For years Democrats have begged for higher taxes…if that’s what tariffs are then why all the resistance?

[JoeB131]

Look at your end year, 1968. That was the start of The Great Society (aka Johnson’s 200 Year Plan). The majority of those years were also The Military Industrial Complex.

Um, we still have a military-industrial complex. And a prison-industrial complex.

I mean, it's funny to watch you wingnuts all act like a bunch of hippies because the real heroes despise Trump.

You want to go back to those years of the Democrat Party with the Republicans on the sidelines, have at it. How are you going to accomplish this and achieve your socialist utopia of redistribution of wealth?

Well, pretty simple.

Make the rich pay their fair share.
Adequately fund education, research, and infrastructure.
Protect and enforce worker's rights.

You know, like we were doing before 1980 when Ronnie Ray-Gun started ******* everything up.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Um, we still have a military-industrial complex. And a prison-industrial complex.

I mean, it's funny to watch you wingnuts all act like a bunch of hippies because the real heroes despise Trump.

You don’t think cradle-to-crave welfare generations and corrupt government bureaucracies have had any impact on the economy?

Well, pretty simple.

Make the rich pay their fair share.

Please stop with the rich “paying their fair share” bullshit. The only way this can be taken seriously is when there is responsible spending. You people are like the spouse that spends all of the money, maxes out the debt, and then screams at the other spouse about not paying their fair share.

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrats have told us that higher taxes levied on the people means more revenue in the general fund/treasury which means more free shit for the people.
If what they say is true then why aren’t they embracing and encouraging the use of tariffs?

Simple......Democrats support what they're told to support.

 

[KarsaOrlong]

Simple......Democrats support what they're told to support.

Rich coming from maga. Democrats are worthless, but maga is a death cult..you've all been had by a new York conman and his neonazi advisers.

 

[KarsaOrlong]

You don’t think cradle-to-crave welfare generations and corrupt government bureaucracies have had any impact on the economy?


Please stop with the rich “paying their fair share” bullshit. The only way this can be taken seriously is when there is responsible spending. You people are like the spouse that spends all of the money, maxes out the debt, and then screams at the other spouse about not paying their fair share.

Nonsense. The welfare state is a tool of oppression, but anyone "left of left" wouldn't appeal to such nonsense without directing their angst at the rich, who have universally destroyed this country through mass theft.

 

[mudwhistle]

Rich coming from maga. Democrats are worthless, but maga is a death cult..you've all been had by a new York conman and his neonazi advisers.

That's rich.......taking into consideration that we're not the ones trying to break criminals out of prison.

Nor are we the folks that are supporting terrorists.

 

[JoeB131]

You don’t think cradle-to-crave welfare generations and corrupt government bureaucracies have had any impact on the economy?

A few points.

1) This has nothing to do with the "Military-Industrial Complex", which is what you were on about.
2) Very few people live "Cradle to grave" for generations. Most people on assistance are only on it for a few years.
3) Many people on assistance have jobs, just not jobs that pay very well, which is why you have Section 8, SNAP, Medicaid, etc.

Please stop with the rich “paying their fair share” bullshit. The only way this can be taken seriously is when there is responsible spending. You people are like the spouse that spends all of the money, maxes out the debt, and then screams at the other spouse about not paying their fair share.

The top 1% has 41% of the wealth. They certainly did not do the 41% of the labor that created that wealth.

 

[LeftofLeft]

A few points.

1) This has nothing to do with the "Military-Industrial Complex", which is what you were on about.
2) Very few people live "Cradle to grave" for generations. Most people on assistance are only on it for a few years.
3) Many people on assistance have jobs, just not jobs that pay very well, which is why you have Section 8, SNAP, Medicaid, etc.

“Few” and “Many” without empirical data to back them up are specious claims at best.

The top 1% has 41% of the wealth. They certainly did not do the 41% of the labor that created that wealth.

41 percent of the wealth creates jobs for labor and opportunity for people to earn wealth.

 

[Nostra]

Because it's a tax on the working class and not the wealthy, who need to be paying more in taxes.

Duh.

How much more do the rich need to pay? Break down the numbers, Simp.

 

[Mr Natural]

How much more do the rich need to pay? Break down the numbers, Simp.

Back in the glorious ‘50s they were taxed as high as 90%.

And somehow they still managed to get by.

 

[JoeB131]

“Few” and “Many” without empirical data to back them up are specious claims at best.

So are your claims that we have generational cradle to grave welfare recipiants.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/70301/900288-Time-on-Welfare-and-Welfare-Dependency.pdf

41 percent of the wealth creates jobs for labor and opportunity for people to earn wealth.

Bullshit. The number and quality of jobs has declined as the rich have gotten richer.

 

[LeftofLeft]

So are your claims that we have generational cradle to grave welfare recipiants.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/70301/900288-Time-on-Welfare-and-Welfare-Dependency.pdf

We didn’t have the level of welfare we’ve had post 1968. You referred to the 20 years prior has good years because of Democrats. Comparably between pre and post 1968, that’s generational welfare.

Bullshit. The number and quality of jobs has declined as the rich have gotten richer.

View attachment 1109660

The argument is not weather jobs keep pace or head in the same positive direction as wealth growth. The argument is that wealth creates jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

We didn’t have the level of welfare we’ve had post 1968. You referred to the 20 years prior has good years because of Democrats. Comparably between pre and post 1968, that’s generational welfare.

Except that very few people are on generational welfare, as pointed out. People are on welfare for only a few years in most cases.

We spend far more on middle-class entitlements than we do on welfare.

