These abusive taxpayers
I just can't relate to this type of comment. Abusive taxpayers? I'm almost wondering if I didn't read it correctly.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
These abusive taxpayers
I just can't relate to this type of comment. Abusive taxpayers? I'm almost wondering if I didn't read it correctly.
Typical @JoeFan. When caught lying, he deflects with irrelevant information. Or, in this case, disinformation.
.
Ive noticed you good folks always seem to think people disagree with you are somehow irredeemably defective.
AOC's proposal to tax every body in the country into bankruptcy, you have to ask yourself; "why would anyone vote for these lunatics?".
I read that taxing 70% of incomes after $10 million would generate about $50 billion/yr.
The green new deal would cost about $1 trillion/year.
The people promoting this plan are the definition of stupid. Unless, the unstated goal is just to find excuses to take more money any way they can get it. I could believe either thing at this point.
That top bracket in the 50's was in the 90% range and that was considered our nations glory years.
In fact, the top 1 percent actually pays a bigger share of the tax burden today than they did in 1960 when the top rate was 91 percent. Link.
They did increase revenue, but both parties spent more than the increase. One root problem is in the spending side of the equation. Another lies in the assumption that the federal government should be doing all of the things it currently does.I've been told by successful, well-educated folks that the Trump and Bush tax cuts would decrease the deficit.
Though the rich have a lot of wealth, there isn't enough income to apply a marginal tax rate the raise enough funds for their priorities the extreme left is advocating (single payer healthcare, free college education). It's pure fantasy to believe taxing such a small portion of the population will raise enough $$$ to fund any programs that reach the entire population.
With that said, our marginal tax rates in the upper brackets are at modern historical lows. That top bracket in the 50's was in the 90% range and that was considered our nations glory years. We have an ever increasing income gap in this country that needs to be addressed or the "proletariat" will overthrow the "aristocracy". I just hope its by peaceful means.
Okay, oh great one, explain how one persons, or group of persons, wealth is a great threat to our continued prosperity. This will be good to know.The top 1% has a greater burden while also acquiring a much higher % of our nations wealth compared to the 60's. We may disagree but I think concentration of wealth in our country is one of the greatest threats to our continued prosperity. When Trump supporters realize that it isn't the Mexican that is the reason for their situation but rather that Executive that profited by automating/outsourcing their job then we have a real problem.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that the "income gap" is a fallacy and that your communist view of the proletariat and the aristocracy is childish and false, but you just don't seem to be enamored with the facts.
Donald Trump: Soak The RichTrump is offering an unusual economic plan. He would impose a one-time 14.5% tax on the rich, to get rid of the national debt and save Social Security for the middle classes. Seeking attention and credibility for his potential Reform party presidential campaign, the real estate tycoon proposed the tax plan Tuesday.
He said the one-time tax package would raise $5.7 trillion to erase the nation's debt and save $200 billion in annual interest payments. The $5.7 trillion is about two-thirds of the nation's gross domestic product, a figure sure to raise alarm bells on Wall Street.
Trump said he'd use the windfall to save Social Security and slash taxes for the middle class. He also said his own tax bill would be raised by at least $725 million
"It's a big hit for me, but I think it's worth it," Trump said in a telephone interview from his New York offices.
The top 1% has a greater burden while also acquiring a much higher % of our nations wealth compared to the 60's.
We may disagree but I think concentration of wealth in our country is one of the greatest threats to our continued prosperity
When Trump supporters realize that it isn't the Mexican that is the reason for their situation but rather that Executive that profited by automating/outsourcing their job then we have a real problem.
Nailed it!Another lies in the assumption that the federal government should be doing all of the things it currently does.
The leftists in FantasyLand tend not to accept reality...it harshes on their buzz man.It has been repeatedly explained to you that the "income gap" is a fallacy and that your communist view of the proletariat and the aristocracy is childish and false, but you just don't seem to be enamored with the facts.
To say nothing of the fact that the proposal was a ONE TIME thing, not an annual stealing such as AOC wants to see occur.At least one of them has realized the stupidity of their proposal.
If we adopted the 1950s tax rates with the current tax base, we would not return to a 1950s-style economy with comparable taxes. We'd likely destroy the modern US economy because basically every person in the US with significant money would flea to a country that isn't as economically illiterate as AOC clearly is, and they would have a lot of options.
I don't think the concentration of wealth is a problem if people closer to the bottom are doing reasonably well. If your average middle class guy can still generally care for his family reasonably comfortably, then I don't think it's a problem if the guy at the top lives in a mansion and owns a private jet. If large numbers of people are struggling to eat and avoid homelessness while the wealthy are living in mansions and owning private jets, that is a major economic and social problem.
I cannot believe that we are even discussing the thoughts of this airhead seriously. If she were unattractive the media would have completely ignored her.
More accurately, if she had (R) after her name. Plenty of attractive (R) women who are vilified or ignored by the media.I cannot believe that we are even discussing the thoughts of this airhead seriously. If she were unattractive the media would have completely ignored her.
But I am guessing the 43.5% who pay no taxes now will not be happy.
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC