Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 2:13:00 PM (view original):
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.

No. I said as much.

Are you going to dispute that while Reagan's fix was a success, once the economy recovered, we shifted the WRONG way and went even lower?
Do you believe this is simply coincidence and has no bearing whatsoever?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

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".

I did suggest that before. I think it works because the marginal value of a dollar to an individual goes down as they make more. But you don't like that idea so I suggested a new one. (EDIT: the original idea was to pair the increase at the top with a reduction in the middle and lower classes.)

Do you think the two bracket (0%<75k, 60%>75k) system is fair?

Posted by toddcommish on 6/11/2014 2:19:00 PM (view original):

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.

Interesting take. 

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

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".

I did suggest that before. I think it works because the marginal value of a dollar to an individual goes down as they make more. But you don't like that idea so I suggested a new one. (EDIT: the original idea was to pair the increase at the top with a reduction in the middle and lower classes.)

Do you think the two bracket (0%<75k, 60%>75k) system is fair?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it", or "because the marginal value of their dollars is less" is "fair".

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

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".

I did suggest that before. I think it works because the marginal value of a dollar to an individual goes down as they make more. But you don't like that idea so I suggested a new one. (EDIT: the original idea was to pair the increase at the top with a reduction in the middle and lower classes.)

Do you think the two bracket (0%<75k, 60%>75k) system is fair?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it", or "because the marginal value of their dollars is less" is "fair".

Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that it isn't.

Do you think my two bracket system is fair?

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 2:17:00 PM (view original):

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?

I didn't say that.... I just said there are too many variables to directly correlate tax rates to economic growth particularly over a 50 year period and then i pointed to a chart showing the sheer size of the economy over the last 100 years so that others can draw their own conclusions.

GDP itself is made up of many factors.... Right now its being propped up on government spending. At other times its consumer spending or business investing. Hard to just point at that overall # or % and say high taxes = great economy without digging under the sheets a little, or in this case a lot.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 2:13:00 PM (view original):
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.

No. I said as much.

Are you going to dispute that while Reagan's fix was a success, once the economy recovered, we shifted the WRONG way and went even lower?
Do you believe this is simply coincidence and has no bearing whatsoever?

Coincidence.  Unless you mean the national debt increasing.   Lower taxation of the higher bracket will decrease "revenue".   But badluck would have you believe that a deficit has nothing to do with the economy.   

moy, do you think that it's possible?

Do you see the point about what Reagan did and how it was absolutely the right move, but we should have went back after we recovered yet we went even lower? 

Do you see how that absolutely favors the guys at the top and how it is probably, likely, at least part of, the reason that the top 20% has been doing much better since the 90s whereas the middle class has been dwindling?

Don't you think the middle class could be hurting because the job market for the middle class is changing?

Or that the definition of "middle class" is changing?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

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".

I did suggest that before. I think it works because the marginal value of a dollar to an individual goes down as they make more. But you don't like that idea so I suggested a new one. (EDIT: the original idea was to pair the increase at the top with a reduction in the middle and lower classes.)

Do you think the two bracket (0%<75k, 60%>75k) system is fair?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it", or "because the marginal value of their dollars is less" is "fair".

Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that it isn't.

Do you think my two bracket system is fair?

Sure.  I'd say a system that has a single tax rate that is applied to all income above a certain level of income exemption for all people (rich or poor) is fair.

The appropriate numbers for exemption level and tax rate ($75k and 60% were just thrown out there for the sake of example) would need to be determined through modeling.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):
moy, do you think that it's possible?

Do you see the point about what Reagan did and how it was absolutely the right move, but we should have went back after we recovered yet we went even lower? 

Do you see how that absolutely favors the guys at the top and how it is probably, likely, at least part of, the reason that the top 20% has been doing much better since the 90s whereas the middle class has been dwindling?

Anything is possible.

Personally I am not fixated on the 1%ers or 'the guys at the top'. I wish them continued success. I personally prefer incentivising over penalizing. I find it ironic that the very people complaining about a 15% capital gains tax are the very people that need it the most. Real wealth is generated in the market. Its not made in savings accounts. They should stop complaining and start investing.... Even if that means scraping up as little as $500 a year.... Or for the 28% of those below the poverty line that smoke could quit and invest $4000 a year ;) then again this all boils down to financial 'education'. Unfortunately too many people don't know or don't care.

In general lower taxes are better.... They incentivise growth which then adds to revenues when done correctly. In Illinois we are losing business to Indiana and if you didnt know Indiana is a shithole (no offense ;)... So its not for charm that business is relocating there... Its for tax incentives.

The only time raising taxes is good is if you want to keep out the riff raff. Think about it... If you can't afford the property taxes you probably aren't going to move there?

Was Reagan correct? Was he not? I don't know. I don't think the revenue side of the equation is the problem.... I think its the spending. Its out of control.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

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".

I did suggest that before. I think it works because the marginal value of a dollar to an individual goes down as they make more. But you don't like that idea so I suggested a new one. (EDIT: the original idea was to pair the increase at the top with a reduction in the middle and lower classes.)

Do you think the two bracket (0%<75k, 60%>75k) system is fair?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it", or "because the marginal value of their dollars is less" is "fair".

Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that it isn't.

Do you think my two bracket system is fair?

Sure.  I'd say a system that has a single tax rate that is applied to all income above a certain level of income exemption for all people (rich or poor) is fair.

The appropriate numbers for exemption level and tax rate ($75k and 60% were just thrown out there for the sake of example) would need to be determined through modeling.

So you think my two bracket system is fair.

What is unfair about the current system?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

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".

I did suggest that before. I think it works because the marginal value of a dollar to an individual goes down as they make more. But you don't like that idea so I suggested a new one. (EDIT: the original idea was to pair the increase at the top with a reduction in the middle and lower classes.)

Do you think the two bracket (0%<75k, 60%>75k) system is fair?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it", or "because the marginal value of their dollars is less" is "fair".

Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that it isn't.

Do you think my two bracket system is fair?

Sure.  I'd say a system that has a single tax rate that is applied to all income above a certain level of income exemption for all people (rich or poor) is fair.

The appropriate numbers for exemption level and tax rate ($75k and 60% were just thrown out there for the sake of example) would need to be determined through modeling.

So you think my two bracket system is fair.

It's a bastardization of my proposal.  You've used a different framework to arrive at the exact same result.

What I don't like about it is that within your framework, you've positioned yourself to be able to add additional brackets with different tax rates.

It's fair as it currently is.  If you start mucking around with it by expanding it, then it probably won't be.