I hesitate to even respond if you are going to twist my words. And given that you didn't really present any sort of cogent argument, I'm not sure what you want in the way of rebuttal. But, I will give you one: if you actually look at the true effective tax rate paid by the top 1% in the 50's when the top rate exceeded 90%, that same top 1% only paid 42% in taxes -- and that includes ALL taxes, not just federal income taxes. (That is admittedly 5 or 6 points higher than today but it deals with all forms of taxation including those that were not progressive.) When you just look at federal income taxes, the effective rate on the top 1% was just 16.9%. I think there are a whole bunch of people in the top 1 percent of income (that would start at about $422k for the US, $440k for Texas) who would jump at an effective federal tax rate of 16.9% today. So, the assertion that there higher federal income taxes during the "manufacturing boom" is not accurate. The idea that you can point to those periods of high marginal rates as proof they work simply isn't true. There was a lot of time and a lot of money spent on tax avoidance. (I think you might find that there were a higher percentage of Americans actually paying income taxes during that period. So, Uncle Sam was reaching into more pockets.) As for your last sentence re: corruption, I would be happy to respond, but I really don't understand what point you are making.
The FOXCONN deal was still alive and well in November and the gop still got CRUSHED in Wisconsin. That's why the economy is going to play a much smaller part in 2020 than in probably any presidential election ever. Yes it's in good shape but the rest of what's happening is going to take precedence.
You are taking it way too literal.... I hate everything Trump stands for.... along with Nazis. I 100% believe mankind is impacting our climate. Is your mind blown or what else ya got? Again way too literal or maybe just ignorant. Being a centrist isn't about 50/50 but about understanding there isn't one rigid ideology that will work. It means being able to compromise because you aren't competely close minded against the other side. Again, I absolutely hate Trump and everything he stands for. But I won't pretend or act like everything he does is wrong, because it's not.
Disagree. Dems won back seats in states that flipped over to the GOP in the Midwest/Rustbelt. Most importantly the GOP got killed in the suburbs nationwide. Texas is solidly purple currently because a lot of its traditionally GOP suburbs flipped for the time being. All of this during a fantastic economy.....
Well sure. However, the effectiveness will depend on how progressive the Dem candidate's platform will be. If you are going to be proposing some sort of carbon tax (which I think is a good way to put a price on pollution but is a tough sell), then expect for them to bombard the population with videos of rioting in France for example. I think Warren has the biggest balls out of the progressive candidate but I just don't think they are big enough to sell a pretty progressive platform in this political environment, against this incumbent.
Being a "centrist" in age where one side is entirely bankrupt, broken and bereft of ideas, other than actual malice and purposeful ignorance is basically only intentionally stepping in half of a pile of dogshit. It. Doesn't. Work. That. Way. Theres no inherent virtue in being a virulent racist tree hugger or a gay autocrat. It's not a buffet. Schultz manages to thread a unique needle by merging broadly popular (and inherently good) Democratic ideas and merging them with broadly unpopular Republican ideas (low taxes for the rich,destroying social safety net) It takes a special kind of tone deaf plutocrat to see this which is why he will be a memory very soon.
if I remember my history correctly. incumbent Bush Sr., was enjoying the Desert Storm victory over Saddam , w his popularity hovering around 90%. he ended up losing to a relative unknown Gov of a small Southern state; slick Willie Clinton was a centrist moderate. But, that was more than a generation ago
Take your luck boy. I'm not the one mounting a vanity presidential campaign that appeals to approximately nobody. I don't need luck as much as your nominal centrists do.
I think this is actually a great climate and incumbent to run against. Progressives are not the boogie men the right wing media would have you believe that are gonna drive voters into the arms of Trump.
I am I the only one thinking that the 9/11 Starbucks water scandal will be a central issue at Fox News?
