I don't know how you can think a 93% tax rate is fair.

That is why it is called "Houston,Texas" and not "Houston, Taxes".

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

thanks mookie, im glad somebody knows what i was getting at.

Nice straw man mookie but I don't think you could find that anyone here that has made that argument.

Lower tax arguments are always coupled with decreased spending and improved efficiency. They have to be. Federal spending must be reigned in or even 93% tax rates aren't going to make a bit of difference.

who said mookie was speaking about you guys? I think he was speaking politicians and their trickle down theory.

Ok Gimpy. Show me the politician who thinks that lowering taxes alone will solve the problem.

Again, you ignore the point though. Raise the top earners tax rate to 100%. Confiscate all their assets. Sell their families into slavery even (you know you want to). It will be all for naught, because you will still have a trillion dollar deficit.

Did gimpy ever say he wants to tax only the rich?

Oh that's nice. :roll:

How does raising taxes improve business conditions and encourage employment?

Regardless, a 93% tax bracket does not mean anyone ever paid anything remotely close to 93%.

The year John Kerry ran he paid an effective rate of ~15%. His top marginal rate was 39%.

It does'nt and I don't see anyone here arguing that it does.

Tater I think they're just going to continue to steadfastly ignore the point. They will continue to promote class warfare. They will continue to spend money they don't have until they destroy themselves and the country along with it.

I think its more if it hurts it or not. I go back to the 93% tax bracket argument. Unemployment was how low then? the economic climate was different back then, and offshoring wasn't really possible, but taxes were still high. If high taxes on the rich was to kill the economy we still would have been in the depression.


So? it shows the politicians are also using all the loopholes in the tax system to get richer. Do you honestly think Kerry is the only one? Besides, It also shows that politicians know full well that there are huge loopholes, but don't close them because they use them and their friends in high places do too. I mean look at GE. they get all sorts of government contracts but pay no taxes, yet, we still hand our public money over. If our government had any sense they'd stop working with them and make what they are doing impossible...but do you think they will?

Oh i'm so sorry, the proper Democrat mantra is "Eat the Rich", not "Sell the Rich". My mistake... :yeah:

Isn't it funny that those who were complaining about people not discussing the document and just taking some partisan line are the ones who are avoiding the document and are spilling out endless partisan nonsense.

This is correct. The buying and selling of individuals has historically been exclusive to the wealthy.

"When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Gimpy, you entirely missed my point. Of course it was not just Kerry. When the rates were topped at 93%, NO ONE payed that much. I'd wager that the average effective rates are virtually identical.

My point is that calling forth old, higher tax rates is a BS argument since the marginal rates tell us exactly nothing about what people actually paid. Bottom line is that under those higher rates the taxes collected as a percentage of GDP was in fact LOWER than now.

Total government spending then was around half of now as a function of GDP. The farther back you go in US history, the less total spending was.

On topic, Ryan suggested a spending cap at 20% or GDP. This is more than reasonable, heck to me it is too high. Still it's a good suggestion. Also the basic premise of his plan is good. We do something now or watch it crash and burn. Take your pick.

Nah... I rather think it's sad.