You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
80% tax rate Means prosperity
- Thread starter jueco2005
- Start date
Quote from JerryAdler:
WSJ: Tax Revenues = 19% of GDP, Regardless of Tax Rates
Weekend Wall Street Journal op-ed, There's No Escaping Hauser's Law, by W. Kurt Hauser (Stanford University, Hoover Institution):
I'll let the experts prove you wrong.
Well Revenues are not the issue. Spending is. It was first financed mostly by tax revenues, then by printing debt money.
Quote from jueco2005:
Well Revenues are not the issue. Spending is. It was first financed mostly by tax revenues, then by printing debt money.
So true. In 1980 the republicans started lowering taxes and increased government spending. Then democrat highered taxes and increased government spending. Now you have two parties that increase government spending to keep the ponzi going. It doesn't actually matter how much you tax or how little. All the politicians in the USA increase government spending.
Quote from failed_trad3r:
You can't argue with this. Because you can't. It's an anecdote from 40 years ago. Impossible to refute whether it's true or not.
I doubt tax evasion went down or went up significantly over the years. I see alot of tax evasion currently too.
Are you for real? And you call someone else a troll?
Of course you can argue that a different tax code is a game changer. Looking at marginal tax rates (with very different rules and loopholes) from another era and concluding "by golly, higher taxes gave us less debt/higher GDP/etc" is a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
As I pointed out earlier, practically no one paid the sky high tax rates back then that "progressives" salivate over now. Anyone with a functioning brain and/or decent accountant knew how to game the system.
Furthermore, there are many other differences between that era and this one. While Federal taxes were higher--at least on paper--non-Federal taxes (state, local, property, gasoline, alcohol, hidden, etc) were much lower or even non-existent. Regulations have gone up enormously since then. None of this shows up in a chart that compares "high" marginal tax rates with debt or GDP. Incidentally, GDP is a poor measure of growth since it can increase with enough gov't spending even while the private sector contracts.
As for your statement about a debt bubble from 1896 to 1932, that's simply absurd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt.png
Those were the good ol' days, at least until the Great Depression started. A similar depression started to take place in 1921 but the gov't actually cut spending drastically and the Fed left rates at 7%. Guess what? We went through some pain and it was over.
Aside from the utilitarian question of whether it would "work" or not, proposing to take 80% of anyone's income is just incredibly aggressive, arrogant and authoritarian. What gives you the right? Do individuals have any rights to keep what they earn or do you believe all property belongs to the state to distribute?
I think anyone proposing this has seriously lost their moral bearings. If you're willing to take 80% of what a person earns, in the name of your utopian plans, are there any limits at all to what you'd be willing to do?
I think anyone proposing this has seriously lost their moral bearings. If you're willing to take 80% of what a person earns, in the name of your utopian plans, are there any limits at all to what you'd be willing to do?
Quote from GoldStandard:
Aside from the utilitarian question of whether it would "work" or not, proposing to take 80% of anyone's income is just incredibly aggressive, arrogant and authoritarian. What gives you the right? Do individuals have any rights to keep what they earn or do you believe all property belongs to the state to distribute?
I think anyone proposing this has seriously lost their moral bearings. If you're willing to take 80% of what a person earns, in the name of your utopian plans, are there any limits at all to what you'd be willing to do?
You write as if I were a member of congress. Thank you for the honors but I am not there.
If I were a member of congress I would tell you the constitution gives the right to do so. And the limits to our government are well written there.
Quote from jueco2005:
You write as if I were a member of congress. Thank you for the honors but I am not there.
If I were a member of congress I would tell you the constitution gives the right to do so. And the limits to our government are well written there.
the income tax is unconstitutional
And if I were a member of congress I would tell you that you are wrong:Quote from jueco2005:
If I were a member of congress I would tell you the constitution gives the right to do so. And the limits to our government are well written there.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
I do not believe the founding fathers ever intended to provide for wealth redistribution when they wrote the constitution and they would like be appalled with what has become of our country.