So basically we should never bother taxing the very rich because they will always evade it....? This is bullshit, obviously, because otherwise people wouldn't lobby so desperately against it - and we wouldn't have empirical evidence of it working. The top marginal rate rose after Bush tax cuts expired - revenue went up. Growth was not effected. The inverse happened last year. Revenue went down. Growth was not effected. But let's pretend like it's true? Like theres a transnational class of superrich who will simply take their ball and go home? Do you realize what endgame you're setting up in that case? If this is the way it's going to be let's just nationalize all of their **** and regulate them out of existence. This isn't as hard as you think it might be. The EU will go along Good luck trying to recreate your inherited empire selling here when you're stuck in the Caymans, or Moscow or Riyadh, or wherever. High marginal rates on income and especially wealth creates more winners tha losers. That's why Trump himself ran on this. The pendulum is swinging back
The very rich are taxed. Close to 50 percent of our citizens pay zero income tax. The one percenters paid more than the bottom 90 percent combined. I am not against taxes. I am not against helping society. I would be more than happy to completely repeal the Trump tax cut. I believe in people paying taxes to pay for the common good. But, it is a matter of degree. And it is always easy to support someone else paying for something. I think a lot of people would be happy to raise taxes as long as they were confident it wouldn't raise their own taxes. The perfect cut-off point for a lot of people seems to be a point they don't think or couldn't imagine themselves earning. And if you think the Government is a good steward for our collective money or that a wealth tax wouldn't quickly creep to effect more people at increasingly lower levels, you haven't been following our history. What is your support for this: "High marginal rates on income and especially wealth creates more winners tha losers." If you are simply saying there are less wealthy, so taxing them more is always going to benefit the majority over the minority, do you have any evidence regarding how long that would last? I don't know what to say about your idea that the Government should confiscate and nationalize businesses.
And yet the gap widens more and more. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. That gap, between the ultrawealthy and everyone else, has only become wider in the past several decades. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-the-past-50-years/?utm_term=.84c27d630038
Good lord, what year is this, 2012? Do you think we should trade Kevin Martin? Mitt lost. Paul Ryan was a fraud and a failure. The conversation has changed. Everybody - even the very rich like Jamie Dimon, who lives entirely in a hermetically sealed rich guy box surrounded by courtiers and gilded jock sniffers, have the occasional ability to see over the platinum encrusted battlements and realize "holy **** maybe this is not optimal....?" It's Piketty and Saez..and Wolff, who floated the wealth tax decades ago that is the foundation of Warren's proposal. Not Laffer, Kudlow and some clueless coffee man. At this point - It's not what we're going to do. Diner country and the South Bronx are in agreement here. It's how we're going to do it. It's math.
Does the article say why? I could see it being a number of factors, but I don't really know. There have been businesses started in the tech industry that have created a bunch of billionaires and that may account for some of it. The rising stock market over the decades has clearly benefitted those who had the capacity to invest in stocks. Those who didn't have the capital or the desire to do so didn't share in the long term rise in the markets. A lot of good to high paying jobs have been lost to tech advances or offshoring negatively impacting the 90 percent. I'm not professing to be an expert on this, but I can think of a lot of factors that aren't part of some evil conspiracy. Also, if you read this article, it supports what you are saying regarding the concentration of wealth changing dramatically since the mid 70's. It also says that from post World War II to the mid-70's were "widely shared" and that since then, the gains have been concentrated at the very top. (Frankly, it is a very good data based article that supports your position in a lot of ways.) https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...ics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality But, the data also shows that all categories improved in real family income during that period. So, the very wealthy are doing way better than they were in 1973. But all categories are doing better. In the interim, there have been major tech advances which have created huge wealth for a relatively small amount of individuals (including those who invested in and supported those advancements) -- a number who moved from the bottom 90 percent into the higher stratospheres of the one percent. I don't expect to convince you of my point of view, and I appreciate the way you responded. I think the Government wastes our money, that they will quickly move to expand any new form of taxes and that using class warfare as a political strategy to gain votes is (for me) offensive. Edit: I see you attached the link. I missed it for some reason -- must be tired.
did anyone answer this? It means your tweets are bad. If you have far greater replies than RTs and Likes, means no one likes your take. like imagine if Sally Fields would have tweeted "you like me. you really, really like me." after the Oscars,...lulz
Here's my problem with these massive tax hike proposals from Warren, AOC, etc... They aren't talking about raising this money to pay off the 21 TRILLION we already owe. No, it's to spend on NEW programs. Until our government shows some financial sanity my answer will always be give them less money. EVERYTHING needs to be cut to include entitlements and pentagon spending. Warren gets all excited with her wealth tax raising 2.75 trillion over 10 years. Awesome.... In about 75 years that would pay off the debt we already racked up not including the interest!! We had our chance at socialism. In 19 years both parties spent 21 trillion more than we had on wars and bailing out wall street. Sorry, socialism is going to have to wait a couple generations.
