Trump

[Walter]

Aug 21, 2018 0:15:36 GMT -5 daleko said:

Aug 20, 2018 22:49:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

Looking at the graph, is it a surprise that we have a deficit?
Strange that conservatives do not want to address the debt...or maybe not so strange..

You'd have a reasonable point for discussion if if just want to take a view on the timing of the recent reduction in tax revenues, w/o any other considerations factored in. I might slide a little to your pov. Trying to compare 1950s rates to today? Misguided. I wouldn't even post this except that you posted look at the graph, as if it was golden. I don't recall it as anything but a misguided meme.

Shoot what side of the fence an I on. <shrug> no links.

Willie's graph is missing some important info to make a point, to make his case. Misleading. I believe that the top 1% of American households in the 50s paid an average effective rate of only 17 % in income taxes during the 1950s. 91% down to 17%.  and this following the expense of WWII.   What's the average effective rate for the top 1% today? 25%?

Assuming my recollections of the differences are accurate. I'll try to dig up some data. If I'm totally wrong, my bad. But the 91% to 17% resonates as close.

That's the problem w relative marginal rates, w/o a whole lot of additional value add information, they can be misleading.

That's okay then. Focus just on the right side, and keep in mind it does not even have the latest cuts.
IMO, it is malpractice to add more cuts at this time.

[kaz]

Aug 21, 2018 6:18:59 GMT -5 arkon said:

Aug 20, 2018 18:59:31 GMT -5 kaz said:

Your idea of fair is grossly unfair.

That's what all the libs say.

[arkon]

Aug 21, 2018 7:55:17 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 21, 2018 6:18:59 GMT -5 arkon said:

That's what all the libs say.

I'd challenge you to prove me wrong, bu-ut:
I'm not wrong.
You don't get it.
Even if I were wrong, which is, of course, a moot point, you're not smart enough to prove it.

[bgovolfan]

Aug 21, 2018 6:18:59 GMT -5 arkon said:

Aug 20, 2018 18:59:31 GMT -5 kaz said:

Your idea of fair is grossly unfair.

Then please inform us of what, in your opinion, would be fair to all

Bg(walt feel free to do the same)VolFan

[Walter]

Aug 21, 2018 8:35:10 GMT -5 bgovolfan said:

Aug 21, 2018 6:18:59 GMT -5 arkon said:

Then please inform us of what, in your opinion, would be fair to all

Bg(walt feel free to do the same)VolFan

I have already stated my opinion.
Fair is not part of the equation. Fair does not matter.

[bgovolfan]

Aug 21, 2018 9:51:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 21, 2018 8:35:10 GMT -5 bgovolfan said:

I have already stated my opinion.
Fair is not part of the equation. Fair does not matter.

OK then tell me what (unfair) rates would be acceptable to you

Bg(will hold off on re-posting the crickets for now)VolFan

[daleko]

Aug 21, 2018 7:37:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 21, 2018 0:15:36 GMT -5 daleko said:

You'd have a reasonable point for discussion if if just want to take a view on the timing of the recent reduction in tax revenues, w/o any other considerations factored in. I might slide a little to your pov. Trying to compare 1950s rates to today? Misguided. I wouldn't even post this except that you posted look at the graph, as if it was golden. I don't recall it as anything but a misguided meme.

Shoot what side of the fence an I on. <shrug> no links.

Willie's graph is missing some important info to make a point, to make his case. Misleading. I believe that the top 1% of American households in the 50s paid an average effective rate of only 17 % in income taxes during the 1950s. 91% down to 17%.  and this following the expense of WWII.   What's the average effective rate for the top 1% today? 25%?

Assuming my recollections of the differences are accurate. I'll try to dig up some data. If I'm totally wrong, my bad. But the 91% to 17% resonates as close.

That's the problem w relative marginal rates, w/o a whole lot of additional value add information, they can be misleading.

That's okay then. Focus just on the right side, and keep in mind it does not even have the latest cuts.
IMO, it is malpractice to add more cuts at this time.

Separate issue from Willie's misguided graph. But if I was to take Willie's graph, which included 90% tax rates AND all of the other baggage that came w it, and apply it to today, we'd have today's tax cuts.

So take it up w Willie why he approves of today's tax cuts.

[daleko]

Aug 20, 2018 21:51:05 GMT -5 Walter said:

I keep saying it.
Whatever rate(s) generate the best result is the answer.
Stop F-ing around with notions of "fairness".
Imo, fairness is not relevant.

And all of these years you kept on w the fair argument. That's over? Good. It should rarely be about fair. 

[Walter]

Aug 21, 2018 10:07:41 GMT -5 bgovolfan said:

Aug 21, 2018 9:51:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

I have already stated my opinion.
Fair is not part of the equation. Fair does not matter.

OK then tell me what (unfair) rates would be acceptable to you

Bg(will hold off on re-posting the crickets for now)VolFan

The rates that engender the most growth in GDP. What are those rates? Ah....that there's the question, ain't it?
Generally speaking, a rate that eliminates debt in good times and stimulates growth in bad times, which is to say, it should not be a static number, and it should watch real income level fluctuations and react accordingly.

Hence, for example, with middle-class income levels stagnant for decades, who's the idiot that thinks a tax cut for corporations and rich people is a good idea?
Oh...right Voodoo Economics hawks.

[bgovolfan]

Aug 21, 2018 10:49:52 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 21, 2018 10:07:41 GMT -5 bgovolfan said:

OK then tell me what (unfair) rates would be acceptable to you

Bg(will hold off on re-posting the crickets for now)VolFan

The rates that engender the most growth in GDP. What are those rates? Ah....that there's the question, ain't it?
Generally speaking, a rate that eliminates debt in good times and stimulates growth in bad times, which is to say, it should not be a static number.

Really not trying to be a smart ass BUT...you have no answer or opinion yet you still bitch.
IMO with you, and most politicians, it's more of a political football than anything else.

Bg(nothing personal)VolFan

[kaz]

Aug 21, 2018 8:24:05 GMT -5 arkon said:

Aug 21, 2018 7:55:17 GMT -5 kaz said:

I'd challenge you to prove me wrong, bu-ut:
I'm not wrong.
You don't get it.
Even if I were wrong, which is, of course, a moot point, you're not smart enough to prove it.

And... here come the childish taunts. Debate over - I win.

[kaz]

Aug 21, 2018 11:02:18 GMT -5 bgovolfan said:

Aug 21, 2018 10:49:52 GMT -5 Walter said:

The rates that engender the most growth in GDP. What are those rates? Ah....that there's the question, ain't it?
Generally speaking, a rate that eliminates debt in good times and stimulates growth in bad times, which is to say, it should not be a static number.

Really not trying to be a smart ass BUT...you have no answer or opinion yet you still bitch.
IMO with you, and most politicians, it's more of a political football than anything else.

Bg(nothing personal)VolFan

Bingo! "I don't know what's right, but I know you're wrong!"

[Walter]

Aug 21, 2018 11:02:18 GMT -5 bgovolfan said:

Aug 21, 2018 10:49:52 GMT -5 Walter said:

The rates that engender the most growth in GDP. What are those rates? Ah....that there's the question, ain't it?
Generally speaking, a rate that eliminates debt in good times and stimulates growth in bad times, which is to say, it should not be a static number.

Really not trying to be a smart ass BUT...you have no answer or opinion yet you still bitch.
IMO with you, and most politicians, it's more of a political football than anything else.

Bg(nothing personal)VolFan

To use a football analogy, I may not know much about how to be a quarterback, but I can still tell you that pulling Tom Brady and replacing him with a scatter-armed QB like, say, Tim Tebow, with the game on the line is a bad idea.
So yeah, I get to bitch when, with 4% unemployment and 3+% GDP growth, Republicans decide to put in Tebow.

[arkon]

Aug 21, 2018 11:08:15 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 21, 2018 8:24:05 GMT -5 arkon said:

And... here come the childish taunts. Debate over - I win.

If the debate is over, it's because you quit. Which means you lose.
Disprove anything I said...go ahead, give it your best shot.
Hurry - here come the crickets.

[Walter]

Aug 21, 2018 11:11:06 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 21, 2018 11:02:18 GMT -5 bgovolfan said:

Really not trying to be a smart ass BUT...you have no answer or opinion yet you still bitch.
IMO with you, and most politicians, it's more of a political football than anything else.

Bg(nothing personal)VolFan

Bingo! "I don't know what's right, but I know you're wrong!"

It isn't about not knowing, it's about understanding that the rate should not be static.
There IS no single correct rate(s).

And like I said, I may not know much about being a QB, but I know that I don't want Tebow in the game late if I have Brady.