|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Winterblues (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 02:23 PM Original message |
So did FDR raise taxes for the wealthy or not? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Stellabella (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 02:26 PM Response to Original message |
1. He sure did. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Winterblues (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 02:28 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Well as intelligent as Rachel appears to be I wonder why she didn't question that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Stellabella (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 02:30 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. I've been kind of frustrated with her show. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
anigbrowl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 03:44 PM Response to Reply #1 |
10. IT's a bit more complex than that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RUMMYisFROSTED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 02:26 PM Response to Original message |
2. Yes. He raised the top marginal bracket from 25% to 63%. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RUMMYisFROSTED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 02:30 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. Oh, and he raised it into the 80% area during the war. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dtotire (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 04:23 PM Response to Reply #4 |
14. It Was Called the "Soak The Rich" Tax Act n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SammyWinstonJack (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 05:44 PM Response to Reply #14 |
22. Awww! The Rich need to pony up NOW! They've had their tax cuts, time to pay up. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RUMMYisFROSTED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 07:07 PM Response to Reply #14 |
23. Tip-O-The-Hat to oldtime propaganda. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FatDave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 03:13 PM Response to Original message |
6. Top rates through history here: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Egalitariat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 03:19 PM Response to Original message |
7. Clinton's tax increase wasn't during a recession. But he did raise taxes on the wealthy*** |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Winterblues (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 03:37 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. Are you sure about that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Egalitariat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 07:30 PM Response to Reply #8 |
24. Bush definitely put us into recession, but the economy had already started growing again by the 2nd |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 03:38 PM Response to Original message |
9. Yes, yes he did |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tracer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 03:49 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. Yes, I remember the 90% |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 03:54 PM Response to Reply #11 |
12. That is why we need a 70%, no exceptions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Selatius (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 05:06 PM Response to Reply #12 |
16. That's ridiculous. What do they propose? A flat tax scheme? Or even a regressive tax scheme? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 05:08 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. Don't tell me... it is in HERE that I have been told 70% is too much |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Selatius (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 05:18 PM Response to Reply #17 |
19. Congratulations, one DUer who thinks 70 percent is too much just proved your point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 05:39 PM Response to Reply #19 |
21. The problem is that thinking is far more widespread than we want to admit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
anigbrowl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 05:12 PM Response to Reply #12 |
18. Progressive yet, but I'm not in favor of 90% or even 70%. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bean fidhleir (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 04:13 PM Response to Original message |
13. Relatively speaking, FDR did not raise taxes on the wealthy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bean fidhleir (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 04:59 PM Response to Original message |
15. Another titbit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Waiting For Everyman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-02-08 05:19 PM Response to Original message |
20. Top bracket was 90% under Ike in the 1950s, and should be again. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Wed May 08th 2024, 12:58 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC