What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

Fentoine DUMBfuck said:
What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

The post WWII economy pre-Reaganomics/neoliberal economic system.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Frank Apisa said:
In my opinion:

Taxing income at a much greater rate as the income goes up...MAKES SENSE. It should be done starting tomorrow.

Taxing capital gains at the same rate as regular income...MAKES SENSE. It should be done starting tomorrow.

Taxing inherited money at a MUCH HIGHER RATE as the amount of the inheritance goes up...MAKES SENSE. It should be done starting later today!
Click to expand...

Turning this nation into a third world Fascist shit hole makes ZERO sense. But alas, you're an idiot on steroids so how can an idiot like you ever make any sense?
 
ioloTARD said:
The value of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time put into it. The rich steal the difference between the value and the meagre pittance they pay those who create the commodity.
Click to expand...

What a massive pile of stupid; you seldom bring much else to the argument.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
did you seriously just argue that the employee contribution to his own social security retirement fund is a tax?......
Click to expand...

It is a tax because you are required to pay it. Also, most people receive more Social Security benefits and especially more Medicare benefits than they pay in taxes--so, their retirement benefits and health benefits are being subsidized.
 
signalmankenneth said:
America’s 15 wealthiest families are worth a combined $618 billion. That’s not good for our economy—or our democracy.
Click to expand...

This claim is a massive pile of Marxist bile. We don't have a REVENUE problem in this country. We have a massive SPENDING problem. If you taxed these families at 100% for a decade you still would have more than $10 trillion in debt.

This Marxist drivel is the result of being uneducated, and low IQ lazy dullards. We don't need class envy. We don't need BIGGER Government. We certainly do not need to send ever greater sums of money to the Government so that left leaning dishonest politicians who never worked a day in their lives can buy the votes of idiots and fools like you.

What we need is REAL education, not indoctrination, and MORE opportunity fueled by a free market economy that does what Government cannot do. Create jobs and opportunity and make our lives better.

signalmankenneth said:
The New York Times investigation into the Trump family’s financial misdeeds recently revealed what had been obvious to most: The president is no self-made man. Like so many bombshell stories about the president, this story has been largely overlooked as new and more flagrant Trump indignities erupt nearly every day. Yet the tactics that the report shines a light on are hardly peculiar to the Trumps. Many wealthy families use similar tactics to stockpile their wealth and keep it from taxation that could reinvest it to meet the nation’s needs. And in doing so, these families keep building wealth with which they can wield political power.

A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) takes a close look at the billionaire multi-generation families who wield that power—the American dynasties. Taking their cue from the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest people in the United States, the report, "Billionaire Bonanza," by Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good, and Josh Hoxie, director of the Project on Opportunity and Taxation, both at IPS, details how the nation’s 15 wealthiest families—some with household names (Walton, Koch, Mars), some perhaps less-known (Duncan, Bass, Stryker)—are worth a combined $618 billion.

Overwhelmingly, this is inherited money; the companies from which these families derive their wealth were all started at least a generation ago.
Click to expand...

SO FUCKING WHAT! IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY. Get off your lazy ass and make more if you are tired of suckling on the Government teet. LOSER.
 
The Dems will eventually get the legislation needed out of Congress and onto the Dem president's desk

gonna take some time, but we'll get the national infrastructure and schools some cash, fuck Exxon and BofA
 
LV426 said:
Because you can't affect change on tax policy alone, my plan would be to return to the pre-1980 tax rates and undo the last 40 years of fiscal policy while expanding Medicare to everyone, expanding Social Security by increasing the amount recipients get, and providing completely, 100% free to attend public colleges while forgiving all student loan debt.

So while the middle and lower classes might pay a bit more in taxes, they're getting health care, increase Social Security stipends, and free public education that they don't have to go into debt to attain, thus freeing up more money for them to spend in the consumer market to grow the economy.
Click to expand...

The higher tax rates of the 50's, 60's, and 70's raised less revenue as a percent of GDP than the lower rates of the 80's and 90's. So you want to spend a lot more money on new programs with less revenue which greatly increases our debt.

Federal Tax Revenue as a percent of GDP (average for decade)
1950's: 16.7%
1960's: 17.2%
1970's: 17.3%
1980's: 17.7%
1990s: 17.9%
[Goverment Budget: Historical Data]
 
Flash said:
The higher tax rates of the 50's, 60's, and 70's raised less revenue as a percent of GDP than the lower rates of the 80's and 90's. So you want to spend a lot more money on new programs with less revenue which greatly increases our debt.
Click to expand...

Well, fortunately revenue-to-GDP % means nothing.


Federal Tax Revenue as a percent of GDP (average for decade)
1950's: 16.7%
1960's: 17.2%
1970's: 17.3%
1980's: 17.7%
1990s: 17.9%
[Goverment Budget: Historical Data]
Click to expand...

So you look at one single metric and think that applies to the proposal as a whole.

