Effective tax rates on the top 1% for 100 years

[editec]

Anyone know where I can find the retrospective number of EMPLOYED in the USA in the last fifty years or so?

Finding the unemployed numbers is fairly easy but the EMPLOYED numbers are evading me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure you did. You voted for Obama, that was plenty to add to this problem. Because it's clear he's not going to do anything to actually fix it. He's working for the same people that bought the last administration. Congratulations, you were duped.

Bullshit.

You guys made this problem not Obama.

You cheered and voted for what created this mess and now you refuse the pathway that has already been proven by history to lead us out of this.

Wrong. You'll find no historical evidence that suggests deficit spending will save an economy, especially when it's of this magnitude.

Just what the hell did we do in WW2 if not massive dificit spending? And you fools constantly yap how WW2 got us out of WW2, not Roosevelt.

OK, then let's emulate the policies of WW2, spend massively to create factories to make us energy independent, and institute an upper end tax that taxes everything above $300,000 at 99%.

 

[Old Rocks]

maybe you should go study the FDR years

he has
you havent

Again, study what happened during WW2. Seems that we should emulate the spending and tax structure of that period in order to solve this present crisis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you understand the concept of causality? Nevermind, I've never met a lib that does.

You're argument is essentially that somehow the government (an institution that has never spent money very efficiently) having but loads of money is what makes the country prosperous. HOW FUCKING RETARDED ARE YOU?

Stop dodging chicken shit. The irony of your name on these board is truly ironic here. When confronted with the above truth of your position you change the subject. You libs are so predictable. You simply don't have the capacity to cogently defend any argument do you? It's the same fucking thing every time. You make some asanine statement about the way things ought to be or who is to be blamed for what and as soon as soon as someone confronts your assertion instead of making any type of argument that comes close to logically challenging it you resort to either attacking the source of the information or out right name calling or pretty much anything NOT having to do with the actual. TIME TO GET A NEW FUCKING PLAYBOOK. IF THE TRUTH REALLY DOES MATTER HOW ABOUT YOU ATTEMPT TO MAKE SOME KIND OF HALFWAY REASONABLE ARGUMENT TO DEFEND IT? Is the above NOT the truth of your argument? If not, why not?



Are yo contesting that the private sector could not have done it more efficiently? Did Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or Stephen Hawking come out of NASA? Simply having roads doesn't mean they were contracted for or built efficiently, either.

Tell just how great the private sector is at taking care of our economy when we have the current situation they caused ( just shy of complete global economic meltdown) not to mention how well our healthcare compares to others.

Heres a clue asshole , giving all the power to corporations has given us this unholy fucking mess. Now you claim government is worse than them. Just what the fuck do you suggest we do curl up and die?

Can't because your premise is wrong. We weren't shy of of global economic meltdown. these are just scare tactics. Things are just barely as bad as the recession of the 70's. If you are so stupid, obtuse or naive or all of the above, take your pick to realize that the TRUTH is one group isn't responsible or even mostly responsible for this there really is little point in having the conversatiion...TRUTH.

What a damned lie. At no time in my life, and I was born during WW2 have I seen the economy in this condition. In the '70s, we were not in the position of having to bail out virtually the whole of the financial industry, worldwide.

We are very much on the edge of the Second Great Republican Depression. And you fellows are still standing there stating "the fundementals of the economy are strong".

 

[Jon]

Odd, because White House advisors have said that the recession may end by this summer.

 

[elvis]

Stop dodging chicken shit. The irony of your name on these board is truly ironic here. When confronted with the above truth of your position you change the subject. You libs are so predictable. You simply don't have the capacity to cogently defend any argument do you? It's the same fucking thing every time. You make some asanine statement about the way things ought to be or who is to be blamed for what and as soon as soon as someone confronts your assertion instead of making any type of argument that comes close to logically challenging it you resort to either attacking the source of the information or out right name calling or pretty much anything NOT having to do with the actual. TIME TO GET A NEW FUCKING PLAYBOOK. IF THE TRUTH REALLY DOES MATTER HOW ABOUT YOU ATTEMPT TO MAKE SOME KIND OF HALFWAY REASONABLE ARGUMENT TO DEFEND IT? Is the above NOT the truth of your argument? If not, why not?



Are yo contesting that the private sector could not have done it more efficiently? Did Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or Stephen Hawking come out of NASA? Simply having roads doesn't mean they were contracted for or built efficiently, either.



Can't because your premise is wrong. We weren't shy of of global economic meltdown. these are just scare tactics. Things are just barely as bad as the recession of the 70's. If you are so stupid, obtuse or naive or all of the above, take your pick to realize that the TRUTH is one group isn't responsible or even mostly responsible for this there really is little point in having the conversatiion...TRUTH.

What a damned lie. At no time in my life, and I was born during WW2 have I seen the economy in this condition. In the '70s, we were not in the position of having to bail out virtually the whole of the financial industry, worldwide.

We are very much on the edge of the Second Great Republican Depression. And you fellows are still standing there stating "the fundementals of the economy are strong".

Remind us again, dickmouth, When did Chris Dodd, Rahm Emanuel, and Bill Clinton became republicans? Funny how the depression didn't end when Roosevelt was in office.

 

[DiveCon]

maybe you should go study the FDR years

he has
you havent

Again, study what happened during WW2. Seems that we should emulate the spending and tax structure of that period in order to solve this present crisis.

sure, if you want to wait till 2027 for it to end

 

[Bern80]

Stop dodging chicken shit. The irony of your name on these board is truly ironic here. When confronted with the above truth of your position you change the subject. You libs are so predictable. You simply don't have the capacity to cogently defend any argument do you? It's the same fucking thing every time. You make some asanine statement about the way things ought to be or who is to be blamed for what and as soon as soon as someone confronts your assertion instead of making any type of argument that comes close to logically challenging it you resort to either attacking the source of the information or out right name calling or pretty much anything NOT having to do with the actual. TIME TO GET A NEW FUCKING PLAYBOOK. IF THE TRUTH REALLY DOES MATTER HOW ABOUT YOU ATTEMPT TO MAKE SOME KIND OF HALFWAY REASONABLE ARGUMENT TO DEFEND IT? Is the above NOT the truth of your argument? If not, why not?



Are yo contesting that the private sector could not have done it more efficiently? Did Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or Stephen Hawking come out of NASA? Simply having roads doesn't mean they were contracted for or built efficiently, either.



Can't because your premise is wrong. We weren't shy of of global economic meltdown. these are just scare tactics. Things are just barely as bad as the recession of the 70's. If you are so stupid, obtuse or naive or all of the above, take your pick to realize that the TRUTH is one group isn't responsible or even mostly responsible for this there really is little point in having the conversatiion...TRUTH.

What a damned lie. At no time in my life, and I was born during WW2 have I seen the economy in this condition. In the '70s, we were not in the position of having to bail out virtually the whole of the financial industry, worldwide.

You had double digit unemployment in the 70s.

We are very much on the edge of the Second Great Republican Depression. And you fellows are still standing there stating "the fundementals of the economy are strong".

You are again dodging TRUTH ( I just can't get over the irony in that). We aren't any where near depression numbers. I have never said things are all rosey, but they aren't anywhere near depression levels. If you were born during WW2 how the hell did you get to be this void of perspective? How does someone your age have the immaturity to imply there is actual truth in their posts when you're obviously a partisan hack?

 

[Truthmatters]

Sure you did. You voted for Obama, that was plenty to add to this problem. Because it's clear he's not going to do anything to actually fix it. He's working for the same people that bought the last administration. Congratulations, you were duped.

Bullshit.

You guys made this problem not Obama.

You cheered and voted for what created this mess and now you refuse the pathway that has already been proven by history to lead us out of this.

yeah, Obama was in the senate, he voted for the stuff that made this problem just as much as BUsh signed it
you are an idiot

WRONG!


Obama did not vote for GLBact 1999, he wasnt even in the senate yet.

 

[DiveCon]

Bullshit.

You guys made this problem not Obama.

