Page 32 of 38 FirstFirst ... 22282930313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 466 to 480 of 560

Thread: What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

  1. #466 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,714
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Your'e defending Conservative policy which is Trump policy.

    They are the same thing.

    You don't get to "No True Scotsman" your way outta this because your lifeboat is ablaze.

    What conservative policy did I defend?

  2. #467 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,714
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    did you seriously just argue that the employee contribution to his own social security retirement fund is a tax?......
    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.

  3. #468 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by signalmankenneth View Post
    America’s 15 wealthiest families are worth a combined $618 billion. That’s not good for our economy—or our democracy.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by signalmankenneth View Post
    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.
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  4. #469 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    24,892
    Thanks
    4,196
    Thanked 15,334 Times in 9,321 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,825 Times in 2,563 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    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

  5. #470 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,714
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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.
    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]

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-10-2019)

  7. #471 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    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]
    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 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


  8. #472 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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]
    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


  9. #473 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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]
    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?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. #474 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    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
    "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



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  11. #475 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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]
    You do realize you are arguing with an idiot who cannot comprehend a real fact or reality for that matter. Just saying.
    "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



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  12. #476 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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]
    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


  13. #477 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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?
    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.
    "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



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  14. #478 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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?
    Bush wasn't President in 2010 you MORON.
    "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



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  15. #479 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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.
    Moron eruption after having his bullshit thrown back into his face.
    "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



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  16. #480 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,714
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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?
    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.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-10-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. I'll Not Yield
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 06-29-2013, 11:21 AM
  2. GM Crops Do Not Increase Yield
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 08:04 AM
  3. Taxing the Rich
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-31-2011, 06:42 PM
  4. Instead of more Taxing 'The Rich'....
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 08:09 AM
  5. Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich
    By LadyT in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 06-15-2008, 07:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •