Bernie Sanders.....Can you smell the burn ???

[Billy000]

meaning the burning bullshit that spewed from his communist mouth !! lots of promises with no explanation on how to achieve his anti capitalist dream ! you see folks there is a simple reason Bernie hates capitalism ......he was a lazy deadbeat looser that could not hold a job until until he got into politics ! its no wonder he hates successful business that provide jobs for millions of people , he couldnt even successfully be employed by one much less create and run one !

You have to be an idiot to believe republicans explain anything about how to make policy. Bernie actually has details on how to pay for his programs.

Yeah, just like every other Socialist Commie: Tax the rich.

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

Then tax them. In the 1945 the industrial base of the developed world, except for the US was lying in smoldering ruins, anything we did in the 50's would have worked great.

And nobody paid those 90% rates. Would you work for a dollar if you only got to keep a dime of it, and that dime was going to be cut by the State Tax rate?

No matter the tax rate, we seem to be able to sustain a tax rate of 17% of GDP

Get much higher than that and we tip into recession.

That doesn’t make any goddamn sense. Anything we could have done would have brought war-torn America to being an economic powerhouse? That’s just ridiculous.

Here is the reason why the tax rate was 90%, and yes, they paid that. Because their wealth was limited, the wealthy were incentivized to invest in labor and productivity in order to make more money. Nowadays, the wealthy are investing less and less into labor so wages remain stagnant. This is because there is no incentive for them to invest. The ridiculous tax cuts they get from republicans makes it easier to become richer because of the ridiculous amount of money they save. All they have to do is kick back and just pay less in taxes. Meanwhile, wages continue to remain stagnant while the cost of living has skyrocketed.

The low tax percentage of GDP we have has serious downsides. One is that insufficient revenue drives up the deficit because these tax cuts aren’t paid for. Also that percentage reflects a high tax burden on the poor and middle class that don’t have the luxury of generous deductions and loopholes that rich people have.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

meaning the burning bullshit that spewed from his communist mouth !! lots of promises with no explanation on how to achieve his anti capitalist dream ! you see folks there is a simple reason Bernie hates capitalism ......he was a lazy deadbeat looser that could not hold a job until until he got into politics ! its no wonder he hates successful business that provide jobs for millions of people , he couldnt even successfully be employed by one much less create and run one !

You have to be an idiot to believe republicans explain anything about how to make policy. Bernie actually has details on how to pay for his programs.

Yeah, just like every other Socialist Commie: Tax the rich.

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

 

[Billy000]

meaning the burning bullshit that spewed from his communist mouth !! lots of promises with no explanation on how to achieve his anti capitalist dream ! you see folks there is a simple reason Bernie hates capitalism ......he was a lazy deadbeat looser that could not hold a job until until he got into politics ! its no wonder he hates successful business that provide jobs for millions of people , he couldnt even successfully be employed by one much less create and run one !

You have to be an idiot to believe republicans explain anything about how to make policy. Bernie actually has details on how to pay for his programs.

Yeah, just like every other Socialist Commie: Tax the rich.

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

meaning the burning bullshit that spewed from his communist mouth !! lots of promises with no explanation on how to achieve his anti capitalist dream ! you see folks there is a simple reason Bernie hates capitalism ......he was a lazy deadbeat looser that could not hold a job until until he got into politics ! its no wonder he hates successful business that provide jobs for millions of people , he couldnt even successfully be employed by one much less create and run one !

You have to be an idiot to believe republicans explain anything about how to make policy. Bernie actually has details on how to pay for his programs.

Yeah, just like every other Socialist Commie: Tax the rich.

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

As was already pointed out, very few paid this 91% you speak of. The average for the top 1% was about 42% compared to about 37% today when you figure in all income taxes including state and city.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So riddle me this: If 87% of taxes paid by the top 20% are not enough, what should they be paying?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nowadays, the wealthy are investing less and less into labor so wages remain stagnant.

Wrong.

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

 

[Billy000]

You have to be an idiot to believe republicans explain anything about how to make policy. Bernie actually has details on how to pay for his programs.

Yeah, just like every other Socialist Commie: Tax the rich.

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

As was already pointed out, very few paid this 91% you speak of. The average for the top 1% was about 42% compared to about 37% today when you figure in all income taxes including state and city.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So riddle me this: If 87% of taxes paid by the top 20% are not enough, what should they be paying?

Um no I didn’t. They didnt have nearly the same tax code we have now. When I talk about deductions, I am talking about now.

Okay so now you’re flipping back to this narrative of 87% when you already acknowledged that rich people have generous deductions. That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Billy000]

Nowadays, the wealthy are investing less and less into labor so wages remain stagnant.

Wrong.

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

No this still means they are investing less in labor in totality. There’s been a slight bump in wages the last few years, but the takeaway that matters is that the cost of living has skyrocketed in comparison.

 

[sparky]

i really don't think one could fit so many lies in one thread

there should be an award.....

~S~

 

[Zorro!]

meaning the burning bullshit that spewed from his communist mouth !! lots of promises with no explanation on how to achieve his anti capitalist dream ! you see folks there is a simple reason Bernie hates capitalism ......he was a lazy deadbeat looser that could not hold a job until until he got into politics ! its no wonder he hates successful business that provide jobs for millions of people , he couldnt even successfully be employed by one much less create and run one !

You have to be an idiot to believe republicans explain anything about how to make policy. Bernie actually has details on how to pay for his programs.

Yeah, just like every other Socialist Commie: Tax the rich.

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

Then tax them. In the 1945 the industrial base of the developed world, except for the US was lying in smoldering ruins, anything we did in the 50's would have worked great.

And nobody paid those 90% rates. Would you work for a dollar if you only got to keep a dime of it, and that dime was going to be cut by the State Tax rate?

No matter the tax rate, we seem to be able to sustain a tax rate of 17% of GDP

Get much higher than that and we tip into recession.

That doesn’t make any goddamn sense...

Sure it does. The rest of the developed world was lying in smoking ruins and our industrial base was untouched.

... Anything we could have done would have brought war-torn America to being an economic powerhouse? That’s just ridiculous...

None of our industrial base was bombed. Germany was in ruins, England was in ruins, France was in ruins, Japan was in ruins, China was in ruins, and the list goes on and on and on. The entire world had one place to shop, the US.

...Here is the reason why the tax rate was 90%, and yes, they paid that...

No they didn't. In the 1950's, taxes barely averaged 17% of GDP. You would have to be an idiot to work for a dollar that you only got to keep a dime of. I asked you that question: Would you work for a dollar that you only got to keep a dime of? Of course not, no one would.

...The ridiculous tax cuts they get from republicans...

All tax and spending bills come out of the House, has the Dem House passed any tax hikes yet?

The low tax percentage of GDP we have has serious downsides.

In the 1950's we touched tax receipts of 18% of GDP once and tipped over in to recession (shaded areas are recession)

Then we almost hit 17% in 1957 and tipped over in recession.

We are running 16-17% now.

... One is that insufficient revenue drives up the deficit because these tax cuts aren’t paid for...

Our debt to GDP, now is 104.7%
When Obama left office it was 104.5%, so it's stayed pretty flat under Trump.

... a high tax burden on the poor and middle class ...

Taxes have gone done for the poor and middle class under Trump. Where in the world did you get the idea that Trump raised taxes on the poor and middle class?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nowadays, the wealthy are investing less and less into labor so wages remain stagnant.

Wrong.

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

No this still means they are investing less in labor in totality. There’s been a slight bump in wages the last few years, but the takeaway that matters is that the cost of living has skyrocketed in comparison.

No, there hasn't been a bump the last few years. It only started after Trump passed his tax reform where businesses all over gave bonuses, raises, or both to their employees. And I wouldn't refer to an all time of household income a bump. I call it a record.

Automation is taking more jobs than outsourcing. If any production investment is made, it's in robots when humans cost too much to keep employed. Even fast food outlets are investing in automation partly due to states increasing their minimum wage beyond federal levels.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, just like every other Socialist Commie: Tax the rich.

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

As was already pointed out, very few paid this 91% you speak of. The average for the top 1% was about 42% compared to about 37% today when you figure in all income taxes including state and city.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So riddle me this: If 87% of taxes paid by the top 20% are not enough, what should they be paying?

Um no I didn’t. They didnt have nearly the same tax code we have now. When I talk about deductions, I am talking about now.

Okay so now you’re flipping back to this narrative of 87% when you already acknowledged that rich people have generous deductions. That doesn’t make sense.

As the article points out, with or without deductions, they are not paying that much less today than 65 years ago. With the current deductions, the top 20% are still paying 87% of all collected income taxes.

 

[Billy000]

Nowadays, the wealthy are investing less and less into labor so wages remain stagnant.

Wrong.

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

No this still means they are investing less in labor in totality. There’s been a slight bump in wages the last few years, but the takeaway that matters is that the cost of living has skyrocketed in comparison.

No, there hasn't been a bump the last few years. It only started after Trump passed his tax reform where businesses all over gave bonuses, raises, or both to their employees. And I wouldn't refer to an all time of household income a bump. I call it a record.

Automation is taking more jobs than outsourcing. If any production investment is made, it's in robots when humans cost too much to keep employed. Even fast food outlets are investing in automation partly due to states increasing their minimum wage beyond federal levels.

The median household under Obama’s later years was rising already. There is no actual evidence that Trump’s cuts are benefiting the middle class and poor. The poor are suffering even more now because more of their deductions were eliminated.

