Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Toddsterpatriot]

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.

Sorry my old link of treasury study is gone, "link not found", best I have is this

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02



LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RICHEST BUBS THE ANKLE BITER

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.

My link is gone, best I have is this Bubba ankle biter

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02

LET'S LOOK AT THOSE "JOB CREATORS" BUBBA

AS THEIR "SHARE" OF INCOME SKYROCKETED BUBS

SEE A TREND HERE?

These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

The low point was after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts?
Thanks!

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH) including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class, you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

BUT YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE "LOW POINT" IN 1983 MEANS? LOL

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH)

OMG! That's awful! Terrible! Horrible!
So when he took office, the top rate was 70%.
After all those tax hikes....at the end of his term....the top rate was 28%.

including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class

He raised SS taxes by 40%? Got a link?

you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

Why would you need to find another link?
The one you have shows the lowest percent of income paid by the middle class in federal taxes was 1983.
That means your claim that they paid more in 1989 than in 1980 is still unproven.

 

[JonKoch]

So? Who said they must?

Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them. But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth. There goes the premise that cutting taxes increases revenues. There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs. So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs, then what's the fucking point of them? Simple; to manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending for programs you lack the courage and support to repeal through legislation. Basically, I'm calling you a chickenshit.

Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.

But tax cuts don't create jobs (see paragraph above), as we saw during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. Instead, they killed jobs. Sooooooo.....

Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer payments......it is possible to screw that up.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created? Because that's exactly what happened. I remember back in 2012 when Obama was going to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top 1%. Conservatives at the time said it would kill jobs, crash the market, and plunge the economy into a recession. Wrong on all three. So if you all were so fucking wrong then, why would you be right now? BTW - 1.5 million jobs were created in 2013. In other words, the opposite result of what Conservatives were predicting. So again, if they were so wrong then, why would they be right now?

I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what? 90%? 70%? When rates were "very high" during the 50's and 60's, it didn't seem to do anything to stop job growth. I see why you use ambiguous and generlized words and phrases...you do it to give yourself wiggle room later because you are not secure in the facts and have to craft escape hatches for yourself in your argument. What a pathetic and shitty thing to do. Shame!

They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.

NO THEY DON'T! How many times do I have to post this chart before you let it sink in:

If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,

So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves"). However the reality is that cutting income taxes leads to cuts in spending, which leads to increased out-of-pocket costs for consumers outside of the consumer economy (such as: health care, education). So you keep using theory, but the reality tells a different story. Why are you so dependent on theory? Why can't you deal with facts?

Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.

"A portion"? So moving the goalposts there, I see. What "portion" exactly? And the growth just isn't there. It wasn't there during Reagan, it wasn't there during Bush the Dumber. Tax cuts were not sold as something that would offset the drop in revenues. Tax cuts were sold as being able "to pay for themselves" so now what you're saying is that they kinda, sorta increase growth, but not really and it's not quantifiable, it's just what you happen to believe in your gut. Right? That's really what this is...you wishing your gut was reflective of the truth. All your gut is reflective of are the mountains of ho-ho's you shove in your mouth. You do not have good instincts. Do not trust in them because they are wrong and leading you down a humiliating path. I mean I feel humiliated for you. How's that for empathy!?

Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.

Or we could just raise taxes since, by your own squishy admission, tax cuts don't really pay for themselves or product quantifiable growth. However, there is mountains of evidence showing they cause households to go into debt because, like what happened in Kansas, state schools have to raise tuition costs to make up for the funding gap that occurred thanks to spending cuts, thanks to tax cuts reducing revenue.

That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?LOL!

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise. That's what the Kansas Board of Regents said. Not even sure what bullshit argument you're trying to make here. Facts show that tax cuts lead to debt and job loss. That's in the numbers, and in the quotes.

Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them.

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?

But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs,

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.

then what's the fucking point of them?

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?

I mean when jobs were created, Obama still managed to balloon transfer payment spending.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

NO THEY DON'T!

Yes, tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people.

So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves").

My theory is that tax cuts increase growth.
That growth will make the tax revenue decrease smaller than the tax cut.

Let's test it from your end of the spectrum.

Tomorrow the Federal government doubles every single tax rate.
Does the government collect twice as much revenue? More? Less? Why?

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.

At what point on that graph were the Federal Tax rates cut?

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

 

[JonKoch]

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.

Sorry my old link of treasury study is gone, "link not found", best I have is this

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02



LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RICHEST BUBS THE ANKLE BITER

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.

