| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14934
Location: on earth
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I am not a fan of Biden, here is one good one.
HP
Joe Biden Offers Another Nonapology On Anita Hill
“I wish I could have done something,” Biden said Tuesday while reflecting on Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
headshot
By Marina Fang
770
| Quote: | Former Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that he wished he “could have done something” to prevent the attacks against law Professor Anita Hill that followed her sexual harassment allegations in 1991 against now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
“To this day, I regret that I couldn’t get her the type of hearing she deserved,” Biden said at an award ceremony in New York honoring students working to combat sexual assault on college campuses. “She paid a terrible price. She was abused through the hearing. She was taken advantage of, her reputation was attacked.”
Biden, who is widely expected to formally announce a 2020 presidential bid soon, has faced criticism for his handling of Thomas’ 1991 confirmation hearing, when he was a Democratic senator from Delaware and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden famously did not allow testimony from several other women who had similar allegations or could corroborate Hill’s allegations against Thomas.
The former vice president has expressed regret for the treatment Hill received, although Hill has called this insufficient because he did not directly address his own role in the matter. |
...
,,
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20936
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Warren says she will pay for socialism by taxing big business. She apparently thinks the public is too stupid to realize that corporations don't pay income taxes, that they just pass any IRS liabilities onto their customers -- i.e., you and me -- in higher prices.
Don't misunderstand; that's simple arithmetic, not gouging or greed. Any companies that eat taxes for too long go belly up. Yet apparently millions of idiots, from AOC to her supporters from this forum to Elba, Alabama can't comprehend that.
And now BS is offering totally free, cradle to grave free health care.
If enough people to elect these socialist fools are gullible enough to fall for any of this, they deserve to see their taxes doubled (and suffer the fates of Venezuela, et. al.) But, oh, yes ... these people are mostly brainwashed permanent students and activists living in their parents' basement, with either no means of and no interest in ever succeeding on their own. Yeah, we REALLY want people that shiftless running our country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9306
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | Warren says she will pay for socialism by taxing big business. She apparently thinks the public is too stupid to realize that corporations don't pay income taxes, that they just pass any IRS liabilities onto their customers -- i.e., you and me -- in higher prices.
Don't misunderstand; that's simple arithmetic, not gouging or greed. Any companies that eat taxes for too long go belly up. Yet apparently millions of idiots, from AOC to her supporters from this forum to Elba, Alabama can't comprehend that.
And now BS is offering totally free, cradle to grave free health care.
If enough people to elect these socialist fools are gullible enough to fall for any of this, they deserve to see their taxes doubled (and suffer the fates of Venezuela, et. al.) But, oh, yes ... these people are mostly brainwashed permanent students and activists living in their parents' basement, with either no means of and no interest in ever succeeding on their own. Yeah, we REALLY want people that shiftless running our country. |
If it gets bad, I'll be moving to the Cayman islands.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14934
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | Warren says she will pay for socialism by taxing big business. She apparently thinks the public is too stupid to realize that corporations don't pay income taxes, that they just pass any IRS liabilities onto their customers -- i.e., you and me -- in higher prices.
Don't misunderstand; that's simple arithmetic, not gouging or greed. Any companies that eat taxes for too long go belly up. Yet apparently millions of idiots, from AOC to her supporters from this forum to Elba, Alabama can't comprehend that.
And now BS is offering totally free, cradle to grave free health care.
If enough people to elect these socialist fools are gullible enough to fall for any of this, they deserve to see their taxes doubled (and suffer the fates of Venezuela, et. al.) But, oh, yes ... these people are mostly brainwashed permanent students and activists living in their parents' basement, with either no means of and no interest in ever succeeding on their own. Yeah, we REALLY want people that shiftless running our country. |
you freaken ultra low-level thinker, in the so-called countries economic glory days and the USA did just fine... in the 50s the tax rate was OVER 90% at times for the rich... you are just freaken low level. Again whatever you did in the military if it was not peeling potatoes you have certainly destroyed america with you lack of wisdom.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4182
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand...........
| Quote: | Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s
August 4, 2017
Scott Greenberg
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.
The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.
All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3] |
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17775
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | On the other hand...........
| Quote: | Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s
August 4, 2017
Scott Greenberg
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.
The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.
All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3] |
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ |
I’m never really surprised about how folks restrict their consumption of information to sources that will reinforce their biases. Like the tax foundation:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/tax-foundation/
Indeed, the difference between the highest rates is not minor—when multiplied by the numbers of people in those brackets. There is a huge payment to the very rich—and I don’t expect Techno to calculate it, or even think about it.