Don’t you realize how bat shit you crazy sound? The top 1% are seeing all of the major economic gains and you think states raising their minimum wage is harming these top earners. You do realize that those gains could have gone to middle class workers right?

 

[Billy000]

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

As was already pointed out, very few paid this 91% you speak of. The average for the top 1% was about 42% compared to about 37% today when you figure in all income taxes including state and city.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So riddle me this: If 87% of taxes paid by the top 20% are not enough, what should they be paying?

Um no I didn’t. They didnt have nearly the same tax code we have now. When I talk about deductions, I am talking about now.

Okay so now you’re flipping back to this narrative of 87% when you already acknowledged that rich people have generous deductions. That doesn’t make sense.

As the article points out, with or without deductions, they are not paying that much less today than 65 years ago. With the current deductions, the top 20% are still paying 87% of all collected income taxes.

No the article makes no mention of their effective tax rate. This all also doesn’t account for the economic gains they get from the corporations they own where the effective tax rate is 11%. 2/3 don’t pay federal taxes at all.

 

[skye]

I can only smell the hypocrisy.......




he is a millionaire ....he is talking out his backside
https://nypost.com/2019/04/09/bernie-sanders-tax-returns-reveal-hes-a-millionaire/

 

[Billy000]

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

As was already pointed out, very few paid this 91% you speak of. The average for the top 1% was about 42% compared to about 37% today when you figure in all income taxes including state and city.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So riddle me this: If 87% of taxes paid by the top 20% are not enough, what should they be paying?

Um no I didn’t. They didnt have nearly the same tax code we have now. When I talk about deductions, I am talking about now.

Okay so now you’re flipping back to this narrative of 87% when you already acknowledged that rich people have generous deductions. That doesn’t make sense.

As the article points out, with or without deductions, they are not paying that much less today than 65 years ago. With the current deductions, the top 20% are still paying 87% of all collected income taxes.

This will put it into perspective for you:

Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans - Americans For Tax Fairness

The top earners pay 24% in federal taxes effectively. Someone in the middle class pays 21% effective rate in comparison.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nowadays, the wealthy are investing less and less into labor so wages remain stagnant.

Wrong.

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

No this still means they are investing less in labor in totality. There’s been a slight bump in wages the last few years, but the takeaway that matters is that the cost of living has skyrocketed in comparison.

No, there hasn't been a bump the last few years. It only started after Trump passed his tax reform where businesses all over gave bonuses, raises, or both to their employees. And I wouldn't refer to an all time of household income a bump. I call it a record.

Automation is taking more jobs than outsourcing. If any production investment is made, it's in robots when humans cost too much to keep employed. Even fast food outlets are investing in automation partly due to states increasing their minimum wage beyond federal levels.

The median household under Obama’s later years was rising already. There is no actual evidence that Trump’s cuts are benefiting the middle class and poor. The poor are suffering even more now because more of their deductions were eliminated.

Don’t you realize how bat shit you crazy sound? The top 1% are seeing all of the major economic gains and you think states raising their minimum wage is harming these top earners. You do realize that those gains could have gone to middle class workers right?

No, the states raising minimum wage hurt the bottom earners because they are being replaced by machines.

And what deductions were eliminated to the poor by Trump's tax reform? Taxable income increased and additional child tax credits were increased, plus next year, we won't have to suffer Commie Care fines.

During the DumBama years, household income only increased to pre-recession levels. Under Trump, we broke new records.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

As was already pointed out, very few paid this 91% you speak of. The average for the top 1% was about 42% compared to about 37% today when you figure in all income taxes including state and city.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So riddle me this: If 87% of taxes paid by the top 20% are not enough, what should they be paying?

Um no I didn’t. They didnt have nearly the same tax code we have now. When I talk about deductions, I am talking about now.

Okay so now you’re flipping back to this narrative of 87% when you already acknowledged that rich people have generous deductions. That doesn’t make sense.

As the article points out, with or without deductions, they are not paying that much less today than 65 years ago. With the current deductions, the top 20% are still paying 87% of all collected income taxes.

This will put it into perspective for you:

Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans - Americans For Tax Fairness

The top earners pay 24% in federal taxes effectively. Someone in the middle class pays 21% effective rate in comparison.

I stopped at point 2 because it made the same claim you did, and that is the top earners paid 91% tax rate which is not true. Your source is a farce.

 

[Billy000]

Nowadays, the wealthy are investing less and less into labor so wages remain stagnant.

Wrong.

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

No this still means they are investing less in labor in totality. There’s been a slight bump in wages the last few years, but the takeaway that matters is that the cost of living has skyrocketed in comparison.

No, there hasn't been a bump the last few years. It only started after Trump passed his tax reform where businesses all over gave bonuses, raises, or both to their employees. And I wouldn't refer to an all time of household income a bump. I call it a record.

