Economic, taxes, and tariffs discussion

[baldgriff]

Repeating this nonsense doesn't make it any more credible.

I understand that we have a difference of opinion regarding this. I will continue to make jokes about it - and you can continue to call it nonsense.

[The Feral Slasher]

I have posted this before, but the 91% is totally misleading.
Richest 1% paid about 42% effective tax rate when the rate was 91%.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

What do the 1% pay now ?

[nots]

Folks complaining about their $20,000 property taxes and state income tax no longer being deductible make me laugh.....who exactly should be paying more if not those folks?

[DMT]

I have posted this before, but the 91% is totally misleading.
Richest 1% paid about 42% effective tax rate when the rate was 91%.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

So is even a 5.6% decline justifiable when income inequality is rising?

[The Feral Slasher]

I understand that we have a difference of opinion regarding this. I will continue to make jokes about it - and you can continue to call it nonsense.

every day when i drive in to work i wonder, why do i live in a country that treats its billionaires so poorly ? What is wrong with us ?

[nots]

What do the 1% pay now ?

Graph is included in the article. Looks like 36 or 37%.
Not saying the richest folks shouldn’t pay some more. But citing the 91% without context is silly.

[nots]

So is even a 5.6% decline justifiable when income inequality is rising?

I didn’t say it was..,I just refuted your snarky Eisenhower 91% comment. If you want to have a real discussion, let’s have at it. If you want to post Huff Post talking points without context, you’re just being a troll.

[DMT]

Graph is included in the article. Looks like 36 or 37%.
Not saying the richest folks shouldn’t pay some more. But citing the 91% without context is silly.

No what's silly is talking about our tax code being unfair to the rich given the unmistakable trend of increasing inequality.

[nots]

No what's silly is talking about our tax code being unfair to the rich given the unmistakable trend of increasing inequality.

Again, I didn’t say anything about the tax code being unfair to the rich, though I do appreciate your attempt to quickly move the goalposts onyour 91% tax rate fallacy.

[The Feral Slasher]

Graph is included in the article. Looks like 36 or 37%.
Not saying the richest folks shouldn’t pay some more. But citing the 91% without context is silly.

It's also silly to pretend that anyone would actually pay 70% or that proposing a 70% tax bracket is equivalent to communism, but you know that is how this is being spun (not by you,just in general)

[nots]

It's also silly to pretend that anyone would actually pay 70% or that proposing a 70% tax bracket is equivalent to communism, but you know that is how this is being spun (not by you,just in general)

I strongly disagree with a 70% tax rate, but if you think you have the votes, have at it. I think the top bracket should be somewhere in the 40s.

[DMT]

Again, I didn’t say anything about the tax code being unfair to the rich, though I do appreciate your attempt to quickly move the goalposts onyour 91% tax rate fallacy.

I was responding (and referring) to BG but way to assume it's all about you.

[The Feral Slasher]

I strongly disagree with a 70% tax rate, but if you think you have the votes, have at it. I think the top bracket should be somewhere in the 40s.

I never said I supported 70% tax bracket. I simply pointed out that both sides will be putting their own spin on it.

[nots]

I was responding (and referring) to BG but way to assume it's all about you.

Well since you quoted me (with graph) in posts 379 and 383, yeah I am going to assume you were talking to me. Funny that.

[nots]

I never said I supported 70% tax bracket. I simply pointed out that both sides will be putting their own spin on it.

No argument there