MARGINAL TAX RATES. THEY WERE MARGINAL TAX RATES, OK? DO STUPID SOCIALISTS ON THE LEFT LITERALLY NOT KNOW WHAT A MARGINAL TAX IS?
EVERY DAY I HEAR THIS MYTH REPEATED BY LEFTISTS LIKE CENK UYGUR, BERNIE SANDERS, RACHAEL MADDOW. THEY SAY "THERE WAS A 90% TAX ON THE RICH IN THE RIGHT-WINGS BELOVED 50S! HUR DURRR!". THEY ALL KNOW THEIR LISTENERS ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO KNOW THE CON THEY ARE RUNNING.
IT WAS A MARGINAL TAX RATE, OK? UNDERSTAND IT >MARGINAL TAX RATE MARGINAL TAX RATE >MARGINAL TAX RATE SO IT DIDN'T APPLY TO WHAT WAS, INFLATION ADJUSTED, ANYTHING UNDER 3 MILLION DOLLARS. IF YOU MADE 3 MILLION AND 1 DOLLARS, THEN THIS TAX APPLIED ONLY TO THE 1 DOLLAR. OK?
IT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH BUT LEFTIES ARE FUCKING STUPID.
HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF "MARGINAL TAX RATE" FOR THE JOBLESS RETARDS WHO LOVE THIS MEME AND DON'T KNOW HOW TAXES WORK.
>The marginal tax rate is the percentage of tax applied to your income for each tax bracket in which you qualify. In essence, the marginal tax rate is the percentage taken from your next dollar of taxable income above a pre-defined income threshold.
I AM SICK OF LEFTIST LIES, OK? THERE WAS NO "90% TAX RATE" IN THE 50S. IF YOU DID SOMETHING THAT STUPID YOU WOULD CRASH YOUR ECONOMY INSTANTLY. PERIOD. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
AVERAGE TAX RATES WERE FAR LOWER, OK?? PEOPLE PAID FAR LESS TAXES IN THE 1950S FOR FUCKS SAKE I SHOULDNT EVEN HAVE TO SAY THIS, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND THE BUDGET WE DO NOW
Owen Harris
u mad?
Owen Campbell
IN EFFECT IN 1950S THIS MARGINAL TAX APPLIED TO ALMOST NOBODY. THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T NEGATIVE OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE ECONOMY AT THE TIME, FOR FUCKS SAKE. OUR ECONOMY WAS ALSO FUNDAMENTALLY STRUCTURED DIFFERENTLY THAN IT IS NOW AND THIS TAX RATE IS NOT CAPABLE OF PRODUCING OR SUSTAINING THE GROWTH NECESSARY IN OUR ECONOMY.
James Brooks
YEAH DUDE I AM MAD. PEOPLE LIE AND BULLSHIT AND FUCKING RETARDS BELIEVE IT ALL. YES, I AM MAD. I AM SO FUCKING ANGRY ABOUT ALL OF THE BULLSHIT IN THE WORLD THAT DEMOCRATS SPEW AND I AM MAD AT THE RETARDED SOCIALISTS WHO BUY THEIR SNAKE OIL HOOK LINE AND SINKER AND NEVER QUESTION IT.
IF YOU TAX THE RICH 90% OF THEIR INCOME THEY WOULD HAVE NO MONEY. THEY WOULD PRODUCE NO JOBS. IT WOULD FUCKING CAUSE MASS STARVATION. PURE ECONOMICS 101. PURE SIMPLE COMMON SENSE LOGIC. AND YET LEFTIES DO _ NOT _ FUCKING _ HAVE IT
Andrew Anderson
Yup. It's more than just misleading when they say that, it's a straight up lie. I think a lot of their base don't generally understand how the brackets are applied.
Anthony Sanders
this
Asher Johnson
this was pretty informative thanks madanon
also if America no longer has this tax system why not reintroduce it? seems like a sensible one desu
Gabriel Ramirez
dude, what's the point when they are going QE your money away... paying taxes will be impossible sooner or later because the dollar will be worth shit
Oliver Diaz
>IF YOU MADE 3 MILLION AND 1 DOLLARS, THEN THIS TAX APPLIED ONLY TO THE 1 DOLLAR. OK?
So if you made 33 millions you shall pay 27 millions? Be capitalist in 50's really sucks.
