Check this chart of top marginal taxes for decades

[Mr Natural]

Don't you get it? Taxes are like crack to politicians. Do you give an addict more crack in the hopes that they'll get their problem under control? Of Course not. Why the fuck does government NEED more money? On top of that taking away the incentives to be successful is just plain stupid economic reasoning.

To discharge this massive national debt we've accumulated.

That's Washington's problem. They have no right to pass the buck on to John Q. Taxpayer for their innefficiency. You're just letting them off the hook.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk]YouTube - George Carlin Doesn't vote[/ame]

 

[Liberty]

i am continually surprised by truthmatters' level of dumbassery. continuing to one-up himself on a consistent basis in being a raging moron. Well done!

 

[maineman]

I think the graph illuminates the fact that minor upward adjustments in the marginal tax rate do NOT stifle economic activity or entrepreneurial spirit. And suggesting that going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era would do either of those things is unfounded fearmongering.

 

[american chaos]

To me--the graph looks as if we are heading to a top tax rate of 33.3%

Why not go ahead and set it to that mark--or is the goverment "graphing" the the effects of taxes on the general economy?

 

[Avorysuds]

8537. I have to add this. Under FDR the US was not on it's way out of the Great Depression.

yes, you and others have repeated that ad nauseum. Unfortunately, it doesn't become true through repeated repetition.

It was not until WWII that sucked up and KILLED most the unemployed did unemployment really drop, and by drop I mean in the privet sector.

The US "only" lost 387,000 people. That's not exactly "most" of the unemployed". World War 2 helped end the second recession of the 1930's because it was a gigantic, massive intrusion of government into spending and deficits. I'm glad you believe the war ended the Depression, because it nicely proves my point: Government-sponsored increases in aggregate demand encourage by deficits during a recession can help mitigate and end the effects of that recession.

And this is why there is no point in talking to someone as partisan as yourself. Once again you have attributed the ending of the 1920’s depression to some guy in Europe chewing bubble gum while FDS’s 3 term long depression was magically pretty awesome because he managed to get unemployment down to 17%...

Here, dude… WikiAnswers - How many Americans fought in World War 2

Yes, only about 400 thousand died in wwii but like omg, 16 million severed, when the US had a population of like 130 million or something. If anything it was magic that after the war things didn’t fall apart. If every other country was not in ruins the US would have not become the manufacturing giant it did to help rebuild the world. Basically true dumb luck allowed the US’s privet sector to BOOM after wwii due to HUGE demand for American goods. Even with high taxes employers knew they would be selling their product and make profits, of course that came to an end…

SO do I admit that Government can solve the problems like you tried to tie in during your last post? No… If there were any other manufacturing giants out there the US would have ended up in a recession and possibly sunk back to a depression quickly. What FDR was doing was 100% unsustainable. Again as so many have said in the past. If Government employing people could end all of our problems why do things only get worse (long term) when Government expands too much, in any country? Or more simply put, why does Government not simply employee everyone in the US at all times making 0% unemployment?

 

[8537]

And this is why there is no point in talking to someone as partisan as yourself.

If by "partisan" you mean "a member of the reality based community" you might be right.

Once again you have attributed the ending of the 1920’s depression to some guy in Europe chewing bubble gum

no, you have once again misrepresented what I said in order to make claims about my statements that are based in nothing but sheer folly.

while FDS’s 3 term long depression was magically pretty awesome because he managed to get unemployment down to 17%...

It was not a three-term depression. It was two separate and distinct recessions, both followed by rather spectacular growth in income.

Here, dude… WikiAnswers - How many Americans fought in World War 2

Yes, only about 400 thousand died in wwii but like omg, 16 million severed, when the US had a population of like 130 million or something. If anything it was magic that after the war things didn’t fall apart. If every other country was not in ruins the US would have not become the manufacturing giant it did to help rebuild the world.

hmm..sounds like you're explaining the supply shock that helped end the 1920/1 recession. Interesting that you believe in supply shocks when they suit your bias. One almost gets the idea that you are....partisan.

SO do I admit that Government can solve the problems like you tried to tie in during your last post? No… If there were any other manufacturing giants out there the US would have ended up in a recession and possibly sunk back to a depression quickly.

Never have I seen someone so strongly defend the supply shock theory of the 1920 recession. Thanks for that.

What FDR was doing was 100% unsustainable. Again as so many have said in the past. If Government employing people could end all of our problems why do things only get worse (long term) when Government expands too much, in any country? Or more simply put, why does Government not simply employee everyone in the US at all times making 0% unemployment?

I can't be held accountable for confusion required to formulate this question.

 

[hboats]

let tax the wealthy ( if you want to make it 400,000 a year fine) 91% again , it seemed to work prettty damned well.

You're actually this stupid aren't you?

So you're going to tax anyone who makes $400,000 at a 91% tax rate? Do you understand that when you do that you're taking away $364,000 and leaving them to live off of $36,000 a year?

For a family of four that is below poverty level.

There you go folks, Truthdoesn'tmatter is trying to vilify people who make over $400,000 and really just wants to make them poor.

Rick

 

[8537]

let tax the wealthy ( if you want to make it 400,000 a year fine) 91% again , it seemed to work prettty damned well.

You're actually this stupid aren't you?

So you're going to tax anyone who makes $400,000 at a 91% tax rate? Do you understand that when you do that you're taking away $364,000 and leaving them to live off of $36,000 a year?

While perhaps poorly worded, the reference was to the top marginal rate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have to admire how the Marxists body snatched the Democrat Party.

 

[Avorysuds]

Well 8537, in the end we are doing things your way and things are getting worse. I guess we only have to look forward to maybe 10 more years of this or until WW3.

If we counted unemployment like we did back in the 20's and 30's we would be near the 20%... Thank god we have the war's going huh?

When was the last president to lower taxes and SHRINK the size of Government? Till that happens it's all just a gimmick to get votes.

 

[Bern80]

To discharge this massive national debt we've accumulated.

That's Washington's problem. They have no right to pass the buck on to John Q. Taxpayer for their innefficiency. You're just letting them off the hook.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk]YouTube - George Carlin Doesn't vote[/ame]

I see so if we cared more, government officials would act more efficiently, wouldn't spend as much and your original argument that the rich need to pay more would go out the window. Got it.

 

[johnrocks]

You have to admire how the Marxists body snatched the Democrat Party.

I find partisan hackery fun to mock, consider this with Hoover who Liberals/Democrats love to blame and love to call a free market President....

Emergency Relief and Construction Act...Emergency Relief and Construction Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Building Program...Wanted to increase by $400 million.

Division of Public Construction in 1929 was created in 12-29
Increased subsidies for ship construction ...
Signed Federal Home Loan Bank Act...Federal Home Loan Bank Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Increased farm subsidies with the Agricultural Marketing Act...Agriculture Marketing Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
financed the first large-scale federal public welfare program in American history. Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932
Raised tariffs



In fact Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much and his VP running mate accused Hoover of leading the country down the path of socialism". F.D.R.'s Disputed Legacy - TIME

Rexford Tugwell even remarked that the New Deal was New Deal "was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started", Rexford Tugwell was part of FDR's first "Brain (fart) Trust" Rexford Tugwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[8537]

Well 8537, in the end we are doing things your way and things are getting worse.

The economy is about 9% larger than it was at this time last year. Odd definition of "getting worse" you have.

If we counted unemployment like we did back in the 20's and 30's we would be near the 20%... Thank god we have the war's going huh?

That's just a ridiculous statement. They didn't count unemployment in the 1920's and 1930's. There was no calculated rate. The only way we generate UE figures for years before the war is to extrapolate from other data - and the method applied is virtually identical to method used to calculate the U3 from data from our current monthly surveys.

When was the last president to lower taxes and SHRINK the size of Government? Till that happens it's all just a gimmick to get votes.

Truman.

 

[asterism]

Well 8537, in the end we are doing things your way and things are getting worse.

The economy is about 9% larger than it was at this time last year. Odd definition of "getting worse" you have.

Where in the world did you get that tidbit?

GDP in q2 2009 was $14.034 Trillion. GDP in q2 2010 was $14.597 Trillion. Without considering inflation, that's a 4% increase. Considering inflation, it's a 3.2% increase.

BEA National Economic Accounts

 

[8537]

Well 8537, in the end we are doing things your way and things are getting worse.

The economy is about 9% larger than it was at this time last year. Odd definition of "getting worse" you have.

Where in the world did you get that tidbit?

GDP in q2 2009 was $14.034 Trillion. GDP in q2 2010 was $14.597 Trillion. Without considering inflation, that's a 4% increase. Considering inflation, it's a 3.2% increase.

BEA National Economic Accounts

Oh bejeebers! Ahem....I used kindergarten math Actually, i don't recall what misguided notion helped me arrive at that number.

in real dollars, Q209 GDP was 12810M
Q210 GDP was 13216M

The change in size = 3.17%

 

[editec]

Then why was it created with the Federal Reserve Act by Congress, and why is the Board of Governors a Federal Agency whose members are appointed by The President?

Who OWNS it?

Private banks.

Nuff said?