Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AEI Ideas)   Why the liberal pipe dream of a 91% tax rate is just that   (aei-ideas.org ) divider line
    More: Interesting, tax rates, AEI, End of World War II in Europe, fiscal stimulus, Paul Krugman, labor force  
•       •       •

2270 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 1:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



237 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 09:58:34 AM  
Straw man much?
 
2012-11-20 10:05:56 AM  
Even most liberal economists think the high-end for US marginal tax rates is 70% or so.

Deal.
 
2012-11-20 10:06:27 AM  
The United States was prosperous for a unique set of reasons that are impossible to duplicate today [...] the destruction of the rest of the world's infrastructure...

Oh come come, that's not the attitude that made America great. Where's the 'can do' spirit?! If you set your mind to it who knows what you can achieve?
 
2012-11-20 10:07:01 AM  
FTA:

But whatever the politics, the economics of Kurgman's plan are terrible

Yes, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman has terrible economics. Ok, please continue.

As former Bain Capital executive Edward Conard notes in his new book

And we're done here.
 
2012-11-20 10:16:10 AM  
I did not get the memo that we wanted a 91% tax rate. Anybody else miss that memo?

It's that new email system at Librul headquarters.I missed the one about the Benghazi coverup too. Luckily somebody forwarded it to me.
 
2012-11-20 10:20:30 AM  

MrBallou: I did not get the memo that we wanted a 91% tax rate. Anybody else miss that memo?

It's that new email system at Librul headquarters.I missed the one about the Benghazi coverup too. Luckily somebody forwarded it to me.


I missed that memo as well. Darned inefficient government.
 
2012-11-20 10:24:58 AM  
Yikes.
 
2012-11-20 10:29:13 AM  

Cythraul: MrBallou: I did not get the memo that we wanted a 91% tax rate. Anybody else miss that memo?

It's that new email system at Librul headquarters.I missed the one about the Benghazi coverup too. Luckily somebody forwarded it to me.

I missed that memo as well. Darned inefficient government.


I even checked my spam folder...hmmmm.
 
2012-11-20 10:31:12 AM  

MrBallou: I did not get the memo that we wanted a 91% tax rate. Anybody else miss that memo?


My fault. Sorry. It was 4:59 on a Friday, and it was either this one or the chain email that said that if I loved the troops, I'd send it to seven friends.
 
2012-11-20 10:31:36 AM  

ginandbacon: Cythraul: MrBallou: I did not get the memo that we wanted a 91% tax rate. Anybody else miss that memo?

It's that new email system at Librul headquarters.I missed the one about the Benghazi coverup too. Luckily somebody forwarded it to me.

I missed that memo as well. Darned inefficient government.

I even checked my spam folder...hmmmm.


Damned Fartbama can't even make the email run on time
 
2012-11-20 10:32:45 AM  
straw men are SO much easier to fight than real men!
 
2012-11-20 10:45:15 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Deal.


What does history say?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230425930457637595102576 2 400.html

copy pasta
 
2012-11-20 10:47:10 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: Cythraul: MrBallou: I did not get the memo that we wanted a 91% tax rate. Anybody else miss that memo?

It's that new email system at Librul headquarters.I missed the one about the Benghazi coverup too. Luckily somebody forwarded it to me.

I missed that memo as well. Darned inefficient government.

I even checked my spam folder...hmmmm.

Damned Fartbama can't even make the email run on time


Pretty sure the trains have been running late too...HMMMMMMMM.
 
2012-11-20 10:54:53 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: What does history say?


That supply side doesn't work.
 
2012-11-20 10:55:03 AM  

ginandbacon: Pretty sure the trains have been running late too...HMMMMMMMM.


Pretty lame fascist if you ask me
 
2012-11-20 10:56:18 AM  
US GDP in the 1950's: less than $1T
US GDP today $14.5T

If tax rates go to 91%, our future GDP will be a lot closer to what it was in the 1950's than what it is today.
 
2012-11-20 10:59:29 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: Pretty sure the trains have been running late too...HMMMMMMMM.

Pretty lame fascist if you ask me


I KNOW! He fails at EVERYTHING!
 
2012-11-20 11:03:08 AM  

MrBallou: I did not get the memo that we wanted a 91% tax rate. Anybody else miss that memo?

It's that new email system at Librul headquarters.I missed the one about the Benghazi coverup too. Luckily somebody forwarded it to me.


I STILL haven't gotten that memo.
 
2012-11-20 11:24:08 AM  

ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: Pretty sure the trains have been running late too...HMMMMMMMM.

Pretty lame fascist if you ask me

I KNOW! He fails at EVERYTHING!


To be fair, the death panels are pretty awesome though.
 
2012-11-20 11:36:53 AM  

SlothB77: US GDP in the 1950's: less than $1T
US GDP today $14.5T

If tax rates go to 91%, our future GDP will be a lot closer to what it was in the 1950's than what it is today.


Is that why GDP more than doubled during the time tax brackets were at 91%?
 
2012-11-20 11:41:45 AM  
FTA:

At least two important points are being missed in the discussion of Romney's remarks. First, there's a double standard at work. When reporters suggest that donors to Republican causes are motivated by self-interested desire to keep their taxes low and their businesses unhampered by environmental or labor regulations, that's groundbreaking investigative journalism. (See, for example, The New Yorker magazine's Jane Mayer on Charles and David Koch.) Yet when Romney suggests that Democratic voters might have been motivated by self-interest, his comments are condemned.

Sweet tapdaning Christ.

If you can't see a difference between rich people using lobbyists to protect and advance their business interests and people voting for things like healthcare, you're a goddamn retard.
 
2012-11-20 11:42:01 AM  
91% income tax bracket was in effect from 1951 until 1963.

1950 US GDP: $293.7 B
1963 US GDP: $617.8 B

GDP growth overall: ~110%
GDP growth per year: 8.46%


2000 US GDP: $9951.5 B
2008 US GDP: $14369.1 B

GDP growth overall: ~44%
GDP growth per year: 5.55%

Damn, the 1950s were crippling.
 
2012-11-20 11:42:04 AM  

SlothB77: If tax rates go to 91%, our future GDP will be a lot closer to what it was in the 1950's than what it is today.


good thing nobody's even suggesting anything remotely close to that, right?
 
2012-11-20 11:42:20 AM  
Wow.

Total post failure.
 
2012-11-20 11:47:10 AM  
Stupid libtards. If we make rich people pay more taxes, they'll all decide to be poor rather than pay another 3% on the top portion of their incomes.
With no rich people left, Fartbongo will have no choice other than to raise taxes on the middle class.
 
2012-11-20 11:47:49 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Dancin_In_Anson: What does history say?

That supply side doesn't work.


History says "DIA is wrong about everything"
 
2012-11-20 11:48:25 AM  
People who make money are bad and the government should take it from them. Because the government is best at deciding what to do with money. And we should all cheer this on.
 
2012-11-20 11:49:57 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: That supply side doesn't work.


tl;dr eh?

It's ok. We the people have spoken. Let's crank up that tax machine! We will tax this county into prosperity whether we like it or not! History be damned!
 
2012-11-20 11:52:02 AM  

SlothB77: US GDP in the 1950's: less than $1T
US GDP today $14.5T

If tax rates go to 91%, our future GDP will be a lot closer to what it was in the 1950's than what it is today.


Except that no one really paid a 91% tax rate because of the ridiculous number of exemptions and deductions, so much so that the AMT was created because the top sixty-some-odd income earners in the country were paying almost nothing (Yes, the AMT was aimed at a few dozen people and now snags millions because it wasn't indexed for inflation. Whoops.) When Congress overhauled the tax code in the 1980's, top marginal rates came down but a myriad of questionable deductions came off the books as well. Many higher earners complained that Reagan's tax reforms "raised" their taxes more than lowered them.

GAT_00: SlothB77: US GDP in the 1950's: less than $1T
US GDP today $14.5T

If tax rates go to 91%, our future GDP will be a lot closer to what it was in the 1950's than what it is today.

Is that why GDP more than doubled during the time tax brackets were at 91%?


The fact that the entire industrial world apart from the US was rebuilding after having the bejeezus bombed out of it might have had something to do with it.
 
2012-11-20 11:52:09 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: Pretty sure the trains have been running late too...HMMMMMMMM.

Pretty lame fascist if you ask me

I KNOW! He fails at EVERYTHING!

To be fair, the death panels are pretty awesome though.


OMG yes! I wish I still had a grandma to send to one!
 
2012-11-20 11:53:15 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: We will tax this county into prosperity whether we like it or not! History be damned!


History?

i.imgur.com

OK then.
 
2012-11-20 11:54:18 AM  

Nabb1:


The fact that the entire industrial world apart from the US was rebuilding after having the bejeezus bombed out of it might have had something to do with it.


I thought it was because of American Exceptionalism and the completely unique never tried before nature of our political and economic system?

Surely it couldn't be as simple as "the competition killed each other".
 
2012-11-20 12:04:28 PM  

Tigger: I thought it was because of American Exceptionalism and the completely unique never tried before nature of our political and economic system?

Surely it couldn't be as simple as "the competition killed each other".


Yeah, but that wasn't Sloth's point. His point was those high tax rates were crippling and the growth we had under the Bush tax cuts was better, and that's simply a load of crap. And I was even generous, and didn't include the crash. It's far worse if you use last year's numbers since the cuts are still active.

There is no evidence that lower taxes leads to higher job creation.
 
2012-11-20 12:11:29 PM  

MrBallou: I did not get the memo that we wanted a 91% tax rate. Anybody else miss that memo?

It's that new email system at Librul headquarters.I missed the one about the Benghazi coverup too. Luckily somebody forwarded it to me.


It's in the mail, along with your free cell phones and all the other stuff that libruls were promised.
 
2012-11-20 12:28:19 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: History?


Yes. History.

si.wsj.net

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870472000457537692316343 7 134.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

More copy pasta and tl;dr

GAT_00: There is no evidence that lower taxes leads to higher job creation.


But there is evidence of the exact opposite.

Say...that reminds me. Speaking of high taxes creating jobs, how are things in France?
 
2012-11-20 12:29:49 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Dusk-You-n-Me: That supply side doesn't work.

tl;dr eh?

It's ok. We the people have spoken. Let's crank up that tax machine! We will tax this county into prosperity whether we like it or not! History be damned!


Works for me. You got a problem with majority rule now that the majority doesn't agree with your views?
 
2012-11-20 12:36:17 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Dusk-You-n-Me: That supply side doesn't work.

tl;dr eh?

It's ok. We the people have spoken. Let's crank up that tax machine! We will tax this county into prosperity whether we like it or not! History be damned!


Seriously, is anybody really asking for 1%ers to by $91,000,000 and every $100,000,000 they earn in a year? I don't think so.

I just want them to actually pay about the same rate the rest of us do. Say 20% or so.
 
2012-11-20 12:37:08 PM  

MrBallou: $91,000,000 ON every $100,000,000

FTFM
 
2012-11-20 12:41:35 PM  

MrBallou: Seriously, is anybody really asking for 1%ers to by $91,000,000 and every $100,000,000 they earn in a year? I don't think so.


If you haven't learned yet, DIA is not interested in any actual argument going on. He's only interested in twisting whatever argument might be going on into something completely different and not at all productive because the topic calls into question the viewpoints that he has chosen to hold and never ever question in any way, shape or form.
 
2012-11-20 12:42:10 PM  
Having posted that, DIA's very next post to me will be more or less NO U.
 
2012-11-20 12:42:21 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Yes. History.


So you've switched to revenues as the important metric. OK. According to that table revenues as a % of GDP have increased and decreased relative to tax rates. It's inconclusive at best.

As for history, the stock market does better under D administrations. Job growth does as well. Bush lowered taxes twice and the result was the worst job and GDP growth since Eisenhower. Clinton raised taxes and invested in education and infrastructure and we created 22M jobs. That's history, those are the facts.
 
2012-11-20 12:55:08 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Say...that reminds me. Speaking of high taxes creating jobs, how are things in France?


That's a good question. Let's see:

* They have the best healthcare system in the world

* They get 37 days paid vacation per year - and unlike many Americans, they actually use all of it.

* They have the second highest household savings rate in Europe, behind Germany (PDF warning),their society has a careful pattern of saving and fiscal responsibility, and despite a 12-year high in unemployment claims, their savings rate is about twice that of the US.

* At 6.2%, they have less than 1/2 of the poverty rate of the US (15.1%)

* Their life expectancy (80.7) is a full 2 years higher than the US (78.2)

* They effectively retire 5 years younger (60 vs 65)

* They have 1/3 the obesity rate that we do (and their food is far yummier, IMHO)

* And they have a better overall quality of life.

So, to sum up:

Yes, France is in a tighter economic situation right now, but that has far more to do with being tied to/partially responsible for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, et al than it has to do with domestic factors.

On the other hand, the French make as much, live longer, have better healthcare, retire sooner, eat better, weigh less, and get far, far, far more vacation time.

I'm not saying we should become France. They definitely have their own problems. But if you think they compare negatively to the US in terms of day-to-day quality of life, you're dreaming.
 
2012-11-20 12:55:14 PM  
Lol, the Fark Independent tapdance has begun. Fake to the left, support the right, move the goalposts and fight fight fight.
 
2012-11-20 01:18:55 PM  
Who has this pipe dream?
 
2012-11-20 01:20:12 PM  
conceptcrucible.com
 
2012-11-20 01:21:18 PM  
www.misterbees.net
 
2012-11-20 01:21:24 PM  

CPennypacker: Who has this pipe dream?


Exactly. The title of the article gives it away as pure nonsense.
 
2012-11-20 01:22:14 PM  
I guess since I've never met anybody who thought a 91% top tax rate was a good idea there's no real need for me to read any farther than the completely false headline.
 
2012-11-20 01:22:25 PM  
As a liberal, what dream of a 91% tax rate.

I've been asking we return to Clinton rates, not Eisenhower ones.
 
2012-11-20 01:26:36 PM  
Because when I think of a group that can accurately identify centrist policy goals, I think of far-right fascist think tanks like AEI.
 
Displayed 50 of 237 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report