My link is gone, best I have is this Bubba ankle biter

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02

LET'S LOOK AT THOSE "JOB CREATORS" BUBBA

AS THEIR "SHARE" OF INCOME SKYROCKETED BUBS

SEE A TREND HERE?

These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

The low point was after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts?
Thanks!

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH) including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class, you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

BUT YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE "LOW POINT" IN 1983 MEANS? LOL

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH)

OMG! That's awful! Terrible! Horrible!
So when he took office, the top rate was 70%.
After all those tax hikes....at the end of his term....the top rate was 28%.

including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class

He raised SS taxes by 40%? Got a link?

you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

Why would you need to find another link?
The one you have shows the lowest percent of income paid by the middle class in federal taxes was 1983.
That means your claim that they paid more in 1989 than in 1980 is still unproven.

Sorry Bubs, aint going down this rabbit hole with you again,. I proved under my old account (DAD2THREE) to you Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40% AND since the LOW point of 1983 was for the middle class my posit was made on Ronnie's 11 tax increases (or as some of you Klowns say, "user fees", lol)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So? Who said they must?

Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them. But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth. There goes the premise that cutting taxes increases revenues. There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs. So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs, then what's the fucking point of them? Simple; to manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending for programs you lack the courage and support to repeal through legislation. Basically, I'm calling you a chickenshit.

Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.

But tax cuts don't create jobs (see paragraph above), as we saw during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. Instead, they killed jobs. Sooooooo.....

Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer payments......it is possible to screw that up.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created? Because that's exactly what happened. I remember back in 2012 when Obama was going to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top 1%. Conservatives at the time said it would kill jobs, crash the market, and plunge the economy into a recession. Wrong on all three. So if you all were so fucking wrong then, why would you be right now? BTW - 1.5 million jobs were created in 2013. In other words, the opposite result of what Conservatives were predicting. So again, if they were so wrong then, why would they be right now?

I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what? 90%? 70%? When rates were "very high" during the 50's and 60's, it didn't seem to do anything to stop job growth. I see why you use ambiguous and generlized words and phrases...you do it to give yourself wiggle room later because you are not secure in the facts and have to craft escape hatches for yourself in your argument. What a pathetic and shitty thing to do. Shame!

They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.

NO THEY DON'T! How many times do I have to post this chart before you let it sink in:

If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,

So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves"). However the reality is that cutting income taxes leads to cuts in spending, which leads to increased out-of-pocket costs for consumers outside of the consumer economy (such as: health care, education). So you keep using theory, but the reality tells a different story. Why are you so dependent on theory? Why can't you deal with facts?

Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.

"A portion"? So moving the goalposts there, I see. What "portion" exactly? And the growth just isn't there. It wasn't there during Reagan, it wasn't there during Bush the Dumber. Tax cuts were not sold as something that would offset the drop in revenues. Tax cuts were sold as being able "to pay for themselves" so now what you're saying is that they kinda, sorta increase growth, but not really and it's not quantifiable, it's just what you happen to believe in your gut. Right? That's really what this is...you wishing your gut was reflective of the truth. All your gut is reflective of are the mountains of ho-ho's you shove in your mouth. You do not have good instincts. Do not trust in them because they are wrong and leading you down a humiliating path. I mean I feel humiliated for you. How's that for empathy!?

Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.

Or we could just raise taxes since, by your own squishy admission, tax cuts don't really pay for themselves or product quantifiable growth. However, there is mountains of evidence showing they cause households to go into debt because, like what happened in Kansas, state schools have to raise tuition costs to make up for the funding gap that occurred thanks to spending cuts, thanks to tax cuts reducing revenue.

That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?LOL!

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise. That's what the Kansas Board of Regents said. Not even sure what bullshit argument you're trying to make here. Facts show that tax cuts lead to debt and job loss. That's in the numbers, and in the quotes.

Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them.

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?

But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs,

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.

then what's the fucking point of them?

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?

I mean when jobs were created, Obama still managed to balloon transfer payment spending.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

NO THEY DON'T!

Yes, tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people.

So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves").

My theory is that tax cuts increase growth.
That growth will make the tax revenue decrease smaller than the tax cut.

Let's test it from your end of the spectrum.

Tomorrow the Federal government doubles every single tax rate.
Does the government collect twice as much revenue? More? Less? Why?

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.

At what point on that graph were the Federal Tax rates cut?

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.

