Ironically for you; cutting taxes never resulted in lower revenue. But morons like you still farcically believe that we have a Revenue problem instead of a spending problem.
I attribute that to your extremely low IQ and lack of a formal education.
An idea for bipartisan tax reform
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Ironically for you; cutting taxes never resulted in lower revenue. But morons like you still farcically believe that we have a Revenue problem instead of a spending problem.
I attribute that to your extremely low IQ and lack of a formal education.
This is a tiny, race hustling brain on moron; don't be one. 
Getin the ring
Verified User
When Democrats have a "tax plan" it means raise my taxes,
where as when Republicans have a "tax plan", it means lowering my taxes.
So no Thanks, not interested in anything even closely resembling the Democrats idea of bi-partisan
where as when Republicans have a "tax plan", it means lowering my taxes.
So no Thanks, not interested in anything even closely resembling the Democrats idea of bi-partisan
No one here believes you have a job.
No, it means higher deficits and no economic growth.
Conservatives said their tax cut would increase wages by at least $4,000.
It didn't.
Yet, isn't it presumptuous for you to take the posture of the teacher? I think you'd do better to simply make your point, if you have one to make, rather than to ask for information and then, when educated on the topic, claim you knew it all along.
The top marginal rate is an important consideration in a nation where the top 1% of earners have been running away from the rest. It's not the full story, but it's a remarkably important aspect of the story and there's nothing even a little disingenuous about focusing there.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
But you either deliberately leave out the other rates or are unaware of them. Either way you only talk about the top rate in isolation. Why is that?
Do you have an academic paper that proves that ONLY the top marginal rates were what caused the prosperity you claim?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
I am constantly having to educate uninformed leftists so not presumptuous at all
And yes it is disingenuous as it deliberately paints a false picture.
So is this the part where you screech about the effective rate and how it's not wildly different than it is today? Because that's a tenuous argument to make, given the fact that even nominal changes to the effective rate can lead to larger revenues (and vice versa).
Another metric to look at would be what the corporate effective rate was vs. what it is now.
We're not.
You're trying to foist that straw man on us.
So, again, what would you have us look at if not the marginal rates? How about the Corporate Effective Tax Rate? How much has that changed since the 1950's?
No one has made that claim.
What we've said is that high marginal tax rates result in increased revenues which are then spent on things like infrastructure, education, and health care. When that happens, it frees up more money in your own pocket that you can spend in the consumer economy. The more you have to spend on health care, the less you have to spend on consumer goods. And the consumer economy represents 70% of our economy. Health care represents only 16%.
1. When you're an ignoramus, you're not educating anyone...you're spamming.
2. You don't actually have a coherent position that you can articulate or "teach".
3. You're the one having to play catch-up to everyone else here.
OK...so what was the Corporate Effective Tax Rate in the 1950's vs. what is the Corporate Effective Tax Rate today?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Seems you are the one changing topics. I am merely pointing out that it is disingenuous to try to compare tax codes from previous decades particularly when you only cherry pick one rate.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
You haven't established on what grounds you'd like to debate.
All you do is whine that it's unfair that we show metrics that undermine your argument.
You screeched about the effective rate, but you did so in a vacuum since you neglected to mention the corporate effective rate and how it's changed over time as taxes have been cut.
So why did you not talk about the corporate effective rate? Simple; because the corporate effective rate was much, much higher in the 1950's than it is today....and that just ruins your argument that we need to cut taxes for business.
So then when you whine about how we invoke high marginal tax rates in a vacuum, you're being a hypocrite since you're ignoring large segments of revenue.
What a loser.
Kill yourself.
WTF?
This makes no sense.
So it's unfair to you when we look back on previous tax rates because doing so undermines whatever stupid argument you're trying to make today.
Got it.
Of course you think that...because it's simplistic and you're a simpleton.
The corporate effective tax rate was much higher in the 50's and 60's than it is today, and even with those higher rates, we still prospered as a society. So your chief argument, that corporations shouldn't be taxed, is disproved by the economic data from the period when they prospered and had higher effective rates.
What a fucking idiot.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Slow your roll shit for brains. Go find this post of mine talking about the effective rate
No, no. You don't get to Bush-Off yourself now. You're the one who cried that it was unfair for us to look at marginal rates. So...what rates would you have us look at?
Obviously, it is the argument you're making. What makes you think it isn't the argument you were making?