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.
Here is one fact that the left can't outargue and that the federal government collects more money now than it ever did at 1980 yet tax rates are considerably lower than they were since 1980. Can someone explain that without lying? Sorry...democrats can't do that.
Ummm, the economy is much larger now than it was back in 1980. So that's why.
These are the top marginal income tax rates. You can clearly see which years we lowered the top marginal tax rates. Pick a year, any year.... then go to the next chart and find the year following the tax cut to see if it produced more or less revenue than the year before:
OK...Bush cut taxes in 2001.
Revenue for 2001-2004 was below what Revenue was in 2000.
That was easy.
/---- So you Libtards think the more money the Gubmint confiscates from the people will cause them to spend even more money?.
It has become a regular habit for some media contributors to blame millennials for the death of many businesses and other profitable institutions. This blame focuses on millennials because they refuse to spend there limited incomes to benefit the billionaires and other corporate fat cats.
The American people have listened to conservatives tout the benefits of Reagan’s snake oil known as “Trickle Down” for the last four decades. Reliable numbers charting the success of Reagan’s snake oil have proven consistently, that during these years, the wealthiest top 0.1% (that’s one tenth of one percent) have flourished beyond all expectations.
Unfortunately, those same reliable numbers prove the bottom 90%, and especially the lowest half of American families haven’t fared well, at all.
But, in the years when Reagan first started selling his snake oil, in younger, baby boomer families, both spouses began working, so the negative impact of his trickle-down-snake-oil was slow to be noticed by the masses. The generation that fought in WWII and produced the baby-boomers were already established financially, so they too were also slow to notice as their buying power decreased.
The WWII generation did have one advantage (if you can call it that) over the baby boomers they bore. The WWII generation lived through the Great Depression. Their families were forced to learn to make do with less, appreciate the value of money, and live within their limited means.
This was not the case with the “boomers”. As conservative policies slowly began to strangle wages, destroy unions, and create an environment hostile to working people, easy credit became available to provide the money needed by the boomers to buy the trappings of middle class, which were rapidly becoming more and more expensive.
Living expenses, whether for necessities or luxuries, increased at a rate much more quickly than incomes. The bubble burst in the middle of 2008, the final year of Dubya’s tax-cuts-for-the-very-rich, and borrow-money-for-two-needless-wars administration.
During the initial months of the Great Republican Recession, countless baby boomers lost their jobs, homes, cars, life savings, retirement accounts, etc. The following years of slow economic recovery resulting from the congressional Republicans many efforts to make Obama a one-term-president, saw economic conditions so bad, many of these boomers would never recover.
All this financial tragedy had little effect on the wealthiest top 0.1%, but it was a lesson to the millennial generation. Like their grandparents during the Great Depression, they watched while their parents [boomers] struggled financially. Savings ran out, as did long-term unemployment benefits, and eventually, the income from part-time jobs was barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
This generation-wide experience forced most millennials to develop a financial mindset that is currently being blamed for the dying retail industry, the slowing restaurant business, the bind being felt by automakers, unimpressive sales of new homes, and the loss of many jobs.
But blaming all this on millennials is Bullsh!t.
Unlike the suckers who believe in Reagan’s snake oil, these young people refuse to spend their meager incomes on the billionaires' over-priced crap. The same over-priced crap their boomer parents went deeply into debt to own, so as to live the middle class lifestyle, which was beyond the financial means of most.
No, the blame for the economic catastrophe of Reagan’s snake oil falls squarely on the suckers in the baby boomer generation. For four decades, they happily handed the vast majority of the wealth to the top 0.1%, in the mistaken belief the billionaires’ massive profits from ever-rising prices, substantial Republican tax cuts, the outsourcing these tax cuts helped finance, and the stagnant wages enjoyed by low and middle income families would finally be trickled down upon them.
That ain’t happened yet, and millennials know it never will. They understand they must live for the moment, and the few enjoyable experiences they are able to afford. Fu*k the businesses that are dying. The millennials are not to blame for the CEO baby boomers who were too stupid to understand Reagan’s snake oil would eventually cause their worlds to come crashing down around them.
Millennials can read the handwriting on the wall. They know Reagan’s “Trickle Down” snake oil is a scam to keep wealth moving upward, and always has been. They can also understand that, until the stupid, conservative baby boomers die out, there is little they can do to help themselves. The stupid members of the boomer generation still have too much power. “Trickle Down” will continue, for now.
'Psychologically scarred' millennials are killing dozens of industries — and it's their parents' fault
_______________________________________________________________________________________
View attachment 131176
.
tax cuts lead to massive debt, that the right, also, likes to complain about.Here is one fact that the left can't outargue and that the federal government collects more money now than it ever did at 1980 yet tax rates are considerably lower than they were since 1980. Can someone explain that without lying? Sorry...democrats can't do that.
Ummm, the economy is much larger now than it was back in 1980. So that's why.