Sorry my old link of treasury study is gone, "link not found", best I have is this

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02



LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RICHEST BUBS THE ANKLE BITER

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.

My link is gone, best I have is this Bubba ankle biter

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02

LET'S LOOK AT THOSE "JOB CREATORS" BUBBA

AS THEIR "SHARE" OF INCOME SKYROCKETED BUBS

SEE A TREND HERE?

These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

The low point was after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts?
Thanks!

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH) including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class, you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

BUT YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE "LOW POINT" IN 1983 MEANS? LOL

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH)

OMG! That's awful! Terrible! Horrible!
So when he took office, the top rate was 70%.
After all those tax hikes....at the end of his term....the top rate was 28%.

including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class

He raised SS taxes by 40%? Got a link?

you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

Why would you need to find another link?
The one you have shows the lowest percent of income paid by the middle class in federal taxes was 1983.
That means your claim that they paid more in 1989 than in 1980 is still unproven.

Sorry Bubs, aint going down this rabbit hole with you again,. I proved under my old account (DAD2THREE) to you Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40% AND since the LOW point of 1983 was for the middle class my posit was made on Ronnie's 11 tax increases (or as some of you Klowns say, "user fees", lol)

Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40%

That doesn't mean he raised rates by 40% you moron!
If you post the rates before he raised them and after, your idiocy would be exposed.

I understand why you'll fail to post them.

 

[JonKoch]

Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them. But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth. There goes the premise that cutting taxes increases revenues. There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs. So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs, then what's the fucking point of them? Simple; to manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending for programs you lack the courage and support to repeal through legislation. Basically, I'm calling you a chickenshit.


But tax cuts don't create jobs (see paragraph above), as we saw during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. Instead, they killed jobs. Sooooooo.....


You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created? Because that's exactly what happened. I remember back in 2012 when Obama was going to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top 1%. Conservatives at the time said it would kill jobs, crash the market, and plunge the economy into a recession. Wrong on all three. So if you all were so fucking wrong then, why would you be right now? BTW - 1.5 million jobs were created in 2013. In other words, the opposite result of what Conservatives were predicting. So again, if they were so wrong then, why would they be right now?


So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what? 90%? 70%? When rates were "very high" during the 50's and 60's, it didn't seem to do anything to stop job growth. I see why you use ambiguous and generlized words and phrases...you do it to give yourself wiggle room later because you are not secure in the facts and have to craft escape hatches for yourself in your argument. What a pathetic and shitty thing to do. Shame!


NO THEY DON'T! How many times do I have to post this chart before you let it sink in:

So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves"). However the reality is that cutting income taxes leads to cuts in spending, which leads to increased out-of-pocket costs for consumers outside of the consumer economy (such as: health care, education). So you keep using theory, but the reality tells a different story. Why are you so dependent on theory? Why can't you deal with facts?


"A portion"? So moving the goalposts there, I see. What "portion" exactly? And the growth just isn't there. It wasn't there during Reagan, it wasn't there during Bush the Dumber. Tax cuts were not sold as something that would offset the drop in revenues. Tax cuts were sold as being able "to pay for themselves" so now what you're saying is that they kinda, sorta increase growth, but not really and it's not quantifiable, it's just what you happen to believe in your gut. Right? That's really what this is...you wishing your gut was reflective of the truth. All your gut is reflective of are the mountains of ho-ho's you shove in your mouth. You do not have good instincts. Do not trust in them because they are wrong and leading you down a humiliating path. I mean I feel humiliated for you. How's that for empathy!?


Or we could just raise taxes since, by your own squishy admission, tax cuts don't really pay for themselves or product quantifiable growth. However, there is mountains of evidence showing they cause households to go into debt because, like what happened in Kansas, state schools have to raise tuition costs to make up for the funding gap that occurred thanks to spending cuts, thanks to tax cuts reducing revenue.


No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise. That's what the Kansas Board of Regents said. Not even sure what bullshit argument you're trying to make here. Facts show that tax cuts lead to debt and job loss. That's in the numbers, and in the quotes.

Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them.

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?

But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs,

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.

then what's the fucking point of them?

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?

I mean when jobs were created, Obama still managed to balloon transfer payment spending.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

NO THEY DON'T!

Yes, tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people.

So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves").

My theory is that tax cuts increase growth.
That growth will make the tax revenue decrease smaller than the tax cut.

Let's test it from your end of the spectrum.

Tomorrow the Federal government doubles every single tax rate.
Does the government collect twice as much revenue? More? Less? Why?

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.

At what point on that graph were the Federal Tax rates cut?

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them.

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?

But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs,

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.

then what's the fucking point of them?

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?

I mean when jobs were created, Obama still managed to balloon transfer payment spending.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

NO THEY DON'T!

Yes, tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people.

So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves").

My theory is that tax cuts increase growth.
That growth will make the tax revenue decrease smaller than the tax cut.

Let's test it from your end of the spectrum.

Tomorrow the Federal government doubles every single tax rate.
Does the government collect twice as much revenue? More? Less? Why?

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.

At what point on that graph were the Federal Tax rates cut?

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

What you said:

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry my old link of treasury study is gone, "link not found", best I have is this

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02



LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RICHEST BUBS THE ANKLE BITER



My link is gone, best I have is this Bubba ankle biter

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families — Including Middle-Income Families — at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02

LET'S LOOK AT THOSE "JOB CREATORS" BUBBA

AS THEIR "SHARE" OF INCOME SKYROCKETED BUBS

SEE A TREND HERE?

These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

The low point was after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts?
Thanks!

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH) including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class, you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

BUT YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE "LOW POINT" IN 1983 MEANS? LOL

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH)

OMG! That's awful! Terrible! Horrible!
So when he took office, the top rate was 70%.
After all those tax hikes....at the end of his term....the top rate was 28%.

including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class

He raised SS taxes by 40%? Got a link?

you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

Why would you need to find another link?
The one you have shows the lowest percent of income paid by the middle class in federal taxes was 1983.
That means your claim that they paid more in 1989 than in 1980 is still unproven.

Sorry Bubs, aint going down this rabbit hole with you again,. I proved under my old account (DAD2THREE) to you Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40% AND since the LOW point of 1983 was for the middle class my posit was made on Ronnie's 11 tax increases (or as some of you Klowns say, "user fees", lol)

Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40%

That doesn't mean he raised rates by 40% you moron!
If you post the rates before he raised them and after, your idiocy would be exposed.

I understand why you'll fail to post them.

I get it Bubs, you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head*


Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448
Trust Fund Data

NOW SINCE SS HITS PREDOMINATELY THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS WHO GOT HIT WITH THE NEW TAXES?

1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses,as soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs

Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%, and lifted the age Bubba

 

[JonKoch]

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

What you said:

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?

Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST

 

[JonKoch]

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

What you said:

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fuck piss down...

Give tax breaks to the middle class, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in education for the poor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

The low point was after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts?
Thanks!

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH) including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class, you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

BUT YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE "LOW POINT" IN 1983 MEANS? LOL

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH)

OMG! That's awful! Terrible! Horrible!
So when he took office, the top rate was 70%.
After all those tax hikes....at the end of his term....the top rate was 28%.

including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class

He raised SS taxes by 40%? Got a link?

you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

Why would you need to find another link?
The one you have shows the lowest percent of income paid by the middle class in federal taxes was 1983.
That means your claim that they paid more in 1989 than in 1980 is still unproven.

Sorry Bubs, aint going down this rabbit hole with you again,. I proved under my old account (DAD2THREE) to you Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40% AND since the LOW point of 1983 was for the middle class my posit was made on Ronnie's 11 tax increases (or as some of you Klowns say, "user fees", lol)

Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40%

That doesn't mean he raised rates by 40% you moron!
If you post the rates before he raised them and after, your idiocy would be exposed.

I understand why you'll fail to post them.

I get it Bubs, you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head*


Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448
Trust Fund Data

NOW SINCE SS HITS PREDOMINATELY THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS WHO GOT HIT WITH THE NEW TAXES?

1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses,as soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs

Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%, and lifted the age Bubba

you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head*

Nope, just the righty pointing out the idiocy of your raised "SS taxes by 40% in 1986" claim.

Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448

So this was the source for your claim he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%,

If that's the case, it's an increase of 15.9%, not 40%. DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

What you said:

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?

Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST

wasn't your original posit though?

What was my original posit? Where?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fuck piss down...

Give tax breaks to the middle class, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in education for the poor.

Define middle class.
What rate do they currently pay?
What rate should they pay?

 

[JonKoch]

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH) including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class, you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

BUT YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE "LOW POINT" IN 1983 MEANS? LOL

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH)

OMG! That's awful! Terrible! Horrible!
So when he took office, the top rate was 70%.
After all those tax hikes....at the end of his term....the top rate was 28%.

including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class

He raised SS taxes by 40%? Got a link?

you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

Why would you need to find another link?
The one you have shows the lowest percent of income paid by the middle class in federal taxes was 1983.
That means your claim that they paid more in 1989 than in 1980 is still unproven.

