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.
Oh lordy, so we go from giving the 1% a huge tax cut to taking a huge chunk of their income? It's ridiculous. Why does both sides of the coin have to be so radical? Why can't we just have a sensible tax code that gives on both sides?
This means that in NY and CA, when you include state and local taxes, some people will be paying over 80% in taxes. Thats just absurd, regardless of how much money anyone makes. The federal government does not have the right to take 70% of anyone's income, taking ~30% is questionable, especially considering how wasteful they are with it.
Have to admit 60 minutes isn't our go to program as it was many years ago, but I can assure you we will be watching tomorrow night. This should be interesting.
Packed full of no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas,
no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works,
no common sense, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity . . . . What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving . . . . The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else . . . .. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation . . . .You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
- Adrian Rogers, 1931
Does this description remind you of anyone else currently in politics ? (Hint: Orange skin, bad hair, pretty wife, rambles a lot).
That description fits him to a T. Maybe he is a closet Democrat.
There were also many more brackets period than we have now, so few % of people were affected by the higher brackets and there were a lot more deductions than we have today.
She is an elected representative and therefore commands majority support in at least some areas of the country. Pretty hard to argue that her ideas have not entered the mainstream political discussion. You don't have to agree, but they are part of the discussion.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadicDrifter
The effective rate and top most bracket converge the higher you go above the upper most bracket.
That's no sweat off my brow if it means a billionaire just becomes a hundred millionaire....
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.
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.