Automation is taking more jobs than outsourcing. If any production investment is made, it's in robots when humans cost too much to keep employed. Even fast food outlets are investing in automation partly due to states increasing their minimum wage beyond federal levels.

The median household under Obama’s later years was rising already. There is no actual evidence that Trump’s cuts are benefiting the middle class and poor. The poor are suffering even more now because more of their deductions were eliminated.

Don’t you realize how bat shit you crazy sound? The top 1% are seeing all of the major economic gains and you think states raising their minimum wage is harming these top earners. You do realize that those gains could have gone to middle class workers right?

No, the states raising minimum wage hurt the bottom earners because they are being replaced by machines.

And what deductions were eliminated to the poor by Trump's tax reform? Taxable income increased and additional child tax credits were increased, plus next year, we won't have to suffer Commie Care fines.

During the DumBama years, household income only increased to pre-recession levels. Under Trump, we broke new records.

See it doesn’t matter either way. These corporations have the capital to pay their employees more but instead they invest in automation. They do that because they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize their profits for shareholders.

Don’t you see how ridiculous it sounds to say the small bump in wages for the lower classes is some kind of success? Trickle down theory is complete bullshit and always will be. If those cuts were actually effective, we would see serious gains in the middle class and poor but instead the disparity has only gotten wider.

 

[Billy000]

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

As was already pointed out, very few paid this 91% you speak of. The average for the top 1% was about 42% compared to about 37% today when you figure in all income taxes including state and city.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So riddle me this: If 87% of taxes paid by the top 20% are not enough, what should they be paying?

Um no I didn’t. They didnt have nearly the same tax code we have now. When I talk about deductions, I am talking about now.

Okay so now you’re flipping back to this narrative of 87% when you already acknowledged that rich people have generous deductions. That doesn’t make sense.

As the article points out, with or without deductions, they are not paying that much less today than 65 years ago. With the current deductions, the top 20% are still paying 87% of all collected income taxes.

This will put it into perspective for you:

Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans - Americans For Tax Fairness

The top earners pay 24% in federal taxes effectively. Someone in the middle class pays 21% effective rate in comparison.

I stopped at point 2 because it made the same claim you did, and that is the top earners paid 91% tax rate which is not true. Your source is a farce.

See here’s the convenient thing your politically biased article left out: it makes the point that the top earners paid 43% in an effective tax rate in the 50’s yet it makes no mention that the effective rate for top earners today is 24%.

 

[dudmuck]

Un yeah. That’s what makes sense economically. The rich must be taxed. They must be taxed the highest. Obviously there is such a thing as too high, but Bernie’s is nowhere near that. Hell, in the 50’s their tax rate was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

The 50's was a much different time than today. First off, Americans had more solidarity with their countrymen than today. An American company would not do well moving overseas and importing stuff back to the US. For one, travel was not nearly as safe as today. Now we have satellites, radar, and much safer planes. Two, our labor was closer to others around the world. Transpiration would have killed any additional profit, and actually would have cost more to produce overseas.

Businesses always had to have meetings, so it would not have been economical to fly all those Americans to wherever to have monthly meetings. Communications were very primitive. So there was really no places else to go.

Today, a business owner can run his company sitting on the toilet from virtually anywhere in the world. He can have face to face meetings via internet, and be able to check his investments up to the second. As long as he can produce products cheaper than can be produced in the US, his products will sell the most.

The rich already pay most of the income taxes for the rest of us, yet nearly the bottom 50% pay not a dime.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

Okay, but we are in agreement that their high tax rate was beneficial to them at the time right? This simply proves that their tax rate was not harmful to the economy. And yes, the economy we have today is much different. I’m not even suggesting that their tax rate be that high. It just has to be a lot different from now based on deductions and loopholes. 2/3 of corporations don’t pay federal income tax because of what they can take advantage of on the tax code. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class class end up paying higher effective tax rates because they don’t get those same generous deductions.

As was already pointed out, very few paid this 91% you speak of. The average for the top 1% was about 42% compared to about 37% today when you figure in all income taxes including state and city.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

So riddle me this: If 87% of taxes paid by the top 20% are not enough, what should they be paying?

Um no I didn’t. They didnt have nearly the same tax code we have now. When I talk about deductions, I am talking about now.

Okay so now you’re flipping back to this narrative of 87% when you already acknowledged that rich people have generous deductions. That doesn’t make sense.

As the article points out, with or without deductions, they are not paying that much less today than 65 years ago. With the current deductions, the top 20% are still paying 87% of all collected income taxes.

percentage of taxes of a group has to go along with percentage of total income earned by that same group, i.e:

this was 4 years ago.
current numbers here
If a group pays X percent of all taxes, its because they earn X percent of all income.