Hey HondoBros
Comments
-
No I don’t. I think it was 70% not over 70%. Are you really this fucktarded?
-
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/07/david-leonhardt-rich/
“The average tax rate on the richest 400 households last year was only 23%, down from 70% in 1950 and 47% in 1980. Why? In recent decades, the top income-tax rate and the estate tax have both fallen, and corporate taxes — which are effectively paid by shareholders — have plummeted. Middle-class and poor families, on the other hand, haven’t benefited much if at all from the falling corporate tax or estate tax, and they now pay more in payroll taxes than in the past. Overall, their taxes have remained fairly flat.”
-
Looks like over 70% to me. Seems your forgetting your own lies dumbshit.GDS said:No I don’t. I think it was 70% not over 70%. Are you really this fucktarded?
-
Sounds like leonhart and gds got their info from the same cartoon.HHusky said:https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/07/david-leonhardt-rich/
“The average tax rate on the richest 400 households last year was only 23%, down from 70% in 1950 and 47% in 1980. Why? In recent decades, the top income-tax rate and the estate tax have both fallen, and corporate taxes — which are effectively paid by shareholders — have plummeted. Middle-class and poor families, on the other hand, haven’t benefited much if at all from the falling corporate tax or estate tax, and they now pay more in payroll taxes than in the past. Overall, their taxes have remained fairly flat.” -
https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
-
you love comparing apples to dogshit don't you. From your own fucking linkMikeDamone said:https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
Again even the top 0.01% is a much larger group than the top 400 income earners. -
Who was taking about 1945? Hondo level goal post move. Good job. Apples to dogshitGDS said:
you love comparing apples to dogshit don't you. From your own fucking linkMikeDamone said:https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
Again even the top 0.01% is a much larger group than the top 400 income earners. -
Your source material was. You seriously can not be this fucking stupid....MikeDamone said:
Who was taking about 1945? Hondo level goal post move. Good job. Apples to dogshitGDS said:
you love comparing apples to dogshit don't you. From your own fucking linkMikeDamone said:https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
Again even the top 0.01% is a much larger group than the top 400 income earners. -
Yes he is. And he'll argue well after he knows he's wrong. Even creates new posts showing he's wrong.GDS said:
Your source material was. You seriously can not be this fucking stupid....MikeDamone said:
Who was taking about 1945? Hondo level goal post move. Good job. Apples to dogshitGDS said:
you love comparing apples to dogshit don't you. From your own fucking linkMikeDamone said:https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
Again even the top 0.01% is a much larger group than the top 400 income earners. -
You said 1950 dumb ass. And 70%. Not 1945, which was tail end of ww2 and 70%.GDS said:
Your source material was. You seriously can not be this fucking stupid....MikeDamone said:
Who was taking about 1945? Hondo level goal post move. Good job. Apples to dogshitGDS said:
you love comparing apples to dogshit don't you. From your own fucking linkMikeDamone said:https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
Again even the top 0.01% is a much larger group than the top 400 income earners.
So sure, let’s discuss something that was never asserted.
-
It’s not fucking possible you are this stupid...it shows data consistent with the assertion about 1950. Good grief...MikeDamone said:
You said 1950 dumb ass. And 70%. Not 1945, which was tail end of ww2 and 70%.GDS said:
Your source material was. You seriously can not be this fucking stupid....MikeDamone said:
Who was taking about 1945? Hondo level goal post move. Good job. Apples to dogshitGDS said:
you love comparing apples to dogshit don't you. From your own fucking linkMikeDamone said:https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
Again even the top 0.01% is a much larger group than the top 400 income earners.
So sure, let’s discuss something that was never asserted. -
Keep ignoring this you dishonest fuck.GDS said:
It’s not fucking possible you are this stupid...it shows data consistent with the assertion about 1950. Good grief...MikeDamone said:
You said 1950 dumb ass. And 70%. Not 1945, which was tail end of ww2 and 70%.GDS said:
Your source material was. You seriously can not be this fucking stupid....MikeDamone said:
Who was taking about 1945? Hondo level goal post move. Good job. Apples to dogshitGDS said:
you love comparing apples to dogshit don't you. From your own fucking linkMikeDamone said:https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
Again even the top 0.01% is a much larger group than the top 400 income earners.
So sure, let’s discuss something that was never asserted.
The effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close. -
Haha so by Mike dumbass logic my reply should be no one was talking about 0.01% group in 1955!!! We were discussing top 400 in 1950!MikeDamone said:
Keep ignoring this you dishonest fuck.GDS said:
It’s not fucking possible you are this stupid...it shows data consistent with the assertion about 1950. Good grief...MikeDamone said:
You said 1950 dumb ass. And 70%. Not 1945, which was tail end of ww2 and 70%.GDS said:
Your source material was. You seriously can not be this fucking stupid....MikeDamone said:
Who was taking about 1945? Hondo level goal post move. Good job. Apples to dogshitGDS said:
you love comparing apples to dogshit don't you. From your own fucking linkMikeDamone said:https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
“A study from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
Bottom line, effective tax rates haven’t changed much in 60 years. Sorry that hurts your vag.
The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
Again even the top 0.01% is a much larger group than the top 400 income earners.
So sure, let’s discuss something that was never asserted.
The effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.”
