Page 20 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070120 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 1355

Thread: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    The only historical data I'm finding on historical effective tax rates only goes back to 1979, but it shows the top 1% paying 37% in 1979 and 27% today. It also shows corporations paying 14% in 1979 and 9% now. The middle's effective tax rates dropped substantially during that period too, from 19% to 14%. And that's just half the time range I'm talking about. If you have data going back to the 60s, please post it, but it seems like the effective tax rate story is consistent with what you would expect to result from a slashing of the top tax rates.
    I actually started looking a while back. I did not find reliable data prior to 1979 either.

    The story you paint here shows that all rates were reduced and not just for the rich. So the percentage of the taxes paid by the rich continues to be very large compared to the middle class.

    This story is far more honest than using marginal rats out of contect. It is the effective rates and the percentage of the total taxes collected that, in my opinion, gives an honest assessment.

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Um, history? Personal recollection? Statistical data? Actually a little bit of each.
    Okay. Thank you.

  3. #193
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    The story you paint here shows that all rates were reduced and not just for the rich. So the percentage of the taxes paid by the rich continues to be very large compared to the middle class.
    It's been a mix. The huge cuts JFK did benefited every bracket, but were more concentrated on reducing the tax burden on the middle class. The cuts Reagan, Bush2 and Clinton made all benefited every bracket to some extent, but were all more focused on the rich. They cut the hell out of capital gains in particular. But, overall, taxes are definitely lower for all brackets today than they were before the great society. Unfortunately, they're actually too low. We can't afford to keep them this low. For a while the GOP was refusing to acknowledge that, but I'm glad to see that they're starting to accept it in the GOP as well in recent weeks. That's a good sign that we might actually have a shot at real deficit reduction.

  4. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You don't have to travel across the pond for this. You can actually look closer to home. From 1932 until 1980 the top marginal rate ranged from 63% to 94%. Of course, like today, people didn't pay the full rate, but the wealthy did pay a much higher effective rate than they do now. And the country has never been stronger than it was during that period.
    You are making claims which are unsupported by facts. From 1932 until WWII the country was in the Great Depression. The 70's had serious inflation and the sort of dissatisfaction we see in the country now. Reagan turned it around in the early 80's and that was only interrupted by a downturn in the final year of the Clinton Presidency and the same with the Bush Presidency.

    It does seen clear though that an average man can no longer support a wife and family. What has been the cause of this change if not the growth of government and greater government intervention in society?

  5. #195
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    You should report me.


    Let me ask, if i linked to world net daily or newsmax would it be more/less or the same as far as bias?
    Is that why you didn't link, because you knew we would laugh our heads off if it was WND? Never mind - we don't want to know.



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  6. #196
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    No one mentioned that Bill Clinton was involved.
    I'm sure he was talking about Cain.



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  7. #197
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by mertex View Post
    Is that why you didn't link, because you knew we would laugh our heads off if it was WND? Never mind - we don't want to know.

    Oh, how rich. You post a snarky misleading and over sized screen shot taken from a liberal leaning, pop culture, collection blog and think that it should be taken seriously but the retort to that if that it were came from say a WND, or NewsMax is to be laughed at is just the type of dishonest debate of late from posers that do NOT further any sort of dialogue.

    Got it?

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #198
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Oh, how rich. You post a snarky misleading and over sized screen shot taken from a liberal leaning, pop culture, collection blog and think that it should be taken seriously but the retort to that if that it were came from say a WND, or NewsMax is to be laughed at is just the type of dishonest debate of late from posers that do NOT further any sort of dialogue.

    Got it?

    j-mac
    Even Republicans know WND is a joke, but if you believe them, that explains a lot.

    Wiki:
    WND has published articles that have created controversies and criticism of the site by other media outlets.
    [edit]9/11 attacks

    On September 13, 2001, WND published a commentary by Anthony C. LoBaido regarding the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., two days earlier. In his column, LoBaido outlined what he regarded as the moral depravity of America in general and New York in particular, asking whether, "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America."[21] Commentators Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal criticized LoBaido and Joseph Farah for the piece and called for columnists Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly to sever their ties with WND, prompting Farah to respond with a column of his own explaining that the article did not reflect the viewpoint of WND, and that it, like most other commentary pieces, had not been reviewed before being published.[22]

    [edit]Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

    WorldNetDaily has emerged as a leading outlet publicizing conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship status, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and is thus not eligible to serve as president.[23][24][25] Such claims are considered unsubstantiated or debunked by most news sources. After the 2008 presidential campaign, WND began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear several lawsuits aiming to release Obama's birth certificate.[26][non-primary source needed]
    [edit]Libel lawsuit

    On September 20, 2000, WND published an article[27] claiming that a Savannah, Tennessee car dealer, and fund-raiser for then-Vice President Al Gore, had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a "subject" of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a "dope dealer," and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. In 2001 the car dealer, Clark Jones, filed a lawsuit[28] against WND; the reporters, Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays; the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson and Hays' reporting on the article and related ones[29] and various Tennessee publications and broadcasters who he accused of repeating the claim, claiming libel and defamation. The lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial in March 2008;[30] but, on February 13, 2008, WND announced that a confidential out-of-court settlement had been reached with Jones.[31]A settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the lawsuit stated that a Freedom of Information Act request showed that the allegations had been false, and that WND had misquoted sources.[31]

    [edit]Feud with LGBT conservatives


    WND has also come out against LGBT participants in the Republican party and their associates. In 2010, when writer and pundit Ann Coulter accepted the invitation to attend and speak at GOProud's Homocon 2010 event, Farah announced the withdrawal of Coulter's name from the list of speakers at the company's Taking America Back conference.[32][non-primary source needed] Coulter responded by saying that speaking engagements do not imply endorsement of the hosting organization; however, after Farah published private emails between himself and Coulter, Coulter called him a “publicity whore” and a “swine” in an email to the Daily Caller blog.



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  9. #199
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    So do these idiots blocking people from using the subway think it will help or hurt thier image?


    Cause you know the"1%" all gots metro cardz......
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #200
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ATL
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 09:00 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Or to keep it simple, just the top marginal rates going back to 1913: Historical Top Tax Rate
    That is certainly one way to make your post irrelevant. At least teamosil has the intellectual courage to post a statistic that is relevant.
    I love the smell of burning moonbat in the morning.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •