You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The comedy act that they call a tax cut.
- Thread starter jbander
- Start date
Like I said Brain dead. CFM has said nothing that can be supported by anything other then the hate gibberish that comes from the other haters mouth. They are such puppets that they are able to be controlled 100% by one string , This clown is a one string puppet.
I suspected you'd use one of the other go to cut/paste answer you leftwing idiots typically throw out. I'm disappointed. I figured you as a more formidable foe. You turned out to be yet another NL, leftwing motherfucker like the other guy, whatever that POS name is.
Wrong? The New Republic article repeats exactly what I said--that tax rates have little to do with government revenue. Using a chart numbering 0-100 is not the point. Using government data (see the annual budget for historical data).
Federal Income Tax Revenue as a Percent of GDP
1950: 5.6%
1951: 6.6%
1952: 7.8
1953: 7.8
1954: 7.6
1955: 7.1
1956: 7.3
1957: 7.7
1958: 7.3
1959: 7.3
Avg: 7.21%
2010: 6.1
2011: 9.3
2012: 7.1
2013: 8.0
2014: 8.1
2015: 8.7
2016: 8.8
2017: 9.3
Avg 8.1%
So, the 91% marginal tax rate in the 1950's raised an average 7.21% revenue as a percent of GDP while the 39% tax rate 2010-2017 raised an average of 8.1% revenue.
Use government data and do the math yourself--not some (liberal) magazine article.
In the 1950's there was no Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPs (so millions of people were obviously dying in the streets), food stamps, poverty programs, EITC, child tax credit, grants and loans for college students, federal aid to education, etc.
A relatively small proportion of people were on Social Security and benefits did not include disability (until 1956) or early retirement (until 1956 for women and 1961 for men), or COLAs.
So the wonderful 1950s included almost none of the social programs many think are so essential today and had less government revenue with higher tax rates. And segregation. Good times.
A relatively small proportion of people were on Social Security and benefits did not include disability (until 1956) or early retirement (until 1956 for women and 1961 for men), or COLAs.
So the wonderful 1950s included almost none of the social programs many think are so essential today and had less government revenue with higher tax rates. And segregation. Good times.
Grover would be irrelevant if the Republicans were not on that specific agenda. Bannon and Trump embraced it. Ryan, the so called brains of the Republican party says it loud and clear. Ryan said that next is to slash or end Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. McConnell did too.
The tax rates were constantly slashed from Ikes time. Guess who made out.
Like the estate tax. That was put in by Teddy Roosevelt who was concerned that money passed on through the ages was a threat to the American experiment. Now the Repubs are destroying that. There will be families of incredible wealth and power building up more power and wealth over time. The plutocracy is being installed by the Republicans. Very patriotic.
The tax rates were constantly slashed from Ikes time. Guess who made out.
Like the estate tax. That was put in by Teddy Roosevelt who was concerned that money passed on through the ages was a threat to the American experiment. Now the Repubs are destroying that. There will be families of incredible wealth and power building up more power and wealth over time. The plutocracy is being installed by the Republicans. Very patriotic.
Wrong? The New Republic article repeats exactly what I said--that tax rates have little to do with government revenue.
There's what you say it said. And there's what it said.
"As you can see, the swings are fairly dramatic. De Rugy's chart purports to show that reducing the top marginal tax rate produced no real change in revenue. But of course the first Reagan tax cuts in 1981 caused revenue to plummet. The top marginal tax rate was also reduced in 1986, but that was accompanied by equally large reductions in tax expenditures, and the whole reform was not designed to reduce revenue.
Meanwhile, the tax hikes by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton -- which supply-siders claimed would not increase revenue -- were followed by a massive spike in revenue. And then the tax cuts by George W. Bush -- which supply-siders claimed would not reduced revenue by very much -- were followed by a massive, 5% of GDP drop in revenue"
And segregation. Good times.
How is segregation 'good times'?
Grover would be irrelevant if the Republicans were not on that specific agenda. Bannon and Trump embraced it. Ryan, the so called brains of the Republican party says it loud and clear. Ryan said that next is to slash or end Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. McConnell did too.
The tax rates were constantly slashed from Ikes time. Guess who made out.
