Check this chart of top marginal taxes for decades

[syrenn]

Go look at the OP and tell me those are not facts.

now do any of you care to point out how this set of facts proves the cons tag line of Taxes are too high and rasiing them will drag the economy down?

From the woman who complains that the economy is in the shit house but still wants to SPEND OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.


WWWHHAAAA the schools need more money

WWWHHHHHAAAA the palistians need more money

WWWWWHHHHAAAAA you need a butterfly net to catch you when you jump

 

[Truthmatters]

Every economic slump or economic growth is not related just to tax rates or fiscal spending, there are other factors to consider from monetary manipulation of the interest rates in the early 80's to get inflation under control or to create the bubbles of the past several years that are collapsing to an explosion in the population after WWll, people entering the job market, trade agreements, etc.

To credit or blame only one party,one man or a tax rate without discussing the rest is being partisan,being ignorant or being a sheep, something is amiss when so many lips are around one party all the God blessed time or repeating what a talking head says.

Finding patterns in data does not mean you have to ignore other data.

Please go get the data you suggest will show me Im wrong.

I am willing to look at facts unlike the majority on the right here, YOU always seem much more willing to accept fact and I praise you for it.

 

[The Infidel]

I aways talk this way when trying to discuss facts with people who recognise nothing but partisan hackery as their guide

Could be why no-one listens

 

[boedicca]

Every economic slump or economic growth is not related just to tax rates or fiscal spending, there are other factors to consider from monetary manipulation of the interest rates in the early 80's to get inflation under control or to create the bubbles of the past several years that are collapsing to an explosion in the population after WWll, people entering the job market, trade agreements, etc.

To credit or blame only one party,one man or a tax rate without discussing the rest is being partisan,being ignorant or being a sheep, something is amiss when so many lips are around one party all the God blessed time or repeating what a talking head says.

Finding patterns in data does not mean you have to ignore other data.

Please go get the data you suggest will show me Im wrong.

I am willing to look at facts unlike the majority on the right here, YOU always seem much more willing to accept fact and I praise you for it.

Patterns are not just randomly quoted numbers.

You have never ever explained such figures in historical context with proper analyses of cause and effect.

 

[Truthmatters]

LOL TM how much do you get paid to spew your crap?

These are cold hard facts dicklick.

What part of these facts do you think are crap?

Facts don't fit in with their "ideology". Remember, these are the same people who believe we "freed" Iraq but are now screaming that "Islam is awful".

Their little heads are like baby rattles with their tiny minds bouncing from one fear to another. With the worst fear having to admit their failed ideology, "failed".

Yeah the gaggle of idiots are here right now and maybe someone with half a brain show up and actually discuss the facts instead of knee jerk insulting what they cant defend against.

 

[8537]

Every economic slump or economic growth is not related just to tax rates or fiscal spending, there are other factors to consider from monetary manipulation of the interest rates in the early 80's to get inflation under control or to create the bubbles of the past several years that are collapsing to an explosion in the population after WWll, people entering the job market, trade agreements, etc.

To credit or blame only one party,one man or a tax rate without discussing the rest is being partisan,being ignorant or being a sheep, something is amiss when so many lips are around one party all the God blessed time or repeating what a talking head says.

Stop making sense!

 

[Truthmatters]

I aways talk this way when trying to discuss facts with people who recognise nothing but partisan hackery as their guide

Could be why no-one listens

I agree with you , you are nobody

 

[syrenn]

Dear ******* idiot , the ideas you agreed to with this loser avatar

Dear ******* idiot, just as your ideas come from what you leave on the puppy pad.

 

[The Infidel]

Go look at the OP and tell me those are not facts.

now do any of you care to point out how this set of facts proves the cons tag line of Taxes are too high and rasiing them will drag the economy down?

If you look at history without your prism of politics, you will see he is correct.




Notice I didnt say he was right


Its not a right/left thing..... you are just plain wrong.

Too much taxes drags the economy down. (Unless you are a sponge and only take.)

 

[johnrocks]

Every economic slump or economic growth is not related just to tax rates or fiscal spending, there are other factors to consider from monetary manipulation of the interest rates in the early 80's to get inflation under control or to create the bubbles of the past several years that are collapsing to an explosion in the population after WWll, people entering the job market, trade agreements, etc.

To credit or blame only one party,one man or a tax rate without discussing the rest is being partisan,being ignorant or being a sheep, something is amiss when so many lips are around one party all the God blessed time or repeating what a talking head says.

Finding patterns in data does not mean you have to ignore other data.

Please go get the data you suggest will show me Im wrong.

I am willing to look at facts unlike the majority on the right here, YOU always seem much more willing to accept fact and I praise you for it.

Thank you, I just started posting here again and have not figured out most posters political stands yet, I wasn't so much as arguing with you as talking in generalities.

After WWll though, there were millions of men coming back from the war, a baby boom took place, most of the world didn't have a manufacturing base, it was destroyed by the war so I would think that would play a huge role in that era, wouldn't you?

 

[syrenn]

These are cold hard facts dicklick.

What part of these facts do you think are crap?

Facts don't fit in with their "ideology". Remember, these are the same people who believe we "freed" Iraq but are now screaming that "Islam is awful".

Their little heads are like baby rattles with their tiny minds bouncing from one fear to another. With the worst fear having to admit their failed ideology, "failed".

