Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by catawba

It is the middle class (in which I fall) that suffered due to the lower taxes for rich for the last eight years so I have already done my part.

Originally Posted by pjohns

(1) Since my previous post in this thread (to which you were responding here) was solely concerned with the subject of corporate taxes, it does seem passing strange that you would have suddenly changed the focus of the discussion to that of taxation upon "low earners" versus taxation upon "relatively high earners"; and this, in turn, in contradistinction to taxation upon "very high earners."

Perhaps, upon further consideration, you may also notice this apparent disconnect.

(2) There is an enormous difference between percent and percentage point. In fact, they are nowhere close to representing a similar amount--let alone an identical one.

As a case in point, I would note that a PGA professional who managed sand saves in only 50 percent of his attempts in 2007, but who improved that number to 60 percent in 2008, experienced just a 10 percentage-point improvement in that particular stat; but he simultaneously experienced a 20 percent improvement.

To speak breezily, therefore, of a "a 4-1/2% tax increase" is to badly misunderstand this important distinction.

Originally Posted by squidward

You paid the same rate ? No, you paid a lower rate, so the "rich" have done more of their part than you have.
Actually, under Bush's tax cuts, your effective tax rate fell more than the top rate, so you got the biggest break.
So if you are really interested in doing your part, which you are not, you'd be advocating a tax increase for yourself.

No, the greedy and unregulated squandered our investments so they could make in one year what 80,000 NY school teachers make in one year, many of which avoided paying taxes through such things as "retention bonuses!"
Their greedy behavior killing the economy because those on the lower rungs have no money to buy the products made our companies.

If we had not wasted 3 trillion dollars war in Iraq for the rich people, we would not be in such dire straits. All the rest of us that do not have stock in the oil companies had to pay for that. So don't talk about us doing our part!


the kid who just got finished with 12 years of secondary education, foregoing 12 years of income, while incurring massive debt, just got his first $250K payday, and is still showing a large negative net worth. Yet, your envy and greed desires to stick it to him.


No one making a quarter of a million dollars gets any sympathy from me!


actually, your rates will go up by a higher percentage when we return to the old rates, and the guy making 250 will go up by less. He will also shed the alternative minimum tax that he was paying in addition to his income tax.

Problem solved then!


Maybe one day you will figure out that the difference between the real wealth in this country and those making 250.
You wish to punish the little guys. The truley "rich" will not be contributing.
Their lack of w-2 income is what allows folks like Theresa Kerry to pay a much lower effective rate than you or I. That ain't changing.

We'll see, we have a new sheriff in town now!

Your envy, and desire to make someone pay is clouding your judgement.

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by pjohns

I cannot dispute your numbers; nor can I verify them.

I can verify them: (AP) "Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new (GAO) report from Congress."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4342535.shtml

As a right-wing populist, I can assure you that I have no love for large corporations, or for those who profit hugely from them. But neither do I care for the idea of a system that approaches the European model; which is to say, democratic socialism. (In fact, of the two, I would much prefer the former.)

I have never described the Clinton-era top marginal rate of 39.6 percent as "socialistic"; so that is a red herring.

Certainly, the top rate of earlier times--which ranged between 91 and 92 percent between the years 1951-1963, and was as high as 94 percent near the end of WWII--was clearly confiscatory: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php


The tax rate for highest income bracket between 1940 - 1980 averaged 80%.

Higher marginal rates do not automatically produce a greater revenue stream to the government. There is--somewhere--a point of diminishing returns, beyond which higher rates simply depress economic activity, and actually reduce government receipts.

Funny, I didn't see that in Clinton's time or during the period of 1940 - 1980!

I confess that I am not smart enough to know precisely the point at which this optimum point occurs.

I venture to say its not at the Clinton rate of 39% since we survived quite well for 40 years averaging 80%.

Nonetheless, one should be very wary about beginning with the bold assumption that an increase in rates will necessarily yield more in tax receipts.

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by catawba

[color="Navy"]I can verify [the numbers]: (AP) "Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new (GAO) report from Congress."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4342535.shtml-/color]

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by catawba

Originally Posted by pjohns

(1) Since my previous post in this thread (to which you were responding here) was solely concerned with the subject of corporate taxes, it does seem passing strange that you would have suddenly changed the focus of the discussion to that of taxation upon "low earners" versus taxation upon "relatively high earners"; and this, in turn, in contradistinction to taxation upon "very high earners."

Perhaps, upon further consideration, you may also notice this apparent disconnect.

(2) There is an enormous difference between percent and percentage point. In fact, they are nowhere close to representing a similar amount--let alone an identical one.

As a case in point, I would note that a PGA professional who managed sand saves in only 50 percent of his attempts in 2007, but who improved that number to 60 percent in 2008, experienced just a 10 percentage-point improvement in that particular stat; but he simultaneously experienced a 20 percent improvement.

To speak breezily, therefore, of a "a 4-1/2% tax increase" is to badly misunderstand this important distinction.

Originally Posted by pjohns

Again, you seem to assume that is is even possible to require corporations to pay taxes. I would assert that it is not possible to do so, in any meaningful sense. Corporations will inevitably pass along such increases to the consumer, in the form of higher retail prices; or reduce employment opportunities; or reduce the number of hours worked by wage-per-hour employees; or some combination thereof.



And you find this acceptable?

Enlightened self-interest (which, by the way, is not the same thing as greed; the latter is a perversion of the former) demands that if success is going to be penalized at a clearly confiscatory rate--almost everything one earns, beyond a certain point, will be seized by the government--one should not even make any serious efforts in that direction.

Moreover, it appears to me--and please correct me, if I am mistaken--that you view the American money supply to be the property of the US government; which (benevolently, perhaps?) allows American citizens to keep whatever portion of their earnings that the government deems appropriate.

If this is your view, then we deeply disagree.

I would assert that the ultimate owner of American money is the person who earns (or even inherits) it--not the government--and that private citizens give the government no more than what we consider appropriate for the government to have (as determined by our elected representatives, who set the tax rates and make laws that affect the tax code).



For some inexplicable reason, you continue to bring up the Clinton Administration; and this has never been central (or even peripheral) to my arguments.

As for the confiscatory tax rates of an earlier time, it is astounding to me that you would appear to defend them.

Are you really suggesting that a marginal rate of 80 percent is perfectly acceptable, by your lights?

If so, you have far more faith in European-style redistributionist policy than I do.



I certainly would not use words that appear to applaud an 80 percent tax rate, as you have done. See above.



It is noteworthy, I believe, that left-of-center thinkers never admit to spending anymore--perhaps it is because the tax-and-spend mantra has not been congenial to their interests--but have instead found a useful weasel word in "investing."

The term "sustainable energy" is typically used by those who wish to tax gasoline out of existence, even before the natural supply of oil is exhausted (the timing for "peak oil" differs greatly, according to whom one chooses to believe), and before we have developed a serious alternative, at a consumer-friendly price. (If this does not dovetail with your own views in this regard, I will take you at your word on that.)

As for the (allegedly) "bloated military," this term suggests to me that you would prefer that America retrench from its role as a great power, and accept the eviscerated military that the Europeans have embraced. And I find such a sentiment highly disturbing.