Wealthy Americans and Taxes

[Judicial review]

I've seen all of these articals already. Obama has controlled your minds. Guess why there really is no middle class to bridge the gap between poor and rich? Obama and his liberal economics. He wants you all on welfare.

"The most intelligent, educated, and informed people are almost never Republicans




Think that headline is a little too strong? Well consider this: Only 6% of scientists are registered republicans. Or this: Only 7% of journalists are registered republicans. We can agree, can’t we, that becoming a scientist requires a remarkable dedication to scholarship, education, and to the truth? We can agree, can’t we, that nobody knows more about the working of our “democracy” than journalists? So, why have well over 90% of those who have followed a scientific or journalistic path rejected the Republican party? Could the answer be more obvious? The Republican war on science fought on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful and the utter contempt which Congressional Republicans hold for the democratic process have completely alienated our brightest, most informed, and most curious."


Hal Ginsberg

How can "you" be intelligent, educated, and informed if you let Obama control your thinking?

 

[Dad2three]

I've seen all of these articals already. Obama has controlled your minds. Guess why there really is no middle class to bridge the gap between poor and rich? Obama and his liberal economics. He wants you all on welfare.

"The most intelligent, educated, and informed people are almost never Republicans




Think that headline is a little too strong? Well consider this: Only 6% of scientists are registered republicans. Or this: Only 7% of journalists are registered republicans. We can agree, can’t we, that becoming a scientist requires a remarkable dedication to scholarship, education, and to the truth? We can agree, can’t we, that nobody knows more about the working of our “democracy” than journalists? So, why have well over 90% of those who have followed a scientific or journalistic path rejected the Republican party? Could the answer be more obvious? The Republican war on science fought on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful and the utter contempt which Congressional Republicans hold for the democratic process have completely alienated our brightest, most informed, and most curious."


Hal Ginsberg

How can "you" be intelligent, educated, and informed if you let Obama control your thinking?

False premises, distortions and LIES, the ONLY thing in the right wingers tool box today. Shocking

Conservatives deny facts and never explain their positions because they can't. Their positions have no basis in reality and are unsustainable, so the only thing they can do is obfuscate, deny, attack and deflect.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes.

I always love when some ignoramus tries to compare the 1950s to today. First of all, jackhole, nobody ever paid 91% income tax, or even 70% for that fact. They used the same tricks of the trade that get used today. Second, the U.S. was part of a small oligopoly back in those days of nations that exported goods around the world. Europe's infrastructure was blown to shit during the war and Japan got nuked, so back then you could afford to pay higher wages, benefits, and charge your international customers higher prices to pay for all of that when you're one of the only producers. When Europe started coming back online in the 60s and Japan began building itself into an economic powerhouse that is when our economy began to falter and why JFK, the head of the royal family of your jealous, Marxist party, cut taxes on the 1%.

You people always accuse conservatives of wanting to live in the past, but bring up an economic argument and that is exactly where you people go. You would take us back to a 60 year old economic model that would decimate our economy worse than the 1930s. Thank God you'll never get what you want because the people today would never stand for it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percentl

About time they started ponying up.

 

[Dad2three]

The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes.

I always love when some ignoramus tries to compare the 1950s to today. First of all, jackhole, nobody ever paid 91% income tax, or even 70% for that fact. They used the same tricks of the trade that get used today. Second, the U.S. was part of a small oligopoly back in those days of nations that exported goods around the world. Europe's infrastructure was blown to shit during the war and Japan got nuked, so back then you could afford to pay higher wages, benefits, and charge your international customers higher prices to pay for all of that when you're one of the only producers. When Europe started coming back online in the 60s and Japan began building itself into an economic powerhouse that is when our economy began to falter and why JFK, the head of the royal family of your jealous, Marxist party, cut taxes on the 1%.

You people always accuse conservatives of wanting to live in the past, but bring up an economic argument and that is exactly where you people go. You would take us back to a 60 year old economic model that would decimate our economy worse than the 1930s. Thank God you'll never get what you want because the people today would never stand for it.

LOOK AT THE EFFECTIVE RATES THEN AND NOW

WOW LOOKED LIKE SOME PAID 60%-70% EFFECTIVE rates right?

EVERYTHING else you posit is right wing garbage. AGAIN, WHAT DOES THE TOP 1% TRIPLING THEIR INCOMES WHILE SHIFTING 40%+ OF THE TAX BURDEN THAT USED TO BE PAID ON THAT INCOME HAVE TO DO WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD?

