? Even if your percentage is true, which I doubt it is, Those other 19% are creating jobs.

Got a link? Oh, I guess if you did you would have provided it. Even if your percentage is true, which I doubt it is, those 19% AREN'T creating jobs, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Proof?

Nope!

He's got the entire field of economics behind him, but you mean what does he have beyond that? You got him there...

Who does? It's not "Few" economists who say raising taxes on upper echelons will hurt economic growth; It's in fact virtually none. It's just a lie that gets repeated and repeated and repeated until it becomes the new truth.

....And, who knows MORE about perpetual-lies than Republicans?

"Laffer is a bona fide economist with a doctorate from Stanford. He's also largely responsible for the Republican belief that tax cuts pay for themselves. Now 67, Laffer runs economic-consulting and money-management firms in Nashville. About the best I could get out of him on the question of whether the Bush tax cuts have paid for themselves was "I don't know." But that's only part of the story."

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues​

 

[midcan5]

Reagan and Clinton both raised taxes. Reagan every other day and Clinton on the wealthy. I think most have to concede the economy did well. Taxes are the cloud of fog used by the wealthy and the corporations to tame the minds of the empty headed.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


"Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84." Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton

"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!

I can hear you thinking (even if your values bias makes you otherwise eager to agree): "Here comes the bleeding heart liberal, anti-trickle down, do something for humanity mantra.” No, indeed. I’m talking data here—numbers and empirical evidence. Check your values at the door and come on in."

"The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families. In any case, in terms of how counter-productive they are, there is no automatic preference for spending reductions rather than tax increases." Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


The Economic Case Against Bush's Tax Cut by Edmund S. Phelps - Project Syndicate
http://www.bostonreview.net/br21.1/wolff.html
UBI and the Flat Tax
The rich get rich because of their merit.

 

[MaggieMae]

hey, just heard from that same poll that 34% were self identified conservatives and 26 or 28% were self identified democrats.

Majority of Republicans polled agree with raising taxes on the rich...

Who do we put in charge of determining who is "rich" and who isn't?

My neighbor lives in a 600K home paid off. He drives a brand new Suburban and owns 2 boats and a beach home paid off. No kids. Hundreds of thousands in the bank. Big pension. Is he "rich"?
Not according to tax law and rates. He is poor.
Another neighbor earns $251,000.00 and has 4 kids. He helps his Mom and has a large mortgage.
He IS RICH under current tax "reform" submitted by Democrats.
Anyone that wants to raise taxes in a recession when we need ALL THE $$$ WE CAN KEEP IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR is a dumb ass fool.

Fine. So how long do we need to wait before they start spending it in this country and not fattening their bottom lines by overseas investments?

 

[MaggieMae]

hey, just heard from that same poll that 34% were self identified conservatives and 26 or 28% were self identified democrats.

Majority of Republicans polled agree with raising taxes on the rich...

No link = Talking out of your asshole. ~BH

When you post your first "link," I think I'll fall over.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84."

So much for the usual line that RWR's tax cuts opened the flood gates for deficits.

 

[MaggieMae]

Let me get this right guy? You are "suspicious" that he is a moron, because he hit the nail right on the head?

Hey fuckO? How about you back yourself up and provide some proof that he isn't correct about your hero Michael Moore? I don't care if I was a dope smoking, smelly berkinstock wearing, filthy hippie in a tie dye with really long dreads begging for a quarter in Berkely. What he said was clearly the truth and I would admit to that. Yes, even while all doped up in Peoples park painting peace signs with resin on the back of coffee filters soaked in urine. ~BH

Nah, newby's a moron, and you're a moron by extension.

Suck rope pal.

Another hyper-intelligent response I see...

Obviously you prefer BH's "intelligent" responses.

 

[MaggieMae]

[/COLOR]

Did you even read that link? You are, in fact, making the case that the tax cuts did nothing to keep the economy afloat.

No I'm not.

The link shows that RAISING TAX RATES THROUGH THE ROOF do not result in more tax receipts.

In 2003, we were still in a recession. Tax receipts then rose, before we had the financial meltdown.

And with all those awful taxes..the United States experienced a growth in the Middle Class and people STILL got rich.

Go fig.

Yes, go figure. You continue to make my point.

 

[Cuyo]

You are researching sites or data with a left spin to it.

Would you say the Bush tax cuts did NOT work as it pertians to employment?

Until the recession, did you see an increase in unemployment?

Now be careful...do not toss out those left leaning misleading stats of employment cause I will show you how they are misleading...

But did you not see unemployment pretty much remain stable after the tax cuts?

It was a classic bubble-burst that caused the economic growth and consequential recession; In this case housing, but remember credit cards in the 80s and stocks in the 90s. As to unemployment, it's a lagging indicator; last down and last back up, same as it's always been.

I'm trying to say this without sounding indignant, but I've truly not heard serious weight given to the "Taxes on the rich damage the economy" argument outside of Republican echo-chambers. I think even nearly any 1st year ECO student could tell you that throwing money out of airplanes would give more stimulus than tax cuts for the wealthy.

If you dispute the claim, tell me why and I'll look at it, but so far you've only said I'm wrong.

In the 2000's...starting early on....

We had massive layoffs due to the dot com bubble burst.

We had an increase in technology resulting in individual employee voice mail (eliminating the need for receptionists and switchboards), boolean internet searche capabilities (eliminating the need for large research departments), advanced copiers with collating even for the smaller companies (eliminating the need for large copy staffs) advanced graphics on the pc(eliminatint the need for printing firms and printing departments within companies) advanced word processing capabilities (eliminating the needs for multiple secretaries...or less secreatries per executive) teleconferecning (eliminating travel affecting employment needs with hotels, arilines, etc)....and I can continue...
AND...we had a generous growth in population.

Yet....unemployment did not increase.

Seems there was plenty of corporate growth thanks to the tax cuts.

Curious...do those stats that claim there was no net job growth explain that there was no net job growth yet there was good reason for there to be generous job loss?

Thus what I mean when I say the stats you see are left leaning.

There's no one set of "stats" I'm using, so I don't quite know where to go with that. It's a preponderance of evidence; from school, from things I've read, from news, from personal experience, from common sense. I'm not sure what's gained by pointing out that new technology has eliminated old jobs - We all know that's true. Nobody's manufacturing walkmans or telegraphs anymore either. Population growth is also irrelevant, at least in theory, because a new citizen is both a provider and a consumer.

I've yet to see you make a connection that suggests that cutting taxes on the rich is a superior method of stimulation. The top bracket is lower now than it's been at any time in post-war history, and the economy's in the shitter. It was at its current rate throughout the entire bust and lengthy recession.

I don't want to search for this (I haven't yet) and start posting links - You will simply claim any link I post is left-leaning. But I know what the search will turn up. I'm not even aware of any significant contradicting evidence.