What a 15% corporate federal tax rate would mean...at the minimum $55 billion additional Taxes!

[The Derp]

Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!

After first reducing revenues below 2000 levels and staying below that level through 2004. It wasn't until 2005 that revenues reached the level they were in 2000. Over that same amount of time, a $236B surplus in 2000 was turned into a $412B deficit by 2004. A swing of nearly $650B.

So you took three steps back to take one step forward. Where does that leave you? Two steps behind.

 

[healthmyths]

Why tax more, why not less? And if you want more tax, how much do you want in %, and who is going to pay it?

Since the wealthy aren't trickling-down like you all promised they would, it makes sense to tax them more because they didn't hold up their end of the trickle-down bargain. I don't know what the top tax rate should be, but I know it's definitely too low right now if you are concerned with deficits and debt. Most economists think it should be between 50-70%, back when "America was great".

Are we FAIR? Are we really? Then shouldn't the people who pay NO tax that work and make money, have to at least pay 1 dollar?

They don't pay federal income taxes because you cut their taxes. So are you now admitting your tax cutting bullshit ideology was foolhardy? Because it sure seems like it. They do pay sales, payroll, and excise taxes...and those rates & fees are what is increased to make up for the drop in revenue from income tax cuts. Because, math.

Don't they get benefits from what the government does? Should not everyone PAY their fair share? That is a Democratic saying, is it not! Notice, the keyword is PAY, not COLLECT because you do not make enough.

Not everyone does pay their fair share. The wealthy definitely don't. They got a tax cut under the premise that it will "trickle down" on everyone else by way of increased economic activity by the wealthy. Only, that doesn't ever happen. The Conservative belief they would has been proven bunkum time and time again. We just saw it happen 15 yeas ago with the Bush Tax Cuts. Taxes were cut, and the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, while everyone else went into debt.

This is a problem of your doing. This is what happens when Conservatives monkey around with the economy and tax rates. So you have no one to blame but yourself.

Dumbass DERP... So WHERE IN THE HELL do these "WEALTHY people putting the savings from taxes???
Do they like idiots LIKE You bury in the backyard or oh yea that famous hide under the mattress... YEA THAT'S the ticket!
Dummy...
A) They spend it ! Yes on shit you never could afford... Yachts... (by the way I was paid as a data base administrator for a yacht builder and we had almost 100 people
who were paid out of that WASTEFUL spending of wealthy yacht buyers)!
B) Or say they invest it! GEEZ now where would they put it??? Wow see no one with any intelligence decries WEALTHY trickle down because eventually a rising tide lifts all boats!
C) Or maybe these EVIL wealthy people GIVE IT AWAY?? Ever think about that?

The typical ultra-high net worth (UHNW) philanthropist donates $25 million over the course of their lifetime, according to a new study, more than 10 percent of their net worth. The Wealth-X and Arton Capital Major Giving Index, which tracks trends in UHNW charitable giving, rose to 220 in 2013 - the highest level since the global financial crisis, and only 12 points below the all-time high of 232 set in 2006.How much do the ultra-rich give to charity?
But of course good old tax breaks come into place but hey I wouldn't doubt for ONE second DERP... that you have been the recipient of some wealth person's donations to your parents flophouse so you could live in their basement while COMPLAINING about the wealthy!

 

[The Derp]

Dumbass DERP... So WHERE IN THE HELL do these "WEALTHY people putting the savings from taxes???

Off-shore. They use it to buy foreign-made goods. Any number of places. But definitely not "in the economy".

A) They spend it ! Yes on shit you never could afford... Yachts... (by the way I was paid as a data base administrator for a yacht builder and we had almost 100 people

No they don't. According to Moody's, the wealthy increased their savings by 4% during the Bush Tax Cuts, but didn't increase their spending at all.

B) Or say they invest it! GEEZ now where would they put it??? Wow see no one with any intelligence decries WEALTHY trickle down because eventually a rising tide lifts all boats!

They don't invest it either. They hoard it. That's why the stock price keeps going up, yet wages stagnate.

C) Or maybe these EVIL wealthy people GIVE IT AWAY?? Ever think about that?

The totality of all charitable giving in the US in 2016 was less than Medicaid's budget. And that includes all forms of charity like donating to the NYC ballet, and tithing to the Mormon Church.

But of course good old tax breaks come into place but hey I wouldn't doubt for ONE second DERP... that you have been the recipient of some wealth person's donations to your parents flophouse so you could live in their basement while COMPLAINING about the wealthy!

