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.
You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.
View attachment 238630
So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.
Hate that greedy duck.
It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.
I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.
taxable income is considered profit in the eyes of the tax collectors and the supreme court....how is it moral for any government to confiscate 70% of your INCOME? Remember, income is not even "profit."
this is why if you file the long form, it allows all of those deductions...
and the 70% tax rate is not and never has been on their whole income.... we all pay different tax rates on all of our income... it is a graduated rate system....
as an example, for everyone, they would only pay 10% on earned income up to 30k, then income over that 30k up to say 50 k they could pay 15% on that taxable income, then over 50k to 80k, 20% on that taxable income.. we pay a certain tax on each income tax bracket....
so if the 70% tax bracket were brought back, it would be the tax rate for a certain bracket of taxable income...
say, for taxable money earned over 10 million a year.... all the money earned below that would be taxed at the lower tax bracket rates and NOT at the 70%....
NOT that I am for doing something like that! though I have not completely ruled it out.... I would just need to study the plusses and minuses of it more, before making a decision....
Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.
Hate that greedy duck.
It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.
I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.
Where does it go, fool?
How does it leave circulation, fool?
Answer the question. Where does it go?
So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.
Hate that greedy duck.
It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.
I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.
Sure. Explain it to us, professor.
The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.
Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.
I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.
Where does it go, fool?
How does it leave circulation, fool?
Answer the question. Where does it go?
Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?
Lot of those boats built over the last 40 years?
Answer the question. Where does it go?
Where does the wealth of the 3 richest people in the US go?
Bezos......16% of Amazon.
Bill Gates......24% of Microsoft (1996)
Warren Buffett......18% of Berkshire (2016)
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.
Hate that greedy duck.
It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.
I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.
Sure. Explain it to us, professor.
The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.
The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.
Right. Because it's in that gold-filled swimming pool.
Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.
Where does it go, fool?
How does it leave circulation, fool?
Answer the question. Where does it go?
Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?
Lot of those boats built over the last 40 years?
Answer the question. Where does it go?
Where does the wealth of the 3 richest people in the US go?
Bezos......16% of Amazon.
Bill Gates......24% of Microsoft (1996)
Warren Buffett......18% of Berkshire (2016)
I asked you that question, dope.
It certainly doesn't into the pockets of everyday Americans who spend it in the economy where it is further circulated.
70% of GDP is related to consumer spending. Not investment. Use your brain.
Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.
Hate that greedy duck.
It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.
I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.
Sure. Explain it to us, professor.
The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.
The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.
Right. Because it's in that gold-filled swimming pool.
Tell us where you believe it is, professor.
Well, then no one should mind going back to those rates.
You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.
View attachment 238630
So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Are you completely ignorant?
Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?
By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.
Of course I suggested no such thing.
Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.
I think everyone who voted yes should pay 70%.Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?
I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.
How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.
Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.
So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.
The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.
If our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not serious enough for wartime tax rates, they should be abolished.You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.
View attachment 238630
So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Are you completely ignorant?
Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?
By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.
Of course I suggested no such thing.
Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.
why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?
It's really not surprising that you use cartoons to express your ideas.
I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.
Sure. Explain it to us, professor.
The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.
The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.
Right. Because it's in that gold-filled swimming pool.
Tell us where you believe it is, professor.
Swimming around in the economy. Just like your wealth and mine.
Pulled out of circulation? Laughable.
Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?Where does it go, fool?
How does it leave circulation, fool?
Answer the question. Where does it go?
Tied up in a $120m yacht registered and moored in Monaco?
Lot of those boats built over the last 40 years?
Answer the question. Where does it go?
Where does the wealth of the 3 richest people in the US go?
Bezos......16% of Amazon.
Bill Gates......24% of Microsoft (1996)
Warren Buffett......18% of Berkshire (2016)
I asked you that question, dope.
It certainly doesn't into the pockets of everyday Americans who spend it in the economy where it is further circulated.
70% of GDP is related to consumer spending. Not investment. Use your brain.
I asked you that questionYes, you asked the stupid question.
It certainly doesn't into the pockets of everyday Americans who spend it in the economy
It used to, until a bunch of liberal twats decided a luxury tax on boats was a great idea.
Fucking morons.
70% of GDP is related to consumer spending
100% of GDP is related to domestic production.
Not investment.
Domestic production isn't related to investment?
You must be a liberal.
Use your brain.
You first.
You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.
View attachment 238630
So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Are you completely ignorant?
Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?
By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.
Of course I suggested no such thing.
Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.
why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?
So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Are you completely ignorant?
Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?
By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.
Of course I suggested no such thing.
Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.
why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?
Ask them.
You are a babbling fool. We don't have the deductions and exemptions they had back when those rates were in effect. And your advocacy for the increase does not include restoring them.
View attachment 238630
So what. The government can get more money out of rich without hurting the economy. It will benefit the rest of the country. Its good policy and should be implemented. It will help pay down the national debt and provide for vital government programs including national defense. The rich are living high off the hog. A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. There is simply no other solution.
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Are you completely ignorant?
Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?
By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.
Of course I suggested no such thing.
Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.
why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?
None of these fools get that you're talking about the uber wealthy. Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation. Taxation and govt spending put it directly back into circulation causing growth.
After Reagan started the trend of tax cuts, the uber wealthy have been pulling a larger and larger share of cash out of the economy.
View attachment 238770
Are you completely ignorant?
Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?
By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.
Of course I suggested no such thing.
Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.
why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?
Ask them.
I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.
Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.
I think everyone who voted yes should pay 70%.Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?
I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.
How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.
Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.
So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.
The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.
