T1B

You know what the problem with liberals is? They want equality of outcomes. AND that is a very serious problem indeed.

What the left in this country wants would require a police state to make sure that everyone turns out equal, in every way shape or form.

This is why the left is sick sick sick.

Everyone should get equal opportunity, BUT, in a free society, what you do with that opportunity, is completely up to you.

And this is what seperates the sick leftist from the rest of us. the leftist thinks that we are all the same, that anyone can become a brain surgeon or a corporate CEO.

NO they cant, in a free society, the cream rises to the top, while the shit gets flushed away and ends up in our cities to occupy wall st.

Dinsdale wrote:Bottom line, the highest earners didn't pay any higher rate as a total percentage as they do now (they likely paid less).

You got a link to support this, or is this just more of the typical shit pulled out of your ass, Dinsdalian bullshit that we've all come to expect over the years?

88 wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Bottom line, the highest earners didn't pay any higher rate as a total percentage as they do now (they likely paid less).

You got a link to support this, or is this just more of the typical shit pulled out of your ass, Dinsdalian bullshit that we've all come to expect over the years?

It is hard to find any statistics regarding the Eisenhower era. If someone has them, I'd love to see them. But since the Reagan administration, taxes on the top 1% have increased as a percentage of total income tax revenue collected and taxes on everyone else have declined:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2222

I don't think that was in dispute. At a minimum, I certainly wasn't disputing that.

The 1986 revisions to the Internal Revenue Code essentially created two marginal tax brackets, one at 15% and another at 28%. Subsequent to that, under Bush I a higher bracket (31%) was carved out of the higher bracket. Under Clinton, two higher brackets (36% and 39.6%) were carved out of the 31% bracket. Under Bush II, the marginal tax rates were cut across the board (except for the 15% bracket, but a smaller 10% bracket was carved out of that), but W didn't lower the highest marginal rate quite so low as 28%. And there hasn't been a significant amount of allowable change to deductions since 1986, except for: (1) reinstatement of the student loan interest deduction; (2) capital gain on sale of a home for < $750,000 is now always tax deductible (prior to 1997, it usually was tax deductible, although there were possible scenarios where it wasn't); and (3) periodic changes to standard deduction and personal exemptions to allow for adjustments for inflation. That's essentially where we are today.

88 wrote:Dinsdale appears to be right.

Should be the board slogan.

But it's not hard to be right when conversing with TiC when he's toeing the lefty line, slurping up the lies of the nanny-staters.

88 wrote:I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but Dinsdale appears to be right.

I think that graph is the ultimate apples and oranges comparison.

The wealthiest 0.1% pay a higher share of taxes today than they did in 1960, largely because the share of income the wealthiest 0.1% have today is significantly larger than it was in 1960. Dinsdale suggested that they pay a higher share of their income today in taxes than they did back then.

As for what I was saying, I wasn't disputing that the wealthest pay more in taxes today than they did under Reagan (where the highest marginal tax bracket was 28%). That's not exactly a fair comparison to the highest 92% marginal tax rate under Eisenhower, of course.

Hey Terry, take another look at the graph (HINT: there's two lines), then see if you can figure out why I just about incurred an injury from :facepalming: .

Maybe even go back and read the last several posts... then apologize.

Dinsdale wrote:Hey Terry, take another look at the graph (HINT: there's two lines),

Yeah, I saw it.

The average tax rate for the top 0.1% went from about 60% in 1960 (far below its peak, btw) to about 40% for the most recent year.

The share of taxes paid by the top 0.1% went from about 8% in 1960 to about 12% in the most recent year.

And I explained the reason for the latter line: the wealthiest 0.1% earn far, far more today than they did in 1960, even with allowances for inflation, vis-a-vis the rest of the population.

And in your first post on this topic, in an attempt to negate my point about marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower Administration, you mentioned the extent of deductions available back then. That goes to the share of taxes that are personally payable, not the share of taxes the wealthiest 0.1% collectively pay.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Dinsdale suggested that they pay a higher share of their income today in taxes than they did back then.

No, I didn't "suggest" it -- I "stated" it... big difference... which rendered your original point worthless.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Yeah, I saw it.

Yet chose to gloss over it and try and change the subject, since your point was rendered moot.

Does that tactic work for you in court, or do the judge and jury laugh at you like I am now?

Libtard doesn't give a shit about the FACT that the rich are paying a larger percentage of the entire tax burden today. he doesn't really care. It's all about making things fair by punishing evil rich dude.

Terry, since you are so enamored with the good ole days under ike, do you think we should return to that era's gubmint spending as a percentage of GDP? Should we go back to that level of gubmint meddling in things in generally?

I think we should.

Terry, how much extra do YOU pay in taxes, you fucking Richer?

88 wrote: How can a government that derives its authority to govern based upon the consent of the governed ever become an impersonal numbers game? What the fuck is that supposed to mean anyway?

A government's power and actions are based on an economy, not the other way round. Economics has its own set of rules, however you interpret them with whatever constitution. Constitutions become null and void when you enter into international trade - crying about 'it's all so unfair' because you get up early in the morning and go to bed late doesn't account for much.

mv got it:

The reason it is done that way is to ensure that the burden is placed on those with the best ability to pay. In other words, the guiding principle is to do the least harm to the economy and the society.

You, or whatever group you associate yourself with, do not make up a society, a nation or an economy.

Dr_Phibes wrote: Constitutions become null and void when you enter into international trade -

Just one of the reasons Being There is one of the most brilliant movies ever is that the analogy is so apt: The economy is a garden and the government is the gardner and even a retard can understand that fundamental relationship.

Socialist kiddies running around in poopy pants don't seem to grasp the fact the entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit the harm that government does to society and the economy. It's there, ostensibly, to protect us against brown thumbed morons like Obongo.

mvscal wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote: Constitutions become null and void when you enter into international trade -

Just one of the reasons Being There is one of the most brilliant movies ever is that the analogy is so apt: The economy is a garden and the government is the gardner and even a retard can understand that fundamental relationship.

Socialist kiddies running around in poopy pants don't seem to grasp the fact the entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit the harm that government does to society and the economy. It's there, ostensibly, to protect us against brown thumbed morons like Obongo.

HOLY SHIT! mvscal? I think im beginning to like you! obongo obonga obongi obongaboo boo!!!!