You don't know shit about me, so you try to invent a person you can then attack. Only problem is, your attack falls flat because you're full of shit.

 

[healthmyths]

Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!

After first reducing revenues below 2000 levels and staying below that level through 2004. It wasn't until 2005 that revenues reached the level they were in 2000. Over that same amount of time, a $236B surplus in 2000 was turned into a $412B deficit by 2004. A swing of nearly $650B.

So you took three steps back to take one step forward. Where does that leave you? Two steps behind.

Year 2000 Revenues: 2,025,191 Outlays 1,788,950 Surplus 236,241
But then YOU again IGORED the FACTS!
1) A recession that started UNDER CLINTON because ONLY dummies like you think oh yea recession started exactly on 3/1/01 ALL BUSH's fault!
2) Dot.com bust... provided CLINTON with the surplus... BUT THEN the bust started UNDER him in 1997 and continued thus again.. Losses means deductions!
3) OH yea dummies like you continue to ignore the WORST attack on US soil 9/11 WTC/Pentagon/anthrax... ALL had a negative effect on Revenues but you ignore that!
4) WORST hurricanes in history... again all these factors contributed to higher outlays lower receipts...
BUT IN SPITE of that... revenues then increased.. to the highest in US History! 2.523 trillion in 2008! Again you ignore the realities which is what happens when you
depend on the MSM for your information ! Use the Internet to find REALITY!!!

 

[healthmyths]

Dumbass DERP... So WHERE IN THE HELL do these "WEALTHY people putting the savings from taxes???

Off-shore. They use it to buy foreign-made goods. Any number of places. But definitely not "in the economy".

A) They spend it ! Yes on shit you never could afford... Yachts... (by the way I was paid as a data base administrator for a yacht builder and we had almost 100 people

No they don't. According to Moody's, the wealthy increased their savings by 4% during the Bush Tax Cuts, but didn't increase their spending at all.

B) Or say they invest it! GEEZ now where would they put it??? Wow see no one with any intelligence decries WEALTHY trickle down because eventually a rising tide lifts all boats!

They don't invest it either. They hoard it. That's why the stock price keeps going up, yet wages stagnate.

C) Or maybe these EVIL wealthy people GIVE IT AWAY?? Ever think about that?

The totality of all charitable giving in the US in 2016 was less than Medicaid's budget. And that includes all forms of charity like donating to the NYC ballet, and tithing to the Mormon Church.

But of course good old tax breaks come into place but hey I wouldn't doubt for ONE second DERP... that you have been the recipient of some wealth person's donations to your parents flophouse so you could live in their basement while COMPLAINING about the wealthy!

You don't know shit about me, so you try to invent a person you can then attack. Only problem is, your attack falls flat because you're full of shit.

"HOARD" it???? GEEZ you are really showing your ignorance DERP!!!
HOARD? AGAIN you have NO idea how the stock market works do you?
WHAT happens DERP when these "HOARDERS" put their evil tax reduction gains into buying STOCKS?? Do you really comprehend the ripple effect going on?
Naw... that's why people like you MAKE up your own facts!

NOW AS FAR AS DONATIONS being less than MEDICAID???? HEY dummy! Who pays for MEDICAID???
WE all do including the wealthy. MEDICAID is not a CHARITY!

FACT: Donations from America's individuals, estates, foundations and corporations reached an estimated $373.25 billion in 2015, setting a record for the second year in a row, reports Giving USA 2016: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2015, released today.Jun 13, 2016
Giving USA: 2015 Was America’s Most Generous Year Ever | Giving USA

 

[The Derp]

Year 2000 Revenues: 2,025,191 Outlays 1,788,950 Surplus 236,241
1) A recession that started UNDER CLINTON because ONLY dummies like you think oh yea recession started exactly on 3/1/01 ALL BUSH's fault!

As we've seen, the recession that began in March 2001 was caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut from 1997. Secondly, the 2001 recession was over by November of 2001, and that year GDP still grew by about 1.5%. So with the recession and 9/11, GDP growth for 2001 was still positive (thanks, Clinton).

2) Dot.com bust... provided CLINTON with the surplus... BUT THEN the bust started UNDER him in 1997 and continued thus again.. Losses means deductions!

How did the burst cause a surplus? You mean the dotcom bubble created a surplus? OK, so it did for a couple of those first two surplus years, but then after that, it didn't. Your point? The dotcom bubble began in 1997, and didn't pop until 2000. But even with the pop, we still had a surplus and positive GDP growth. So what's the excuse? Our economy wasn't dependent on the dotcom bubble from 1997-00.

3) OH yea dummies like you continue to ignore the WORST attack on US soil 9/11 WTC/Pentagon/anthrax... ALL had a negative effect on Revenues but you ignore that!

9/11 has nothing to do with the next 8 years of the shitty Bush economy. All the market losses from 9/11 were regained less than 2 months later. You keep using 9/11 as an excuse but can't manage to tie that to the shitty Bush economy of 2001-2009.

4) WORST hurricanes in history... again all these factors contributed to higher outlays lower receipts...

So you're saying if it hadn't been for the dotcom bubble, 9/11, and hurricanes, trickle-down economics would magically work? LOL! OK...so what's the excuse for why it didn't work in Kansas when they tried it from 2013 - 2017? KS wasn't hit by a hurricane. KS wasn't hit with a terror attack. KS wasn't affected by the dotcom bubble. So what's the excuse?

BUT IN SPITE of that... revenues then increased.. to the highest in US History! 2.523 trillion in 2008! Again you ignore the realities which is what happens when you

Bush was President into 2009 too. Secondly, you crow about revenue increasing, but are strangely silent on the deficit and debt increasing. So revenues grew...OK...what about the deficit? Because Bush had four record deficits in his eight years after being handed a surplus.

 

[The Derp]

OARD? AGAIN you have NO idea how the stock market works do you?

No, you have no idea what the stock market even is. You think that blankly saying "investing" means they take the savings and invest in new businesses. Only, they don't trickle-down. "Investing" in this context means pouring money into the secondary and tertiary mortgage/derivatives markets. Which is exactly what happened from 2004-7. The derivatives markets grew significantly while "investing" along the traditional sense didn't. If the wealthy did all this "investing", then there wouldn't have been net job loss of 460,000 after 8 years of Bush.

WHAT happens DERP when these "HOARDERS" put their evil tax reduction gains into buying STOCKS?? Do you really comprehend the ripple effect going on?

Ah, you mean the "trickle down" effect? Yeah, it didn't happen. If it did, Bush wouldn't have lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.

NOW AS FAR AS DONATIONS being less than MEDICAID???? HEY dummy! Who pays for MEDICAID???
WE all do including the wealthy. MEDICAID is not a CHARITY!

I agree Medicaid isn't a charity, it's an entitlement. Everyone pays into Medicaid. My point was that all the charitable giving last year (including questionable charities like the NYC Ballet and the Mormon Church) wasn't even enough to cover Medicaid's budget. So if they already get generous tax breaks for charitable giving now, why would they give any more? There's no more room to go when it comes to charitable giving deductions and breaks. We already allow a ton.

FACT: Donations from America's individuals, estates, foundations and corporations reached an estimated $373.25 billion in 2015, setting a record for the second year in a row, reports Giving USA 2016: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2015, released today.Jun 13, 2016

And that $373B includes "charities" like the NYC Ballet and tithing to the Mormon Church. Medicaid's budget last year was $574B. So is $373B > or < $574B?

 

[hazlnut]

Any corp paying 15% taxes doesn't have good lobbyists getting them subsidies and credits.

My accountant told me years ago, corps don't really pay taxes the way individuals do… they are able to offset tax liabilities through depreciation, tax credits, and industry specific tax breaks -- or massive corporate handouts.

Farm subsidies..

Oil, gas, energy subsidies…

Transportation subsidies…

The list of corps and industries with their hand out every year is huge… So much for a "free market"….

And when banks and a major insurance company fucked up so bad they were about to go belly up… We just bailed them out.

Moral Hazard: when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks.

 

[healthmyths]

Any corp paying 15% taxes doesn't have good lobbyists getting them subsidies and credits.

My accountant told me years ago, corps don't really pay taxes the way individuals do… they are able to offset tax liabilities through depreciation, tax credits, and industry specific tax breaks -- or massive corporate handouts.

Farm subsidies..

Oil, gas, energy subsidies…

Transportation subsidies…

The list of corps and industries with their hand out every year is huge… So much for a "free market"….

And when banks and a major insurance company fucked up so bad they were about to go belly up… We just bailed them out.

Moral Hazard: when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks.

Your accountant DIDN"T evidently KNOW that here are the top 20 DEDUCTIONS!!!
NOTE the top two are employee benefits!
health and pension deductions by employer combined over $300 billion in deductions that benefit employees.
Mortgage deductions: common working person deducts.
State/local taxes deductions MOSTLY individuals.
Child credit.

