| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The obvious point is that 90% in the 50's and 90% today is apples and oranges.
Claiming that it worked in the 50's and will work now is hogwash. Too many variables. I am not against a higher percentage paid for the top income levels, but without a redo if the tax code, it's all wild speculation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | The obvious point is that 90% in the 50's and 90% today is apples and oranges.
Claiming that it worked in the 50's and will work now is hogwash. Too many variables. I am not against a higher percentage paid for the top income levels, but without a redo if the tax code, it's all wild speculation. |
I agree with the first statement. Nobody really claims the second. I generally agree with the principal behind the Kennedy tax cuts—the rates were too high and there were too many loopholes. Some of the same might be said about the Reagan tax cuts. But the devil is always in the details.
I think that the Bush and Trump tax cuts were massively irresponsible. It can particularly be seen with the Trump cuts that a fairly small amount went into increased spending that had multiplier effects. Instead, the bulk went into stock buy back and further inequality—and a massive increase in debt.
I realize that you are trying to backpaddle furiously without admitting the deep flaws in your citation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
mac said: | Quote: | | I realize that you are trying to backpaddle furiously without admitting the deep flaws in your citation. |
You really need to go back and read what I posted. My last statement about "apples" and "oranges" simply sums up what the other two writers said in their articles - to the benefit of those that can't comprehend the simplest concepts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | mac said: | Quote: | | I realize that you are trying to backpaddle furiously without admitting the deep flaws in your citation. |
You really need to go back and read what I posted. My last statement about "apples" and "oranges" simply sums up what the other two writers said in their articles - to the benefit of those that can't comprehend the simplest concepts. |
You really need to go back and read what you posted. You posted an article that claimed the difference in effective tax rates really haven’t changed much. So i’m supposing you didn’t teach much complicated math. But this isn’t really complicated. The difference in tax rates is between 36% and 42%—6%.
Now the 1% in America make over $422 K, and they have 40% of the wealth. There are 235,000 that make over $1 M/ year, and 8,300 who make over $10 M/year.
The total income tax returns for 2015–before the Trump tax cuts—was $1.5 trillion. 40% of that is $600 billion. 6% of that is $36 billion. Chump change or Trump change? Follow the money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know you love to divert and spin simple points into complex ones to demonstrate your perceived superiority, but consider:
This dialogue started with baja saying: | Quote: | | you freaken ultra low-level thinker, in the so-called countries economic glory days and the USA did just fine... in the 50s the tax rate was OVER 90% at times for the rich. |
.
Suggesting that a 90% rate was no big deal compared to today's 37%. I simply pointed out that 90% really wasn't as palpable as it appears, and not significantly different than our current rates. So when the left claims that a 90% tax rate for the rich worked well in the past, and maybe we should go back to that standard - is just "apples to oranges" - in other words - BS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | I know you love to divert and spin simple points into complex ones to demonstrate your perceived superiority, but consider:
This dialogue started with baja saying: | Quote: | | you freaken ultra low-level thinker, in the so-called countries economic glory days and the USA did just fine... in the 50s the tax rate was OVER 90% at times for the rich. |
.
Suggesting that a 90% rate was no big deal compared to today's 37%. I simply pointed out that 90% really wasn't as palpable as it appears, and not significantly different than our current rates. So when the left claims that a 90% tax rate for the rich worked well in the past, and maybe we should go back to that standard - is just "apples to oranges" - in other words - BS. |
I know you love to divert and take no responsibility for the clarity of your statements. I also know you love to make up positions for ‘the left.” I also know that the reputed tax rate of 90% prior to Kennedy was not actually a rate of 90%. While the marginal tax rate might have been that high for a few, deductions and other elements of the system meant that the effective rate was about 42%. I agree with the tax changes that reduced the top marginal rate many years ago. It is the further and recent reductions to the top rate—pooh-poohed by your article and repeatedly ignored by you—that are irresponsible.
I doubt that conservatives, the so called party of personal responsibility, will ever actually take any. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't know why you were compelled to intervene when my response was directed at Baja, refuting his statement. I guess since he was wrong, he just decided to lay low, if that's possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | | I don't know why you were compelled to intervene when my response was directed at Baja, refuting his statement. I guess since he was wrong, he just decided to lay low, if that's possible. |
Because you were wrong and posted a completely dishonest and spun article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac said: | Quote: | | Because you were wrong and posted a completely dishonest and spun article. |
Of course, you are never wrong. I wrote that with a smirk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Techno--If you want to post biased articles on taxes, and you come from a state that is a welfare state--that is, it takes far more from the Federal government than it pays in-- you should probably expect some push back. Particularly if you are singing the glories of low taxes by ignoring facts and assigning made-up opinions to all on the left. Just saying... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