You mean LBJ gave US a demand side tax cut?

As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP UPDATE


I KNOW, CUTTING THE 'JOB CREATORS' TAX RATES BOOMED THE ECONOMY RIGHT? lol

The rich are paying less relative tax than anytime in the past 40 years. The pay a higher proportion of taxes only because they now earn a higher proportion of income.


From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


It's the Inequality, Stupid

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones

 

[Dad2three]

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percentl

About time they started ponying up.

Yep, to many 'takers' in those red states

 

[Dad2three]

The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes.

I always love when some ignoramus tries to compare the 1950s to today. First of all, jackhole, nobody ever paid 91% income tax, or even 70% for that fact. They used the same tricks of the trade that get used today. Second, the U.S. was part of a small oligopoly back in those days of nations that exported goods around the world. Europe's infrastructure was blown to shit during the war and Japan got nuked, so back then you could afford to pay higher wages, benefits, and charge your international customers higher prices to pay for all of that when you're one of the only producers. When Europe started coming back online in the 60s and Japan began building itself into an economic powerhouse that is when our economy began to falter and why JFK, the head of the royal family of your jealous, Marxist party, cut taxes on the 1%.

You people always accuse conservatives of wanting to live in the past, but bring up an economic argument and that is exactly where you people go. You would take us back to a 60 year old economic model that would decimate our economy worse than the 1930s. Thank God you'll never get what you want because the people today would never stand for it.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?


Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percentl

About time they started ponying up.

Yep, to many 'takers' in those red states

They're all over the country. You think it matters the political leaning of the state? Of course you do. You're a partisan hack.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes.

I always love when some ignoramus tries to compare the 1950s to today. First of all, jackhole, nobody ever paid 91% income tax, or even 70% for that fact. They used the same tricks of the trade that get used today. Second, the U.S. was part of a small oligopoly back in those days of nations that exported goods around the world. Europe's infrastructure was blown to shit during the war and Japan got nuked, so back then you could afford to pay higher wages, benefits, and charge your international customers higher prices to pay for all of that when you're one of the only producers. When Europe started coming back online in the 60s and Japan began building itself into an economic powerhouse that is when our economy began to falter and why JFK, the head of the royal family of your jealous, Marxist party, cut taxes on the 1%.

You people always accuse conservatives of wanting to live in the past, but bring up an economic argument and that is exactly where you people go. You would take us back to a 60 year old economic model that would decimate our economy worse than the 1930s. Thank God you'll never get what you want because the people today would never stand for it.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?


Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes.

I always love when some ignoramus tries to compare the 1950s to today. First of all, jackhole, nobody ever paid 91% income tax, or even 70% for that fact. They used the same tricks of the trade that get used today. Second, the U.S. was part of a small oligopoly back in those days of nations that exported goods around the world. Europe's infrastructure was blown to shit during the war and Japan got nuked, so back then you could afford to pay higher wages, benefits, and charge your international customers higher prices to pay for all of that when you're one of the only producers. When Europe started coming back online in the 60s and Japan began building itself into an economic powerhouse that is when our economy began to falter and why JFK, the head of the royal family of your jealous, Marxist party, cut taxes on the 1%.

You people always accuse conservatives of wanting to live in the past, but bring up an economic argument and that is exactly where you people go. You would take us back to a 60 year old economic model that would decimate our economy worse than the 1930s. Thank God you'll never get what you want because the people today would never stand for it.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?


Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Quick question, do you actually have any thoughts of your own or do you just copy and paste other people's?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

of course thats 100% idiotic. If they have less money they have less to invest in expanding the economy. When you tax venture capital for example you get less new ventures like Apple Google Twitter Cisco.

A child could understand but not a brainwashed braindead Marxist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Quick question, do you actually have any thoughts of your own or do you just copy and paste other people's?

he has no thoughts of his own, none. To him a good argument is printing something in bold type that someone else said. He figures he's the only one who knows how to google and that bold type is magical.

 

[Dad2three]

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percentl

About time they started ponying up.

Yep, to many 'takers' in those red states

They're all over the country. You think it matters the political leaning of the state? Of course you do. You're a partisan hack.

Weird how such a high PERCENTAGE of those voting Romney increased the SNAP program right? And that blues states provide the money to the red states, like Alaska that gives out their socialists energy checks thanks to the lower 49?

 

[Dad2three]

The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes.

