quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Bullshit, no reputable source and it means nothing, it is against AGI (which means nothing without the gross) and the numbers do not add up. 
If numbers are not discoverable, it is not reputable source, I dont give a fuck if it comes from the mouth of Ganesh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and become the laughingstock

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Bullshit, no reputable source and it means nothing, it is against AGI (which means nothing without the gross) and the numbers do not add up. 
If numbers are not discoverable, it is not reputable source, I dont give a fuck if it comes from the mouth of Ganesh.

That's all well and good, Ron. I'll let you stew in your bullshit then. Enjoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Bullshit, no reputable source and it means nothing, it is against AGI (which means nothing without the gross) and the numbers do not add up. 
If numbers are not discoverable, it is not reputable source, I dont give a fuck if it comes from the mouth of Ganesh.

That's all well and good, Ron. I'll let you stew in your bullshit then. Enjoy.

What Ron is getting at is that there are a lot of deductions before reaching the AGI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Above-the-line_deduction

quote:


The reports showed the gross income and the deductions

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


The reports showed the gross income and the deductions

It did not whatsoever show gross income and deductions, read the fucking thing, that was AGI in the left column and then some MORE wartime type deductions, for an (IDK) AGI-AGI.....and none of the numbers add up from one to another, again, I may be missing something, but it is gonna be a nefarious something because I make my living knowing numbers, what they mean, checking out the assumptions and the deals, and those numbers do not add, the quality of the paper is such that we cannot easily determine the footnotes and what they portray, but it is very simple, show me how they got to the 62.2 percent on page 100 line 37, what number divided what number (where that number could come from) in that line.   
And you are being inumerate (which is always the case with you) and it does not fit into my belief system that numbers that purport to be something should correllate and make sense in context.  And I am damn proud to hold that belief, if more did, you would see that the teabaggers are not and will never be 'fiscally conservative', they are inumerate buffoons.
And the idea is and was, and has certainly been proven there was no 91-94% tax paid.  Not even 40-60% tax paid, the nominal rate is so far from the actual effective tax rate it is looking like I said, around 20% but I am willing to concede 25% to be a nice guy.  Just like Romney actually pays around 13% and is not at all overtaxed, because a lot of middle classers and poor folks pay a fuck of a lot more in actual effective tax rates.   

quote:

Adjusted gross income, introduced by the 1944 act, is defined as grossincome minus allowable trade and business deductions, expenses of travel and lodging in connection with employment, reimbursed expenses inconnection with employment, deductions attributable to rents and royalties, deductions for depreciation and depletion allowable to life tenants and income beneficiaries of property held in trust, and allowable losses from sales of property. Adjusted gross income provides a means whereby different kinds of gross income are placed substantially on a par with each other ; and, in cases where the adjusted gross income is less than $5,000, the tax liability may be determined on the basis of adjusted gross income, directly from the tax table, at the option of the taxpayer. Before the concept of adjusted gross income was introduced, tax rates could not be applied to the income of persons engaged in business or profession until the net
income had been determined, i. e., after there had been deducted not only the cost of doing business but also deductions and credits the law allowed, including allowable personal expenses such as contributions, medical expenses, taxes, interest, and casualty losses .

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I read the fucking thing, you did not.  You cannot box the numbers on the bullshit.  It is still deductions from gross.
you said it was gross: wrongo.
you said it was 91 or 94%: wrongo.

quote:

you then said it was 62.2% to whatever percent from that document: again wrongo.

quote:

