Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Raising taxes on the rich does not hurt the economy and brings in vital tax revenue to pay for government programs including defense. The best policy is maximizing tax revenue coming into the government without hurting economic growth. Raising taxes on the rich income, capital gains, land, property accomplishes that goal. You want to keep taxes low or next to nothing on the lower class and middle class since they do most of the consumer spending. 70% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.
We desperately need to the day when low and middle-income people ALSO paid income taxes. Today, as you know, 47 percent of households pay no income taxes. If they started to pay their fair share, we would soon be on our way to a fiscally responsible government.
35 years now of GOP giveaway to the rich has ruined the middle class and the country. You are absolutely Clueless. If the GOP didn't have lies and racism, they would have nothing at all. Always a disaster.... C 1929 1989 2008 allowing 911 through sheer incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, and now trade wars tariff fights and chaos for no good reason...I doubt she has any plan. She's just throwing that out to see the reaction.I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.
The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.
Please vote in my poll.
It depends on what the rest of the tables would look like. Would she double all the marginal rates?
.
I think you're probably right, but I just wanted to throw a wet blanket on the OP. He's clueless about her plans. Ya never want to give a commie power. They'll pick your pocket clean.
.
Much of what she says will happen in 10 or 20 years if the Democrats get in and get 60 votes. Otherwise we'll just simmer in this giveaway to the rich screw the middle class GOP mess we have now, thanks to Dupes like you. Is that good?35 years now of GOP giveaway to the rich has ruined the middle class and the country. You are absolutely Clueless. If the GOP didn't have lies and racism, they would have nothing at all. Always a disaster.... C 1929 1989 2008 allowing 911 through sheer incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, and now trade wars tariff fights and chaos for no good reason...I doubt she has any plan. She's just throwing that out to see the reaction.I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.
The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.
Please vote in my poll.
It depends on what the rest of the tables would look like. Would she double all the marginal rates?
.
I think you're probably right, but I just wanted to throw a wet blanket on the OP. He's clueless about her plans. Ya never want to give a commie power. They'll pick your pocket clean.
.
Ya got anything on topic?
.
Much of what she says will happen in 10 or 20 years if the Democrats get in and get 60 votes. Otherwise we'll just simmer in this giveaway to the rich screw the middle class GOP mess we have now, thanks to Dupes like you. Is that good?35 years now of GOP giveaway to the rich has ruined the middle class and the country. You are absolutely Clueless. If the GOP didn't have lies and racism, they would have nothing at all. Always a disaster.... C 1929 1989 2008 allowing 911 through sheer incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, and now trade wars tariff fights and chaos for no good reason...I doubt she has any plan. She's just throwing that out to see the reaction.It depends on what the rest of the tables would look like. Would she double all the marginal rates?
.
I think you're probably right, but I just wanted to throw a wet blanket on the OP. He's clueless about her plans. Ya never want to give a commie power. They'll pick your pocket clean.
.
Ya got anything on topic?
.
I don't care what the majority of Americans want in this particular case (though usually, I do).
Most Americans are not in the tax bracket in question - naturally they will be for raising the tax rate in a tax bracket they have nothing to do with.
The ONLY, truly fair tax is where every American (who is not poor - it is pointless to tax poor people) pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...including capital gains.
Raising taxes on anybody has an indirect effect on everybody.
If it's one thing I learned, it's that the rich guy never takes the hit. Come up with some tax scheme for companies, they simply increase the price of their products, freeze pay increases and benefits for their workers, move some or all operations overseas, and it's the little guy who always ends up paying or getting hurt.
Let's say you came across a small fortune: a small lottery winning, winning a huge lawsuit, being an heir of a wealthy relative. Now you have 200K to do with what you want. Would you risk that money in investments if government is going to take almost 3/4 of it if you make out? It's simply not worth the risk.
People investing money is what makes our world go round., Bring that to a halt and you do the same for our economy.
Tax policy is about what is best for the country as a whole, not the rich, or individuals in the middle class etc. In order for the nation and government to survive and thrive, tax revenue must be raised in the quantities that are needed for national defense and other government functions regardless of whether you think a certain rate is "fair" or penalizes success.
You don't think being fair and moral and encouraging success is in the best interests of the nation?
You don't think being fair and moral and encouraging success is in the best interests of the nation?
The problem is that "fair" and "moral" and even "success" are subjective terms. Different people will have different things in mind when they use those words. In my view, the role of the government is to protect the freedom of each of us to pursue our own conceptions of "fair" and "moral" and "success", and not to decide for us what those words mean and push us toward those ends.
Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards.
Why?
We Should Raise Corporate Taxes (Not Lower Them) | HuffPost
Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards.
Why?
We Should Raise Corporate Taxes (Not Lower Them) | HuffPost
Oh, well, if Hufflepuff Post says so, then . . . I believe it even less.
