TAXES: what the 1% have paid for 100 years

[Truthmatters]

You do realize that what was done under Carter helped the economy recover at the expense of his second term right?


Paul Volcker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you actually implying Carter was a good President? And actually helped the Economy?

Just when you think a winger has said the dumbest things possible, WHAMMO, TM comes out with an even bigger whopper

Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Paul Volcker, a Democrat,[5] was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter and reappointed in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan.[6]

Volcker's Fed is widely credited with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983.[7]

The federal funds rate, which had averaged 11.2% in 1979, was raised by Volcker to a peak of 20% in June 1981. The prime rate rose to 21.5% in '81 as well.[8]

Volcker's Fed elicited the strongest political attacks and most widespread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors, culminating in indebted farmers driving their tractors onto C Street NW and blockading the Eccles Building.[9]

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz said about him in an interview:

Paul Volcker, the previous Fed Chairman known for keeping inflation under control, was fired because the Reagan administration didn't believe he was an adequate de-regulator. .[




Ronny sure seemed to like him enough to keep him on.

He didnt deregulate like ronny wanted him to after the stagflation was beaten though so he dumped him.

When was the savings and loan debacle?

 

[theHawk]

And look at the tax rates in the '50s; our greatest era of prosperity.

Yea, 80-90% tax in the 1950s. Please, PLEASE, have your party run on the promise of raising taxes that high.

 

[theHawk]

The years we had the best schools in the world

Back then they weren't packed full of illegals.

 

[Truthmatters]

And look at the tax rates in the '50s; our greatest era of prosperity.

Yea, 80-90% tax in the 1950s. Please, PLEASE, have your party run on the promise of raising taxes that high.

Heres your problem dinkwit.

The taxes you guys are pretending are outrageous are lower than under Ronnie of the cowboy goodness.

You people are so full of shit and lacking in historic honesty you its oozing out of your ears.

 

[QUENTIN]

Your chart is pointless numbers. Here's a chart that has a purpose

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

And here's a chart and explanation of who holds the wealth, i.e., has purpose and provides context for your link:

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The top 20% hold 85% of all net wealth and pay less than 85% of all taxes. In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% hold 42.7% of financial wealth, and the top 20% hold 91.3%, yet pay less than that in taxes.

In other words, your link actually demonstrates that even if the system were based on equal taxation of every dollar, the wealthy are still not paying their fair share.

And then of course, under progressive taxation, the kind we had throughout most of the 20th century (except preceding the Great Depression and high unemployment of the 80's) and is a fundamental element of capitalist society, they pay much less than the proportion of their wealth.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion."

The income tax rate jumped to 63% on 1% in 1932! Could this be the Depression Era.

The Depression began in the 20s and went into full swing with the stock market crash of 1929. Preceding the Great Depression, the top income tax rate was 25%. Then it jumped to 63%, 79%, and 81% and wouldn't you know, it was over and we came out on the other side with the prosperous 1950s.

Correlation does not prove causation, but even trying to correlate the progressive tax implemented in 1932 with the Great Depression fails spectacularly and suggests the opposite of what you intend.

 

[DiamondDave]

Please remember that the holding of wealth is not the same as income... we do not, nor should we tax based on net worth

 

[Truthmatters]

Raising taxes is not the heart attack death nell of this country the rabib right claims it is and history tells the tale.

 

[MIPS]

The BUBBLE did not take off until after clinton's bill that reigned in spending and raised taxes on the highest group of tax payers....and yes, the republicans in congress in the later years, also helped in reducing our deficit spending...giving confidence to the public....

business investment and the bubble would have been nil, if our government had not shown some fiscal responsibility imo....and this is one of the problems now...people don't want to spend their own money investing in businesses with our government way overspending and putting us in debt....everyone is afraid they will be hit with a ton of taxes to pay for it....

You've got to be kidding me, you're trying to give Bill Clinton credit for the commercial success of the greatest leap in communications technology in the history of mankind? Get real, the only kudo's that the Clinton Administration deserves for the economic growth in the .com years is that he didn't manage to stifle it right out of the gate and at least half of that credit goes to Congressional Republicans.

