Hondo is livid that people keep more of their money
People who have earned their money are said to be "greedy" for wanting to keep more of it, while parasites like Hondo are not considered greedy because they feel entitled to wealth that they didn't earn.
Hondo already informed us that he doesn't pay more in taxes than he owes. He has the ability right now to achieve what he wants, pay higher taxes, and he declines to do so. Because Hondo doesn't want to pay higher taxes, he wants other people to pay higher taxes.
As this chart illustrates, higher marginal income tax rates didn’t necessarily result in a higher income tax burden for the wealthiest taxpayers. In fact, as the top marginal income tax rate has fallen, the top 1 percent’s income tax burden has increased. In 1986, the top marginal income tax rate was 50 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 25.8 percent of all income taxes; thirty years later, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen to 39.6 percent, but the top 1 percent’s share of income taxes had risen to 37.3 percent.
Two points you are too dumb to understand. Of course the wealthy share of tax burden has increased. Because their share of the wealth has exploded quicker than their tax rates have decreased. Second point, of course they pay less than the marginal rate. Mostly because a large portion of their income is dividend or capital gains taxed at a lower rate.
As this chart illustrates, higher marginal income tax rates didn’t necessarily result in a higher income tax burden for the wealthiest taxpayers. In fact, as the top marginal income tax rate has fallen, the top 1 percent’s income tax burden has increased. In 1986, the top marginal income tax rate was 50 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 25.8 percent of all income taxes; thirty years later, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen to 39.6 percent, but the top 1 percent’s share of income taxes had risen to 37.3 percent.
Two points you are too dumb to understand. Of course the wealthy share of tax burden has increased. Because their share of the wealth has exploded quicker than their tax rates have decreased. Second point, of course they pay less than the marginal rate. Mostly because a large portion of their income is dividend or capital gains taxed at a lower rate.
And they've always paid less than the marginal tax rates, even when the tax rates were 70%. They now pay a greater share of all the taxes then they did when the marginal rates were 70%.
As this chart illustrates, higher marginal income tax rates didn’t necessarily result in a higher income tax burden for the wealthiest taxpayers. In fact, as the top marginal income tax rate has fallen, the top 1 percent’s income tax burden has increased. In 1986, the top marginal income tax rate was 50 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 25.8 percent of all income taxes; thirty years later, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen to 39.6 percent, but the top 1 percent’s share of income taxes had risen to 37.3 percent.
Two points you are too dumb to understand. Of course the wealthy share of tax burden has increased. Because their share of the wealth has exploded quicker than their tax rates have decreased. Second point, of course they pay less than the marginal rate. Mostly because a large portion of their income is dividend or capital gains taxed at a lower rate.
Gee Hondo, why are capital gains taxed differently than wages? Idiot
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.
Except spending? By your definition. Of a range within 8% of GDP. Spending hasn't changed either. You can't have it both ways.
As this chart illustrates, higher marginal income tax rates didn’t necessarily result in a higher income tax burden for the wealthiest taxpayers. In fact, as the top marginal income tax rate has fallen, the top 1 percent’s income tax burden has increased. In 1986, the top marginal income tax rate was 50 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 25.8 percent of all income taxes; thirty years later, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen to 39.6 percent, but the top 1 percent’s share of income taxes had risen to 37.3 percent.
Two points you are too dumb to understand. Of course the wealthy share of tax burden has increased. Because their share of the wealth has exploded quicker than their tax rates have decreased. Second point, of course they pay less than the marginal rate. Mostly because a large portion of their income is dividend or capital gains taxed at a lower rate.
Gee Hondo, why are capital gains taxed differently than wages? Idiot
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.
Except spending? By your definition. Of a range within 8% of GDP. Spending hasn't changed either. You can't have it both ways.
As this chart illustrates, higher marginal income tax rates didn’t necessarily result in a higher income tax burden for the wealthiest taxpayers. In fact, as the top marginal income tax rate has fallen, the top 1 percent’s income tax burden has increased. In 1986, the top marginal income tax rate was 50 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 25.8 percent of all income taxes; thirty years later, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen to 39.6 percent, but the top 1 percent’s share of income taxes had risen to 37.3 percent.
Two points you are too dumb to understand. Of course the wealthy share of tax burden has increased. Because their share of the wealth has exploded quicker than their tax rates have decreased. Second point, of course they pay less than the marginal rate. Mostly because a large portion of their income is dividend or capital gains taxed at a lower rate.
Gee Hondo, why are capital gains taxed differently than wages? Idiot
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.
“Very little” has changed other then the effective tax rate on the highest earning 400 Americans has gone from 70% to 23% to the point where the richest Americans now pay a lower effective rate than any other group. Mike the dumbass nails it yet again...fs
Ok... so let’s say we go your way and taxed the top 400 at 70% or 80 or 100. Have you actually done the math on how much that revenue that much actual revenue that is? I know it feels good for leftists to try to crush the rich basted emotions of hate and jealousy, so can we get the numbers from you on what the impact would be?
Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
It actually would. The Executives will always find a way to get their millions. Either businesses will decrease reserves, increase margins, or use creative compensation to make up the difference. In the end, the only people that get fucked with higher taxes are the people without the power to work around them but still make a living...the middle class. Same as always
Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
It actually would. The Executives will always find a way to get their millions. Either businesses will decrease reserves, increase margins, or use creative compensation to make up the difference. In the end, the only people that get fucked with higher taxes are the people without the power to work around them but still make a living...the middle class. Same as always
As opposed to what we have now which is where the richest 400 Americans are paying a lower effective rate than the middle class...
Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
It actually would. The Executives will always find a way to get their millions. Either businesses will decrease reserves, increase margins, or use creative compensation to make up the difference. In the end, the only people that get fucked with higher taxes are the people without the power to work around them but still make a living...the middle class. Same as always
As opposed to what we have now which is where the richest 400 Americans are paying a lower effective rate than the middle class...
The top 1% in 2018 contributed over 37% of the country's tax revenue. The top 400 American's pay taxes at a capital gains rate. Why do liberals and war hawking conservatives always think more taxes are the solution. Maybe the government should look at shrinking military and entitlement spending each by 15%.
Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
It actually would. The Executives will always find a way to get their millions. Either businesses will decrease reserves, increase margins, or use creative compensation to make up the difference. In the end, the only people that get fucked with higher taxes are the people without the power to work around them but still make a living...the middle class. Same as always
As opposed to what we have now which is where the richest 400 Americans are paying a lower effective rate than the middle class...
Sounds like a good reason to lower the rate on the middle class.
Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
The government is better at investing than the private sector!!!
A large part of our taxes over the years have gone to the military, roads and other infrastructure, and schools. Would you say those are poor investments?
Comments
Hondo already informed us that he doesn't pay more in taxes than he owes. He has the ability right now to achieve what he wants, pay higher taxes, and he declines to do so. Because Hondo doesn't want to pay higher taxes, he wants other people to pay higher taxes.
The dipshit here as always Hondo is you.
Society will break down if the government doesn’t confiscate those “extra” millions.
Your use of the word extra is all we need to know about you. Entitled little bitch