And so it begins: open Civil War has broken out in the GOP

Port Tack said:
I think those who have become rich beyond their wildest dreams ought to be told when they retire congratulations, you don't get social security, wasn't designed for people like you.

If you made $7000 per hour 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year, since the time of Christ, you would not have as much money as Jeff Bezos. If his tax rate were 90% he still could have a dozen mansions with yachts tied up outside each one. This country gave him the people and opportunity to make such a fortune and that country is in debt over 25 trillion dollars. Something is wrong with that picture. I'm not against the rich they should be congratulated and be able to live a life of luxury but there comes a point when they should be paying a higher tax rate than their secretary making hundreds of thousands of times less of a salary.

Sorry but Obama was 100% correct when he said to people like Jeff, "you didn't build that all by yourself". Without what the USA provided for people like Jeff they never would be where they are today.
Click to expand...

So you advocate all that theft over the years of paying into the Social Security system, and to not get ANY of it back (as opposed to those who get SOME of it back).
 
Into the Night said:
So you advocate all that theft over the years of paying into the Social Security system, and to not get ANY of it back (as opposed to those who get SOME of it back).
Click to expand...

Yup, we are talking chump change to those making in the millions. If the country fails because it becomes overrun with poverty no one will be making in the millions. The smart rich see it this way as well. Dumbfucks like you haven't the mental capacity to realize what it takes to make millions and what you must have to be able to do it. It doesn't include poverty becoming a majority.
 
Micawber said:
Well I agree. But if you took all the rich off the SSI payrolls it wouldn't put much of a dent in that budget. The seriously rich are relatively few. One problem is the amount of wealth those few have.
I don't like tax levels at punitive rates, and my arbitrary rate is 50%. The govt should not be taking more than 1/2 from anyone, whether Rockefeller or the secretary. Tax the rich at 49%.

I believe many would be fine with that rate. And sure, take those off SSI. They could care less.
Click to expand...

That is the problem, the tax rate has been dropped so much that you thinking 50% is a lot.

Between 1936 and 1981 the top marginal rate never dipped below 70 percent. In the decade after World War II, it even reached an all-time high of 90 percent on income earnings above $200,000 (or roughly $2 million in today’s dollars). Citing the prosperity of the mid-century United States, these progressive activists contend that our economy can absorb similar confiscatory rates today provided that they are only assessed on the wealthiest earners.

That decade after WWII when it reached 90%, it was under a republican president and the country did just fine. If this country did as you said and just held the high earners with a 50% tax rate and backed it up, we would not be 25 trillion in debt, we would probably be running in the black. You can thank the republican for the debt.
 
Port Tack said:
That is the problem, the tax rate has been dropped so much that you thinking 50% is a lot.

Between 1936 and 1981 the top marginal rate never dipped below 70 percent. In the decade after World War II, it even reached an all-time high of 90 percent on income earnings above $200,000 (or roughly $2 million in today’s dollars). Citing the prosperity of the mid-century United States, these progressive activists contend that our economy can absorb similar confiscatory rates today provided that they are only assessed on the wealthiest earners.

That decade after WWII when it reached 90%, it was under a republican president and the country did just fine. If this country did as you said and just held the high earners with a 50% tax rate and backed it up, we would not be 25 trillion in debt, we would probably be running in the black. You can thank the republican for the debt.
Click to expand...

Here. You should include the link from where you got that. Which completely destroys that "gotcha" you cherry picked. You stupid fuck. https://www.aier.org/article/the-rich-never-actually-paid-70-percent/
 
Into the Night said:
This is currently true. The Saturn V was a marvelous machine, and no one knows how to build it anymore.
Click to expand...
We can build the SLS but can no longer build the Saturn V? That makes no sense. Scientists are working on materials light enough to protect electronics from being damaged by the Van Allen radiation belt but as of now there is no way to protect humans from all the harsh radiation.

Both the international space station and hubble telescope have to orbit below the radiation belt for obvious reasons. It's fantasy to believe humans are capable of going to the moon.
 
Sailor said:
Here. You should include the link from where you got that. Which completely destroys that "gotcha" you cherry picked. You stupid fuck. https://www.aier.org/article/the-rich-never-actually-paid-70-percent/
Click to expand...

What does the fucking link have to do with it? Are you claiming that the tax rates I cited in my post were never that high? Search the top tax rates in the 50's and 60's for yourself asshole.

In 1950 and 1951 the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent.

In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent.

The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 91%, which applied to income over $200,000 (for single filers) or $400,000 (for married filers) – thresholds which correspond to approximately $1.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in today's dollars.
 
Into the Night said:
False dichotomy. Capitalism is the creation of wealth. Anyone can play. It does not cause 'wealth inequality'. It is the varying differences in initiative and drive that people have that causes that. Socialism is theft of wealth. Economic systems are not a form of government.
Click to expand...

You are simply an ignorant asshole not worthy of a response.
 
Hello Port Tack,

Port Tack said:
If the midterm election leaves the democrats in charge with a larger majority I think it's entirely possible. The country wants it even if the repubs in congress don't give two shits what the country wants.
Click to expand...

Right on. Gotta hang onto that optimism. I would love to see a true public option. That would totally call the insurance companies' bluff. It's the last thing they'd want to see. A completely parallel insurance system that has all the same overhead as the for-profits, except without the burden of having to factor any profit into the costs. It would have to be lower cost to the user. Finally, a more affordable option. It would be the beginning of the end of for-profit health insurance.

Naturally, they will do everything they can to stop it. And if they couldn't stop it, the next best thing would be to get their fingers in it and screw it up so it became ineffective, or bogged down with unreasonable requirements.

But I still don't see it happening with one party having a slight advantage, and the big corporations throwing money at the out-of-power party. That's just gonna whip up all kinds of resistance, which would be used politically to threaten the in-power party. They are certainly not getting anything past the filibuster.

They would have to get 60 votes in the Senate to get it.
 
Last edited:
Port Tack said:
You are the same asshole who proclaimed repeatedly that Trump was going to win re-election handedly and he got his ass kicked.
Click to expand...

You're the same lying loser asshole who was too big of a cunt to take my bet too. Perhaps if you could extract that empty head of yours from your anus you could be less of a whiny little cunt face? ;)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Are you saying I have Democrats in my local KKK chapter?
Click to expand...

Yes dumb fuck.

stupid_meter.gif
 
Port Tack said:
Precisely! Some type of UHC is inevitable and the affordable care act was only step 1.
Click to expand...

UHC arguments of for whiny, low IQ losers on the left who think they're too stupid to provide for themselves and expect others to do it for the. The only thing dumber are idiots who think BIG Government dependency is great.

stupid_meter.gif
 
Port Tack said:
What does the fucking link have to do with it? Are you claiming that the tax rates I cited in my post were never that high? Search the top tax rates in the 50's and 60's for yourself asshole.

In 1950 and 1951 the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent.

In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent.

The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 91%, which applied to income over $200,000 (for single filers) or $400,000 (for married filers) – thresholds which correspond to approximately $1.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in today's dollars.
Click to expand...

What does the link have to do with it? It proves you 100% wrong. You fucking imbecilic left wing dumb fuck. Holy fuck are you stupid.
 
Port Tack said:
Yup, we are talking chump change to those making in the millions. If the country fails because it becomes overrun with poverty no one will be making in the millions. The smart rich see it this way as well. Dumbfucks like you haven't the mental capacity to realize what it takes to make millions and what you must have to be able to do it. It doesn't include poverty becoming a majority.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. I completely understand what it takes to make millions. Pivot fallacy. Why do you want to steal wealth? Jealousy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top