The Rich are Under Taxed?

[griz37]

All men are created equal, they should be taxed the same. This idea that just because somebody has more money they deserve to pay more is total horseshit

Unfortunately, they aren't. The other thing that is horseshit is that all gay people and unmarried heterosexuals are taxed at a higher rate than heterosexual married people. Why should gays and unmarried heterosexuals have to finance the tax breaks of heterosexual married couples????

Don't forget about the tax breaks you get for having a kid

[kalm]

Although your point is well taken, dawg, your excessive hatred and envy of people who are rich, successful or productive apparently blinds you to any meaningful alternative.

.

Define productive in terms of the national economy. For instance, a portfolio manager, makes a fortune for his clients and in turn is paid a fortune in bonuses. What have they produced? How are they taxed?

[tampa_griz]

Unfortunately, they aren't. The other thing that is horseshit is that all gay people and unmarried heterosexuals are taxed at a higher rate than heterosexual married people. Why should gays and unmarried heterosexuals have to finance the tax breaks of heterosexual married couples????

Don't forget about the tax breaks you get for having a kid

Or renters vs. home owners for that matter. The government picks winners and losers every day.

[kalm]

I've heard that the top 5% in this country carry 50% of the tax burden and something like the top 10% carry 90% of the burden. Is this not true?

If it is true then shouldn't we actually be sucking the dicks of the rich for providing us whit all this sweet, sweet welfare instead of telling them that are not doing enough?

I mean seriously how much pride can you have in yourself as a man if these numbers are correct and your argument is that you think they should provide more?

Well I've heard that in medieval europe, the dirty peasants couldn't carry their own weight either.

That's kind of how it works right? The wealth gap increases with those at the top having to pay more of the way. It ain't neccessarily a good thing or a sign that the working class should be ashamed of anything.

[blueballs]

During 1951-63 when the US economy was booming with very high tax rates, it was because Japan and Europe went boom (literally) in the 40s and were still digging out of the rubble. We had no competitors. We could manufacture at relatively high costs and export to rebuilding countries who purchased our goods with money that we lent them. It was a pretty good deal for us. Unfortunately it isn't today's reality.

The notion that roads, bridges and broadband grow an economy is absurd. What roads and bridges, like the interstate system do is provide the ability to transport manufactured goods at lower cost. In case you haven't noticed, domestic manufacturing has been declining since the 70s. It really isn't necessary to make an enormous investment in new road systems. It is only necessary to maintain existing highway systems and bridges to meet safety standards.

If you want to make a significant "investment" in infrastructure, fine. You can use the money you'd save by eliminating pork, entitlements and useless government agencies. That ought to build a new bridge or two.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I've heard that the top 5% in this country carry 50% of the tax burden and something like the top 10% carry 90% of the burden. Is this not true?

If it is true then shouldn't we actually be sucking the dicks of the rich for providing us whit all this sweet, sweet welfare instead of telling them that are not doing enough?

I mean seriously how much pride can you have in yourself as a man if these numbers are correct and your argument is that you think they should provide more?

Well I've heard that in medieval europe, the dirty peasants couldn't carry their own weight either.

That's kind of how it works right? The wealth gap increases with those at the top having to pay more of the way. It ain't necessarily a good thing or a sign that the working class should be ashamed of anything.

So what are you saying there? Can the working class not achieve? I think there are examples that they have throughout the history of this country. Now if we don't reach the upper level then we should blame someone else?

All I'm saying is that it seems way to easy to me to always say shit like "the rich need to pay more". Seems like we may be looking a gift horse...anyway.

There is a reason that the working class is not asked to foot more of the bill or the services that we all vote on. We don't have to pay but a fraction of the cost. If we did have to then there would be a much more frugal mindset amongst what the masses find truly worthy of supporting and the candidates we support wouldn't we?

I will gaurafuckingtee you this. If we all had to carry our own water on the government bill we would be turning the heat down on EVERY expense that they incur and we would be much more in tune to how efficiently it ran.

As it is now, we can lay back and spend other people's money so us as the working class don't give a flying fuck how much of the people we are jealous of's money we spend.

[kalm]

During 1951-63 when the US economy was booming with very high tax rates, it was because Japan and Europe went boom (literally) in the 40s and were still digging out of the rubble. We had no competitors. We could manufacture at relatively high costs and export to rebuilding countries who purchased our goods with money that we lent them. It was a pretty good deal for us. Unfortunately it isn't today's reality.

