from 1950-1963 top tax rate was 91-92%, those were good years for our economy

[Stephanie]

I'm sorry you find FREEDOM boring.

freedom, what you know about that...?
you support a nanny Guberment

Sorry, you're the one who wants to tax the productive class, not me.
I think we'd be far better off without government.

WE have government..............STATE GOVERMENT

 

[oreo]

what makes you think it will be bad if we raise their taxes a little?

So you're O.K. with taking 95 cents of every dollar someone else earns?

5 BEST SENTENCES

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked together. We are currently 16 trillion dollars in red ink.

FACT--There is no one alive that is a "trillionaire." You could confiscate all the wealth from the wealthy people in this nation and it would put a scratch on this debt.

When will you people GET--that it's not the revenue source that is the problem--it's the Federal Government SPENDING habit's that are the PROBLEM.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

freedom, what you know about that...?
you support a nanny Guberment

Sorry, you're the one who wants to tax the productive class, not me.
I think we'd be far better off without government.

WE have government..............STATE GOVERMENT

While I agree it would have been better if we had stopped at the Articles of Confederation, I think state governments are still far too intrusive into people's daily lives. In fact, believe it or not, the most intrusive laws are state laws. For example, they force people - at point of a gun - to drive their cars in the way big nanny government sees fit. The force people -at point of a gun- to require Id to sell alcohol. They even force business to submit to regulation - something the free market is more than capable of doing. Can you believe it? Telling a private business how to run their business? Your beloved state governments do that all the time.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

all this concern about the debt now, not a word out of you punks when W was running it up

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

ONLY TO MAKE JOBS for the rest of us. They wouldn't need all that if they hadn't been asked to make the jobs.

gawd you are a bore

I'm sorry you find FREEDOM boring.

No, we find you boring....always whining on and on and on and on like a petulant child about the rich or ____________ blah blah blah.

Seriously, gawd you are a bore.

 

[Avorysuds]

Why does TM start the same threads over and over again?

Here we are talking about a tax rate that no person in America ever paid… TM posts a tax chart as if there were no deductions when in fact most people never even paid over 40% taxes at best… That’s nowhere near 93% as TM wants people to believe.

Could you even imagine paying 93% of your income to taxes, you would be living off 7% of your income…

A few years back, before I really started getting into politics I asked my Grandpa (90 years old) how they paid 90% tax rates and he laughed and said, “deductions.” That was all, just a laugh and said “Deductions.”

While I understand the issues of people who are vastly rich only paying 10% or less taxes today I am also able to see the issue with over 50% of the nation not paying any taxes and at the same time a huge amount (growing amount) on welfare.

So in closing the “golden era” was due to many things but none of which had anything to do with a 93% tax rate, seeing as no human in America paid that much, not even close… hell, no one paid even 50%. The 50’s boom was due if anything to a huge cut in taxes from where FDR had us, the world recovering from being destroyed during WWII and low regulation…

It take s phenomenal amount of stupidity to support TM in her completely fictitious claim that people paid 93% taxes and that’s why things were good during the 50’s. I’m happy to see only a few people on board with her and not so surprisingly it’s other hate filled posters on these boards, no honest liberal would touch this thread.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

FACT--There is no one alive that is a "trillionaire." You could confiscate all the wealth from the wealthy people in this nation and it would put a scratch on this debt.

Agree.

Total assets in the U.S. economy = 55 trillion dollars. The top 1% only have about 1/3 of that. So even if we took everything the top 1% owned = 55/3 = 18 trillion dollars - that would barely scratch the surface of our debt of 16 trillion dollars. 18 trillion is only like 1% of 16 trillion.

When will you people GET--that it's not the revenue source that is the problem--it's the Federal Government SPENDING that's the PROBLEM.

Also agree. Stupid libruls think deficit is determined by revenue - spending = deficit. its not spending=deficit and that it, revenue has no bearing on it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

gawd you are a bore

I'm sorry you find FREEDOM boring.

No, we find you boring....always whining on and on and on and on like a petulant child about the rich or ____________ blah blah blah.

Seriously, gawd you are a bore.

Sorry, I love the rich. Without them we'd all be dead.

 

[Avorysuds]

Almost Classical: The 90% Tax Rate Myth

So, let's get more complicated. When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.

In 1944, you could deduct business meals, all business travel, all forms of interest payments, and much more. You could even deduct spousal travel expenses on a business trip! (Why travel alone?) Companies could also "loan" or "provide" almost anything to an employee, from an apartment to standard benefits. It was possible to shelter tens of thousands of dollars from taxable income. Three-martini lunches and expense accounts were important realities, skewing tax calculations.

As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn't count much of the compensation as taxable income.

Yeah it;s a blog, I can prove my point better if you like, something TM has never done, provide facts. This is after literally seconds on Google.

 

[Avorysuds]

FACT--There is no one alive that is a "trillionaire." You could confiscate all the wealth from the wealthy people in this nation and it would put a scratch on this debt.

Agree.

Total assets in the U.S. economy = 55 trillion dollars. The top 1% only have about 1/3 of that. So even if we took everything the top 1% owned = 55/3 = 18 trillion dollars - that would barely scratch the surface of our debt of 16 trillion dollars. 18 trillion is only like 1% of 16 trillion.

When will you people GET--that it's not the revenue source that is the problem--it's the Federal Government SPENDING that's the PROBLEM.

