Thread: The Blue-State Tax Burden

Originally Posted by Broken

They can make as much as they want. They should just pay taxes at a higher rate.

Descrimination...

Originally Posted by Broken

Look at our President, Vice President, his cabinet Secretaries, or the Senate. These are not homeless people here. Nor are they middle class.

Not even close to Bill though.

Originally Posted by Broken

Absolutely not.

Why not? If you're just going to redistribute the wealth anyway, be open about it.

Originally Posted by Broken

I gave eight figures in taxes when I sold my company. I had no problem with that.

It obviously wasn't enough, because there are still poor out there! I also do not believe you.

Originally Posted by Broken

The "market" is the CEO and the board deciding what the CEO should make.

Can't spend money you don't have...

Originally Posted by Broken

Why do you think so many corporations register in Delaware? Because shareholder power over management is minimal under Delaware law.

Good for them, the company should be able to set it's own standards anyway...

Originally Posted by Broken

so long as the tax they pay is progressive.

Descrimination... Biggoted against people for the money they make is no different than being biggoted against someone for their color. Abolish the IRS, it's more than time for a fair tax system.

Originally Posted by Praxus

This commits the logical falacy called Post Hoc.

If examining the actual data is a "logical fallacy", then I will look more favorably on fallacies from now on.

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%.

Nope. In the 1920s the max income tax rate was 25%. It stayed that way all the way through Hoover's Depression until Roosevelt raised it to 60% and then 81%. Under Roosevelt, the economy grew by 6.25% annual average through 1940. That is just as fast as your own figures for the 19th century.

The numbers during the 1930's are artificially inflated by Government expenditures which were mainly in large and innefficiently done projects.

Goverment expenditure is an artificial part of the economy? Better not tell Bush that, Government expenditure is a major part of his economic "recovery". So Roosevelt should have just sat on his thumbs like Hoover?

But still how does this argument have anything to do with the fairness of taxation?

It doesn't. I was rebutting Bluesman's claim that a progressive tax system was bad for the economy.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Descrimination...

By that logic, if a business owner pays one worker more than another, he is discriminating. How about conscription? Conscripting only 18-28 year olds is highly discriminatory. Let's get more 80 year olds out there on the battlefield.

Why not? If you're just going to redistribute the wealth anyway, be open about it.

Be serious. Progressive taxation is not the same as insisting all incomes be equal.

It obviously wasn't enough, because there are still poor out there! I also do not believe you.

Google for "John (Gus) Gurley". My name.

Good for them, the company should be able to set it's own standards anyway...

At the expense of the shareholders?

Originally Posted by Praxus

Where in the world does there exsist democracy? Give me a name of one country that is a democracy.

I thought I lived in a democratic republic, but perhaps I am confused. Then there is this puzzling voting business. I wonder then, why we are going about the world promoting democracy?

Furthermore why do you think democracy is a disrable form of Government?

At least you are honest about where you stand. What would you prefer, a Monarchy? Plutocracy?

If examining the actual data is a "logical fallacy", then I will look more favorably on fallacies from now on.

Examining it is not a logical fallacy, presenting in place of an actual argument that proves your premise, is.

Nope. In the 1920s the max income tax rate was 25%. It stayed that way all the way through Hoover's Depression until Roosevelt raised it to 60% and then 81%. Under Roosevelt, the economy grew by 6.25% annual average through 1940. That is just as fast as your own figures for the 19th century.

Did you read my entire post? I said the GDP growth rate was artificially increased by large and inefficiently done projects. This is shown by the fact that there was no significant increase in the standard of living until after the great depression and WW2.

I thought I lived in a democratic republic, but perhaps I am confused. Then there is this puzzling voting business. I wonder then, why we are going about the world promoting democracy?

Yes we are a democratic republic, but one limited by a constitution. You however didn't say this, you said Democracy, which means "rule of the people", in other words majority rule. Since when did I state we should around the world promoting "democracy"? What would possibly make you think I supported this?

Goverment expenditure is an artificial part of the economy? Better not tell Bush that, Government expenditure is a major part of his economic "recovery". So Roosevelt should have just sat on his thumbs like Hoover?

This is the greatest myth in depression history. Hoover did not beleive in Laissiez Faire, in fact he did many things to try and cause the economy to recover. According to the economic adviser to your buddy (FDR), "The ideas ebodied in the New Deal legislation were a compilation of thoose which had come to maturity under Hoover's aegis... We all of us owed much to Hoover."

Hoover introduced the first law that that interfered with private relations between unions and the employer. He supported the idea of easy money. He supported high protectionist tarrifs, namely the Smooth-Hawley tarrif. He interfered in many industries, not limited to broadcasting, radio, and airlines. He got private companies to not cut wages during the depression. In fact in 1929 he devoted 13% of the federal budget to public works projects. In 1932 he poored over 5 times that ammount into public works projects.

Oh yah, he's a real "hand's off" kinda guy!

It doesn't. I was rebutting Bluesman's claim that a progressive tax system was bad for the economy.

It is tearably bad for the economy. The only time periods you have shown were short lived booms during high spending times by the Government. If the Government steals a wod of cash which wouldn't have been spent, of course it's going to make it look the GDP is growing, when in reality there is no real increase in productivity, standard of living, and technology.

But you still havn't answered, how come the growth was so high during the no-income tax time period for a span of over 50 years?

Originally Posted by Broken

That is just as fast as your own figures for the 19th century.

But his figures had no tax. I like that way better.

Originally Posted by Broken

Better not tell Bush that, Government expenditure is a major part of his economic "recovery".

Bush is a political liberal, he's just not as much of a political liberal as Kerry.

Originally Posted by Broken

By that logic, if a business owner pays one worker more than another, he is discriminating.

If both workers are of equal skill, reliability and seniority, you're right.

Originally Posted by Broken

How about conscription?

Evil, but not descrimination. You cannot descriminate against people unable to do the job.

Originally Posted by Broken

Progressive taxation is not the same as insisting all incomes be equal.

Your 90% rate would do that though. Progressive taxation is descrimination, no matter how you try to justify it. You can allways give more. I would suggest you give to someone other than the government, that is if you don't want half of it wasted on paperwork.

Originally Posted by Broken

Google for "John (Gus) Gurley". My name.

Google for "David Blaine". My name. Funny thing is, I was saying I didn't believe you wrote a check for 1/3 of your money, and it was ok with you. You must really trust the government. BTW, every penny you sent them, they sent to Norway to help them celibrate their independance day. The wonders of political liberalism (big government).

Originally Posted by Broken

At the expense of the shareholders?

If the people are stupid enough to buy shares, then they get what they deserve. Most investors aren't stupid.

Originally Posted by Broken

I thought I lived in a democratic republic

Nope, a Constitutional Federal Republic. You don't really want to live in a democracy.

Originally Posted by Broken

I wonder then, why we are going about the world promoting democracy?

Democracy is a catch phrase for people unable to understand a more complicated concept.

Broken's argument has been refuted far better than I could ever do, but I wanted to address this quote:

Originally Posted by Broken

Look at our President, Vice President, his cabinet Secretaries, or the Senate. These are not homeless people here. Nor are they middle class.

I think it's interesting that President Bush is the LEAST wealthy of the four men at their respective national tickets, which would seem to put the lie to your theory, Broken. That they ARE all wealthy is hardly a bad thing, unless we now think that we want a man just as average as any of us to lead the country. Frankly, I'd rather have an exceptional man in the Big Chair.

I think we got one, too. And he was just re-elected, with his percentage growing across all demographics. Hard to argue with THAT.

Originally Posted by Praxus

"If examining the actual data is a "logical fallacy", then I will look more favorably on fallacies from now on."

Examining it is not a logical fallacy, presenting [it] in place of an actual argument that proves your premise, is.

Well, there's your problem: assuming that an argument can prove your premise and takes precedence over data. Sorry, but I take reality to be the final arbiter on whether a theory is right or wrong.

If you actually look at the tables I presented back in post #46, you will see there is no evidence that high marginal tax rates inhibits economic growth. If anything, the steady decline in economic growth since the 1930s and the simultaneous decline in top tax rates shows just the opposite.

Now, an honest observer would allow that the longterm decline in growth may be due to some other factor, such as the maturation of the economy, the rise in oil prices, global competition, etc. So let's subtract out the longterm decline in growth and tax rates. Again, you will find no corelation between tax rate and growth.

Did you read my entire post? I said the GDP growth rate was artificially increased by large and inefficiently done projects.

Yes, I read your post. Perhaps you could return the favor and read my answer to it in post #63,

"Goverment expenditure is an artificial part of the economy? Better not tell Bush that, government expenditure is a major part of his economic "recovery". So Roosevelt should have just sat on his thumbs like Hoover?"

You claim that Roosevelt's economy was "artificially increased by large and inefficiently done projects". I suppose you think all the Rural Electrification projects, road projects, Golden Gate bridges, etc., were just a waste of money. Do you think it would have been "more efficient" not to employ those workers, to send them home with nothing to do?

If Roosevelt's economy was so inefficient, how did it blast out that gargantuan array of armaments in WWII? When Hitler heard of Roosevelt's production goals, he said, "That can't possibly be right!". Hitler was correct, but in the wrong way; Roosevelt's production targets were exceeded.

This is shown by the fact that there was no significant increase in the standard of living until after the great depression and WW2.