What you are saying is that tax cuts don't always lead to a decline in revenue and that a growing economy always leads to greater tax revenue well if that is what you are saying then stop telling everyone that tax cuts leads to a decline in revenue since it ain't always true.
Should we ask Mr. Say, about Say's law regarding using State Capitalism, instead?/---- So you Libtards think the more money the Gubmint confiscates from the people will cause them to spend even more money?.
It has become a regular habit for some media contributors to blame millennials for the death of many businesses and other profitable institutions. This blame focuses on millennials because they refuse to spend there limited incomes to benefit the billionaires and other corporate fat cats.
The American people have listened to conservatives tout the benefits of Reagan’s snake oil known as “Trickle Down” for the last four decades. Reliable numbers charting the success of Reagan’s snake oil have proven consistently, that during these years, the wealthiest top 0.1% (that’s one tenth of one percent) have flourished beyond all expectations.
Unfortunately, those same reliable numbers prove the bottom 90%, and especially the lowest half of American families haven’t fared well, at all.
But, in the years when Reagan first started selling his snake oil, in younger, baby boomer families, both spouses began working, so the negative impact of his trickle-down-snake-oil was slow to be noticed by the masses. The generation that fought in WWII and produced the baby-boomers were already established financially, so they too were also slow to notice as their buying power decreased.
The WWII generation did have one advantage (if you can call it that) over the baby boomers they bore. The WWII generation lived through the Great Depression. Their families were forced to learn to make do with less, appreciate the value of money, and live within their limited means.
This was not the case with the “boomers”. As conservative policies slowly began to strangle wages, destroy unions, and create an environment hostile to working people, easy credit became available to provide the money needed by the boomers to buy the trappings of middle class, which were rapidly becoming more and more expensive.
Living expenses, whether for necessities or luxuries, increased at a rate much more quickly than incomes. The bubble burst in the middle of 2008, the final year of Dubya’s tax-cuts-for-the-very-rich, and borrow-money-for-two-needless-wars administration.
During the initial months of the Great Republican Recession, countless baby boomers lost their jobs, homes, cars, life savings, retirement accounts, etc. The following years of slow economic recovery resulting from the congressional Republicans many efforts to make Obama a one-term-president, saw economic conditions so bad, many of these boomers would never recover.
All this financial tragedy had little effect on the wealthiest top 0.1%, but it was a lesson to the millennial generation. Like their grandparents during the Great Depression, they watched while their parents [boomers] struggled financially. Savings ran out, as did long-term unemployment benefits, and eventually, the income from part-time jobs was barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
This generation-wide experience forced most millennials to develop a financial mindset that is currently being blamed for the dying retail industry, the slowing restaurant business, the bind being felt by automakers, unimpressive sales of new homes, and the loss of many jobs.
But blaming all this on millennials is Bullsh!t.
Unlike the suckers who believe in Reagan’s snake oil, these young people refuse to spend their meager incomes on the billionaires' over-priced crap. The same over-priced crap their boomer parents went deeply into debt to own, so as to live the middle class lifestyle, which was beyond the financial means of most.
No, the blame for the economic catastrophe of Reagan’s snake oil falls squarely on the suckers in the baby boomer generation. For four decades, they happily handed the vast majority of the wealth to the top 0.1%, in the mistaken belief the billionaires’ massive profits from ever-rising prices, substantial Republican tax cuts, the outsourcing these tax cuts helped finance, and the stagnant wages enjoyed by low and middle income families would finally be trickled down upon them.
That ain’t happened yet, and millennials know it never will. They understand they must live for the moment, and the few enjoyable experiences they are able to afford. Fu*k the businesses that are dying. The millennials are not to blame for the CEO baby boomers who were too stupid to understand Reagan’s snake oil would eventually cause their worlds to come crashing down around them.
Millennials can read the handwriting on the wall. They know Reagan’s “Trickle Down” snake oil is a scam to keep wealth moving upward, and always has been. They can also understand that, until the stupid, conservative baby boomers die out, there is little they can do to help themselves. The stupid members of the boomer generation still have too much power. “Trickle Down” will continue, for now.
'Psychologically scarred' millennials are killing dozens of industries — and it's their parents' fault
_______________________________________________________________________________________
View attachment 131176
.
You Libtards think that a reduction in discretionary income will spur economic growth?
Pleas explain.
View attachment 131821
But you're artificially lowering what is taken in. So tax cuts create deficits.
The Watergate Investigation took a year, and that was just a Conservative colluding with American operatives, not Conservatives colluding with a hostile foreign power. Investigations take time. The Grand Jury has already started issuing subpoenas. They only do that if there is enough circumstantial evidence.
I've got a better idea.....you demonstrate, with sources, how it EVER happened.That's a bit Fact Intensive....
Do you have anything I can fit on this bumper sticker?
Tax Cuts = Debt
BULLSH**. Every tax cut from Coolidge, to Kennedy, to Reagan, to GW INCREASED the amount of money brought in to the treasury after being adjusted for inflation. DO YOU WANT TO BET!