Also agree. Stupid libruls think deficit is determined by revenue - spending = deficit. its not spending=deficit and that it, revenue has no bearing on it.

Oh, so the only way you can pay down the deficit is to literally rob the rich not of their income but what they own, their house/cars, their BUSINESS’S and so on? And you see absolutely no repercussions to the economy and so on if you did this?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

FACT--There is no one alive that is a "trillionaire." You could confiscate all the wealth from the wealthy people in this nation and it would put a scratch on this debt.

Agree.

Total assets in the U.S. economy = 55 trillion dollars. The top 1% only have about 1/3 of that. So even if we took everything the top 1% owned = 55/3 = 18 trillion dollars - that would barely scratch the surface of our debt of 16 trillion dollars. 18 trillion is only like 1% of 16 trillion.

When will you people GET--that it's not the revenue source that is the problem--it's the Federal Government SPENDING that's the PROBLEM.

Also agree. Stupid libruls think deficit is determined by revenue - spending = deficit. its not spending=deficit and that it, revenue has no bearing on it.

Oh, so the only way you can pay down the deficit is to literally rob the rich not of their income but what they own, their house/cars, their BUSINESS’S and so on? And you see absolutely no repercussions to the economy and so on if you did this?

oreo was the one who suggested it, not me

i personally think the uber-wealthy - the top 1% - should not pay any taxes. The bottom 99% of the population actually owns most of the wealth 2/3's of it - more than the top 1%! Let them foot the bill.

And if you could read English you'd see I find the idea that revenue has anything to do with deficit as absurd as you do. Its ******* econ 101. spending = deficit. These stupid liberals want to add in revenue to make it spending-revenue=deficit but we all know that's dumb.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

jesus., i dont know where to start, you dont want to raise revenue but want to cut spending

can we start with two unfunded wars? can we go back in time and not have those?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

jesus., i dont know where to start, you dont want to raise revenue but want to cut spending

can we start with two unfunded wars? can we go back in time and not have those?

You mean the wars that the Democrats in Congress started when they sent a demand to Bush to invade Iraq?

 

[Rozman]

what makes you think it will be bad if we raise their taxes a little?

from 1950-1963 top tax rate was 91-92%, those were good years for our economy

Just following your logic here.If they were the good years at 91-92 %...
Just think how we can have great years if "everyone" piad 97-98 %...

How does more money in the Dems pocket make businesses thrive...

 

[Avorysuds]

Agree.

Total assets in the U.S. economy = 55 trillion dollars. The top 1% only have about 1/3 of that. So even if we took everything the top 1% owned = 55/3 = 18 trillion dollars - that would barely scratch the surface of our debt of 16 trillion dollars. 18 trillion is only like 1% of 16 trillion.



Also agree. Stupid libruls think deficit is determined by revenue - spending = deficit. its not spending=deficit and that it, revenue has no bearing on it.

Oh, so the only way you can pay down the deficit is to literally rob the rich not of their income but what they own, their house/cars, their BUSINESS’S and so on? And you see absolutely no repercussions to the economy and so on if you did this?

oreo was the one who suggested it, not me

i personally think the uber-wealthy - the top 1% - should not pay any taxes. The bottom 99% of the population actually owns most of the wealth 2/3's of it - more than the top 1%! Let them foot the bill.

And if you could read English you'd see I find the idea that revenue has anything to do with deficit as absurd as you do. Its ******* econ 101. spending = deficit. These stupid liberals want to add in revenue to make it spending-revenue=deficit but we all know that's dumb.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Man, that would be nearly the opposite of what is going on today...

Do you enjoy being really really stupid?

 

[Avorysuds]

jesus., i dont know where to start, you dont want to raise revenue but want to cut spending

can we start with two unfunded wars? can we go back in time and not have those?

You mean the wars that the Democrats in Congress started when they sent a demand to Bush to invade Iraq?

No, Obama started the Libya war, Iran/Pakistan mess, expanded Afghanistan and had to be kicked out of Iraq... And still manages to spend more on military than Bush.

That’s the problem with making shit up as you go along, reality can come in and make you look like a fool. Not that you looking like a fool will stop you from hating on Republicans “just cuz.”

 

[Avorysuds]

jesus., i dont know where to start, you dont want to raise revenue but want to cut spending

can we start with two unfunded wars? can we go back in time and not have those?

Well if you could go back in time to the 2006 election would you vote Democrat knowing they would end up assisting Bush and later Obama in more military spending after running on :holding the purse strings" and claiming they would end the wars?

Is it possible for you to answer the quest and then honestly?

It feels great not being one of the dumbass's that voted for Bush or Obama...

 

[ConzHateUSA]

dear god, it is like being in an alternate universe

it really is true you guys are brainwashed and the stupidest people on the planet

 

[Rozman]

The goal of the Democrat party is to take all earnings and they dole out everything.
They will assign work to those who are not party members,those that are will have a nice government
cush job...

These people really make me sick.
Sticking their hands deeper and deeper in our pockets.

Why do we bother.
We know know how this President feels about business owners....


“If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen”

Barack Hussein Obama

 

[Sinjorri]

jesus., i dont know where to start, you dont want to raise revenue but want to cut spending

can we start with two unfunded wars? can we go back in time and not have those?

You mean the wars that the Democrats in Congress started when they sent a demand to Bush to invade Iraq?

I also dont see Obama pulling the US out of the war in a hurry.