And
This pretty much says it all regarding Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers:
Zeb,
Still haven’t seen any substantiation of your claim that rich people that paid less than the published tax rate was a trigger for the post-World War 2 boom economy. Thanks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb,
Still haven’t seen any substantiation of your claim that rich people that paid less than the published tax rate was a trigger for the post-World War 2 boom economy. Thanks.
[/quote]
I never said that. I simply said that they paid much less than the 91% because of various write-offs.
Take a look at the links I’ve posted.
[quote] Zeb wrote:
So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed. [/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] Zeb wrote:
So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.Ã? [/quote]
[/quote]
It being a “trigger” is a bit different than “one reason” the economy boomed.
But, regardless check out the links I posted.
It should come as no surprise that Hillary is attached at the hip with TV and movie stars. They support, like the mainstream liberal media does, any old democrat. And Hillary is certainly and old democrat 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] Zeb wrote:
So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.Ã??Ã? [/quote]
[/quote]
It being a “trigger” is a bit different than “one reason” the economy boomed.
But, regardless check out the links I posted.[/quote]
I did, and I don’t see where they made that claim.
And it doesn’t add up anyway - the tax rates during the post-war boom were not materially different than prior to the boom. Thus, rich people’s discretionary income and their spending wouldn’t have changed much between the two periods.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] Zeb wrote:
So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.Ã???Ã??Ã? [/quote]
[/quote]
It being a “trigger” is a bit different than “one reason” the economy boomed.
But, regardless check out the links I posted.[/quote]
I did, and I don’t see where they made that claim.
And it doesn’t add up anyway - the tax rates during the post-war boom were not materially different than prior to the boom. Thus, rich people’s discretionary income and their spending wouldn’t have changed much between the two periods.
[/quote]
The original debate was not necessarily about that. Did you read all of it? Let me fill you in:
It was mostly about Zeppelin claiming that the rich need to pay more in taxes and about other related ideas. He used the 1950’s as an example of how much better the economy was and the rich were taxed at a higher rate. I simply pointed out that the reason the economy was that good in the 1950’s was not because the rich paid more. As my links point out that at one point practically no one paid 91%.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It should come as no surprise that Hillary is attached at the hip with TV and movie stars. They support, like the mainstream liberal media does, any old democrat. And Hillary is certainly and old democrat
[/quote]
True, but couldn’t she find someone else to take a picture with ?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] Zeb wrote:
So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã? [/quote]
[/quote]
It being a “trigger” is a bit different than “one reason” the economy boomed.
But, regardless check out the links I posted.[/quote]
I did, and I don’t see where they made that claim.
And it doesn’t add up anyway - the tax rates during the post-war boom were not materially different than prior to the boom. Thus, rich people’s discretionary income and their spending wouldn’t have changed much between the two periods.
[/quote]
The original debate was not necessarily about that. Did you read all of it? Let me fill you in:
It was mostly about Zeppelin claiming that the rich need to pay more in taxes and about other related ideas. He used the 1950’s as an example of how much better the economy was and the rich were taxed at a higher rate. I simply pointed out that the reason the economy was that good in the 1950’s was not because the rich paid more. As my links point out that at one point practically no one paid 91%.
[/quote]
Oh, I read the exchange. I am interested in this claim you made and substantiation for it.
I am not taking a position that a return to the tax rates of the 1950s would spur 1950s-style growth. But I haven’t seen any evidence that rich people paying less than the published tax rate was a reason we had a post-war economic boom. And you have not provided it.
*Moreover, use of effective tax rates on the rich doesn’t tell the whole story, in any event. That’s the average rate. Rich people’s effective tax rate could have gone down because their income went down and they had less income to be taxed at the higher marginal rates. Rich people’s incomes going down, if that is the case, wouldn’t produce any kind of boom.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] Zeb wrote:
So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã? [/quote]
[/quote]
It being a “trigger” is a bit different than “one reason” the economy boomed.
But, regardless check out the links I posted.[/quote]
I did, and I don’t see where they made that claim.
