Democrat presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, has no problem with taking 90% of your income

[OnePercenter]

I just love when Marxists bring up the 80% income tax rates of the 1950s as "proof" that high taxes result in prosperity. It shows how ignorant and uneducated you are when it comes to economics.

I suppose 1956 doesn't count.

 

[OnePercenter]

The only things Democrats give back are poverty, misery, and hopelessness.

Poverty, misery, and hopelessness are created by uncontrolled capitalism.

 

[OnePercenter]

Talk about inequality. The government has it all while you're at their mercy under his ideas.

Bernie Sanders A 90 tax rate sounds fine to me Hot Air

Sanders lost all my emotional support by running on the Democratic ticket. If he's an Independent, run on their ticket. Just a craven sell-out grandstanding right now.

The fact remains, if you don't have a (D) or (R) next to his name he won't win. Someday we'll vote for an (I) for President, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's drool over higher taxes...so long as they are on the receiving end. If they have to pay the higher taxes they wale and throw a tantrum.

I'm a registered Democrat and I suspect I paid more in Federal Taxes than you earned in 2014.

That's because you are an idiot. By all means share the logic behind this theory so we can mock you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I just love when Marxists bring up the 80% income tax rates of the 1950s as "proof" that high taxes result in prosperity. It shows how ignorant and uneducated you are when it comes to economics.

I suppose 1956 doesn't count.

That's right. It doesn't.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The only things Democrats give back are poverty, misery, and hopelessness.

Poverty, misery, and hopelessness are created by uncontrolled capitalism.

They're created by imbeciles like you

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dem's drool over higher taxes...so long as they are on the receiving end. If they have to pay the higher taxes they wale and throw a tantrum.

I'm a registered Democrat and I suspect I paid more in Federal Taxes than you earned in 2014.

That's because you are an idiot. By all means share the logic behind this theory so we can mock you.

The logic is deduction. You are quite stupid, stupid people don't usually have high paying jobs, ergo, your income should be well below the poverty line (or possibly you are still dependent on your parents).

 

[bripat9643]

I just love when Marxists bring up the 80% income tax rates of the 1950s as "proof" that high taxes result in prosperity. It shows how ignorant and uneducated you are when it comes to economics.

I suppose 1956 doesn't count.

It doesn't count anymore than the rate in 1933 counts.

 

[SAYIT]

All you loony lefties are pathetic weasels and the point remains that the rich are already carrying 68% of our personal federal income tax load. What would satisfy you? 78%? 88%? 108%?

You didn't mention that those abused rich folk paying 68% of the personal tax load are making 85% of the nation's personal income. Why are they not paying their 85%?

Because the top 10% does not earn 85% of America's income. In fact, the top 20% earns 49.98%, of all income in the US but pays over 80% of the personal federal income tax burden. If you are going to sell your pathetic class war the least you can do is try to refrain from LYING.
Thank you.

In fact the top 10% doesn't earn income, they get their money from the labor of others and or moving other peoples money around.

Ignoring your ever-present ignorance, the top 10% of America's earners carry 68% of the total personal federal tax load. Pretty significant for those you claim don't earn any income.

 

[Wry Catcher]

All you loony lefties are pathetic weasels and the point remains that the rich are already carrying 68% of our personal federal income tax load. What would satisfy you? 78%? 88%? 108%?

You didn't mention that those abused rich folk paying 68% of the personal tax load are making 85% of the nation's personal income. Why are they not paying their 85%?

Because the top 10% does not earn 85% of America's income. In fact, the top 20% earns 49.98%, of all income in the US but pays over 80% of the personal federal income tax burden. If you are going to sell your pathetic class war the least you can do is try to refrain from LYING.
Thank you.

In fact the top 10% doesn't earn income, they get their money from the labor of others and or moving other peoples money around.

Ignoring your ever-present ignorance, the top 10% of America's earners carry 68% of the total personal federal tax load. Pretty significant for those you claim don't earn any income.

