[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Trudeau is right: 40% of Canadians don’t pay income taxes, which means someone else is picking up the bill

But the rich ( anyone better than me ) should still pay more... and more... and more.

The “greatest generation “ tsxed the rivh st 90% for the highest tax bracket.and they saw the longest and greatest uninterrupted period of prosperity and growth in modern history. Are you questioning “the greatest generation”?

lol, what bullshit are you trolling today ?

the 90% is so much cherry picked hokum, it is almost a lie, and certainly
irrelevant today.
And growth had nothing to do with it.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The “greatest generation “ tsxed the rivh st 90% for the highest tax bracket.and they saw the longest and greatest uninterrupted period of prosperity and growth in modern history. Are you questioning “the greatest generation”?

And with tax breaks the rich (meaning anybody who could afford to hire somebody to find the cuts) were actually paying less on taxes during that period than they were when taxes were ostensibly low.

Not true. Those tax breaks were later invented mostly by conservative and “centrist” Liberals//Democrats in recent decades ...mostly post Reagan-Thatcher....

No. You're wrong.

"Let's talk about this 70% rate we had in 50s or this 91% rate we had in the 60s. Nobody ever paid those. The rich have accountants. They have lawyers. They have tax shelters. They have congressmen on the payroll and all the rest, and they never ever paid those huge public rates that Washington used to try to collect in the 50s,60s and 70s. It just didn't happen.

What did happen though is that instead of making investments in businesses and jobs and all the rest people shopped around for tax shelters instead so investment money just sat there.

And we could get away with that in the 50s and 60s when we were competing against Europe that was still rebuilding from the war. Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were Communist basketcases. China was shut off from the world. Japan was in recovery. We didn't have anybody to compete with. We could afford to be stupid.

Let's not be stupid anymore. Let's call this what it really is. When Washington wants to raise tax rates and include all these new loopholes which you know is going to happen what they're really talking about isn't income equality. They're not talking about raising more revenue. What they're really talking about doing is gathering the reins of power back to Washington so that they can redistribute the goodies back to their friends and punish their enemies through the tax code. So that's what this is really about let's be honest about that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMAEEueYlxI

[N_Fiddledog]

I'm not sure how it works in Canada but the stats I heard for America showed the 5% on top paid 65% of the taxes. 50% pay none.

I imagine it's similar in Canada - possibly even more of a disparity in the direction you wouldn't want to admit to.

How much more did you want some to pay, Beave? And be specific. What specific percent did you want what specific annual tax bracket to increase to.

You'd be wise to avoid that question. There will be mocking. followed by

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Not true. Those tax breaks were later invented mostly by conservative and “centrist” Liberals//Democrats in recent decades ...mostly post Reagan-Thatcher....

No. You're wrong.

"Let's talk about this 70% rate we had in 50s or this 91% rate we had in the 60s. Nobody ever paid those. The rich have accountants. They have lawyers. They have tax shelters. They have congressmen on the payroll and all the rest, and they never ever paid those huge public rates that Washington used to try to collect in the 50s,60s and 70s. It just didn't happen.

What did happen though is that instead of making investments in businesses and jobs and all the rest people shopped around for tax shelters instead so investment money just sat there.

And we could get away with that in the 50s and 60s when we were competing against Europe that was still rebuilding from the war. Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were Communist basketcases. China was shut off from the world. Japan was in recovery. We didn't have anybody to compete with. We could afford to be stupid.

Let's not be stupid anymore. Let's call this what it really is. When Washington wants to raise tax rates and include all these new loopholes which you know is going to happen what they're really talking about isn't income equality. They're not talking about raising more revenue. What they're really talking about doing is gathering the reins of power back to Washington so that they can redistribute the goodies back to their friends and punish their enemies through the tax code. So that's what this is really about let's be honest about that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMAEEueYlxI

When will the Right learn that quoting some random nut on YouTube doesn’t count as a well supported argument.?

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'm not sure how it works in Canada but the stats I heard for America showed the 5% on top paid 65% of the taxes. 50% pay none.

Dr C already posted the article with the stats

$1:

How much more did you want some to pay, Beave? And be specific. What specific percent did you want what specific annual tax bracket to increase to.

You'd be wise to avoid that question. There will be mocking. followed by

[/quote]

This might shock you to learn, but the tax code is a little complicated for one non-expert to invent on a CKA chat forum. I l know you righties think the entire world can be well run by a single college dropout with shit he just makes up on the spot but in the real world teams of experts and consultants figure out a tax structure ocer the course of years of careful study. So I’ll leave it to them to propose and I’ll review it at that time

In the meantime putting a stop to tax cuts for the rich is a good start...didn’t you just finish saying that conservatives don’t really support tax cuts for the rich during your latest revisionism on Trickle Down theory?

