Great day in the mornin'! Ryan's back!

from 1932 to 1981 the top tax rate was over 60 % in this country

Try to imagine who paid those top rates, and on how much of their total income. The wealthy don't normally receive a pay check. They make the overwhelming majority of their income from capital gains and dividends. Consequently, the maximum tax rate does not really affect them to any great degree.

Those who are getting rich are the ones who pay those top rates. They are also the chief drivers of a growing economy. Why do you want to punish them with such vigor?
 
It just feels good to some people to confiscate 90 percent of someone else's pay.

Pretty sick.
 
Moreover, Reagan knew from personal experience in making movies that once he was in the highest tax bracket, he'd stop making movies for the rest of the year. In other words, a lower tax rate could increase revenues. And so it was with his tax cuts. The highest 1% of income earners paid more in taxes as a share of GDP in 1988 at lower tax rates than they had in 1980 at higher tax rates.

Reaganomics: What We Learned - WSJ.com
 
Pretending higher rates on the top tax bracket brings economic disaster is a lie
 
TM, lets say this year you make $100,000.

The tax rate is 28% for you.

You pay $28,000

You then get back $8,000 after deductions

Does that mean you paid 28% taxes or that you paid 20% after deductions?


Maybe you should ask your husband how taxes work seeing as you obviously don't pay any taxes yourself.


Also TM... why do we have the IRS, why do we have accountants and bookkeepers to do taxes when under your system a 4th grader could figure out in less than 30 seconds if there were no deduction?

Lets say you made $93,441 this year.

93,441 x.28 (your tax rate) = $26,163.44 owed in taxes. why is that so much more simple than reality?
 
Last edited:
The tax record of this country is facts dupes.

Your lies dont fly

So what if we had 90 percent tax rates? Have you looked at what revenues that netted?

The same amount!

Understand now?

Raising taxes does fuck-all to increase revenues.

That's not entirely true. Revenues increased after at least two of Reagan's "revenue enhancements," after BushI's tax hike and after after both of Slick's. However, there's no more correlation to high income tax rates and revenue that to low taxs and growth. Table 1.1

Historical Tables | The White House
 
Ryan's own budget has these same cuts to Medicare. How dishonest can you get?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqlJKR3G05M]Paul Ryan Bashes Medicare Cuts In His Own Budget - YouTube[/ame]
 
Almost Classical: The 90% Tax Rate Myth

there you go TM, it can't be made anymore simple.

So, let's get more complicated. When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.

In 1944, you could deduct business meals, all business travel, all forms of interest payments, and much more. You could even deduct spousal travel expenses on a business trip! (Why travel alone?) Companies could also "loan" or "provide" almost anything to an employee, from an apartment to standard benefits. It was possible to shelter tens of thousands of dollars from taxable income. Three-martini lunches and expense accounts were important realities, skewing tax calculations.


Hmmm.... kinda what I was telling the bitch all along... the FACTS she seems to conveniently IGNORE

I swear, I would pay to watch TDM kill herself
 

Forum List

Back
Top