80% tax rate Means prosperity

Quote from GTS:

And if I were a member of congress I would tell you that you are wrong:


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

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. [/B]
More...

I also do not believe they intended for you to count as a voter unless you had property. They also favored all kinds of discrimination or left it to state legislation. Slavery was allowed. I could make a long list of issues they allowed and you wouldn’t agree living like that.

One thing I always keep in mind from the founding fathers is that they provided us with a way of government to keep America in the making, evolving and adapting to new adversities and opportunities. THEY KNEW they were just the beginners. Founders just provide for the foundation, I guess you want to keep building on top of that foundation right??
 
Quote from jueco2005:

I also do not believe they intended for you to count as a voter unless you had property. They also favored all kinds of discrimination or left it to state legislation. Slavery was allowed. I could make a long list of issues they allowed and you wouldn’t agree living like that.

One thing I always keep in mind from the founding fathers is that they provided us with a way of government to keep America in the making, evolving and adapting to new adversities and opportunities. THEY KNEW they were just the beginners. Founders just provide for the foundation, I guess you want to keep building on top of that foundation right??
More...
Agreed that they were smart enough to realize that things would change and they needed to provide flexibility but that doesn't negate the fact that some core principles that this country was founded upon are being trampled. Not all changes are good especially when the politicians are making the changes for the wrong reasons.
 
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.
More...

Congress is NOT free to do whatever they want. They are answerable to their constituents who put them in office. And you would be hard pressed to find a majority of Americans who would endorse an 80% tax rate. You're on another planet, my friend, and you certainly don't understand how this country works or the principles it was founded upon.
 
Quote from JerryAdler:

Congress is NOT free to do whatever they want. They are answerable to their constituents who put them in office. And you would be hard pressed to find a majority of Americans who would endorse an 80% tax rate.
More...
Unfortunately a majority of Americans would probably be ok with an 80% marginal tax rate on the so-called super-rich ... raising taxes on someone else seems to be acceptable.
 
Quote from MKTrader:

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.
More...

I dont speak latin. Im talking about a debt bubble, as in, total aggregrate debt. Federal + rest ( housing creditcards, stock margin etc). This happened in 1920's huge debt bubble. For this exists data.

But your really just saying anecdote. How do you prove tax evasion? By definition it's secret. For this exist no data.

Only thing fact u use is regulations went up, for which exist data.
 
jueco2005, your information is a flat out lie. It's amazing people like you believe bullshit facts just to convince themselves of something for your stubborn and ignorant bias.

It really goes to show you, professors aren't lying when certain market segments are bad for free market competition because consumers are stupid, ignorant, pretentious and claim themselves to be an expert when they're not.
 
80% tax rate Means prosperity
More...
sure thing...for government and all "public servants"..happening now already..just read the article,where teachers are retiring with 170K pensions,guaranteed by gvt(read-us).. same for police and firefigthers. i don't have to go too far..one cop is living large right across us..700K house,2 harleys,2 MBs..nice..while private sector struggling for years..
 
Quote from tenthousandmen:

jueco2005, your information is a flat out lie. It's amazing people like you believe bullshit facts just to convince themselves of something for your stubborn and ignorant bias.

It really goes to show you, professors aren't lying when certain market segments are bad for free market competition because consumers are stupid, ignorant, pretentious and claim themselves to be an expert when they're not.
More...
:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top