The Clinton Administration was blessed with an economic thoroughbred during it's tenure and the clowns in Washington in their infinite wisdom eventually managed to hamstring it via their usual business cycle conjuring inept handling of fiscal and monetary policy.

nope, I ain't kidding....consumer confidence is the most important part of business growth....read up on it...

Your leaps of logic are astounding, you're trying to assert that consumer confidence is solely a factor of fiscal policy and thus since consumer confidence is the most IMPORTANT factor (it isn't by the way, good luck proving that one) and was high during the 1990's it must have been the Clinton Administrations fiscal policies that were the root cause of the .com bubble? Is that what you're trying to say?

It is you that need to do some reading, since apparently you give no credit to monetary policy, investor sentiment, new market opportunities and new technologies as having anything to do with economic expansion.

If your scenario were anything close to being true then fiscal policy would single handedly control economic growth, which anybody that pays attention already knows is complete nonsense. Fiscal policy INFLUENCES the state of the economy, however it is not even close to being the most significant factor.

 

[Truthmatters]

You've got to be kidding me, you're trying to give Bill Clinton credit for the commercial success of the greatest leap in communications technology in the history of mankind? Get real, the only kudo's that the Clinton Administration deserves for the economic growth in the .com years is that he didn't manage to stifle it right out of the gate and at least half of that credit goes to Congressional Republicans.

The Clinton Administration was blessed with an economic thoroughbred during it's tenure and the clowns in Washington in their infinite wisdom eventually managed to hamstring it via their usual business cycle conjuring inept handling of fiscal and monetary policy.

nope, I ain't kidding....consumer confidence is the most important part of business growth....read up on it...

Your leaps of logic are astounding, you're trying to assert that consumer confidence is solely a factor of fiscal policy and thus since consumer confidence is the most IMPORTANT factor (it isn't by the way, good luck proving that one) and was high during the 1990's it must have been the Clinton Administrations fiscal policies that were the root cause of the .com bubble? Is that what you're trying to say?

It is you that need to do some reading, since apparently you give no credit to monetary policy, investor sentiment, new market opportunities and new technologies as having anything to do with economic expansion.

If your scenario were anything close to being true then fiscal policy would single handedly control economic growth, which anybody that pays attention already knows is complete nonsense. Fiscal policy INFLUENCES the state of the economy, however it is not even close to being the most significant factor.

She said MOST and you imediately changed it to Sole.

You are one dishonest piece of shit buddy.

BTW investor sentiment IS consumer confidence.

 

[Truthmatters]

Consumer Confidence Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

read up

 

[xsited1]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)


Take a look at this chart and its numbers.

When we have lowered the tax rate on the 1% in this country what have they done to thank us??????

They fucked our economy.

Nice chart, but your commentary was awesome!

Troll Post Rating: 10

Congratulations!

 

[MIPS]

nope, I ain't kidding....consumer confidence is the most important part of business growth....read up on it...

Your leaps of logic are astounding, you're trying to assert that consumer confidence is solely a factor of fiscal policy and thus since consumer confidence is the most IMPORTANT factor (it isn't by the way, good luck proving that one) and was high during the 1990's it must have been the Clinton Administrations fiscal policies that were the root cause of the .com bubble? Is that what you're trying to say?

It is you that need to do some reading, since apparently you give no credit to monetary policy, investor sentiment, new market opportunities and new technologies as having anything to do with economic expansion.

If your scenario were anything close to being true then fiscal policy would single handedly control economic growth, which anybody that pays attention already knows is complete nonsense. Fiscal policy INFLUENCES the state of the economy, however it is not even close to being the most significant factor.

She said MOST and you imediately changed it to Sole.

You are a dishonest one piece of shit buddy.

I wasn't talking to you was I? when I wish to reply to your posts I will quote them, which is to say, when I want to have a conversation with a partisan drone possessing an IQ south of your average sedimentary rock I will let you know.

In the meantime, go do something productive with your time, like learning how to tie your shoelaces or emptying your drool cup.

BTW investor sentiment IS consumer confidence.

No it isn't dumbass, well except maybe in your pre-kindergarten version of economic theory.