Earn "by their labor", please try to avoid lying by omission.

So what, in real dollars that means nothing. Take 10% of the income of someone earning 30 k a year and it hurts; take 10% from someone earning $3,000,000 a year and they'll whine, but it won't hurt.

 

[jasonnfree]

All you loony lefties are pathetic weasels and the point remains that the rich are already carrying 68% of our personal federal income tax load. What would satisfy you? 78%? 88%? 108%?

You didn't mention that those abused rich folk paying 68% of the personal tax load are making 85% of the nation's personal income. Why are they not paying their 85%?

Because the top 10% does not earn 85% of America's income. In fact, the top 20% earns 49.98%, of all income in the US but pays over 80% of the personal federal income tax burden. If you are going to sell your pathetic class war the least you can do is try to refrain from LYING.
Thank you.

In fact the top 10% doesn't earn income, they get their money from the labor of others and or moving other peoples money around.

Ignoring your ever-present ignorance, the top 10% of America's earners carry 68% of the total personal federal tax load. Pretty significant for those you claim don't earn any income.

The bottom 90% would love to pay more taxes but most of the gains in income go to those at the top.

 

[Wyatt earp]

All you loony lefties are pathetic weasels and the point remains that the rich are already carrying 68% of our personal federal income tax load. What would satisfy you? 78%? 88%? 108%?

You didn't mention that those abused rich folk paying 68% of the personal tax load are making 85% of the nation's personal income. Why are they not paying their 85%?

Because the top 10% does not earn 85% of America's income. In fact, the top 20% earns 49.98%, of all income in the US but pays over 80% of the personal federal income tax burden. If you are going to sell your pathetic class war the least you can do is try to refrain from LYING.
Thank you.

In fact the top 10% doesn't earn income, they get their money from the labor of others and or moving other peoples money around.

Ignoring your ever-present ignorance, the top 10% of America's earners carry 68% of the total personal federal tax load. Pretty significant for those you claim don't earn any income.

Earn "by their labor", please try to avoid lying by omission.

So what, in real dollars that means nothing. Take 10% of the income of someone earning 30 k a year and it hurts; take 10% from someone earning $3,000,000 a year and they'll whine, but it won't hurt.

yea we know taking $3,000 dollars away from someone is so much bigger then $300,000 dollars

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's drool over higher taxes...so long as they are on the receiving end. If they have to pay the higher taxes they wale and throw a tantrum.

I'm a registered Democrat and I suspect I paid more in Federal Taxes than you earned in 2014.

That's because you are an idiot. By all means share the logic behind this theory so we can mock you.

The logic is deduction. You are quite stupid, stupid people don't usually have high paying jobs, ergo, your income should be well below the poverty line (or possibly you are still dependent on your parents).

Ah, have you discussed this with your therapist?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All you loony lefties are pathetic weasels and the point remains that the rich are already carrying 68% of our personal federal income tax load. What would satisfy you? 78%? 88%? 108%?

You didn't mention that those abused rich folk paying 68% of the personal tax load are making 85% of the nation's personal income. Why are they not paying their 85%?

Because the top 10% does not earn 85% of America's income. In fact, the top 20% earns 49.98%, of all income in the US but pays over 80% of the personal federal income tax burden. If you are going to sell your pathetic class war the least you can do is try to refrain from LYING.
Thank you.

In fact the top 10% doesn't earn income, they get their money from the labor of others and or moving other peoples money around.

Ignoring your ever-present ignorance, the top 10% of America's earners carry 68% of the total personal federal tax load. Pretty significant for those you claim don't earn any income.

The bottom 90% would love to pay more taxes but most of the gains in income go to those at the top.

 

[PratchettFan]

[


The numbers are the numbers. You can't get away from them. If you want to pay down the debt, you have to raise taxes.

No you reduce spending.

If you want infrastructure repaired, you have to raise taxes. You can't do this by cutting costs because the vast majority of the costs can't be cut.