Just curious, what were the size of those deficits in relation to the actual budget?
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
The higher tax rates of the 50's, 60's, and 70's raised less revenue as a percent of GDP than the lower rates of the 80's and 90's. So you want to spend a lot more money on new programs with less revenue which greatly increases our debt.

Federal Tax Revenue as a percent of GDP (average for decade)
1950's: 16.7%
1960's: 17.2%
1970's: 17.3%
1980's: 17.7%
1990s: 17.9%
[Goverment Budget: Historical Data]
Click to expand...

Also, why did you cut it off at the 1990's? Where's the 2000's and 2010's with the Bush Tax Cuts?

Why did you leave that info out?

Did you leave it out deliberately because the % drops precipitously beginning around 2001?

Say, what happened in 2001-3 that could have possibly caused revenue to drop so much that the revenue-as-a-percent-of-GDP was a figure so out of line with the historical norms you had to not put it in your post?
 
Flash said:
Federal Tax Revenue as a percent of GDP (average for decade)
1950's: 16.7%
1960's: 17.2%
1970's: 17.3%
1980's: 17.7%
1990s: 17.9%
[Goverment Budget: Historical Data]
Click to expand...

So you cut this off at the 1990's, and don't include the 2000's or 2010's when the Bush Tax Cuts were passed, then the cuts for the wealthy expired?

Why do I get the feeling you're deliberately withholding that information because it's exculpatory to your argument?
 
Flash said:
The higher tax rates of the 50's, 60's, and 70's raised less revenue as a percent of GDP than the lower rates of the 80's and 90's. So you want to spend a lot more money on new programs with less revenue which greatly increases our debt.

Federal Tax Revenue as a percent of GDP (average for decade)
1950's: 16.7%
1960's: 17.2%
1970's: 17.3%
1980's: 17.7%
1990s: 17.9%
[Goverment Budget: Historical Data]
Click to expand...

You do realize you are arguing with an idiot who cannot comprehend a real fact or reality for that matter. Just saying.
 
Flash said:
The higher tax rates of the 50's, 60's, and 70's raised less revenue as a percent of GDP than the lower rates of the 80's and 90's. So you want to spend a lot more money on new programs with less revenue which greatly increases our debt.

Federal Tax Revenue as a percent of GDP (average for decade)
1950's: 16.7%
1960's: 17.2%
1970's: 17.3%
1980's: 17.7%
1990s: 17.9%
[Goverment Budget: Historical Data]
Click to expand...

So you do a very dishonest thing when you post. So dishonest it actually could be considered sophistry because you know you're doing it.

So you averaged together those numbers yourself? Why not post the % by year instead of by decade? Obviously because if you did it by year, the years where taxes were cut would end up showing a lower % of revenue to GDP vs. the years that were raised, right?

So why do you do that? Simple; you're deliberately engaging in sophistry because you want me to be convinced of a false argument so you don't have to eat shit.
 
LV426 said:
Say, what happened in 2001-3 that could have possibly caused revenue to drop so much that the revenue-as-a-percent-of-GDP was a figure so out of line with the historical norms you had to not put it in your post?
Click to expand...

Moron; why leave out 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008? Again, MORON, we do not have a revenue problem in this country, we have a SPENDING problem.

Tax cuts do not result in LESS revenue and never have.
 
LV426 said:
So you cut this off at the 1990's, and don't include the 2000's or 2010's when the Bush Tax Cuts were passed, then the cuts for the wealthy expired?

Why do I get the feeling you're deliberately withholding that information because it's exculpatory to your argument?
Click to expand...

Bush wasn't President in 2010 you MORON.
 
LV426 said:
So you do a very dishonest thing when you post. So dishonest it actually could be considered sophistry because you know you're doing it.

So you averaged together those numbers yourself? Why not post the % by year instead of by decade? Obviously because if you did it by year, the years where taxes were cut would end up showing a lower % of revenue to GDP vs. the years that were raised, right?

So why do you do that? Simple; you're deliberately engaging in sophistry because you want me to be convinced of a false argument so you don't have to eat shit.
Click to expand...

:lolup:Moron eruption after having his bullshit thrown back into his face. :laugh:
 
LV426 said:
So you cut this off at the 1990's, and don't include the 2000's or 2010's when the Bush Tax Cuts were passed, then the cuts for the wealthy expired?

Why do I get the feeling you're deliberately withholding that information because it's exculpatory to your argument?
Click to expand...

You are the one who chose the 1980's as the cut-off for the tax rates. Now you are changing your argument. And, as usual, you failed to comment on the main point--that higher tax rates 50's-70's raised less federal revenue as a percentage of GDP than the lower tax rates. How would you give all those new benefits with less revenue.

Since you used the 80's as the cut-off point, I didn't calculate the averages for later years. Bush's tax cuts did not have much an effect but the recession did. However, if we look at recent data:

2015: 17.9%
2016: 17.4%
2017: 17.0%

The much lower tax rate rates of recent years raised as much or more revenue as a percent of GDP than the 70-91% rates of the 50's-60's-70's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top