Like most other “rich” people, I slept in this morning; rolled out from under the spun-gold sheets at the crack of noon, showered in Evian and went outside to fill up my humungous money bucket with the golden coins that fall out of the sky on people like me.
No, no really – that’s where it comes from, don’t you know. The raining of the coin doesn’t happen everywhere, as it would be silly of us who already got ours let the middle class siphon off any of the loot. You have to watch Fox News and know the secret code words to learn where and when the Koch brothers are going to make the next drop. There’s an app for that, too.
They teach us all about this stuff in that secret rich white boy’s school – how to steal the poor people’s buckets and rig the game so we are always first in line when prosperity rains. That way there is nothing left for the working class and they all have to go on food stamps so we can belittle them, just like Juan Williams said…
Sadly, it is necessary to tell some people now that this is satire. For the record, there is no secret rich boy’s school and wealth doesn’t really fall out of the sky - you have to earn it. Sorry to burst your bubble, lefties.
Actually, I don’t even know if I am rich or not – certainly better off than I ever dreamed possible growing up in my little mining town, and super-rich in all the really important ways that don’t involve counting up money. When the Democrats start the drumbeat for more taxes on the rich, sometimes the line is as low as $106,000 and sometimes it is $250,000 and sometimes you have to be a millionaire or billionaire.
I guess it doesn’t really matter; it is one of those questions of which came first - the chicken or the chicken-tax.
The President just gave his State of the Labor Unions address (yawn) and announced that taxing the rich (yawn) will be the backbone of his new plan (yawn) to build the economy. Funny, since he just decided we wouldn’t be building pipelines, power plants, drill rigs, Gibson guitars, planes in South Carolina, or cars that people actually want to buy. I guess the economy is something else.
And incidentally, I think that Republican congressman who boycotted the President’s speech was as wrong as the Wisconsin state senators that fled to Illinois. Until the day the next President is inaugurated, President Obama is everyone’s President, and we all have jobs with stuff we don’t like to do. But I digress…
Just in case there is one liberal somewhere whose brain is not bolted down to the deck of the U.S.S. Economic Suicide, let me try one more time to explain why increasing tax rates on the rich is a really bad idea, even though it might feel good to think they won’t miss a couple scoops out of their rain-money buckets.
The Wall Street Journal did a recent piece on a 2007 Congressional Budget Office analysis of tax burdens – a CBO which was under the control of Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats at the time. Nancy doesn’t bring up this particular tax study very often.
CBO found that the average total tax rate of the top 1% was slightly less than 30% of their income, while the middle class paid an average tax rate of 15%, and poor people (bottom 20%) paid just under 5%. It turns out that the rich indeed do not pay their fair share of taxes; they pay nearly twice their fair share.
And if we raise the top marginal tax rates on the rich – as Democrats like Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi propose - it will increase the tax burden on the middle class. That is not economic theory, it is economic history.
In the 1970’s, when the top marginal tax rate on individuals was 70%, the top 1% paid 19% of all taxes collected, while the rest of us paid 81%. Today, with the top marginal rate reduced to 35%, the wealthiest 1% pay 40% of all taxes and the rest of us now pay only 60%. Trickle up economics.
Imagine if it were the middle class who earned 28% of all the income and paid 40% of all the taxes – would Krugman and Reich be clamoring for tax increases on teachers and firefighters? Would Buffet’s secretary come forward and volunteer to pay more? What would the protesters occupy, an Applebee’s?
The liberals tell us we must increase tax rates on the rich – they say to put them back up to the pre-Reagan rates that were “fair”. Ok, but if we do, taxes on the rest of us will go back up by 35% to make up for the shortfall in tax revenues. Been there, done that.
Why do higher tax rates produce less tax revenue? Because the rich quit earning taxable income when we take away more of what they earn – guys like Michael Moore make less movies (ok, wishful thinking, but you get the drift). Investment also dries up because half of the reward is no longer worth all of the risk. Investment is what creates jobs; we do not need less of it.
And for those who enjoy only a casual acquaintance with the obvious, this is not the only country where it rains money. The very rich can take their buckets to the Caymans, or Ireland, or Singapore or a dozen other places who would be thrilled to tax them at lower rates than we do. And 70% of zero is zero, whether you are a Keynesian, an Austrian, or Chicago School economist. Or just from Chicago.
