Tax cuts for the rich, why?

[Toddsterpatriot]

even when it becomes obvious your prescription won't do what you claim it will do.

No its obvious that lowering taxes will generate more federal revenues to combat the debt.

Now that's an ignorant prescription.

Show how much additional revenue you could generate by taxing the super wealthy more. If you would at least do that, I might believe you've actually thought this through instead of relying on feelz.

This article supports taxing the wealthy more will increase revenues.

What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts

Yeah thats just feelings.

You're clueless.

At least you tried. You found an article from 2015 that gives some numbers. That's a start. Your problem, however, is that the richest group they address only makes 9M/year. That's a far cry from the billionaires you touted, and attacking that group doesn't generate anywhere near enough revenue to eliminate the deficit, much less the debt itself. Keep trying.

If we had a 91% top tax bracket like in the 1950s we could start eliminating the debt year by year.

Why wasn't the debt already eliminated when we had a 91% bracket?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Oh goody this should be good, what are you majoring in? I'm guess a BA degree in some useless bullshit because you don't have either brains to be persuing a BS degree. I also guess that you're so clueless that you're going into hock to get it.

As a mental health worker but I might move onto a degree in art therapy.

Patient to worker is your career path?

I'm interested in art, psychology & helping people.
Art therapy fits like a glove.

By people you mean those who aren’t Jews, correct?

We could also help solve the debt, by stopping the worthless 50 billion dollar aid to foreign countries, such as Israel.

I like the aid to Israel. What else you got?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You weren't paying attention. I didn't say they wouldn't have a positive effect. YOU claimed we could significantly cut the debt if we took the steps you advised, but you failed to show how. You didn't show how much new revenue you would get, you didn't show that it would wipe out the deficit and produce a surplus, which is the only way to reduce the debt. You didn't do any of that. You also failed to account for the reality that any new revenue would immediately be erased by Congress creating new spending. You continue to come at this from an emotional standpoint, insisting you can eliminate the debt just by taxing the crap out of the people, without showing how that could happen.

Well, let's hear your brilliant solution?
The same steps which lead us here? LOL

Not my job. You made the assertion, you back it up. I've seen this before from other posters. You make an emotional statement and you're so wedded to it that you can't back away from it, even when it becomes obvious your prescription won't do what you claim it will do.

Lmfao.
Emotional response, not.a.logical reponse.

As if its logical to have the.super wealthy horde money they'll never spend, when there's a huge debt?

So assets in stocks just lie there?
Are you really that ignorant?

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

No its obvious that lowering taxes will generate more federal revenues to combat the debt.

Now that's an ignorant prescription.

Show how much additional revenue you could generate by taxing the super wealthy more. If you would at least do that, I might believe you've actually thought this through instead of relying on feelz.

This article supports taxing the wealthy more will increase revenues.

What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts

Yeah thats just feelings.

You're clueless.

At least you tried. You found an article from 2015 that gives some numbers. That's a start. Your problem, however, is that the richest group they address only makes 9M/year. That's a far cry from the billionaires you touted, and attacking that group doesn't generate anywhere near enough revenue to eliminate the deficit, much less the debt itself. Keep trying.

If we had a 91% top tax bracket like in the 1950s we could start eliminating the debt year by year.

Why wasn't the debt already eliminated when we had a 91% bracket?

Hmm, but the debt ballooned up significantly since the 91% tax bracket, huh?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Most Americans should be united here.

Even Republicans.

Because.

A.) By taxing huge portions of the richest individuals pockets, could completely get rid of the debt.

B.) The rich are the ones largely, if not entirely responsible for Liberal decay, like Illegals being hired, Jobs outsourced, Porn industry, Illicit drug dealer kingpins, Hollywood, Media, Facebook, Google, and yada, yada.

C.) The rich investment in housing, tends to cause bubbles, like which happened W. Bush. It actually hurts the middle class, when rich compete & up the bids on properties.

A you a commie?

No, he's a National SOCIALIST

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show how much additional revenue you could generate by taxing the super wealthy more. If you would at least do that, I might believe you've actually thought this through instead of relying on feelz.

This article supports taxing the wealthy more will increase revenues.

What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts

Yeah thats just feelings.

You're clueless.

