Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy class does NOT harm the economy

[Dad2three]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Why didn't Obama raise taxes to 90% to usher in a new era of Socialist prosperity?????

8 years of Dubya/GOP governance had US on the edge of the cliff for nearly 5 years?

 

[The Rabbi]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.

No, he allowed them to expire.
The Bush tax cuts have expired and no law has replaced it

 

[bedowin62]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Why didn't Obama raise taxes to 90% to usher in a new era of Socialist prosperity?????

Dubya/GOP had US on the edge of the cliff for nearly 5 years?

b-b-b-b-b-b-but you idiots say Socialist policies are just the prescription and remedy for those Bush policies leftard?!?

so answer the question please..................

 

[Redfish]

And?

The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.
By definition, they cannot be regressive.

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'

That would make you the dumbass.

Yes the TOP 1% pay a BARELY progressive INCOME tax burden that the top1/10th of 1% doesn't. Doesn't mean the top 1% isn't BARELY progressive but that the US NEEDS THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% fed tax on in $1,000,000+ incomes DUMBASS!

.01% less than poor? SOURCE? Didn't think so liar!



Thanks for agreeing the flat tax IS regressive however

A flat tax is not regressive-----------it is flat. Everyone pays the same % of their income to the government. A regressive tax would have the poor paying a higher rate than the rich. That is not the case today and would not be the case with a flat tax.

In fact, most flat tax proposals have a zero tax rate up to some minimum income level.

 

[bedowin62]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.

No, he allowed them to expire.
The Bush tax cuts have expired and no law has replaced it

obama extended them, even for the top brackets, when he still had a Dem-majority in both chambers of Congress, before allowing that extension to expire. They were going to "sunset" before that.

 

[Redfish]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.

No, he allowed them to expire.
The Bush tax cuts have expired and no law has replaced it

Thats not true. tax rates have not increased since the Bush tax rates went into effect.

 

[Dad2three]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.

Oh right when Obama wsa blackmailed to keep unemployment going to US after 8 GOP policy when he wanted to up the taxes on the top 2% and instead did it to the top .08%.

Raising anyone's taxes hurts the economy? Weird wasn't that what he right wing Klowns said about Clinton too? lol

 

[bedowin62]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.

Oh right when Obama wsa blackmailed to keep unemployment going to US after 8 GOP policy when he wanted to up the taxes on the top 2% and instead did it to the top .08%.

Raising anyone's taxes hurts the economy? Weird wasn't that what he right wing Klowns said about Clinton too? lol

we were in a recession at the end of the clinton years leftard.

 

[Dad2three]

And?

The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.
By definition, they cannot be regressive.

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'

That would make you the dumbass.

the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.

True that 26% of ALL US taxes, the federal income tax, on that less than $15,000 PER FAMILY!

 

[kaz]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

One percent of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes, 5% of taxpayers pay 60%. that barn is out of the horse, Holmes...

 

[kaz]

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'

That would make you the dumbass.

the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.

True that 26% of ALL US taxes, the federal income tax, on that less than $15,000 PER FAMILY!

Can you translate that sentence into English?

 

[Redfish]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.

Oh right when Obama wsa blackmailed to keep unemployment going to US after 8 GOP policy when he wanted to up the taxes on the top 2% and instead did it to the top .08%.

Raising anyone's taxes hurts the economy? Weird wasn't that what he right wing Klowns said about Clinton too? lol

So your hero was "blackmailed" ? really? exactly how did that work?

In reality even obama realized that raising taxes would hurt the economy.

The problem we have is not a taxing problem, it is a spending problem. The government spends too much, it spends 40% more than it collects and it borrows the 40% shortfall. Thats why we are 18 trillion in debt.

Until someone in DC has the balls to cut spending and balance the budget, this fiscal mess will only get worse.

 

[bedowin62]

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'

That would make you the dumbass.

the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.

True that 26% of ALL US taxes, the federal income tax, on that less than $15,000 PER FAMILY!

here you go again with that moronic apples and oranges meme about "all taxes"

 

[Redfish]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

One percent of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes, 5% of taxpayers pay 60%. that barn is out of the horse, Holmes...

but, but, but the evil rich must be punished, don't you understand?

 

[Redfish]

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'

That would make you the dumbass.

the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.

True that 26% of ALL US taxes, the federal income tax, on that less than $15,000 PER FAMILY!

we are talking about federal income taxes, try to stay on topic.

 

[kaz]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

One percent of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes, 5% of taxpayers pay 60%. that barn is out of the horse, Holmes...

but, but, but the evil rich must be punished, don't you understand?

Yes, we provide jobs, then liberals just have to work. It isn't right

 

[Redfish]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

One percent of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes, 5% of taxpayers pay 60%. that barn is out of the horse, Holmes...

but, but, but the evil rich must be punished, don't you understand?

Yes, we provide jobs, then liberals just have to work. It isn't right

right, liberal freedom includes the freedom to be paid for doing nothing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Why didn't Obama raise taxes to 90% to usher in a new era of Socialist prosperity?????

8 years of Dubya/GOP governance had US on the edge of the cliff for nearly 5 years?

Did you not understand the question?

here. I'll repost it

Why didn't Obama raise taxes to 90% to usher in a new era of Socialist prosperity?????

using your "logic" Obama hurt the economy but not raising taxes and confiscating wealth....(Libs are so so so so so ******* stupid)

 

[kaz]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

One percent of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes, 5% of taxpayers pay 60%. that barn is out of the horse, Holmes...

but, but, but the evil rich must be punished, don't you understand?

Yes, we provide jobs, then liberals just have to work. It isn't right

right, liberal freedom includes the freedom to be paid for doing nothing.

It aint freedom if it aint free

 

[Dad2three]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.

No, he allowed them to expire.
The Bush tax cuts have expired and no law has replaced it

lol, A BLOG is your "source"?



JAN. 1, 2013

Divided House Passes Tax Deal in End to Latest Fiscal Standoff




Despite the party divisions, many Republicans in their remarks characterized the measure, which allows taxes to go up on household income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples but makes permanent tax cuts for income below that level, as a victory of sorts, even as so many of them declined to vote for it

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/house-takes-on-fiscal-cliff.html?hp&_r=0