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.
It has in the past, but it wasn't ever because if secondary economic effects tax-cuts bought. It was because at high enough rates people would spend more money on accountants and lawyers and less on paying taxes. Who in their right mind will pay 90% tax? But at current low rates these pleads are ridiculous.
Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...
Obviously you are a retard. I pay plenty of taxes with around $200,000 income. So stfu.
I make $12 trillion. Funny thing on the Internet, you can say whatever you want. You're not demonstrating any knowledge on the subject, that is a lot more convincing
I see, so I have no income and you make 12 Trillion.
I can say anything I want, but I also have some self respect not to lie to strangers on anonymous message board.
Actually I made $23 Trillion.
What I always find amusing is how know-it-all CON$ don't know that there is a piece of information conspicuously missing from that deliberately deceptive half truth making it a whole lie.I always find it amusing that Libs like to claim Reagan gave tax breaks to the rich and milked the poor, when the facts are from 1981-1989 the percentage of tax dollars collected from the top 1% went from about 18% to over 25%
Obviously that info is deliberately misleading without knowing how much the top 1%'s income increased over the same period. The fact that it was deliberately left out should tell you that it was a lot more than the 7% increase in tax dollars, which is why I was not surprised to find out the income of the top 1% had grown 60% from 1981 to 1989.
antontoo - you wouldn't know "rational" if it smacked you in the face. History has proven time and time again that left-wing socialist policies lead to poverty and right-wing free-market policies lead to prosperity. It's just an indisputable fact. Look at Venezuela for God sakes. Some of the largest oil resources in the world and they have plummeted into extreme poverty because of the idiotic policies you support out of spite and envy.Bwahahahahaha!!! Oh the irony of that post. The word "your" shows possession you high school dropout. As in your cellphone. The word "you're" is a contraction for you are. As in you're really stupid antontoo.YOUR STUPID:
If government could do MORE handouts at lower rates, by collecting MORE revenues - WHY THE FUCK WOULD I BE AGAINST IT?
Now, to answer your question (see...possession): for the same reason idiot progressives support all failed economic policies: because you're (see....contraction for you are) more interested in punishing people who are more successful than you out of spite and envy than you are in seeing others thrive and prosper.
Yes dumbass, YOUR bullshit and YOUR stupid. Stupid that prevents from carrying on a rational conversation.
Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-
"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"
So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.
antontoo - you wouldn't know "rational" if it smacked you in the face. History has proven time and time again that left-wing socialist policies lead to poverty and right-wing free-market policies lead to prosperity. It's just an indisputable fact. Look at Venezuela for God sakes. Some of the largest oil resources in the world and they have plummeted into extreme poverty because of the idiotic policies you support out of spite and envy.Bwahahahahaha!!! Oh the irony of that post. The word "your" shows possession you high school dropout. As in your cellphone. The word "you're" is a contraction for you are. As in you're really stupid antontoo.YOUR STUPID:
If government could do MORE handouts at lower rates, by collecting MORE revenues - WHY THE FUCK WOULD I BE AGAINST IT?
Now, to answer your question (see...possession): for the same reason idiot progressives support all failed economic policies: because you're (see....contraction for you are) more interested in punishing people who are more successful than you out of spite and envy than you are in seeing others thrive and prosper.
Yes dumbass, YOUR bullshit and YOUR stupid. Stupid that prevents from carrying on a rational conversation.
Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...
Obviously you are a retard. I pay plenty of taxes with around $200,000 income. So stfu.
I make $12 trillion. Funny thing on the Internet, you can say whatever you want. You're not demonstrating any knowledge on the subject, that is a lot more convincing
I see, so I have no income and you make 12 Trillion.
I can say anything I want, but I also have some self respect not to lie to strangers on anonymous message board.
Actually I made $23 Trillion.
Actually you are just a liar.
You don't know me, you don't what I make, you don't know what I pay in taxes, you just run your little mouth attached to your very small, pathetic self.
why do we have to pay bills for the poor? Why cant they like many others, elevate themselves out of poverty and make something of themselves? Because then they do dig themselves out of poverty, then the Democrats lose their plantation slaves. Why else has the African americans who left the ghetto's voted for Trump? Now the illegals who cant speak English are the new Democrat voters. Idiots like you are the reason why Trump will be the next president.Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-
"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"
So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.
BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.
Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.
“We reform the immigration laws; it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. If we have eight million new voters who care about, and will be voting, we will be creating a governing coalition for the long term.”
Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-
"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"
So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.
BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.
Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.
That probably made sense in your own mind. To everyone else, not so much.I can remember a time when Republicans were actually the adults in the room. I used to highly admire William F. Buckley and can honestly say (with some embarrassment now) that I voted for Reagan twice and papa Bush once. Republicans weren't always ill tempered toddlers. Are you really that young or were you just too clueless in your youth to have paid any attention?There are a number of examples. The worst two I can think of off the top of my head were the debt ceiling brinksmanship and the refusal to even consider any of the medicare-for-all proposals that had been mandated when Obama was elected. Even when the Dems had a super majority, the Republicans were doing everything they could to throw a wrench. The tax increases came quite a bit later and were the last straw.I will if it's as childish as what the Republicans were doing. I have no special love for the Dems.