Give them the average annual growth rate of Federal income tax receipts from 01-09.....go on..These are the top marginal income tax rates. You can clearly see which years we lowered the top marginal tax rates. Pick a year, any year.... then go to the next chart and find the year following the tax cut to see if it produced more or less revenue than the year before:
OK...Bush cut taxes in 2001.
Revenue for 2001-2004 was below what Revenue was in 2000.
That was easy.
It was still greater than 1980 and lower than the tax rates then. You still haven't moved anywhere because you neglected to tell people what is the revenue between 2004 and 2008.
You talk a lot of shit.The Bush tax cuts are a poor example because they are an anomaly. Bush cut tax rates across the board so the top marginal rate decrease was offset by the decrease in all other tax rates. If you cut a poor man's tax rate you're not going to produce more revenue
Trickle down economics does not work. They just repealed it in Kansas yesterday, overriding the veto of Brownback. Cutting tax revenue does not increase tax revenue. Never has and never will. What does increase revenue is raising wages and increasing spending, both of which are the reasons why revenues grew. From 1961-1964, spending grew by 25%. From 1964-1968, spending grew by 50%. The chart you posted from the Tax Policy Center also shows big spending growth during Reagan; 25% from 1981-1984 and then 25% again from 1984-1988. When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue and there is no corresponding increase in consumption afterwards.
During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending.
Now you're jumping to an example of a STATE which has a myriad of mitigating circumstances involved which do not apply nationally.
Increasing spending DOES NOT increase tax revenues. Cutting TOP MARGINAL tax rates does increase revenues. Spending, debts and deficits are a different subject. That has nothing to do with tax rates and revenues produced by them.
I've shown you the stats... Reagan cut the top marginal tax rates from 70% to 28% and tax revenues increased from $517 billion to $909 billion in his 8-years. We had similar results when Kennedy's tax cuts were done in the early 60s and even when Clinton lowered top marginal rates in the 90s. And if you look at revenues from only the top marginal rates, even the Bush tax cuts produced more revenue. This is a FACT... not a theory.
ALL Free Market economy is "trickle down" ....that's how a free market system works. When you say "trickle down doesn't work" you are essentially claiming "free market doesn't work!" That is asinine.
And the federal government artificially creates a need for more money by getting involved in things it isn't allowed to.
Of you cut taxes while also grow the tax base you will create increased revenue.
Yeah and in Watergate there was an actual crime that started the investigation. Plus I am sure that they gathered some evidence in that year. There has been nothing within the year they have investigated. There is no law that said that Hillary had to win the election.
You talk a lot of shit.
Post the growth rate of receipts and compare them to those under Carter, Clinton, or Obama.
What you are saying is that tax cuts don't always lead to a decline in revenue and that a growing economy always leads to greater tax revenue well if that is what you are saying then stop telling everyone that tax cuts leads to a decline in revenue since it ain't always true.
Russia hacking our elections is a crime. I would consider it an act of war. And if the current President and the Republican Party assisted, colluded, or coordinated with them in any way, then that de-legitimizes the party, the president, and the ideology.
Tax cuts decline revenue because, math.
But there is no evidence any of that happened. ZERO!
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about and have the damned nerve to launch into some Denny's placemat history of Supply Side?You talk a lot of shit.
Post the growth rate of receipts and compare them to those under Carter, Clinton, or Obama.
We're not talking about growth rates. You have a rate of taxation and you have the revenue that rate produces. It has nothing to do with growth rates or debt or deficits or budgets or inflation or any other DIVERSION. It's not about who is a better president.... who's shit doesn't stink... how much you worship or hate someone.
Back in 1921, they called it "Scientific Taxation" and it was the idea of Andrew Mellon, Calvin Coolidge's Sec. of Treasury. He speculated that if you reduce the tax rate for the upper income earners, it would free up enormous capital which would then be put to use to generate more wealth and more tax revenue could then be collected as a result. There was great debate over this at the time, some people said it was crazy talk, it would never work. Coolidge liked the idea and he lobbied Congress to give it a try... they did... it worked brilliantly as Mellon had predicted. They came back and lowered it again a second time and a third time, each time it resulted in producing more tax revenue.
So this isn't some "theory" a bunch of right-wingers thought up under Reagan. It is a well-known principle and it has worked every time it has been tried. There's a fella named Arthur Laffer who predicts that it won't work at some point-- The Laffer curve assumes that no tax revenue will be raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100%, and thus there must be a rate between 0% and 100% which maximizes government taxation revenue. But so far, every time in modern history, when we lower the top marginal tax rates, it results in more tax revenue.
I'm really sorry if that doesn't sit well with you or fit your political narrative, I am sorry if it doesn't satisfy your jealous zeal to punish wealthy people with excessive taxation, but that's the fact of the matter whether you like it or not.