I always love when some ignoramus tries to compare the 1950s to today. First of all, jackhole, nobody ever paid 91% income tax, or even 70% for that fact. They used the same tricks of the trade that get used today. Second, the U.S. was part of a small oligopoly back in those days of nations that exported goods around the world. Europe's infrastructure was blown to shit during the war and Japan got nuked, so back then you could afford to pay higher wages, benefits, and charge your international customers higher prices to pay for all of that when you're one of the only producers. When Europe started coming back online in the 60s and Japan began building itself into an economic powerhouse that is when our economy began to falter and why JFK, the head of the royal family of your jealous, Marxist party, cut taxes on the 1%.

You people always accuse conservatives of wanting to live in the past, but bring up an economic argument and that is exactly where you people go. You would take us back to a 60 year old economic model that would decimate our economy worse than the 1930s. Thank God you'll never get what you want because the people today would never stand for it.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?


Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes.

I always love when some ignoramus tries to compare the 1950s to today. First of all, jackhole, nobody ever paid 91% income tax, or even 70% for that fact. They used the same tricks of the trade that get used today. Second, the U.S. was part of a small oligopoly back in those days of nations that exported goods around the world. Europe's infrastructure was blown to shit during the war and Japan got nuked, so back then you could afford to pay higher wages, benefits, and charge your international customers higher prices to pay for all of that when you're one of the only producers. When Europe started coming back online in the 60s and Japan began building itself into an economic powerhouse that is when our economy began to falter and why JFK, the head of the royal family of your jealous, Marxist party, cut taxes on the 1%.

You people always accuse conservatives of wanting to live in the past, but bring up an economic argument and that is exactly where you people go. You would take us back to a 60 year old economic model that would decimate our economy worse than the 1930s. Thank God you'll never get what you want because the people today would never stand for it.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?


Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Quick question, do you actually have any thoughts of your own or do you just copy and paste other people's?

Got it, ANOTHER low info right winger upset because I'm informed and have sources to back up my 'beliefs' versus the usual right wingers 'gut feelings'...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percentl

About time they started ponying up.

Yep, to many 'takers' in those red states

They're all over the country. You think it matters the political leaning of the state? Of course you do. You're a partisan hack.

Weird how such a high PERCENTAGE of those voting Romney increased the SNAP program right? And that blues states provide the money to the red states, like Alaska that gives out their socialists energy checks thanks to the lower 49?

so does this mean welfare is good and we should encourage more and more to get on it and fewer and fewer to work?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Got it, ANOTHER low info right winger...

low information? Aristotle Jefferson and Friedman were low information because they supported freedom rather than soviet liberalism? Dear, the USSR had about 20% of our standard of living becuase liberals destroyed the incentives to work with their programs and regulations. Can you ask your kids to explain!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm informed and have sources.

too stupid as always. Informed does not mean googled you idiot!! Anyone can provide 1000 links to support anything. Do you understand now? Do you understand that large type is not magical just testimony to your ignorance?

 

[Dad2three]

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

of course thats 100% idiotic. If they have less money they have less to invest in expanding the economy. When you tax venture capital for example you get less new ventures like Apple Google Twitter Cisco.

A child could understand but not a brainwashed braindead Marxist.

Stop projecting Bubba

But hey, IF you could prove the CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE WRONG? lol

NO CORRELATION ON TAX RATES AND GROWTH. In fact the US has grown faster when top tax rates were above 39% than below!!! EVERY DECADE IN FACT!



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




Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study

Conservative Politics Low-Effort Thinking Linked In New Study

 

[Dad2three]

I'm informed and have sources.

too stupid as always. Informed does not mean googled you idiot!! Anyone can provide 1000 links to support anything. Do you understand now? Do you understand that large type is not magical just testimony to your ignorance?

Got it, you don't have a clue and have 'faith' your ideology is correct, though you can't point to ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Got it, you don't have a clue and have 'faith' your ideology is correct, though you can't point to ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on!

too stupid by 1000%. Early corporations were govt created monopolies that were really extensions of the monarchy. Todays corporations are capitalist which means they are our slaves who live and die based only on their ability to please us with the best products and prices in the world that raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Only pure idiot brainwashed Marxists don't know their ABC'c

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on!

1) conservatives destroyed soviet liberalism while our liberals spied for Stalin,gave him the bomb and elected Obama despite his 3 libcommie parents and voting to left of Bernie Sanders

2) our founding conservatives wanted very very limited govt and it produced the greatest country in human history by far. Liberals opposed

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance. What other conclusion is possible?