Your video, The 70% top tax rate, explained with potatoes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 37 Badge!

Ok, Bob, let me try another tact.
Please follow along with the hypothetical.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Trump is found guilty of subversion by colluding with Russia against the interests of the USA and obstruction for trying to hide it....undeniably with concrete proof, and it turns out that almost every accusation is true. What type of restitution would you be prepared to offer the nation for the damage your willful blindness and support of clear anti American actions has done? Self deportation? Loss of citizenship rights? What?

Now, keeping that answer in mind, what would you demand if Bernie won with blatant help from China and went full socialist with a complicit congress, supporting socialist dictators, raising tax rates by double, nationalizing energy, medicine, water, etc?

True Trump did not directly create jobs.

Under his reign the Government did cut tax rates of business that create jobs And Government regulations that enabled business to to grow and create jobs easier.

I agree....mostly.
My plan, for when I'm emperor, is one tax rate based on the budget that pays for everything in full (no deficit, and pay off the debt) and puts 2% in the bank yearly for future unforseen disasters, with a base deduction of whatever poverty level in your state is +100%, so people barely out of poverty pay nothing.
Whatever that number is should be applied across the board, no loopholes, no special tax rates for certain types of income, no extra exemptions, nothing.
Also, 100% tax on money hidden offshore to avoid taxation and use RICO on the church(s) to pay off most of the debt first.


Yes, there were many reasons why the job market was good in the 50's for white guys, most of which are unthinkable or impossible today. For instance, a single income household with one average salary could not only save, they could often have a continuously rising standard of living. There's no way today, even on two incomes most families are in debt and downwardly mobile.

It doesn't work because there is an intrinsic group think personality in the Nordic region. Most people in that region that were born and raised there are very sensitive to profit making and ostentatious displays.

Which means that people are glad to simply 'get by'. There is not a mass drive to be better than your neighbor or own more toys than them. Of course there are outliers, but the bulk of Scandinavians are very used to the accepted norm. They are more willing to accept massive tax rates because they know they will be taken care of by the government. They aren't necessarily concerned about 'getting rich'.

Contrast that to other areas, especially the USA, and you will find out that it would never work here because we are an individualistic nation. Even the bluest liberal wants to be rich here. It's more cutthroat, more selfish, than you will find in a Scandi nation.

Another huge reason it would never work is that they do not spend anywhere near the percentage of their budget on defense that we do. Denmark spends about 20 billion per year on defense. Norway, an oil rich Scandi nation that is considered one of our most important NATO allies, spends about 6 billion. Less than 1.2% of their GDP. This is one thing that Trump was actually right about. We spend around 700 Billion, roughly 3.5% of our current GDP.

"Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said. In 2017, only the U.K., Greece, Poland and Estonia reached the 2 percent target.

Whether that level of spending is needed is another argument altogether. I personally think we overspend way too much on defense, but regardless it is a huge factor as to why we can't offer the same level of 'socialism' that the Nordic nations do. If we spent the same percentage as Norway, we would be saving close to 460 billion dollars a year that could be applied to other programs. Such as paying for college for qualified students or trade school for ones that are not college minded. Or providing benefits to new mothers that we currently don't.

A Mitt Romney fan, eh? You should probably read this article, which absolutely guts the myth that only half of income earners pay taxes.

As far as the top 1% paying 40% of the taxes, I agree that is atrocious--they are supposed to be paying almost ALL of it! See, when the income tax was introduced with the 16th Amendment, it was primarily meant to be a tax on the rich. The federal tax rate for middle-class people was meant to be around 1-2% whereas the tax rate on the rich was around 7%. You can see the original 1913 tax form here.

Of course, since literally the income tax's inception, the federal government has continuously been shafting the middle classes while reducing the tax burden of the wealthy. It's about as American as apple pie by this point!

The big problem is that the government relies more and more on income tax to fund federal projects. Take a look at the graph in the article I linked to at the start of this comment and note how corporate taxes keep going down while income and payroll taxes keep going up.

It doesn't help at all that most of America's biggest businesses have offshore tax havens where they can avoid paying taxes (think Ireland for Apple, Inc., though that hasn't worked out so well for them thanks to the EU being less corporate cock-sucking than the U.S. government).