Angel Hall
most people here don't know what QE is even, or how fake the "growth" during the obama years was, and what price our country is going to pay for it. we are not QEing now though, and as far as i know we have no plans to do so. the fed raised interest rates after trump got elected and IMO the economic forecast is not so bad, though there might be a bit of a correction down the road. IF dems get their way they will continue to bankrupt the economy and blame republicans for it because most people are too stupid to understand real economics.
Nicholas Ramirez
noooooooo wrong because we didn't have the same economy we do now. these top brackets effectively applied to almost NOBODY in the 1950s. that's the thing. yes "3 million, adjusted for inflation" doesn't sound like that much now, but back then it really was. remember there were no computers, no internet, no amazon.com, no VHS tapes, no home movies, none of the technology we have now, and most of the population knew how to build and repair shit on their own. supermarkets didn't even really exist meaningfully in this country until the 1950s. it still wasn't uncommon for people to be growing or foraging their own food.
so in contrast, it was actually really good to be a capitalist in 1950s america, and if you were one you effectively paid very little in taxes, but the left has been distorting this by saying "90% tax rate!" when it's really a flat out lie because it's 90% "marginal" tax rate, which is a totally different thing. AND THEY SAY IT ALL OF THE TIME.
Cameron Harris
AND in case im not being totally clear, the point im making is that there wasn't enough variety of goods for money to even move around the way it does now. that's why the value of 3 million dollars, even adjusted for inflation, was still way higher than the value of 3 million dollars now.
Aaron Nguyen
sure, but that's not all. there is also the whole Ponzi scheme that are pensions. that's going to drag down the economy a lot. and ofc your shit will probaby cross the Atlantic and fuck our shit up and then the EU will fuck shit up in China, a massive chain reaction of debt diarrhea
Jace Morgan
relatively speaking of course
Liam Lee
oh yes in the longer term, on the scale of decades, our economy is fully unsustainable, i agree. that's one of the things that pisses me off the most about this immigration thing. it's supposed to be a fix for the economy, and they are essentially giving away our homelands and fucking us over so hard, but even still its only a temporary fix. i mean, even if it does work, because in reality its going to hasten the downfall. but the people dumb enough to believe its going to save us can ONLY practically hope for a small extension of a few years by importing more labor. there is a physical limit on the growth our economy can presently achieve and we are maxing it out very fast. and it's actually going to be the dem and socialist spending programs that ultimately bury us, for sure.
Nolan Perry
also remember they didn't last that long for good reason. they are kind of stupid policies, just not stupid enough to immediately bankrupt your nation as a full on 90% tax bracket would :(
Liam Hernandez
>though there might be a bit of a correction down the road >bit Wew lad.
Word of advice, ensure you have guns, ammo, food, meds, and gear. And then gold. Preferably sooner than later.
Jace Nelson
OK, be in Forbes list in 50's really sucks then.
Julian Hernandez
long and complicated answer
you could reintroduce it, technically, if you structured the economy in a way that could support it. you would need to totally deregulate markets, and you would need to account for other measures like value of the dollar, consumer price index, and the changing nature of our exchange of goods in the modern economy. 3 million dollars back then, even adjusted for inflation, was worth way more than 3 million now because there were so many fewer goods to buy. these top brackets ultimately applied to almost nobody but the richest of the rich. so it would be like if we only used these brackets today on the top 100 billionaires or something. lots of people make more than 3 million dollars a year in our economy, obviously, but by sheer percentage of people it applied to, you'd have to adjust the number so it only applied to them.
and the way our economy is structured today, the only practical effect would be to hamper our greatest job creators.
but if you had an otherwise well-set-up economy, with no regulations, no corporate subsidies and corporate welfare, and it was very easy for middle and upper class citizens to start their own businesses, and you wanted to use a measure like this to maybe mitigate some of the social power of the richest of the rich, you could technically do it without bankrupting the economy.
but then you'd be taking a lot of power from the people to create financially backed lobbies and organizations to stand up to the government, lobby them, and advocate for the rights of the people. that's one of the reasons why the left wants nobody to be rich. rich people mitigate the governments power, despite what they tell you.
Isaac Taylor
Because then we literally can't find our horribly inflated military budget. To say nothing of our welfare state to the tune of 1.2 trillion dollars each year.
