Way to overstate the facts. Because you hate everything conservative, including being able to keep the money you earn, expecting peole to take care of themselves when they can, and wanting less government interference, you go on these little meaningless rants.
So a guest on the show said the minimum wage should be ended. This is his opinion. Should Fox have refused to air one respected economist's opinions? Did the network say they agreed with him? This has been debated for decades and every time an increase in minimum wage is discussed, people should hear both sides. Now, sorry that Fox does not just tell you what to think, like MSNBC saying to pay homage and worship at the feet of obama, with chills running up your legs, but the segment you posted is an opinion segment. Since there has been so much fake outrage about Fox on CP, I started listening at times on Sirius. It is a conservative channel but they also have far more democrat and liberal speakers invited to debate than MSNBC has
conservatives. Isn't the ide of an opinion segment to raise discussion?
The reality is minimum wage is not high on employer's lists of worries right
now, nor the nation's. Now if you want a real story, tallk about why this administration is preventing tech jobs investment and growth by interfering with AT&T and T Mobile? Or Boeing in the Carolinas?
Finally, the extreme tax rates were in a different time when the very wealthy had protected tax shelters and ways to reduce taxable income not available today:
http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html
When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today
is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.
In 1944, you could deduct business meals, all business travel, all forms of
interest payments, and much more. You could even deduct spousal travel expenses on a business trip! (Why travel alone?) Companies could also "loan" or "provide" almost anything to an employee, from an apartment to standard benefits. It was possible to shelter tens of thousands of dollars from taxable
income. Three-martini lunches and expense accounts were important realities, skewing tax calculations.
As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real
Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn't count much of the compensation as taxable income.
You should learn more before you make statements that have no real merit or factual basis. Yeah, baby, sock it to the rich! What do you really think would happen if those earning more than $250,00, obama's "rich" were taxed at that
rate? I know what I would do! Quit work and expand my side job but change to a cash only basis.
