Effective tax rates on the top 1% for 100 years

[manu1959]

NO Ghook ,

You just cant seem to grasp it can you?

They make money off our work and that is fine with me.

When I get mad at them is when they create a full blown disaster out of our economy for power and money.

If they dissapeared tomarrow this country would survive and a new 1% would emerge.

You seem to think we would blow away and die without them.

I think they will continue to get even richer with a 50% tax on their asses just like they did under Reagan.

i wish you were talking about congress .......

 

[DiveCon]

NO Ghook ,

You just cant seem to grasp it can you?

They make money off our work and that is fine with me.

When I get mad at them is when they create a full blown disaster out of our economy for power and money.

If they dissapeared tomarrow this country would survive and a new 1% would emerge.

You seem to think we would blow away and die without them.

I think they will continue to get even richer with a 50% tax on their asses just like they did under Reagan.

i wish you were talking about congress .......

me too, because that describes them so perfectly

 

[Jon]

I did NOTHING to add to this problem.

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.

 

[DiveCon]

I did NOTHING to add to this problem.

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.

the sad thing about the last election, voting for McLame wasnt that much better
i honestly believe he would be doing about the same crap Obama is doing

 

[Jon]

He might have, but at least he would hold the veto power and would use it when tax bills like the last stimulus package show up. McCain at least was opposed to that one. And he probably wouldn't have done much to help the national debt, but he wouldn't make it 10 times worse like the current guy.

I didn't vote for McCain, though. He supported the first bailout, and that was enough for me to say "No thanks."

 

[DiveCon]

He might have, but at least he would hold the veto power and would use it when tax bills like the last stimulus package show up. McCain at least was opposed to that one. And he probably wouldn't have done much to help the national debt, but he wouldn't make it 10 times worse like the current guy.

I didn't vote for McCain, though. He supported the first bailout, and that was enough for me to say "No thanks."

yeah, i almost voted 3rd party myself
but i voted more for Palin than for McLame

 

[GHook93]

He might have, but at least he would hold the veto power and would use it when tax bills like the last stimulus package show up. McCain at least was opposed to that one. And he probably wouldn't have done much to help the national debt, but he wouldn't make it 10 times worse like the current guy.

I didn't vote for McCain, though. He supported the first bailout, and that was enough for me to say "No thanks."

yeah, i almost voted 3rd party myself
but i voted more for Palin than for McLame

Same here I though long and hard about voting for fair tax man Bob Barr or writing in Romney, but than again I preferred McCain over Obama!

 

[Bern80]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

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?

 

[DiveCon]

do you remember the growth of the post wwii times?

Do you remember the best schools in the world?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

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?

very

 

[Indiana Oracle]

May the only person at this stage to have slogged through this string.

Here is a post I made to another thread today which asked for comment against a survey covering why the Reps lost.

Putting the party aspect aside, tax, monetary and fiscal policies change as each administration reacts or wants to direct economic outcomes.

Personally I believe we are on the wrong road with The Prophet's budget: spending, taxing, borrowing. Yes, that is the Rep line, but I agree with it.

Anyway...
___

The Reps (am an Independent and moderate on social issues) lost their ideological compass.

Bush began this new era of social spending; The Prophet is simply taking advantage of it - for very different philosophical reasons it seems to me.

Bush initiated a crusade-like war in Iraq. We are winning/have won due to determination and luck (as is the case with most wars).

If they are going to come back, all they have to do is object to everything injurious and substantive, while proposing a more common sense, less ideological solution.

To the question around the weaknesses of the Reps: They are out of office due their own mistakes. All the rest of that section is bs.

Overall, I recommend:
1) They sweep the entire leadership out
2) Be principled but not the party of religion
3) Object to all things objectionable to mainstream America and propose intelligent solutions

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

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?

WWII was not efficient spending?

Our bridges and roads were not efficient spending?

The Nasa space program where all our computors and electronics mastery grew out of was not efficient spending?