So, to solve America's tax deficit problem, the solution is pretty clear--tax rich people more (as was intended), tax corporations more and cut off their tax havens, and maybe give a tax break to the people who actually need and deserve it--the middle and lower classes.

But of course all of that sounds suspiciously like socialism, which as we all know is the devil incarnate and about as un-American as naming your kid Stalin.

You don't think that has anything to do with the biased garbage you watch? I've seen every Democrat (politician) ever asked about the tax bill admit it benefits them, including Obama and Clinton.

Remember the last 6 months of "I pay more under this plan, it doesn't benefit me at all." ? You enjoy being completely lied to about a $1.5 Trillion a year handout to billionaires? So, Obama's problem was he wasn't rich or dishonest enough for you?

Democrats say it's financial Armageddon because handing over $1.5TRILLION per year to a hand full of hyper rich people when we already had a huge deficit is exactly that.
It's odd, (not really, it's typical Bob) I recall you and the right screaming Armageddon every time Obama passed a bill, and claiming he doubled the debt/deficit in his first term....clearly that was a racist ruse and financial responsibility is not an issue for you, because this single law costs far more than even you claimed Obama spent, a number that had you frothing at the mouth with rage, and is designed to benefit a single family...Trump's.

Bob...you admitted he's an unqualified liar who cannot get anything done, then you counter yourself with " Trump is kicking ass, making America greater this year even being dogged every day" Stop being idiotic and pretending you actually have a real opinion, you're obviously just trolling when you spout this nonsense, and it makes you look moronic.

I have no kids, and don't itemize, my tax rate goes UP under this law, so I probably pay more. This isn't the "pay your taxes on a postcard" promise kept, this adds serious complexity to the tax code, it doesn't simplify it. They admitted that, can't you?

Jesus fucking Christ, this single bill adds $15 Trillion to the debt over 10 years, so yes, let's be fair. For 2016, the deficit is expected to be approximately $590 billion, in 2020 that's now $2.09 Trillion...assuming Trump doesn't steal more for himself. Had Obama not increased the military budget by over $100 Billion (contrary to all right wing liars who falsely claim he shrunk it) in an effort to gain bipartisan support for his plans (a fool's errand) he would have actually SHRUNK the deficit. Clinton actually lowered the debt, erasing the deficit until your guy, Bush, turned us around bigly.

Only Americans who make over $150k a year will benefit financially...in the short term. When they have to pay for massive amounts of private security, private roads, water treatment, etc, and the country becomes Chinese (purchased and by force, with no allies left to help us, and China aligned with Russia, we're toast).
The "vase majority" of America might benefit, but the vast majority of Americans will pay dearly, as will the nation as a whole.

Sore looser? Compared to your (and the right's) treatment of Obama, I'm a trump supporter.
Stop trolling, you sound like a 4 year old ...lies, excuses, reversals, nonsense, misdirection, and high praise for a moron....not a good look, buddy. If Trump is kicking ass, it's for Russia and China, not us. Made us greater, by raising the debt and deficit by up to 400% with a single move and losing our international standing and allies. Dogged every day?....Not compared to Obama. Recall, instead of legislating, Republican leadership said 'my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president.', acted upon by being the most obstructionist and disrespectful congress in modern history.... during wartime, and not ending at the borders either. Better to hate Democrats than love America....morons and traitors, the lot of you.

Getting soaked is a crock of BS. They're paying often times 20% effective tax rates.

And when income and wealth inequality is as bad as it is today, what you're pointing out points to how ridiculous the economic system is when almost half of Americans pay no federal income taxes and still see their effective income drop over the last four decades, while the rich have experienced steady income increases during that time.

IE, the inequality is so great, even if you literally don't have people pay taxes, it's still resulting in growing wealth inequality.

And I'm sure you're gonna claim that I'm suggesting pure income/wealth equality is what we want, which I'm not. However, it is absolutely essential to a functioning market economy that wealth and income inequality do not become too great, as that was one of the contributing factors to the Great Depression. If the economic lower class does not have money to purchase goods and services the businesses owned by the rich produce, those businesses will inevitably decline.

