Democrats Finally Stop Lying About the Rich "Not Paying Their Fair Share"
- Thread starter artichoke
- Start date
Or, you could look at government budget data rather than spouting off about something you know nothing about.
They beat each other to death with screwball stereotypes and assumptions.
I'm pretty sure the premise of the thread was about the how phony Democrats are and that they now reverse their arguments against tax deductions that benefit the rich. If you removed your head from your asshole, you could comprehend the OBVIOUS. Again, whether or not it is in the article the statement "worth just dollars to the American taxpayer" is moronic.
What is equally moronic is the claim that "red states" benefit MORE from Federal tax dollars than BLUE states.
Are Red States Tax Takers And Blue States Tax Makers?
The idea of a Blue America and a Red America is a dangerous one, but it is a tempting weapon to yield for a politician who wants to rally his base. State governments like California’s use these figures to justify their own righteousness and demand that, as net “donors” to the American republic, they be given more deference, and more power. (Even in that chart, note that the top donor state is red and the top recipient is blue).
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-tax-makers/
Wrong; it isn't resorting to personal insults you low IQ dunce; you really are a low IQ dunce. You gonna cry now?
Althea
Althea told me...........
Go ahead. Make your case with data. It didn't work when Reagan did it, or when Bush did it. If you have a corresponding boost to the economy, then you will yield more revenue. As well, cuts with corresponding loophole closures might bring more revenue, but is that really a tax cut?
When cap gains taxation became much more profitable than paying income taxes, many turned to the market for income. So an inflated market that benefited few, accounted for high Fed. revenues. Pretty soon, tax codes were skewed so far to the higher earners, our current economic state was invented.
I did not say tax cuts increased revenue, I said when rates were very high (70-90%) less revenue was raised as a percent of GDP than later when rates were much lower.
Year Revenue as % of GDP Top Tax Rate
1950 14.1% 91%
1955 16.1% 91%
1960 17.3% 91%
1965 16.4% 70%
1970 18.4% 70%
1990 17.4% 28%
2000 20.0% 39.6%
2015 18.2% 39.6%
As you can see, the years with the highest tax rates (91%) raised less revenue than lower rates. I do not agree Americans were better off economically in the 1950's-1960's with the higher tax rates. I grew up during that period and would never trade it for today.
You said it "didn't work" when Reagan or Bush did it, but revenues did increase during those years. I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to the tax cut as much as the fact that revenues almost always increase.
Reagan ($600-909)
1981 $599,272
1982 $617,766
1983 $600,562
1984 $666,438
1985 $734,037
1986 $769,155
1987 $854,287
1988 $909,238
Bush ($1.9-2.5)
2001 $1,991,082
2002 $1,853,136
2003 1,782,314
2004 $1,880,114
2005 $2,153,611
2006 $2,406,869
2007 $2,567,985
2008 $2,523,991
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
We should tax people like you more.
Your entire counterpoint boils down to: "Not really" with zero facts or evidence.
Says the CNN viewer.
*And notice, all ad hominem fallacies, smears, and posturing with zero refutation of the facts presented* <=== How you know the "debater" has no counterpoint. And no, being relentlessly smeared by left-wing propaganda outlets as propaganda doesn't make one propaganda. Quite the opposite, really.
Try again.
Again, avoid the argument while offering nothing but off-topic smears to try and disqualify the other side from speaking, rather than actually debating. The signature of a posturing demagogue.
Try again.
Says the guy hurling harmless grade school smears (unable to produce an intelligent counterpoint).
Last edited:
Translation: Noticing that every liberal policy betrays those liberals pretend to care about in order to protect Democrat power makes you some kind of slave to the rich.
"Whining" about being utterly raked over the coals for Democrat greed.
Don't continuously impose policies that bankrupt, impoverish, and enslave anyone who dares to succeed and then cry when they fight back.
When we're talking about taxes, they don't bankrupt, impoverish, or enslave the rich. They merely diminish the magnitude of the reward the rich harvest. And given the shape of the income curve in this country, the rich still wind up with a vastly disproportionate incentive to succeed.
For example, consider the following thought experiment. Imagine you're currently earning an income that puts you at the 40th percentile, and further imagine you bust your butt to move up, and in the process pass by 10% of the population, such that your income is now at the 50th percentile.
With me so far? Now repeat the same analysis, but this time you start at the 89th percentile and move to the 99th.
Calculate your monetary reward for the extra effort to move up past the exact same number of people in each case. Now, apply our tax code to it (such that a bigger bite gets taken out of the second person's gains than the first, since the system is progressive). Even with that progressive system, won't the reward for extra effort be VASTLY greater in the second example than the first? That extra tax won't bankrupt, enslave, or impoverish the second person. It'll just somewhat diminish the outlandish magnitude of his reward.
Standard leftist economic illiteracy on full display. Thanks for demonstrating.
Let me know if you can think of a counter-argument.
Translation:
1) Oneuli claims that taxing people more doesn't increase their poverty and make them less independent (this is literally basic Kindergarten math)
2) Arminius shows that what happens under high taxation always makes people poorer and more dependent.
3) Oneuli claims that no counterpoint has been made.
No, showing exactly what's wrong with your logic in no way constitutes not offering a counterpoint. Duh.
Try again. lol
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
I think many of us know about the Powell Memorandum and the societal economic re-rigging undertaken in the early 1970s.
Which data are you referring to?
From 1951 - 1979 Personal and Corporate income taxes as % of GDP was never once below 10%
From 2000-2016 Personal and Corporate income taxes as % of GDP was below 10% for 11 years.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2018-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2018-TAB.pdf
Table 2.3
Government revenues may have increased as a % of GDP but it was because of the increase in SS taxes which went from 2-3% of GDP to over 6%.
Lowering the income tax rates didn't create more revenue. Raising the FICA tax rates did.
From 1951 - 1979 Personal and Corporate income taxes as % of GDP was never once below 10%
From 2000-2016 Personal and Corporate income taxes as % of GDP was below 10% for 11 years.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2018-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2018-TAB.pdf
Table 2.3
Government revenues may have increased as a % of GDP but it was because of the increase in SS taxes which went from 2-3% of GDP to over 6%.
Lowering the income tax rates didn't create more revenue. Raising the FICA tax rates did.
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
From JFK To Bush, Treasury Swelled After Tax Cuts
John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan Proved Tax Cuts Work
It's Official: Trump Tax Cuts Are Boosting Growth And Mostly Paying For Themselves
BOOM: American Companies Rain Down Cash Employees Response To Trump Tax Cuts
From JFK To Bush, Treasury Swelled After Tax Cuts
John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan Proved Tax Cuts Work
It's Official: Trump Tax Cuts Are Boosting Growth And Mostly Paying For Themselves
BOOM: American Companies Rain Down Cash Employees Response To Trump Tax Cuts