Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Tax rate on richest 400 lower than every other group
Comments
-
“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...fsMikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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. -
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?GDS said:
“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...fsMikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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. -
Why are you so patently dishonest? I never said I wanted them taxed at 70% or 80% or 100% now. I’m simply pointing out your comment that nothing has changed other than spending is a lie. I do think our system is screwed up when People like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet are paying a lower effective rate than their admins.MikeDamone said:
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?GDS said:
“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...fsMikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
The top 1 percent’s effective tax rate has consistently been below the top marginal income tax rate. Though this IRS data set only reaches back to 1986, another data set shows that the difference between these two tax rates used to be even greater. For example, in the 1950s, when the top marginal income tax rate reached 92 percent, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an effective rate of only 16.9 percent. Although the two data sets are not strictly comparable, they nevertheless show the consistency of the gap between the top marginal income tax rate and the effective 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.
-
The growth of tax expenditures in recent decades has increased the percentage of nonpayers (taxpayers who owe zero income taxes after taking their deductions and exemptions), putting a greater share of the tax burden on those who continue to pay, meaning the top 1 percent now pays an increased share of the tax burden. The Tax Reform Act of 1986’s expansion of the standard deduction and the personal exemption, and more recently the creation and expansion of credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, have increased the percentage of the population with a negative effective tax rate.
-
So what’s your point? If not revenue, what is it? I think we are finally getting to the root of your pathology.GDS said:
Why are you so patently dishonest? I never said I wanted them taxed at 70% or 80% or 100% now. I’m simply pointing out your comment that nothing has changed other than spending is a lie. I do think our system is screwed up when People like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet are paying a lower effective rate than their admins.MikeDamone said:
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?GDS said:
“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...fsMikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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. -
SFGbob said:
The top 1 percent’s effective tax rate has consistently been below the top marginal income tax rate. Though this IRS data set only reaches back to 1986, another data set shows that the difference between these two tax rates used to be even greater. For example, in the 1950s, when the top marginal income tax rate reached 92 percent, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an effective rate of only 16.9 percent. Although the two data sets are not strictly comparable, they nevertheless show the consistency of the gap between the top marginal income tax rate and the effective rate.
Nevermind that Bob. We are now starting to discover it’s not about revenue, it’s an hysteria fueled but hatred, jealousy and greed.
My “solution” to what GDS is hysterical about would be to lower the rate on the people he’s worried about, not raise them on others out of petty jealousy. -
The entire premise of the thread is based on a lie. The evil rich are actually paying a greater share now of the tax burden then they did when the top marginal tax rate was higher.
-
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.RaceBannon said:Hondo is livid that people keep more of their money
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. -
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.SFGbob said:
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. -
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%.2001400ex said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.
The dipshit here as always Hondo is you.
-
Gee Hondo, why are capital gains taxed differently than wages? Idiot2001400ex said:
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.SFGbob said:
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. -
Except spending? By your definition. Of a range within 8% of GDP. Spending hasn't changed either. You can't have it both ways.MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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. -
That's not the discussion. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Gee Hondo, why are capital gains taxed differently than wages? Idiot2001400ex said:
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.SFGbob said:
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. -
Yes I can.2001400ex said:
Except spending? By your definition. Of a range within 8% of GDP. Spending hasn't changed either. You can't have it both ways.MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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. -
You’re the one who brought it up, pissant2001400ex said:
That's not the discussion. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Gee Hondo, why are capital gains taxed differently than wages? Idiot2001400ex said:
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.SFGbob said:
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. -
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!!!Gwad said:Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
-
The party of greed, envy and jealousy.MikeDamone said:
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?GDS said:
“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...fsMikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.2001400ex said:
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?MikeDamone said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.2001400ex said:
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.MikeDamone said:
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?2001400ex said:
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.PurpleThrobber said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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. -
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 alwaysGwad said:Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
-
As opposed to what we have now which is where the richest 400 Americans are paying a lower effective rate than the middle class...greenblood said:
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 alwaysGwad said:Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
-
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%.GDS said:
As opposed to what we have now which is where the richest 400 Americans are paying a lower effective rate than the middle class...greenblood said:
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 alwaysGwad said:Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
-
Sounds like a good reason to lower the rate on the middle class.GDS said:
As opposed to what we have now which is where the richest 400 Americans are paying a lower effective rate than the middle class...greenblood said:
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 alwaysGwad said:Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
-
If we tax the rich more how much can I expect to see in my bank account?
-
NOCRaceBannon said:If we tax the rich more how much can I expect to see in my bank account?
-
Gwad said:
Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
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 -
Then they can keep itCirrhosisDawg said:
NOCRaceBannon said:If we tax the rich more how much can I expect to see in my bank account?
-
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?UW_Doog_Bot said:
The government is better at investing than the private sector!!!Gwad said:Society is going to breakdown if the top 400 don't have those extra millions!!!!!!!!!!
