U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:33 AM
 
4,428 posts, read 4,303,404 times
Reputation: 1356

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Are you suggesting schools are no longer subsidized, or even that we spend less on education, than in the golden days you yearn for? You would be wrong on both counts.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.


It has been proven that no matter how much money we throw at education, kids are still not improving.


More tax money is not the answer. You know what the answers are, but you will always say that the solution is money ( to tow the line ).


You should get some new friends. You would be embarassed to speak the truth in front of all of your Progressive peers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 17,999,817 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
Dumb, dumb, dumb.


It has been proven that no matter how much money we throw at education, kids are still not improving.


More tax money is not the answer. You know what the answers are, but you will always say that the solution is money ( to tow the line ).


You should get some new friends. You would be embarassed to speak the truth in front of all of your Progressive peers.
I think you need to reread my post.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 17,999,817 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
How were higher taxes a myth? You just said that they used to be 70%. When Reagan lowered taxes the lowering fell mainly on the wealthy. Then when he "closed loopholes" those loopholes were deductions that the middle class took. One of those was sales tax. In NY, I was able to deduct BOTH my sales taxes and income taxes. That wasn't a "loophole" that was a deliberate effort to shift the burden down.
The higher taxes were a myth because there were a myriad of tax loopholes for the very wealthy that Reagan closed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,267,111 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
The higher taxes were a myth because there were a myriad of tax loopholes for the very wealthy that Reagan closed.
Examples?

The rich were not able to escape higher capital gains rates -- cap gains were the main source of income of the ubber-rich.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:44 AM
 
1,677 posts, read 1,605,387 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
My problen is with the guy that owns the factory and lives off the profit created by your brother and cousin without having to actually do anything.
That is because you incorrectly perceive the factory owner as not actually doing anything.

You run the factory successfully and take the risks, then get back to us.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 17,999,817 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Examples?

The rich were not able to escape higher capital gains rates -- cap gains were the main source of income of the ubber-rich.
I suspect you have the Internet, look it up. Here is an example.

FLASHBACK: Ronald Reagan Raised Corporate Taxes To Force Tax Dodgers To 'Pay Their Fair Share' | ThinkProgress
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:51 AM
 
Location: it depends
6,369 posts, read 6,099,968 times
Reputation: 6375
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I have no problem with salary inequality. Some work is just worth more. What I object to is unearned wealth. The real welfare class in this or any other economy are the people with incomes derived from what they own not what they do.
So GregW, how productive would Caterpillar employees be, if they were trying to put those machines together out in a field somewhere with their bare hands? Would FedEx even have any employees without the planes and trucks and terminals?

In your apparent vision of the ideal economy, who buys the planes and trucks and builds the factories? And why would they do it? Or do we just do without all the things that modern capitalism has afforded us, and go back to subsistence agriculture and solo craftsmen?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 11:38 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 14,649,613 times
Reputation: 5468
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Why does it matter? But since you're arguing against the idea that inequality is bad, I suppose you're arguing that greater inequality is a good thing? Would you mind explaining how?
How on earth did you draw the correlation that because income inequality isn't bad that more income inequality must be good?

I never once said that more income inequality is a good thing. What an absurd argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
All I'm driving at is that taxing this group a few percentage points more will increase equality and opportunity to those that have been shut-out.

How the right-wing responds to a reasonable proposal that the wealthy, that have had their share of income increase by 276% since 1979, pay a bit more taxes is that it will make the world stop spinning on its axis. It won't and the nation was a better one when we had higher taxes on the wealthy.

How would the nation 'be better' if we had a higher tax on the wealthy? I am more concerned with fairness than anything. Don't punish the successful because some people aren't successful enough. We need a flat tax rate across income levels. You know, have something fair?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 11:49 AM
 
81,987 posts, read 39,323,836 times
Reputation: 12004
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I am more concerned with fairness than anything. Don't punish the successful because some people aren't successful enough. We need a flat tax rate across income levels. You know, have something fair?
Exactly.

Note that many don't actually want everyone to pay their "fair share" even though that's what they supposedly claim. They just want someone else to pay.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,267,111 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
That article is about a narrow portion of taxes that Reagan addressed. It speaks nothing of personal income taxes, which were largely changed in 1986.

Quote:
The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:23 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top