Norway has the national ID card so people don't go there. Here we have the GOP and an open invitation for people to come here and work under the table or even pay taxes, like 65% do. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you...The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world in terms of a revenue collected per year as a percentage of its GDP. U.S. tax revenues are only about 22% of annual GDP while in a country like Norway, they amount to nearly 60% of GDP. Is business and investment dead in Norway? Nope. Norway has a strong economy.
That's a great thing! We have the greatest country in the world. We have millions of people trying to get into America or a better life. Are millions trying to get into Norway?
What are the serious problems concerning Norway?
Geir Harald Hansen, lives in Norway
Jan 17, 2018 · David Reksten, lived in Oslo, Norway
The biggest threat to Norway is financial collapse.
Norway is a banana republic, economically. We don’t have much other than oil going for us. We also have a huge government with much wasteful spending.
The government has a large fund created from oil profits. But this is all promised away in pensions.
There is an imbalance in the size of generations. Soon we will have a lot of pensioners and too few young people to work and pay taxes.
Many immigrants don’t get a job and end up on permanent welfare. We are importing poverty.
The income from oil has dropped and the oil won’t last forever. There is nothing to replace it. There is a belief that government does things best. Private initiative has been strangled. At some point they realized it has gone too far so they tried to fix it with more government. They created something called Innovation Norway. It’s a government agency that takes our tax money and throws it at startups they think look cool. It doesn’t appear to be a good solution so far.
So we are becoming a country of no money, no source of new money, with old people on pensions and young people on welfare.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-serious-problems-concerning-Norway
Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards.
Why?
We Should Raise Corporate Taxes (Not Lower Them) | HuffPost
Oh, well, if Hufflepuff Post says so, then . . . I believe it even less.
Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.
And here is what the GOP giveaway to the rich and cuts in services for the rest have done the last 35 years, brainwashed functional moron.You don't think being fair and moral and encouraging success is in the best interests of the nation?
The problem is that "fair" and "moral" and even "success" are subjective terms. Different people will have different things in mind when they use those words. In my view, the role of the government is to protect the freedom of each of us to pursue our own conceptions of "fair" and "moral" and "success", and not to decide for us what those words mean and push us toward those ends.
Yes, well, this highlights the need for better education in this country, so that people understand words when communicating.
If this wasn't increasingly a nation of self-absorbed dunces, it wouldn't be necessary to draw a diagram explaining that not interfering with the freedom of people to keep what they work for and rise and fall on their own decisions is fair, moral, and encourages success.
But I take your point that leftspeak is not like normal English.
Here is what the giveaway to the rich and cuts in services for everyone else has done to the country super dupers...Well, Bush becomes President in 2001 and slashes the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35%. Average real GDP growth while George W. Bush is President for 8 years comes in at 1.87%! That's down from the average of 3.62% during the Clinton years. So cutting the top federal tax rate did not help the economy at all.
The rich who pay the top federal tax rate do NOT change their consumer spending when they get a tax cut, especially at those levels. That's why the Bush tax cuts for the rich had no impact on economic growth and ended up just making the Budget deficit worse than it had to be.
Tax cuts targeted at those in the lower middle class are the type of cuts that boost economic growth. Most of the Bush tax cuts were directed at the very wealthy. The middle class spends the extra money they get, the rich do not.
Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?
No, but by increasing the top federal tax rate + the strong economic growth during the Clinton years, allowed for four consecutive years of surpluses. The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth. Regardless of what GDP growth is, you'll bring in more revenue with a top federal tax rate of 40% and it won't have a negative impact on the economy.
Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?
No,
Thanks.
The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth
Now prove your claim.
The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!
That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!
That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1 have been990s!
Here is what the giveaway to the rich handcuffs and services for everyone else has done to the country super dupers...Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?
No, but by increasing the top federal tax rate + the strong economic growth during the Clinton years, allowed for four consecutive years of surpluses. The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth. Regardless of what GDP growth is, you'll bring in more revenue with a top federal tax rate of 40% and it won't have a negative impact on the economy.
Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?
No,
Thanks.
The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth
Now prove your claim.
The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!
That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!
That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Releasea
Your ability to ignore facts is amazing.Here is what the giveaway to the rich handcuffs and services for everyone else has done to the country super dupers...No, but by increasing the top federal tax rate + the strong economic growth during the Clinton years, allowed for four consecutive years of surpluses. The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth. Regardless of what GDP growth is, you'll bring in more revenue with a top federal tax rate of 40% and it won't have a negative impact on the economy.
Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?
No,
Thanks.
The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth
Now prove your claim.
The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!
That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!
That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Releasea
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
It was awful, they became richer.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
How'd they do that? The awesome liberal education system? DERP!
Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards.
Why?
We Should Raise Corporate Taxes (Not Lower Them) | HuffPost
Oh, well, if Hufflepuff Post says so, then . . . I believe it even less.
Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.
Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.
You go with that, Sparky.
Oh, well, if Hufflepuff Post says so, then . . . I believe it even less.
Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.
Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.
You go with that, Sparky.
Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.
Oh, well, if Hufflepuff Post says so, then . . . I believe it even less.
Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.
Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.
You go with that, Sparky.
Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.
Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.
If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."