Last year the state of Illinois slapped a 67% increase on tax rates for wealthy individuals – the Obama/Pelosi magic pill to cure budget deficits. But taxing the rich did not reduce their deficit; it made things predictably worse. Much worse.
$4.5 billion of unpaid bills sit past due, with another $4 billion coming due that can’t be paid – tax refunds, employee health insurance, invoices for road repair, things like that. The state is losing residents at a rate of one every 10 minutes. Hint: the poor and unemployed are not chief among them.
The President apparently doesn’t get back home much; or he is too busy blaming everyone else for his failures to bother about economics and home-state reality. “Tax the rich” is good chanting material, and that is what passes for deep thoughts these days.
If you want to bet your prosperity on Tooth Fairy Government doing any of that stuff the President promised you tonight, then put out your bucket and wait for it to start raining coin. As for me, I’m getting up early tomorrow and going to work.
“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.com to find your moment and order Tim’s new book, “BRING IT!”.
No, no really – that’s where it comes from, don’t you know. The raining of the coin doesn’t happen everywhere, as it would be silly of us who already got ours let the middle class siphon off any of the loot. You have to watch Fox News and know the secret code words to learn where and when the Koch brothers are going to make the next drop. There’s an app for that, too.
They teach us all about this stuff in that secret rich white boy’s school – how to steal the poor people’s buckets and rig the game so we are always first in line when prosperity rains. That way there is nothing left for the working class and they all have to go on food stamps so we can belittle them, just like Juan Williams said…
Sadly, it is necessary to tell some people now that this is satire. For the record, there is no secret rich boy’s school and wealth doesn’t really fall out of the sky - you have to earn it. Sorry to burst your bubble, lefties.
Actually, I don’t even know if I am rich or not – certainly better off than I ever dreamed possible growing up in my little mining town, and super-rich in all the really important ways that don’t involve counting up money. When the Democrats start the drumbeat for more taxes on the rich, sometimes the line is as low as $106,000 and sometimes it is $250,000 and sometimes you have to be a millionaire or billionaire.
I guess it doesn’t really matter; it is one of those questions of which came first - the chicken or the chicken-tax.
The President just gave his State of the Labor Unions address (yawn) and announced that taxing the rich (yawn) will be the backbone of his new plan (yawn) to build the economy. Funny, since he just decided we wouldn’t be building pipelines, power plants, drill rigs, Gibson guitars, planes in South Carolina, or cars that people actually want to buy. I guess the economy is something else.
And incidentally, I think that Republican congressman who boycotted the President’s speech was as wrong as the Wisconsin state senators that fled to Illinois. Until the day the next President is inaugurated, President Obama is everyone’s President, and we all have jobs with stuff we don’t like to do. But I digress…
Just in case there is one liberal somewhere whose brain is not bolted down to the deck of the U.S.S. Economic Suicide, let me try one more time to explain why increasing tax rates on the rich is a really bad idea, even though it might feel good to think they won’t miss a couple scoops out of their rain-money buckets.
The Wall Street Journal did a recent piece on a 2007 Congressional Budget Office analysis of tax burdens – a CBO which was under the control of Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats at the time. Nancy doesn’t bring up this particular tax study very often.
CBO found that the average total tax rate of the top 1% was slightly less than 30% of their income, while the middle class paid an average tax rate of 15%, and poor people (bottom 20%) paid just under 5%. It turns out that the rich indeed do not pay their fair share of taxes; they pay nearly twice their fair share.
And if we raise the top marginal tax rates on the rich – as Democrats like Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi propose - it will increase the tax burden on the middle class. That is not economic theory, it is economic history.
In the 1970’s, when the top marginal tax rate on individuals was 70%, the top 1% paid 19% of all taxes collected, while the rest of us paid 81%. Today, with the top marginal rate reduced to 35%, the wealthiest 1% pay 40% of all taxes and the rest of us now pay only 60%. Trickle up economics.
Imagine if it were the middle class who earned 28% of all the income and paid 40% of all the taxes – would Krugman and Reich be clamoring for tax increases on teachers and firefighters? Would Buffet’s secretary come forward and volunteer to pay more? What would the protesters occupy, an Applebee’s?
