JoeUser Forums
As I get ready to simmer down for the evening for a hectic day tomorrow, it appears Obama has it in the bag. They've just called Ohio for Obama which means it's over. Congratulations to Obama on his historic victory. It will be interesting to see how things progress from here.
I didn't catch that 'til now. I guess you think for yourself better than I do. 
Well said.
Well said in deed, you can thank the Democrats for the crap we are in today, not that they will admit it. But let me tell you something, our history may be bad, but we all know there are worse ones around the globe. We did not become the most powerful country because we were stupid. And I'll tell you more, we may be donw right now, but don't count us out just yet. We will get out of this one just like we did before and we will be stronger just like we have done before whether Obama or McCain was in the White House.
Np I was not offended, just wanted to set the record straight. I grew up not wanting the handouts as it felt demeaning to me. I would rather work for my pay than sit home on my butt. Enabling people to sponge off others only allws them to further kill off any self respect they may have and make it even harder to motivate them to be a productive member of society.
The USA came about due to unfair taxation without representation. While I realize it is not possible to tax all equally, it should not be the wealthy's burden to be forced to support those who are able to support them selves but refuse to.
I realize some folks can use a helping hand, I applaud those who do bust their humps trying to make it out of poverty,and those who help them along the way. We need more heroes in this world.
but what bothers me is those who have the ability to be productive, but yet scream for handouts and freebees like they are entitled to them. Like my earlier mentioned brotherinlaw, 29 and refuses to work. but voted for Obama, believing he will get his Cut of the riches wealth.
Also Is it our place to strip those who have made it of their hard earned money? I do not feel it is our right to force our morality on others. A gift is given willingly, taking it by force, is theft.
Someone said in another thread it is within the constitution for health care for all under, * life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.*
Life: to live uninhibited by others demands.
liberty: freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions.
Pursuit of happiness: One is free to pursue what ever makes them happy as long as it does not infringe on another persons inherent rights. Nor is happiness guaranteed or owed to you by your government or neighbors. It is ones own responsibility to pursue happiness.
No where can I see "free health care for all" from that line.
I do think it is our responsibility as a nation to take care of our own, but I do not feel it is within our rights to force it out of a select few.
Apparently democrats think so since they are the ones so afraid of open views being aired. The fear of Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest is just astounding, yet they rejoice in the "tingling" feelings that they are getting from supposed new reporters from "news sources" without thinking twice about censoring them.
Right now, looking at the situation, it is apparent that conservatives have no problem thinking for themselves, and like to discuss their thoughts. But liberals have a big problem allowing anyone to think for themselves. And that is why they are demanding the "fairness doctrine" which given DC newspeak is anything but.
Your history is bad. The country was not founded 91 years ago. And the rate was higher from the 20s until the early 80s. YOur "3rd" lowest is a great example of spin, but not facts.
I'd be happy to get the tax rates back to where they were during Reagan's term.
Plus, when the tax rates were theoretically higher, the effective rate was far lower because one could get out of that rate so easily. Talk about spin.
No argument here. In the end, we are all Americans, regarless of our opinion. And all of, rich and poor, all ethnicities and creeds, live in the best nation on the planet, hands down, financial crisis and all.
Not to open a can of worms but, I think we became a powerful and wealthy nation through cheap land and cheap labor (slavery). But that's another issue for whole different conversation.
I think that overstates what Obama was shooting for. And by the way only 44% of people who fit the new tax bracket voted for McCain.
I agree, but at our current rate of progress, healthcare would be a luxury enjoyed only by the wealthy in our nation. I think that has the potential to cripple us as a whole.
Hey Guy, I know I can count on you for it, but do you have any proof of this?
No sorry drguy this is fact read it at the IRS if need be or tons of other sites that will give you the tax rate history of the US. Its all factual numbers there is no debate. Your only correct statement is that the country wasnt founded 91 years ago. However the modern tax system as we know it today was founded in the early 1900's.
If you need to see the actual stats please go to the national taxpayers union(a nice conservative site) or tax foundation. This will show you the info you need. For whatever reason Mozilla wont let me cut and paste here which kinda sucks.
I think you have misunderstood me. I mean the people on this forum have bad history interms of accuracy. And no we dont have democrats to thank for this. As I pointed out in my post, we have bad economic times when our government doesnt regulate and gives more money to the rich on the idea that they will create jobs. We then hope that big business will regulate them selves. It just doesnt happen. Its like being on a school board at a catholic school and having your kids go to the school. None of those board memebers vote for any increase of any significance on themselves. Even though the catholic church on average pays for over 1/2 of their childrens education. The schools are subsidized by the church collections. Otherwise they wouldnt exsist. Its the same premise the rich wont regulate themselves and thus they wont create these good jobs, and thus our economy goes in the crapper, and with a war going on right now that furthers it. Wars are the worst thing for an economy.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.
On what? The history of tax rates since the 16th amendment? (Indeed not the first income tax, but the first legal one).
Better re-read my response. You are still wrong. The modern tax system was founded with the 16th amendment. The initial rate was very low (like 1% on anything over $1000 of income - which was a lot in those days). It quickly grew. Now, would you like a history of the rates? I will provide them, but you know I am right. For the reason your answer is deprived of any actual rebuttal, just a squirming hoping for a mistake you can pounce on.
Negative I am correct. MODERN tax rates those since 1913 are as I have said they are. My points stick, its just the fact that before all three of the crisis' I listed(which all were very significant bad economic times) came after republican had been in power for 12, 12, and 8 years. Those crisis were republicans fault period because of their philosiphy which they still cling to today. Dont tell me oh it was the previous democrats or some other baloney.
The one thing that all the "history buffs" talking about how horribly high taxes are keep missing is the fact that in 1916 our country didn't have the infrastructure that we have built since then. We wouldn't even be able to maintain interstate highways adequately with a flat tax rate of 1% on purchases over $1000.00, let alone our bloated military budget.
In 1916 little kids were working in factories all over the USA and not going to school. By instituting humane labor laws we took kids out of the workplace and into public schools and on playgrounds where they should be. Guess what, you can't have a humane society with no taxes to support a humane way of life.
It's hilarious that after putting the dumbest, most unqualified president in American history in office twice, the same people are whining about the "inexperience" and "ruinous possibilities" of our new president.
You guys should be comedians, not messageboard pundits.
Evidence?
Uh, we were not discussin who was in power. Nice of you to try to change the debate in mid stream. We were talking about tax each year. So now, do you want me to list them by year to show you how wrong you were to begin with? Or shall we start a new debate on who screwed the pooch the worse?
if the latter, I will be more than happy to start that discussion. For now, I am talking taxes - in other words the screw, not who turned the screw.
The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913;
| 1913 | 7 | 500,000 | |
| 1914 | 7 | 500,000 | |
| 1915 | 7 | 500,000 | |
| 1916 | 15 | 2,000,000 | |
| 1917 | 67 | 2,000,000 | |
| 1918 | 77 | 1,000,000 | |
| 1919 | 73 | 1,000,000 | |
| 1920 | 73 | 1,000,000 | |
| 1921 | 73 | 1,000,000 | |
| 1922 | 58 | 200,000 | |
| 1923 | 43.5 | 200,000 | |
| 1924 | 46 | 500,000 | |
| 1925 | 25 | 100,000 | |
| 1926 | 25 | 100,000 | |
| 1927 | 25 | 100,000 | |
| 1928 | 25 | 100,000 | |
| 1929 | 24 | 100,000 | |
| 1930 | 25 | 100,000 | |
| 1931 | 25 | 100,000 | |
| 1932 | 63 | 1,000,000 | |
| 1933 | 63 | 1,000,000 | |
