I don't think that they denounced the 1%, they just want to tax them more than anyone else.Originally Posted by FriscoDog
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that they denounced the 1%, they just want to tax them more than anyone else.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
Because that's fair, right?
I'm not sure it's fair but it is definitely the smart thing to do for the economy.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
Really? How so?
Salty believes socialism works.
Hey let him answer. I got this.
Shhh. Don't tell him...but it's actual "data". Like, the real stuff!
History has shown that when a country's wealth is concentrated in the top income groups the economy doesn't do as well as when the middle and lower classes shared some of that wealth. Socialism has nothing to do with. I'm talking about capitalism.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
What country?
Take a look at the USA. See if you can find any correlation between the percentage of wealth held by the top 10% and the rate of economic growth.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
interesting article
http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty...ome-inequality
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
So first off, you can't name a country; therefore, your ridiculous claim of "history has shown when a country's wealth blah blah blah..." is total crap. That's because there has been no other country in history like ours that fits your criteria.
Secondly, I am not arguing the information in the article you linked. It's all true. But you are trying to use the issue as the authority to claim your solution is the correct one. That's ridiculous and doesn't work...
"Our country has extreme wealth inequality...and to fix it, the wealthiest should pay more in taxes. It should work because there is a bunch of wealth inequality." What??? No.
I have a sweet graph that I stole from my friend Loren Scott (with permission), the renowned economist. I have posted it here in the past...I'll try and find it. It shows the highest marginal tax rate by year all the way back to WWII. It also shows the government's tax income as a percentage of the GDP. It is constant within 2% across 70+ years, including when the highest marginal tax rate was 95%.
Can you explain that? Because I can.
By the way...the rate of economic growth is determined by two things working in conjunction, and history HAS proven it: tax cuts and deregulation
It's why Reagan's economy improved. The increase in regulation is why Bush's tax cuts didn't work...and he should have had to answer for that. The lack of both of these two things is why Obama had European growth rates. Seriously...years of European growth rates. That's really bad.
That is an amazing gif. A bit wonky on the repeat, but the definition and timing is stunning.
Also, I think the movie stands up.
Oh, and I would like to read your explanation. No reason. Just want something to read and add to my own.
Now would be the point when Salty either ignores questions or changes the subject.
The private sector creates wealth. The public sector is a piglet suckling on the private sector teats. So, the economy flourishes when the public sector is kept at minimums.
I posted, about a year ago, on some thread, how the economy has performed during presidents' terms. It had all the details. But, from memory, the 8 years of Bill Clinton were the best for any president going way back to the 19th century. Yes, better than Reagan's 8 years, albeit only slightly. Reagan's term was inhibited by two mini-recessions, one he inherited from Carter and one at the very end of his tenure. Clinton had the dotcom bust but it didn't really manifest itself as "trickle down" to the economy in general. Most people, the middle class, do not speculate in the stock market so the dotcom bust had very little impact on the general economy.
GW Bush's worst year was better than obummer's best year. This is a fact. We have just suffered through historic lows in economic growth. The libtards will protect obummer's legacy and will cover-up, lie, about his tenure. Record numbers of regulations were put on the private sector and the middle class has suffered its largest decline in percentages since the Great Depression, and more than ANY 8-year time period prior to that in US history.
So, the truth is, going back to the Great Depression, Bill Clinton had the best run re: the economy, Ronald Reagan was a close 2nd, and obummer was the absolute worst!!! Our nation NEEDS to recover and now! Trump can do this, IF he simply thinks and acts as a practical businessman and stop worrying about foolishness.
First off, I didn't even bother to look for an other country since what I posted ties in with the stupid republican mantra of voodoo economics.
Secondly, you must be too young to remember when the country had very high marginal tax rates or otherwise you would know that they were meaningless since the wealthy had so many tax loop-holes and dodges that hardly anybody paid the highest rates. So your argument is meaningless.
As for your argument that tax cuts for the wealthy and reduction of regulations produces robust economic growth because of what happened during Reagan's era, there are plenty of other explanations for the increase in economic growth such as a rebound from the Carter era recession and a large increase in government deficit spending. Perhaps you can list some of those Reagan era regulations that were repealed? And tell us again about how much Reagan increased the national debt. Why increase the national debt if voodoo economics worked?
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