The liberals tell us we must increase tax rates on the rich – they say to put them back up to the pre-Reagan rates that were “fair”. Ok, but if we do, taxes on the rest of us will go back up by 35% to make up for the shortfall in tax revenues. Been there, done that.
Why do higher tax rates produce less tax revenue? Because the rich quit earning taxable income when we take away more of what they earn – guys like Michael Moore make less movies (ok, wishful thinking, but you get the drift). Investment also dries up because half of the reward is no longer worth all of the risk. Investment is what creates jobs; we do not need less of it.
And for those who enjoy only a casual acquaintance with the obvious, this is not the only country where it rains money. The very rich can take their buckets to the Caymans, or Ireland, or Singapore or a dozen other places who would be thrilled to tax them at lower rates than we do. And 70% of zero is zero, whether you are a Keynesian, an Austrian, or Chicago School economist. Or just from Chicago.
Last year the state of Illinois slapped a 67% increase on tax rates for wealthy individuals – the Obama/Pelosi magic pill to cure budget deficits. But taxing the rich did not reduce their deficit; it made things predictably worse. Much worse.
$4.5 billion of unpaid bills sit past due, with another $4 billion coming due that can’t be paid – tax refunds, employee health insurance, invoices for road repair, things like that. The state is losing residents at a rate of one every 10 minutes. Hint: the poor and unemployed are not chief among them.
The President apparently doesn’t get back home much; or he is too busy blaming everyone else for his failures to bother about economics and home-state reality. “Tax the rich” is good chanting material, and that is what passes for deep thoughts these days.
If you want to bet your prosperity on Tooth Fairy Government doing any of that stuff the President promised you tonight, then put out your bucket and wait for it to start raining coin. As for me, I’m getting up early tomorrow and going to work.
“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.com to find your moment and order Tim’s new book, “BRING IT!”.
48 comments:
Except, of course, the data don't support anything you said about tax rates.
Economist Mike Kimel went back to the data and shows how higher top marginal tax rates actually produce higher GDP, and that the "Laffer Curve" shows that a top-marginal rate of around 65% produces the highest levels of growth.
Now, it turns out that the optimal tax rate for growth is easy to calculate. The data cooperates very nicely. There is a relationship, an easy to estimate curve which I’ve modestly called the “Kimel curve.” And the high point in the Kimel curve is somewhere around 65%. Now, the Laffer curve analysis shows us that getting to the level of taxation that produces the fastest economic growth rates would also increase our tax collections… not a bad thing at all in an era of rapidly rising national debts.
Didn't the New York Millionaire's tax, generate a flight of residents to the no-tax State of Florida ?
The "tax rate" is irrelevant unless the rest of the IRS tax code is taken into consideration, regardless of what Mike Kimel or anyone else says. And just because one economist comes up with some idea, don't necessarily make it so!
In 1986, when the Tax Reform Act of 1986 went into effect, in a nutshell, personal tax rates were significantly lowered (i.e.50% to 28% for higher income brackets), corporate tax rates were raised, and at the same time, a simplification of the tax code was implemented, drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets.
So all the politicians, economists, and peeps in general that continue to compare only "tax rates" of the past to the present without taking all the other implications of the code into consideration are really doing nothing more than comparing apples to oranges. And showing their ignorance. Unless their voting constituency is ignorant, in which case it sounds like a vote getter to me.
I didn't say anything; I merely relayed what the CBO said about the distribution of the total tax burden - all sources.
I have met Dr Laffer and being a jolly fellow he would laugh at the idea of a 65% rate being optimal. He favors a a flat income tax at a rate in the mid teens, reduced from there as GDP increases and govt spending is constrained.
In less than a year, 11 taxes will be raised on the "rich" unless Congress acts and the President signs. What economist would deny that bears on investment decisions and capital flight?
"I didn't say anything; I merely relayed what the CBO said about the distribution of the total tax burden - all sources. "
Except you did... You said this...
"And if we raise the top marginal tax rates on the rich – as Democrats like Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi propose - it will increase the tax burden on the middle class. That is not economic theory, it is economic history. "
To which I responded. Higher top-marginal rates produce higher rates of GDP growth. The mechanism is well understood.
