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.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Romney pays very little in taxes too. Sorry but you are wrong.
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
LOL!
Romney pays very little in taxes too.
So?
Americans are savers now. It's a problem for the economy
"Americans barely pried open their wallets in April," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country. If people don't spend, the economy doesn't grow.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Link proof that they are actually paying more now.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?
Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.
Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Huh? I think that would be your job.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "grows an economy"?
A business isn't going to grow without spending. Suppose you own a restaurant. Do you need customers spending or saving? Will you have more employees if customers are spending or saving?
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "grows an economy"?
A business isn't going to grow without spending. Suppose you own a restaurant. Do you need customers spending or saving? Will you have more employees if customers are spending or saving?
And you produce more PRODUCT if people are spending and buying more PRODUCT.Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Romney pays very little in taxes too. Sorry but you are wrong.
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
LOL!
Romney pays very little in taxes too.
So?
Americans are savers now. It's a problem for the economy
"Americans barely pried open their wallets in April," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country. If people don't spend, the economy doesn't grow.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country.
If we don't stop punishing production, saving...spending, won't matter.
Remember GDP stands for Gross Domestic PRODUCT.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "grows an economy"?
A business isn't going to grow without spending. Suppose you own a restaurant. Do you need customers spending or saving? Will you have more employees if customers are spending or saving?
A business isn't going to grow without spending
Business? Sounds like you're talking about production.
You know what hurts production? The highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Stupid, intrusive, unhelpful regulations. I could go on.
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Link proof that they are actually paying more now.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?
Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.
Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Huh? I think that would be your job.
I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
And you produce more PRODUCT if people are spending and buying more PRODUCT.And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Romney pays very little in taxes too. Sorry but you are wrong.
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
LOL!
Romney pays very little in taxes too.
So?
Americans are savers now. It's a problem for the economy
"Americans barely pried open their wallets in April," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country. If people don't spend, the economy doesn't grow.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country.
If we don't stop punishing production, saving...spending, won't matter.
Remember GDP stands for Gross Domestic PRODUCT.
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "grows an economy"?
A business isn't going to grow without spending. Suppose you own a restaurant. Do you need customers spending or saving? Will you have more employees if customers are spending or saving?
A business isn't going to grow without spending
Business? Sounds like you're talking about production.
You know what hurts production? The highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Stupid, intrusive, unhelpful regulations. I could go on.
I'm not a big fan of corporate taes. But highest rate in the world doesn't mean they are actually paying it.
27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes
Link proof that they are actually paying more now.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?
Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.
Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Huh? I think that would be your job.
I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
And you produce more PRODUCT if people are spending and buying more PRODUCT.Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Romney pays very little in taxes too. Sorry but you are wrong.
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
LOL!
Romney pays very little in taxes too.
So?
Americans are savers now. It's a problem for the economy
"Americans barely pried open their wallets in April," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country. If people don't spend, the economy doesn't grow.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country.
If we don't stop punishing production, saving...spending, won't matter.
Remember GDP stands for Gross Domestic PRODUCT.
You're assuming the government isn't taxing and regulating you out of business before you can produce more.
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Spending grows an economy, not saving.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "grows an economy"?
A business isn't going to grow without spending. Suppose you own a restaurant. Do you need customers spending or saving? Will you have more employees if customers are spending or saving?
A business isn't going to grow without spending
Business? Sounds like you're talking about production.
You know what hurts production? The highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Stupid, intrusive, unhelpful regulations. I could go on.
I'm not a big fan of corporate taes. But highest rate in the world doesn't mean they are actually paying it.
27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Link proof that they are actually paying more now.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?
Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.
Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Huh? I think that would be your job.
I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Link proof that they are actually paying more now.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?
Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.
Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Huh? I think that would be your job.
I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
And you produce more PRODUCT if people are spending and buying more PRODUCT.Spending grows an economy, not saving.
LOL!
Romney pays very little in taxes too.
So?
Americans are savers now. It's a problem for the economy
"Americans barely pried open their wallets in April," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country. If people don't spend, the economy doesn't grow.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country.
If we don't stop punishing production, saving...spending, won't matter.
Remember GDP stands for Gross Domestic PRODUCT.
You're assuming the government isn't taxing and regulating you out of business before you can produce more.
You won't have a business without spending.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Link proof that they are actually paying more now.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Correct, many are not paying that rate, but on the other hand, others are.
This is what's so screwed up with our tax system. Those who are paying the higher rates do leave the country. Those who pay the lower end stay.
So it would make sense to have a more equitable tax structure where most all businesses pay the lower scale of our corporate tax rate. Because when you talk about effective tax rate, it makes it look like all businesses are paying low taxes.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?
Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.
Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Huh? I think that would be your job.
I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
And you produce more PRODUCT if people are spending and buying more PRODUCT.Americans are savers now. It's a problem for the economy
"Americans barely pried open their wallets in April," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country. If people don't spend, the economy doesn't grow.
That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country.
If we don't stop punishing production, saving...spending, won't matter.
Remember GDP stands for Gross Domestic PRODUCT.
You're assuming the government isn't taxing and regulating you out of business before you can produce more.
You won't have a business without spending.
And I won't start a business without savings.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?
Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.
Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Huh? I think that would be your job.
I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
