Let's go back to a time when MAGAs want to go back to and guess the reaction to this picture

NoleATL

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jul 11, 2007
30,911
29,705
113
The son of a former president holding an assault weapon with a picture of a former Senator and First Lady on the magazine. How would the country have reacted? In whose mind is this okay? These idiots are not about "making America great again" they are about control and power. And, tearing down a country to get it if they have to... Apology in advance if a Pepsi.

 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
The weird thing about MAGA's wanting to go back to the 50's is that the 50's had low levels of political extremism, much higher degrees of statesmanship from politicians, and high taxes on the wealthy.
Federal outlays averaged 17.1% of GDP in the 1950s.

Federal tax receipts are currently over 18% of GDP.

lets-do-it-again-olivia-munn.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5 and hwk23

kc78

HR All-American
Nov 25, 2002
2,946
7,813
113
44
Pensacola, FL
I mean he's basically a coked out loser with a twitter handle. He's Trump's Hunter Biden but Republicans don't care. I mean Trump wasn't even dumb enough to give him a role in the administration when he was practically handing them out to the rest of his family.
 

Funky Bunch

HR Legend
Mar 30, 2011
26,218
42,317
113
I hate that cocksucker more than his dad. I wish his brother would pull a Dick Cheney on his ass.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
Higher taxes on the "wealthy"....idiot
We're collecting a higher percentage of the wealth produced by the country with lower rates ...idiot.

If we had 1950s federal spending levels we'd have a surplus to argue over.

If you want to discourage economic activity and collect a smaller percentage of GDP in taxes, then demand higher rates.
 

fsu1jreed

HR Legend
Apr 1, 2002
49,914
8,084
113
We're collecting a higher percentage of the wealth produced by the country with lower rates ...idiot.

If we had 1950s federal spending levels we'd have a surplus to argue over.

If you want to discourage economic activity and collect a smaller percentage of GDP in taxes, then demand higher rates.

Mother of idiots
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Nov 28, 2010
80,086
33,337
113
Maryland
And a shithouse full of air pollution, filthy waterways .
I heard today that Nixon - who is generally recognized as good on the environment (for a Republican) - vetoed the Clean Water Act. Congress overrode his veto.

Imagine that happening today. Today there wouldn't even be a bill to veto, much less an override.
 

HawkRCID

HR Heisman
Nov 7, 2018
5,415
10,617
113
More taxes collected from the rich now as opposed to then:

Chart_tax_revenues_300410.gif
I mean it makes sense when you have something like 1% of the country holding over 30% of the total wealth. The rich have much more now so they will and should be taxed accordingly…and even now I don’t believe that has kept up with the changes in income inequality.
 

Titanhawk2

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2011
12,540
5,717
113
The son of a former president holding an assault weapon with a picture of a former Senator and First Lady on the magazine. How would the country have reacted? In whose mind is this okay? These idiots are not about "making America great again" they are about control and power. And, tearing down a country to get it if they have to... Apology in advance if a Pepsi.

How about same as now - who cares?
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
I mean it makes sense when you have something like 1% of the country holding over 30% of the total wealth. The rich have much more now so they will and should be taxed accordingly…and even now I don’t believe that has kept up with the changes in income inequality.
If you have 1 million dollars in the bank earning 1% interest, your income for tax purposes is $10k.
They don't look at your wealth. You're probably eligible for earned income credits and who knows what else.

The result of income tax rate changes have only become more progressive since 1980:

WhoPays6.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf

NoleATL

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jul 11, 2007
30,911
29,705
113
I also want to point that that it is a cartoon of Hillary behind bars on a magazine. It’s dumb but not a threat.
What would people in the 50's or whatever MAGA time have thought of it? Do you remember when merely hearing a toilet flush was a huge controversy?
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
Right - the middle class/upper middle class is making up for the taxes that the truly wealthy are not.
That's not true.

NTUF has compiled historical IRS data tracking the distribution of the federal income tax burden back to 1980. In that year, the income tax share of the top one percent of filers was 19 percent – less than half of what it is now (40 percent). This is despite the fact that the top marginal income tax rate was 70 percent in 1980 and has since fallen to 37 percent in 2018
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
34,161
71,896
113
That's not true.

NTUF has compiled historical IRS data tracking the distribution of the federal income tax burden back to 1980. In that year, the income tax share of the top one percent of filers was 19 percent – less than half of what it is now (40 percent). This is despite the fact that the top marginal income tax rate was 70 percent in 1980 and has since fallen to 37 percent in 2018
Oh, well if the NTUF says it...
 

HawkRCID

HR Heisman
Nov 7, 2018
5,415
10,617
113
If you have 1 million dollars in the bank earning 1% interest, your income for tax purposes is $10k.
They don't look at your wealth. You're probably eligible for earned income credits and who knows what else.

The result of income tax rate changes have only become more progressive since 1980:

WhoPays6.png
Ok, but even income has been shifting for decades…that’s a fact. Higher earners are making bigger gains at the expense of the disappearing middle class…so it makes sense they’re paying more tax….you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too….
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhawkeye

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
34,161
71,896
113
Third paragraph:

"The Stat is literally true."
Right, and it points out exactly what you did here. You started talking about taxes but then you switched to income taxes to make this dumb argument. The article dismantles your talking point.

28d38c9feefde7f0812e727a3f52bd3d4b-tax-graph.w710.jpg