As for having met Dr. Laffer, that's interesting. I met Willie Mayes once, that doesn't qualify me to play professional baseball.
Dr. Laffer, who was merely articulating an idea that Keynes postulated, but Laffer never proposed a number, he just let the idea float out there that the number must be small. Turns out it's not.
Do I think the tax code needs a big overhaul? Yeah, I do. Lots and lots and lots of exemptions need to be stripped out and the code made drastically more progressive. Based on this chart (http://bit.ly/fTzAeo), something right around 1967 would be about right for the top marginal rate.
Always a pleasure...
"Anonymous: Didn't the New York Millionaire's tax, generate a flight of residents to the no-tax State of Florida ?"
And yet they still pay Federal income taxes.. Imagine that... And of course the migration to Florida had nothing to do with an aging population seeking warmer climes... No, certainly not that.
::facepalm::
"And if we raise the top marginal tax rates on the rich...it will increase the tax burden on the middle class."
Stop making sense Doc, the left doesn't want to know the facts, they want to punish the only sector of the population that can bring us out of this economic turmoil.
"Rig said...
"And if we raise the top marginal tax rates on the rich...it will increase the tax burden on the middle class."
Stop making sense Doc, the left doesn't want to know the facts, they want to punish the only sector of the population that can bring us out of this economic turmoil."
Your post must have been truncated. I didn't see any facts in it, only opinion. Oh wait, I forgot. Folks on the right don't know the difference between opinion and fact (with the possible exception of Dr. Tim who at least knows what the CBO is!).
My bad. Carry on. You're missing Fox & Friends, better hurry back to the telescreen!
Muttmutt said "And yet they still pay Federal income taxes.. "
Yes but for how long? Here's an excerpt from an article discussing this issue.
"What makes this so bad, is that those people who pay most of the taxes, are the ones who are being punished by our tax system and many of them are doing the only legal thing that they can, to defend against this increasing assault on wealth. They are leaving.
Our government is forcing those who pay the bills to take their money and leave. If a large part of the 1.4 million taxpayers that make up the top 1% were to leave, that would mean a loss of over one-third of our tax base. Well, guess what. Those people are leaving in quite significant numbers.
On April 25, 2010, the New York Times even published an article titled, "More American Expatriates Give Up Citizenship", in which they pointed out that more and more Americans, who already live abroad, have been turning in their passports, due in part to rising US taxes and laws that punish wealth. The number of official renunciations in the last quarter of 2009 was more than all of 2007 and 2008 combined. But, those are just people who actually went to the effort of turning in their passports.
Many more Americans just take their money and leave; never, as they say, "telling the jailer that they have gone." In fact, the US Bureau of the Census estimated that in 2005, over 350,000 US citizens and permanent residents would quietly leave the United States permanently (reported by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services - BCIS - of the Department of Homeland Security; formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service – INS). But a series of Zogby polls, between 2005 and 2007 indicate that the problem is much worse. Zogby estimates the number of Americans permanently leaving the USA to be more than 3 million each and every year.
How many of those expats do you think were poor?"
Keep punishing those who pay the majority of the taxes and when they leave, don't come crying to the poor & middle class asking for more.
RE: The flight to Florida..... so all of those higher income "millionaires" got old enough to join the "aging population seeking warmer climes" in the very next year after the tax was imposed ??? The higher income taxpayer flight was seen almost immediately. Cause brings effect, and action always brings reaction.
MuttMutt,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren’t taxes generated when money is exchanged (income, sales, payroll, etc.) for the sake of trading wanted goods/skills/services? If we just hand the money to the government now, what happens next year when all we have to show for it is an empty train that meanders past empty buildings and jam packed walk-in-clinics? The people who had the money (my boss, my doctor, the guy who pays for the Boy’s and Girl’s Club, that woman who put a new roof on my church, you know, jerks like that) now have no incentive to exchange with anyone. They can give their money to a bunch of wasteful morons or horde it for better days or to pay for decent healthcare when they get old. Now the rate does not matter at all as 65% of almost nothing is much less than 1% of almost everything.
