What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

[LV426]

So a person who made $100,000 got to keep $100? gotcha.

Do you...do you think the 90% rate applied to all income?

Didn't the 90% rate apply to income over a certain amount?

So we can't have an honest conversation about taxation because you don't even understand it.

 

[Boris The Animal]

Exactly, you're anti-social.

So you do a lot of whining and posturing about individualism, but like my house cat, you're completely dependent on others to survive.

No, I am not. Moron!

 

[Irish]

You're the ones who cut taxes, add loopholes, like you just did 12 months ago with your Russia Tax Cut.

So you deliberately reduce revenue to force budget deficits that you use as an excuse to cut the spending you're ideologically opposed to, but lack the support, will, and courage to repeal through conventional legislation, for the sole purpose of causing punitive harm on those you sanctimoniously judge.

That's fiscal terrorism.

You're an idiot.

 

[Boris The Animal]

Do you...do you think the 90% rate applied to all income?

Didn't the 90% rate apply to income over a certain amount?

So we can't have an honest conversation about taxation because you don't even understand it.

Doesn't matter. High taxation ALWAYS stifles private sector businesses. Look at the most business unfriendly states and check out their tax rates.

 

[LV426]

You're an idiot.

You fly planes of tax cuts into the budget, then scream about the inevitable deficit you manufactured and pose the only way to address this problem your policy created is to extract harm and inflict punitive cuts on those you sanctimoniously judge.

You're a total fraud. I see right through you.

 

[LV426]

Doesn't matter.

It certainly does matter because it's consequential to your argument.

You actually believe it's a straight 90% and not 90% on income over a certain amount.

Progressive Taxation is a concept you seem incapable of understanding.

High taxation ALWAYS stifles private sector businesses.

The 1950's saw unprecedented private sector growth with a top tax rate of 90%.

How do you explain that?

What proof do you have of this, beyond just your "gut feeling", which is the same "gut feeling" that led you to vote for Trump?

Your instincts, character, and judgment are for shit.

Look at the most business unfriendly states and check out their tax rates.

Since that's a purely subjective thing, I'm not sure what argument you think you're making.

 

[Irish Exit]

We didn't have a spending problem 20 years ago when we had budget surpluses.

Then Conservatives cut taxes, then the budget surpluses vanished and were replaced by record deficits.

So now you're trying to tell us that after you cut taxes, which erased the surpluses and produced record deficits, that spending is the problem.

We had a slight surplus at a time when the world having nothing to do with the US also was seeing significant revenue increases due to the internet revolution. The dot com bubble burst almost 20 years ago. Stop living in the Good Old Days, Speaker Gingrich.

 

[tff]

So you think by taxing the wealthy into poverty would accomplish anything?

What does flattering yourself accomplish? The Republican posters on this board are largely egomaniacs...whose main purpose here is to glorify themselves....not make America better.

 

[LV426]

We had a slight surplus at a tim

So we did have a surplus even with the spending levels we had...and that surplus in 2000 wasn't slight, the $256B surplus in 2000 was the largest surplus ever.

So you're conceding that the tax rates during Clinton, where the top rate was 39.6%, did produce a record high surplus.

So why are you trying to argue otherwise?

the world having nothing to do with the US also was seeing significant revenue increases due to the internet revolution.

Ah yes, the dotcom bubble.

A bubble that was caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut, that ultimately popped and created a recession.

So you've done two bad things for yourself here; you've admitted that higher tax rates doesn't harm growth or expand deficits, and that cutting taxes causes economic turmoil, like it did when the Capital Gains tax rate was cut.

he dot com bubble burst almost 20 years ago.

Do you know why the bubble appeared in the first place?

Simple; Capital Gains Tax Cuts created volatility in the market, and that market collapsed because of the turmoil caused by those tax cuts.

Stop living in the Good Old Days, Speaker Gingrich.

Newt was out by the time the dotcom bubble started, so he gets no credit for that, nor does he get any credit for the surpluses which only appeared because of higher taxes...higher taxes that you Conservatives said, at the time, would be bad and lead to larger deficits.

You were wrong then, so why would you be right today?

 

[Irish Exit]

So we did have a surplus even with the spending levels we had...and that surplus in 2000 wasn't slight, the $256B surplus in 2000 was the largest surplus ever.

So you're conceding that the tax rates during Clinton, where the top rate was 39.6%, did produce a record high surplus.

So why are you trying to argue otherwise?




Ah yes, the dotcom bubble.

A bubble that was caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut, that ultimately popped and created a recession.

So you've done two bad things for yourself here; you've admitted that higher tax rates doesn't harm growth or expand deficits, and that cutting taxes causes economic turmoil, like it did when the Capital Gains tax rate was cut.





Do you know why the bubble appeared in the first place?

Simple; Capital Gains Tax Cuts created volatility in the market, and that market collapsed because of the turmoil caused by those tax cuts.




Newt was out by the time the dotcom bubble started, so he gets no credit for that, nor does he get any credit for the surpluses which only appeared because of higher taxes...higher taxes that you Conservatives said, at the time, would be bad and lead to larger deficits.

You were wrong then, so why would you be right today?

