Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I've said all along that I'm against "Tax the rich more because they'll miss it less".     I'm not for raising taxes on anyone.   If you think I've said that, please quote it. 

If you go along with the 23% sales tax idea, you raise taxes on the lower class.

They'll have more money in their hands to invest.   And become millionaires with their shrewd stock trading. 

If you make $30000 a year, the federal income tax for you is $4500.  You take home $25500. (let's pretend it's Florida)

If you make $30000 a year in your plan, you take it all home, but everything you bought before is now 23% more expensive.

Unless I'm missing something, the lower class will be paying more in taxes. 

Actually a 23% national sales tax makes everything 30% more expensive.

$100 is 30% higher than $77, which is what it USED to cost.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

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?

I was 19 in 1982.  I definitely was not in a higher tax bracket.   I have no idea if it "harmed anything".   Nor do I know if it was "good for anything" either.   I do know that we live in a different world in 2014.   This is not 1932 or 1952 or 1982.   I will say that I know there were some tough economic times in between 1932 and 1982.  Sometimes better, sometimes worse than what we're experiencing now.    Just saying "Look at the tax rates between 1932 and 1982" is not a solution.

So in summary:
1) I have no idea.
2) This is a different world now.
3) There were instances of tough times during that half a century period.
4) So therefore we needn't look any further into finding an answer to #1.

1) Can you prove it didn't harm anything?   Or that it helped anything?
2) Do you not think things have changes in the last 30-80 years?
3) Were there no tough times between 1932 and 1982?
4) How about give me some answers other than "Look at the tax rates between 1932 and 1982!!!!"

We had just come out of the depression in 1932. They passed the Revenue Act of 1932, to help recover more quickly.

They ramped up even higher during the War. 

Here's a pretty decent article including a fairly easy to understand graph that shows specifically "average annual change in mean family income". It starts in the decade of the 50s and ends with the 2010.

IMO it is pretty compelling. The article is brief (2 paragraphs) if you want to actually read a bit of what's behind it.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 8:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 10:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2014 6:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 6:38:00 PM (view original):
Then you haven't been paying attention.    Be brief.   If it takes that many words to get your point across, you likely have no point worth getting across.

I mean, really, if you can't take a position on subjects as simple as taxation, poverty, and the economy as a whole, and boil your entire argument down to the level of a couple lines and a bad analogy that proves nothing, your point is probably worthless.

That's funny, coming from the guy who doesn't know the difference between a flat tax and a progressive tax, and a tax rate and an effective tax rate.,

What do you think of my tax plan? It's a progressive, two bracket system.

The first bracket is for income earned between $1 and $75,000. The rate for this bracket is 0%.

The second bracket is for income earned above $75,000. The rate for this bracket is 60%.

Do you think my system is fair?

There is no 0% tax rate in my plan.

Ok. My plan has a 0% tax rate for income earned under 75k. Is my plan fair?

Tec?

Posted by greeny9 on 6/11/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):
I forget where in the Constitution that it said "Everyone should have more money in their hands so the economy will be robust.   Except for people making a good living.   **** them.   We need to tax them more because they'll miss it less."  

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

You yourself said that things have changed in the last 50 years. But apparently things haven't changed since the constitution was written. The constitution was well intended and in general a great document, but things have indeed changed a lot since then. Many very fundamental things that the founding fathers didn't envision.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

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?

I was 19 in 1982.  I definitely was not in a higher tax bracket.   I have no idea if it "harmed anything".   Nor do I know if it was "good for anything" either.   I do know that we live in a different world in 2014.   This is not 1932 or 1952 or 1982.   I will say that I know there were some tough economic times in between 1932 and 1982.  Sometimes better, sometimes worse than what we're experiencing now.    Just saying "Look at the tax rates between 1932 and 1982" is not a solution.

So in summary:
1) I have no idea.
2) This is a different world now.
3) There were instances of tough times during that half a century period.
4) So therefore we needn't look any further into finding an answer to #1.

1) Can you prove it didn't harm anything?   Or that it helped anything?
2) Do you not think things have changes in the last 30-80 years?
3) Were there no tough times between 1932 and 1982?
4) How about give me some answers other than "Look at the tax rates between 1932 and 1982!!!!"

We had just come out of the depression in 1932. They passed the Revenue Act of 1932, to help recover more quickly.

They ramped up even higher during the War. 

Here's a pretty decent article including a fairly easy to understand graph that shows specifically "average annual change in mean family income". It starts in the decade of the 50s and ends with the 2010.

IMO it is pretty compelling. The article is brief (2 paragraphs) if you want to actually read a bit of what's behind it.

I have to ask what you think that graph proves before I refute it.   Because I'm not seeing it relating to your point. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 8:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 10:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2014 6:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 6:38:00 PM (view original):
Then you haven't been paying attention.    Be brief.   If it takes that many words to get your point across, you likely have no point worth getting across.

I mean, really, if you can't take a position on subjects as simple as taxation, poverty, and the economy as a whole, and boil your entire argument down to the level of a couple lines and a bad analogy that proves nothing, your point is probably worthless.