Like the estate tax. That was put in by Teddy Roosevelt who was concerned that money passed on through the ages was a threat to the American experiment. Now the Repubs are destroying that. There will be families of incredible wealth and power building up more power and wealth over time. The plutocracy is being installed by the Republicans. Very patriotic.
Republicans have ALWAYS been the party of plutocracy since the gilded age in the late 1800's, except a brief time part of the party became the original progressive movement in response to the plutocracy. That's how we got the income tax, elected Senate, etc.
I said they didn't pay that much. thanks for telling me exactly what i said. Otherwise I would not know it.
I have no idea who you are talking to.
There's what you say it said. And there's what it said.
"As you can see, the swings are fairly dramatic. De Rugy's chart purports to show that reducing the top marginal tax rate produced no real change in revenue. But of course the first Reagan tax cuts in 1981 caused revenue to plummet. The top marginal tax rate was also reduced in 1986, but that was accompanied by equally large reductions in tax expenditures, and the whole reform was not designed to reduce revenue.
Meanwhile, the tax hikes by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton -- which supply-siders claimed would not increase revenue -- were followed by a massive spike in revenue. And then the tax cuts by George W. Bush -- which supply-siders claimed would not reduced revenue by very much -- were followed by a massive, 5% of GDP drop in revenue"
Those Reagan tax cuts in 1981 that caused "revenue to plummet" still brought in more revenue as a percent of GDP every year than the 91% tax rates during the 1950s (8.16% vs. 7.21%). The "massive spike in revenue" during the H. W. Bush years averaged 7.75%--less than the Reagan years.
Those Reagan tax cuts in 1981 that caused "revenue to plummet" still brought in more revenue as a percent of GDP every year than the 91% tax rates during the 1950s (8.16% vs. 7.21%). The "massive spike in revenue" during the H. W. Bush years averaged 7.75%--less than the Reagan years.
Comparing their effect to the same period is apples and apples. Now answer this - what has happened as the income distribution and tax burden has shifted:
http://www.northeastern.edu/econsociety/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Income.png
And to help you better understand the situation where the top 1% will get 83% of the recent $5 trillion tax bill redistribution, answer this:
https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/01-income-distribution.jpg?w=1000
Comparing their effect to the same period is apples and apples. Now answer this - what has happened as the income distribution and tax burden has shifted:
http://www.northeastern.edu/econsociety/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Income.png
And to help you better understand the situation where the top 1% will get 83% of the recent $5 trillion tax bill redistribution, answer this:
https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/01-income-distribution.jpg?w=1000
The tax burden has increasingly shifted to the upper income. The lower tax rates do not account for the inequality in income distribution because most of that increase is before tax income.
Trumps tax puts 83 percent of the cut in the upper classes. The tax breaks since Reagan have gone to the top. The tax breaks are a redistribution to the wealthy, who do not need it. They are a huge factor in wealth inequality. They derive a lot of the money that goes to corporation too. They get the huge bonuses and salaries. they get advantage from the stock buybacks the companies are doing. They get a huge percentage of the dividend money. Everything in the tax bill is for the plutocrats.
Last edited:
The tax burden has increasingly shifted to the upper income. The lower tax rates do not account for the inequality in income distribution because most of that increase is before tax income.
Far LESS than their share of income has increased. This is the dropping share of corporate taxes BEFORE the slashing of their tax rate by nearly 1/2 this month: https://www.ocpp.org/media/uploads/images/2016/20160629-corp-share-of-income-tax-shrunk_med.png
Trumps tax puts 83 percent of the cut in the upper classes.
The top 1%.
The top 1%.
Let me guess, you think those not paying any income taxes should get a tax cut.
Trumps tax puts 83 percent of the cut in the upper classes. The tax breaks since Reagan have gone to the top. The tax breaks are a redistribution to the wealthy, who do not need it. They are a huge factor in wealth inequality. They derive a lot of the money that goes to corporation too. They get the huge bonuses and salaries. they get advantage from the stock buybacks the companies are doing. They get a huge percentage of the dividend money. Everything in the tax bill is for the plutocrats.
You made the prime mistake most Liberals make. You think it's your place to determine what someone else does and does not need. When you do that, anything else you say it automatically invalidated.