Aiden Hall
hahahahaha ok but im talking within trumps presidency. i think you're talking longer term. longer term i know the economy has absolutely no chance. see my post here
Kayden Russell
yes those were effectively the group of people that these laws targeted. though to be honest, and im speaking totally speculatively here, cuz these laws would be really hard to dig up, but im quite certain there were probably ways back then for them to launder money through foundations, charity, business fronts, all of which were actually probably pretty legal at the time, since our government hadn't even caught on to a lot of those scams yet. keep in mind we didn't even have RICO until the 70s.
i think these laws are ultimately stupid. they don't actually hurt the economy in an irreparable way, the way an actual 90% tax would (it would fucking eviscerate any economy almost literally overnight), but they also don't help. they are not ultimately helpful, IMO. forbes top 50 would be essentially the biggest job providers in an economy. taxing them ultimately isn't really going to be a net benefit for the citizens just from a basic economics point of view
Joshua Mitchell
>im talking within trumps presidency When you're in a bubble, it is impossible to predict when it will pop. Maybe it won't happen for half a century. Maybe it will happen tomorrow. There is no downside to being prepared now.
Jason James
well i'm not disputing that platitude but my prediction for trumps presidency, from what i see right now, is no kind of major economic turmoil. maybe that turns out to be right, maybe that turns out to be wrong. normally my predictions are right but i don't know anyone that has a 100% full grasp on the economy. if they're out there, i never met them. seems like a clear cut thing to me though that Trump policies will at least stave off the downfall until the next administration. if Hillary won you would have seen worldwide economic hellfire by the end of her first term BTW. obama was setting us up for it specifically and intentionally. >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy just a cute little note of interest, that article uses "UBI" as a pseudonym for communism because wikipedia is ultimately a leftist site.
William Foster
>most people here don't know what QE is even Best explanation I heard was 'it's like dipping into your child's college fund to pay off the mortgage'
Camden Ward
was that in the thread with that rabid obama guy? who was freaking out and like vehemently and comically shilling for obama? that was me. i said that. if we're thinking about the same thread. i said that. there was a big discussion in that thread about QE and how obama fucked us with it and the guy just completely refused to acknowledge or grasp the concept.
Joseph Nelson
>MARGINAL TAX RATE
That's the same system we have now. I don't understand why you're so butthurt
Xavier Davis
i'm gonna treat this comment like you really don't understand and not like you're trolling me. people on the left constantly say "there was a 90% tax rate in the 50s for the highest bracket". it really isn't true. the marginal tax was 90%. the actual taxes collected were generally far less than what we collect now. also the brackets they used back then were so different, so there was literally almost nobody in the top brackets. so basically leftists, esp cenk uygur and bernie, perpetuate this fucking lie to their stupid base that rich people were getting taxed 90% of their income during the economically successful 50s. it's not even remotely true. they were being taxed next to nothing in reality.
leave it to fucking lefties to take what is in reality a fairly conservative and right-wing tax policy and then dishonestly try to spin it around to say "hur durrr, look at this lefty tax policy and it worked!"
that's why im butthurt, ok? that's why im angry. it makes me angry to see all of the lies and propaganda and to see stupid people fall for it. it ends up hurting both them and me.
Oliver Flores
>EVERY DAY I HEAR THIS MYTH REPEATED BY LEFTISTS LIKE CENK UYGUR, BERNIE SANDERS, RACHAEL MADDOW.
I'm pretty sure they know what a marginal tax rate is, and how the tax system works. It worked then the same way it works now.
>I AM SICK OF LEFTIST LIES, OK? THERE WAS NO "90% TAX RATE" IN THE 50S. IF YOU DID SOMETHING THAT STUPID YOU WOULD CRASH YOUR ECONOMY INSTANTLY. PERIOD. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
It didn't crash it back then.
Mason Stewart
>I'm pretty sure they know what a marginal tax rate is, and how the tax system works. It worked then the same way it works now. actually they don't know and obviously you don't know either because in reality the rich were paying far fewer taxes back then. so clearly you're STILL buying into the meme even after having the propaganda full out explained to you. >It didn't crash it back then. case and point, you're still buying into it. yeah it didn't crash because the rich weren't being taxed heavily, despite what bernie and cenk and rachel maddow tell you. it's not real. it's not factual. jesus christ. god damn idiotic socialists.
