Who Pays for Big Government?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Coolidge was actually extremely methodical and quite pensive. Same can't be said for most in here, unfortunately. He even kept all of Harding's cabinet even though some were scandal-ridden, because he felt he wasn't elected and should keep them on because Harding chose them. That's just how he was.

Oh really, that's just how he was. How in the fuck do you know, lol.



Jim

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Coolidge was actually extremely methodical and quite pensive. Same can't be said for most in here, especially not assholes like myself who know nothing about everything and won't STFU about it. Too bad I can't be more like Silent Cal.

Undercunt should do everyone a favor and adopt Silent Cal as his new role model.

[SeekingTruth]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Over the last few years I have found that the graph below is quite an eye-opener for my liberal friends.



(Note: Although this reflects data from a decade ago, I think the picture now looks pretty much the same. In fact, you may note that the top-bracket income tax rate in the U.S. was jacked up from 35% to 39.6% two years ago, and the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 23.8%).

Taxation in the U.S. is actually quite progressive compared with that in most of Europe's social democracies.

While it certainly is the case that tax rates across-the-board are higher in countries like France than they are in the U.S., the disparity increases greatly as you go downward in the income distribution. That seems to come as a surprise to many progressives, who often seem to think that income and wealth disparity is largely the result of tax cuts for the "rich" (however you may choose to define "rich").

As you can see, the tax system in France is highly regressive, while the opposite is the case here.

Yet many progressives claim, or at least insinuate, that our long-term budget concerns would be substantially ameliorated if we only asked the "wealthy" to pay their fair share.

My key point is not that top-bracket tax rates are too high, too low, or anything else. I think fair-minded people on both sides of the aisle can reasonably disagree. Rather, it's that tax increases restricted to the top one percent of the distribution don't take more than baby steps toward financing the sorts of lavish government programs envisioned or supported by liberal politicians.

Raising top-bracket rates on income, capital gains, and qualified dividends to levels that would make Professor Krugman have an orgasm on the spot wouldn't come remotely close to eliminating budget deficits in upcoming years.

See commentary regarding above graphic @ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...vernment/?_r=0

You haven't done your homework sweetheart. I worked for an attorney who worked for the IRS. She personally told me that the rich have so many loopholes to hide income it's not even funny. So, who really pays more in income tax? The middle class, because they are not allowed the loopholes. Just ask Warren Buffet, who admitted his secretary pays more in taxes (percentage wise) than he does. Remember, I am talking percentage wise. So, do not confuse that with "who pays more taxes".

The tax code has been consistently reformed to lower tax rates for rich Americans.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by SeekingTruth

You haven't done your homework sweetheart. I worked for an attorney who worked for the IRS. She personally told me that the rich have so many loopholes to hide income it's not even funny. So, who really pays more in income tax? The middle class, because they are not allowed the loopholes. Just ask Warren Buffet, who admitted his secretary pays more in taxes (percentage wise) than he does. Remember, I am talking percentage wise. So, do not confuse that with "who pays more taxes".

The tax code has been consistently reformed to lower tax rates for rich Americans.

HoustonMilfDebbie ... er, "SeekingTruth" -- just a suggestion, if I may.

I know this isn't a popular practice around these parts, but it's generally a good idea to be sure that you have some clue about the subject under discussion before suggesting that another poster "hasn't done his homework." That way, you're likely to appear to be considerably less foolish.

Take a look at the graph and article by Professor Mulligan. It's clearly the case that the U.S. tax code is more progressive than that of Europe's social democracies, and it's also the case that it's more progressive than it was 40 or 50 years ago. The popularly held notion that multiple rounds of tax cutting relieved much of the tax burden from the wealthy and loaded it onto the middle class is flatly wrong. Go re-read what I posted earlier in this thread, and this time try to understand it. Then you will learn that although tax rates were cut dramatically, that doesn't mean that wealthy taxpayers got an effective tax cut. In fact, although individual circumstances obviously vary, it would actually be more correct to say that the opposite was the case. The reason is that it was incomparably easier to shelter large swaths of -- indeed, in many cases, almost all of -- your income from taxation prior to the 1986 tax reform. So the high statutory tax rates of the "good ol' days" were completely farcical.

Increases in income and wealth disparity arose from other factors and were not caused by "tax cuts for the wealthy," or by any other tax policy changes of the last few decades.

Yeah, I know. Facts are stubborn things, and have a way of not yielding under pressure applied by, for example, those who enjoy dreams of utopian communism, and who idolize Marxist professors like Richard D. Wolff.

Now, don't you have some "homework" to finish?

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Oh really, that's just how he was. How in the fuck do you know, lol.



