Top tax rates were at 70% when Microsoft and Apple were founded

[boedicca]

How many? 1%?

You're the one making the wild accusations. Find some proof to back up your claims.

No, it is you the one making a fantastic suggestion that most people start poor but are getting six figure pay-checks by the end of their careers. Everyone knows that this is not true.

Sorry, but that little trick isn't going to work. You have made the argument that people in the top 20% didn't work hard and earn what they have.

Prove it.

 

[ilia25]

What is it about Freedom that makes you want to destroy it in favor of Equality?

Taxes do not destroy Freedom. And since most people had to stay within two income quantiles for all their life, growing inequality is unfair to them.

What a bunch of nonsensical pablum.

First, taxing somebody does inhibit his freedom. Medieval serfs paid only 30% of their production in "taxes". As a whole, we pay over 40% for all levels of government. When people spend months each year working just to pay the tax bill, that is Not Freedom.

Well, the freedom to get ever richer at the expense of the poor is not a Freedom I care about.

Your other point about people being within two income quartiles being "unfair" is just redistributive looter propaganda.

Unfair is the growing between the top earners and everyone else despite the fact that the top earners are NOT working harder than before.

 

[boedicca]

Taxes do not destroy Freedom. And since most people had to stay within two income quantiles for all their life, growing inequality is unfair to them.

What a bunch of nonsensical pablum.

First, taxing somebody does inhibit his freedom. Medieval serfs paid only 30% of their production in "taxes". As a whole, we pay over 40% for all levels of government. When people spend months each year working just to pay the tax bill, that is Not Freedom.

Well, the freedom to get ever richer at the expense of the poor is not a Freedom I care about.

Your other point about people being within two income quartiles being "unfair" is just redistributive looter propaganda.

Unfair is the growing between the top earners and everyone else despite the fact that the top earners are NOT working harder than before.

You are assuming they are not working harder. Prove it.

You also haven't proven that somebody $100K per year is doing it at the expense of The Poor. Try proving that too.

 

[ilia25]

You're the one making the wild accusations. Find some proof to back up your claims.

No, it is you the one making a fantastic suggestion that most people start poor but are getting six figure pay-checks by the end of their careers. Everyone knows that this is not true.

Sorry, but that little trick isn't going to work. You have made the argument that people in the top 20% didn't work hard and earn what they have.

I said that the top earners are not working harder than the top earners 30 years ago. And same is true for everyone else, by the way -- there is no evidence that our parents and grand-parents were slacking off.

But we have much more inequality than they had. And since the work ethics had not changed, that growth in inequality is unfair.

 

[tooAlive]

Well, the freedom to get ever richer at the expense of the poor is not a Freedom I care about.

How is raising the taxes helping the poor? Welfare programs?

What about lowering taxes and increasing wages?

 

[ilia25]

You also haven't proven that somebody $100K per year is doing it at the expense of The Poor. Try proving that too.

Top earners are getting a bigger share of the pie than before. Look at the charts in this thread.

 

[ilia25]

Well, the freedom to get ever richer at the expense of the poor is not a Freedom I care about.

How is raising the taxes helping the poor? Welfare programs?

First we have to help the middle class by taxing them less.

What about lowering taxes and increasing wages?

You can't raise real wages at will. Lowering taxes would not help to achieve that, but make the social programs (like SS and Medicare) unsustainable.

 

[boedicca]

Really? Where is your proof that the top 20%, 10%, 1% etc aren't working harder?

I suspect that for the most part a great many of the top 20% do work harder

She is claiming that the top 1% are working many times harder now that the top 1% was working 20 years ago.

Please link to a quote where I said they are working Many Times Harder.

 

[boedicca]

No, it is you the one making a fantastic suggestion that most people start poor but are getting six figure pay-checks by the end of their careers. Everyone knows that this is not true.

Sorry, but that little trick isn't going to work. You have made the argument that people in the top 20% didn't work hard and earn what they have.

I said that the top earners are not working harder than the top earners 30 years ago. And same is true for everyone else, by the way -- there is no evidence that our parents and grand-parents were slacking off.

But we have much more inequality than they had. And since the work ethics had not changed, that growth in inequality is unfair.

And you have provided No Proof. More goes into earning power than just Hard Work of the Moment. We live in an economy that increasingly values knowledge and higher level skills more than unskilled labor. It takes time to gain the former.

In addition, those who Delay Gratification in order to save and invest deserve it when they earn a return on their capital.

 

[boedicca]

You also haven't proven that somebody $100K per year is doing it at the expense of The Poor. Try proving that too.

Top earners are getting a bigger share of the pie than before. Look at the charts in this thread.

You haven't proven that that is a bad thing. All you've done is to show that you are Pea Green With Envy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Taxes do not destroy Freedom. And since most people had to stay within two income quantiles for all their life, growing inequality is unfair to them.

What a bunch of nonsensical pablum.

First, taxing somebody does inhibit his freedom. Medieval serfs paid only 30% of their production in "taxes". As a whole, we pay over 40% for all levels of government. When people spend months each year working just to pay the tax bill, that is Not Freedom.

