LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteHow about a fair tax instead. Charging one group more than another is "class warfare" and descrimination. The only people who should pay less are the poor, in an effort to get them back on their feet.Originally Posted by Broken
No, in the US. Sorry. But it might as well have been in Pyongyang, since most Econ 101 classes teach nonsense. Starting from the moment they draw supply/demand curves on the blackboard.
Heh, heh, I don't know if there is such a thing as a "rational economist", but maybe there is one out there somewhere.
No rational economist will tell you that high marginal tax rates are beneficial to the country, because they're not.
But, back to your subject. If you look at the historical data, the US has recorded the highest growth rates during periods of high marginal tax rates. Don't believe me? Here is a table on US annual growth rates:
growth rates
and here is one on top marginal tax rates:
tax rates
For example, look at the 1930s. Top tax rates went from 25% to 60% to 81%, and the growth rate jumped to 6.2% average. In the forties, average growth was 6.5% with tax rates peaking at 94%, but the stimulus of WWII distorts these numbers. In the fifties, top marginal rates were still 91% with average growth rates of 4.2%. In the sixties, the top tax rate dropped to the 70% range and the growth rate grew slightly to 4.4% ( some stimulus from Vietnam). In the seventies, marginal tax rates were cut to 50% on earned income, but growth rates dropped to 3.3%. In the 80%, top tax rates dropped to 28%, but growth rates dropped slightly to 3.1%. In the 90s tax rates went up again to 39% and growth held steady at 3.1%.
So, where in this do you find evidence that high marginal rates are bad? Looks to me like a figment of some imaginations.
SO, economic policy which favors the wealthy is "good economics", but policy which favors the middle class is "class warfare"? Interesting.The ONLY reason to do that is to make the rich pay 'their fair share'. They can afford it more; they should pay more. Envy and class warfare are the only basis for that outlook, because tax revenues actually FALL when this is the tax strategy.
In the 90s, the rich were taxed more and tax revenues rose. Under Bush, the rich were taxed less and revenue fell, so where is the evidence that the reverse is true, as you are claiming? I guess what the Bush people say is true, us "reality-based people just don't get it."
Last edited by Broken; 22 Dec 04, at 03:28.
How about a fair tax instead. Charging one group more than another is "class warfare" and descrimination. The only people who should pay less are the poor, in an effort to get them back on their feet.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
So I guess the tax policies of the 1930s - 1970s were real class warfare, since the top taxrates then were double or more than what they are now.
Let's take a look at CEO compensation. In 1969, the average CEO's after-tax compensation was 15 times what his average worker made. Fair enough.
In 2000, the average CEO made 100 times what his average worker made, after taxes. More than six times his 1960s counterpart. Here is a study, skip to page 32 for the charts).
Do corporate executives deserve 6 times more than they used to? Looking at the US balance of trade in the 1960s vs 2000, it would appear that the current crop of US executives is getting their butts kicked by the foreign competition. Here is a chart of the balance of trade.
So, here are these guys, making far more than they ever did relative to your average worker even after taxes, screaming that they need more tax cuts. And they got them. But YOU are making too much money, so they export your job to some other country.
There is a "class war" going on all right, but it is not being conducted against the wealthy.
It's "class warfare" and descrimination regardless of when it was, or is. I don't care how much people make for what job they do. A CEO deserves whatever the market will allow, just as the average high school drop-out deserves whatever the market will allow. I can't ask for fairness towards people regardless of their color, sex, sexual orientation and whatever, without asking for fairness in taxation too. If saying "fair tax" brought that on, here's one that will freak you out completely: I don't think businesses should pay tax.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
I agree. What is freaky is taxing businesses is comparable to penalizing one for creating jobs and boosting economy. I own a small business, and honestly, if it didn't have taxes, it could afford more manpower.
Actually, it is mainly small businesses like yours that have a large tax burden. The big corporations can afford good tax lawyers to make sure they pay next to nothing.
Why are you not an "S" corporation? You don't get hit with double taxation that way.
So, it is OK with you if the wealth distribution continues to move towards the wealthy until they hold 95% of it? How is that fair? Sounds like feudalism to me. How can a democracy exist with such an imbalance of power?
Since when is compensation fair? I started my own business because I got tired of saving the company I worked for millions of dollars and getting a measly $3000 bonus in return. I am now happily retired.
Since when do market forces apply to a CEO's compensation? Many pack the Board of Directors with their buddies, who return the favor with huge packages which have nothing to do with the CEO's job performance.
Why was 15 times an average worker's pay OK in the 1960s, but 100 times not enough now? Think about it.
