Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL

[Wild Cobra]

But it's all just academic mumbo jumbo. Go back to your Religious adherence to the idea that merely saying the words "Laffer Curve" justifies flawed fiscal policy.

Took you a few posting to realize that.

The problem is, that there is the effect, but no real way to account for all the variable. You seem to be one that thinks reducing taxes will reduce revenues, when it may not be true. You seem to think tax rates have to be increased which may backfire.

The truth is, we don't really know.

[boutons_deux]

"Stephen Moore, senior economic writer and editorial board member, Wall Street Journal"

wants 20 - 25% for "maximum growth"

Murdoch toilet paper WSJ?

Who actually "study "?

USA had maximized growth FOR EVERYBODY in 1945 -1965 with 70% top bracket, Glass-Steagall, and strong unions.

Now max bracket is 35%, no glass-steagall, busted unions, right-to-work states with lower salaries than other states, and 8% unemployment understating Ms who have quit looking, and worse-than-3rd world tin-pot-dictator inequality.

and the VRWC, like WSJ and Repugs, aren't satisfied, aren't finished yet with ing America to .

[Wild Cobra]

"Stephen Moore, senior economic writer and editorial board member, Wall Street Journal"

wants 20 - 25% for "maximum growth"

Murdoch toilet paper WSJ?

Who actually "study "?

USA had maximized growth FOR EVERYBODY in 1945 -1965 with 70% top bracket, Glass-Steagall, and strong unions.

Now max bracket is 35%, no glass-steagall, busted unions, right-to-work states with lower salaries that other states, and 8% unemployment undestating Ms who have quit looking, and worse-than-3rd world tin-pot-dictator inequality.

and the VRWC, like WSJ and Repugs, aren't satisfied, aren't finished yet with ing America to .

And before the WTO.

[boutons_deux]

ah yes, those nefarious "world government" orgs that are going to take over America the Beautiful. Blame it all on UN, WTO, ILO, UNESCO, etc, etc.

The pitiful, puny, martyred Corporations are innocent!

Corporations are above the law, supra-national, is one of the many reasons they've been pushing for, and have achieved, globalization over the past 35 years.

[Wild Cobra]

You miss my point.

In the past, our tax collectors had a captive audience. Today, not only is trade global, but people are more mobile and can move outside of taxation. You end up only collecting more from the likes of Hollywood actors, Basketball players, etc. the big fish simple rearrange their money.

[boutons_deux]

Explain your "point" that WTO contributes to tax evasion/avoidance?

[Wild Cobra]

Not directly, but the same mechanisms that allow free trade of goods allow free movement of wealth. If you increase the taxation here, more will move their wealth to areas of lower taxation.

[scott]

Took you a few posting to realize that.

It's taken you nearly 31,000 posts to still not grasp the concept of sarcasm. Even toddlers get it better than you.

The problem is, that there is the effect, but no real way to account for all the variable. You seem to be one that thinks reducing taxes will reduce revenues, when it may not be true. You seem to think tax rates have to be increased which may backfire.

The truth is, we don't really know.

Actually there are real ways to account for "the variable" that and "know" with a high degree of probability. It's called science, .

There are a lot of idiots running our fiscal policy, but I'm thankful none of them are as stupid as you.

[scott]

You miss my point.

In the past, our tax collectors had a captive audience. Today, not only is trade global, but people are more mobile and can move outside of taxation. You end up only collecting more from the likes of Hollywood actors, Basketball players, etc. the big fish simple rearrange their money.

There are fixes for that as well that go beyond " it, guess we can't tax anyone!"

[Clipper Nation]

ah yes, those nefarious "world government" orgs that are going to take over America the Beautiful. Blame it all on UN, WTO, ILO, UNESCO, etc, etc.

The pitiful, puny, martyred Corporations are innocent!

Corporations are above the law, supra-national, is one of the many reasons they've been pushing for, and have achieved, globalization over the past 35 years.

You're implying that both schools of thought can't be equally right, B... both mega corporations AND organizations like the UN and WTO are doing some bad , tbh.... in fact, the WTO (and NAFTA) are closely tied in with the same corporation/special interest crooks that you're putting on blast...

[Clipper Nation]

People are voting for their selfish interest rather than what is best for us all collectively.

This at ude is exactly what's led to the total devolution of our political system into crook status-quo candidates with no original ideas, tbh.... what's actually best for us all collectively is for people to vote their conscience and stop making putting a ing checkmark in a box into some huge guilt-trip/strategy game, tbh....

[scott]

"Stephen Moore, senior economic writer and editorial board member, Wall Street Journal"

wants 20 - 25% for "maximum growth"

Murdoch toilet paper WSJ?

Who actually "study "?

USA had maximized growth FOR EVERYBODY in 1945 -1965 with 70% top bracket, Glass-Steagall, and strong unions.