We spend more money on "infrastructure than we ever have before. We collect tons of roadbuilding money through the highway taxes that we all pay when we buy a gallon of gas. The Federal government is notorious about not spending the money wisely. We could save a ton of money by not contracting work requiring Davis Bacon wages.

Not unless you want to toss millions of retirees out on the street. We tried trickle down, it failed. We tried tax cuts, they failed. We tried sequestration, it failed. When we increased the tax rate to 90%, it made businesses reinvest in their business rather than horde money and pay huge salaries to executives, and that succeeded. I have to go with what works.

Retirees pay into the SS fund but the government spent the money on other shit and added in a welfare scheme with disability so don't complain to me if the program falls apart as we know it will.

Taking money away from the people that earned it and using it to support a big bloated out of control welfare economy does noting to stimulate the economy and it hurts the economy by taking money out of investments.

This unbelievable stupid Liberal idea that it is better for the government to have the money that you earn rather than you having it yourself is one of the most demented and convoluted ideas the idiotic Liberals have ever come up with. I am much better at determining how to spend the money I earn rather than some corrupt bureaucrat elected by special groups.

Wanting to tax the rich is nothing more than sorry ass greed from dickheads. It is morally wrong to use the government to steal money not to mention destroying the economy. Funny thing. this idea to "tax the rich" always seems to filter down to all of us sooner or later. For instance, this prick Obama promised not to tax anybody making less than $250K a year but he blew that big time, didn't he?

Why don't we take the 90% out of your salary? If it is right to steal it from somebody else then it is just as right to take your money. Any justification you have for taking it from others also applies to you.

If you think the government needs more money then send it to them. Leave me out of it. I sure as hell don't want to give any more money to the government than it needs to do the minimal government functions and I sure as hell don't want to be a party in stealing it from others.

I repeat, the numbers are the numbers. It is easy to say you reduce spending but you don't say on what. Whether you approve of what the government did with the SS money doesn't matter. That does not change the fact that the bulk of the budget goes to SS and medicare. That is the fact. Once you take away those mandated expenses, the military and a variety of other costs I am sure you don't want removed, the stuff you say are unnecessary doesn't amount to much.

 

[PratchettFan]

You mean like they did during the Eisenhower administration, when we created one of the greatest infrastructure programs of our history and entered into a period of unprecedented prosperity. What a horrible idea.

I just love when Marxists bring up the 80% income tax rates of the 1950s as "proof" that high taxes result in prosperity. It shows how ignorant and uneducated you are when it comes to economics.

Actually, the rate was 92% as I recall. I love it when people who have no actual argument just resort to applying labels.

 

[Papageorgio]

Talk about inequality. The government has it all while you're at their mercy under his ideas.

Bernie Sanders A 90 tax rate sounds fine to me Hot Air

Gee, that's not what he said at all.

You've proved yourself to be a lying sack of shit again, Gramps.


Besides, your combined income from every year of your working life would not add up to enough to put you in a high tax bracket.

So don't sweat it gramps, no one wants a slice of that tiny pie you call your net worth.

Speaking of a lying sack of shit, how are you doing hazynut?

 

[bripat9643]

All you loony lefties are pathetic weasels and the point remains that the rich are already carrying 68% of our personal federal income tax load. What would satisfy you? 78%? 88%? 108%?

You didn't mention that those abused rich folk paying 68% of the personal tax load are making 85% of the nation's personal income. Why are they not paying their 85%?

Because the top 10% does not earn 85% of America's income. In fact, the top 20% earns 49.98%, of all income in the US but pays over 80% of the personal federal income tax burden. If you are going to sell your pathetic class war the least you can do is try to refrain from LYING.
Thank you.

In fact the top 10% doesn't earn income, they get their money from the labor of others and or moving other peoples money around.

Ignoring your ever-present ignorance, the top 10% of America's earners carry 68% of the total personal federal tax load. Pretty significant for those you claim don't earn any income.

Earn "by their labor", please try to avoid lying by omission.

