JFK, face-smashing Democrat
- Thread starter GrundleStiltzkin
- Start date
GrundleStiltzkin
New Fish
Right wing extremist
Well that was stupid
You still butthurt over Ty?
2001400ex
New Fish
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%2520Tax%2520Brackets.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwjateCSvcfIAhVL8WMKHfC5COI&usg=AFQjCNF05GexdLM_Abs5G3Fpkh_gXY-isg&sig2=XrSmv5reVBI5IJUeCsZUAg
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
link?
Look at 1960. Pretty crazy actually. Those rates were raised in the mid 50s trying to pay off the war bonds from WW2.
dnc
New Fish
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%2520Tax%2520Brackets.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwjateCSvcfIAhVL8WMKHfC5COI&usg=AFQjCNF05GexdLM_Abs5G3Fpkh_gXY-isg&sig2=XrSmv5reVBI5IJUeCsZUAg
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
link?
Look at 1960. Pretty crazy actually. Those rates were raised in the mid 50s trying to pay off the war bonds from WW2.
Pretty crazy indeed. I'd be content with higher tax rates if the government actually used the money to pay off our debt, not to fund more programs. But more taxation = more programs. Fuck that.
Last edited:
2001400ex
New Fish
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%2520Tax%2520Brackets.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwjateCSvcfIAhVL8WMKHfC5COI&usg=AFQjCNF05GexdLM_Abs5G3Fpkh_gXY-isg&sig2=XrSmv5reVBI5IJUeCsZUAg
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
link?
Look at 1960. Pretty crazy actually. Those rates were raised in the mid 50s trying to pay off the war bonds from WW2.
Pretty crazy indeed. I'd be content with higher tax rates if the government actually used the money to pay off our debt, not to fund more programs. But more taxation = more programs. Fuck that.
Here's the thing, even when Reagan reduced rates, the top bracket was 71% and reducing tax rates benefits the economy. But going from 39.6% to 35% on income over $400k is not beneficial to helping the economy. Especially when some types is passive income are capped at 20%.
I also agree on not raising taxes to add programs. At some point we need to raise taxes and cut expenses to pay down our debt. Same with what we did in the 90s, it will need to coincide with a hot economy too.
HFNY
Active poster
The nominal tax rates were that high but not the effective tax rates. For some reason, Big Governmentistas never point that out. I wonder why?
Also, an annual income of $400k back then is over $3 million today while an income of $100k is $800,000 in today's dollars.
As usual, details matter.
Also, an annual income of $400k back then is over $3 million today while an income of $100k is $800,000 in today's dollars.
As usual, details matter.
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
DontCallMeShirley
New Fish
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%2520Tax%2520Brackets.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwjateCSvcfIAhVL8WMKHfC5COI&usg=AFQjCNF05GexdLM_Abs5G3Fpkh_gXY-isg&sig2=XrSmv5reVBI5IJUeCsZUAg
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
link?
Look at 1960. Pretty crazy actually. Those rates were raised in the mid 50s trying to pay off the war bonds from WW2.
Holy fuck you're stupid.
2001400ex
New Fish
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%2520Tax%2520Brackets.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwjateCSvcfIAhVL8WMKHfC5COI&usg=AFQjCNF05GexdLM_Abs5G3Fpkh_gXY-isg&sig2=XrSmv5reVBI5IJUeCsZUAg
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
link?
Look at 1960. Pretty crazy actually. Those rates were raised in the mid 50s trying to pay off the war bonds from WW2.
Holy fuck you're stupid.
I like to just use the top rate (which us missing a huge picture), then use a shitty scale to make it seem like a range of 16 to 20 percent revenue per GDP isn't a big deal. Cause that's what I like to do.
2001400ex
New Fish
The nominal tax rates were that high but not the effective tax rates. For some reason, Big Governmentistas never point that out. I wonder why?
Also, an annual income of $400k back then is over $3 million today while an income of $100k is $800,000 in today's dollars.
As usual, details matter.
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
Yeah wages are different now, what's your point? Let's just tax wages over $5,000,000 at 90% then. Right?
HFNY
Active poster
Huh?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%2520Tax%2520Brackets.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwjateCSvcfIAhVL8WMKHfC5COI&usg=AFQjCNF05GexdLM_Abs5G3Fpkh_gXY-isg&sig2=XrSmv5reVBI5IJUeCsZUAg
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
link?
Look at 1960. Pretty crazy actually. Those rates were raised in the mid 50s trying to pay off the war bonds from WW2.
Holy fuck you're stupid.
I like to just use the top rate (which us missing a huge picture), then use a shitty scale to make it seem like a range of 16 to 20 percent revenue per GDP isn't a big deal. Cause that's what I like to do.
HFNY
Active poster
My point, beyond highlighting that there is a large difference between nominal and effective tax rates, is that the nominal 91% rate hardly effected anyone.
And why should nominal rates be 91% for incomes over $5,000,000? If that is also the effective rate, that means the Federal Government is entitled to 91 cents of every dollar a person earns above $5 million. Is that just or moral? Not in my mind and I don't come close to making $5 million (or even $1 million, though I hope to get there one day).
Unfortunately the Loony Left is so focused on taking wealth away from people to address inequality that they are forgetting that the chief goal should be to reduce poverty by giving a hand-up to people...help people help themselves. Brain dead libtards love the soak the rich mentality and vote for people spewing that crap (shame on the politicians who stoop to that lowest common denominator) but the nation is worse off for it because poverty rates have hardly budged since that ruinous president LBJ declared a "War On Poverty".
But yay, let's raise rates back to 91% and everything will be peaches and cream!!!!!!!@!!111!!!!!
wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556
And why should nominal rates be 91% for incomes over $5,000,000? If that is also the effective rate, that means the Federal Government is entitled to 91 cents of every dollar a person earns above $5 million. Is that just or moral? Not in my mind and I don't come close to making $5 million (or even $1 million, though I hope to get there one day).
Unfortunately the Loony Left is so focused on taking wealth away from people to address inequality that they are forgetting that the chief goal should be to reduce poverty by giving a hand-up to people...help people help themselves. Brain dead libtards love the soak the rich mentality and vote for people spewing that crap (shame on the politicians who stoop to that lowest common denominator) but the nation is worse off for it because poverty rates have hardly budged since that ruinous president LBJ declared a "War On Poverty".
But yay, let's raise rates back to 91% and everything will be peaches and cream!!!!!!!@!!111!!!!!
wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556
The nominal tax rates were that high but not the effective tax rates. For some reason, Big Governmentistas never point that out. I wonder why?
Also, an annual income of $400k back then is over $3 million today while an income of $100k is $800,000 in today's dollars.
As usual, details matter.
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
Yeah wages are different now, what's your point? Let's just tax wages over $5,000,000 at 90% then. Right?
2001400ex
New Fish
My point, beyond highlighting that there is a large difference between nominal and effective tax rates, is that the nominal 91% rate hardly effected anyone.
And why should nominal rates be 91% for incomes over $5,000,000? If that is also the effective rate, that means the Federal Government is entitled to 91 cents of every dollar a person earns above $5 million. Is that just or moral? Not in my mind and I don't come close to making $5 million (or even $1 million, though I hope to get there one day).
Unfortunately the Loony Left is so focused on taking wealth away from people to address inequality that they are forgetting that the chief goal should be to reduce poverty by giving a hand-up to people...help people help themselves. Brain dead libtards love the soak the rich mentality and vote for people spewing that crap (shame on the politicians who stoop to that lowest common denominator) but the nation is worse off for it because poverty rates have hardly budged since that ruinous president LBJ declared a "War On Poverty".
But yay, let's raise rates back to 91% and everything will be peaches and cream!!!!!!!@!!111!!!!!
wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556
The nominal tax rates were that high but not the effective tax rates. For some reason, Big Governmentistas never point that out. I wonder why?
Also, an annual income of $400k back then is over $3 million today while an income of $100k is $800,000 in today's dollars.
As usual, details matter.
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
Yeah wages are different now, what's your point? Let's just tax wages over $5,000,000 at 90% then. Right?
Where's my Billy Madison quote. You know the one I'm talking about.
But you illustrate the exact point I'm making to Shirley's post. The top tax rate effects very few people, you need to take into account the whole tax structure.
