Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That clarifies it, thank you! Believe it or not, I didn't know Jefferson wrote this, it's actually a brilliant idea, and when it comes to Reagan, I've actually been looking back on him and I've realized he is more liberal then my side makes him out to be..To James Madison Fontainebleau Oct. 28 1785; The Letters of Thomas JeffersonAnother means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.
"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
Every penny from those making $500,000 or more only 6 months? Oh you mean WITHOUT keeping existing tax revenues TOO?
Since taxing ONLY the top 1% at DOUBLE today's EFFECTIVE rate (23%) would wipe out the current deficit?
Yep, ONLY a 46% EFFECTIVE tax rate for the top 1% and we go back to a surplus like Clinton had US at!
The point remains that we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.
The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards.
I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.
Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
I will never forgive George Bush and the mock GOP Congress for taking the conservative movement so far off the reservation."Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
Every penny from those making $500,000 or more only 6 months? Oh you mean WITHOUT keeping existing tax revenues TOO?
Since taxing ONLY the top 1% at DOUBLE today's EFFECTIVE rate (23%) would wipe out the current deficit?
Yep, ONLY a 46% EFFECTIVE tax rate for the top 1% and we go back to a surplus like Clinton had US at!
The point remains that we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.
Right Reagan GUTTING the treasury by almost 3% of GDP didn't matter NOR Dubya gutting it by 5%+ of GDP, it was ONLY the spending increases (3% under Reagan, 2% under Dubya) by the GOPers that was the problem *shaking head*
Hint taking US from 20% of GDP like Clinton had US to under 15% of GDP WHILE DUBYA EXPLODED THE CREDIT CARD CHARGES, CREATED THIS SITUATION (along with his ponzi scheme)
I heard Reagan raised taxes multiple times and lowered them on the rich, this seems to be the case..From that same letter written by Jefferson:
The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards.
Sound familiar?
I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.
Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
Reagan understood this.
Hilarious, when you refer to "punishment" you do realize corporations move on their own to get the cheapest labor, that's why we need a global movement to keep these corporations in check.The reason we are having economic problems in this country are directly related to Progressive policies.
When you punish business for operating here, they go elsewhere. When you make poverty a viable option for people, they choose it. The income gap is a result of left wing policies and in true left wing dishonesty, they cause it and point their fingers elsewhere.
That isn't the only reason. Cheapest labor is only for companies that can use it. Nany companies need skilled workers and those cannot be found in Chinese sweatshops. Those companies go to where they aren't so regulated and taxed. N other words, where they don't get harshly punished.
1.Take your charts and shove them up your assWhen the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.
The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.
Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.
Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.
1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.
2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.
If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.
If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.
He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.
He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.
Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.
But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.
The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.
Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.
===============
It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.
We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.
Why is their so many ignorant fools on here in history?
Again you moron it's not 1950. Not 1960...
Europe and Asia were coming out of WWII
We didn't have the regulations we have now We didn't have the Competition we have now...
An high tax rate won't work.....
Looks like the job creators are doing a fine job of killing the middle class all by themselves.
Tell us some more about the job killing regulations.
EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
I'm curious, do you support social welfare programs and maintaining them? Where do you stand on social security? Military spending?I will never forgive George Bush and the mock GOP Congress for taking the conservative movement so far off the reservation."Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
Every penny from those making $500,000 or more only 6 months? Oh you mean WITHOUT keeping existing tax revenues TOO?
Since taxing ONLY the top 1% at DOUBLE today's EFFECTIVE rate (23%) would wipe out the current deficit?
Yep, ONLY a 46% EFFECTIVE tax rate for the top 1% and we go back to a surplus like Clinton had US at!
The point remains that we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.
Right Reagan GUTTING the treasury by almost 3% of GDP didn't matter NOR Dubya gutting it by 5%+ of GDP, it was ONLY the spending increases (3% under Reagan, 2% under Dubya) by the GOPers that was the problem *shaking head*
Hint taking US from 20% of GDP like Clinton had US to under 15% of GDP WHILE DUBYA EXPLODED THE CREDIT CARD CHARGES, CREATED THIS SITUATION (along with his ponzi scheme)
Ever.
What would really help the economy is to completely end all social programs (including obamacare) and shift that money over to paying off obamas debt.
those on welfare dont contribute anyway, the money they spend in the community is generated by the taxes paid by the working members of that community in the first place, so its pretty much a negative however you look at it.
This would do a couple of things, but the biggest thing it would do is to end poverty at the lowest level while reducing the number of unemployed in the country.
Gutting the money for the poor ends poverty???? lol
ONLY in right wing "reality" Bubs
HINT IT'S LACK OF JOBS THOSE "JOB CREATORS" ARE CREATING, NOT LACK OF PEOPLE LOOKING!
WHILE Corps have record profits!
Weird right?
Would that be corporations like GE, run by Obama's "jobs czar" Imelt? The GE that moves jobs out of this country and paid zero corporate income taxes last year? That corporation?
GDP isn't really a good measure of how well people are doing though, so that's sticky.You all probably remember Dick Cheney saying during the 2000 campaign that Reagan taught us "deficits don't matter".
That is not what Reagan taught us.
What Reagan taught us was as long as GDP growth matched or exceeded the growth in the deficit, then we would be fine. And for the most part, Reagan held the deficit to GDP growth.
Clinton did not. Not even close.
And neither did Bush/Cheney.
Which makes Cheney a fucking asshole. And Bush.