What I "have admitted" is the US policy, tax or otherwise, had zero to do with 5 minutes of the Clinton surplus, and in addition, if you want to be honest, which you won't be, you would have to acknowledge that the surplus was gone under Clinton's last budget and the recession was underway before George Bush was sworn in.

 

[Getin the ring]

So we did have a surplus even with the spending levels we had...and that surplus in 2000 wasn't slight, the $256B surplus in 2000 was the largest surplus ever.

So you're conceding that the tax rates during Clinton, where the top rate was 39.6%, did produce a record high surplus.

So why are you trying to argue otherwise?




Ah yes, the dotcom bubble.

A bubble that was caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut, that ultimately popped and created a recession.

So you've done two bad things for yourself here; you've admitted that higher tax rates doesn't harm growth or expand deficits, and that cutting taxes causes economic turmoil, like it did when the Capital Gains tax rate was cut.





Do you know why the bubble appeared in the first place?

Simple; Capital Gains Tax Cuts created volatility in the market, and that market collapsed because of the turmoil caused by those tax cuts.




Newt was out by the time the dotcom bubble started, so he gets no credit for that, nor does he get any credit for the surpluses which only appeared because of higher taxes...higher taxes that you Conservatives said, at the time, would be bad and lead to larger deficits.

You were wrong then, so why would you be right today?

you are dumb a s a rock aren't you

 

[Nordberg]

No, I am not. Moron!

If you think all income was hit with a 90 percent tax in Ike's time, you are a moron. It was the top tax rate that nobody reached. They had deduction then too. But the point is wealthy and corporations paid a lot bigger share of the revenue collected. They built our international road system then. Now we cannot afford to maintain it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

America arguably was at its most prosperous when taxes on the rich were highest.

America's wealth was more equitably distributed when taxes on the rich were highest.

The wealthy were still VERY WEALTHY...

...but the normal family was sustainable by just one adult working. The earnings of the "breadwinner" provided food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, schooling, transportation, some entertainment...and savings.

Now we often have the chief breadwinner working more than one job...and have both parents working...and families are having much more trouble making ends meet. Lots and lots of families are one catastrophe away from dire straits.

What the fuck!

 

[LV426]

What I "have admitted" is the US policy, tax or otherwise, had zero to do with 5 minutes of the Clinton surplus

Then you're in denial because raising taxes raises revenues, and raising revenues closes deficits.

In no world have taxes ever been raised high enough that revenue declined. That has never happened. Not ever. Not once.

There are, however, plenty of instances of cutting revenues leading to reduced revenues, most notably and recently nationally from 2001-4, and in Kansas from 2013-2017.

 

[LV426]

if you want to be honest, which you won't be, you would have to acknowledge that the surplus was gone under Clinton's last budget and the recession was underway before George Bush was sworn in.

BULLSHIT LIES FROM YOU OF COURSE.

Clinton's last budget was 2001.

2001 had a budget surplus of $128B, which was the second largest surplus ever.

The 2001 recession didn't start until MARCH 2001.

Who was President in March, 2001?

I'll give you a hint...he's the guy you pretended you didn't support 8 years later when you stapled teabags to your faces and tried to convince us all you cared about the debt and deficits your President caused.

All people like you do is lie, lie, lie...you talk out of your ass, and try to redefine the parameters so you can save face on a fucking message board.

 

[LV426]

you are dumb a s a rock aren't you

It's funny how you have to ask me this, like I'll give you the answer you want so you can feel comfortable.

Do you require everyone in your life to answer questions designed to make you feel better about being an underachieving nobody? Or do you reserve this specifically for me because I get under your skin like no one else so fucking easily.

 

[Getin the ring]

It's funny how you have to ask me this, like I'll give you the answer you want so you can feel comfortable.

Do you require everyone in your life to answer questions designed to make you feel better about being an underachieving nobody? Or do you reserve this specifically for me because I get under your skin like no one else so fucking easily.

keep flattering yourself, you and I both know you are some little man with a complex.
I smell it

 

[LV426]

keep flattering yourself, you and I both know you are some little man with a complex.
I smell it

What is known is that you're a posturing jackass who is only here so you can try and feel better about being a nobody who accomplished nothing in your life, despite being handed every institutional advantage.

 

[Boris The Animal]

It certainly does matter because it's consequential to your argument.

You actually believe it's a straight 90% and not 90% on income over a certain amount.

Progressive Taxation is a concept you seem incapable of understanding.

90% is still obscenely high, especially for the rich. So for example a person who made $1M a year was left with $10,000 after that. That is not fair.

The 1950's saw unprecedented private sector growth with a top tax rate of 90%.

How do you explain that?

What proof do you have of this, beyond just your "gut feeling", which is the same "gut feeling" that led you to vote for Trump?

Your instincts, character, and judgment are for shit.

That is because after WWII, the US was the ONLY industrial superpower on the fucking planet! Germany and Japan had not begun to compete until the 1970s.

Since that's a purely subjective thing, I'm not sure what argument you think you're making.

Uhh no. Businesses and people are leaving the Socialist hellholes of NY and Communistfornia because of the super high cost of living.

 

[LV426]

90% is still obscenely high, especially for the rich.

According to whom?

Were there no rich people in 1955?