The second flaw is that this limited—and biased—commentary ignores the overall fiscal context. The current tax cuts, and the Bush tax cuts, are being funded by very large deficits. Since the federal government is a much better bet to loan money to than you or I or any Trump business, their participation drives many things. It limits other things we can do—infrastructure for one—that might create more wealth and more equtable wealth, and it sets the interest rates n real markets.
More fundamentally, deficit spending fuels inflation, which works in the economic system as an essentially invisible tax. That tax is being paid by today’s consumers—and by tomorrows citizens. Thus the deficits are exacerbating inequality—and stealing from our children. It is a large transfer of wealth to those who already have wealth.
Finally, what this comment and Isobars comment ignore is the implications of difference businesses. While the argument Iso makes that consumers ultimately pay taxes in the price of products is correct, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Take shipping petroleum, through ports or through pipelines on public property. If the tax system does not capture the true costs—including opportunity costs—of those services, the federal government has subsidized those businesses. The lower price that results can skew the market away from products that require less services. Although nominally invisible—especially to those who don’t exercise their critical thinking muscles—the effect is that the government picks winners and losers.
Most of this used to be obvious to conservatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14934
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | On the other hand...........
| Quote: | Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s
August 4, 2017
Scott Greenberg
All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3] |
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ |
thanks for telling us that 91 percent tax makes no difference, then put it back to 91%... hahahahaha
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4182
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the highest tax rate in the 50's was 90%, but there is more to the story.
| Quote: | | Real tax rates were a lot lower. Even Levine concedes that “not many people paid that much. Only three baseball players — Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays — got there.” Indeed, the top effective tax rate was probably somewhere between 50-60% because of a tax code full of loopholes. Now, that’s still higher than today’s top effective tax rate of around 30%. But those 1950s tax rates actually generated less tax revenue than subsequent periods of lower rates. From 1950 to 1963, income tax revenue averaged 7.5 percent of GDP; that’s less than in the Reagan years when rates were being slashed. This could suggest that rates are right around the Laffer Curve equilibrium point in the current economy. Indeed, the following chart from the WSJ makes this calculation over a variety of time periods: |
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14934
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | Yes, the highest tax rate in the 50's was 90%, but there is more to the story.
| Quote: | | Real tax rates were a lot lower. Even Levine concedes that “not many people paid that much. Only three baseball players — Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays — got there.” Indeed, the top effective tax rate was probably somewhere between 50-60% because of a tax code full of loopholes. Now, that’s still higher than today’s top effective tax rate of around 30%. But those 1950s tax rates actually generated less tax revenue than subsequent periods of lower rates. From 1950 to 1963, income tax revenue averaged 7.5 percent of GDP; that’s less than in the Reagan years when rates were being slashed. This could suggest that rates are right around the Laffer Curve equilibrium point in the current economy. Indeed, the following chart from the WSJ makes this calculation over a variety of time periods: |
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/ |
again the 1% right now make a billion. Not 200k.
you guys are so full of shiite. I had friends whose parents were in 80% tax bracket and no they were not the top baseball and basketball players. I believe kicked in at about 100k. and you hit 50% at just USD$16,000.
my father as a ex military, Ph.D. in Physics at a national lab for the government was at about starting USD$7k a year in the 1960s. and right now a G6 starts at 33k.
https://www.federalpay.org/gs/2019
so just a 5 or 6 times the differential or so.
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1957
too funny there are way more tax loop-holes now than way back then.
We are way more productive than way back then so using GDP is not a valid standard.
were these idiots who wrote these articles high school drop outs. again glaring points in their thesis i blew out in 1 minute.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17775
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | Yes, the highest tax rate in the 50's was 90%, but there is more to the story.
| Quote: | | Real tax rates were a lot lower. Even Levine concedes that “not many people paid that much. Only three baseball players — Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays — got there.” Indeed, the top effective tax rate was probably somewhere between 50-60% because of a tax code full of loopholes. Now, that’s still higher than today’s top effective tax rate of around 30%. But those 1950s tax rates actually generated less tax revenue than subsequent periods of lower rates. From 1950 to 1963, income tax revenue averaged 7.5 percent of GDP; that’s less than in the Reagan years when rates were being slashed. This could suggest that rates are right around the Laffer Curve equilibrium point in the current economy. Indeed, the following chart from the WSJ makes this calculation over a variety of time periods: |
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/ |
Back to talking points. The critical thinking muscle is still sleeping. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