"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider
The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
Every penny from those making $500,000 or more only 6 months? Oh you mean WITHOUT keeping existing tax revenues TOO?
Since taxing ONLY the top 1% at DOUBLE today's EFFECTIVE rate (23%) would wipe out the current deficit?
Yep, ONLY a 46% EFFECTIVE tax rate for the top 1% and we go back to a surplus like Clinton had US at!
bullshit. you could take 100% of the income of the top 1% and it would run the govt for 6 months.
I get it Bubba, CONservatives HATE math. AGAIN, are you talking ONLY the top 1% OR the entire existing tax revenues AND the top 1%?
TOP 1% "MADE" NEARLY $2 TRILLION BUBS, PAID $451 BILLION TAXES, LEAVES $1.5 TRILLION TO WIPE OUT THE $450 BILLION DEFICIT THIS YEAR??
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
IT'S A REAL MATH THING BUBS, NOT RIGHT WING THING!
So, based on your data the evil rich paid around 25% after all the evil exemptions and deductions that the evil rich are given by the evil dems who have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years. right?
Should it be 50%? 75%? how much of a successful person's income should the govenment confiscate fromt them? Have you talked to Oprah and Beyonce about paying more?
I'm a retired vet, so I believe in a strong defense. However, there is no reason which explains why we are spending, in dollars adjusted for inflation, as much on defense today as we were in WWII. We are not in a world war. We are not under an existential threat like we were in the Cold War.I'm curious, do you support social welfare programs and maintaining them? Where do you stand on social security? Military spending?I will never forgive George Bush and the mock GOP Congress for taking the conservative movement so far off the reservation.That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.
The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.
Every penny from those making $500,000 or more only 6 months? Oh you mean WITHOUT keeping existing tax revenues TOO?
Since taxing ONLY the top 1% at DOUBLE today's EFFECTIVE rate (23%) would wipe out the current deficit?
Yep, ONLY a 46% EFFECTIVE tax rate for the top 1% and we go back to a surplus like Clinton had US at!
The point remains that we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.
Right Reagan GUTTING the treasury by almost 3% of GDP didn't matter NOR Dubya gutting it by 5%+ of GDP, it was ONLY the spending increases (3% under Reagan, 2% under Dubya) by the GOPers that was the problem *shaking head*
Hint taking US from 20% of GDP like Clinton had US to under 15% of GDP WHILE DUBYA EXPLODED THE CREDIT CARD CHARGES, CREATED THIS SITUATION (along with his ponzi scheme)
Ever.
Skilled workers exist all around the world, even tech companies are starting to rely on cheap labor from China and India to do programming and the like. Yeah, and where they aren't regulated and taxes, the workers suffer.Hilarious, when you refer to "punishment" you do realize corporations move on their own to get the cheapest labor, that's why we need a global movement to keep these corporations in check.The reason we are having economic problems in this country are directly related to Progressive policies.
When you punish business for operating here, they go elsewhere. When you make poverty a viable option for people, they choose it. The income gap is a result of left wing policies and in true left wing dishonesty, they cause it and point their fingers elsewhere.
That isn't the only reason. Cheapest labor is only for companies that can use it. Nany companies need skilled workers and those cannot be found in Chinese sweatshops. Those companies go to where they aren't so regulated and taxed. N other words, where they don't get harshly punished.
Bull. You are playing with words. I responded to his erroneous brief that the ONLY reason they are moving is for cheap labor. That is patently false.
This country has the highest tax rate on businesses in the entire world, increasing it still will punish them further and either drive more away or make it nearly impossible for people to create more business.
Starting a business in this country is already very difficult.
Bernie and Ted are next door neighbors. They earn identical incomes. Their combined share of the federal budget is $1000, so by all rights they should each be paying $500 in taxes.
But Ted has participated in the government behavioral control programs by purchasing the right products, and so he gets to deduct $100 from his share of the tax burden.
Now the federal government is short $100. It has only received $900 from Bernie and Ted. We have a $100 deficit.
That deficit is going to either have to be borrowed from the Fed or China, or else it will have to be made up for by raising tax rates on everyone.
That's the system we are living under. People earning identical incomes paying radically different taxes, and deductions being paid for out of other people's pockets.
That's right, boys and girls, your tax deductions, credits, and exemptions are paid for with OPM. So whenever you whine about social programs being paid for with OPM, take a look in the mirror because tax expenditures add up to TWICE what we spend on social welfare.
your example is valid. Now, which party put those exemptions into the tax code? Hint: the party that has controlled congress for most of the last 75 years------------------------the dems.
"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."
Everyone wants a handout, but they don't want to pay for it.
That's how we got here, folks. It wasn't food stamps. It wasn't Obamaphones. It wasn't illegal aliens.
It is tax expenditures. And if you think $18 trillion of federal debt should be paid by someone else, then you are an asshole. You took, and now you must pay.
Weird, you mean the past 34 years of Reaganomics hasn't benefited US YET the top 1% has quadrupled their after tax incomes AS the US debt exploded?
Reagan's reduction of tax expenditures has been undone. Hugely undone. There has been a tax expenditure added to the tax code at the average of one a day for over ten years.
Did you even bother to look at all the charts I posted earlier in this topic?
You mean when Reagan gutted taxes (and revenues) on the rich while he upped taxes on the average worker? AS he upped the debt by 289%?
Yeah, thats it, attack the dead presidents. Reagan did not cause today's problems. Clinton, Bush, and Obama did.
Grow up and ditch the political bullshit.