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

When will the Right learn that quoting some random nut on YouTube doesn’t count as a well supported argument.?

Hang on a sec, I have to stop laughing...

So is the suggestion there that you have offered a well supported argument?

Is it invisible? Must be.

You offered an opinion. I gave you a better one from a professional to counter it. And of the two of you, best guess says he's the one who's done the research. His, at least, makes sense.

[BeaverFever]

I didn’t offer an opinion. Historical tax rates of up to 90%are a FACT.

Once again a conservative can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion.....a recurring theme here...

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

This might shock you to learn, but the tax code is a little complicated for one non-expert to invent on a CKA chat forum.

I see. So what are you saying then? That you want higher taxes, more complicated taxes or you don't actually know what you want just as long as it isn't what anybody right of Nicholas Maduro might want? If you don't know what you want why is anybody supposed to be impressed by whatever that might be?

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I didn’t offer an opinion. Historical tax rates of up to 90%are a FACT.

Once again a conservative can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion.....a recurring theme here...

And if anybody ever actually paid that he wasn't rich for very long. People who have researched the subject say nobody who mattered did pay it and that makes sense. Your idea that some did and stayed rich doesn't.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

didn’t you just finish saying that conservatives don’t really support tax cuts for the rich during your latest revisionism on Trickle Down theory?

No. And I didn't revise anything. I said "Trickle down theory" only exists in the Progressive imagination.

To paraphrase Mean Girl, Regina George, "Stop trying to make Trickle down theory a thing.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

This might shock you to learn, but the tax code is a little complicated for one non-expert to invent on a CKA chat forum.

I see. So what are you saying then? That you want higher taxes, more complicated taxes or you don't actually know what you want just as long as it isn't what anybody right of Nicholas Maduro might want? If you don't know what you want why is anybody supposed to be impressed by whatever that might be?

I’m saying high taxeyon the wealthy aren’t a bad thing and the last time we had it, we had the longest and greatest period of prosperityand techlonogical advancement in history. That’s a FACT not an opinion. You can argue cause and effect but we certainly can’t claim that the higher taxes destroyed the economy.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

didn’t you just finish saying that conservatives don’t really support tax cuts for the rich during your latest revisionism on Trickle Down theory?

No. And I didn't revise anything. I said "Trickle down theory" only exists in the Progressive imagination.

To paraphrase Mean Girl, Regina George, "Stop trying to make Trickle down theory a thing.

Call your theory whatever name you want, but the facts are the same: Tax cuts and legal exemptions for the rich and corporations, massive rollback of regulations and public protections, cuts to public services and benefits and legal protections for everyone else.

Personally I like to call it Trickle Down “Supply side” obscures the logic behind it.

Edit: but there’s also this from Trump White House economic adviser Gary Cohn:

$1:

Gary Cohn: Trickle-down is good for the economy

...Cohn: We vehemently don't agree. When you take a corporate tax rate at 35 percent and move it to 20 percent, and you see what's happened over the last two decades to businesses migrating out of the United States, migrating profits out of the United States, migrating domicile out of the United States, and hiring workers out of the United States, it's hard for me to not imagine that they're not going to bring businesses back to the United States.

We create wage inflation, which means the workers get paid more; the workers have more disposable income, the workers spend more. And we see the whole trickle-down through the economy, and that's good for the economy....

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/09/gary-co ... onomy.html

[N_Fiddledog]

You forgot to give us this bit beave:

$1:

Gary Cohn was in some ways an unlikely choice for Donald Trump's White House. He is a Democratic Wall Street veteran serving a Republican president who cast himself as the champion of "forgotten people" battered by economic change.

But Cohn, 57, jumped at the chance to leave a top job at Goldman Sachs and become director of the National Economic Council at the White House.

But what the Hell, I'll forgive him for being a Democrat. Whatever him and Trump have been cooking up it seems to be working. The American economy just keeps on improving and not just for the rich.

[N_Fiddledog]

But you go ahead and keep on using the Prog terminology if you want. Trickle down? Is that what you guys are calling what Trump's doing?

I call it some economic practice that looks to be working.

Supply side was a term brought out by some economist working for Reagan, I believe.

That worked too.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But you go ahead and keep on using the Prog terminology if you want. Trickle down? Is that what you guys are calling what Trump's doing?

I call it some economic practice that looks to be working.

It’s mostly the same continued growth since 2010, boosted slightly when Trump ran up massive deficits but already petering out as stock markets have be erratic and had a bad Q4...so we’ll see

$1:

Supply side was a term brought out by some economist working for Reagan, I believe.

That worked too.

No it didn’t it wiped out the middle class over the past 40 years

Sachs: How Reaganomics toppled the U.S.