You cheered and voted for what created this mess and now you refuse the pathway that has already been proven by history to lead us out of this.

yeah, Obama was in the senate, he voted for the stuff that made this problem just as much as BUsh signed it
you are an idiot

WRONG!


Obama did not vote for GLBact 1999, he wasnt even in the senate yet.

yeah, shove that head further up Obama's ass
you are a fucking JOKE


btw, Bush wasnt in office in 1999 either

 

[Truthmatters]

Did I say he was?

It was the fact that he never fixed the problems once they became evident.

Obama is now trying to fix what he can after the house is already smoldering.

 

[elvis]

Did I say he was?

It was the fact that he never fixed the problems once they became evident.

Obama is now trying to fix what he can after the house is already smoldering.

by pouring gasoline on it.

 

[garyd]

We can't emulate the tax and spending structure of WWII, You freaking Moron. The Pentagon got 80 - 9-0% of the Budget then. There isn't enough money in the world to push the Pentagon up to 90% of the Budget now.

And Nixon didn't kill the economy in 1969, it was in the doldrums well before that. Nixon actually increased with the help of his Democratic congress LBJ's Great Society programs. As did Ford.

 

[GHook93]

Revenue Act of 1932 - This was one of the biggest tax increases in history on individuals and corporations! Most creditable economist credit it with making the Great Depression worse much much worse! Hebert "the Fucking Idoit" Hoover was in office at the time, so don't say I will never bash a Republican! How do people and business spend money to spurn on the economy when the government starts taking more of it away - ex. highest tax bracket increased from 25-63%? How do corporation invest in people (jobs), products, innovation, marketing and selling when the government increases the corporate rate by 10%? BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD moves!

Revenue Act of 1932 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Iriemon]

Revenue Act of 1932 - This was one of the biggest tax increases in history on individuals and corporations! Most creditable economist credit it with making the Great Depression worse much much worse! Hebert "the Fucking Idoit" Hoover was in office at the time, so don't say I will never bash a Republican! How do people and business spend money to spurn on the economy when the government starts taking more of it away - ex. highest tax bracket increased from 25-63%? How do corporation invest in people (jobs), products, innovation, marketing and selling when the government increases the corporate rate by 10%? BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD moves!

Revenue Act of 1932 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year - Real GDP 2000$ - % chng

1930 790.7 -8.6%
1931 739.9 -6.4%
1932 643.7 -13.0%
1933 635.5 -1.3%
1934 704.2 10.8%
1935 766.9 8.9%
1936 866.6 13.0%
1937 911.1 5.1%
1938 879.7 -3.4%
1939 950.7 8.1%
1940 1,034.1 8.8%

Source: BEA.gov

It sure looks like things got better after 1932 to me. The increase was passed Jun '32 effective for the '32 year for taxes due in '33. I'm sure you can find conservative editorials who will say the tax increase "prolonged" the rescession. That's what conservatives do nowdays, defend tax cuts and criticize tax increases.

But there's the data on real GDP. Folks can decide for themselves if the it looks like the tax increase made the depression much much worse.

Sure doesn't look like it to me.

 

[GHook93]

Revenue Act of 1932 - This was one of the biggest tax increases in history on individuals and corporations! Most creditable economist credit it with making the Great Depression worse much much worse! Hebert "the Fucking Idoit" Hoover was in office at the time, so don't say I will never bash a Republican! How do people and business spend money to spurn on the economy when the government starts taking more of it away - ex. highest tax bracket increased from 25-63%? How do corporation invest in people (jobs), products, innovation, marketing and selling when the government increases the corporate rate by 10%? BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD moves!

Revenue Act of 1932 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year - Real GDP 2000$ - % chng

1930 790.7 -8.6%
1931 739.9 -6.4%
1932 643.7 -13.0%
1933 635.5 -1.3%
1934 704.2 10.8%
1935 766.9 8.9%
1936 866.6 13.0%
1937 911.1 5.1%
1938 879.7 -3.4%
1939 950.7 8.1%
1940 1,034.1 8.8%

Source: BEA.gov

It sure looks like things got better after 1932 to me. The increase was passed Jun '32 effective for the '32 year for taxes due in '33. I'm sure you can find conservative editorials who will say the tax increase "prolonged" the rescession. That's what conservatives do nowdays, defend tax cuts and criticize tax increases.