 

[Dragonlady]

The average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%. So if you're keeping all the deductions and loopholes, as this plan does, how are you increasing revenues by lowering the tax rate? Magic trickle-down? Come on. We've been through this already.

There are piles of evidence and examples where reducing taxation on individuals and business stimulates economic growth which increases revenues.
Of course lefties deny this. They do so because left wingers believe all things should funnel through government. They believe that individuals and business cannot be trusted with their own money. They abhor the idea of individual achievement and success. They screech in denial that Americans can indeed work themselves out of poverty and rise the economic ladder
You want dependency on government in order to give democrats a permanent lock on Washington.
And all of the above is why your side keeps losing Federal and State seats.

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact the opposite is true. That's why Reagan increased taxes in the years following his famous rewrite of the tax code.

The only reason revenues appeared to increase after Reagan's tax cuts is that he went on a military spending spree which created a massive deficit. It was the tax revenues created by that deficit spending which goosed revenues. The same can be said for W's tax cuts.

Both Reagan and W were handed a balanced budget with no deficits when they came to power, both cut taxes and both created the largest deficits in American history (to that point). If tax cuts increased revenues, how did these deficits happen?

Right wingers believe all of this shit about cutting taxes that just isn't true. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, they don't increase jobs and they don't increase revenues.

The myth that Reagan created massive numbers of jobs is just that - a myth. Carter created more jobs than Reagan, as did Clinton and Obama. W's economy lost more jobs than it created.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

View attachment 147647

Idiots like you fail to realize that it wasn't the tax cuts that lead to the hiring and the increased tax revenues IT WAS THE INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING which fuelled both job creation and revenues.

GOVOERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES JOBS AND REVENUE, not tax cuts.

 

[healthmyths]

The average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%. So if you're keeping all the deductions and loopholes, as this plan does, how are you increasing revenues by lowering the tax rate? Magic trickle-down? Come on. We've been through this already.

There are piles of evidence and examples where reducing taxation on individuals and business stimulates economic growth which increases revenues.
Of course lefties deny this. They do so because left wingers believe all things should funnel through government. They believe that individuals and business cannot be trusted with their own money. They abhor the idea of individual achievement and success. They screech in denial that Americans can indeed work themselves out of poverty and rise the economic ladder
You want dependency on government in order to give democrats a permanent lock on Washington.
And all of the above is why your side keeps losing Federal and State seats.

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact the opposite is true. That's why Reagan increased taxes in the years following his famous rewrite of the tax code.

The only reason revenues appeared to increase after Reagan's tax cuts is that he went on a military spending spree which created a massive deficit. It was the tax revenues created by that deficit spending which goosed revenues. The same can be said for W's tax cuts.

Both Reagan and W were handed a balanced budget with no deficits when they came to power, both cut taxes and both created the largest deficits in American history (to that point). If tax cuts increased revenues, how did these deficits happen?

Right wingers believe all of this shit about cutting taxes that just isn't true. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, they don't increase jobs and they don't increase revenues.

The myth that Reagan created massive numbers of jobs is just that - a myth. Carter created more jobs than Reagan, as did Clinton and Obama. W's economy lost more jobs than it created.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

View attachment 147647

Idiots like you fail to realize that it wasn't the tax cuts that lead to the hiring and the increased tax revenues IT WAS THE INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING which fuelled both job creation and revenues.

GOVOERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES JOBS AND REVENUE, not tax cuts.

Explain something then.
Assume there was a Federal tax of 100% on everything,i.e. income, profits, dividends, interest...everything. What would happen?

 

[The Derp]

Assume there was a Federal tax of 100% on everything,i.e. income, profits, dividends, interest...everything. What would happen?

No one is calling for that, so stop being a sophist.

 

[Dragonlady]

The average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%. So if you're keeping all the deductions and loopholes, as this plan does, how are you increasing revenues by lowering the tax rate? Magic trickle-down? Come on. We've been through this already.

There are piles of evidence and examples where reducing taxation on individuals and business stimulates economic growth which increases revenues.
Of course lefties deny this. They do so because left wingers believe all things should funnel through government. They believe that individuals and business cannot be trusted with their own money. They abhor the idea of individual achievement and success. They screech in denial that Americans can indeed work themselves out of poverty and rise the economic ladder
You want dependency on government in order to give democrats a permanent lock on Washington.
And all of the above is why your side keeps losing Federal and State seats.

