Obama's muddled economic plan

Danzig · #1 01-26-2012, 10:55 AM

from what we were told the other day, it was a very high % on top earners. i'll have to look it up, but i believe it was in the 60's or maybe higher.

here's an article i found:

http://martha-r-gore.suite101.com/us...century-a83122

guess i beat the 'libtards' to it. lol

'The 1916 Revenue Act was in force when America entered World War I. The need for money increased so the lowest tax rate was raised from 1 percent to 2 percent and the top rate to 15 percent in excess of $1.5 million. It also imposed taxes on estates and excess business profits. The War Revenue Act of 1917 lowered exemptions and further increased tax rates. Taxpayers with $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and for individuals with income of $1.5 million, the tax rate was raised to 67 percent.

In 1918, tax rates were raised again with a bottom rate of 6 percent and a top rate of 77 percent. Although only 5 percent of the population paid income taxes at that time, the income was able to fund one-third of the cost of World War I.'

#2 01-26-2012, 10:59 AM

Yeah but it was for infrastructure...this time it will go to international bankers and other assorted goons.

Danzig · #3 01-26-2012, 11:01 AM

no, it really wasn't...it was for war. gee, that sounds familiar.

Even before the United States entered the Second World War, the need for defense spending and support of the countries opposing the Axis led to the passage of two tax laws, one of which in 1940 increased individual and corporation taxes. This would be followed by another tax hike in 1941, reductions in exemption levels, and incomes of $500, facing a bottom tax rate of 23 percent while those with incomes over $1 were raised to 94 percent. By this time, the number of income tax payers had risen from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945. As had been done during the Civil War, income taxes were once again withheld from incomes and wages, easing the collection of taxes by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

As in previous U.S. History, income taxes were imposed or raised to meet defense needs during wartime. World War I required more revenue that were acquired by raising the income tax rates . The tax laws enacted during the 1900-World War II period would become a permanent part of the income system of the United States

Danzig · #4 01-26-2012, 11:09 AM

as you can see, our government became this bloated thing because of those two wars. something i've said previously. we decided to become a permanent superpower, and it's costing us tremendously. thing is, there was already fear of us before ww1-without us having a huge standing army and massive navy. germany was worried about us entering the war, which was why they kept backing off regarding attacking shipping. but they thought they had their enemies close enough to defeat that they ended up threatening shipping once more that last year before we entered the war. they thought they were close enough to victory that we couldn't ramp up recruitment and war production quickly enough by then to make a difference. oops. of course we managed to do just that, and the rest is history. we did the same with ww2-we had a larger defense, but nothing like what we achieved during ww2. that's where our strength lies-but our leaders didn't pay attention to history. so we have this hufe permanent fixture, and there really isn't a need-is there? it's kept other countries from fooling with us-but hell, as huge as england was, and as loaded militarily, she didn't want to fight us in 1812. didn't want to get involved in the civil war..because they knew it was a losing proposition. but we still spend as tho we have armed forces at every border just waiting to invade. it's ridiculous.

jms62 · #5 01-26-2012, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

as you can see, our government became this bloated thing because of those two wars. something i've said previously. we decided to become a permanent superpower, and it's costing us tremendously. thing is, there was already fear of us before ww1-without us having a huge standing army and massive navy. germany was worried about us entering the war, which was why they kept backing off regarding attacking shipping. but they thought they had their enemies close enough to defeat that they ended up threatening shipping once more that last year before we entered the war. they thought they were close enough to victory that we couldn't ramp up recruitment and war production quickly enough by then to make a difference. oops. of course we managed to do just that, and the rest is history. we did the same with ww2-we had a larger defense, but nothing like what we achieved during ww2. that's where our strength lies-but our leaders didn't pay attention to history. so we have this hufe permanent fixture, and there really isn't a need-is there? it's kept other countries from fooling with us-but hell, as huge as england was, and as loaded militarily, she didn't want to fight us in 1812. didn't want to get involved in the civil war..because they knew it was a losing proposition. but we still spend as tho we have armed forces at every border just waiting to invade. it's ridiculous.

Do you know of any other way we can increase Cap gains and dividends on Defense industry shareholders?

Danzig · #6 01-26-2012, 11:49 AM

i wish i did. i get that it's a big industry that supports a lot of workers-but it's a tremendous drain on our treasury. defense and 'entitlements' are the two huge budget busters. can that really continue? if that's what we want, we have to find a way to pay for them. it's really that simple. and before anyone says 'cut foreign aid'-go look at the budget requirements.
it's why i shake my head every time a candidate says 'we need more defense' or the president says 'we can't cut defense'. it's the pink elephant in the corner. well, one of two.

jms62 · #7 01-26-2012, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wish i did. i get that it's a big industry that supports a lot of workers-but it's a tremendous drain on our treasury. defense and 'entitlements' are the two huge budget busters. can that really continue? if that's what we want, we have to find a way to pay for them. it's really that simple. and before anyone says 'cut foreign aid'-go look at the budget requirements.
it's why i shake my head every time a candidate says 'we need more defense' or the president says 'we can't cut defense'. it's the pink elephant in the corner. well, one of two.

You do realize I was being sarcastic, right.