And it doesn’t add up anyway - the tax rates during the post-war boom were not materially different than prior to the boom. Thus, rich people’s discretionary income and their spending wouldn’t have changed much between the two periods.
[/quote]
The original debate was not necessarily about that. Did you read all of it? Let me fill you in:
It was mostly about Zeppelin claiming that the rich need to pay more in taxes and about other related ideas. He used the 1950’s as an example of how much better the economy was and the rich were taxed at a higher rate. I simply pointed out that the reason the economy was that good in the 1950’s was not because the rich paid more. As my links point out that at one point practically no one paid 91%.
[/quote]
Oh, I read the exchange. I am interested in this claim you made and substantiation for it.[/quote]
Then you have read every bit of opinion that I had on the topic. Generally, it was not a discussion about when, or why the country did well. It was, as you read, more of a discussion about higher tax rates generally.
Agreed and never said otherwise. It was merely one point of contention.
[quote] in any event. That’s the average rate. Rich people’s effective tax rate could have gone down because their income went down and they had less income to be taxed at the higher marginal rates.
[/quote]
Is that what you think happened?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It should come as no surprise that Hillary is attached at the hip with TV and movie stars. They support, like the mainstream liberal media does, any old democrat. And Hillary is certainly and old democrat
[/quote]
True, but couldn’t she find someone else to take a picture with ? [/quote]
She is desperately trying to be cool and appeal to the young idiots who helped elect Barack Obama. She thinks that an association with Kardashian will help that endeavor. She’s wrong of course. There is no association that will ever make Hillary Clinton look cool. She will find that on election day voters 18-25 will stay home in droves rather than vote for her. And if the republicans pick the proper ticket she may even lose that age group.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] Zeb wrote:
So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã? [/quote]
[/quote]
It being a “trigger” is a bit different than “one reason” the economy boomed.
But, regardless check out the links I posted.[/quote]
I did, and I don’t see where they made that claim.
And it doesn’t add up anyway - the tax rates during the post-war boom were not materially different than prior to the boom. Thus, rich people’s discretionary income and their spending wouldn’t have changed much between the two periods.
[/quote]
The original debate was not necessarily about that. Did you read all of it? Let me fill you in:
It was mostly about Zeppelin claiming that the rich need to pay more in taxes and about other related ideas. He used the 1950’s as an example of how much better the economy was and the rich were taxed at a higher rate. I simply pointed out that the reason the economy was that good in the 1950’s was not because the rich paid more. As my links point out that at one point practically no one paid 91%.
[/quote]
Oh, I read the exchange. I am interested in this claim you made and substantiation for it.[/quote]
Then you have read every bit of opinion that I had on the topic. Generally, it was not a discussion about when, or why the country did well. It was, as you read, more of a discussion about higher tax rates generally.
Agreed and never said otherwise. It was merely one point of contention.
[quote] in any event. That’s the average rate. Rich people’s effective tax rate could have gone down because their income went down and they had less income to be taxed at the higher marginal rates.
[/quote]
Is that what you think happened?
[/quote]
So you can’t point to any evidence to support your claim that rich people paying less in taxes was a reason for the post-war boom?
And to be clear, I’m not trying to play “gotcha” - I am actually following up on this because I have never heard such a claim about the post-war boom and wondered if there was evidence of it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And to be clear, I’m not trying to play “gotcha” - I am actually following up on this because I have never heard such a claim about the post-war boom and wondered if there was evidence of it.[/quote]
That really was not the main part of the argument. When Zeppelin said that we did well with a top tax rate of 91% in the 1950’s I posted a few links which proved him wrong. If you read our debate then you know that. it was much deeper than where you want to take this relative to taxes. I can post more links for you that demonstrate that only some paid that 91% tax rate. But, beyond that I don’t really care as I said that was not the main part of our debate.
Bernie Sanders Seattle Event shut down by #BlackLivesMatter
You guys need to see this video, this is some fucked up shit right here.
Even Bernie is a victim of extreme liberalism
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Even Bernie is a victim of extreme liberalism
I can’t think of anyone who deserves this treatment more than Bernie Saunders.
I always love it when I see the far left fighting with the far left.