At least you tried. You found an article from 2015 that gives some numbers. That's a start. Your problem, however, is that the richest group they address only makes 9M/year. That's a far cry from the billionaires you touted, and attacking that group doesn't generate anywhere near enough revenue to eliminate the deficit, much less the debt itself. Keep trying.

If we had a 91% top tax bracket like in the 1950s we could start eliminating the debt year by year.

Why wasn't the debt already eliminated when we had a 91% bracket?

Hmm, but the debt ballooned up significantly since the 91% tax bracket, huh?

So we had debt and a 91% top bracket.

So much for your bright idea.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Most Americans should be united here.

Even Republicans.

Because.

A.) By taxing huge portions of the richest individuals pockets, could completely get rid of the debt.

B.) The rich are the ones largely, if not entirely responsible for Liberal decay, like Illegals being hired, Jobs outsourced, Porn industry, Illicit drug dealer kingpins, Hollywood, Media, Facebook, Google, and yada, yada.

C.) The rich investment in housing, tends to cause bubbles, like which happened W. Bush. It actually hurts the middle class, when rich compete & up the bids on properties.

A you a commie?

No, he's a National SOCIALIST

So, you still support "Freedom & Liberty" for Abortion, Hiring illegals, outsourcing jobs, Porn, Hollywood shoot 'em up & raunchy Liberal cr@pola, for Prostitution, Illicit drug dealers, for Gay marriage, for Gay bar & Gay Tavern owners, for Liberal media like CNN & MSNBC, for Capitalists who sell Che Guevara T-Shirts, and Gangster RAP music with raunchy & degenerate messages?
or
what about Facebook, Google, Twitter, Youtube censoring out the Right wing opposition?

Wow, what a grand society freedom spawns. (Rolls eyes)

 

[Indeependent]

Germany was Authoritarian; so much for your "perfect" government.

Authoritarianism can solve a lot.

You're too full of shit and haven't been around long enogh or anywhere to know anything. Besides you're running you stupid mouth too much to learn anything so you have nothing to offer. That said I'm not waisting anymore time on you so I'm putting your dumb ass on ignore.

LMFAO, what a sensitive snowflake, simpleton.

If Authoritarianism always leads to mass murder, explain Authoritarian Poland of the 1930's?

If Capitalism always leads to less mass murder, explain the British Isle Capitalists of the UK & USA mass murdering a plenty?

Maybe that had something to do with Poland getting it's assed kicked by Germany?

1930's Poland was Authoritarian, having limited Jewish participation in colleges, government jobs, as lawyers, as doctors etc.
As well as the Ghetto Benches.

Keep in mind the United States also had similar policies for Jews too.

But, rather than causing genocide, 1930's Poland helped stopped some Pogroms against Jews.

Mass murder, much like regular murder, seem to be ethnic, and racial issues, largely.

A sort of blind servitude towards genocidal demands, a lack of control by the populace, greed, multicultural riots, are often a pretext to genocide.

And Poland got it’s ass kicked by a nation that was technologically advanced.

 

[Indeependent]

Well, let's hear your brilliant solution?
The same steps which lead us here? LOL

Not my job. You made the assertion, you back it up. I've seen this before from other posters. You make an emotional statement and you're so wedded to it that you can't back away from it, even when it becomes obvious your prescription won't do what you claim it will do.

Lmfao.
Emotional response, not.a.logical reponse.

As if its logical to have the.super wealthy horde money they'll never spend, when there's a huge debt?

So assets in stocks just lie there?
Are you really that ignorant?

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Authoritarianism can solve a lot.

You're too full of shit and haven't been around long enogh or anywhere to know anything. Besides you're running you stupid mouth too much to learn anything so you have nothing to offer. That said I'm not waisting anymore time on you so I'm putting your dumb ass on ignore.

LMFAO, what a sensitive snowflake, simpleton.

If Authoritarianism always leads to mass murder, explain Authoritarian Poland of the 1930's?

If Capitalism always leads to less mass murder, explain the British Isle Capitalists of the UK & USA mass murdering a plenty?

Maybe that had something to do with Poland getting it's assed kicked by Germany?

1930's Poland was Authoritarian, having limited Jewish participation in colleges, government jobs, as lawyers, as doctors etc.
As well as the Ghetto Benches.

