Since the inception of the income tax, the wealthy have seen their taxes reduced to about 2/3 of what they were. The rich have been abdicating their responsibilities for decades, it is time for some of that load to fall where it belongs.
I have no doubt that regional managers in several industries would make that kind of money, but I would be very surprised to learn that a store manager for Discount Tire earns north of $100,000.
That's what she said. At the same time, economic growth has been pretty good for a long time. Well, until recently.
since the late 60s the economic growth largely has missed the lower and middle classes. wages have remained flat.
Only "settled" if you subscribe to supply siders' theories. You keep saying that we had growth (by the way, it wasn't just a little growth, as Hayes keeps pointing out, we had MASSIVE growth from '42 to '62) in spite of high taxes, but the growth hasn't been that much better since Reagan lowered the top rate. The highest growth period in our history, under Clinton's administration, had a top marginal tax rate that is exactly the same as what it will be after the Bush tax cuts expire. How exactly does this add up to massive decreases in productivity?
Or so liberals would argue. Somehow the rest of the world has figured that low taxes is actually a good thing. I guess they dont know what they're doing.
Lower tax is fine if we cut government back. From defense spending to every other major program on down.
Even big government countries have lowered tax rates in recent decades. Too high taxes can lower tax revenues.
It isn't "liberals" that argue that wages have remained flat, it is the empirical data that has proved it conclusively.
Not with the debt this country have. After paying off the debt, lower government spending and cut tax. Great!
It's not only about enhancing revenues though, you also want to promote economic growth, which is why Obama said he would not raise taxes for a couple years.
two cars? HOLY RUSTED METAL BATMAN! So......since my wife drives an Explorer, and I have an F-150, a 2003 Mustang and a 1968 Mustang (granted it doesn't run.......yet!) I must be, like the richest guy on the planet! and from 2001-2004, I was pulling in $8k-$9k a month on ebay alone. Some really good months I'd hit $11k. I even peaked at $12k one month. I've always wanted a helicopter.......sorry to burst your bubble, but I couldn't afford one. Were me and my family comfortable? yes, probably more than many other families, but we have never been rich enough to afford whatever we want, and even if I was.....I don't see how that is any justification for me having to pay a hell of alot more for the same "infrastructure" you are trying to use as a crutch.
This has all been answered and found wanting. Using ownership of a helicopter as the barometer of whether or not someone is rich is rhetorically amusing but substantively worthless. You can keep repeating that you aren't rich (if indeed you fall into the "CLEAR 10k a month" bracket), but that doesn't make it so. I have given reasons why clearing that amount makes you rich. You can make a warrant for your claim or you can keep repeating the claim. Up to you.
of course using a helicopter as a reference is facetious. So is saying "you can afford whatever you want on $10k a month." all I'm saying is, your warm and fuzzy idea of people with $10k a month salary living a carefree lifestyle is distorted. Cheers.
I don't think anybody is trying to imply that people with $10k a month in salary (take home) are living a care free lifestyle. You're inferring additional negativity where none is intended. I thought we were going to work on that.
Yep. Spot on. Was reading the Economist 4/4/09 and was suprised to read: -the top 10% of Americans own 85% of the stock -the top 400 American incomes average 261 million and they pay an average of 17% tax, although 31 of them paid less than 10% tax. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt said "that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."
