see the thing about facts is they can change when new information is discovered so, the only thing certain is death ( and probably taxes)
point was/is contrasting the numbers meagain posted AND that facts mutate and change depending on how one looks at them, there are very few absolutes
The tax rate is correct. In 1950 the Family tax rate on $200,000.00+ was 91%. Your first article article is talking about the top 1%, not everyone over $200,000. Anyway, thanks to deductions and exclusions, which the top 1% can afford to apply for due to the hiring of top notch accountants, loop holes, etc.; the effective rate was 42-45%. Today the top marginal tax rate for the top 1% in the U.S. is 37%. The effective rate is 26-28%. Now today the top 1% pay about 40% of the total taxes taken in compared with 30-35% in 1950. The lower and middle class are paying more of a tax burden. Why is that? Simple, the rich have more deductions It appears that no matter what the rate of taxes are on the rich...they will avoid the majority of it. Lowering the taxes on the middle and lower class will have no effect on the economy, will have minimal effect on those classes, and simply lower the income available to the federal government. Importantly, this was one of the most successful eras in US economic history. (50s to early 60s)The middle class boomed, the economy boomed, and the stock market boomed. And all with the top marginal income tax rate over 90%. This suggests that the Republican mantra about high marginal tax rates killing the economy is, well, a bunch of crap. So the solution seems to be not lowering the lower and middle class taxes, but making sure the rich pay their fair share...at whatever the rate...by eliminating all those deductions and exemptions only they can use. Under Trump's plan even if he lowers middle class taxes...they still get screwed by the rich...as usual, as the rich get richer at a faster rate than the middle class, and due to budget cuts which will have to occur, they get fewer governmental benefits which the rich don't need anyway. Top 1% = 4.8% boost in income. Top quintile = 3.4% boost in income. Middle quintile gets 1.9% boost in income. Bottom quintile = 2.2% boost in income.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe the tax rate was ever 91% straight up. I think that the 91% was applied AFTER a certain amount of income was made.
[/QUOTE] I am fairly certain if I felt like investing the time (I Don't) it took about 2 seconds to come up with my previous post , I could continue to argue my point which admittedly I lost track of because all I am doing is playing devil's advocate to your assertions, as I stated previously FACTS change very little is absolute. and maybe I missed it (entirely possible) but you like trump have a problem admitting when your wrong
and just to touch back on the designating cartels as terrorists. Mexico has had more than 430,000 homicides since 2006, when its government declared war on the cartels. During the country’s 2024 election cycle, thirty-seven political candidates were assassinated. And in the six months since El Mayo was captured, more than six hundred people have been murdered in Sinaloa alone, including El Mayo associate and wanted fentanyl trafficker Leobardo García Corrales, on whom the U.S. DEA had placed a four-million-dollar bounty. Corrales’ body was found next to two other bodies on August 17, near Federal Highway 15 in the town of Elota, sixteen miles south of Lake El Salto. On October 31, the U.S. Consulate in Hermosillo, a city just north of Sinaloa, issued this statement: “U.S. Consulate Hermosillo continues to receive reports of armed car thefts, gunfire, security forces operations, roadblocks, burning vehicles, and closed roadways in the vicinity of Culiacan in the state of Sinaloa. U.S. citizens have been victims of armed carjacking and robbery along Federal Highway 15. The U.S. Consulate General reminds U.S. citizens that Sinaloa is classified as ‘Level 4: Do Not Travel’ in the State Department’s travel advisory for Mexico.”
But on this one Meagin seems to be right. If not, maybe you or Lee could explain why not. Or are you saying you would but you don't want to take the time? Are you running for political office? If not, you should. You have real talent in that area!
I could and I guess I might but the bigger question would be why? as I said all Im doing is playing devil's advocate and to what end? if that's an honest compliment thanx up until our recent prez my past history would have prevented that lol
Naw. It was intended as a dig--or a tribute to your skill at dodging questions without seeming to do so.
You need to reread my last post. The tax rate I quoted for the rich in 1950 was 91%, but: I stated that (even though the tax rate for those over $200,000 in 1950 was 91%) the effective rate was 42 - 45% as your link stated. Today the effective rate for the same people is 26-28%%, which is lower. What did I post that was wrong? I agreed with you. My figures weren't wrong, the rich are paying a higher effective percentage of the tax burden today; which they can easily handle. I then went on to point out that if Trump's tax cuts continue the rich will benefit more than the poor and middle class and the government will have to shrink thus losing many programs that benefit the poor and middle class. The rich get richer under Trump, the poor and middle class stagnate or fall behind. I don't know what your point is other than that the rich get lots of tax breaks.