I prefer common sense basic economics to charts and ramblings nit picked to match my self righteous motivations, so I could be wrong.
Shorter Jay: I prefer my prejudices to evidence.
Simply repeating the same fallacious morality argument that has been repeated contradicted by the evidence doesn't make it any more correct.
MuttMutt,
My thoughts exactly.
Not short, but thanks anyway.
Jay: I'm surprised that you agree that you prefer your prejudices to evidence, but acknowledgement of the problem is the first step in recovery...
Wow muttmutt, learn economics much? You can twist and turn the topic on high taxes all you want, but history and reality proves you wrong. You can continue to listen to your social justice idiots who mainly are responsible for putting us in this mess or you can start thinking for yourself. It doesn't matter which you decide, unlike the socialists, we like free choice and we understand every choice has a consequence.
keithh1981: "but history and reality proves you wrong"
I welcome the data that makes your point.
"You can continue to listen to your social justice idiots who mainly are responsible for putting us in this mess or you can start thinking for yourself."
Project much?
"It doesn't matter which you decide, unlike the socialists, we like free choice and we understand every choice has a consequence."
Do you even know what a socialist is?
Not to over simplify amongst all the intellectuals in the room, but why not 10% income tax for all, with a safety net for the very poor? So a person who makes $40,000 pays $4000 and a person who makes $400,000 pays $40,000. What's so "not fair share" about that? I believe it would be completely un-American to say that the person making $400,000 should pay a higher %.
I really feel that when people say the rich need to pay their "fair share", what they really mean is "the rich should pay more so I can pay less." And I am far from rich. Just optimistic.
Anonymous: So would you support the same practice for things like speeding tickets (http://bit.ly/u3rOKM)?
"So let’s say that if you’re caught speeding, you have to pay 0.1% of your gross annual income. We know that the person making $20,000/year would pay $20. The person making $200,000/year would pay $200. But think about the person making $20,000,000. They would pay $20,000 in fines for the same ticket. It’s still 0.1% (a flat tax!) but the value of the fine is progressive and tied to income. Your ability to pay determines the value of your penalty."
Anonymous x2: We are living under a much less progressive taxation system than we had during the American boom years of the 1940s, 50s and 60s. And the consequence of that is higher deficits and debt and a less-even distribution of national income. Have a look at this chart: http://bit.ly/fTzAeo and see how compressed our current tax system is. Then remember people like Mitt Romney, who make all their money through unearned income, only pay 15% tax and tell me how that's "fair."
Really? You truly believe a fine for speeding is the same as a tax? Wow! That's a highly irrational argument and makes any other suppositions on your part hardly with considering. That's plainly ignorant.
How are Romney's 15% capital gains tax rates fair? Again, your ignorance is showing. That money has already been taxwwed at the income tax rate before it was put to work as an investment. To be taxed at all as a capital gain restricts economic growth. Now, if you want to argue whether or not private equity funds should be taxed differently, thats a different topic.
MuttMutt,
So you are saying the speeding guy making $20,000 should pay $20 - .1% and the guy making $20,000,000 should pay $200,000 -1%. Progressive does not sound very “fair” to me.
As GardenAngel pointed out earlier, your % chart is completely irrelevant as it leaves out a few details. As for Mitt, that 15% is on money which has already been taxed as corporate profits (his earnings, just double taxed).
Muttmutt, you talk about fair like it matters. Newsflash, life is not fair never was and never will be. Learn the true term of progressive. Social justice you believe in is nothing more than a collective mentality normally called socialism/communism. How is that working out in Europe? Or the social programs bankrupting our country today and the last 100 years. No matter how you look at it, raising taxes on the rich always proved to be fatal to our economy but the only difference between now and the 1960's when we had high taxed is we had jobs. There was so many jobs you could quit your job and walk next door and get another 1.
Mitt has paid $3 million in taxes. How much did you pay muttmutt? The rich pay based on how much they make. If you paid $3 million and yet Romney makes more than you I can see how you feel it is unfair.
Muttmutt obviously your profile says you are a progressive (socialist) and believes in social justice aka socialist. Obviously you do not know what a socialist is and you are one! Lenin first dictator of Russia called you right: Useful idiots.