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact the opposite is true. That's why Reagan increased taxes in the years following his famous rewrite of the tax code.

The only reason revenues appeared to increase after Reagan's tax cuts is that he went on a military spending spree which created a massive deficit. It was the tax revenues created by that deficit spending which goosed revenues. The same can be said for W's tax cuts.

Both Reagan and W were handed a balanced budget with no deficits when they came to power, both cut taxes and both created the largest deficits in American history (to that point). If tax cuts increased revenues, how did these deficits happen?

Right wingers believe all of this shit about cutting taxes that just isn't true. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, they don't increase jobs and they don't increase revenues.

The myth that Reagan created massive numbers of jobs is just that - a myth. Carter created more jobs than Reagan, as did Clinton and Obama. W's economy lost more jobs than it created.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

View attachment 147647

Idiots like you fail to realize that it wasn't the tax cuts that lead to the hiring and the increased tax revenues IT WAS THE INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING which fuelled both job creation and revenues.

GOVOERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES JOBS AND REVENUE, not tax cuts.

Explain something then.
Assume there was a Federal tax of 100% on everything,i.e. income, profits, dividends, interest...everything. What would happen?

So what you're saying is that you have no intelligent or thoughtful response so you're going to be an idiot.

You've got nothing. Your surrender is accepted.

 

[healthmyths]

There are piles of evidence and examples where reducing taxation on individuals and business stimulates economic growth which increases revenues.
Of course lefties deny this. They do so because left wingers believe all things should funnel through government. They believe that individuals and business cannot be trusted with their own money. They abhor the idea of individual achievement and success. They screech in denial that Americans can indeed work themselves out of poverty and rise the economic ladder
You want dependency on government in order to give democrats a permanent lock on Washington.
And all of the above is why your side keeps losing Federal and State seats.

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact the opposite is true. That's why Reagan increased taxes in the years following his famous rewrite of the tax code.

The only reason revenues appeared to increase after Reagan's tax cuts is that he went on a military spending spree which created a massive deficit. It was the tax revenues created by that deficit spending which goosed revenues. The same can be said for W's tax cuts.

Both Reagan and W were handed a balanced budget with no deficits when they came to power, both cut taxes and both created the largest deficits in American history (to that point). If tax cuts increased revenues, how did these deficits happen?

Right wingers believe all of this shit about cutting taxes that just isn't true. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, they don't increase jobs and they don't increase revenues.

The myth that Reagan created massive numbers of jobs is just that - a myth. Carter created more jobs than Reagan, as did Clinton and Obama. W's economy lost more jobs than it created.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

View attachment 147647

Idiots like you fail to realize that it wasn't the tax cuts that lead to the hiring and the increased tax revenues IT WAS THE INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING which fuelled both job creation and revenues.

GOVOERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES JOBS AND REVENUE, not tax cuts.

Explain something then.
Assume there was a Federal tax of 100% on everything,i.e. income, profits, dividends, interest...everything. What would happen?

So what you're saying is that you have no intelligent or thoughtful response so you're going to be an idiot.

You've got nothing. Your surrender is accepted.

You've given up because YOU insist that the evil wealthy people want tax cuts!
OK so let's make EVERYONE pay 100% income tax!
See dragonlady... your ignorance of economics is similar to this joke...
Dragon lady who looked like a "hooker" was approached by a man who said "hmmm... would you go to bed with me for $20 dollars"
Dragon lady hurumphed and greatly offended responds "what kind of woman to you think I am?"
The man: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price."
But in case you don't get the joke on you... You ***** and moan about tax cuts... OK so let's raise the tax rate to say 100%!
I'm just asking you for your considerable expertise in taxation of those filthy reach people why not 100%???

 

[The Derp]

You've given up because YOU insist that the evil wealthy people want tax cuts!

Of course they want tax cuts...that's why they're sticking with Trump despite his obvious racism and corruption. Which makes the Republicans using Trump to advance their pathetic agenda complicit in everything Trump does. So if Trump goes down, he takes all Conservatives down with him.

OK so let's make EVERYONE pay 100% income tax!

The only one proposing that is you.

You ***** and moan about tax cuts... OK so let's raise the tax rate to say 100%!

Why did you choose 100%? Why not 50% or 75%? You know, what most economists say the top tax rate should be.