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?

 

[Truthmatters]

I did NOTHING to add to this problem.

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

Look again at this chart of numbers adn face the facts , what FDR did worked and set us up for the time when we had a very stable country with people having huge hopes for the future. Then came Nixon.




1913......... 7..... 500,000
1914......... 7 ..... 500,000
1915......... 7 ..... 500,000
1916......... 15 ..... 2,000,000
1917......... 67..... 2,000,000
1918......... 77..... 1,000,000
1919......... 73 ..... 1,000,000
1920......... 73..... 1,000,000
1921......... 73..... 1,000,000
1922......... 58..... 200,000
1923......... 43.5..... 200,000
1924......... 46..... 500,000
1925......... 25..... 100,000
1926......... 25..... 100,000
1927......... 25..... 100,000
1928......... 25..... 100,000
1929......... 24..... 100,000
1930......... 25..... 100,000
1931......... 25..... 100,000
1932......... 63..... 1,000,000
1933......... 63..... 1,000,000
1934......... 63..... 1,000,000
1935......... 63..... 1,000,000
1936......... 79..... 5,000,000
1937......... 79..... 5,000,000
1938......... 79..... 5,000,000
1939......... 79..... 5,000,000
1940......... 81.1..... 5,000,000
1941......... 81..... 5,000,000
1942......... 88..... 200,000
1943......... 88..... 200,000
1944......... 94..... <2>..... 200,000
1945......... 94..... <2>..... 200,000
1946......... 86.45..... <3> 200,000
1947......... 86.45..... <3> 200,000
1948......... 82.13..... <4> 400,000
1949......... 82.13..... <4> 400,000
1950......... 84.36..... 400,000
1951......... 91..... <5> 400,000
1952......... 92..... <6> 400,000
1953......... 92..... <6> 400,000
1954......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1955......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1956......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1957......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1958......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1959......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1960......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1961......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1962......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1963......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1964......... 77..... 400,000
1965......... 70..... 200,000
1966......... 70..... 200,000
1967......... 70..... 200,000
1968......... 75.25..... 200,000
1969......... 77..... 200,000
1970......... 71.75 ..... 200,000
1971......... 70..... 60 200,000
1972......... 70..... 50 200,000
1973......... 70..... 50 200,000
1974......... 70..... 50 200,000
1975......... 70..... 50 200,000
1976......... 70..... 50 200,000
1977......... 70..... 50 203,200
1978......... 70..... 50 203,200
1979......... 70..... 50 215,400
1980......... 70..... 50 215,400
1981......... 69.125..... 50 215,400
1982......... 50..... 85,600
1983......... 50 ..... 109,400
1984.......... 50..... 162,400
1985.......... 50..... 169,020
1986......... 50..... 175,250
1987 .........38.5..... 90,000
1988......... 28..... <8> 29,750 <8>
1989......... 28..... <8> 30,950 <8>
1990......... 28..... <8> 32,450 <8>
1991......... 31..... 82,150
1992......... 31..... 86,500
1993......... 39.6..... 89,150
1994......... 39.6..... 250,000
1995......... 39.6..... 256,500
1996......... 39.6..... 263,750
1997......... 39.6..... 271,050
1998......... 39.6..... 278,450
1999......... 39.6..... 283,150
2000......... 39.6..... 288,350
2001......... 39.1..... 297,350
2002......... 38.6..... 307,050
2003......... 35..... 311,950
__________________

 

[Jon]

I did NOTHING to add to this problem.

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

maybe you should go study the FDR years

 

[DiveCon]

I did NOTHING to add to this problem.

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

 

[DiveCon]

maybe you should go study the FDR years

he has
you havent

 

[DiveCon]

Look again at this chart of numbers adn face the facts , what FDR did worked and set us up for the time when we had a very stable country with people having huge hopes for the future. Then came Nixon.




