It's what Reaganism does...wrecks the middle class and the country...

[Toddsterpatriot]

Barry Hussein Sotoro Obama has been in office for the last 7+ years and the left is still blaming Reagan for God's sakes. Next thing you know they are going to dig up poor old Tricky Dick Nixon to justify Hillary's crimes.

We still have Reaganist tax rates and policies killing the middle class and the country, defended to the death by mindless GOP obstructionists DUH. Change the channel, dupe. Get some real news. Hillary's crimes? LOL.

We still have Reaganist tax rates

The top rate when Reagan left was 28%. Now, it's above 40%.

That's a 42% increase. Lib dupe.

 

[boedicca]

Actually, that is what big liberal regressive government does.

Next question?


I must say, it's rather incredible that some regressives are still blaming Bush. But to blame Reagan? That is clinically retarded level of dumb.

And this:

 

[thereisnospoon]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

You keep trying to get a thread going with this drivel.
It FAILED the first time. And it is a FAIL now..

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

good detective work sir....Well done

 

[thereisnospoon]

GOP Union killing .

Little Timmy. How many times have you been told to get away from the adult table?
If you feel the urge to type, go peck and hunt on your grandma's old manual.
One last time. Union membership in the private sector peaked in the early 1960's at about 35%.
The decline started there. By the mid 70's that number had fallen below 30%. By the 1980's end it was below 20%.
Unions have been in decline for 50 years.
Unions had their purpose. They no longer are needed.
Unions are solely responsible for own demise.

 

[thereisnospoon]

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

One of the most stupidest arguments I have ever heard





.

Who cares about facts? Certainly not GOPers.

So what? Why do you think someone bothers to open a business? To get out of bed to break even?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

And yet, under obama, the middle class has seen it's first loss of net worth since the 1970's. How do your silly "statistics" explain that?

A) BS. Link?
B) I'm sure your cherry picked spin has nothing to do with that little corrupt GOP WORLD DEPRESSION. Idiot.

Your shit stopped in 2007......9 years ago...And you have the balls to accuse others of cherry picking?.....Fucking retarded left wing extremist moon bat

 

[Timmy]

GOP Union killing .

Little Timmy. How many times have you been told to get away from the adult table?
If you feel the urge to type, go peck and hunt on your grandma's old manual.
One last time. Union membership in the private sector peaked in the early 1960's at about 35%.
The decline started there. By the mid 70's that number had fallen below 30%. By the 1980's end it was below 20%.
Unions have been in decline for 50 years.
Unions had their purpose. They no longer are needed.
Unions are solely responsible for own demise.

Your own post proves that the decline of Union membership correlates wh the decline of the middle class .

 

[francoHFW]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

And yet, under obama, the middle class has seen it's first loss of net worth since the 1970's. How do your silly "statistics" explain that?

A) BS. Link?
B) I'm sure your cherry picked spin has nothing to do with that little corrupt GOP WORLD DEPRESSION. Idiot.

Your shit stopped in 2007......9 years ago...And you have the balls to accuse others of cherry picking?.....Fucking retarded left wing extremist moon bat

Yes it's gotten worse duh. That's inequality under Reaganism, defended to the death by bought off, lying GOP pols and silly dupes like you. And thanks for the corrupt world depression. Thank God the Dems got in IMMEDIATELY this time.

 

[Dot Com]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

You keep trying to get a thread going with this drivel.
It FAILED the first time. And it is a FAIL now..

said the idjit who just bumped the thread 6x in a row

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes, your confusion between revenue and profit is well known

No confusion here, just combating deception on your part.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone

My yearly income is more than your lifetime income, I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker. Revenue is called revenue by the IRS because it has an added deduction, and differentiates it from income.

I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Yes, paying a 35% corporate rate and 39.6% on your trust is proof you're smart.

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker.

What's the COGS for the worker?

Yes, paying a 35% corporate rate and 39.6% on your trust is proof you're smart.

You should educate yourself on Nevada corporations.

I paid $180K on $4.5M. Do the math.

What's the COGS for the worker?