I am enjoying the thread except for Keith. His lack of facts and throwing the socialist word around shows his ignorance. He is probably a bear fan. If you can play with the big boys, resort to name calling.
MuttMutt, I noticed you didn't respond to my comments regarding expatriation.
In addition, your graph for top marginal rates is misleading because NOBODY actually paid those rates. There were so many deductions and loopholes that people paid a fraction of the top rate. If you want to make a valid argument please use effective rates, because that's what people actually paid. Check out the effective rates using the link below. As you can see the total effective rate has decreased for all groups with the largest % skewed towards the bottom. The top quintile saw an effective tax rate drop from 1979 to 2007 of about 8% while the bottom quintile experienced a decrease of 50%. Whenever anyone wants to return to historical rates, they need to understand that the poor paid significantly more than they do today. Is that what you're advocating? Should we return all the effective rates to the 70s and really stick it to the poor?
Sorry, here's a link to the graph.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Max, thanks for the link to the Brookings data on effective tax rates. I wish it went back further than 1979, but it's quite useful.
While your observation "The top quintile saw an effective tax rate drop from 1979 to 2007 of about 8% while the bottom quintile experienced a decrease of 50%." is interesting, the question still remains as to why that might be. One possibility is that with increased income inequality, and the effects of the recession, the "effective" rate includes a larger population on the bottom who pay no tax whatsoever. I don't know, the data don't make that clear.
This TaxVox blog posting (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/06/24/so-who-should-pay-income-taxes/) explains a couple of reasons why that number may have shrunk:
"...people don’t pay income taxes either because they have no taxable income (almost all of the elderly who don’t pay income tax, for instance), or because they qualify for credits that offset their tax liability. For the people in the second group, increases in tax rates could very well hit them in the wallet – either because they’ll owe net taxes or they’ll receive smaller refunds."
But we do know the folks at the top are making a substantially higher percentage of total national income than they were in 1979 and are paying a lower effective tax rate.
One reason for that is they pay a much lower rate on unearned income.
Ryan, lack of facts is amusing since I am the one that alerted everyone that muttmutt is a fond believer in progressism and social justice. You want facts how about you look them up on the internet. This is a comment section on a blog not a section where you expect to get facts from a person if you look at his profile is a socialist. But go ahead continue getting your facts from a comment sections where known verifiable socialists are argueing the rich don't pay their fair share however his ignorance is getting old since we had his ilk for 8 years under Doyle and his administration. I think 8the years of the unions getting paid off and racking up a $3.6 billion defit is proof enough you cannot just tax expect paradise!
Keithh1981: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
That is all...
We're supposed to laugh at clowns, right?
Bloomberg, that bastion of socialist propaganda, polled their most exclusive readers (a $20,000/year subscription), Trotskyites to a man, and found the same thing ordinary American's are saying. The tax system is weighted in favor of the super-rich. (as reported by the Columbia Journalism Review http://bit.ly/y9mfrb)
"And the poll results are a landslide: two-thirds said the low tax rate was “unjustified” versus just 21 percent who said it was okay. Amongst Americans, the numbers were similar: 67-27. Again, these are not exactly populist firebreathers. By even bigger margins they say private equity is beneficial to the economy."
From the actual poll:
"Gerhard Summerer, president of DZ Financial Markets LLC in New York, said the lower rate is nothing more than “welfare for the rich,” saying the “average American citizen” gets no such breaks. “No one is advocating confiscating anyone’s possessions, but the fair taxation of income,” he said."
and
"“There is a large and growing wealth disparity and I think it is unhealthy,” Steve Morton, a director at Natixis Securities in New York who took part in the survey, said in an e-mail. “The lower levels of the pyramid don’t have enough money to buy things and keep the economy going.”"
And the post concludes with this...
"Eighty-five percent say they either fully agree or partially agree that banks need “regulation to prevent them from being too big to fail.” And 72 percent of these what you might call professional gamblers say they think Obama will be re-elected."
