Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a reason the GOP defunds education. Gullible ignorance is the enemy of critical thinking. Lack of critical thinking promotes belief in fraudulent propaganda.
No one has defunded education. K-12 spending per pupil, inflation-adjusted, more than doubled from 1970 to 2010.
I think we've begun spending too much for the administration of our schools, and not enough on the education and teaching positions.
We can agree on that point. In my state less than 50% of ed spending goes directly into the classroom, including teacher salaries, books, materials, building costs, etc. A majority of the spending goes to administration and other costs outside of the classroom.
Funny how you end your post concerning the "Liberal Myth" by quoting that famous Liberal Ronald Reagan who based on the quote was a believer of the 91% tax rate myth.
Reagan was indeed a liberal Democrat, at least during the 1948 election. He famously helped Truman capture California at a time when it was not a reliably "blue" state.
As for the tax rate, numerous "loopholes' brought the effective rate way down. Those were progressively reduced and eliminated, culminating in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
You could greatly reduce the tax burden on the rest of the country, (Like maybe 20% max on everyone else making less than 500K) which would produce an instant boon to the economy.
I have heard many arguments that millionaires won't work as hard and will lose their drive. That is just silly.
I can't think of how something like that could possibly have negative consequences.
My lone objection to anything of this nature is that I think it would produce more total revenue in the government coffers, and I firmly believe they need to demonstrate an ability to spend responsibly before they get any more $$.
In the fifties the top marginal tax rate was 91% and the economy did fine. Those are just facts. People are entitled to their own opinions. People aren't entitled to their own facts.
LMAO..And here comes the spin..Nobody paid 91%!!! THAT is the facts.
LMAO..And here comes the spin..Nobody paid 91%!!! THAT is the facts.
Apparently you didnt bother reading this thread. Most everyone agrees on that fact. Just as those at the top end of our tax rate rarely actually pay it either.
You could greatly reduce the tax burden on the rest of the country, (Like maybe 20% max on everyone else making less than 500K) which would produce an instant boon to the economy.
I have heard many arguments that millionaires won't work as hard and will lose their drive. That is just silly.
I can't think of how something like that could possibly have negative consequences.
My lone objection to anything of this nature is that I think it would produce more total revenue in the government coffers, and I firmly believe they need to demonstrate an ability to spend responsibly before they get any more $$.
To me it makes sense to have a rate that tops out at 413K. I would prefer even less. It was JFK who reduced the top rate from 91 to 70 on the grounds that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Ronald Reagan used the same theme in his tax rate cut proposals, and liberally (pun intended) quoted JFK, which drove Democrats nuts at the time.
No one argues that millionaires will 'lose their drive," but they will certainly alter their behavior in reaction to tax hikes. After all, they did not get to be millionaires by being dumb.
The super-rich tend to create not just jobs, but whole industries. Bill Gates here in the PNW is an example of that. He took a huge gamble by dropping out of Harvard to found Microsoft. He had a vision, and the huge reward potential in the American system made that a risk worth taking. The result was not only thousands of well-paying jobs for tech workers here in the PNW, but computing power for the common man. Similar sagas could be recounted about people like Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, etc. It would make no sense to try to short-circuit that process.
As for the 35% bracket, I agree that it is dumb. It was a result of the 'fiscal cliff' deal between Boehner and the Obama admin. It's an example of the adage that you don't want to see how sausage or legislation is produced. Obama wanted the 39% bracket, and Boehner wanted to minimize 'soak the rich' so that was the deal that was struck.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.