Workers have 'revenue?', thus why the IRS uses the term, to differentiate a corporation which has more and better deductions.

You should educate yourself on Nevada corporations.

Feel free to prove that Nevada corporations are somehow exempt from Federal taxes.

I paid $180K on $4.5M.

$4.5M what? Revenue?

Workers have 'revenue?'

No, they have salary.

Nice spin. Koch will be proud.

 

[OnePercenter]

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

Why all the company inversions if the tax rate is only 12%? Pesky facts!

Why all the company inversions if the tax rate is only 12%? Pesky facts!

Every company that played inversion walked on taxes owed through diversion of income. Money that has to be made up by the middle class, so be careful what drum your beating.

Every company that played inversion walked on taxes owed

Inversion doesn't release you from taxes owed.

Inversion doesn't release you from taxes owed.

All companies that inverted had deferred income, none that inverted paid tax on the deferred income.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

Why all the company inversions if the tax rate is only 12%? Pesky facts!

Why all the company inversions if the tax rate is only 12%? Pesky facts!

Every company that played inversion walked on taxes owed through diversion of income. Money that has to be made up by the middle class, so be careful what drum your beating.

Every company that played inversion walked on taxes owed

Inversion doesn't release you from taxes owed.

Inversions help corporations avoid paying the high US CORPORATE tax rate. That is the reason they do it-
://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-inversions/

Bernie's plan will only help increase inversions, no doubt.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[skookerasbil]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Nobody cares.

Its 2016...........almost 100 million out of work and GDP near zero. Wages? Down $2,000 under Obama and health insurance premiums have reached staggering costs. Nobody can get full time work. Black unemployment at the levels of laughable at this point. What we have here in 2016 is Trickle-Up Poverty economics!!! Awesome!!

People were proud to be Americans in the 1980's........and Reagan won 49 states in 1984 In 2016, people are miserable beyond words!!

 

[skookerasbil]

After JFK........Reagan was the next stud president in the eyes of the people ( except of course, to the progressive radical fringe )

http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5342/least-most-popular-presidents#9-George-W-Bush

 

[francoHFW]

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

Why all the company inversions if the tax rate is only 12%? Pesky facts!

Why all the company inversions if the tax rate is only 12%? Pesky facts!

Every company that played inversion walked on taxes owed through diversion of income. Money that has to be made up by the middle class, so be careful what drum your beating.

Every company that played inversion walked on taxes owed

Inversion doesn't release you from taxes owed.

Inversions help corporations avoid paying the high US CORPORATE tax rate. That is the reason they do it-
://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-inversions/

Bernie's plan will only help increase inversions, no doubt.

ACTUAL rate is 12%. Repeal GOP policy that helps inversion.

 

[francoHFW]

After JFK........Reagan was the next stud president in the eyes of the people ( except of course, to the progressive radical fringe )

http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5342/least-most-popular-presidents#9-George-W-Bush

40% is everyone lol? Same idiots as think that today.

 

[francoHFW]

His best acting job tho. Approval in the 40%s when he left, nothing but bs propaganda and wrecking the middle class and the country with his (defended to the death by New BS GOP) policies/tax rates since.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone

My yearly income is more than your lifetime income, I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker. Revenue is called revenue by the IRS because it has an added deduction, and differentiates it from income.

I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Yes, paying a 35% corporate rate and 39.6% on your trust is proof you're smart.

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker.

What's the COGS for the worker?

Yes, paying a 35% corporate rate and 39.6% on your trust is proof you're smart.

You should educate yourself on Nevada corporations.

I paid $180K on $4.5M. Do the math.

What's the COGS for the worker?

Workers have 'revenue?', thus why the IRS uses the term, to differentiate a corporation which has more and better deductions.

You should educate yourself on Nevada corporations.

Feel free to prove that Nevada corporations are somehow exempt from Federal taxes.

I paid $180K on $4.5M.

$4.5M what? Revenue?

Workers have 'revenue?'

No, they have salary.

Nice spin. Koch will be proud.

You found me out. The Koch brothers pay me to highlight your idiocy.