| 1934 | 63 | 1,000,000 | |
| 1935 | 63 | 1,000,000 | |
| 1936 | 79 | 5,000,000 | |
| 1937 | 79 | 5,000,000 | |
| 1938 | 79 | 5,000,000 | |
| 1939 | 79 | 5,000,000 | |
| 1940 | 81.1 | 5,000,000 | |
| 1941 | 81 | 5,000,000 | |
| 1942 | 88 | 200,000 | |
| 1943 | 88 | 200,000 | |
| 1944 | 94 <2> | 200,000 | |
| 1945 | 94 <2> | 200,000 | |
| 1946 | 86.45 <3> | 200,000 | |
| 1947 | 86.45 <3> | 200,000 | |
| 1948 | 82.13 <4> | 400,000 | |
| 1949 | 82.13 <4> | 400,000 | |
| 1950 | 84.36 | 400,000 | |
| 1951 | 91 <5> | 400,000 | |
| 1952 | 92 <6> | 400,000 | |
| 1953 | 92 <6> | 400,000 | |
| 1954 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1955 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1956 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1957 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1958 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1959 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1960 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1961 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1962 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1963 | 91 <7> | 400,000 | |
| 1964 | 77 | 400,000 | |
| 1965 | 70 | 200,000 | |
| 1966 | 70 | 200,000 | |
| 1967 | 70 | 200,000 | |
| 1968 | 75.25 | 200,000 | |
| 1969 | 77 | 200,000 | |
| 1970 | 71.75 | 200,000 | |
| 1971 | 70 | 60 | 200,000 |
| 1972 | 70 | 50 | 200,000 |
| 1973 | 70 | 50 | 200,000 |
| 1974 | 70 | 50 | 200,000 |
| 1975 | 70 | 50 | 200,000 |
| 1976 | 70 | 50 | 200,000 |
| 1977 | 70 | 50 | 203,200 |
| 1978 | 70 | 50 | 203,200 |
| 1979 | 70 | 50 | 215,400 |
| 1980 | 70 | 50 | 215,400 |
| 1981 | 69.125 | 50 | 215,400 |
| 1982 | 50 | 85,600 | |
| 1983 | 50 | 109,400 | |
| 1984 | 50 | 162,400 | |
| 1985 | 50 | 169,020 | |
| 1986 | 50 | 175,250 | |
| 1987 | 38.5 | 90,000 | |
| 1988 | 28 <8> | 29,750 <8> | |
| 1989 | 28 <8> | 30,950 <8> | |
| 1990 | 28 <8> | 32,450 <8> | |
| 1991 | 31 | 82,150 | |
| 1992 | 31 | 86,500 | |
| 1993 | 39.6 | 89,150 | |
| 1994 | 39.6 | 250,000 | |
| 1995 | 39.6 | 256,500 | |
| 1996 | 39.6 | 263,750 | |
| 1997 | 39.6 | 271,050 | |
| 1998 | 39.6 | 278,450 | |
| 1999 | 39.6 | 283,150 | |
| 2000 | 39.6 | 288,350 | |
| 2001 | 39.1 | 297,350 | |
| 2002 | 38.6 | 307,050 | |
| 2003 | 35 | 311,950 |
These are top rates, not starting rates. But a qucik google search can find out everything you want to about the taxes. As you can see Mooseplow is dead wrong. Surprising what Google can do for you.
So as pay back, you put a dumber and more unqualified one in office? Are you often in the practice of cutting off your nose to spite your face?
BTW - on the previous post,. Joeuser put in the hearts. I guess < 3 is a heart. Kind of funny tho.
BTW - on the previous post,. Joeuser put in the hearts. I guess < 3 is a heart. Kind of funny tho.
Yeah, I hate that "feature".
Why does the text input box contain rich text features anyway?
How am I wrong there DRGUY? You just proved what I said. The rich have it great right now as compared to history. and if you look at when the rich had it best on your chart there you will notice the 3 times I listed are the 3 times the rich had the lowest tax rate just as I said. What is it that I am not explaining correctly?
Here was my original quote and it is in response to posts previous to me about things like how we would be looking back to better times and democrats are to blame for bad economics and such. My point was that if you did any reasearch on what the above post talks about you would see that during these bad economic times conservative, deregulating, handouts to the rich republicans we in charge. And they were in charge for 12 years before and during the great depression, 12 years before and during the early 90's recession, and 8 years before what is happening now. I guess I just assumed that all the smart people here who always tell me that my history is wrong would be able to see this easily for themselves.....looks pretty obvious thanks for the help with crushing your own cause.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Stardock Forums
PolMach Forums