I appreciate the attitude, but can you provide a better example of what the Republicans did that was "childish?" Your first example was they didn't vote for something Republicans always oppose, which is not childish and you'd never demand Democrats do. Give some examples of things they opposed because Democrats wanted to do it
Typical brain dead answer. Fiscal conservatives fight every debt ceiling increase and seriously, if it weren't for Obama they'd expand medical welfare for all to everyone? It's the typical moron answer you give two liberal things Republicans always fight and say gosh, it's OBAMA.
You're O fer. Try again. What did Republicans oppose they would support if it wasn't for Obama? Maybe go in your head this time, not off the top because you missed
Yes, every Democrat was a Republican until 2000 when Democrats tried to steal the election and failed. There actually was no Democrat party until then. It's remarkable.
You own guns too, that's how you know gun owners are sick bastards. Another remarkable phenomenon
That probably made sense in your own mind. To everyone else, not so much.I can remember a time when Republicans were actually the adults in the room. I used to highly admire William F. Buckley and can honestly say (with some embarrassment now) that I voted for Reagan twice and papa Bush once. Republicans weren't always ill tempered toddlers. Are you really that young or were you just too clueless in your youth to have paid any attention?There are a number of examples. The worst two I can think of off the top of my head were the debt ceiling brinksmanship and the refusal to even consider any of the medicare-for-all proposals that had been mandated when Obama was elected. Even when the Dems had a super majority, the Republicans were doing everything they could to throw a wrench. The tax increases came quite a bit later and were the last straw.I appreciate the attitude, but can you provide a better example of what the Republicans did that was "childish?" Your first example was they didn't vote for something Republicans always oppose, which is not childish and you'd never demand Democrats do. Give some examples of things they opposed because Democrats wanted to do it
Typical brain dead answer. Fiscal conservatives fight every debt ceiling increase and seriously, if it weren't for Obama they'd expand medical welfare for all to everyone? It's the typical moron answer you give two liberal things Republicans always fight and say gosh, it's OBAMA.
You're O fer. Try again. What did Republicans oppose they would support if it wasn't for Obama? Maybe go in your head this time, not off the top because you missed
Yes, every Democrat was a Republican until 2000 when Democrats tried to steal the election and failed. There actually was no Democrat party until then. It's remarkable.
You own guns too, that's how you know gun owners are sick bastards. Another remarkable phenomenon
Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...
Obviously you are a retard. I pay plenty of taxes with around $200,000 income. So stfu.
I make $12 trillion. Funny thing on the Internet, you can say whatever you want. You're not demonstrating any knowledge on the subject, that is a lot more convincing
I see, so I have no income and you make 12 Trillion.
I can say anything I want, but I also have some self respect not to lie to strangers on anonymous message board.
Actually I made $23 Trillion.
Actually you are just a liar.
You don't know me, you don't what I make, you don't know what I pay in taxes, you just run your little mouth attached to your very small, pathetic self.
When you posted this:When did I say you oppose "payroll tax cuts?"
You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot
The real issue is you lied when you said St Ronnie did not give tax breaks to the rich because they paid 7% more taxes after his tax cuts on a 60% income increase.What I always find amusing is how know-it-all CON$ don't know that there is a piece of information conspicuously missing from that deliberately deceptive half truth making it a whole lie.I always find it amusing that Libs like to claim Reagan gave tax breaks to the rich and milked the poor, when the facts are from 1981-1989 the percentage of tax dollars collected from the top 1% went from about 18% to over 25%
Obviously that info is deliberately misleading without knowing how much the top 1%'s income increased over the same period. The fact that it was deliberately left out should tell you that it was a lot more than the 7% increase in tax dollars, which is why I was not surprised to find out the income of the top 1% had grown 60% from 1981 to 1989.
Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-
"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"
So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.
When you posted this:When did I say you oppose "payroll tax cuts?"
You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot
The Gore "Lock Box" never happened after Bush stole the election, so yes there is no SS Trust Fund, just a bunch of IOUs Trump will welsh on.When you posted this:When did I say you oppose "payroll tax cuts?"
You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot
Ah, so you admit that Social Security isn't actually a retirement plan where we save for our future, it's just a tax and there is no trust fund? Interesting
The Gore "Lock Box" never happened after Bush stole the election, so yes there is no SS Trust Fund, just a bunch of IOUs Trump will welsh on.When you posted this:When did I say you oppose "payroll tax cuts?"
You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot
Ah, so you admit that Social Security isn't actually a retirement plan where we save for our future, it's just a tax and there is no trust fund? Interesting
Urban Brookings is a liberal think tank, moron
The Gore "Lock Box" never happened after Bush stole the election, so yes there is no SS Trust Fund, just a bunch of IOUs Trump will welsh on.When you posted this:When did I say you oppose "payroll tax cuts?"
You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot
Ah, so you admit that Social Security isn't actually a retirement plan where we save for our future, it's just a tax and there is no trust fund? Interesting
Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-
"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"
So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.
BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.
Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.
I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.
I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.
That's exactly right and the people who think the SS trust fund has been raided do not understand this.The Gore "Lock Box" never happened after Bush stole the election, so yes there is no SS Trust Fund, just a bunch of IOUs Trump will welsh on.When you posted this:When did I say you oppose "payroll tax cuts?"
You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot
Ah, so you admit that Social Security isn't actually a retirement plan where we save for our future, it's just a tax and there is no trust fund? Interesting
You can't put SS in a lock box. It has to be invested. It's invested in bonds. They are safe. If they are not safe, then nothing is safe.