Jim

Oooh, you got me there dickcheese. Because I like reading biographies and I read a goddamn biography on him last year. Jesus Christ, get a fucking clue you cocktard. Books, they're those things with words in them.

Here, have a read for yourself. Excellent book.

http://www.amazon.com/Coolidge-Amity...alvin+coolidge

[UnderConstruction]

This message is hidden because lustylad is on your ignore list.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

This message is hidden because lustylad is on your ignore list.

Everything undercunt knows he learned in kindergarten.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Everything undercunt knows he learned in kindergarten.

Middle-school locker rooms. Kindergarten. You're starting to worry me bro. Let's keep this shit clean.

[shanm]

LustyIdiot is a *staff edit*


Did I do it right?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Oooh, you got me there dickcheese. Because I like reading biographies and I read a goddamn biography on him last year. Jesus Christ, get a fucking clue you cocktard. Books, they're those things with words in them.

Here, have a read for yourself. Excellent book.

http://www.amazon.com/Coolidge-Amity...alvin+coolidge

He was the forgotten man. I think it's best to keep it that way.


Jim

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey LL! It looks like you're not on ignore anymore.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Middle-school locker rooms. Kindergarten. You're starting to worry me bro. Let's keep this shit clean.

What happened swishy? Did you lack the self-discipline to keep me on ignore for more than a day? What does that tell you? It tells me you're a typical libtard, a thin-skinned liar and a fraud who fails at everything you do. That's why you have to free-lance all the time. As a free-lance dipshit and a free-lance dicksucker.

Originally Posted by shanm

LustyIdiot is a *staff edit*


Did I do it right?

No, you didn't, but then you never do anything right. You might want to ask the mods who is the idiot.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hey LL! It looks like you're not on ignore anymore.

Whoopee-do. Undercunt couldn't stand the way his ass kept being handed to him "behind his back" where he couldn't reply without looking like an even bigger dipshit.

.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

No, you didn't, but then you never do anything right. You might want to ask the mods who is the idiot.

I think you wouldn't realize it if an airplane landed on your head

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Here, have a read for yourself. Excellent book.

http://www.amazon.com/Coolidge-Amity...alvin+coolidge

I have not read her Coolidge bio, but Amity Shlaes (that's how her last name is spelled, but it looks like a typo!) wrote an excellent book on the history of the Great Depression:

The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression

It's a good read.

Here's another interesting historical event that's often forgotten.

Coolidge's predecessor, Warren Harding, seems to show up regularly on many historians' lists of worst presidents, but I've sometimes wondered why. It seems to me there are plenty of more worthy aspirants to the title of "worst president" in modern history, notwithstanding Teapot Dome and a couple of other scandals. What's often forgotten is the deflationary depression of 1920-21, and how Harding at least refrained from doing anything to compound the problem with a tsunami of government intervention, excessive spending, and bad legislation.

After the rapid inflation and speculative boom during and immediately following World War I, the economy went into a severe downturn which many researchers have written was actually worse than the first year of the Great Depression a decade later. Saltwater school economists continually tell us that we need big spending initiatives and "stimulus packages" to get us out of slumps.

Yet Harding wisely ignored the misbegotten advice of his own Secretary of Commerce (who in turn, as president, would have a chance to implement his own suggestions 10 years later).

James Grant, of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, tells the story well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...sEQ_story.html

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I have not read her Coolidge bio, but Amity Shlaes (that's how her last name is spelled, but it looks like a typo!) wrote an excellent book on the history of the Great Depression:

The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression

It's a good read.

Here's another interesting historical event that's often forgotten.

Coolidge's predecessor, Warren Harding, seems to show up regularly on many historians' lists of worst presidents, but I've sometimes wondered why. It seems to me there are plenty of more worthy aspirants to the title of "worst president" in modern history, notwithstanding Teapot Dome and a couple of other scandals. What's often forgotten is the deflationary depression of 1920-21, and how Harding at least refrained from doing anything to compound the problem with a tsunami of government intervention, excessive spending, and bad legislation.

After the rapid inflation and speculative boom during and immediately following World War I, the economy went into a severe downturn which many researchers have written was actually worse than the first year of the Great Depression a decade later. Saltwater school economists continually tell us that we need big spending initiatives and "stimulus packages" to get us out of slumps.

Yet Harding wisely ignored the misbegotten advice of his own Secretary of Commerce (who in turn, as president, would have a chance to implement his own suggestions 10 years later).

James Grant, of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, tells the story well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...sEQ_story.html

Yeah, I enjoyed her writing. You seem way too logical to hang out in here though lol. It's mostly me and a dozen loons.