That's funny, coming from the guy who doesn't know the difference between a flat tax and a progressive tax, and a tax rate and an effective tax rate.,

What do you think of my tax plan? It's a progressive, two bracket system.

The first bracket is for income earned between $1 and $75,000. The rate for this bracket is 0%.

The second bracket is for income earned above $75,000. The rate for this bracket is 60%.

Do you think my system is fair?

There is no 0% tax rate in my plan.

Ok. My plan has a 0% tax rate for income earned under 75k. Is my plan fair?

Tec?

What now?

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I've said all along that I'm against "Tax the rich more because they'll miss it less".     I'm not for raising taxes on anyone.   If you think I've said that, please quote it. 

If you go along with the 23% sales tax idea, you raise taxes on the lower class.

They'll have more money in their hands to invest.   And become millionaires with their shrewd stock trading. 

If you make $30000 a year, the federal income tax for you is $4500.  You take home $25500. (let's pretend it's Florida)

If you make $30000 a year in your plan, you take it all home, but everything you bought before is now 23% more expensive.

Unless I'm missing something, the lower class will be paying more in taxes. 

But they're like you.  They'll buy less.  They'll take that money and invest.     And become millionaires.

Win/Win if you ask me.

The average person making $30,000 isn't saving money, and generally isn't spending money on a ton of luxury items either.  Raising their taxes is probably stupid.

Yea, and if they spend less, that's not good for the economy. Most businesses aren't happy when people save their money.

Posted by greeny9 on 6/11/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 6/11/2014 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Average income tax rate appears to be 13.8. Not a hard thing to find.

Didn't look.  Thanks, research monkey.

OK, if you're making 10k, you'll be paying $1,380 in taxes.   Honestly, at 10k, you're ******.   You need a roommate.  You need to eat chicken and rice.  And you don't need to worry about the latest fashion trends.   Is it that much different at $8620?

Seriously? You live in a dream world if you think a person who was effectively taxed 0 one day and 13.8 the next won't suffer, nor will the economy.

In that scenario the economy would crash as hard if not harder then the 2008 great recession. All in the persuit of being more fair with tax. Kind of short sighted I'd say.

But they're like you.  They'll buy less.  They'll take that money and invest.     And become millionaires.

Win/Win if you ask me.

The average person making $30,000 isn't saving money, and generally isn't spending money on a ton of luxury items either.  Raising their taxes is probably stupid.

Yea, and if they spend less, that's not good for the economy. Most businesses aren't happy when people save their money.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

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?

I was 19 in 1982.  I definitely was not in a higher tax bracket.   I have no idea if it "harmed anything".   Nor do I know if it was "good for anything" either.   I do know that we live in a different world in 2014.   This is not 1932 or 1952 or 1982.   I will say that I know there were some tough economic times in between 1932 and 1982.  Sometimes better, sometimes worse than what we're experiencing now.    Just saying "Look at the tax rates between 1932 and 1982" is not a solution.

So in summary:
1) I have no idea.
2) This is a different world now.
3) There were instances of tough times during that half a century period.
4) So therefore we needn't look any further into finding an answer to #1.

1) Can you prove it didn't harm anything?   Or that it helped anything?
2) Do you not think things have changes in the last 30-80 years?
3) Were there no tough times between 1932 and 1982?
4) How about give me some answers other than "Look at the tax rates between 1932 and 1982!!!!"

We had just come out of the depression in 1932. They passed the Revenue Act of 1932, to help recover more quickly.

They ramped up even higher during the War. 

Here's a pretty decent article including a fairly easy to understand graph that shows specifically "average annual change in mean family income". It starts in the decade of the 50s and ends with the 2010.

IMO it is pretty compelling. The article is brief (2 paragraphs) if you want to actually read a bit of what's behind it.

I have to ask what you think that graph proves before I refute it.   Because I'm not seeing it relating to your point. 

As the last part of that article says "Technology and competition from abroad started whittling away at blue collar jobs and pay. The financial markets took off. And so when growth returned, it favored the investment class -- the top 20 percent, and especially the top 5 percent (and, though it's not on this chart, the top 1 percent more than anybody)".

Again this is fine and was needed and was absolutely the right move, BUT we should have went back to 70% immediately following the recovery, and we instead went down to 28% and then eventually back up to just under 40%. This was and has been a BIG part of the problem with the economy AND the demise of the middle class.  

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I've said all along that I'm against "Tax the rich more because they'll miss it less".     I'm not for raising taxes on anyone.   If you think I've said that, please quote it. 

If you go along with the 23% sales tax idea, you raise taxes on the lower class.

They'll have more money in their hands to invest.   And become millionaires with their shrewd stock trading. 

If you make $30000 a year, the federal income tax for you is $4500.  You take home $25500. (let's pretend it's Florida)

If you make $30000 a year in your plan, you take it all home, but everything you bought before is now 23% more expensive.

Unless I'm missing something, the lower class will be paying more in taxes. 

Actually a 23% national sales tax makes everything 30% more expensive.

$100 is 30% higher than $77, which is what it USED to cost.

You're doing it backwards, I think.  A 23% tax on $77 makes it $94.71.

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?

My response was to mchale's 1:42 post.