Soaking the rich doesn’t work - Page 5

whell · #41 01-24-2015, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Right, because the economy really sucked back in the 1950's when the top bracket was 90%.

It actually did, unless you're using "Happy Days" as your historical reference.

It was a period marked by inflation, recession, slow economic growth, and recession that reached its peak in the mid 50's. The housing sector was rocking, but that was in part due to the GI Bill's impact.

The economy saw a brief period of growth but went into the tank again around '57 or '58. Industrial production and corporate profits fell and unemployment hit 7.5 percent. President Eisenhower didn't try to intervene by leading any policy initiatives because he worried more about inflation and not unemployment. By 1959 the gummint was running a $12 billion deficit, a new record for a budget shortfall during peacetime.

So yeah, let's drop that 90% top rate back into place.

whell · #42 01-24-2015, 11:18 AM

Tell you what, gents. Why don't we pick a state as a crucible for Tom's 90% top rate suggestion. Maybe a nice Blue state with all that new-found gummint wealth like Maryland. Its got more 1% types per capita than anyone else. We can tax them more - cuz they really don't need that money - and we can suck it into Washington where it can be redistributed by all the folks that we just took it from. Kinda like the fox guarding the chicken coop, I wonder who all that redistributed wealth will find its way back to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/l...nt-far-behind/

Tom Joad · #43 01-24-2015, 11:21 AM

Over the past 50-60 years there is almost a direct correlation between the lowering of taxes on the rich and the deterioration of the economy.

Trickle down economics has been an abject failure.

BlueStreak · #44 01-24-2015, 11:24 AM

In todays America when you hire a Democrat to protect high wages, it's like you have hired a dog that has grown too old and tired to protect your chickens.

When you hire a Republican to protect high wages, it's like you have just hired a FOX to protect your chickens.

It isn't going to work.

Dave

BlueStreak · #45 01-24-2015, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Over the past 50-60 years there is almost a direct correlation between the lowering of taxes on the rich and the deterioration of the economy.

Trickle down economics has been an abject failure.

The crops don't grow unless the rain falls. When the clouds refuse to do their job, the crops wither and die.

Our crops are withering and there are burgeoning, deep dark clouds hanging directly over our heads.

However, we are told doing the rain dance or seeding the clouds offends them. So, we are to just sit and wait for them to drop on their own.......

....and wait and wait and wait and wait.............

Dave

Tom Joad · #46 01-24-2015, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell

You need to get out more. For example, where do you think some of the money comes from to fund start ups, or to fund rapid expansion of existing firms?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonr...nture-capital/

Don't forget the 50 cents a post that they pay you to get on the internet and spread their propaganda.

That's job creation.

whell · #47 01-24-2015, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Over the past 50-60 years there is almost a direct correlation between the lowering of taxes on the rich and the deterioration of the economy.

Trickle down economics has been an abject failure.

Depends what "taxes" you're talking about, doesn't it. What taxes are you referring to? Capital gains? Personal income tax? What? Care to post any studies from reputable sources that support your assertion?

For a competing perspective:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ming-economies

Switzerland is probably still one of the more "capitalist" countries in Europe. Singapore? No capital gains tax. Zip, zero, nada.