:-)
you guys seem to be having fun on your own...but muttmutt, I have to add just a bitty one, since you served me up a softball with your baseball analogy. I wasn't going to show off, but I actually did spend two and a half days with Dr. Laffer a year or so ago. Over one dinner we did discuss exactly his views on where the optimum tax rates should be, and that's how I know what he thinks on the subject. He also is quite versed in economic history and was a pivotal figure on the tax reforms in the 1970s and 1980s in California, England, and U.S. He remains active, advising states on tax and growth policies. I think we would all agree that loopholes and exceptions must be taken out of the tax code in any reform. Ok, carry on, boys and girls and play nice!
Keight: I think MuttMutt is correct. You really don't know what a socialist is or what socialism is. And what part of Progressivism do you not like... the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, civil rights...
When I come and have discussions with Dr. Tim and his followers we like to debate/discuss using facts. We can disagree and often do. But its always civil. And than there are people like you... go cruise the Limbaugh site.
MuttMutt... I'm sure we could speculate on why the data is what it is but the bottom line is that the top marginal rate that is often cited is a facade. It's a rate that NO ONE paid because of all the loopholes and deductions. The only way to compare and do a real analysis is to look at effective rates. The effective rate has fallen over the years with the bottom quintiles benefiting far more than the top. Any suggestion to revert to historical rates would mean that the bottom quintiles would suffer disproportionally more. Is this what you're advocating?
In addition, you still neglected to comment on my original post, which shows that the Rich are in fact leaving the country and taking their tax dollars with them. Instead of thanking the rich for shouldering a majority of the tax burden, we as a collective nation, are demonizing them. Capital is mobile and if we continue to demonize the rich, we should be ready to suffer the consequences when they move and take their tax dollars with them.
Max: I didn't ignore it, I was waiting for you to supply links to the data.
And if capital flight happens because of taxes, then perhaps we should make capital LESS mobile. We can do that, you know.
You lose a debate and think you can end ot by laughing at yourself. You got some studying up to do and you might want to start with yourself and your own social justice collective thinking.
keithh1981: OOOOO, the dreaded "I know you are but what am I" defense! Well, you got me. You win.
Ryan O, disagreeing is fine and dandy, but when someone obviously believes in socialism and social justice and doesn't know anything about himself as a social justice when it is in his own profile, there is no such thing as having a civil discussion with these people, we tell him the facts and he belittles anything we tell him and tell us how he thinks yet he doesn't even know the social justice is key engine which these socialists use. It is a collective and a collective is socialism. Sorry this country is not founded on collectivism. It is founded on the individual. We do not believe everyone has a number, we believe in ourselves. Social Justice and Socialism is a centralized government style thinking with a collective thinking mindset. I know what socialism is but I find it interesting you agree with a guy that thinks progressive movement is the best way, which is higher taxes. There are 2 truths on socialism, 1. Socialism is works as long as there is enough rich people to steal from and 2. always leads to a dictator. Look at WW2 era, Stalin, Hitler etc. History is a fine tool to prove this and ignorance is the biggest tools socialists exploit to further their agenda.
muttmutt, win? I am not in here to win anything but then again that is your thinking fine. Why don't you start by explaining yourself as a social justice believer since I looked at your profile. Explain to us how your collective mindset is better than us thinking for ourselves.
These are your interests: Lefty Politics, Travel, Economics, Foreign Affairs, Electing Obama (DONE!), Civil Rights, LGBT Rights, Social Justice.
I forgot to even add that you believe in Obama! Makes sense with your ill logic in taxes. Explain to me how Warren Buffet hasn't paid taxes since 2002 yet he is touting with his buddy Obama that the rich should pay more. He could write a check any day he wants if he wants to help Americans. It is kind of hard to think he will do that if he cannot seem to pay his own taxes he already owes.
Also Obama killing the pipeline job, Warren Buffet benefits the most because he would lose billions if that pipeline would be completed. Him Obama helps his union friends and now helps a major campaign donor that doesn't pay taxes. I hear no outrage of that from people like you.
Anybody that wants to argue taxes and yet supports electing Obama is truly a interesting fellow.
If you want to win this debate you better start explaining yourself. After all this is your own profile and your own believes and ones own believes is a key to ones standing in life and what and who he supports.
Keith says "we tell him the facts and he belittles anything we tell him"
You have provided no facts. None.
"and tell us how he thinks yet he doesn't even know the social justice is key engine which these socialists use. It is a collective and a collective is socialism."