What historical economic data?Why, then, do you put all liberals, whatever that means, in the same box? Personally, I don't promote higher taxes on the wealthy due to some misplaced sympathy for people who can't get up off their sorry butts and find a decent job, I think higher taxes on the wealthy makes economic sense. I think it is beneficial for our country as a whole. I didn't come to these conclusions in a vacuum, the historical economic data leads me to this conclusion.
What you don't seem to understand is that the less capital there is, the more suffering! Guess who owns the vast majority of the capital?
THE RICH.
This is based on the false premise that one man's gain is another's lost. This is untrue, not only have the living standards of the rich increased but so have the poor, and at an enourmous rate since the begining of the Industrial Revolution, yet as you point out the wealthy hold a greater percentage of the wealth.So, it is OK with you if the wealth distribution continues to move towards the wealthy until they hold 95% of it?.
It is fair because the way they gained that wealth through non-coercive voluntary means (excluding the crooks here and there which are in all areas of society).How is that fair?
This is absolute non-sense. The land owners were part of the GOVERNMENT, they were not private enterprises. There power was given to them by the Monarch. They had the "right" under law to use force against the surfs.Sounds like feudalism to me.
Where in the world does there exsist democracy? Give me a name of one country that is a democracy. Furthermore why do you think democracy is a disrable form of Government?How can a democracy exist with such an imbalance of power
Last edited by Praxus; 22 Dec 04, at 04:49.
See my post 46 above.
How is it unfair? How is it fair to tell someone how much they can make?
Bill Gates is king? LOL
So everyone should get the same, regardless of investment, education, and/or intelligence? There will allways be an "imbalance" in any free and fair society.
Taking the liberal side, why should you get to retire early if everyone doesn't? Need to take some more of your money and give it to those less fortunate.
Because if the market won't support it, then they can't be paid that. Gotta have the money to spend it.
I allready have, and like I said, I don't care what people get paid for what job. It still has nothing to do with fair taxation.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
This commits the logical falacy called Post Hoc. But if you ignore this for a second, how does this explain the fact that during the vast majority of the 19th Century there was zero income tax, little restriction on trade within the United States, and the average growth rate outstripped that of any period in the 20th Century. In fact from 1929-1938 the GDP only grew at an average rate of 3.4% while during the period of 1879-1888 it grew are a rate nearly double that at 6.3%. The numbers during the 1930's are artificially inflated by Government expenditures which were mainly in large and innefficiently done projects.For example, look at the 1930s. Top tax rates went from 25% to 60% to 81%, and the growth rate jumped to 6.2% average. In the forties, average growth was 6.5% with tax rates peaking at 94%, but the stimulus of WWII distorts these numbers. In the fifties, top marginal rates were still 91% with average growth rates of 4.2%. In the sixties, the top tax rate dropped to the 70% range and the growth rate grew slightly to 4.4% ( some stimulus from Vietnam). In the seventies, marginal tax rates were cut to 50% on earned income, but growth rates dropped to 3.3%. In the 80%, top tax rates dropped to 28%, but growth rates dropped slightly to 3.1%. In the 90s tax rates went up again to 39% and growth held steady at 3.1%.
But still how does this argument have anything to do with the fairness of taxation?
Did you know that fourign companies have "imported" over 2 times more jobs to us then we have "exported" to them?So, here are these guys, making far more than they ever did relative to your average worker even after taxes, screaming that they need more tax cuts. And they got them. But YOU are making too much money, so they export your job to some other country.
Last edited by Praxus; 22 Dec 04, at 05:12.
The "Raw Deal"...
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
All FDR did was prolong the great depression by carrying Hoover's policies to their logical extremes.
They can make as much as they want. They should just pay taxes at a higher rate.
Look at our President, Vice President, his cabinet Secretaries, or the Senate. These are not homeless people here. Nor are they middle class.
Bill Gates is king? LOL
Absolutely not. A healthy imbalance is OK, indeed, it unavoidable. However, having almost all the wealth controlled by just a few is no different from Communism (as it was practiced, not as it was preached). Look at Latin America, has that become our role model?So everyone should get the same, regardless of investment, education, and/or intelligence?
I gave eight figures in taxes when I sold my company. I had no problem with that.Taking the liberal side, why should you get to retire early if everyone doesn't? Need to take some more of your money and give it to those less fortunate.
What market? The "market" is the CEO and the board deciding what the CEO should make. Why do you think so many corporations register in Delaware? Because shareholder power over management is minimal under Delaware law.Because if the market won't support it, then they can't be paid that. Gotta have the money to spend it.
I don't really care either, so long as the tax they pay is progressive. That is what levels the playing field some.I allready have, and like I said, I don't care what people get paid for what job. It still has nothing to do with fair taxation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: