BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[Lagboltz]

There is a ton of threads out here to show that when taxes are lower on the rich (the job makers) there is more revenue. We just have to agree to disagree even though you don't like agreeing with me

The threads out here are just people yelling things without much thought. If you want the truth, read Wikipedia. Here and Here to get both sides of the argument.

 

[Openmind]

The threads out here are just people yelling things without much thought. If you want the truth, read Wikipedia. Here and Here to get both sides of the argument.

That is an excellent advice.

The trick most used by Republicans, tea party and Fox News (aren't they all the same after all?) is to repeat a canned phrase over and over, until it takes a life of it's own.

Not unlike urban legends, really!

 

[Lagboltz]

That is an excellent advice.

The trick most used by Republicans, tea party and Fox News (aren't they all the same after all?) is to repeat a canned phrase over and over, until it takes a life of it's own.

Not unlike urban legends, really!

Isn't that the truth.
I always go to wikipedia for controversial subjects. People on the right and left keep changing the articles to the right and left until it hits a neutral medium.

 

[Pandora]

they have you fooled very well..thinking that you don't pay..you do..
taxes where higher on the rich under clinton..he created about 28 million jobs under his time..

they where far lower under Bush..he had the lowest job creation number of any recent president.

Taxes on the richest are at all time lowes...unemployment is at like 9% ( actuly higher) so where are the jobs?

its like Trickle down econ all over again...bow the to "job creators" while the only jobs are they are making are overseas...and the new maid to clean the new wing of there mansion they just paid for with the record earnings.

Also why do you point out only the GE..but not the oil companies? does Exxon not have to pay taxes because they support Republicans?

Things started to go south when the dems under nancy Pelosi took congress in 2007 and when I would point out how bad things were getting, how high gas was getting how unemployment was going up.... I was told to be patient and give it time, it never got better. The GOP just took control a few months ago, give them at least a little time to see if things get better. If not, Ill be right with you complaining about them.


And why name GE? Well, for one they got special sweetheart crap from the obama whitehouse and they are the ones to gain the most off this global warming scam AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE!

And you know how you get extra upset when republicans have homosexual sex in bathrooms or cheat on their wives because republicans claim to have family values?

Well, I get extra mad when companies who support democrats and claim rich should pay higher taxes then get tons of income off the tax payers and do what they accuse republicans of doing and not paying taxes.

So though they might all be bad I will name the worst Kind of like you do with sex scandals

 

[Lagboltz]

Things started to go south when the dems under nancy Pelosi took congress in 2007 and when I would point out how bad things were getting, how high gas was getting how unemployment was going up.... I was told to be patient and give it time, it never got better. The GOP just took control a few months ago, give them at least a little time to see if things get better. If not, Ill be right with you complaining about them.


And why name GE? Well, for one they got special sweetheart crap from the obama whitehouse and they are the ones to gain the most off this global warming scam AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE!

And you know how you get extra upset when republicans have homosexual sex in bathrooms or cheat on their wives because republicans claim to have family values?

Well, I get extra mad when companies who support democrats and claim rich should pay higher taxes then get tons of income off the tax payers and do what they accuse republicans of doing and not paying taxes.

So though they might all be bad I will name the worst Kind of like you do with sex scandals

This is an attempt to take the partisanship out. It applies to all parties from 1965 on out.

Notice that as the top marginal rate goes down, so does the GDP growth. This indicates that lowering taxes has a detrimental effect on the economy.
(You have to click on the image to see it clearly.)

 

[Pandora]

This is an attempt to take the partisanship out. It applies to all parties from 1965 on out.
View attachment 77
Notice that as the top marginal rate goes down, so does the GDP growth. This indicates that lowering taxes has a detrimental effect on the economy.
(You have to click on the image to see it clearly.)

The first thing I noticed was one line went flat and the other line dropped in 2007 when Pelosi and the dem's took congress.

I have to get ready to go but Ill come back to that page and look closer when I return.

Driving to Bend to pick up my daughter See u all tomorrow night

 

[Openmind]

Things started to go south when the dems under nancy Pelosi took congress in 2007 and when I would point out how bad things were getting, how high gas was getting how unemployment was going up.... I was told to be patient and give it time, it never got better. The GOP just took control a few months ago, give them at least a little time to see if things get better. If not, Ill be right with you complaining about them.


And why name GE? Well, for one they got special sweetheart crap from the obama whitehouse and they are the ones to gain the most off this global warming scam AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE!

And you know how you get extra upset when republicans have homosexual sex in bathrooms or cheat on their wives because republicans claim to have family values?

Well, I get extra mad when companies who support democrats and claim rich should pay higher taxes then get tons of income off the tax payers and do what they accuse republicans of doing and not paying taxes.

So though they might all be bad I will name the worst Kind of like you do with sex scandals

You mean. . . like Michele Bachmann complaining about "entitlements spending" but taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies for her farm?

 

[Pandora]

You mean. . . like Michele Bachmann complaining about "entitlements spending" but taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies for her farm?

Exactly like that!

She shouldn't take it.

From what I understand her farm isn't just in her name so I am not sure if its fair to the others who are in business with her, but still she shouldn't

And I should not take the Earned Income Credit because I don't believe in it.

