Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Tariffs and bikes

On 4/11/2025 10:36 AM, cyclintom wrote:

On Sun Apr 6 18:49:47 2025 AMuzi  wrote:

On 4/6/2025 11:43 AM, cyclintom wrote:

On Fri Apr 4 20:08:37 2025 AMuzi  wrote:

On 4/4/2025 6:34 PM, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 21:42:58 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>

I have to wonder why only the real losers in the world have to change real facts to fit their narative.
Do you suppose that they really think that it was Trump that invented tariffs?

>
LOL. No tariffs (also known as taxes paid only by consumers) exist for
thousands of years. They were the main cause of the great depression
at the beginning of the last century. The American economy "broke",
and took down the economies of its allies.
>
Trump as probably the first American President to use tariffs to
manipulate the market and make billions buying cheap and selling high
and betraying pension funds and small investors. Him and his
billionaire buddies, Maybe that's what you a referring to.
>

Do you suppose these olittle closet communists reall think that taxing the rich is a good idea?

>
Basically, it was what the "New Deal" was all about. America grew so
much that by the 60's - 70's it produced 60% of ALL industrial
products in the world. That is the maximum America has ever produced.
Millionaires were taxed > 80% on their earnings. They had to work hard
and employ a lot to expand their businesses and continue rich.
>
>

Then they complain that they can't get a job aned want the government to support them.

>
The "New Deal" collapsed when Reagan removed taxes from the rich and
shifted them on to the working class and pensioners. And now China is
the World's #1 economy.... there are more homeless and unemployed
(percentage-wise, obviously) in the US than in China.
>
PS If you're interested in pro-market right wing publications, read
this month's "The Economist". They are not perfect, in fact I'd call
them classic repuglicans, but are not usually wrong in their
predictions...
>
Oh, I forgot. "The Economist" is a British product. You probably can't
afford it any more...
[]'s

>
Tax revenue as percent of GDP shows no direct relationship
to statutory marginal rates or political policy:
>
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=US
>
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217533/revenues-from-income-tax-and-forecast-in-the-us-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/
>
>
Oh, and about that "94%" rate (which virtually no one ever
paid), it ran only in FDR's last full year alive and into
1945, dropped after the war to 91% and continued until
Lyndon Johnson, with Democrats running both chambers,
dropped it to 77%:
>
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates
>
Concise overview and 1913~2025 chart here:
>
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

>
>
>
>
But let it be said that the Democrats spent the Social Security Trust Fund against the cries of the Republicans. This gave the Democrats the power to claim that people like Trump are going to kill social security when they have been using it as a sourse of corruption that would put normal people in prison for life.

>
>
Except for FDR and the 1930s Democrat majority Congresses at
the start, it's been both parties ever since.  There never
was any "trust fund" or "lock box".
>
Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is an insult o
Charles Ponzi.  He at least had some cleverness.

    S
There is a trust fund but perhaps not as you are thinking - Like at the very founding of SS. it is the working workforce vs. the retir4ed workforce. After WW II the number of people retired per worker was very small, and there was a large surplus. Today that surplus is not that large not because of an aging population but because of an aging population that is living far longer mazking the percentage of working vs retired smaller.

That's not a 'trust fund' except to you and The Red Queen, who make words mean anything you wish.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971