I'm sure I've heard him say both, but perhaps he just misspoke. In writing, he does say she pays a higher tax rate.

@Mordhaus @ChaosEngine
I knew about the 2012 referendum, and the lack of overwhelming support for the direct yes/no question to change the current status or stay with the status quo (about 55% wanted to change, 45% wanted to stay back then). Didn't know about the most recent vote on it -- thanks for the heads up.


Personally I'd like to see PR become the 51st state, but I think my opinion is drastically less important than that of the people actually living there. Basically, I think they should make the choice and the US government should honor it whichever way they choose.

I'm not in the know enough to have a good opinion on whether or not they would need some sort of payout / debt severance / whatever, but I'd be OK with it if it was deemed a good thing to do. On the other hand, if they went independent they'd have the right to set corporate tax rates etc. to pay off debts and/or chase out US based businesses that are taking unfair advantage. Maybe that'd be enough of an olive branch without requiring an additional "severance package", I dunno.

Ha! It's great when you foil a robbery by not noticing it! Good job.

Yikes! We're still taxed as if we were worth $125k, and at only 1%. We don't live in city or even town limits, so our tax rates are low. Willow says we're worth over $500k now, so I hope they don't catch on and reevaluate us any time soon. I can't afford for our taxes to quadruple.

Hasn't SHE also been filmed mocking Trump at her rallies...another person with disabilities, but his are purely mental.

EDIT: Also, is his mocking a disabled man really the most important flub he's made? Wouldn't disputing some of his policies be more to the point and make more of a difference. I mean, we already know he's a douchebag, and that's a selling point for most of his followers, not a deal breaker. Explain how his tax plan doubles the national debt, raises taxes on all non millionaires, and ends all social programs many of his followers use to live, while drastically lowering tax rates on millionaires and making it easier for them to hide money and move businesses out of the country, contrary to what he tells them in his rallies. I see this as a huge part of the problem this election, it's become all about personality, nothing of substance at all, because neither main candidate wants to discuss their plans or history.

EDIT: The following statement has been found to be inaccurate.

Um...keep in mind that she's NOT the nominee yet, people. It's another lie from her campaign, repeated by all media organizations.
A candidate needs 2383 PLEDGED delegates to win the nomination. She has 2184. Because there seems to be some question among Clinton supporters, 2184 < 2383. She's 199 short. That doesn't mean Sanders has much chance, it means the claim that "she won the nomination" is a BOLD FACED LIE that apparently 90% of Americans are gullible and ignorant enough to buy. Don't be a sucker and fall for then repeat another lie. Wait for the convention before calling her the nominee. She didn't win yet.

It turns out when congress members need to spend up to 50% each day ringing up rich individuals and corporations for donations to stay competitive in their elections - things like corporate subsidies and selectively lowering tax rates for those individuals tends to be where the money goes.

Lead paint is far down the list especially when most will not appreciate that it's silently harming their health. Besides, you can turn out the vote of so called 'single issue voters' by distracting them with social issues that have virtually no consequence on their lives (banning Sharia law, legislating gun carry laws, building ineffective border walls).

If you noticed, they only get to pay the lower state tax rate in Delaware, Wyoming, or Nevada. LLCs don't shield them from federal taxes like off shore shell companies do. The shell companies allow them to pretend they don't have the money at all, and pay NO federal taxes.
Some Americans have been named already, with more to come. WOO HOO!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/06/panama-papers-americans-with-past-financial-crimes/82704788/

The real Ronald Reagan was in favour of a social safety net for the truly needy, despite being known for the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which cut benefits for some of the better-off welfare recipients. Also, if you look at his position on immigration (granted amnesty in 1986) and gun control (banned open carry in California, banned sale of machine guns in 1986, lobbied for the ban on assault rifles in 1994) you'll find that he is politically far to the left of any of the current Republican presidential candidates.

The real Barack Obama proposed income tax rates lower than under Reagan, and if he's ever proposed socialist style wealth redistribution then I didn't hear about it. From over here he looks centre right poitically, so it's a little bit jarring to hear people talk about him as if he's a leftist!