Don't forget their single digit IQs.Jr reminds me of ihhawk. He derives energy and purpose from trolling.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't forget their single digit IQs.Jr reminds me of ihhawk. He derives energy and purpose from trolling.
I responded to someone talking about 1950s tax rates. They’re talking specifically about income tax rates.You started talking about taxes
I pointed out that the middle class/upper middle class was picking up the 1% slack, you spewed a Fox talking point. I delivered the good. The graph in the link that I posted shows that I'm right. People like me are carrying the load for the ultra wealthy.I responded to someone talking about 1950s tax rates. They’re talking specifically about income tax rates.
Do you think someone is arguing to restore 1950s FICA rates? Because I’ve not seen anyone propose cutting SSI and Medicare funding.
Yep, let's see those percentages corrected for wealth and income.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.
Your top graph is worth a closer look. Particularly the fractions from corporate taxes and excise/gas taxes. Both very much reduced.More taxes collected from the rich now as opposed to then:
More taxes collected from the rich now as opposed to then:
And we collect more money from them this way.Their tax rate is lower....during and right after WWII their tax rate was 90%
When did the top 1% pay a smaller share?I pointed out that the middle class/upper middle class was picking up the 1% slack
Amazing how we are doing better than all of you with such low IQsDon't forget their single digit IQs.
Hey look, you're back to focusing on only income tax, shocking.When did the top 1% pay a smaller share?
Under Carter, or Trump?
Yes, that’s what I responded to.Hey look, you're back to focusing on only income tax, shocking.
No Medicare. No Medicaid. We also didn’t have as big of interest payments to make.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.
And we collect more money from them this way.
Is the preference a punitive rate, or higher collections?
Your own graphics show that income tax is not the only tax burden and yet you play dumb to try to prove a point. I find conversing with you to be tiresome as usual.Yes, that’s what I responded to.
“and high taxes on the wealthy”
What tax was at 90% in 1950? Do you think FICA had different tax rates for different income levels?
In a sense, the Laffer Curve is.I'm pretty sure it's not binary
I don't think that's the correct interpretation of your chart for the reason @HawkRCID outlined. The percentage of the total from the rich may have gone up, but that's because they have more, not because the rate is more progressive. The rates have become less progressive even if you only look at income tax, and even more so if you notice the increased reliance on flatter taxes and borrowing.The result of income tax rate changes have only become more progressive since 1980
Nobody stops trying to earn just because the government will take a larger percentage of those additional earnings. What behavioral changes are you envisioning?In a sense, the Laffer Curve is.
A 0% income tax rate collects zero dollars.
A 100% income tax rate collects zero dollars, except from whomever decides to volunteer all their time to the government.
There is an income tax rate that maximizes collections. Tax rates above that number will result in behavior changes that reduce collections to an amount that would correspond to what a lower rate would collect.
If you can collect more taxes with a rate that is lower than 90% it is economic malpractice to pursue the higher rate and deny capital to the economy.
I said the result is more progressive.I don't think that's the correct interpretation of your chart for the reason @HawkRCID outlined. The percentage of the total from the rich may have gone up, but that's because they have more, not because the rate is more progressive. The rates have become less progressive even if you only look at income tax, and even more so if you notice the increased reliance on flatter taxes and borrowing.
You probably aren't wrong that the rich pay a higher share of the budget than in the past, but not a higher share of what they have.
Put my money in a risky venture with high return, but 90% tax rate, or put my money in a less risky, but tax free muni?Nobody stops trying to earn just because the government will take a larger percentage of those additional earnings. What behavioral changes are you envisioning?
I'm one of the few libs I know who thought the Laffer curve made sense.I said the result is more progressive.
You’re focused on the rates, but who cares if you have punitive rates when they collect less money? What is the point of higher tax rates that reduce tax collection and capital for the economy to fund growth?
If could accurately ‘see’ the Laffer Curve and thereby knew that a 35% tax collects as much money as 75% rate, not going with the lower rate reduces capital available to the economy at no net tax collection advantage for the government. The result of reduced capital is reduced investment and growth, thereby creating a poorer future than we’d have otherwise (and thereby a smaller future tax base).
Punitive tax rates are dumb policy.