Republicans have no answer to this simple chart

Tax programs are a way to redistribute money. the Repubs always move money to the wealthy and corporations. The very people, who do not need it. The result is a suppression of demand., It will eventually harm the economy and threaten the American system.

If we increased the min. wage and made the lower half thrive, eventually we would have a far more powerful economy. Demand is what creates hiring. Corporations are enjoying the highest profits of all time. Wages are stagnant. Any idea where that money went? The wealth gap is worse than it was during the Gilded Age.
 
evince said:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?...ges&qpvt=chart+of+ceo+pay+and+wages&FORM=IGRE
look at when the CEOs started raping companies for everything they could get
Click to expand...

Exactly.

TQOaauQ.png


Source: http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/ceo-pay-ratio-2016/
 
Right said:
How does taxing the rich advantage the poor?
Click to expand...

It provides money to the government coffers, enabling paying for an infrastructure, better schools and healthcare. When Eisenhower was president, corporations paid 30 percent of the revenue the government took in. The top individual rate was 90 percent. Our schools were the envy of the world. We build the interstate highway system. Now we cannot even repair it. Taxing the wealthy helps the health of the nation. It made us the top country in the world.
 
cawacko said:
I didn't realize geo-political events (a deveastated continent of Europe and Japan post WWII, China under Mao and the struggles in India), globalization and technology were just excuses and not facts.
Click to expand...

Look at the chart, and the radical change from a near 100% correlation between productivity and wages to the flat line on wages at the same time as the Reagan tax cuts. You're speaking nonsense if not being dishonest to cite the other topics.
 
cawacko said:
So based on the subject heading and responses in this thread the Democratic belief is if we kept taxes at WWII level we would have had the same economic success we've had over the past 70 years but there wouldn't be the inequality we have today regardless of geo-politics, automation and globalization.

It calls for the "Are you serious Clark?" gif.
Click to expand...

No, the WWII rates were higher for things like WWII, which is why Kennedy (not the Republicans in the 1950's who controlled all the branches) lowered them. THOSE rates - in place until Reagan - are what we need.

But I'd also be interested in a 'maximum income' tax so that income a huge amount is taxed at or near 100%, as FDR suggested.
 
Craig234 said:
Look at the chart, and the radical change from a near 100% correlation between productivity and wages to the flat line on wages at the same time as the Reagan tax cuts. You're speaking nonsense if not being dishonest to cite the other topics.
Click to expand...

LOL. So it was Reagan's tax cuts signed in 1981 that caused the line to diverge around 1972? Those are some pretty damn powerful tax cuts!
 
Kacper said:
I am not a republican but you are ignoring that this gap started with the enactment of the earned income tax credit and has been widening as that program has expanded and more credits have been piled onto the heap that remove wage pressures by shifting the costs onto the government. It isn't simply a tax cut phenomenon. The democrats have been 100% on-board subsidizing wages, and it why union membership has significantly declined--no need to join a union when the democrats are there to make you more comfortably poor.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much all just wrong. EITC has nothing to do with this IMO, and Democrats are doing no such thing. Why are so many people so deluded about the issues of wages and plutocracy? It's like your programmed.
 
Craig234 said:
No, the WWII rates were higher for things like WWII, which is why Kennedy (not the Republicans in the 1950's who controlled all the branches) lowered them. THOSE rates - in place until Reagan - are what we need.

But I'd also be interested in a 'maximum income' tax so that income a huge amount is taxed at or near 100%, as FDR suggested.
Click to expand...

It's the internet. You can suggest anything on here. So sure let's have 90% rates with no loopholes and 100% tax rates on anything over $1 million. That sounds fair.

(And now you're complaining that Republicans didn't cut taxes?)
 
Craig234 said:
No, the WWII rates were higher for things like WWII, which is why Kennedy (not the Republicans in the 1950's who controlled all the branches) lowered them. THOSE rates - in place until Reagan - are what we need.

But I'd also be interested in a 'maximum income' tax so that income a huge amount is taxed at or near 100%, as FDR suggested.
Click to expand...

FYI, Democrats controlled the House and Senate the last six years of Eisenhower's administration. I'm not sure about the first two years. So please stop lying
 
cawacko said:
So it has nothing to do with the global economy, technological advances etc. it's simply a matter of tax cuts?
Click to expand...

It is more complicated, but if you can't understand the importance of the tax cuts for the rich, why waste time adding additional topics?

There's a larger shift of power to the rich that all contributes to this. Another important topic is the reduction in the power of unions and workers.

A rising tide doesn't lift all boats when the big ships figure out how to take the tide for themselves.

Here's an article discussing the issue more about the union issue. But none of this means the right has any answer to any of it except to cheer the wealth moving from the workers to the rich.

http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump
 
cawacko said:
FYI, Democrats controlled the House and Senate the last six years of Eisenhower's administration. I'm not sure about the first two years. So please stop lying
Click to expand...

You're the one lying. Republicans held all three branches for two years - and as I said, during the 50's - and did nothing to change the rates. I didn't say they held them the entire decade. You're lying to claim I said that.
 
cawacko said:
It's the internet. You can suggest anything on here. So sure let's have 90% rates with no loopholes and 100% tax rates on anything over $1 million. That sounds fair.
Click to expand...

Idiotic, and expected.

(And now you're complaining that Republicans didn't cut taxes?)
Click to expand...

No, I pointed it out as an interesting historical fact, I didn't complain.
 
Craig234 said:
It is more complicated, but if you can't understand the importance of the tax cuts for the rich, why waste time adding additional topics?

There's a larger shift of power to the rich that all contributes to this. Another important topic is the reduction in the power of unions and workers.

A rising tide doesn't lift all boats when the big ships figure out how to take the tide for themselves.

Here's an article discussing the issue more about the union issue. But none of this means the right has any answer to any of it except to cheer the wealth moving from the workers to the rich.

http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump
Click to expand...

Once again feel free not to talk to me. I'm sorry if you don't understand how automation, globalization and technology changed the U.S.'s economy. In a global economy private sector unions have less control.

You're so focused on partisanship you are missing the forest for the trees.
 
Craig234 said:
This chart summarizes the economic history of the US workers since the Republican tax cuts for the rich, showing how it began giving all new economic growth in the rich for decades now, causing our record inequality.

http://www.delawareliberal.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/productivity.png
Click to expand...

It looks like compensation began dropping under Nixon (who raised capital gains taxes), Reagan, Bush (41), and Clinton and increased above 100% after the Bush tax cuts. The chart shows hourly compensation--I don't see any reference to economic growth for the rich.
 
cawacko said:
Once again feel free not to talk to me. I'm sorry if you don't understand how automation, globalization and technology changed the U.S.'s economy. In a global economy private sector unions have less control.

You're so focused on partisanship you are missing the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

You're blathering your ignorance.

And the irony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top