Reply With Quote
Hes a ing snowflake
Hes a ing snowflake
Carlson is a bottom feeder in the Fox News septic tank
lol that was awesome!
Tucker got handed his ass
Carlson had nothing to say, he kept stuttering every time he was given a chance to respond
I’m guessing Chris, Derp, DarrinS, kw, etc won’t have to say about this.
LOL that was great.
Tucker at 6:45
"Tucker said a naughty word! I'm going to start a thread about it!"
"I just HATE that Fox News sooo much!"
Your boy lost his . All anyone has to do is be straightforward with him and not get sidetracked by him. Jon Stewart did the same thing and killed Cucker's show at the time.
The Tuck got Cucked
Emperor has no clothes. These people can't handle the truth, quite literally.
"The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent."
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
... and your point is....?
It adds context to part of the video.
Again, not many people made the necessary >200K to get taxed at that rate back then. The top .01 percent back then was more like the 1 percent today, and the average tax rate on said group was 55 percent vs. 40 percent today. And this isn't merely a 15 percent difference. It's about a 40 percent difference.
In any event, the rich paid higher taxes then, and we can clearly see the efficacy of higher tax rates on the rich vs. lower tax rates on the rich. From the New Deal to pre-Reagan, all the income groups grew at a nearly identical rate (per capita, so your argument about it was because women were entering the workforce is disproven). Once Reagan took office and significantly overhauled the tax code, the income of the top earners ed, while the bottom 90% flat-lined. The evidence is pretty in' clear that it does not "trickle down."
And there's no deflection you can use here, i.e. "Well, it was because of outsourcing. It was because of globalization. It was because of this and that..." Nope. The core in' idea of supply side economics is that when the brilliant and benevolent captains of industry have greater wealth and less of a tax burden, it magically "trickles down." These brilliant and benevolent captains of industry saw their incomes rise post-Reagan, even as technology and globalization changed the business landscape, and it has yet to "trickle down."
Yes, so if the tax many people then and it will now then it's moronic to point to that era and say "it works".
Greater participation of women is a factor according to the study I sited. I never said it's the only factor. You are the one that deals in absolutes.
The amount of people in the upper middle class has also been increasing. At the same time the number of people is the two lowest classes has been decreasing.
Says the guy who got asshurt over a Congresswoman calling Trump a mother er
Says the guy who got asshurt over a Congresswoman calling Trump a mother er
No it isn't. Do you understand what per capita means? That's per person, which means that particular statistic ignores overall household income. I've already explained the problem with the graph in your sig. We can arbitrarily define what upper, middle, and lower classes all we want. It also varies by state to state, i.e. a 100K per year income in NY doesn't have the same purchasing power as a 100K per year in Minnesota.
I prefer to cut through arbitrary definitions and opinions, and look at the stats. All income levels (per capita) have enjoyed growth following St. Ronnie except the bottom 90%. Again, the CORE IDEA of supply side is that lower taxes+increased wealth for the "job creator" class is supposed to flood down through every economic group. The "job creator" class has seen their wealth and tax burden increase and decrease respectively, and yet, no trickle down. How many more years of trial do we need before we collectively realize this is a bull idea?
Oh, just read the article from which Nathan89's sig comes from, and yeah, we can pretty much dismiss it as bull since it simplifies "class" by raw income level, and doesn't take into consideration cost of living expenses that vary massively by state. 101K per year in Southern California isn't in' "upper class."
https://imgur.com/a/3Vgroyi
The study on women said their greater labor participation increased wages for everyone.
you have no idea what that phrase means.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