I'm not sure anyone ever said the effective rate was 91%. It's 91% of every dollar over $400k. And I noted a couple other rates and then posted the entire tax bracket.
No one is saying to make anyone's effective rate that high. But taxing every dollar over $1,000,000 an extra 3% could bring in a huge amount of revenue, and, like you said, not really effect many people. And I promise you, won't effect one job.
I know many people that make over a million a year, and their tax rate has nothing to do with their payroll levels.
But nice partisan post. I like it.
DontCallMeShirley
New Fish
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%2520Tax%2520Brackets.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwjateCSvcfIAhVL8WMKHfC5COI&usg=AFQjCNF05GexdLM_Abs5G3Fpkh_gXY-isg&sig2=XrSmv5reVBI5IJUeCsZUAg
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
link?
Look at 1960. Pretty crazy actually. Those rates were raised in the mid 50s trying to pay off the war bonds from WW2.
Holy fuck you're stupid.
I like to just use the top rate (which us missing a huge picture), then use a shitty scale to make it seem like a range of 16 to 20 percent revenue per GDP isn't a big deal. Cause that's what I like to do.
Da fuq? Can you read? Jesus
HFNY
Active poster
Obama already raised the top rate from 35% back to 39.6%. He also added an Obamacare surcharge of 3.8% on dividend and capital gains income on households with incomes of $250,000 or single people making $200,000.
Now you want to layer on another tax increase of 3%? The Federal Government is a terrible steward of tax dollars and you want to take even more money away from people who know how to make it and allocate it to people who couldn't hack it in the private sector and love OPM?
Lastly, do you not think that people making over $1 million a year impact more things than simply their own payrolls? They consume and invest a lot more than others and consumption / investment greatly impacts the payrolls of other companies and shops.
Now you want to layer on another tax increase of 3%? The Federal Government is a terrible steward of tax dollars and you want to take even more money away from people who know how to make it and allocate it to people who couldn't hack it in the private sector and love OPM?
Lastly, do you not think that people making over $1 million a year impact more things than simply their own payrolls? They consume and invest a lot more than others and consumption / investment greatly impacts the payrolls of other companies and shops.
My point, beyond highlighting that there is a large difference between nominal and effective tax rates, is that the nominal 91% rate hardly effected anyone.
And why should nominal rates be 91% for incomes over $5,000,000? If that is also the effective rate, that means the Federal Government is entitled to 91 cents of every dollar a person earns above $5 million. Is that just or moral? Not in my mind and I don't come close to making $5 million (or even $1 million, though I hope to get there one day).
Unfortunately the Loony Left is so focused on taking wealth away from people to address inequality that they are forgetting that the chief goal should be to reduce poverty by giving a hand-up to people...help people help themselves. Brain dead libtards love the soak the rich mentality and vote for people spewing that crap (shame on the politicians who stoop to that lowest common denominator) but the nation is worse off for it because poverty rates have hardly budged since that ruinous president LBJ declared a "War On Poverty".
But yay, let's raise rates back to 91% and everything will be peaches and cream!!!!!!!@!!111!!!!!
wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556
The nominal tax rates were that high but not the effective tax rates. For some reason, Big Governmentistas never point that out. I wonder why?
Also, an annual income of $400k back then is over $3 million today while an income of $100k is $800,000 in today's dollars.
As usual, details matter.
That's easy to say when tax rates are 91% of income over $400k, the 75% bracket started at $100k, and $0-4k was 20%.
Yeah wages are different now, what's your point? Let's just tax wages over $5,000,000 at 90% then. Right?
Where's my Billy Madison quote. You know the one I'm talking about.
But you illustrate the exact point I'm making to Shirley's post. The top tax rate effects very few people, you need to take into account the whole tax structure.
I'm not sure anyone ever said the effective rate was 91%. It's 91% of every dollar over $400k. And I noted a couple other rates and then posted the entire tax bracket.
No one is saying to make anyone's effective rate that high. But taxing every dollar over $1,000,000 an extra 3% could bring in a huge amount of revenue, and, like you said, not really effect many people. And I promise you, won't effect one job.
I know many people that make over a million a year, and their tax rate has nothing to do with their payroll levels.
But nice partisan post. I like it.