Sorry Bubs, aint going down this rabbit hole with you again,. I proved under my old account (DAD2THREE) to you Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40% AND since the LOW point of 1983 was for the middle class my posit was made on Ronnie's 11 tax increases (or as some of you Klowns say, "user fees", lol)

Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40%

That doesn't mean he raised rates by 40% you moron!
If you post the rates before he raised them and after, your idiocy would be exposed.

I understand why you'll fail to post them.

I get it Bubs, you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head*


Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448
Trust Fund Data

NOW SINCE SS HITS PREDOMINATELY THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS WHO GOT HIT WITH THE NEW TAXES?

1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses,as soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs

Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%, and lifted the age Bubba

you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head*

Nope, just the righty pointing out the idiocy of your raised "SS taxes by 40% in 1986" claim.

Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448

So this was the source for your claim he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%,

If that's the case, it's an increase of 15.9%, not 40%. DERP!

And created taxes on both sides of self employed, taxed income on SS recipients for the first time, increased retirement by 2 years, "windfall" of collecting both a pension and Social Security was curbed.

Payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP 1981-1989
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021

7/10TH OF 1% IS HUGE, WHEN YOU CONSIDER INCOME TAX REVENUES FELL 1% THE SAME TIME PERIOD THANKS TO RONNIE'S TAX CUT FOR THE RICH BUBS



HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS BUBS:

SS REVENUES THAT MAINLY FALL ON THE BOTTOM 95%

Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913 Billion

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448 Billion

How did wages do again?

 

[JonKoch]

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

What you said:

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?

Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST

wasn't your original posit though?

What was my original posit? Where?

OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

 

[JonKoch]

Fuck piss down...

Give tax breaks to the middle class, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in education for the poor.

Define middle class.
What rate do they currently pay?
What rate should they pay?

Fuck piss down...

Give tax breaks to the middle class, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in education for the poor.

Define middle class.
What rate do they currently pay?
What rate should they pay?

Bubba, you are a perfect troll for Trumpov

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH)

OMG! That's awful! Terrible! Horrible!
So when he took office, the top rate was 70%.
After all those tax hikes....at the end of his term....the top rate was 28%.

including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class

He raised SS taxes by 40%? Got a link?

you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link

Why would you need to find another link?
The one you have shows the lowest percent of income paid by the middle class in federal taxes was 1983.
That means your claim that they paid more in 1989 than in 1980 is still unproven.

Sorry Bubs, aint going down this rabbit hole with you again,. I proved under my old account (DAD2THREE) to you Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40% AND since the LOW point of 1983 was for the middle class my posit was made on Ronnie's 11 tax increases (or as some of you Klowns say, "user fees", lol)

Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40%

That doesn't mean he raised rates by 40% you moron!
If you post the rates before he raised them and after, your idiocy would be exposed.

I understand why you'll fail to post them.

I get it Bubs, you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head*


Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448
Trust Fund Data

NOW SINCE SS HITS PREDOMINATELY THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS WHO GOT HIT WITH THE NEW TAXES?

1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses,as soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs

Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%, and lifted the age Bubba

you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head*

Nope, just the righty pointing out the idiocy of your raised "SS taxes by 40% in 1986" claim.

Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448

So this was the source for your claim he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%,

If that's the case, it's an increase of 15.9%, not 40%. DERP!

And created taxes on both sides of self employed, taxed income on SS recipients for the first time, increased retirement by 2 years, "windfall" of collecting both a pension and Social Security was curbed.

Payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP 1981-1989
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021

7/10TH OF 1% IS HUGE, WHEN YOU CONSIDER INCOME TAX REVENUES FELL 1% THE SAME TIME PERIOD THANKS TO RONNIE'S TAX CUT FOR THE RICH BUBS



HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS BUBS:

SS REVENUES THAT MAINLY FALL ON THE BOTTOM 95%

Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913 Billion

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448 Billion

How did wages do again?

Payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP 1981-1989

Just awful!
Still, 11.7% isn't 40%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

What you said:

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?

Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST

wasn't your original posit though?

What was my original posit? Where?

OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Abso-fucking-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?

 

[JonKoch]

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

What you said:

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?

Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST

wasn't your original posit though?

What was my original posit? Where?

OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Abso-fucking-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?

What you said:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs