Bush raised it from 28% (historical low) to 31% so still lower than Clinton who rose it to 39.6%.
Obama also rose it back to 39.6% and increased capital gain fro 15 to 20%
Bush 41 raised the marginal rate, it didn't go into effect until after he had lost the election and been replaced by Clinton. Clinton left the rate alone. Obama did not raise the marginal rate either. He did quite the opposite actually. Democrats decried Bush 43's tax cuts as trickle down back when Bush & Co pushed them through. Those cuts were originally passed as temporary. Obama was the guy who made those cuts permanent.
Now Biden is proposing tax increases. Maybe he's even serious about it. I doubt it happens though. Democrats have had ample opportunity to raise taxes over the last 60 years and they haven't. Why is now going to be any different? Especially when democrats are making gains with college educated (i.e. more likely to end up rich) voters and corporations are starting to see the advantages of social activism. The GOP's grasp on the rich vote is slipping.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 04-26-2021 at 08:55 AM.
Bush raised it from 28% (historical low) to 31% so still lower than Clinton who rose it to 39.6%.
Obama also rose it back to 39.6% and increased capital gain fro 15 to 20%
Crap, my bad. Thanks for the correction.
Majority of Voters Say VP Harris Not Qualified to Become President
Rasmussen
Biden to Raise Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors to $15
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04...k-market-today
Is there a loophole that when primary contractors sub-contract, the sub-contractors don't have to pay $15?
Same bull when "non-profit" charter schools use for-profit contractors for nearly all operations.
no problem. I think that a low tax system is good but for that, that means that wealth needs to be distributed more evenly. Republicans cannot push for more income for the richest and no taxes. The rich don’t manufacture goods or provide services, this is done by the employees. Without employees, no stockholder or CEO.
It's doctrine, certainly not science.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-ne...s-for-the-richData from 18 OECD countries, including the UK and the US, over the last five decades. The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich, by David Hope and Julian Limberg, shows that the last 50 years were a period of falling taxes on the rich in the advanced economies. Major tax cuts were spread across countries and throughout the observation period but were particularly clustered in the late 1980s.
It states: “Our results show that…major tax cuts for the rich increase the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the reform. The magnitude of the effect is sizeable; on average, each major reform leads to a rise in top 1% share of pre-tax national income of 0.8 percentage points. The results also show that economic performance, as measured by real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate, is not significantly affected by major tax cuts for the rich. The estimated effects for these variables are statistically indistinguishable from zero.”
It continues: “Our findings on the effects of growth and unemployment provide evidence against supply side theories that suggest lower taxes on the rich will induce labour supply responses from high-income individuals (more hours of work, more effort etc.) that boost economic activity. They are, in fact, more in line with recent empirical research showing that income tax holidays and windfall gains do not lead individuals to significantly alter the amount they work.”
The authors conclude: “Our results have important implications for current debates around the economic consequences of taxing the rich, as they provide causal evidence that supports the growing pool of evidence from correlational studies that cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance...”
...“Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak. Major tax cuts for the rich since the 1980s have increased income inequality, with all the problems that brings, without any offsetting gains in economic performance.”
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Ho..._published.pdf
The House could start with $800M to IRS enforcement dept, which is how much the Repugs cut 2010-2016
Orange Man still bad?
America has become significantly more popular among allies since Biden’s inauguration
Back on Jan. 20, only 24 percent of Germans viewed the U.S. favorably.
Two months later, that number is up to 46 percent.
Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom all saw double digit jumps,
as well, while Mexico registered an 8 percent increase.
In fact, among the 14 nations surveyed, only China reported a notable downward trend, though it's possible that would have happened regardless of who was in the Oval Office at this point, considering the state of affairs between Washington and Beijing.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/97972...ion-poll-finds
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-27-2021 at 11:17 AM.
Of course.
He's just not president anymore.
Or a twitter user.
And yet his thread/obsession remains near the top of this forum.
He was a historically terrible president and the damage he did to the country will last for decades.
Sorry you back such a loser and want us to stop pointing out what a piece of he was and is.
I know I know. The guy on the other team was horrible and now everything is better. All hail Kamala next in line for greatness.
Even in Zoom meetings.....
WEAR A ING MASK
I doubt she'd be great. Biden isn't great. He's just not historically bad like your Trump.
Your Trump was one of the worst. If you don't want to be reminded of that fact, don't view the thread.
If you want to keep crying, that's fine too.
Murdoch's toilet paper
New York Post quietly deletes bogus stories claiming Kamala Harris's book was being given to migrant kids
The Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post has quietly deleted two stories that made false claims about Vice President Kamala Harris's book being given out to migrant children being housed in a California facility.
"The New York Post link was shared by a whole bunch of prominent Republicans,"
"(And that's not even counting how other right-wing outlets copied the story.)
Now -- after a Washington Post fact check --
the New York Post story is no longer there."
https://www.rawstory.com/kamala-harris-book
"Beef up"!!! I thought he was getting rid of beef!
So you’re saying Biden was alone in a room during the zoom meeting wearing a mask?
Andy Borowitz
Alcohol Sales Plummet During Biden’s First Hundred Days
He was horrible because he was a president not because he was a "republican." Has nothing to do with being on the other team. You Maga s are the only ones who semen shield for politicians that share your views like they can do no wrong whereas the left will gladly call out their own. You've nary a room
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)