Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, we have a philosophical difference.

I'll go back to charging the 10m a year guy $200 for the steak I'll eat for $18.99.   He'll miss that $200 less than I'll miss $18.99 and it will be good for the economy.   The difference is the steak would be voluntary while taxes are not.

If you don't understand why that's ****** up, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.

Maybe you pay $18.99 for the steak and they sell the same exact steak to the next guy in line for $5.   If you say "Wouldn't bother me because he obviously makes less than me", I'll be forced to call you a ******* liar.

But we aren't discussing a steak dinner. So that's irrelevant.

Not necessarily. Take sales tax.... How would you feel paying $10 in taxes for every $100 spent vs the guy in line behind you paying $5 in sales tax for the same item (or how about nothing, $0).. Simply because he makes less money than you? Now think about how much you spend in a month, year, etc. Think about that car you drove all the way to another city to save 1.5% on but now you cant save money on that car... But your neighbor can. Is that still 'FAIR'?

Studies show that 70% of people respond favorably to the question 'should the rich pay more in taxes?' While only 30% of people answered favorably to 'should YOU pay more in taxes?'. My take from this is it's very easy to say its sure when its not you paying..... But..... When it is you now things are very different.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):
I will ask one final question before accepting the fact that continuing this discussion is pointless.

Can anyone dispute the fact that during the 50 years of the top tax rate being 63-70+% we were pretty well off as a nation (1932-1982)

I know Mike tried pointing the finger at wilma welfare having 7 kids while middle-class and wealthy families were only having a couple. While there certainly is some validity to that statement I cannot imagine it is the sole reason for the lack of upward mobility in the country today, and the decline of the middle class in general.

So with that in mind, can we point to anything else?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):
I will ask one final question before accepting the fact that continuing this discussion is pointless.

Can anyone dispute the fact that during the 50 years of the top tax rate being 63-70+% we were pretty well off as a nation (1932-1982)

I know Mike tried pointing the finger at wilma welfare having 7 kids while middle-class and wealthy families were only having a couple. While there certainly is some validity to that statement I cannot imagine it is the sole reason for the lack of upward mobility in the country today, and the decline of the middle class in general.

So with that in mind, can we point to anything else?

Do we get to shove homosexuals back in the closet if we revert back to the 70s way of doing things?    Maybe we can get seperate drinking fountains for blacks if we revert to the 60s?   A good pop in the mouth to shut up our wives if we go back to the 40s?

Times change.   Would you dispute that we're a better nation now that none of those things seem "OK" anymore?

Someone tell me how Florida does it.   As I understand it, they have no state tax.   So they're making it on sales tax alone.    How?  If you've ever been to FL, you know their roads and police services are more than adequate. 

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):
I will ask one final question before accepting the fact that continuing this discussion is pointless.

Can anyone dispute the fact that during the 50 years of the top tax rate being 63-70+% we were pretty well off as a nation (1932-1982)

I know Mike tried pointing the finger at wilma welfare having 7 kids while middle-class and wealthy families were only having a couple. While there certainly is some validity to that statement I cannot imagine it is the sole reason for the lack of upward mobility in the country today, and the decline of the middle class in general.

So with that in mind, can we point to anything else?

Do we get to shove homosexuals back in the closet if we revert back to the 70s way of doing things?    Maybe we can get seperate drinking fountains for blacks if we revert to the 60s?   A good pop in the mouth to shut up our wives if we go back to the 40s?

Times change.   Would you dispute that we're a better nation now that none of those things seem "OK" anymore?

So that's really your best answer?

Do you think that any of those things were directly tied to the tax system? If not they are irrelevant.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Florida gets a sh!t ton of tourism dollars.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Florida gets a sh!t ton of tourism dollars.

Money spent.  And retirees pay taxes.  As do the cocaine dealers.

Do we need to go back about 20 pages where I said "Sales tax only" and start over.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Florida gets a sh!t ton of tourism dollars.

Money spent.  And retirees pay taxes.  As do the cocaine dealers.

Do we need to go back about 20 pages where I said "Sales tax only" and start over.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
So besides just claiming that what used to work isn't relevant and listing numerous social problems of the day, could you point to any specific reason that the tax rate of those days wouldn't work now? Or how that tax rate harmed anything?