Luke Cruz
(You) >tfw people think this site is populated by tens of millions of people but its just the same 100 people on pol all day every day Yeah it was during another historic Obamaleaf thread. That was you I got it from.
Michael Anderson
>they were being taxed next to nothing in reality.
Not true, the effective tax rate for the top income bracket was double what it is now.
>also the brackets they used back then were so different, so there was literally almost nobody in the top brackets.
Right because CEOs didn't make 500 times the median employee. Part of the reason for this was the tax code.
"A half-century ago, a top automobile executive named George Romney — yes, Mitt’s father — turned down several big annual bonuses. He did so, he told his company’s board, because he believed that no executive should make more than $225,000 a year (which translates into almost $2 million today)."
"The old culture of restraint had multiple causes, but one of them was the tax code. When Romney was saying no to bonuses, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent. Even if he had accepted the bonuses, he would have kept only a sliver of them.
The high tax rates, in other words, didn’t affect only the post-tax incomes of the wealthy. The tax code also affected pretax incomes. As the economist Gabriel Zucman says, “It’s not worth it to try to earn $50 million in income when 90 cents out of an extra dollar goes to the I.R.S.”"
Contrast this with George Romney's son half a century later:
hahahahahaha ok yeah obamaleaf. he was a leaf hahahahahahahhaahaahaha i forgot that part. dude that was like one of the funniest threads ever omfg i am still laughing thinking about it. i swear that guy just like did PCP or something and then came on Sup Forums to shill for obama. he was posting all of those memes and stuff, and i was trying to make memes to counter his memes. and then we got into the economic argument omfg.
yeah dude i dunno i am on Sup Forums a LOT bro. i work almost totally online now so Sup Forums is pretty much always going in the background of my life. it might not be the same 100 people, it might just be that i'm here a fucking LOT and sometimes i get involved in discussions that run for hours.
Mason Russell
>Not true, the effective tax rate for the top income bracket was double what it is now. dude but what you are ignoring is that you are comparing two brackets that are totally separate things. you're comparing a bracket that applied to like ultimately a handful of people with brackets we have no that apply to a lot of people. can you understand that difference? that's the logical flaw you are making. >Right because CEOs didn't make 500 times the median employee. Part of the reason for this was the tax code. oh really, so then i take it your position is that the only time CEOs didn't make 500 times the median employee is in the 1950s, huh? you know there like......no taxes in this country almost UNTIL the 1940s and 50s. so what you're saying is patently wrong. what you're doing is just taking some fact you don't like, and then randomly applying a cause of something else you don't like to try to dishonestly further your political narrative. just saying, that's what you're doing.
Kayden Russell
ok here is the thing, as i've said earlier in the thread you could apply these tax rates in the way they were applied in the 40s and 50s without them actually bankrupting the economy. BUT they would need to be applied in the same CONTEXT economically, which means much less regulation and a lot more personal responsibility on the part of the consumer (things the left doesn't like). the socialists don't like economic freedom. AND you would have to apply them IN THE WAY THEY WERE APPLIED BACK THEN which was only to a very select few people. and mind you only on their personal incomes, these weren't corporate taxes.
and so what will the result of this all be? the result will be to slightly hamper the economic growth of the US. that's all. it won't accomplish anything good. it will just be a kind of crappy tax plan for the US. nice job. congrats. and there will still be class division and strife and all of that, but it won't bankrupt the country the way an actual 90% tax rate would
also just because the tax rate was high for these brackets in the 40s and 50s (which again, applied to almost nobody) doesn't make them "90% tax rates" so IMO you should at the very least admit that that is a flat out fucking lie that the left tells every day as part of its propaganda machine
Joshua Thomas
and lastly keep in mind as i've explained earlier in the thread, 3 million dollars, even inflation adjusted, isn't the same amount of money today s it was back then. only a small group of people was making over 3 million dollars a year (inflation adjusted) in the 1950s. so you need to adjust to make sure the same percentage of people are effected. basically only the top few hundred absolute riches people, and they would still be making massive massive massive bucks per year.
it's complicated shit but these are things you HAVE to think about when you talk about real economic policy. you can't just willy nilly pick out little stats and pretend they are representative. your thinking is one sided and incomplete.
Samuel Baker
>oh really, so then i take it your position is that the only time CEOs didn't make 500 times the median employee is in the 1950s, huh? you know there like......no taxes in this country almost UNTIL the 1940s and 50s. so what you're saying is patently wrong. what you're doing is just taking some fact you don't like, and then randomly applying a cause of something else you don't like to try to dishonestly further your political narrative. just saying, that's what you're doing.
Chart goes until 2009 when the US economy crashed which is why CEO pay dipped slightly. It's kept going up over the last 10 years
Liam Davis
dude your chart only proves me right, you silly leaf. it proves that CEOs didn't make that much more than their employees until the 90s. lol. look man you are really stretching if you are trying to say that our tax policy in the 50s was squelching the earnings of CEOs in the 80s.
what i was actually referring to though was the time BEFORE the 40s and 50s, when we had low to almost non existent taxes. or before 1913 even when we had NO taxes.
my point is you're trying to find a causality in something you see as correlation, but in reality there is not even correlation. like the chart you posted itself clearly proves there is no such correlation lol.
now the other factor, of course, is that wealth inequality isn't bad. it's built a lot for you. your standard of living is much better right now than it was in the 50s. so why are you complaining about it?
even in the left's precious sweden, they use wealth inequality to fund all of their social programs that the left loves. wealth inequality helps you out tremendously. never see lefties recognizing that though :(
James Wright
>and lastly keep in mind as i've explained earlier in the thread, 3 million dollars, >even inflation adjusted, isn't the same amount of money today s it was back then
Inflation adjusted. I don't think it means what you think it means.
>only a small group of people was making over 3 million dollars a year (inflation adjusted) in the 1950s.
That's right because of the tax code. It funneled more of the money back into regular employee wages so a lot of CEOs made pretty good money (a few million/year adjusted for inflation) but not pic related
I agree QE is bad for the economy
QE and ZIRP policies have contributed to this increase in CEO salary. When you prop up the stock market this translates into CEO compensation going up because they're often paid with stock options. CEOs can use low interest rate loans to buyback their own shares propping up the price of their own companies stock even further. zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-08/stock-buyback-shocker-companies-using-secured-bank-loans-repurchase-stock
Brody Nguyen
just to be clear, i mean you know taxes hit their lowest point in the ladder half of the 20th century during the 80s, right? so your chart would really appear to be a total disproof of your own position
Evan Thompson
>Inflation adjusted. I don't think it means what you think it means. dude i don't think YOU know what it means because in case you don't know there are a lot of factors that determine VALUE of money. actual dollar value, buying power, consumer price index, so many endless things. but actually none of that is even really relevant to our discussion, cuz what you're really missing is that there simply weren't enough goods and services in the 1950s to be exchanged to the point where 3 million dollars could even be spent.
i understand this will be a big concept for a leftybrain to try to comprehend, because there's no academic term for this that i am aware of, so it requires actual economic knowledge and critical thinking, but there were basically like not even HALF or not eve A QUARTER of the goods back then that existed to even generate that much need for money.
THAT is the reason for the difference dude. there was no internet, there was no amazon.com, there were no home movies, so much of the technology we had back then didn't exist. i talked about this earlier in the thread here you are impugning causes that are not the cause and you're doing it just because you want to craft this political narrative against the wealthy and it's sick because all it will serve to do is ultimately harm our economy, and all just because you and your friends are made to feel insecure by people who are smarter than you and do better than you because they DO have the brainpower to understand this economy
Bentley Morales
>That's right because of the tax code. It funneled more of the money back into regular employee wages so a lot of CEOs made pretty good money (a few million/year adjusted for inflation) but not pic related also again i just want to state that this is just a random statement, totally devoid of substance or meaning. you just picked things you like and didn't like and arranged them up in some fantasy world in your head in a way that would suit how you want to see things.
Colton King
In 1980 the top federal income tax rate was 70%, double what it is today
It was in the late 80s when it dropped to 28% for a year, then it went back up fluctuating between 35 and 39
This is consistent with what I've said in this thread.
Jose Foster
you need to try to remember user that the EXCHANGE or money and how fast it flows through our system is also important and it's things like this that you don't seem to understand which impair your judgement about economic issues. you take only 10% or 15% of the whole picture, the 10 or 15% that supports your views, and you try to justify all of these horrible policies and bad things from them.