Now max bracket is 35%, no glass-steagall, busted unions, right-to-work states with lower salaries than other states, and 8% unemployment understating Ms who have quit looking, and worse-than-3rd world tin-pot-dictator inequality.

and the VRWC, like WSJ and Repugs, aren't satisfied, aren't finished yet with ing America to .

The moronic Yin to Wild Cobra's idiotic Yang. Try to pay attention, bot.

The numbers Mr. Moore quotes are not relevant, but what is relevant (and dead on) is that revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate.

[Drachen]

Sorry, but I'd have to think that your definitions are the ones that are off here. Rich doesn't mean private jet. Drachen's description of a lifestyle certainly isn't poor either. Not even close. If you grew up that way and you think thats poor then you certainly have not experienced being poor.

I have been busy all weekend, what with having to stand in line at the foodstamp place. I just need to be able to get it free with my EBT, so I haven't had a real chance to respond.

With all that being said, if what I described is "poor" to snakeboy, then he has lived an extremely privileged life. I expected a lot of responses, but that was not one of them. However, his response really shines a major light on his worldview. He makes a little more sense now. If that is what he thinks is poor, then of course it makes sense that he thinks that the "poor" shouldn't complain.

FWIW, because of my step-daughter (the 15 year old) we would actually qualify for SSI, but we have never taken it. Why? Because we can get by without it. Would it help? Sure, but there are actual poor people who that money should go to help.

Lastly,

Took you a few posting to realize that.

The problem is, that there is the effect, but no real way to account for all the variable. You seem to be one that thinks reducing taxes will reduce revenues, when it may not be true. You seem to think tax rates have to be increased which may backfire.

The truth is, we don't really know.

Jesus ing Christ.

[boutons_deux]

"You seem to be one that thinks reducing taxes will reduce revenues, when it may not be true"

There is no evidence that cutting tax rates pays for itself with increased revenue. That's one of the lies the 1%/VRWC and their stink tanks spew.

[boutons_deux]

The moronic Yin to Wild Cobra's idiotic Yang. Try to pay attention, bot.

"revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate"

where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?

USA grew extremele well, and the wealth increase was widely, maybe even fairly, shared, 1945-70, when tax rates were MUCH HIGHER than the growth maximization rate above.

[Drachen]

"revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate"

where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?

USA grew extremele well, and the wealth increase was widely, maybe even fairly, shared, 1945-70, when tax rates were MUCH HIGHER than the growth maximization rate above.

The numbers Mr. Moore quotes are not relevant, but what is relevant (and dead on) is that revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate.

[boutons_deux]

"where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?"

[Drachen]

"where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?"

So what you are trying to say here is that the best rate for growth and the best rate for revenue is the same?

Or are you arguing with yourself, since no one is arguing those rates?

[boutons_deux]

"no one is arguing those rates"

really? for the rates to have ANY credibility, show us the evidence, not argumentation.

[Drachen]

"no one is arguing those rates"

really? for the rates to have ANY credibility, show us the evidence, not argumentation.

I think you should take your argument to the author of that study (Moore). No one here argued for those rates so, in effect, you are yelling at yourself.

[SnakeBoy]

Sorry, but I'd have to think that your definitions are the ones that are off here. Rich doesn't mean private jet. Drachen's description of a lifestyle certainly isn't poor either. Not even close. If you grew up that way and you think thats poor then you certainly have not experienced being poor.

My dad made around $24k. With 2 kids, I'd say it was poor. Although growing up it really didn't feel poor since we always had food, clothing, shelter.

Drachen's lifestyle doesn't sound poor but if he considers me rich then he must be poor.

With all that being said, if what I described is "poor" to snakeboy, then he has lived an extremely privileged life.

Tbh, what you described is what I would consider the modern american working class...just getting by while making payments on a lifestyle you really can't afford.

[CosmicCowboy]

"revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate"

where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?

USA grew extremele well, and the wealth increase was widely, maybe even fairly, shared, 1945-70, when tax rates were MUCH HIGHER than the growth maximization rate above.

Winning World Wars will do that for you. And although the stated rate was high, nobody paid that rate because of deductions.

[Wild Cobra]

My dad made around $24k. With 2 kids, I'd say it was poor. Although growing up it really didn't feel poor since we always had food, clothing, shelter.

Income vs. year matters. $24k isn't much today, but was an awesome income 30 years ago.

[boutons_deux]

"What cost $24000 in 1975 would cost $96150.65 in 2010.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1975,
they would cost you $24000 and $5578.78 respectively."

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

[MannyIsGod]

My dad made around $24k. With 2 kids, I'd say it was poor. Although growing up it really didn't feel poor since we always had food, clothing, shelter.

Drachen's lifestyle doesn't sound poor but if he considers me rich then he must be poor.



Tbh, what you described is what I would consider the modern american working class...just getting by while making payments on a lifestyle you really can't afford.

How long ago was that 24k? 24k when I was born was certainly not poor. Not exactly killing it, but yeah.