The truth about taxing the wealthy...

[Liability]

The lie is entirely from the left.

You can tax new income. And when you do that, you can have adverse impacts on the economy.

But you really cannot tax pre-existing "wealth" since once you attempt it, the person you are taxing quickly becomes something other than "wealthy."

The ignorance of the OP is stunning.

When did taxing the super rich during a time of crisis lead to adverse effects.

It's something the right imagines but nothing they could ever prove.

Ike Eisenhower had it right. The last Republican President to leave office with a balanced budget and a surplus.

When did you get the notion that you have permission to recast what others have said or to "define" what terms meet to suit your petty partisan hack purposes?

 

[rdean]

The lie is entirely from the left.

You can tax new income. And when you do that, you can have adverse impacts on the economy.

But you really cannot tax pre-existing "wealth" since once you attempt it, the person you are taxing quickly becomes something other than "wealthy."

The ignorance of the OP is stunning.

When did taxing the super rich during a time of crisis lead to adverse effects.

It's something the right imagines but nothing they could ever prove.

Ike Eisenhower had it right. The last Republican President to leave office with a balanced budget and a surplus.

When didn't it? It should be pretty easy to provide examples, I can certainly provide examples of my position.

If you could've you would've.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reaganomics convinced the nation to:

1. remove middle class programs

2. lower wages

3. and reduce all benefits that once accrued to labor

(thereby removing the burden on capital so it could deliver the goods)

CONSEQUENTLY...

The middle class consumer no longer had sufficient economic security to consume

So what did Reagan do when the middle class could no longer afford to spend? He presided over the transition to debt-based consumption - the credit industrial complex was born.

Under his tenure Americans started to receive 3 credit card offers a week. A vast credit infrastructure was created to make up for the fact that the middle class consumer no longer made enough money to buy things.

On the top of the economic ladder, the results were equally disastrous: the tax cuts created too much capital surplus in relation to viable investment opportunities. Creating great returns for so much new money would lead to one disaster after another, as Wall Street embarked on a 30 year adventure in speculative garbage -- moving from one asset bubble after another. . .

Indeed...

While the middle class consumers died on debt, the wealthy got rich off phantoms that eventually exploded and destroyed the economy for the long term.

Consumption and Investment got replaced by Master Cards and Derivatives.

(America got punk'd by a B rate actor who was sent to Washington to make a small group of people wealthy)

None of this would have happened if the wealth created by the Reagan tax cuts did what was promised: trickle down to middle class consumers and productive investments.

America swallowed poison in 1980.

You spelled "Reagan" correctly, everything else is totally wrong

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When did taxing the super rich during a time of crisis lead to adverse effects.

It's something the right imagines but nothing they could ever prove.

Ike Eisenhower had it right. The last Republican President to leave office with a balanced budget and a surplus.

When didn't it? It should be pretty easy to provide examples, I can certainly provide examples of my position.

If you could've you would've.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF NATIONALIZATION OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY IN LATIN AMERICA
Bhutto Regime And Nationalization - History-Other
Emerald | International Journal of Public Sector Management | Managerial problems in Korea - Evidence from the nationalized industries

Not even a challenge. Can you show where it did not lead to a problem?

By the way, as I have told you before, Eisenhower was the last president to have a balanced budget, period.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here is the truth about Reaganomics and taxing the wealthy. The GOP is feeding a huge lie to the American people.

Letter: If you want to predict economics, look back on effects of Reaganomics

What did any of that have to do with taxing the wealthy?

Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and BLAM, the budget balanced.

Not so fast JimH.. He also RAISED taxes on Soc Sec retirees and LOWERED taxes on capital gains.. That was done is a RISING economy. You tell me which of those voodoo tricks has the majik in it..

So much simplification -- so little progress in understanding..

In fact, I put up a chart not long ago showing the tax revenues as normalized by GDP are virtually UNAFFECTED by just twiddling the upper brackets.. Do you need to see it again?

 

[rdean]

When didn't it? It should be pretty easy to provide examples, I can certainly provide examples of my position.

If you could've you would've.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF NATIONALIZATION OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY IN LATIN AMERICA
Bhutto Regime And Nationalization - History-Other
Emerald | International Journal of Public Sector Management | Managerial problems in Korea - Evidence from the nationalized industries

Not even a challenge. Can you show where it did not lead to a problem?

By the way, as I have told you before, Eisenhower was the last president to have a balanced budget, period.

Korea?

South America?

Let me tell you something sparky, there is a name to describe when the gulf between a few rich and the vast poor becomes too great. It's called, "Revolution". Besides, you're not rich and you will never be rich. Why defend those that look down on you? Seems kinda weird.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep, they taxed the rich and the economy tanked. Still waiting for your proof.

 

[flacaltenn]

RDean:

Let me tell you something sparky, there is a name to describe when the gulf between a few rich and the vast poor becomes too great. It's called, "Revolution". Besides, you're not rich and you will never be rich. Why defend those that look down on you? Seems kinda weird.

So I gotta be a member of the class to support them against the onslaught of political warfare? Is THAT what makes you think those few wealthy folks would be an EASY TARGET? Because it's simply about numbers and pitchforks? I'm thinking of that great quote about them "coming for the Jews" and then "they came for me".. Think Oprah "looks down at you" RDean???