they raised taxes on the wealthy

[g5000]

where in that link is the red info I highlighted?

Way back in post 235.

 

[Truthmatters]

Then you shouldnt mind repeting them if they so build your case huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

link?

U.S. Federal Government Budget Over Time

History of Top Rates

where and which one?

 

[Avorysuds]

dear idiot that is the republican claim on why we cant raise rich peoples taxes

We have countless reasons why raising taxes on successful people is a bad idea.

Yet you can't name one that has any bassis in reality. Perhaps if you where to leave your fantasy world...
Furthermore that BP oil spill was so succufl. JP mo2bil losing 2 billion dollars was also a huge succusss, those bankers destroying the economy that was also a huge succuss.

You know, it would be so interesting to do a test in today’s America. One state gets 90% unavoidable taxes on "the rich" and another just lets say a get a 15% flat tax no matter your income level.

It would be VERY interesting to see where the money goes, where the jobs go, and what state can pay their bill and what one runs deficits.

Too bad we can’t do that, thankfully we get to look at history. Harding’s ability to pull the nation out of a DEPRESSION VS FDR’s ability to starve people in the streets for 12 years.

 

[g5000]

link?

U.S. Federal Government Budget Over Time

History of Top Rates

where and which one?

Are you retarded?

Click on them. They both take you right to easy to read tables.

 

[g5000]

Now the game is afoot.


Your lies wont hold up anymore.

leaving millions of Americans without a home of their own is real class warfare

Please explain the connection between a rich Californian and millions of Americans without a home that justifies raising the rich guy's taxes. You have evaded answering for 18 pages now.

 

[Truthmatters]

ok found it

 

[g5000]

Then you shouldnt mind repeting them if they so build your case huh?

What was the top tax rate from 1920S TO THE CRASH OF 1929?

U.S. Federal Government Budget Over Time

History of Top Rates

When you adjust the top income bracket into today's dollars, you had to earn $35,000,000 before you hit the top bracket of 67% in 1917.

In 1936, you had to earn about $80,700,000 before you were in the top bracket of 79%.

1936 was the peak, with the income you had to earn to reach the top bracket steadily dropping until today you only have to earn $379,000 to be in the top bracket.


The point is that looking at top tax rates in a vacuum is a fool's game.




The end result is that the amount of revenue the federal government takes in has been fairly stable since the end of WWII, regardless of what the top tax rate was.



Government SPENDING, on the other hand, has NOT been stable.

 

[g5000]

Sorry to make your butt hurt, TM.

Any asshole can post one liners all day long. It is quite another thing to actually MAKE SENSE.

 

[Truthmatters]

1942

24

19%

88%

$200,000

$2.75M

Revenue Act of 1942



1944

24

23%

94%

$200,000

$2.54M

Individual Income Tax Act of 1944



1946

24

20%

91%

$200,000

$2.30M




1954

24

20%

91%

$200,000

$1.67M




they did not move did they


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates

 

[g5000]

"Millions of people lost their houses!"

"Tax the rich!"


Brilliant rhetoric.

 

[Truthmatters]

the numbers you gave make it even clearer


The wealthy did not move because they were taxed more

 

[Truthmatters]

we have the lowest top tax rates in decades.

You cant just keep cutting everything for the wealthy

 

[Avorysuds]

1942

24

19%

88%

$200,000

$2.75M

Revenue Act of 1942



1944

24

23%

94%

$200,000

$2.54M

Individual Income Tax Act of 1944



1946

24

20%

91%

$200,000

$2.30M




1954

24

20%

91%

$200,000

$1.67M




they did not move did they


Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DEDUCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!


How long are you going to pretend ANYONE paid 90 % taxes?

Open this link TM and read it, PLEASE!!!! I did a SIMPLE google search, clicked on the very first item on the search and BAM, proved you WRONG.


http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

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.

As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn't count much of the compensation as taxable income.

 

[g5000]

they did not move did they

So...rich Americans didn't move between 1942 and 1946. And to where would they have moved...Berlin?


Regardless, I am not one who buys into the argument that higher taxes lead to some kind of flight of rich people to Ragnar Danneskjold's yacht.

As I have proven, your point about higher tax bracket rates is moot since the amount of income one had to earn to hit those brackets was astronomically high, and as the rate dropped, so did the floor for the amount of income required to reach the top bracket. So government revenues pretty much evened out.

However, government spending has never evened out. A point you are willfully ignoring.


You are also willfully ignoring explaining why people losing their homes to foreclosure is justification for raising the taxes of a rich person in California.

You clearly feel the loss of homes is the rich guy's fault, but you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to explain how.


Stop running away and explain yourself.

 

[Avorysuds]

the numbers you gave make it even clearer


The wealthy did not move because they were taxed more

If you are talking about during WWII maybe that's because most of the cities in the world were blown up???

Have you every even tried to read history?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

dear idiot that is the republican claim on why we cant raise rich peoples taxes

We have countless reasons why raising taxes on successful people is a bad idea.

Yet you can't name one that has any bassis in reality. Perhaps if you where to leave your fantasy world...
Furthermore that BP oil spill was so succufl. JP mo2bil losing 2 billion dollars was also a huge succusss, those bankers destroying the economy that was also a huge succuss.

You vote for politicians who run up trillion dollar deficits in one year. What are you whining about again?

 

[Avorysuds]

The question is why do you guys want to tax the rich more anyways? How much revenue will it get you and what will you do with that money?

2 very smple questions that you guys never answer.

 

[starcraftzzz]

The question is why do you guys want to tax the rich more anyways? How much revenue will it get you and what will you do with that money?

2 very smple questions that you guys never answer.

Why? Because poor people pay more taxes then rich people.
What will we do with the money? Lower taxes on poor and middle class people, provide health care build roads and give you police

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Because poor people pay more taxes then rich people.

No they don't. You've told yet another lie. I've lost count of how many this is today.

I think you should read up on this and possibly seek some help. I'm concerned for you.

Pseudologia fantastica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia