Do liberals want a parasite tax? It would seem consistent:

[EverCurious]

Rich not only pay state tax (well not me cause there's no state tax as we balance our state budget), muni taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes (including those of their employees) in their /home/ state, but also the former ones in states they don't even live in via vacation properties. I pay taxes in Hawaii and North Dakota, and soon in Nevada or Arizona as well (haven't decided which house I want yet.)

 

[sakinago]

What history? And how is it patently unfair? EVERYONE PAYS THE SAME RATE PAST 50,000 dollars. Again the poor and lower middle classes taxes drop DRAMTICALLY, and it has the greatest effect on the poor. 51 percent of all working Americans make less than 30,000, and 71 percent make less than 50,000. And you're supposed to be some sort of champion for the poor? No you're a champion for the government. And no new tax policy...what?

Comprehensive List of Obama Tax Increases

Yea obama really took it to the rich there haha. You're just making stuff up and then using ad hominems.

O was finally able to raise taxes on over $400k income by 5%. So your argument is the Dems suq because they can't beat the evil GOP you vote for? Brilliant! Flat tax is a boon for the rich, as we can see by today's system and every time it's happened.

So you're denying that flat overwhelmingly helps the poor? You continually claim it only helps the rich...and you say I'm brain washed haha

Why a Flat-Rate Tax is Unfair: A Quick Overview of America's Wealth Inequality and Tax Structure

This link (from dailykos I might add, might as well find something from cosmo) is not loading.

But again 71% of working Americans, making less than 50,000 would not pay taxes. And this isn't good for the poor/middle class how?

You just love glassing over facts that don't fit you're worldview. You going to use another ad hominem in response?

No, that's fine. But unrealistic. And skews to the rich still, as all flat taxes do.

Unrealistic because government needs to tax the poor? Well that sounds like we have a problem with government that needs to tax the poor and lower class.

There is zero skewing, it is even. Skewing would be treating the rich as lesser citizens with higher tax rates. I'm against most of the current giants of industry because they have gained their money unfairly by co opting the government to stamp out competition (as I've pointed out with the internet as an example). But if someone got rich, by playing by the rules, creating a service or product that consumers choose to buy, what makes them lesser citizens. Why should they be treated unequally. They have already bettered humanity, they have created jobs,

 

[sakinago]

Venezuela, Crete, Greece, Spain, Italy... how's that working out for them?

Forget venezuala, dupe, a 3rd worlder wrecked by oil price collapse. The rest, fine till the corrupt GOP wrecked the world in 2008.

So it works in every country except the ones I want to ignore. That's a funny way to make a point. There's been about 60 failed socialist countries in the past century, but we'll forget about those.

Even then, you still ignored all the European who have defaulted or are ready to default. You ignoring those too?

We're socialist too, since ACA. But a pander to the rich GOP mess. "We're all socialists now!" Finland PM when ACA passed...Yes, we're talking modern countries. Original EU, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, and US (on probation).

We've been a hybrid socialized country for a while, progressing more and more to socialism, yet are wage gap keeps growing and growing, what's up with that.

See if you can spot it lol:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Ha this is a total non sequitur. Looking at one statistic and ignoring every other variable out there.

Has the US become more progressive or less progressive since 1945? Add that into you're equation.

 

[francoHFW]

Forget venezuala, dupe, a 3rd worlder wrecked by oil price collapse. The rest, fine till the corrupt GOP wrecked the world in 2008.

So it works in every country except the ones I want to ignore. That's a funny way to make a point. There's been about 60 failed socialist countries in the past century, but we'll forget about those.

Even then, you still ignored all the European who have defaulted or are ready to default. You ignoring those too?

We're socialist too, since ACA. But a pander to the rich GOP mess. "We're all socialists now!" Finland PM when ACA passed...Yes, we're talking modern countries. Original EU, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, and US (on probation).

We've been a hybrid socialized country for a while, progressing more and more to socialism, yet are wage gap keeps growing and growing, what's up with that.

See if you can spot it lol:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Ha this is a total non sequitur. Looking at one statistic and ignoring every other variable out there.

Has the US become more progressive or less progressive since 1945? Add that into you're equation.