Wrong again. Check these tables from the Bureau of Economic Analysis . Personal income bottomed in 1933, the year Roosevelt took office, and climbed thereafter.

Yes we are a democratic republic, but one limited by a constitution. You however didn't say this, you said Democracy, which means "rule of the people", in other words majority rule. Since when did I state we should around the world promoting "democracy"? What would possibly make you think I supported this?

You are splitting hairs. The US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, etc, etc, are all referred to as democracies even though they have very different forms of government. None of them have direct democracies.

This is the greatest myth in depression history. Hoover did not beleive in Laissiez Faire, in fact he did many things to try and cause the economy to recover. According to the economic adviser to your buddy (FDR), "The ideas ebodied in the New Deal legislation were a compilation of thoose which had come to maturity under Hoover's aegis... We all of us owed much to Hoover."

Hoover introduced the first law that that interfered with private relations between unions and the employer. He supported the idea of easy money. He supported high protectionist tarrifs, namely the Smooth-Hawley tarrif. He interfered in many industries, not limited to broadcasting, radio, and airlines. He got private companies to not cut wages during the depression. In fact in 1929 he devoted 13% of the federal budget to public works projects. In 1932 he poored over 5 times that ammount into public works projects.

I will agree Hoover was no Calvin Coolidge (who vetoed farm relief bills and an early version of the TVA). Hoover did greatly increase public works projects. However, Roosevelt vastly increased them beyond what Hoover found acceptable.

Hoover allowed the disasterous Hawley-Smoot tariff to pass, from which foreign trade didn't recover until post WWII. Hoover did promote banking reform, but only after he had been defeated by Roosevelt. Hoover did promote wage stability, but only if it was voluntary. His calls for wage preservation were ignored by industry, and Hoover blocked legislation making it mandatory.

Oh yah, he's a real "hand's off" kinda guy!

People living at the time thought he was far too passive in face of what was needed. Too little too late. Distressed areas were sarcastically called "Hoovervilles".

It is tearably bad for the economy. The only time periods you have shown were short lived booms during high spending times by the Government. If the Government steals a wod of cash which wouldn't have been spent, of course it's going to make it look the GDP is growing, when in reality there is no real increase in productivity, standard of living, and technology.

Again, you are making statements with no factual backing. Belief with no evidence.

But you still havn't answered, how come the growth was so high during the no-income tax time period for a span of over 50 years?

I did, if you will actually read my last post.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I think it's interesting that President Bush is the LEAST wealthy of the four men at their respective national tickets, which would seem to put the lie to your theory, Broken.

My point was in response to Confed's claim that, since Bill Gates was not president, we were not headed towards feudalism. Perhaps plutocracy is a better description than feudalism.

That they ARE all wealthy is hardly a bad thing, unless we now think that we want a man just as average as any of us to lead the country. Frankly, I'd rather have an exceptional man in the Big Chair.

Ah, then we agree on something. I would like to see an exceptional man in office as well. However, Presidential ability has little to do with wealth. For example, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton did not have priviledged backgrounds.

Originally Posted by Broken

Well, there's your problem: assuming that an argument can prove your premise and takes precedence over data. Sorry, but I take reality to be the final arbiter on whether a theory is right or wrong.

Your assuming that just because there was high taxes that it was the cause of the high growth, which may or may not be true in reality.

"Goverment expenditure is an artificial part of the economy? Better not tell Bush that, government expenditure is a major part of his economic "recovery". So Roosevelt should have just sat on his thumbs like Hoover?"

All this comment is, is a slap in the face of bush, whom I do not admire.

Wrong again. Check these tables from the Bureau of Economic Analysis . Personal income bottomed in 1933, the year Roosevelt took office, and climbed thereafter.

That doesn't mean that there was an increase in the standard of living.

You are splitting hairs. The US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, etc, etc, are all referred to as democracies even though they have very different forms of government. None of them have direct democracies.

We are a Republic, we never have been a Democracy. I am simply stating that it is inacurate to claim we are a Democracy.

People living at the time thought he was far too passive in face of what was needed. Too little too late. Distressed areas were sarcastically called "Hoovervilles".

Their opinions on how passive they felt Hoover was or not has absolutely no baring on if he was or not.

Again, you are making statements with no factual backing. Belief with no evidence.

You mean to say the Standard of Living was greater during the great depression and WW2 with all the war rationing then it was in the boom of the 1920's?

Originally Posted by Confed999

But his figures had no tax. I like that way better.

Yes, and his figures covered the 19th century, when the US was a developing nation. By the same reasoning, since both tax rates and growth rates were much higher in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s than they are today, we should return to a 70% marginal tax rate to get the highest growth.

