Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

[Dad2three]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

 

[Redfish]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

"The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing"

PLEASE give me some details, rather than talking points?



"You seem to think conservatives"




ARE THE PROBLEM, BE THEY R OR D

Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years and all of Bush I. Some of BJs eight years and some of W's and BO's years. So how is it they are not responsible for the debt and income inequality?

One would think if the Ds are so wonderful and caring, when they had the WH and Congress they should have fixed all our problems. No?

dems and libs believe the lies, even when proven to be lies. its a mental disease, it defies logic.

 

[Dad2three]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

AGAIN

"DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol"

 

[BluesLegend]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

"The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing"

PLEASE give me some details, rather than talking points?



"You seem to think conservatives"




ARE THE PROBLEM, BE THEY R OR D

Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years and all of Bush I. Some of BJs eight years and some of W's and BO's years. So how is it they are not responsible for the debt and income inequality?

One would think if the Ds are so wonderful and caring, when they had the WH and Congress they should have fixed all our problems. No?

dems and libs believe the lies, even when proven to be lies. its a mental disease, it defies logic.

With a lot of these liberal lemmings it seems to be the Stockholm syndrome.

 

[Kosh]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

AGAIN

"DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol"

You mean the far left propaganda not connected to reality that you post?

 

[Redfish]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

 

[chikenwing]

Gosh I only ran a doz stop signs instead of 2 doz, I am so impressive!!

 

[Dad2three]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

"The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing"

PLEASE give me some details, rather than talking points?



"You seem to think conservatives"




ARE THE PROBLEM, BE THEY R OR D

Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years and all of Bush I. Some of BJs eight years and some of W's and BO's years. So how is it they are not responsible for the debt and income inequality?

One would think if the Ds are so wonderful and caring, when they had the WH and Congress they should have fixed all our problems. No?

"Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years "


Sure they did Bubba, sure. EXCEPT the 6 years the GOP had the Senate under Ronnie

PLEASE show me where the Dems had SUPER majorities in the Senate to get things done? Dubya had a GOP Congress for his first 6 years dummy. Under Obama the Dems had a super majority for 60 working days, AS the economy collapsed by 9%+ and was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.


The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:




I know in right wing world, REALITY is in not a normal thing



BUT FOR THE THIRD TIME:

DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

JUST KEEP MOVING THE GOALS POSTS, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE BUBBA

 

[Dad2three]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

AGAIN

"DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol"

You mean the far left propaganda not connected to reality that you post?

Thanks for agreeing, ALL you can do is use ad homs, NOT refute data. Thanks anyways Bubba.

 

[Dad2three]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

 

[zeke]

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

You ever think about taking the Republican POV? Just to see if it can be reasonably defended? Cause none of the dipshits on here do that (defend their position) worth a damn.

Least you would make it interesting.
Don't you want to help the dipshits out? LMAO.

 

[Kosh]

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

You ever think about taking the Republican POV? Just to see if it can be reasonably defended? Cause none of the dipshits on here do that (defend their position) worth a damn.

Least you would make it interesting.
Don't you want to help the dipshits out? LMAO.

Yes the far left never does that even when they try and hide their true nature..

 

[zeke]

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

You ever think about taking the Republican POV? Just to see if it can be reasonably defended? Cause none of the dipshits on here do that (defend their position) worth a damn.

Least you would make it interesting.
Don't you want to help the dipshits out? LMAO.

Yes the far left never does that even when they try and hide their true nature..

I bet you are trying to make a point? What is it?

 

[Redfish]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

 

[Kosh]

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

You ever think about taking the Republican POV? Just to see if it can be reasonably defended? Cause none of the dipshits on here do that (defend their position) worth a damn.

Least you would make it interesting.
Don't you want to help the dipshits out? LMAO.

Yes the far left never does that even when they try and hide their true nature..

I bet you are trying to make a point? What is it?

Says the far left drone...

 

[Kosh]

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

 

[Redfish]

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

don't hold your breath.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

You ever think about taking the Republican POV? Just to see if it can be reasonably defended? Cause none of the dipshits on here do that (defend their position) worth a damn.

Least you would make it interesting.
Don't you want to help the dipshits out? LMAO.

"You ever think about taking the Republican POV? Just to see if it can be reasonably defended? Cause none of the dipshits on here do that (defend their position) worth a damn."




6 Klowns in the row attacked me with ad homs, only missing Edddie B and the rabbit, from the low info side

 

[Dad2three]

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Hey I'm ALL for taxing those with $100+ million incomes at 90% Bubba

It didn't seem to hurt US when the top 1/10th of 1% of US had an EFFECTIVE tax rates of 60%-70% during the boom 1945-1980.

Talk about idiots who are stuck on stupid, lol

 

[Dad2three]

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

If it weren't for false premises, distortions and LIES, what else would right wingers EVER have???