 

[healthmyths]

See the "dragonlady" of that ignorant realm just don't understand that the pursuit of "profit" is NOT evil!
She and her ilk are just plain dumb when it comes to economics and how the market works and why capitalism depends on "profits"!
She like her fellow lemmings simple hear/read something and then blab it on without thinking!
For example..."evil wealthy people want tax cuts". And I'm asking her then what percentage is acceptable...100%... 90%... 70%? What would she
want the "evil" wealthy people to pay? Dragnonlady and her ilk evidently don't know that major companies like Apple have moved nearly $3 trillion off shore
because the USA's onerous corporate tax rate is 3rd highest in the world. And they would be paying that if they didn't move the money offshore... so they
don't pay 35%!
But of course ignorant people like Dragonlady didn't even know that much less the reason why and then being as STUPID as Obama... raise the rate even higher
penalizing more and in doing so driving more companies to offshore their cash!
DUMB DUMB DUMB!

 

[The Derp]

She and her ilk are just plain dumb when it comes to economics and how the market works and why capitalism depends on "profits"!

Capitalism depends on socialism. Conservative fiscal policy depends on welfare.

For example..."evil wealthy people want tax cuts". And I'm asking her then what percentage is acceptable...100%... 90%... 70%?

First of all, that's not what you were asking. You were asking why not raise it to 100%. No one other than you has called for that. Secondly, many economists agree that the top tax rate should be between 50-70%. 90% was the top rate when America was "great". So if you want to make America great again, does that include going back to the tax rates that existed when America was great?????

want the "evil" wealthy people to pay? Dragnonlady and her ilk evidently don't know that major companies like Apple have moved nearly $3 trillion off shore because the USA's onerous corporate tax rate is 3rd highest in the world. And they would be paying that if they didn't move the money offshore... so they don't pay 35%!

Because of all the deductions, Apple never would pay 35%. In fact, most corporations -if not all- don't pay the 35% rate. If they do, then they have shitty accountants that work for them. Secondly, we tried a tax repatriation holiday back in 2004 and it didn't work. So if it didn't work in 2004, why would it work again now? Magic?

 

[healthmyths]

You've given up because YOU insist that the evil wealthy people want tax cuts!

Of course they want tax cuts...that's why they're sticking with Trump despite his obvious racism and corruption. Which makes the Republicans using Trump to advance their pathetic agenda complicit in everything Trump does. So if Trump goes down, he takes all Conservatives down with him.

OK so let's make EVERYONE pay 100% income tax!

The only one proposing that is you.

You ***** and moan about tax cuts... OK so let's raise the tax rate to say 100%!

Why did you choose 100%? Why not 50% or 75%? You know, what most economists say the top tax rate should be.

Yes... what it was after WWII when there was a war going on!
In 1946, the highest-bracket rate was cut to 86.45% from 94%.
But the vast majority of you anti-capitalist, socialist believe what your Krugmans,Keynesians believe versus a smaller number of logical rational economists
like Art Laffer believe in free enterprise or at least a modicum of freer then the above!
And the problem is you guys look at the Federal government as the measurement!
When in reality EVERY depression/recession happens because idiot anti-capitalists like you insist on more rules and regulations. More government interference.
You just think you know better then everyone else!

 

[The Derp]

Yes... what it was after WWII when there was a war going on!

The top rate of 90% was the rate until 1963, when it was lowered to 70%. If you want to return to a 70% top tax rate, I'm fine with that.

In 1946, the highest-bracket rate was cut to 86.45% from 94%.

And then back up to 90% in the 50's, where it stayed until going to 70% in the mid-60's.

Yut the vast majority of you anti-capitalist, socialist believe what your Krugmans,Keynesians believe versus a smaller number of logical rational economists
like Art Laffer believe in free enterprise or at least a modicum of freer then the above!

Laffer is a fraud who was driven out of Kansas after his grand experiment in trickle-down economics failed. It failed so hard that Republicans in the state voted to repeal tax cuts, and overrode Brownback's veto. No one's heard from Laffer since.

And the problem is you guys look at the Federal government as the measurement!
When in reality EVERY depression/recession happens because idiot anti-capitalists like you insist on more rules and regulations. More government interference.
You just think you know better then everyone else!

Wrong. Depressions and recessions occur because Conservatives deregulate the economy which creates bubbles. We saw it with S&L's in the 80's, dotcoms in the 90's, and housing in the 00's.

 

[The Derp]

You just think you know better then everyone else!

I know better than you, that's for fuckin' sure.