Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Party like it's 1960
Comments
-
Are you that fucking stupid? You can look at the 1960 1040, Google it. Back then you could deduct sick pay. Other than that, there's a shit ton of deductions now. Not to mention the earned income credit and child tax credit that didn't exist then. And the payroll taxes for social security and Medicare were less.Sledog said:
List the deductions.......2001400ex said:
More than zero. And that converts to like $3 million now or something. How many people make more than that now?doogie said:Curious, hondo, just how many people in the US do you believe were earning $400k and above in 1960?
This is for single filers.
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 20%
$2,000.00+ 22%
$4,000.00+ 26%
$6,000.00+ 30%
$8,000.00+ 34%
$10,000.00+ 38%
$12,000.00+ 43%
$14,000.00+ 47%
$16,000.00+ 50%
$18,000.00+ 53%
$20,000.00+ 56%
$22,000.00+ 59%
$26,000.00+ 62%
$32,000.00+ 65%
$38,000.00+ 69%
$44,000.00+ 72%
$50,000.00+ 75%
$60,000.00+ 78%
$70,000.00+ 81%
$80,000.00+ 84%
$90,000.00+ 87%
$100,000.00+ 89%
$150,000.00+ 90%
$200,000.00+ 91%
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1960
Like doogie, you are arguing against facts because you can't accept the truth. -
On the first link, the second chart is FS. Again like Houston, you see a chart that shows "there is very little change in taxes paid when looked at as a percentage of GDP" with a fucked up scale. You do realize that 3% of GDP is a big fucking number, right?Southerndawg said:
On the second link, no one is saying an 80% top rate would work right now. Look up the word confiscatory. When dropping rates on the top payers from 70% to 33%, that can help the economy because a 70% rate is confiscatory. However, dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 37% will not help the economy one bit. Although, cutting taxes on the middle class would help the economy. Really, I'm fine with the tax cut if they left the top rate at 39.6%, left the business rate alone, and took out the stupid shit like ANWR and the insurance mandate repeal.
Look at it this way, from 1994 to 2001, the top rate was 39.6% and we had consistent economic growth and declininig budget deficits. From 2001 to 2010 the top rate was 35% and we had several years of recession and increasing budget deficits. From 2011 through current, the top rate was 39.6% and we had consistent growth and declining deficits. The same applies going back to the tax cuts in 1986. -
I love seeing the Hondo's of the country in meltdown. You'll be paying less hondo so fill out the donate line or you're a fucking hypocrite! Of course you already are so you'll just be proving it.
-
Who is having a meltdown over this? Dumbass.Sledog said:I love seeing the Hondo's of the country in meltdown. You'll be paying less hondo so fill out the donate line or you're a fucking hypocrite! Of course you already are so you'll just be proving it.
-
Dem's passed the largest tax increase in the history of our nation. Time for some relief. If only we could get some Hondo relief.
-
I'm just glad to see conservatives care about the deficit and be fiscally responsible.Sledog said:Dem's passed the largest tax increase in the history of our nation. Time for some relief. If only we could get some Hondo relief.
-
Right. Obama should have cut taxes to help the deficit.Sledog said: -
As usual you completely missed the salient points and instead went into FS diatribe mode.2001400ex said:
On the first link, the second chart is FS. Again like Houston, you see a chart that shows "there is very little change in taxes paid when looked at as a percentage of GDP" with a fucked up scale. You do realize that 3% of GDP is a big fucking number, right?Southerndawg said:
On the second link, no one is saying an 80% top rate would work right now. Look up the word confiscatory. When dropping rates on the top payers from 70% to 33%, that can help the economy because a 70% rate is confiscatory. However, dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 37% will not help the economy one bit. Although, cutting taxes on the middle class would help the economy. Really, I'm fine with the tax cut if they left the top rate at 39.6%, left the business rate alone, and took out the stupid shit like ANWR and the insurance mandate repeal.
Look at it this way, from 1994 to 2001, the top rate was 39.6% and we had consistent economic growth and declininig budget deficits. From 2001 to 2010 the top rate was 35% and we had several years of recession and increasing budget deficits. From 2011 through current, the top rate was 39.6% and we had consistent growth and declining deficits. The same applies going back to the tax cuts in 1986.
#clockworkshill -
Exactly what points did I miss? Please to be explaining. I look forward to your discussion on this.Southerndawg said:
As usual you completely missed the salient points and instead went into FS diatribe mode.2001400ex said:
On the first link, the second chart is FS. Again like Houston, you see a chart that shows "there is very little change in taxes paid when looked at as a percentage of GDP" with a fucked up scale. You do realize that 3% of GDP is a big fucking number, right?Southerndawg said:
On the second link, no one is saying an 80% top rate would work right now. Look up the word confiscatory. When dropping rates on the top payers from 70% to 33%, that can help the economy because a 70% rate is confiscatory. However, dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 37% will not help the economy one bit. Although, cutting taxes on the middle class would help the economy. Really, I'm fine with the tax cut if they left the top rate at 39.6%, left the business rate alone, and took out the stupid shit like ANWR and the insurance mandate repeal.
Look at it this way, from 1994 to 2001, the top rate was 39.6% and we had consistent economic growth and declininig budget deficits. From 2001 to 2010 the top rate was 35% and we had several years of recession and increasing budget deficits. From 2011 through current, the top rate was 39.6% and we had consistent growth and declining deficits. The same applies going back to the tax cuts in 1986.
#clockworkshill -
Hondos dream of the government taking every dollar you make died hard today.2001400ex said:
More than zero. And that converts to like $3 million now or something. How many people make more than that now?doogie said:Curious, hondo, just how many people in the US do you believe were earning $400k and above in 1960?
This is for single filers.
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 20%
$2,000.00+ 22%
$4,000.00+ 26%
$6,000.00+ 30%
$8,000.00+ 34%
$10,000.00+ 38%
$12,000.00+ 43%
$14,000.00+ 47%
$16,000.00+ 50%
$18,000.00+ 53%
$20,000.00+ 56%
$22,000.00+ 59%
$26,000.00+ 62%
$32,000.00+ 65%
$38,000.00+ 69%
$44,000.00+ 72%
$50,000.00+ 75%
$60,000.00+ 78%
$70,000.00+ 81%
$80,000.00+ 84%
$90,000.00+ 87%
$100,000.00+ 89%
$150,000.00+ 90%
$200,000.00+ 91%
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1960 -
You clearly didn't read the thread.salemcoog said:
Hondos dream of the government taking every dollar you make died hard today.2001400ex said:
More than zero. And that converts to like $3 million now or something. How many people make more than that now?doogie said:Curious, hondo, just how many people in the US do you believe were earning $400k and above in 1960?
This is for single filers.
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 20%
$2,000.00+ 22%
$4,000.00+ 26%
$6,000.00+ 30%
$8,000.00+ 34%
$10,000.00+ 38%
$12,000.00+ 43%
$14,000.00+ 47%
$16,000.00+ 50%
$18,000.00+ 53%
$20,000.00+ 56%
$22,000.00+ 59%
$26,000.00+ 62%
$32,000.00+ 65%
$38,000.00+ 69%
$44,000.00+ 72%
$50,000.00+ 75%
$60,000.00+ 78%
$70,000.00+ 81%
$80,000.00+ 84%
$90,000.00+ 87%
$100,000.00+ 89%
$150,000.00+ 90%
$200,000.00+ 91%
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1960