you claimed some numbers in the 1700 range in 44 and 2000 range in 45 of CITIZENS making 200k or plus: wrongo, businesses and citizens, so our number is even smaller than 5e-8%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quit dissembling.  Nobody who has more intelligence than a shit beetle cares about nominal rates.
No, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, as a teabagger you are known to be innumerate.  You have proven it, I told you the rate was 20%.  You show me a document, that says a number of 62.2 percent that CANNOT BE.  Because a percentage is a ratio, take one number DIVIDED BY ANOTHER NUMBER and the answer is 62.2.  I have taken every number on that line (and several other lines) and divided it by every other number on that line and there is nothing with an answer of 62.2.
Therefore. Besides knowing that these numbers (the 62.2% and so on) are not the ACTUAL EFFECTIVE TAX RATE, we know either the maths are wrong, or numbers are appearing somewhere out of thin air, not contained in the table nor is the reciprocal.  It is a demonstration of pudpounding and nothing to do with fact, nor does it buttress any of your spewables here, and in fact,  rather destroys your spewables since it did not agree with any one of them, nor did it demonstrate them.
Simple deal, line 37 page 100.  Demonstrate the numbers that would divide and give me 62.2%.  
I don't need to take it up with the IRS, I can prove the numbers wrong, and did. You have only proved that you are inumerate and that such asswipe as the teabaggers peddle is pure horseshit. It is designed simply to destroy this country and give money to your corporate masters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The top tax brackets in 1944 and 1945 were 91% levied on incomes of $200k or more
Essentially, it was as if the Federal Government was telling the Citizens that they weren't allowed to make a lot more than $2.54M/$2.3M a year
Effective Tax rates are shown on Table 4 of both documents.
1944 (p. 96): effective tax rates for the tax brackets for $200K+ ranged from a low of 62.2% to a high of 76.48%
1945 (p. 100): effective tax rates for the tax brackets for $200K+ ranged from a low of 59.63% to a high of 74.5%
Paying 62% of one's AGI is still quite fucking lot, isn't it?
The reports showed the gross income and the deductions.
1945 (p. 100): effective tax rates for the tax brackets for $200K+ ranged from a low of 59.63% to a high of 74.5%
line 37 that page, tell me where they get 62.2% FROM THAT LINE.

quote:

So, nowhere (even in table 4 page 69 do we have an actual effective tax rate) we have numbers that are bandied about foolishly as sensationalism, butnot realistically.
Got it.  Stew in the shit in your diapers, you're just mad because you are shown as arguing a fraud.
You cannot answer a simple question, you just spew more bullshit.
Simple deal, line 37 page 100.  Demonstrate the numbers that would divide and give me 62.2%.  
Repeatedly I have asked this, and you elide it and spew some asswipe from another table having nothing to do with the discussion here, by me or you.   from line 37 of the table page 100 the 1945 document, 62.2 which numbers give me that?
So millionares of over 5+Mill may have paid 62.2 of AGI but that doesnt even touch the bracket 70 bracket let along 90 bracket, and it would be considerably lower against gross.   However we are discussing the 2002 corporations and individuals in the 200k to what 300k range.  I am awaiting a calculation of 62.2 from that line page 100 (of the book not the pdf file) line 37, AGI_AGI (nothing to do with nothing real, just statistics, and on that line are one or more numbers (that would have to make sense to add or subract together and divded by another single or multple source number all these from line 37 page 100 1945 document (which I have been asking for an answer to since your link and you have not answered) because I am really trying to understand what is true about your arguement, I already know the bulk of it is simpletonian and shallow untutored asswipe, but I want to find something right with it........ 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
what will be your next deflection?
I am not deflecting.  What I am being told is that people in 1945 who made 163000 a year paid 101000 in taxes.  These great americans paid their taxes, suffered silently under great price controls if companies, and fairly light labor controls if citizens, and became the greatest generation, and the longest and best growth and prosperity in American history. 
So, the average effective tax rate worked out to around 20% and we took in 45billion in revenue and spent 83billion on the war alone in 45.
So, nowhere do we see actual effective tax rates that even get within a mile of the approach of nominals, during a time when there was an increase in middle class, unfettered deficit spending, increase in wages, healthcare, standard of living for most of the country (other than the poor south, which is always with us) and this country flourished and prospered under a very exorbitant tax on the wealthy, (which consisted of we the people getting our money back from the rich who were getting their money off the sweat of our backs as today) and so the actual lesson to be drawn from this appears to be that Obama does know best, we need to tax the shit out of the rich, we don't have a spending problem we have a taxing problem, we need to get those taxes set correctly for the rich, we are leaking our treasury and our blood.
Great, I understand your arguement now, as you have presented it now.  I thought it was something completely different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Because with the poor and middle class, those dollars are taxed already. Romney's all came from capital gains, taxed at a far lower rate, then the extra bennie from having it in that kind of account.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's all based on AGI, Ron. You can go on through (the 1945 document was not scanned as well as the 1944 document) and find all that stuff out for yourself. Paying 62% of one's AGI is still quite fucking lot, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's all based on AGI, Ron. You can go on through (the 1945 document was not scanned as well as the 1944 document) and find all that stuff out for yourself. Paying 62% of one's AGI is still quite fucking lot, isn't it?

Not if one's AGI is only, say, 25% of one's gross income. Because they used to allow a LOT more deductions than they do now.