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.
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.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
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
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]
Truth Detector (01-10-2019)
Well, fortunately revenue-to-GDP % means nothing.
So you look at one single metric and think that applies to the proposal as a whole.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]
Just curious, what were the size of those deficits in relation to the actual budget?
Last edited by LV426; 01-10-2019 at 04:20 PM.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
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?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
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.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
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.
Truth Detector (01-10-2019)
Bookmarks