Keep in mind the United States also had similar policies for Jews too.

But, rather than causing genocide, 1930's Poland helped stopped some Pogroms against Jews.

Mass murder, much like regular murder, seem to be ethnic, and racial issues, largely.

A sort of blind servitude towards genocidal demands, a lack of control by the populace, greed, multicultural riots, are often a pretext to genocide.

And Poland got it’s ass kicked by a nation that was technologically advanced.

Poland had some good tech too, like the Wz 35 anti tank rifle & the 7TP tank the first European diesel tank, and world first tank with periscopes.

The biggest issues were that Nazi Germany spent more on its military, and technology budgets,
and
perhaps even bigger that the Nazi war effort was supplied & fueled by Soviet resources in the German - Soviet Credit Agreement / German Soviet Commercial Agreement.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Not my job. You made the assertion, you back it up. I've seen this before from other posters. You make an emotional statement and you're so wedded to it that you can't back away from it, even when it becomes obvious your prescription won't do what you claim it will do.

Lmfao.
Emotional response, not.a.logical reponse.

As if its logical to have the.super wealthy horde money they'll never spend, when there's a huge debt?

So assets in stocks just lie there?
Are you really that ignorant?

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Lmfao.
Emotional response, not.a.logical reponse.

As if its logical to have the.super wealthy horde money they'll never spend, when there's a huge debt?

So assets in stocks just lie there?
Are you really that ignorant?

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So assets in stocks just lie there?
Are you really that ignorant?

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

What's wrong with being a laborer, exactly?

 

[Indeependent]

So assets in stocks just lie there?
Are you really that ignorant?

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

His dad paid him to deliver stuff.
Paid him $100.00/hour.
Sobie already admitted he couldn’t hold down a job.

 

[Indeependent]

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

What's wrong with being a laborer, exactly?

Because no one outside of family is going to pay you that much.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

His dad paid him to deliver stuff.
Paid him $100.00/hour.
Sobie already admitted he couldn’t hold down a job.

I never said such a thing, you're hallucinating.

I worked at a Pet store for years making 16 dollars an hour, with extreme labor demands, and also with managerial responsibilities.

I actually left the job, because they were terrible, and plain disrespectful.

After that I started freelancing as a landscaper & mover.
I was at times making indeed up to 100 dollars an hour.

But, often times far less too.

But, the workload wasn't steady enough.
Neither were benefits to be had, of course.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He never owned any stocks.

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

What's wrong with being a laborer, exactly?

Nothing but your work life is finite. Tough to be one in your 60s. And you didn’t answer my question

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

What's wrong with being a laborer, exactly?

Because no one outside of family is going to pay you that much.

So, you haven't looked into how much people charge to mow a lawn??????????

100 dollars is often the going rate, depending on where & how big of a lawn you mow.

Laborers can do oretty good, (Sometimes)

 

[Indeependent]

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

His dad paid him to deliver stuff.
Paid him $100.00/hour.
Sobie already admitted he couldn’t hold down a job.

I never said such a thing, you're hallucinating.

I worked at a Pet store for years making 16 dollars an hour, with extreme labor demands, and also with managerial responsibilities.

I actually left the job, because they were terrible, and plain disrespectful.

After that I started freelancing as a landscaper & mover.
I was at times making indeed up to 100 dollars an hour.

But, often times far less too.

But, the workload wasn't steady enough.
Neither were benefits to be had, of course.

Why does everyone treat someone as sweet as yourself with such disdain?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I have 10's of thousands tied into Mutual funds / IRA's.
So, not really.

Which can go belly up.
And what have you earned and not received from your parents?

Actually my mutual funds / IRA's are almost entirely based off of my earnings at my old jobs.

As a laborer?

His dad paid him to deliver stuff.
Paid him $100.00/hour.
Sobie already admitted he couldn’t hold down a job.

I never said such a thing, you're hallucinating.

I worked at a Pet store for years making 16 dollars an hour, with extreme labor demands, and also with managerial responsibilities.

I actually left the job, because they were terrible, and plain disrespectful.

After that I started freelancing as a landscaper & mover.
I was at times making indeed up to 100 dollars an hour.

But, often times far less too.

But, the workload wasn't steady enough.
Neither were benefits to be had, of course.

How much can you bench and curl?