You wouldn't know socialism if it squatted on your face and wriggled.
You're a sad, pathetic, ignorant little person. If you spent less time spitting venom and more time paying attention to people like Dr. Tim, Max, GardenAngel and myself who actually provide evidence to back up our opinions, you might really learn something. But I doubt that that will happen. So I'll be moving along.
Thanks to Dr. Tim, Max, GardenAngel and Ryan_O from whom I've learned things and who I hope have learned a thing or two from me.
Wow, now I spit venom because you cannot back anything up. You cannot even back up your own believes. Just like a good little lefty, you attack and vilify when you have no facts. How about you apologize to Dr. Tim Nerenz since you like to belittle him in who he knows and believes.
You want facts, http://www.google.com. I didn't know you depended on me to post every little fact known to man for you because you do not know how to find it yourself.
You have yet to provide any facts other than say you believe higher taxes is the only way to fix our country. Funny how that is what Obama believes. That is how Doyle and the democrats believe here in Wisconsin. How about you Google Greece and see how socialism is working how for them. Then Google Spain and now France. I am assuming if you can find this blog you can definitely find Google especially since I provided the link.
We did learn from your beliefs in the last 8 years of Doyle and seen how it didn't work. I did notice you cannot even defend your own positions which deflects on ones own character. All you did was very quickly attack me and in that you just proved I was right. That is a true form of a socialist, always running on anything but the facts because you cannot use facts since it would prove you wrong.
RE: You're a sad, pathetic, ignorant little person. If you spent less time spitting venom and more time paying attention to people like Dr. Tim, Max, GardenAngel and myself who actually provide evidence to back up our opinions, you might really learn something. But I doubt that that will happen. So I'll be moving along.
Now that is right, you don't post facts you post OPINIONS on a failed socialist idea. But go ahead, move along because obviously you cannot defend a profile your yourself filled out. A profile which lists ones own beliefs and obviously opinions is in itself a document of ones character.
I believe in our founding fathers and their belief in a limited government founded on The
Judeo-Christian heritage, taxes with representation not higher taxes in our current tax system that is full of bureaucracy, loopholes and lobbyists, and respect of our founding fathers and not trying to confuse positive rights which you lefties like to push with natural rights which our founders gave us.
I believe if somebody puts down Lefty Politics, Travel, Economics, Foreign Affairs, Electing Obama (DONE!), Civil Rights, LGBT Rights, Social Justice in their own profile, likes to confuse facts with opinions, has interests in foreign affair yet doesn't see the significance of socialism failing in Europe today yet touts socialism with social justice is an ignorant fool.
Sorry that I pegged you right from the beginning. One that cannot defend their own views which one writes on his/her own profile and instantly attacks the other is proof to what I said you are a lefty. I ask you to defend your positions because your positions greatly differ to what many on here believe. Socialism is a collective big government mentality, and Dr. Tim Nerenz has no where near the belief of big government and higher taxes. Where is your answer to your beliefs and why you even here in a small government minded people. Huffington post web site, a site your beloved Obama loves, would be a great site for you. Their comment section is greatly tailored to big government and tax the rich type of people.
muttmutt - Sorry MuttMutt, if you clicked on my name in the original post, it took you to the article and the IRSData. The article also referenced the studies and the corresponding IRS Data. The idea that gov't can continue to use a "Stick" instead of a "Carrot" is what's destroying the country. There's a "Law of Unintended Consequences" and every time the gov't punishes success that success migrates. This is why jobs continue to be exported and why companies continue to re-incorporate overseas. 60 minutes did an episode recently regarding corporate tax havens - you should check it out.
And as far as Socialism, I was born in Russia and legally immigrated to America in the 70s. I fully understand the difference between the "Theory" & "Reality" of Socialism.
http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/irsdata.shtml
MuttMutt...
One other question. You said you want a drastically progressive tax system. What tax bracket are you going to be in? Or is the drastically higher rate reserved only for those who make more money than you?
Since I started asking muttmutt to explain his own interests he himself filled out on his own profile, he instantly got angry and attacked me like a 10 year old throwing a tamper tantrum. A a usual lefty, he has moved along with his tail between his legs.
Post a Comment