The argument is not weather jobs keep pace or head in the same positive direction as wealth growth. The argument is that wealth creates jobs.

It's a stupid argument. We had much greater job growth and standards of living when the rich paid their fair share.

Supply Side doesn't work and the wealth doesn't trickle down.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Except that very few people are on generational welfare, as pointed out. People are on welfare for only a few years in most cases.

We spend far more on middle-class entitlements than we do on welfare.




It's a stupid argument. We had much greater job growth and standards of living when the rich paid their fair share.

Supply Side doesn't work and the wealth doesn't trickle down.

What is stupid is believing the rich ever paid “their fair share” and not accepting the fact that our spending has gotten out of control.

 

[leftwinger]

Obiden & States were happy to allow 2020 massive inflation. A 50% increase in cost means an increase in Tax revenue (think 10% sales tax on a $100 item, now selling for $500). Peoples republic of ORE got left out in the bonanza lol!

However, the Obiden folks were too stupid to understand how inflation was happening, let alone how they could help slow it.

 

[leftwinger]

Except that very few people are on generational welfare, as pointed out. People are on welfare for only a few years in most cases.

We spend far more on middle-class entitlements than we do on welfare.




It's a stupid argument. We had much greater job growth and standards of living when the rich paid their fair share.

Supply Side doesn't work and the wealth doesn't trickle down.

Stupid CHI hi rise clown. It’s been proven over a hundreds years, set the tax rates as high as you want. GOVT only collects 20% of GDP. Money moves or slows (or GDP drops) you dumb commeee loon.

 

[Nostra]

Back in the glorious ‘50s they were taxed as high as 90%.

And somehow they still managed to get by.

Due to all the deductions the top 1% actually paid less of the total tax burden than today. Mr Natural

Next?

 

[Nostra]

So are your claims that we have generational cradle to grave welfare recipiants.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/70301/900288-Time-on-Welfare-and-Welfare-Dependency.pdf

Bullshit. The number and quality of jobs has declined as the rich have gotten richer.

View attachment 1109660

Why did you use a decade old graph?

 

[Nostra]

Back in the glorious ‘50s they were taxed as high as 90%.

And somehow they still managed to get by.

Sure, let’s go back to the ‘50s when the rich paid less of the total tax burden.



Did People Pay 91% Tax Rates in the 1950s & if not What was the Reality Compared to Today?

CCO FEATURE WRITER, JOE WALLACE

SEPTEMBER 27, 2024

The claim that the top 1% of earners in the 1950s paid a 91% tax rate is based on the statutory top marginal tax rate, which was indeed 91% at its peak. However, this figure does not reflect the actual effective tax rate paid by most of the top earners, as the tax system then, like now, included numerous deductions, exemptions, and loopholes. The effective tax rate (the actual percentage of income paid in taxes after deductions) was much lower than the marginal rate.
Here’s a breakdown to compare the tax rates and contributions of the top 1% from the 1950s to today:

1. Top Marginal Tax Rate in the 1950s vs. Today:​

• 1950s: The top marginal tax rate was as high as 91% during parts of the 1950s (from 1951 to 1963). However, few people paid this rate due to deductions and exclusions.​
• Today: The top marginal tax rate in the U.S. is 37% as of 2023, plus potential state and local taxes, bringing the effective rate higher in some states.​

2. Effective Tax Rate for the Top 1%:​

• 1950s: Estimates suggest that the top 1% paid an effective federal income tax rate of around 42-45%. The significant gap between the marginal and effective tax rate was due to tax deductions and exclusions.​
• Today: In 2020, the effective tax rate for the top 1% was approximately 26-28% at the federal level, though it can vary slightly based on deductions and state taxes.​

3. Percentage of Total Income Taxes Paid by the Top 1%:​

• 1950s: The top 1% paid roughly 30-35% of all federal income taxes.​
• Today: The top 1% pays about 40% of all federal income taxes in the U.S. (data as of 2020).​

4. How Many People Pay the Top Rates?​

• 1950s: The number of people actually paying the top 91% rate was minuscule, likely fewer than 10,000 households in a country of over 150 million people. Most wealthy individuals managed to pay a lower effective rate through deductions.​
• Today: The top 1% of income earners consist of approximately 1.4 million households (based on the U.S. population in 2023).​

Comparative Table​

Top Marginal Tax Rate	91%	37%
Effective Tax Rate (Top 1%)	42-45%	26-28%
% of Total Income Taxes Paid (Top 1%)	30-35%	~40%
Number of People Paying Top Rates	Fewer than 10,000 households	~1.4 million households

[th]

Metric​

[/th][th]

1950s​

[/th][th]

Today (2023)​

[/th]​

Summary:​

While the top statutory tax rate in the 1950s was much higher (91%) than today’s rate of 37%, the effective tax rate for the top 1% was lower due to numerous deductions and loopholes. In reality, top earners in the 1950s were paying about 42-45% of their income in taxes, while today, it’s closer to 26-28%. Despite the reduction in rates, the top 1% today contributes a larger share (about 40%) of total federal income taxes compared to around 30-35% in the 1950s.

Did People Really Pay 91% Tax Rates in the 1950s & if not What was the Reality Compared to Today? | City-County Observer

city-countyobserver.com

 

[leftwinger]

Where to put this? I'm getting DDS. The stole trillions during Obiden.

**DOGE Team found 100,000 federal employees collected uninsurance benefits while they were still at work.

Collecting insurance benefits while still working is considered unemployment insurance fraud. Many states classify unemployment fraud as a misdemeanor or felony.