Yeah the gaggle of idiots are here right now and maybe someone with half a brain show up and actually discuss the facts instead of knee jerk insulting what they cant defend against.

Can you name anyone who does have discussions with you? Can you point to ONE thread where you discuss anything?

 

[Truthmatters]

Go look at the OP and tell me those are not facts.

now do any of you care to point out how this set of facts proves the cons tag line of Taxes are too high and rasiing them will drag the economy down?

If you look at history without your prism of politics, you will see he is correct.
Make your case with facts



Notice I didnt say he was right


Its not a right/left thing..... you are just plain wrong.

Too much taxes drags the economy down. (Unless you are a sponge and only take.)

Show us how you get to that conclusion

 

[boedicca]

As Reagan once said:

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "


If we tax something, we get less of it. If we subsidize something, we get more of it. Raising the effective tax burden (not the marginal rate, but the end result of how much real money they spend in taxes) lessens the incentive to be productive. Subsidizing something causes an equal distortion. If we pay people for producing nothing, that's what they will do.

Hence, our current fiscal mess.

 

[The Infidel]

Go look at the OP and tell me those are not facts.

now do any of you care to point out how this set of facts proves the cons tag line of Taxes are too high and rasiing them will drag the economy down?

If you look at history without your prism of politics, you will see he is correct.
Make your case with facts



Notice I didnt say he was right


Its not a right/left thing..... you are just plain wrong.

Too much taxes drags the economy down. (Unless you are a sponge and only take.)

Show us how you get to that conclusion

Im not going to do the work for you.... go read a history book, and stop reading liberal blog sites.


johnrocks has brought some good points and you ignore those... just like you would ignore mine (If I was so inclined to do so)

So why waste my time?

 

[8537]

As Reagan once said:

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "


If we tax something, we get less of it. If we subsidize something, we get more of it. Raising the effective tax burden (not the marginal rate, but the end result of how much real money they spend in taxes) lessens the incentive to be productive.

That's not necessarily the case. You can certainly get a substitution effect where people chose leisure over work...

But that is quite often more than offset by an income effect where people work more in order to maintain their current real income and buying power. as the price of leisure goes down (relative to labor), the value of the next dollar goes up.

 

[Truthmatters]

Every economic slump or economic growth is not related just to tax rates or fiscal spending, there are other factors to consider from monetary manipulation of the interest rates in the early 80's to get inflation under control or to create the bubbles of the past several years that are collapsing to an explosion in the population after WWll, people entering the job market, trade agreements, etc.

To credit or blame only one party,one man or a tax rate without discussing the rest is being partisan,being ignorant or being a sheep, something is amiss when so many lips are around one party all the God blessed time or repeating what a talking head says.

Finding patterns in data does not mean you have to ignore other data.

Please go get the data you suggest will show me Im wrong.

I am willing to look at facts unlike the majority on the right here, YOU always seem much more willing to accept fact and I praise you for it.

Thank you, I just started posting here again and have not figured out most posters political stands yet, I wasn't so much as arguing with you as talking in generalities.

After WWll though, there were millions of men coming back from the war, a baby boom took place, most of the world didn't have a manufacturing base, it was destroyed by the war so I would think that would play a huge role in that era, wouldn't you?

I was talking just the US, after the war we had a top marginal tax rate of 91%, it did not hinder the economy as the right suggests, it helped build a society that was wonderful for the average Americans life. It was when we had the BEST schools in the world, had the highest respected higher education and an infrastructure the world sought to emulate. Usually a post war condition falls prey to an econoimic downturn due to the returing vets seeking work in the private sector. Instead we had the GI bill which created a winderfully educated working force.

It was undoubtedly a high point in this countries history.

 

[DiamondDave]

the two historic lows were followed by a economic collapse.

The great iconic 50s the right wishes to go back to had a 91% tax rate.

That us why we had great schools and infrastructure

TM,

Have you ever heard of the Money Supply and The Federal Reserve?

And those 91% tax rates in the 1950s were at at income levels above $400,000 - which in 2010 dollars would be over $3,000,000.

THREE MILLION DOLLARS is quite a bit higher than the TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS that Obama has defined as The Rich.

Not to mention the differences in what was deductible and what was considered income....

But what truthdesnotmatter is trying to do is a frequently used left wing, class warfare ploy of misdirection

 

[Truthmatters]

National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

this one goes all the way to 2008

heres the chart

 

[Yurt]

the two historic lows were followed by a economic collapse.

The great iconic 50s the right wishes to go back to had a 91% tax rate.

That us why we had great schools and infrastructure

TM,

Have you ever heard of the Money Supply and The Federal Reserve?

And those 91% tax rates in the 1950s were at at income levels above $400,000 - which in 2010 dollars would be over $3,000,000.

THREE MILLION DOLLARS is quite a bit higher than the TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS that Obama has defined as The Rich.

Not to mention the differences in what was deductible and what was considered income....

But what truthdesnotmatter is trying to do is a frequently used left wing, class warfare ploy of misdirection

very true...the effective tax rate was much, much lower and usually around what it is now, if not lower

 

[Truthmatters]

let tax the wealthy ( if you want to make it 400,000 a year fine) 91% again , it seemed to work prettty damned well.