super lib pig league

[ima_drummer2k]

What about neocons who aren't Republicans? I say people! What? What you gonna do?

You've gotta get on the groove if you want your body to move.

[thegary]

this is the league for people who know how to get down on it.

[da1]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi That guy doesn't cite any sources. He is probably pulling those numbers from his ass. I am sure there were deductions that did lower the tax rate, but the top marginal tax rate was 90%. In any case tax rates have very little correlation with GDP growth. Even if the top tax rate was 90% if a guy could make 3 million instead of 2 million he would be making more money.

90% was the rate

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally Posted by tallanvor smh.... What relevance does 'top tax rate' have if that's not what they are paying? Thegary was clearly talking about how much citizens are actually paying..... He thinks the wealthy should pay a 'boat load'

So you won't answer the question. We got it. When documented history goes against the arguments you're making, you just try and not answer the question. You've made it clear.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally Posted by tallanvor smh.... What relevance does 'top tax rate' have if that's not what they are paying? Thegary was clearly talking about how much citizens are actually paying..... He thinks the wealthy should pay a 'boat load'

Smack some sense into your head and address my points or just simply admit that you can't and the only thing you have is semantics.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally Posted by tallanvor All your points seemed to be based on the bad information that the wealthy were paying 90% of their income to the government before (every sentence contains some reference to 'after WWII') and therefore we would be fine doing it again. The wealthy weren't paying 90%. I addressed your points.

You're the one who is so hung up on the 90% number that you can't actually address the underlying point. I talk about "after WWII" because that is when we raised taxes to deal with the issue of a debt load at 100% of GDP, you know, just like the debt load today.

As to why high tax rates hinder peoples ability to become wealthy, that seems pretty straight forward. If the government is taking large portions of your money then it is hard to accumulate a lot........

Except that when we had higher tax rates, we had higher growth rates, both GDP and wage, and our productivity increased dramatically. After 30 years of "trickle down," all we have are massive deficits and debt, 8% unemployment, and stagnant median wage growth stagnation combined with upper incomes increasing dramatically.

In other words, the facts disagree with your opinions.

[Hak34]

Originally Posted by tallanvor neither of those things can be free (at least not without billions of volunteers). Education and Healthcare costs money. What you mean is you want the wealthy to pay for these things for everyone. Your position is just easier to sell to idiots if you misrepresent it.

Is that kinda like being a conservative (the more "fiscal" party), intiating two wars, and national tax cuts. While "reducing" the deficit? Where were you fiscal conservatives when we were funding two ridiculous wars against "terror", and handing out tax cuts? Idiots meet moron.

[tallanvor]

Originally Posted by GladiatoRowdy Smack some sense into your head and address my points or just simply admit that you can't and the only thing you have is semantics.

what points?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally Posted by tallanvor what points?

The fact that a higher tax rate on top earners saw the country fix the debt, increase employment, etc.

In other words the points you tried to ignore by arguing about the 90% figure while ignoring that their rate of paying taxes on taxable income was much higher than it is today.

Like I said, you can't argue the points, so you try and distract from the points, and pretend there were no points at all. Please answer the gentleman's points. your dodging big time.