 

[Truthmatters]

Your leaps of logic are astounding, you're trying to assert that consumer confidence is solely a factor of fiscal policy and thus since consumer confidence is the most IMPORTANT factor (it isn't by the way, good luck proving that one) and was high during the 1990's it must have been the Clinton Administrations fiscal policies that were the root cause of the .com bubble? Is that what you're trying to say?

It is you that need to do some reading, since apparently you give no credit to monetary policy, investor sentiment, new market opportunities and new technologies as having anything to do with economic expansion.

If your scenario were anything close to being true then fiscal policy would single handedly control economic growth, which anybody that pays attention already knows is complete nonsense. Fiscal policy INFLUENCES the state of the economy, however it is not even close to being the most significant factor.

I wasn't talking to you was I? when I wish to reply to your posts I will quote them, which is to say, when I want to have a conversation with a partisan drone possessing an IQ south of your average sedimentary rock I will let you know.

In the meantime, go do something productive with your time, like learning how to tie your shoelaces or emptying your drool cup.

BTW investor sentiment IS consumer confidence.

No it isn't dumbass, well except maybe in your pre-kindergarten version of economic theory.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


You dont control the series of tubes taintwallow.

An investor IS a consumer and yes they are part of the consumer confidence number.


Now why dont you adress your fucking lie about what Care said?

 

[Truthmatters]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)


Take a look at this chart and its numbers.

When we have lowered the tax rate on the 1% in this country what have they done to thank us??????

They fucked our economy.

Nice chart, but your commentary was awesome!

Troll Post Rating: 10

Congratulations!

Now explain why when the 1% had the lowest tax rates they gave us a great depression with their mishadling of the stock market?

 

[xsited1]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)


Take a look at this chart and its numbers.

When we have lowered the tax rate on the 1% in this country what have they done to thank us??????

They fucked our economy.

Nice chart, but your commentary was awesome!

Troll Post Rating: 10

Congratulations!

Now explain why when the 1% had the lowest tax rates they gave us a great depression with their mishadling of the stock market?

I gave you the highest troll post rating. You should be happy with a 10. Not even LilOldLady, MaggieMae or Chris have gotten that high a rating.

BTW, look at the work Milton Friedman did concerning the Great Depression. Seek the Truth. It truly will set you free.

 

[Truthmatters]

Got nothing huh?

 

[Mr Natural]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)


Take a look at this chart and its numbers.

When we have lowered the tax rate on the 1% in this country what have they done to thank us??????

They fucked our economy.

Nice chart, but your commentary was awesome!

Troll Post Rating: 10

Congratulations!

Now explain why when the 1% had the lowest tax rates they gave us a great depression with their mishadling of the stock market?

Because us humanoids can't be trusted with money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)


Take a look at this chart and its numbers.

When we have lowered the tax rate on the 1% in this country what have they done to thank us??????

They fucked our economy.

Why are you so fucking stupid?

 

[Truthmatters]

No its only a fraction of the humanoids that cant be trusted to put their fellow man above money.

A system that rewards only the most wealthy in society over the mass majority and at the expense of the mass majority is what you get when you remove all the rules they have to play by.

It allowss the ones who will DO ANYTHING for personal gain to rise to the top and to squeeze out the ones who will rise to the top by working hard and being smart but refusing to harm the rest of society in the process.

Lets give those humans a chance and shut down the sociaopaths.

 

[California Girl]

You blame the 'rich' for the mess that the country is in. That is pure fucking stupidity. You made the claim, you live with it. Making stupid statement about the rich being responsible does not make you right, it makes you stupid.

So who is it to blame for the current mess?

Every one of us played our part in the current crisis. 'We' as a society, being wasteful and running up debts we could not afford. The banks, governments, etc. This is not just our mess, the majority of countries around the world are in the same, if not worse, mess as we are. This was the 'perfect storm' that economist have been forecasting for years. No one listened... except Bush... who, for once in his life, actually did talk sense and actually did try to minimize the impact on the US.... but congress didn't listen.

There are no easy, simple answers as to why this happened.... there are a multitude of reasons but for anyone to say it was the fault of a group of people, namely the 'rich', is beyond stupid.