Minimum Wage Topic

moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 107
Prospect
Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:45:00 PM (view original):
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.
Numerous studies have shown that 1) it IS a regressive tax, and 2) it wouldn't generate enough revenue.

Since we are already in a bad way with regards to our debt crisis, I would be all for going to a sales tax only format if only to demonstrate to those who still don't get it, that it will not be sustainable, and would do more harm to the economy than good.

I have a problem with #2.... Enough revenue for what? To pay for the continuous overspending and misuse of funds?
6/11/2014 1:52 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

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

6/11/2014 1:52 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 1:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:45:00 PM (view original):
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.
Numerous studies have shown that 1) it IS a regressive tax, and 2) it wouldn't generate enough revenue.

Since we are already in a bad way with regards to our debt crisis, I would be all for going to a sales tax only format if only to demonstrate to those who still don't get it, that it will not be sustainable, and would do more harm to the economy than good.

I have a problem with #2.... Enough revenue for what? To pay for the continuous overspending and misuse of funds?
I asked him to define "enough revenue" also.   He didn't.
6/11/2014 1:53 PM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 1:49:00 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?
Hard to answer that. Its over 50 years and a lot of variables impact that. The economic growth in the last 20 years has dwarfed that of the 5 decades you are referring to and taxes weren't at 70% post 1990.
I think I'm misunderstanding you here.

This chart shows that economic growth in the last 20 years is LOW compared to those 5 decades.
6/11/2014 1:57 PM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:53:00 PM (view original):
No.

I have said multiple times in this thread and in others that IMO the Federal Government needs to demonstrate an ability to live within their means.
There's a lot to be fixed in that regard. But it isn't what's being discussed here.

^^This was my answer^^

Enough revenue could be defined as simply "the same tax revenue the fed collects under the current system".
6/11/2014 2:00 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 155 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 1:27:00 PM (view original):
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?
You planning on answering?
Sure.  Right after you answer mine.
6/11/2014 2:02 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I don't see a question from you.
6/11/2014 2:04 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 9:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 9:01:00 AM (view original):
Your plan want to add another bracket to the top with an even higher tax rate for those folks.  I'm pretty sure it's more than 0%.
Nope. This is my plan. Do you think it's fair, yes or no?
Unless you mean this question, which I answered.
6/11/2014 2:06 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Here's my 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?
Yes or no?
6/11/2014 2:07 PM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 107
Prospect
Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 1:49:00 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?
Hard to answer that. Its over 50 years and a lot of variables impact that. The economic growth in the last 20 years has dwarfed that of the 5 decades you are referring to and taxes weren't at 70% post 1990.
I think I'm misunderstanding you here.

This chart shows that economic growth in the last 20 years is LOW compared to those 5 decades.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/us_gdp_history

Look at the chart. There are many like this. This was just the first I found on my phone.
6/11/2014 2:07 PM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:53:00 PM (view original):
No.

I have said multiple times in this thread and in others that IMO the Federal Government needs to demonstrate an ability to live within their means.
There's a lot to be fixed in that regard. But it isn't what's being discussed here.

^^This was my answer^^

Enough revenue could be defined as simply "the same tax revenue the fed collects under the current system".
Reason I didn't answer initially is because that's a whole different debate.

I want to stay on point. 

Any change in the tax system has to generate at least the same amount that the current system does.
I'm all for curbing gov't. spending, but you have to do it responsibly and not just say "tough luck this is all your getting now so deal with it". We all know theat won't solve anything. You have to work on issues one at a time.

6/11/2014 2:09 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Are you going to dispute my assertion that tax rate isn't necessarily a factor in any rise/fall in the economy?   Especially in my example of Detroit.
6/11/2014 2:13 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 155 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I don't see a question from you.
Here it is.  From two days ago:

You've suggested that we should add yet another tax bracket to the top, to tax the upper class at an even higher tax rate than they are currently paying, while not affecting anybody else, correct?  Because "they can afford it"?

Is that correct?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it" is "fair".

6/11/2014 2:16 PM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 1:49:00 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?
Hard to answer that. Its over 50 years and a lot of variables impact that. The economic growth in the last 20 years has dwarfed that of the 5 decades you are referring to and taxes weren't at 70% post 1990.
I think I'm misunderstanding you here.

This chart shows that economic growth in the last 20 years is LOW compared to those 5 decades.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/us_gdp_history

Look at the chart. There are many like this. This was just the first I found on my phone.
So the "yearly growth rate" chart I sent isn't meaningful?
6/11/2014 2:17 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 4883 (2)
Hall of Famer
479 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Here's my 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?
Yes or no?
Fair?  Possibly.  IF your definition of fair is "same tax rate for everyone" and you consider under $75K to be some sort of social barrier.

Stupid. Definitely.  There is NO incentive to earn between $75K and $150K.  In fact, you are DIS-incentivized to earn more.  Typical liberal stupidity that favors the lazy and unproductive and encourages a lower bar rather than high achievement.
6/11/2014 2:19 PM
◂ Prev 1...46|47|48|49|50...127 Next ▸
Minimum Wage Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.