But there's the data on real GDP. Folks can decide for themselves if the it looks like the tax increase made the depression much much worse.

Sure doesn't look like it to me.

You do realize the the Great Depression started in 1929, but was not in the full downward spiral until 1932! In '32 unemployment was at 24.9%! FDR wasn't even in office during this act yet. This act came about at the beginning of the G.D.!

http://www.shambhala.org/business/goldocean/causdep.html

You can twist it any way you want, but the Great Depression rapidly spread shortly after one of the largest tax increases on individuals and corporations in US history (via the Revenue Act of 1932) and after American's boardest protectionism boost in US history (via the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act)!

 

[Iriemon]

to claim that the tax rate is responsible for the success in the country is complete naivety. there are numerous factors other than taxes.

Yet that has been the claim underlying the failed "voodoo" economics that propelled Reagan and Bush into the WH.

Hard to believe folks bought that stuff.

 

[Iriemon]

Revenue Act of 1932 - This was one of the biggest tax increases in history on individuals and corporations! Most creditable economist credit it with making the Great Depression worse much much worse! Hebert "the Fucking Idoit" Hoover was in office at the time, so don't say I will never bash a Republican! How do people and business spend money to spurn on the economy when the government starts taking more of it away - ex. highest tax bracket increased from 25-63%? How do corporation invest in people (jobs), products, innovation, marketing and selling when the government increases the corporate rate by 10%? BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD moves!

Revenue Act of 1932 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year - Real GDP 2000$ - % chng

1930 790.7 -8.6%
1931 739.9 -6.4%
1932 643.7 -13.0%
1933 635.5 -1.3%
1934 704.2 10.8%
1935 766.9 8.9%
1936 866.6 13.0%
1937 911.1 5.1%
1938 879.7 -3.4%
1939 950.7 8.1%
1940 1,034.1 8.8%

Source: BEA.gov

It sure looks like things got better after 1932 to me. The increase was passed Jun '32 effective for the '32 year for taxes due in '33. I'm sure you can find conservative editorials who will say the tax increase "prolonged" the rescession. That's what conservatives do nowdays, defend tax cuts and criticize tax increases.

But there's the data on real GDP. Folks can decide for themselves if the it looks like the tax increase made the depression much much worse.

Sure doesn't look like it to me.

You do realize the the Great Depression started in 1929, but was not in the full downward spiral until 1932! In '32 unemployment was at 24.9%! FDR wasn't even in office during this act yet. This act came about at the beginning of the G.D.!

http://www.shambhala.org/business/goldocean/causdep.html

You can twist it any way you want, but the Great Depression rapidly spread shortly after one of the largest tax increases on individuals and corporations in US history (via the Revenue Act of 1932) and after American's boardest protectionism boost in US history (via the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act)!

Seems to me you are the one spinning.

Yeah, the GD started in 1929. When taxes were low.

Yeah in 1930 the economy was going down the toilet. When taxes were low.

And again in 1931, the economy slid deeper into depression, when taxes were low.

And finally in 1932, the economy continued to worse. When taxes were low.

It looks to me that in 1933, when the tax increase had an effect, the depression had bottomed out, and then the economy started growing again after that, even with that big tax increase in place. The opposite of getting much much worse.

In '34, '35, '36 the economy was growing strongly. When taxes were high.

But folks can interpret the data how they want.

 

[GHook93]

to claim that the tax rate is responsible for the success in the country is complete naivety. there are numerous factors other than taxes.

Yet that has been the claim underlying the failed "voodoo" economics that propelled Reagan and Bush into the WH.

Hard to believe folks bought that stuff.

Also to let you know I am not a fan of Reagan! I think he was a bad President! See my thread on it!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/66407-why-do-people-call-reagan-a-great-president.html