that bar graph really isn't all that offensive to me, actually
if you feel that paying for tax breaks primarily for the wealthy with massive cuts to programs that help the poor is totally okay I'm not sure what to say
you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)
and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???
send this man to a gas chamber immediately
I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?
yeah, how DID poor people survive before pell grants
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?
yeah, how DID poor people survive before pell grants
answer THAT, Butters
Protip: a lot of poor people die as a direct result of economic condition. For real. Dead.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?
Notice that I did not specifically mention and thus did not support those specific cuts. I'm just clarifying the intent of top-heavy tax cuts and pointing out that ratio of tax rates to tax revenue isn't linear. There are many other factors that effect revenue.
you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)
and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???
send this man to a gas chamber immediately
I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)
You do realize that the largest group of taxpayers around the median income in the US will only make like 2% more after taxes. They get 1/2 as much 'tax relief' even though by sheer numbers there are a fuckton more of them. They also make about 1/10 of the income of those getting 4% more after taxes.
So basically the rich get richer. The middle class carries the burden. The poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class so they keep showing up to those jobs and accepting the lower pay and shittier benefits.
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?
Notice that I did not specifically mention and thus did not support those specific cuts. I'm just clarifying the intent of top-heavy tax cuts and pointing out that ratio of tax rates to tax revenue isn't linear. There are many other factors that effect revenue.
Oh, well, I got that, but you responded to a quote tree about the negative effects of the tax cuts on lower classes. There were other posts about whether or not the budget would actually be effective for managing federal deficits or whatever that you probs should have quoted instead.
you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)
and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???
send this man to a gas chamber immediately
I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)
You do realize that the largest group of taxpayers around the median income in the US will only make like 2% more after taxes. They get 1/2 as much 'tax relief' even though by sheer numbers there are a fuckton more of them. They also make about 1/10 of the income of those getting 4% more after taxes.
So basically the rich get richer. The middle class carries the burden. The poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class so they keep showing up to those jobs and accepting the lower pay and shittier benefits.
that's a great george carlin outlook on sovereign finance
you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)
and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???
send this man to a gas chamber immediately
I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)
You do realize that the largest group of taxpayers around the median income in the US will only make like 2% more after taxes. They get 1/2 as much 'tax relief' even though by sheer numbers there are a fuckton more of them. They also make about 1/10 of the income of those getting 4% more after taxes.
So basically the rich get richer. The middle class carries the burden. The poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class so they keep showing up to those jobs and accepting the lower pay and shittier benefits.
that's a great george carlin outlook on sovereign finance
It's also supported by empirical evidence. Income gaps are wider than ever, middle class people have less and less disposable income, which means they can't buy as many [insert consumer goods and services]. Which means those businesses make less money because sales are down. Which leads to them reducing man hours. Which means job loss. Which leads to less money.
Keep cutting taxes for the rich though. Eventually they'll have so much money that they'll drop some of it and it may fall down from their ivory towers and trickle onto the masses below.
Let's bankrupt social security in a couple decades by defaulting on the 2 trillion in bonds it holds because we can't afford to pay them out
DONT YOU SEE
it's BRILLIANT
the poor people will appreciate that we obscured the demise of their safety net with clever accounting, rather than act to solve the problem ahead of time
it works on so many levels
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?
Notice that I did not specifically mention and thus did not support those specific cuts. I'm just clarifying the intent of top-heavy tax cuts and pointing out that ratio of tax rates to tax revenue isn't linear. There are many other factors that effect revenue.
Oh, well, I got that, but you responded to a quote tree about the negative effects of the tax cuts on lower classes. There were other posts about whether or not the budget would actually be effective for managing federal deficits or whatever that you probs should have quoted instead.
I don't see anything wrong with my choice of quote tree. The monkey guy mentioned "Trickle Down" theory and I explained that's not the philosophy behind the tax cuts in a direct reply by quoting his post.
Let's bankrupt social security in a couple decades by defaulting on the 2 trillion in bonds it holds because we can't afford to pay them out
DONT YOU SEE
it's BRILLIANT
the poor people will appreciate that we obscured the demise of their safety net with clever accounting, rather than act to solve the problem ahead of time
it works on so many levels
clearly the answer is to just destroy the safety net now instead of waiting
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited April 2012
seriously though, fuck the wealthy.
edit: usually they're pretty old and then when they die, who gets the yacht and the ski chateau in Vale?
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?
yeah, how DID poor people survive before pell grants
answer THAT, Butters
they survived without access to a college education.
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)
like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)
like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"
Then you need to find more people to have more intelligent conversations with. Though I personally don't have a problem with estate taxes there are perfectly logical arguments to be made against them.
in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)
like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"
Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.
in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)
like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"
Then you need to find more people to have more intelligent conversations with. Though I personally don't have a problem with estate taxes there are perfectly logical arguments to be made against them.
The only argument needed to be pro estate taxes is Paris Hilton.
There's no reason she should benefit in any way at all in life, especially if it's only because of a cosmic coincidence she was born into that family.