Samuel Bailey
>In 1980 the top federal income tax rate was 70%, double what it is today i didn't say 1980 dude i said in the 1980s it hit the lowest point don't be dishonest >This is consistent with what I've said in this thread. it's literally not consistent with what you said because you're trying to attribute a rise in incomes YEARS LATER, almost a decade later with these tax rates when in reality there were a lot of other factors and ways our culture and society and economy fundamentally changed (hello internet, for one example) that changed all of this. ALSO there was a lot of other LEGISLATION AND REGULATION that solidified corporate power in the US, and yes, most of these were passed by lefty demoncrats. a good examples is the telecommunications act of 1996 signed by bill clinton. shit like this made it almost impossible for ordinary people to compete with corporations and turned them into the powerhouses we see today. that's what ACTUALLY caused the "problems" you see but you are too wrapped up in your "muh rich people who hurt muh feelings" narrative to even SEE the problems for what they are.
you just falsely impugn causes and imply causation where there genuinely literally is not even correlation because you learned like 10 facts and now you think you know everything about the history of economics in our country. just wake up and open up your brain a little bit, im not trying to lie to you, i am telling you the fucking truth.
Dylan Nguyen
>you need to try to remember user that the EXCHANGE or money and how fast it flows through our system is also important
You mean the velocity of money.
How is it pertinent to this discussion?
Parker Garcia
the concept that im trying to explain to you is that if you live in a world with 10 goods, and you have 12 dollars, then you have it pretty good, don't you? if you live in a world with 99 goods, and you have 12 dollars, maybe you don't have it as good.
in the 1940s and 1950s there were still basically no supermarkets. people still routinely grew all of their own food, and foraged, and hunted. you could still literally walk out onto an unclaimed piece of land, plant your flag, and claim it as your own, legally (that was known as homesteading, ended in the 70s i believe).
i'm trying to explain to you that there are so many factors at work here that you are just remaining willfully blind to.
Carter Parker
and the point im trying to make is that this is why 3 million dollars a year in 1950s would have been ACTUALLY equivalent to what jeff bezos or bill gates makes now, despite the actual technical inflation adjustment. that's the point im trying to get through to you. when you say "i don't think you know what inflation means" i'm just trying to tell you that you're not getting the full picture.
Christopher Foster
i have to go to bed leafanon. im sorry. it was nice talking to you, but i do have to sleep. i do have shit to do. i have tried my best to genuinely explain things to you. im not some paid shill or whatever you people think. i am trying to tell you the truth. that's all. you've been lied to and manipulated and taken for a ride by peopel who write things like this
>This society is obscene in producing and indecently exposing a stifling abundance of wares while depriving its victims abroad of the necessities of life; obscene in stuffing itself and its garbage cans while poisoning and burning the scarce foodstuffs in the fields of its aggression; obscene in the words and smiles of its politicians and entertainers; in its prayers, in its ignorance, and in the wisdom of its kept intellectuals.
people who are literally angry that you have too much food and think its "obscene". they tell you they care about your best interests but they don't. that's all im trying to get across.
Evan Morales
>it's literally not consistent with what you said because you're trying to attribute a rise in incomes YEARS LATER
There are other variables to consider such as
-free trade deals which depressed the wages of ordinary workers -lowering of interest rates, -financial deregulation (Glass Steagall) allowing for financial games to be played with the money, -QE after 2008 -change in corporate culture which is both a cause and an effect of the aforementioned policies
All of these had a cumulative effect. I'm not trying to reduce an economy down to a single variable. My argument isn't that tax rates are the only variable that contributed to this, but it is a variable and one which cannot be ignored.
>you just falsely impugn causes
I'm not a grammar nazi but you've used the word impugn incorrectly several times already. The word you want to use is impute
Chase Harris
>I'm not a grammar nazi but you've used the word impugn incorrectly several times already. The word you want to use is impute i think you are right! i think it is "impute"! i do have to go to bed though, ok leafanon? nice talkin' to ya kid. and yes i think you hit the nail on the head and made exactly the point i've been trying to make to you when you said: >There are other variables to consider such as yup lol. if you'll go back up and read what i was saying to you you'll see that's exactly one of the ideas i was trying to communicate to you.
anyway, im glad we agree on this important point and now you can be a wealth loving capitalist just like me, and not a smelly bernie sanders socialist.
