The Thread of Democrats

[L'Emmerdeur]

Cunt wrote:

The thing is, no-one would want to earn large amounts of money, if everything beyond their first megabuck was taxed at 70%. It seems like it would encourage wealthy people to hire sharp tax accountants/lawyers and be proud of the fact that they pay as little as possible.

Where the fuck did you get 70% from? 45 - 55 is the usual top rate...

And in any case, extreme wealth allows the ability to use tax lawyers and accountants that no regular Joe can afford, and they end up (via family trusts and tax shelters) paying sweet fuck all...

The horrible young 'socialist' congresswoman that is the focus of so much conservative blowhard ire and so many maladroit attempts at ridicule has suggested raising the top marginal rate to 70% (for people with more than $10 million income per year) to help pay for moving the US away from fossil fuels.

[Cunt]

Our member from Yellowknife conveniently forgets

When something sounds so arrogant, I'm used to finding it a lot more accurate.

I didn't forget anything. I don't know anything about the subject. What you say may be true or baloney.

I simply thought 70% sounded like something no-one would work for.

The horrible young 'socialist' congresswoman that is the focus of so much conservative blowhard ire and so many maladroit attempts at ridicule has suggested raising the top marginal rate to 70% (for people with more than $10 million income per year) to help pay for moving the US away from fossil fuels.

Well, if it's a sacred area like that, I understand your unblinking support for the cause.

Have you ever had an arrow in your knee?

[rainbow]

This time they'll flee to Monaco or Ireland. Just you wait.

If one has enough money, it is put into a trust in the Cayman's and you don't have to move.

Quite convenient.

[Hermit]

I simply thought 70% sounded like something no-one would work for.

It is always good to think, but it is always much better to think in conjunction with knowledge of facts. In this case the fact is that millions - and millionaires among them - did not find the top marginal personal income rate of 90% to be a disincentive to work or an incentive to flee the country. With a bit of research you would have found out that not only did they refuse to work - they also did rather well during that tax regime which held sway between 1945 and 1964. Those two decades were a period of unparalleled material wellbeing in the history of the US. Think about it.

[Tero]

Hillary was a Republican!
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ist-222187

[Forty Two]

If Sinema, O'Rourke and She Guevara are the best the Democrats have to offer, they have some big problems. Complete idiots. It's like we have Caligula appointing his horse to the Senate.

Climate deniers who support presidents who think climate change is a Chinese hoax probably shouldn't call people idiots. Just sayin'...

Btw, Trump is Caligula. Combover Caligula is one of the names the internet has given him. It's probably unwise for Trump worshippers to bring up Caligula.

Try your best, Seabass. Keep lying and accusing me of being a "climate denier." Put your trust in Kyrsten Sinema, Beto O'Rourke and She Guevara - they know what they're doing. "The first thing we do, is raise all the taxes to 70%!" - Alexandria Ocathio-Corteth.

Well, I saw the 60 Minutes clip to which you are probably referring.

Either:
A. you don't know how marginal tax rates work,
B. you are being dishonest, or
C. you are, as is so often the case, mindlessly parroting far-right disinformation.

My guess would be C.

Dishonest about what? What disinformation? You haven't disputed anything I said.

And by the way, if you are not alarmed about climate change at this stage, you are in denial. That makes you a climate denier.

I'm not a climate denier. Your insistence that I am, when I'm clearly not, is dishonest. But when you have little to no ability to argue substantive points, that's the kind of crap you spew.

[rainbow]

I'm not a climate denier.

You deny that you deny climate change?

How concerned are you?

[Forty Two]

I simply thought 70% sounded like something no-one would work for.

It is always good to think, but it is always much better to think in conjunction with knowledge of facts. In this case the fact is that millions - and millionaires among them - did not find the top marginal personal income rate of 90% to be a disincentive to work or an incentive to flee the country. With a bit of research you would have found out that not only did they refuse to work - they also did rather well during that tax regime which held sway between 1945 and 1964. Those two decades were a period of unparalleled material wellbeing in the history of the US. Think about it.

Is the argument that the well-being after World War 2 in the US was caused in part by a 90% marginal tax rate? That's what spurs economic well-being?

[Forty Two]

I'm not a climate denier.

You deny that you deny climate change?

How concerned are you?

Yes, I deny that I deny climate change.

I'm sufficiently concerned.

[rainbow]

I'm not a climate denier.

You deny that you deny climate change?

How concerned are you?

Yes, I deny that I deny climate change.

I'm sufficiently concerned.

Sufficient for what?

Drive a Prius, I expect.

[rainbow]

I simply thought 70% sounded like something no-one would work for.

It is always good to think, but it is always much better to think in conjunction with knowledge of facts. In this case the fact is that millions - and millionaires among them - did not find the top marginal personal income rate of 90% to be a disincentive to work or an incentive to flee the country. With a bit of research you would have found out that not only did they refuse to work - they also did rather well during that tax regime which held sway between 1945 and 1964. Those two decades were a period of unparalleled material wellbeing in the history of the US. Think about it.

Is the argument that the well-being after World War 2 in the US was caused in part by a 90% marginal tax rate? That's what spurs economic well-being?

No, that would be large arms contracts, and tax breaks for reinvestment. Although this number looks large it isn't. Most people in this bracket would take home relatively little but build up their capital.
Capital gains were taxed at a far lower rate.

[Tero]

The rich took in enough income to get by at the lower end. It was only the additional income, millions, that got taxed 90%. Who needs to spend more than 300 000 a year on property and family?

[Forty Two]

I'm not a climate denier.

You deny that you deny climate change?

How concerned are you?

Yes, I deny that I deny climate change.

I'm sufficiently concerned.

Sufficient for what?

Drive a Prius, I expect.

Sufficient for any purpose.

[Cunt]

I'm not a climate denier.

You deny that you deny climate change?

How concerned are you?

Yes, I deny that I deny climate change.

I'm sufficiently concerned.

Sufficient for what?

Drive a Prius, I expect.

Sufficient for any purpose.

I think you are supposed to take your hat off when you say it, Forty Two

[Forty Two]

I self-flagellate while chanting "pie Jesu domine, dona eis requiem."