1913......... 7..... 500,000
1914......... 7 ..... 500,000
1915......... 7 ..... 500,000
1916......... 15 ..... 2,000,000
1917......... 67..... 2,000,000
1918......... 77..... 1,000,000
1919......... 73 ..... 1,000,000
1920......... 73..... 1,000,000
1921......... 73..... 1,000,000
1922......... 58..... 200,000
1923......... 43.5..... 200,000
1924......... 46..... 500,000
1925......... 25..... 100,000
1926......... 25..... 100,000
1927......... 25..... 100,000
1928......... 25..... 100,000
1929......... 24..... 100,000
1930......... 25..... 100,000
1931......... 25..... 100,000
1932......... 63..... 1,000,000
1933......... 63..... 1,000,000
1934......... 63..... 1,000,000
1935......... 63..... 1,000,000
1936......... 79..... 5,000,000
1937......... 79..... 5,000,000
1938......... 79..... 5,000,000
1939......... 79..... 5,000,000
1940......... 81.1..... 5,000,000
1941......... 81..... 5,000,000
1942......... 88..... 200,000
1943......... 88..... 200,000
1944......... 94..... <2>..... 200,000
1945......... 94..... <2>..... 200,000
1946......... 86.45..... <3> 200,000
1947......... 86.45..... <3> 200,000
1948......... 82.13..... <4> 400,000
1949......... 82.13..... <4> 400,000
1950......... 84.36..... 400,000
1951......... 91..... <5> 400,000
1952......... 92..... <6> 400,000
1953......... 92..... <6> 400,000
1954......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1955......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1956......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1957......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1958......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1959......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1960......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1961......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1962......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1963......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1964......... 77..... 400,000
1965......... 70..... 200,000
1966......... 70..... 200,000
1967......... 70..... 200,000
1968......... 75.25..... 200,000
1969......... 77..... 200,000
1970......... 71.75 ..... 200,000
1971......... 70..... 60 200,000
1972......... 70..... 50 200,000
1973......... 70..... 50 200,000
1974......... 70..... 50 200,000
1975......... 70..... 50 200,000
1976......... 70..... 50 200,000
1977......... 70..... 50 203,200
1978......... 70..... 50 203,200
1979......... 70..... 50 215,400
1980......... 70..... 50 215,400
1981......... 69.125..... 50 215,400
1982......... 50..... 85,600
1983......... 50 ..... 109,400
1984.......... 50..... 162,400
1985.......... 50..... 169,020
1986......... 50..... 175,250
1987 .........38.5..... 90,000
1988......... 28..... <8> 29,750 <8>
1989......... 28..... <8> 30,950 <8>
1990......... 28..... <8> 32,450 <8>
1991......... 31..... 82,150
1992......... 31..... 86,500
1993......... 39.6..... 89,150
1994......... 39.6..... 250,000
1995......... 39.6..... 256,500
1996......... 39.6..... 263,750
1997......... 39.6..... 271,050
1998......... 39.6..... 278,450
1999......... 39.6..... 283,150
2000......... 39.6..... 288,350
2001......... 39.1..... 297,350
2002......... 38.6..... 307,050
2003......... 35..... 311,950
__________________

showing what a partisaan fuckwit you are again
if you look at what you posted, Nixon had the same numbers as LBJ

 

[Bern80]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

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?

WWII was not efficient spending?

Our bridges and roads were not efficient spending?

The Nasa space program where all our computors and electronics mastery grew out of was not efficient spending?

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.

 

[garyd]

The economy was essentailly stagnant during the fifties. It would have been worse were it not for the GI bill which was essentially a tax cut given for the express purpose of buying a hoime. And that of course set in motion the growth of another favorite liberal tar baby - urban sprawl.

Oh and I do remember when we had decent schools - the feds weren't nvolved in any truly significant way then. Then Came the tail end of Jimmy carter and the Federal Department of education and it was all down hill from there.

By the way in 1950 the Deparment of Defence ate about 80% of the federal budget compared to the 20% it gets now.