Well, the freedom to get ever richer at the expense of the poor is not a Freedom I care about.

There it is. The idea that some people can get rich only if others get poor. That is liberal economics in a nutshell.
Game. Set. Match.
You're done, Ilia. Go home.

 

[boedicca]

Oh no! That will just make him incensed that somebody somewhere has a better home than he does.

 

[ilia25]

What a bunch of nonsensical pablum.

First, taxing somebody does inhibit his freedom. Medieval serfs paid only 30% of their production in "taxes". As a whole, we pay over 40% for all levels of government. When people spend months each year working just to pay the tax bill, that is Not Freedom.

Well, the freedom to get ever richer at the expense of the poor is not a Freedom I care about.

There it is. The idea that some people can get rich only if others get poor. That is liberal economics in a nutshell.

Your stupidity never seize to amaze me. How many times did I repeat on this very thread that I'm well aware of the fact that the economy is growing over time and that new wealth is constantly created? I've lost count long time ago.

But every now and then some right-wing dumbass comes out to accuse me of not knowing that.

Just because Faux News told you what liberals think, it does not make it true.

 

[bripat9643]

First we have to help the middle class by taxing them less.

What about lowering taxes and increasing wages?

You can't raise real wages at will. Lowering taxes would not help to achieve that, but make the social programs (like SS and Medicare) unsustainable.

The idea that taxpayers wouldn't benefit by paying less is too stupid for words to describe. it's obviously the product of a mind that is dependent on government for its sustenance.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, the freedom to get ever richer at the expense of the poor is not a Freedom I care about.

There it is. The idea that some people can get rich only if others get poor. That is liberal economics in a nutshell.

Your stupidity never seize to amaze me. How many times did I repeat on this very thread that I'm well aware that the economy is growing over the time and that new wealth is constantly created? I've lost count long time ago.

But every now and then some right-wing dumbass comes out to accuse me of know knowing that?

Just because Faux News told you what liberals think, it does not make it true.

You just posted the claim that the rich become wealthier by taking it from the poor.

 

[ilia25]

Sorry, but that little trick isn't going to work. You have made the argument that people in the top 20% didn't work hard and earn what they have.

I said that the top earners are not working harder than the top earners 30 years ago. And same is true for everyone else, by the way -- there is no evidence that our parents and grand-parents were slacking off.

But we have much more inequality than they had. And since the work ethics had not changed, that growth in inequality is unfair.

And you have provided No Proof. More goes into earning power than just Hard Work of the Moment. We live in an economy that increasingly values knowledge and higher level skills more than unskilled labor.

Duh! But that is the problem -- somebody would have to work unskilled labour too, we can't all be CEOs or successful business owners. And giving everyone a college degree will not change the job structure. The high-paying jobs would remain just as scarce, only competition for them would increase. And many people would still have to work low paying jobs, even if they are now have years of training behind them (useless years in their case).

You can only break into 1% by pushing someone else out.

 

[tooAlive]

First we have to help the middle class by taxing them less.

Agreed.

What about lowering taxes and increasing wages?

You can't raise real wages at will. Lowering taxes would not help to achieve that, but make the social programs (like SS and Medicare) unsustainable.

Why not? A business that is taxed less may actually be able to afford to pay their employees higher wages. But liberals believe business owners are greedy, and therefore would never willingly increase wages to workers. So the big, loving government hand has to do it for them.

That's where liberal logic is flawed. Just like the girl who thinks all men are evil because her first boyfriend was a douche.

They complain because workers aren't paid enough, and rant on about raising taxes on the rich to solve the issue. In in part they are, but when do the employees get to see the money collected from their employer by the government? When they get fired and start collecting unemployment.

Please explain to me how you expect a business to pay it's employees more when you want to tax them more.

 

[tooAlive]

You can only break into 1% by pushing someone else out.

That's flawed logic right there.

That's like saying the skinny kid is skinny because the fat kid ate his food.

 

[ilia25]

There it is. The idea that some people can get rich only if others get poor. That is liberal economics in a nutshell.

Your stupidity never seize to amaze me. How many times did I repeat on this very thread that I'm well aware that the economy is growing over the time and that new wealth is constantly created? I've lost count long time ago.

But every now and then some right-wing dumbass comes out to accuse me of know knowing that?

Just because Faux News told you what liberals think, it does not make it true.

You just posted the claim that the rich become wealthier by taking it from the poor.

And it can't quite fit in your head how these two statements -- "the combined wealth is growing" and "the rich are getting richer by taking from the rest" -- could BOTH be true?

 

[ilia25]

You can't raise real wages at will. Lowering taxes would not help to achieve that, but make the social programs (like SS and Medicare) unsustainable.

Why not? A business that is taxed less may actually be able to afford to pay their employees higher wages.

This thread is not about rising business taxes. It is about rising top personal tax rate. The latter only apply to the money that the company owner has decided to put in his own pocket, instead of spending them on rising wages or hiring more employees.

Higher personal taxes would actually discourage our business owner from pocketing more money, making more likely that he will spend them on expanding his business.