Make no mistake, Republicans raised the debt ceiling. Biden and Schumer are refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

[Winston]

Thank you for proving my point, Winston.
We had a 91% marginal tax rate for those earners of 200,000 (2,000,000 today).
No one was paying the 91% because of the deductions they were privy to.
It seems Stormy thought that they actually did pay that amount. You and I know better.

I didn't make your point. Almost all the deductions that they used in the 1950's are still available today. I asked you to name one that is not available today. The reality is that even though most of them are available, they don't use them because they don't have to. And that is not a good thing. Take the oil depletion allowance, back in the 1950's a wealthy person could invest in oil drilling and only risk ten cents on the dollar. Today, they would be putting at risk sixty cents on the dollar. Want to encourage more drilling, increase taxes.

 

[hadit]

The GOP always manages to claim they want fiscal conservative action only when they are not in power. When they control the government they forget about it.

At least they're right half the time, which is pretty good given Washington's track record.

 

[Meister]

I didn't make your point. Almost all the deductions that they used in the 1950's are still available today. I asked you to name one that is not available today. The reality is that even though most of them are available, they don't use them because they don't have to. And that is not a good thing. Take the oil depletion allowance, back in the 1950's a wealthy person could invest in oil drilling and only risk ten cents on the dollar. Today, they would be putting at risk sixty cents on the dollar. Want to encourage more drilling, increase taxes.

The deductions will always be there, get rid of one and add another, no matter which party in the majority.
Politicians have to protect their....'investors'.
Stormy seemed to think that the rich was paying the 91% in the 50's.

 

[Winston]

We can do both

Biden wants more spending when common sense tells us we need less

The spending is a conversation we can have, but holding the federal debt ceiling is not the way to do it. Besides, there is a lot more in the bill that just some spending cuts, like giveaways to the fossil fuel companies, rollback of environmental regulations, and the elimination of "green" tax credits that have resulted in tens of thousands of well paying jobs. And work requirements for welfare, what the hell does that have to do with the deficit?

What to discuss spending cuts, then pass a clean debt ceiling increase and then come back with your spending cuts. But, as a trade off, every dollar in spending cuts must be offset with a dollar in tax increases. Serious about cutting the deficit, then give me two dollars towards it instead of one. Can't do that then it is pretty easy to realize that the deficit was never the problem, the problem was where the money was being spent, or more precisely, who the money was being spent on.

 

[Mac-7]

What to discuss spending cuts, then pass a clean debt ceiling increase and then come back with your spending cuts.

Not possible

Dems will not keep their side of the bargain

We have to fo both at the same time

 

[Mac-7]

But, as a trade off, every dollar in spending cuts must be offset with a dollar in tax increases.

That works both ways

Every increase in borrowing must be accompanied by an equal amount of spending cuts

 

[Winston]

That works both ways

Every increase in borrowing must be accompanied by an equal amount of spending cuts

Policy Basics: The “Pay-As-You-Go” Budget Rule | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

PAYGO’s History and Impact on Fiscal Discipline Congress and the President first established a PAYGO law in 1990 as part of a bipartisan budget summit agreement to reduce the large deficits the...

www.cbpp.org

 

[Nostra]

I did not say any were added, you said some were gone.

Which ones?

Here ya go. This is some of the deductions taken away.

Now sit down and STFU, Troll.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/97th-congress/house-bill/4242

Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tax Deductions That Went Away After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Here are the tax deductions that went away, and a few that stayed, with the implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

www.investopedia.com

 

[Mac-7]

Policy Basics: The “Pay-As-You-Go” Budget Rule | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

PAYGO’s History and Impact on Fiscal Discipline Congress and the President first established a PAYGO law in 1990 as part of a bipartisan budget summit agreement to reduce the large deficits the...

www.cbpp.org

Congress and the white house have little to no fiscal discipline

Thats why we keep raising the debt limit

So, my preference is dprnding cuts first snd then raise the debt limit one last time

But cut spending first

 

[struth]

We've got to repeal the tax cuts and go back to 1950's level taxes on the top 10%. We also have to make damn sure that these cheats can't cheat the system! Once this is done our debt will go down as we will get enough revenue to pay it down.

Another myth by the leftist propandist that want to make filing taxes harder on the working class. In the 1950s the wealthy paid about the same actual tax rate. The tax code was burdened with loopholes that only the rich could take advantage of through hiring high priced lawyers. The GOP has throughout the years lift most of those loopholes and made filing taxes much simpiler....while maintaining about the same real tax rates.

Income Taxes on the Top 0.1 Percent Weren’t Much Higher in the 1950s

High marginal income tax rates on the rich were recently proposed. But how much have effective tax rates on the wealthy changed since 1950s?

taxfoundation.org

While marginal income tax rates have come down from their highs of 91 and 92 percent in the 1950s, changes in the tax base—how much and what types of income are subject to the tax—mean the effective rates on the wealthy haven’t changed nearly as much.

The graph below illustrates the average tax rates that the top 0.1 percent of Americans faced over the last century, based on research from Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman.[1] The blue line includes the impact of all federal, state, and local taxes on individual income, payroll taxes, estates, corporate profits, properties, and sales. The purple line shows income taxes only, including federal, state, and local.

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket—fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. Many studies show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the wealthy.

 

[Winston]

Another myth by the leftist propandist that want to make filing taxes harder on the working class. In the 1950s the wealthy paid about the same actual tax rate. The tax code was burdened with loopholes that only the rich could take advantage of through hiring high priced lawyers. The GOP has throughout the years lift most of those loopholes and made filing taxes much simpiler....while maintaining about the same real tax rates.

Income Taxes on the Top 0.1 Percent Weren’t Much Higher in the 1950s

High marginal income tax rates on the rich were recently proposed. But how much have effective tax rates on the wealthy changed since 1950s?

taxfoundation.org

While marginal income tax rates have come down from their highs of 91 and 92 percent in the 1950s, changes in the tax base—how much and what types of income are subject to the tax—mean the effective rates on the wealthy haven’t changed nearly as much.

The graph below illustrates the average tax rates that the top 0.1 percent of Americans faced over the last century, based on research from Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman.[1] The blue line includes the impact of all federal, state, and local taxes on individual income, payroll taxes, estates, corporate profits, properties, and sales. The purple line shows income taxes only, including federal, state, and local.

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket—fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. Many studies show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the wealthy.

While the statement might be true regarding the federal income tax, total taxes paint a much different picture. During the entire decade of the 1950's the total tax burden on the wealthy was over fifty percent. While only during the Clinton administration did the rate hit above 40% and during Bush Jr.'s term it looks like it got lower than 35%. That is insulting but stands to reason since there is not a single state in the Union that has a progressive tax system. Every damn one of them is regressive.

And that gap, that ten percent gap, who do you think makes up that difference? It is the poor and the middle class, hammered with an ever increasing Social Security tax that the wealthy eventually place out of, paying a higher rate of taxes on earned income than the wealthy pay on unearned income, I mean even saying that hurts my damn head. You got to pay more in taxes on money you "earn" than on money you didn't "earn"? WTF? It is really not hard to see which direction the system is tilted.

Look, the wealthy have figured out it is better to collect interest off the government debt than pay taxes to prevent it. It is really that simple. Who the hell do you think owns Treasuries? And another component of HR1--eliminating those additional IRS agents that the Treasury Secretary has specifically stated, would only be investigating those making more than $400,000 a year. And that very action, as evaluated by the CBO, WILL INCREASE THE DEFICIT.

Make no mistake about it, HR1 is not, IS NOT, about decreasing the deficit. It is about punishing the poor, the disabled, and veterans. It is about punishing people stupid enough to serve in the military, dumb enough to have crawled out of the wrong womb, and ignorant enough to go and get themselves disabled. HR1 also eliminates the cap on out of pocket prescription drug expenses of $2,000 for Medicare beneficiaries. How dare the government cap the amount of money drug companies can siphon off our elderly citizens. Dammit, that social security check is there for the benefit of the drug companies and health insurance companies.

And it is about relitigating legislation that has already passed. Holding the very financial security of the nation hostage because of sour grapes over legislation that was passed despite Republican opposition. It is insulting. And although the evidence of what a sad state of affairs the Republican party can be found throughout Washington DC, from MTG, Boebert, and Gaetz to a completely dysfunctional SCOTUS, HR1 is perhaps the most telling piece of evidence. It completely removes the clothes of the emperor party, and yet you guys still can't see it.

 

[struth]

While the statement might be true regarding the federal income tax, total taxes paint a much different picture. During the entire decade of the 1950's the total tax burden on the wealthy was over fifty percent. While only during the Clinton administration did the rate hit above 40% and during Bush Jr.'s term it looks like it got lower than 35%. That is insulting but stands to reason since there is not a single state in the Union that has a progressive tax system. Every damn one of them is regressive.

And that gap, that ten percent gap, who do you think makes up that difference? It is the poor and the middle class, hammered with an ever increasing Social Security tax that the wealthy eventually place out of, paying a higher rate of taxes on earned income than the wealthy pay on unearned income, I mean even saying that hurts my damn head. You got to pay more in taxes on money you "earn" than on money you didn't "earn"? WTF? It is really not hard to see which direction the system is tilted.

Look, the wealthy have figured out it is better to collect interest off the government debt than pay taxes to prevent it. It is really that simple. Who the hell do you think owns Treasuries? And another component of HR1--eliminating those additional IRS agents that the Treasury Secretary has specifically stated, would only be investigating those making more than $400,000 a year. And that very action, as evaluated by the CBO, WILL INCREASE THE DEFICIT.

Make no mistake about it, HR1 is not, IS NOT, about decreasing the deficit. It is about punishing the poor, the disabled, and veterans. It is about punishing people stupid enough to serve in the military, dumb enough to have crawled out of the wrong womb, and ignorant enough to go and get themselves disabled. HR1 also eliminates the cap on out of pocket prescription drug expenses of $2,000 for Medicare beneficiaries. How dare the government cap the amount of money drug companies can siphon off our elderly citizens. Dammit, that social security check is there for the benefit of the drug companies and health insurance companies.

And it is about relitigating legislation that has already passed. Holding the very financial security of the nation hostage because of sour grapes over legislation that was passed despite Republican opposition. It is insulting. And although the evidence of what a sad state of affairs the Republican party can be found throughout Washington DC, from MTG, Boebert, and Gaetz to a completely dysfunctional SCOTUS, HR1 is perhaps the most telling piece of evidence. It completely removes the clothes of the emperor party, and yet you guys still can't see it.

um the blue graph shows that all federal, state and local taxes, and it shows it's been roughly the same.

as far as SS tax, the rate has actually increased since the 50s...so not sure what you are talking about.

The top earners in this country have, and continue to contribute the most in tax revenue in this country. The issue is spending. Spending has continued to climb drastically since the 1950s. The Dembots continue to promise more "freebies" and create more dependance, thus driving up debt.

HR1 is about is a bill that addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government....not the deficit. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1

 

[Resnic]

The rule of thumb is.

If they say something positive then it's the exact opposite.

If they say something republicans did what they really mean is they did it.

 

[Winston]

um the blue graph shows that all federal, state and local taxes, and it shows it's been roughly the same.

as far as SS tax, the rate has actually increased since the 50s...so not sure what you are talking about.

The top earners in this country have, and continue to contribute the most in tax revenue in this country. The issue is spending. Spending has continued to climb drastically since the 1950s. The Dembots continue to promise more "freebies" and create more dependance, thus driving up debt.

HR1 is about is a bill that addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government....not the deficit. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1

OK, it is HR 2811 the "Limit, Save, Grow" act, what a crock of shit. And sorry, but you need to look at the graph again. The top line has a high point of almost 70% during the Great Depression, was only slightly under 50% one year during the entire decade of the 50's, was as low as almost 30% during Bush Jr.'s administration, and the end of the graph puts it at 40%. Sorry, but that is a variance of off almost 40 percentage points, and 40% is not "roughly the same" as 50%.

And yes, the Social Security tax has increased, quite substantially since the 1950's, and who the hell pays the majority of Social Security taxes? It ain't the wealthy, that is for damn sure. And that increasing Social Security tax is a big reason for the twenty percent decline in the percentage of income paid in total taxes by the wealthy indicated in your chart.

Look, let's get something clear here. The statement, "The top earners in this country have, and continue to contribute, the most in tax revenue in this country", is meaningless without context. Of course they contribute the most revenue, THEY MAKE THE MOST MONEY.

The richest one percent earn about 21 percent of the income and pay 24 percent of the taxes:

No, the Richest One Percent Don’t Pay 40 Percent of the Taxes.

A misleading conservative talking point that refuses to die.

nymag.com

That paints a very different picture doesn't it. WTF--one percent of the population earns more than one dollar out of every five total dollars earned, and they only pay one dollar out of every four in taxes? WTF? As the article stated, that is barely progressive. I mean they are garnishing an inordinate amount of the total income ON THE CHEAP. To facilitate competition, encourage investment, and rectify the continued decline of the earning power of the middle class and outright degradation of the lower class, the wealthy MUST pay a higher marginal tax rate. When that happens, they will find that their share of the total tax burden will DECLINE. I mean to make the statement you made, and earn less than a million dollars a year, indicates what a fool you are, a useful idiot. Because make no mistake about, the top one percent, they LIKE the way things are.

 

[struth]

OK, it is HR 2811 the "Limit, Save, Grow" act, what a crock of shit. And sorry, but you need to look at the graph again. The top line has a high point of almost 70% during the Great Depression, was only slightly under 50% one year during the entire decade of the 50's, was as low as almost 30% during Bush Jr.'s administration, and the end of the graph puts it at 40%. Sorry, but that is a variance of off almost 40 percentage points, and 40% is not "roughly the same" as 50%.

And yes, the Social Security tax has increased, quite substantially since the 1950's, and who the hell pays the majority of Social Security taxes? It ain't the wealthy, that is for damn sure. And that increasing Social Security tax is a big reason for the twenty percent decline in the percentage of income paid in total taxes by the wealthy indicated in your chart.

Look, let's get something clear here. The statement, "The top earners in this country have, and continue to contribute, the most in tax revenue in this country", is meaningless without context. Of course they contribute the most revenue, THEY MAKE THE MOST MONEY.

The richest one percent earn about 21 percent of the income and pay 24 percent of the taxes:

No, the Richest One Percent Don’t Pay 40 Percent of the Taxes.

A misleading conservative talking point that refuses to die.

nymag.com

That paints a very different picture doesn't it. WTF--one percent of the population earns more than one dollar out of every five total dollars earned, and they only pay one dollar out of every four in taxes? WTF? As the article stated, that is barely progressive. I mean they are garnishing an inordinate amount of the total income ON THE CHEAP. To facilitate competition, encourage investment, and rectify the continued decline of the earning power of the middle class and outright degradation of the lower class, the wealthy MUST pay a higher marginal tax rate. When that happens, they will find that their share of the total tax burden will DECLINE. I mean to make the statement you made, and earn less than a million dollars a year, indicates what a fool you are, a useful idiot. Because make no mistake about, the top one percent, they LIKE the way things are.

1) the great depression wasn’t the 1950s

2) yes the wealthy pay the most SS tax and irs not even close

3) wait you are bitching thar 1 percent of rhe population passes a quarter of all taxes?? haha really? 1 percent pays a qtr of all taxes and you aren’t satisfied? how greedy and selfish are you? the problem is only 1 percent is paying that much. We need more people not 1 percent of the population paying that massive share of taxes

 

[Faun]

Don’t buy what the leftist media is selling.

GOP-led House passes bill to hike debt limit and slash spending

The bill is going nowhere in the Senate. But Wednesday's successful vote marks a symbolic win for Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who struggled to unify Republicans behind a debt plan.

www.nbcnews.com

LOL

Oh look, Dumbfuck spreading more disinformation. Dumbfuck, it's the responsibility of both parties to pay for the spending they already approved.

 

[Nostra]

LOL

Oh look, Dumbfuck spreading more disinformation. Dumbfuck, it's the responsibility of both parties to pay for the spending they already approved.

Never said any different, Simp.

I simply pointed out the fact republicans in the House raised the debt ceiling, and Schumer and Biden are refusing to do so.

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of reading comprehpension skills.

what a moron.

 

[Faun]

Never said any different, Simp.

I simply pointed out the fact republicans in the House raised the debt ceiling, and Schumer and Biden are refusing to do so.

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of reading comprehpension skills.

what a moron.

No, Dumbfuck, you lied. You said Biden and Schumer are refusing to raise the debt ceiling. That's a lie. They want the debt ceiling raised. What they're refusing is other crap Republicans put in that bill.

 

[Nostra]

No, Dumbfuck, you lied. You said Biden and Schumer are refusing to raise the debt ceiling. That's a lie. They want the debt ceiling raised. What they're refusing is other crap Republicans put in that bill.

Sorry, the ceiling has been raised by Republicans.
Only hold up is your Vegetable Messiah and Schumer.

Deal with it, Simp.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, the ceiling has been raised by Republicans.
Only hold up is your Vegetable Messiah and Schumer.

Deal with it, Simp.

LOL

Exactly how crazy are you, Dumbfuck? Republicans did no such thing. They passed a bill in the House. That's all they did. They didn't raise the debt ceiling as they have no power to do so without the agreement of the Senate and President.