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
The estate tax threshold, like most arcane thresholds, needs to be increased, but conceptually I'm fine with it.
But I think people need to let go of this fantasy where the rich will pay an exact proportionate share of the total tax revenue of the united states, or even close to it
and especially get rid of the fantasy that any intermediate failure to achieve that ideal is akin to the slaughter of the lower class
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)
like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"
Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.
i think the presidential election should be determined by either gladiator combat or a literal race, Wacky Races style
obama and biden in a jalopy racing down the backroads of yennessee is a good image
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)
like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"
Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.
i think the presidential election should be determined by either gladiator combat or a literal race, Wacky Races style
obama and biden in a jalopy racing down the backroads of yennessee is a good image
First presidential candidate with their choice of VP that eats 100 hard boiled eggs between the two of them wins the executive branch for 4 years. GO!
the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.
in my experience the only people who are in favor of not taxing the rich more are people with rich families or people deluded enough to think they, one day, will be rich (most americans)
like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"
Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.
i think the presidential election should be determined by either gladiator combat or a literal race, Wacky Races style
obama and biden in a jalopy racing down the backroads of yennessee is a good image
First presidential candidate with their choice of VP that eats 100 hard boiled eggs between the two of them wins the executive branch for 4 years. GO!
make it a hot-dog eating contest
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.
yeah, like... totally dude
a sterling rebuttal from a guy who doesn't relaly have a problem with ron paul
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.
The rich should not pay higher taxes, they should pay proportional taxes. The issue is the types of ways the super rich make money and hold their money is far different than your average middle class wage earner. That's where % of total income vs total dollars payed in taxes comes into play.
most of the real tax crime, the real moral and ethical damage re: taxes in this country is not perpetrated by individual rich citizens
it's done by corporations who use the US tax code to their advantage
GE, Exxon, etc, etc... companies who make massive profits and pay literally zero taxes for a variety of tax code/subsidy reasons (every time you see one of those Exxon biofuel commercials, just picture a poor person being kicked in the face)
Exxon doing business under the total safety of the United States and paying zero taxes hurts a lot more than someone who cashed out on google stock paying 100k in taxes instead of 110k.
I love the argument 'well if you have to pay more, why would anyone want to try and be rich?'
cause you'd still be rich, dummy
My dumbshit mother turned down a promotion at her work. Why?, I asked.
"Because it would just put me in a higher tax bracket"...seriously?
Her dumbshit boyfriend is refusing to sell his mineral rights in West Virginia because he'd have to pay taxes on them, leaving him only a couple hundred dollars in profit and he's fucking unemployed.
Long story short, I am surrounded by idiots.
0
Options
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
the burden of paying higher taxes SHOULD fall on the rich, and it should fall on 'em a hell of a lot fucking harder than it does. fuck 'em, they can afford it.
yeah, like... totally dude
a sterling rebuttal from a guy who doesn't relaly have a problem with ron paul
what
pretty sure he does
and YEAH TAX THE RICH A LOT MORE is not exactly a solid argument either?
the proposed tax cuts are fucking awful though
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
The majority of those decreases can be directly linked with Bush's 2001 tax cuts.
We were still suffering from a recession from 2000 to 2003 that started on Clinton's watch. You're pretty smug for someone with a tenuous grasp of economics.
I love the argument 'well if you have to pay more, why would anyone want to try and be rich?'
cause you'd still be rich, dummy
My dumbshit mother turned down a promotion at her work. Why?, I asked.
"Because it would just put me in a higher tax bracket"...seriously?
Her dumbshit boyfriend is refusing to sell his mineral rights in West Virginia because he'd have to pay taxes on them, leaving him only a couple hundred dollars in profit and he's fucking unemployed.
Long story short, I am surrounded by idiots.
yo, in these situations where you are on the cusp of an income bracket, it is actually possible to make less money after taxes by taking a raise
plz to be learning about taxes tia
0
Options
LuvTheMonkeyHigh Sierra SerenadeRegistered Userregular
That I can mostly agree with Jasconius.
I think the tax rate on the richest individual brackets is way too low (lowest since 1925), but corporate taxes are another clusterfuck that needs dealt with.
Posts
if you feel that paying for tax breaks primarily for the wealthy with massive cuts to programs that help the poor is totally okay I'm not sure what to say
you are telling me that someone making 950,000 will make 4% more after taxes (read the graph)
and there will also be a total abolition of tax loopholes???
send this man to a gas chamber immediately
I will confess the actual budget that passed two weeks ago DOES keep certain tax subsidies in place, but that was because it needed to pass. Paul Ryan is on record as being in favor of abolishing all corporate subsidy (via ThinkProgress)
So, how does all that extra federal revenue help the people who've had their safety nets cut?
yeah, how DID poor people survive before pell grants
answer THAT, Butters
Protip: a lot of poor people die as a direct result of economic condition. For real. Dead.
Notice that I did not specifically mention and thus did not support those specific cuts. I'm just clarifying the intent of top-heavy tax cuts and pointing out that ratio of tax rates to tax revenue isn't linear. There are many other factors that effect revenue.
You do realize that the largest group of taxpayers around the median income in the US will only make like 2% more after taxes. They get 1/2 as much 'tax relief' even though by sheer numbers there are a fuckton more of them. They also make about 1/10 of the income of those getting 4% more after taxes.
So basically the rich get richer. The middle class carries the burden. The poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class so they keep showing up to those jobs and accepting the lower pay and shittier benefits.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Oh, well, I got that, but you responded to a quote tree about the negative effects of the tax cuts on lower classes. There were other posts about whether or not the budget would actually be effective for managing federal deficits or whatever that you probs should have quoted instead.
that's a great george carlin outlook on sovereign finance
did jasc really say that pell grants arent a big deal as long as the govt has more money
what do you think the govt does with money, if not support people trying to survive and better themselves
It's also supported by empirical evidence. Income gaps are wider than ever, middle class people have less and less disposable income, which means they can't buy as many [insert consumer goods and services]. Which means those businesses make less money because sales are down. Which leads to them reducing man hours. Which means job loss. Which leads to less money.
Keep cutting taxes for the rich though. Eventually they'll have so much money that they'll drop some of it and it may fall down from their ivory towers and trickle onto the masses below.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Let's bankrupt social security in a couple decades by defaulting on the 2 trillion in bonds it holds because we can't afford to pay them out
DONT YOU SEE
it's BRILLIANT
the poor people will appreciate that we obscured the demise of their safety net with clever accounting, rather than act to solve the problem ahead of time
it works on so many levels
I don't see anything wrong with my choice of quote tree. The monkey guy mentioned "Trickle Down" theory and I explained that's not the philosophy behind the tax cuts in a direct reply by quoting his post.
clearly the answer is to just destroy the safety net now instead of waiting
edit: usually they're pretty old and then when they die, who gets the yacht and the ski chateau in Vale?
you do, you clever duck.
they survived without access to a college education.
like once i tried to explain why i think we need more significant estate taxes and the only argument i could heard in favor of no estate tax was "but then my parents would give me less money"
Then you need to find more people to have more intelligent conversations with. Though I personally don't have a problem with estate taxes there are perfectly logical arguments to be made against them.
Gladiatorial games should decide who earns an estate, not bloodlines or wills. That would fix everything, including TV.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
The only argument needed to be pro estate taxes is Paris Hilton.
There's no reason she should benefit in any way at all in life, especially if it's only because of a cosmic coincidence she was born into that family.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Yes yes the Laffer curve. OH WAIT.
Tax revenues off by $35 billion in FY 2001 vs 2000.
Tax revenues off by $138 billion in FY 2002 vs 2001
Tax revenues of by $71 billion in FY 2003 vs 2002
The majority of those decreases can be directly linked with Bush's 2001 tax cuts.
But I think people need to let go of this fantasy where the rich will pay an exact proportionate share of the total tax revenue of the united states, or even close to it
and especially get rid of the fantasy that any intermediate failure to achieve that ideal is akin to the slaughter of the lower class
i think the presidential election should be determined by either gladiator combat or a literal race, Wacky Races style
obama and biden in a jalopy racing down the backroads of yennessee is a good image
First presidential candidate with their choice of VP that eats 100 hard boiled eggs between the two of them wins the executive branch for 4 years. GO!
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
yeah, like... totally dude
cause you'd still be rich, dummy
make it a hot-dog eating contest
a sterling rebuttal from a guy who doesn't relaly have a problem with ron paul
iran isn't fucking arabic
i was speaking facetiously
The rich should not pay higher taxes, they should pay proportional taxes. The issue is the types of ways the super rich make money and hold their money is far different than your average middle class wage earner. That's where % of total income vs total dollars payed in taxes comes into play.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
it's done by corporations who use the US tax code to their advantage
GE, Exxon, etc, etc... companies who make massive profits and pay literally zero taxes for a variety of tax code/subsidy reasons (every time you see one of those Exxon biofuel commercials, just picture a poor person being kicked in the face)
Exxon doing business under the total safety of the United States and paying zero taxes hurts a lot more than someone who cashed out on google stock paying 100k in taxes instead of 110k.
My dumbshit mother turned down a promotion at her work. Why?, I asked.
"Because it would just put me in a higher tax bracket"...seriously?
Her dumbshit boyfriend is refusing to sell his mineral rights in West Virginia because he'd have to pay taxes on them, leaving him only a couple hundred dollars in profit and he's fucking unemployed.
Long story short, I am surrounded by idiots.
lmao you took this at face value
what
pretty sure he does
and YEAH TAX THE RICH A LOT MORE is not exactly a solid argument either?
the proposed tax cuts are fucking awful though
We were still suffering from a recession from 2000 to 2003 that started on Clinton's watch. You're pretty smug for someone with a tenuous grasp of economics.
with metz?
yeah
yo, in these situations where you are on the cusp of an income bracket, it is actually possible to make less money after taxes by taking a raise
plz to be learning about taxes tia
I think the tax rate on the richest individual brackets is way too low (lowest since 1925), but corporate taxes are another clusterfuck that needs dealt with.