And you, sirrah, are a pitiful and pathetic Wiener.
Take your magnified picture text and roll on, Anthony.
You are picayune and you reek of rotting bird droppings.
Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.
But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.
In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.
In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.
In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.
In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.
In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.
In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.
So it’s accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but there’s a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency.
We examined data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that computes the nation’s tax revenues as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product -- the total of all goods and services produced.
When Reagan took office in 1981, federal taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. That figure dropped to 17.3 percent during his first term and rose to 18.2 percent at the end of his second term.
For comparison, federal tax revenues for this fiscal year are estimated at 15.8 percent of GDP.
"So I gave you the top boob."
Fascinating structural adaptation!
Do you have other anatomical features that are arranged in over and under accessible fashion? Beside the usual eyelids and lips, of course.
Interesting as well as apropos. The formatting of the thread makes it look like you are insulting yourself.
And of course aside from the coincidental appearance inherent in the display format you are. But that is a separate issue.
To celebrate this marvelously absurd correlation from now on you shall be referred to as wonton.
Agreed. WP8 belongs under the bus. Traction would be impossible otherwise.
Glad to see you finally come around.
Your current thread is invalid. Restart required.
Would you like to report this incident?
Lumia is not viable. And it is because of MSFT.
As great as Nokia's designs and phones are it wasn't enough to make WP a player in mobile. Even with almost ALL of the sales of WP there still wasn't enough volume to turn a profit. And that's not Nokia's fault. They did a great job. But it didn't change what consumers wanted.
Nokia beat the pants off of both HTC and Samsung combined in WP sales. So why wouldn't they at least be competitive with them in a segment that has 800 million handset sales per year instead of 30 or 40? If they lacked the skill, engineering or design chops to make good phones that would be different. But they made great phones.
Maybe they wouldn't have gotten 90% of the Android market but even if they only got 15% of it they would have been more than 3 times better off than they were ; losing money every quarter trying to push great phones that have no takers.
And if Android goes away they would have had a cash cushion to pursue some other OS, maybe several others.
They went with MSFT because MSFT gave them special rights and status with their OS. And it nearly killed them.
Nokia had no chance once they decided to go with MSFT. And the board couldn't see that.
And it is an historical fact now and you still can't see it.