One stat? LOL. We've gone to Hell under Reaganism the last 35 years, and thanks to the total BS GOP propaganda machine and cowardly corporate media, the majority don't know shytte. So you're saying no taxes of ANY KIND if income is under 50k, or just fed income tax? Because right now, if you count ALL TAXES AND FEES, we have a flat tax for EVERYONE, with all new wealth staying with the richest on average. Thanks New BS GOP.

 

[francoHFW]

Rich not only pay state tax (well not me cause there's no state tax as we balance our state budget), muni taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes (including those of their employees) in their /home/ state, but also the former ones in states they don't even live in via vacation properties. I pay taxes in Hawaii and North Dakota, and soon in Nevada or Arizona as well (haven't decided which house I want yet.)

So does everyone else, at about the same rate- see graph. With the richest making out like bandits and the rest and the country going to hell. See sig. BTW, how's the food in your lunatic asylum?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

With the richest making out like bandits?

how stupid can you be??????
the top 1% pay 44% of what it costs to run govt not 1% as they should! how on earth is that making out like bandits??? Stupid????

The poor pay almost nothing and what they do pay comes back multiplied by 100 as welfare etc!! That's making out like bandits !!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One stat? LOL. We've gone to Hell under Reaganism the last 35 years,.

Reagan was for limited govt while our govt has grown since Reagan so we have had the opposite of Reaganism for 35 years.

Perhaps if you hadn't dropped out of HS you'd know that?

 

[francoHFW]

With the richest making out like bandits?

how stupid can you be??????
the top 1% pay 44% of what it costs to run govt not 1% as they should! how on earth is that making out like bandits??? Stupid????

The poor pay almost nothing and what they do pay comes back multiplied by 100 as welfare etc!! That's making out like bandits !!

You're a gd idiot. If we had a flat tax, the 1% would pay 40% as that is the % they earn. Thanks New BS GOP. Even the poorest pay about 20% of income in taxes if you count fees. The rich 29%. This is a total GOP disgrace.

 

[Norman]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals might want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

Thief is classified as someone who keeps more than 50% of the earnings he makes. Classic regressive ideology.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Communist countries felt every able bodied person should be out working hard to build the communist paradise or to at least contribute to society. To discourage parasites they often had a so called "parasite tax". If someone got a job in a certain time frame the tax would often be refunded as an incentive.
In our society the top 1% for example pay 44% of all income tax and often supply millions of jobs and great innovative products while the bottom 1% pay no taxes and create no jobs or products. It seems that liberals might want a parasite tax on these people to encourage them to pay their fair share??

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

Wrong

Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income

for 2013


The top 1 percent took more than one-fifth of the income earned by Americans, one of the highest levels since 1913, when the government instituted an income tax.

So the top 1% earned a little over 20% of the income and paid 44% of all income taxes

 

[Skull Pilot]

Top 1% earn 90% of the income . Shouldn't they pay 90% of income tax? They are getting away with measly 44%! Thieves !

they don't pay more in a supermarket so why should they pay more for govt????

top1% earn 20% of income not 90%. Feel stupid and liberal???

Top 10% earn like 1/2 the income .

And fed income taxes aren't the only taxes people pay .

and pay 70% of all income taxes

the bottom 90% of earners pay 30% of all income taxes with the bottom 50% paying none at all

 

[Mr Natural]

The poor pay almost nothing and what they do pay comes back multiplied by 100 as welfare etc!! That's making out like bandits !!

Yes! They truly are Americas' royalty.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Has the US become more progressive or less progressive since 1945? Add that into you're equation.

govt has grown tremendously since 1945 yet liberals are pretending all our problems are caused by govt being still too small

When Stalins first 5 year plan failed he wanted a bigger 10 year plan. This is why our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb!! Bigger govt is always better no matter how many people slowly starve to death

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So the top 1% earned a little over 20% of the income and paid 44% of all income taxes

yes and under Reagan they paid only 21% of income tax. The govt is stealing at gunpoint form our most productive citizens

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the top 1% earned a little over 20% of the income and paid 44% of all income taxes

yes and under Reagan they paid only 21% of income tax. The govt is stealing at gunpoint form our most productive citizens

So the top 1% earned a little over 20% of the income and paid 44% of all income taxes

yes and under Reagan they paid only 21% of income tax. The govt is stealing at gunpoint form our most productive citizens

yeah and Reagan also grew the government and the debt

 

[Cellblock2429]

, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes,

who cares about the %. If you are top % you pay 40% of what govt spends not 1%!!! Do you want rich to pay more in supermarket too so we can have yet another form of crippling welfare????