So what, in real dollars that means nothing. Take 10% of the income of someone earning 30 k a year and it hurts; take 10% from someone earning $3,000,000 a year and they'll whine, but it won't hurt.

How else does one earn if not 'by their labor?" Do you imagine money just magically appears in the bank accounts?

Your claim is that the rich don't pay their fair share when they pay vastly more than you do. So what is their "fair share?" How is that defined?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You didn't mention that those abused rich folk paying 68% of the personal tax load are making 85% of the nation's personal income. Why are they not paying their 85%?

Because the top 10% does not earn 85% of America's income. In fact, the top 20% earns 49.98%, of all income in the US but pays over 80% of the personal federal income tax burden. If you are going to sell your pathetic class war the least you can do is try to refrain from LYING.
Thank you.

In fact the top 10% doesn't earn income, they get their money from the labor of others and or moving other peoples money around.

Ignoring your ever-present ignorance, the top 10% of America's earners carry 68% of the total personal federal tax load. Pretty significant for those you claim don't earn any income.

Earn "by their labor", please try to avoid lying by omission.

So what, in real dollars that means nothing. Take 10% of the income of someone earning 30 k a year and it hurts; take 10% from someone earning $3,000,000 a year and they'll whine, but it won't hurt.

yea we know taking $3,000 dollars away from someone is so much bigger then $300,000 dollars

Classic Idiot-Gram ^^^

Even sarcasm can't excuse stupid comments like this one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[


The numbers are the numbers. You can't get away from them. If you want to pay down the debt, you have to raise taxes.

No you reduce spending.

If you want infrastructure repaired, you have to raise taxes. You can't do this by cutting costs because the vast majority of the costs can't be cut.

We spend more money on "infrastructure than we ever have before. We collect tons of roadbuilding money through the highway taxes that we all pay when we buy a gallon of gas. The Federal government is notorious about not spending the money wisely. We could save a ton of money by not contracting work requiring Davis Bacon wages.

Not unless you want to toss millions of retirees out on the street. We tried trickle down, it failed. We tried tax cuts, they failed. We tried sequestration, it failed. When we increased the tax rate to 90%, it made businesses reinvest in their business rather than horde money and pay huge salaries to executives, and that succeeded. I have to go with what works.

Retirees pay into the SS fund but the government spent the money on other shit and added in a welfare scheme with disability so don't complain to me if the program falls apart as we know it will.

Taking money away from the people that earned it and using it to support a big bloated out of control welfare economy does noting to stimulate the economy and it hurts the economy by taking money out of investments.

This unbelievable stupid Liberal idea that it is better for the government to have the money that you earn rather than you having it yourself is one of the most demented and convoluted ideas the idiotic Liberals have ever come up with. I am much better at determining how to spend the money I earn rather than some corrupt bureaucrat elected by special groups.

Wanting to tax the rich is nothing more than sorry ass greed from dickheads. It is morally wrong to use the government to steal money not to mention destroying the economy. Funny thing. this idea to "tax the rich" always seems to filter down to all of us sooner or later. For instance, this prick Obama promised not to tax anybody making less than $250K a year but he blew that big time, didn't he?

Why don't we take the 90% out of your salary? If it is right to steal it from somebody else then it is just as right to take your money. Any justification you have for taking it from others also applies to you.

If you think the government needs more money then send it to them. Leave me out of it. I sure as hell don't want to give any more money to the government than it needs to do the minimal government functions and I sure as hell don't want to be a party in stealing it from others.

I repeat, the numbers are the numbers. It is easy to say you reduce spending but you don't say on what. Whether you approve of what the government did with the SS money doesn't matter. That does not change the fact that the bulk of the budget goes to SS and medicare. That is the fact. Once you take away those mandated expenses, the military and a variety of other costs I am sure you don't want removed, the stuff you say are unnecessary doesn't amount to much.

What are the consequences of repealing SS and Medicare? Those who advocate such extreme measure seem to fail to understand the cost-deficit such an action will produce.