Now, I don't advocate anything so silly. Conditions today are not what they were in the 1930s. But neither are conditions today what they were in the 19th century. The tax rate in the 90s was just about right; good growth and a balanced budget. Plenty of people became quite rich (including me), and no deficit.

Bush is a political liberal, he's just not as much of a political liberal as Kerry.

Since Kerry wasn't elected, we will never know what he would have enacted. Clinton was certainly more conservative than Bush in his fiscal policy.

If both workers are of equal skill, reliability and seniority, you're right.

But if their skills are different, it isn't discrimination, right? Likewise with different taxrates for different incomes.

If the occupation of Iraq goes on for years, it is realistic to assume we will need conscription to fill the ranks. This burden will fall primarily on young men. If history is any indicator, the sons of the wealthy will be poorly represented among those drafted. We will hear calls for young men to do their patriotic duty, to sacrifice for the common good. Discrimination?

However, when it comes to taxes, any reference to sacrifices for the common good is labeled "class warfare".

Evil, but not descrimination. You cannot descriminate against people unable to do the job.

It is discrimination to ask a minority to bear most of the burden. You can ask those beyond the age of conscription to sacrifice in a different way, like paying the taxes necessary to fund the war.

Your 90% rate would do that though. Progressive taxation is descrimination, no matter how you try to justify it. You can allways give more. I would suggest you give to someone other than the government, that is if you don't want half of it wasted on paperwork.

Yes, progressive taxation is discrimination, just like it is discrimination for only young men to have to risk their lives in war. Society benefits those at the top the most; therefore, they should be the most willing to bear the costs of that society. After all, they have the most to lose.

Google for "David Blaine". My name. Funny thing is, I was saying I didn't believe you wrote a check for 1/3 of your money, and it was ok with you. You must really trust the government. BTW, every penny you sent them, they sent to Norway to help them celibrate their independance day. The wonders of political liberalism (big government).

I have no problem giving 1/3 back to the society which made it possible for me to make that money in the first place. This society is built on the resources contributed by many wealthy people before me. Why should I be so greedy to not follow their example?

Do I trust the Government? No. But it needs to be reformed, not eliminated. Public laws, security, education, basic research, etc., are necessary.

If the people are stupid enough to buy shares, then they get what they deserve. Most investors aren't stupid.

Institutional investors and mutual funds lost plenty of money on Enron, WorldCom, etc. These funds are not run by stupid people.

Fraudulent business practices can only be stopped by the fear of stiff punishment. Unfortunately, this is decried as the "strangling hand of regulation". Funny how when the "strangling" stops, we have disasters like the 80s Savings & Loan implosion and Enron in 2000.

Yes, and his figures covered the 19th century, when the US was a developing nation. By the same reasoning, since both tax rates and growth rates were much higher in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s than they are today, we should return to a 70% marginal tax rate to get the highest growth.

Now, I don't advocate anything so silly. Conditions today are not what they were in the 1930s. But neither are conditions today what they were in the 19th century. The tax rate in the 90s was just about right; good growth and a balanced budget. Plenty of people became quite rich (including me), and no deficit.

No, that is the argument you are using. I dismissed your statements as a logical fallacy and rightly so. I was demonstrating the rediculusness of using historical economic data to determine economic policy.

But if their skills are different, it isn't discrimination, right? Likewise with different taxrates for different incomes.

The question is, why do the rich have a less of a right to their money then the poor?

Yes, progressive taxation is discrimination, just like it is discrimination for only young men to have to risk their lives in war. Society benefits those at the top the most; therefore, they should be the most willing to bear the costs of that society. After all, they have the most to lose.

So they should be the world's atlas, and carry the weight of the lazy, the impotent, and the unproductive on their shoulders?

By what right do you throw this burden upon them?

I have no problem giving 1/3 back to the society which made it possible for me to make that money in the first place. This society is built on the resources contributed by many wealthy people before me. Why should I be so greedy to not follow their example?

Then you do it, just don't point a gun at my head and force me to do it.

Fraudulent business practices can only be stopped by the fear of stiff punishment. Unfortunately, this is decried as the "strangling hand of regulation". Funny how when the "strangling" stops, we have disasters like the 80s Savings & Loan implosion and Enron in 2000.

There is a different between the protection against fraud and regulation. The first is a legitiment purpose of Government, the later aint.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

If you believe high marginal tax rates are a good thing, then you're reading the wrong economics textbooks, comrade. Where did you take Econ101, Pyongyang?

You win the sarcastic remark of the day award. Very nice.

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici

You win the sarcastic remark of the day award. Very nice.

Thank you. I humbly accept this award with acknowledgement to all the PJ O'Rourke and Mark Steyn columns I've read through the years. I couldn't have done it without them.