I am a hypocrite on that and I do take it, but I wish it would end so I wouldn't be tempted

Dang car isn't ready so I can't drive to Bend yet, guess I will blog till its done

 

[Lagboltz]

The first thing I noticed was one line went flat and the other line dropped in 2007 when Pelosi and the dem's took congress.

Don't just look at 2007 and be partisan about it. This data is for all presidents since 1965. Look at the whole curve and compare the top marginal tax rate.
From 1965 to 1980 the tax rate was around 70%. The GDP was 3-2 %
From 1980 to 2002 the tax rate was around 50%. The GDP was 2%
From 2004 to 2010 the tax rate was exactly 35%. The GDP was 2-1 %

Believers in trickle-down say lower taxes lead to a growing economy.
Actually, to be fair, I made an unwise cause and effect error. I should NOT have said,
"This indicates that lowering taxes has a detrimental effect on the economy."
Because of other influences that may affect GDP the conclusion should be that the graph shows the economy will not grow if taxes are lowered.

 

[Little-Acorn]

From 1965 to 1980 the tax rate was around 70%.
From 1980 to 2002 the tax rate was around 50%.

Look, I know liberals habitually base their agenda on lies. But why do you put out such obvious, easily-disproven ones?

GO LOOK UP what the top marginal income tax rates were during these periods. And try to get the years right, too, for a change.

Quit making up tripe that simply sounds good to you and fits your agenda.

 

[Pandora]

Don't just look at 2007 and be partisan about it. This data is for all presidents since 1965. Look at the whole curve and compare the top marginal tax rate.
From 1965 to 1980 the tax rate was around 70%. The GDP was 3-2 %
From 1980 to 2002 the tax rate was around 50%. The GDP was 2%
From 2004 to 2010 the tax rate was exactly 35%. The GDP was 2-1 %

Believers in trickle-down say lower taxes lead to a growing economy.
Actually, to be fair, I made an unwise cause and effect error. I should NOT have said,
"This indicates that lowering taxes has a detrimental effect on the economy."
Because of other influences that may affect GDP the conclusion should be that the graph shows the economy will not grow if taxes are lowered.

That was just the first thing I noticed. I honestly admit that I know little about economics, hell I cant spell it either.

Lets say you are 100% right that the higher the taxes the more revenue, is it morally right to tax someone at 70%?

I am really bothered at the idea that some pay nothing, even getting money back and others pay 70 percent. It just seems morally wrong to me.

Our country would be better off finically If we forced abortion on anyone poor and ended the life of anyone over 70 too but it would be morally wrong.

Since I am a self admitted idiot when it comes to this topic, hopefully someone from the other side of the isle will post something countering your post and I will find the truth .... probably someplace in the middle

but it wont just matter to me what brings in the most revenue, the moral part of it will still make part of the difference for me.

 

[Pandora]

Look, I know liberals habitually base their agenda on lies. But why do you put out such obvious, easily-disproven ones?

GO LOOK UP what the top marginal income tax rates were during these periods. And try to get the years right, too, for a change.

Quit making up tripe that simply sounds good to you and fits your agenda.

Being that I am an idiot on this topic, can you explain it further for me

 

[Lagboltz]

Look, I know liberals habitually base their agenda on lies. But why do you put out such obvious, easily-disproven ones?

GO LOOK UP what the top marginal income tax rates were during these periods. And try to get the years right, too, for a change.

Quit making up tripe that simply sounds good to you and fits your agenda.

I got all these "lies" from government spread sheets. Where do you suggest I look up the "real" data.

I was approximating the span of the data. My wording was AROUND 50% etc. Click on the graph to see the details of what "around" means.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Where do you suggest I look up the "real" data.

(patiently)

Google "historic marginal income tax rates" (without the quotes).

Please go do your homework.

 

[Lagboltz]

That was just the first thing I noticed. I honestly admit that I know little about economics, hell I cant spell it either.

Lets say you are 100% right that the higher the taxes the more revenue, is it morally right to tax someone at 70%?

I am really bothered at the idea that some pay nothing, even getting money back and others pay 70 percent. It just seems morally wrong to me.

Our country would be better off finically If we forced abortion on anyone poor and ended the life of anyone over 70 too but it would be morally wrong.

Since I am a self admitted idiot when it comes to this topic, hopefully someone from the other side of the isle will post something countering your post and I will find the truth .... probably someplace in the middle

but it wont just matter to me what brings in the most revenue, the moral part of it will still make part of the difference for me.

You missed the major point, I said the higher the taxes, the higher the GDP, not the higher the revenue. Why do you want to counter my post. I'm including both parties in the long span of the graphs. I am not laying blame on any party. I'm just trying to show that trickle down theory has not been substantiated.

I would gladly vote for lower taxes if I thought it would bring more revenue but it doesn't always work that way. You can see that the GDP is rather wavy, so the graph proves nothing in the short term. But long term shows the trend.

My attitude for progressive taxes is to boost the GDP in declining America. It seems that the rich don't care. To me the question (I'm oversimplifying) is who does the poor and middle class want to survive - America, or the wealthy. Sure it's unfair to them in a number of ways, but we have to do what is needed so we don't become a banana republic. Please look it up so you will know what I'm talking about.