/--- we already have that with food stamps.

 

[sakinago]

So it works in every country except the ones I want to ignore. That's a funny way to make a point. There's been about 60 failed socialist countries in the past century, but we'll forget about those.

Even then, you still ignored all the European who have defaulted or are ready to default. You ignoring those too?

We're socialist too, since ACA. But a pander to the rich GOP mess. "We're all socialists now!" Finland PM when ACA passed...Yes, we're talking modern countries. Original EU, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, and US (on probation).

We've been a hybrid socialized country for a while, progressing more and more to socialism, yet are wage gap keeps growing and growing, what's up with that.

See if you can spot it lol:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Ha this is a total non sequitur. Looking at one statistic and ignoring every other variable out there.

Has the US become more progressive or less progressive since 1945? Add that into you're equation.

One stat? LOL. We've gone to Hell under Reaganism the last 35 years, and thanks to the total BS GOP propaganda machine and cowardly corporate media, the majority don't know shytte. So you're saying no taxes of ANY KIND if income is under 50k, or just fed income tax? Because right now, if you count ALL TAXES AND FEES, we have a flat tax for EVERYONE, with all new wealth staying with the richest on average. Thanks New BS GOP.

Yea no matter what the tax plan is under the fed income tax, it always comes out to be around 18 percent of what working Americans are making. That IS the problem of the our current tax code. Thanks for proving my point that poor/middle class people are paying 18 an percent tax rate. That's a problem.

And are you honestly trying to argue the Carter era was better than the Reagan era? Our original problem is getting off of gold standard during progressive republican Nixon era. We often joke about how low the prices were back before Nixon, but this is a false equivalency, since their 50 dollars was quantitatively worth a lot more than what we call 200 dollars today. That moment is where the us went astray. Everything subsequent to this moment should be judged only by everything after this moment.

If you want to dig deep to the 40s, we're talking about a completely different economic America. Remember, it was only the Great Depression in America, and FDR extended the Great Depression for 10 years past everywhere else in the world. And if you want to look at good tax policy during this era, contrast Wilsons presidency, with Calvin Coolidges presidency....Ushered in the greatest economic growth ever in American history.

Tax Policy, Coolidge Style

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We're socialist too, since ACA. But a pander to the rich GOP mess. "We're all socialists now!" Finland PM when ACA passed...Yes, we're talking modern countries. Original EU, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, and US (on probation).

We've been a hybrid socialized country for a while, progressing more and more to socialism, yet are wage gap keeps growing and growing, what's up with that.

See if you can spot it lol:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Ha this is a total non sequitur. Looking at one statistic and ignoring every other variable out there.

Has the US become more progressive or less progressive since 1945? Add that into you're equation.

One stat? LOL. We've gone to Hell under Reaganism the last 35 years, and thanks to the total BS GOP propaganda machine and cowardly corporate media, the majority don't know shytte. So you're saying no taxes of ANY KIND if income is under 50k, or just fed income tax? Because right now, if you count ALL TAXES AND FEES, we have a flat tax for EVERYONE, with all new wealth staying with the richest on average. Thanks New BS GOP.

Yea no matter what the tax plan is under the fed income tax, it always comes out to be around 18 percent of what working Americans are making. That IS the problem of the our current tax code. Thanks for proving my point that poor/middle class people are paying 18 an percent tax rate. That's a problem.

And are you honestly trying to argue the Carter era was better than the Reagan era? Our original problem is getting off of gold standard during progressive republican Nixon era. We often joke about how low the prices were back before Nixon, but this is a false equivalency, since their 50 dollars was quantitatively worth a lot more than what we call 200 dollars today. That moment is where the us went astray. Everything subsequent to this moment should be judged only by everything after this moment.

If you want to dig deep to the 40s, we're talking about a completely different economic America. Remember, it was only the Great Depression in America, and FDR extended the Great Depression for 10 years past everywhere else in the world. And if you want to look at good tax policy during this era, contrast Wilsons presidency, with Calvin Coolidges presidency....Ushered in the greatest economic growth ever in American history.

Tax Policy, Coolidge Style

rambling all over?? what is your point? Are you capitalist or socialist? That's is only issue.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

poor/middle class people are paying 18 an percent tax rate. That's a problem.

can you say why??????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

yeah and Reagan also grew the government and the debt

and??????????????????????????????