The notion that roads, bridges and broadband grow an economy is absurd. What roads and bridges, like the interstate system do is provide the ability to transport manufactured goods at lower cost. In case you haven't noticed, domestic manufacturing has been declining since the 70s. It really isn't necessary to make an enormous investment in new road systems. It is only necessary to maintain existing highway systems and bridges to meet safety standards.

If you want to make a significant "investment" in infrastructure, fine. You can use the money you'd save by eliminating pork, entitlements and useless government agencies. That ought to build a new bridge or two.

Everybody is for eliminating waste in government. But moving past that, we are still operating under the assumption of cheap oil which won't last that much longer. Other countries are heavily investing in alternative energy. Are we doing the same? I'm not sure, but to pooh pooh our reliance on cheap transportation costs with no regard for the future is very shortsighted.

Oh, and despite our confiscatory tax rates of the 50's-70's we were still able to do ok. Record growth, the ability to loan Europe and Japan money, the interstate highway system, the GI Bill, the space program, and high taxes were not a coincidence.

[kalm]

Well I've heard that in medieval europe, the dirty peasants couldn't carry their own weight either.

That's kind of how it works right? The wealth gap increases with those at the top having to pay more of the way. It ain't necessarily a good thing or a sign that the working class should be ashamed of anything.

So what are you saying there? Can the working class not achieve? I think there are examples that they have throughout the history of this country. Now if we don't reach the upper level then we should blame someone else?

All I'm saying is that it seems way to easy to me to always say **** like "the rich need to pay more". Seems like we may be looking a gift horse...anyway.

There is a reason that the working class is not asked to foot more of the bill or the services that we all vote on. We don't have to pay but a fraction of the cost. If we did have to then there would be a much more frugal mindset amongst what the masses find truly worthy of supporting and the candidates we support wouldn't we?

I will gaurafuckingtee you this. If we all had to carry our own water on the government bill we would be turning the heat down on EVERY expense that they incur and we would be much more in tune to how efficiently it ran.

As it is now, we can lay back and spend other people's money so us as the working class don't give a flying **** how much of the people we are jealous of's money we spend.

Or the rich could own six houses instead of seven, reinvest there excess back into their own companies, not offshore jobs, pay their workers a little more, and we all might be a little better for it.

I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you, but to a certain degree, the uber wealthy remain uber wealthy because they are born uber wealthy and less because they are harder working or more deserving.

[kalm]

One more quick point Ursus. Over the last 30 years, productivity in the U.S. has increased and wages have gone down. I realize even the working poor in this country have it better than most of the rest of the world and have shown terrible spending and savings habits. None the less, each generation expects at least the same standard of living as their predecessor's and it's tough to change that particular human behaviour.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

So what are you saying there? Can the working class not achieve? I think there are examples that they have throughout the history of this country. Now if we don't reach the upper level then we should blame someone else?

All I'm saying is that it seems way to easy to me to always say **** like "the rich need to pay more". Seems like we may be looking a gift horse...anyway.

There is a reason that the working class is not asked to foot more of the bill or the services that we all vote on. We don't have to pay but a fraction of the cost. If we did have to then there would be a much more frugal mindset amongst what the masses find truly worthy of supporting and the candidates we support wouldn't we?

I will gaurafuckingtee you this. If we all had to carry our own water on the government bill we would be turning the heat down on EVERY expense that they incur and we would be much more in tune to how efficiently it ran.

As it is now, we can lay back and spend other people's money so us as the working class don't give a flying **** how much of the people we are jealous of's money we spend.

Or the rich could own six houses instead of seven, reinvest there excess back into their own companies, not offshore jobs, pay their workers a little more, and we all might be a little better for it.

I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you, but to a certain degree, the uber wealthy remain uber wealthy because they are born uber wealthy and less because they are harder working or more deserving.

So fucking what? Working hard is one of many ways to get there. That's what I never understand about people with this "life isn't fair" mindset. No shit, life ain't fair. Some people are lucky, some hard working, some innovative as hell...and those that have all that come together at the right time have a CHANCE at being wealthy.

If you are born uber wealthy then good for you. You got lucky.

If you hit the genetic lottery and end up being someone like Michael Jordan then should we redistribute some of your talent so that it is fair?

Hell they are paying the tab for us, let's say thank you and instead of trying to bring people down to our level why don't we start playing this game out and see if some of us can get up somewhere close to theirs...no matter how they got there. That way if we're ever there you and I can look at each other and say "Look at Mortimer over there, poor fuck never had the satisfaction of achieving this shit on his own!! He had everything given to him."

If you make it there and I don't though kalm you can rest assured that I will be saying "thanks for picking up the tab my man" instead of coming to you with my hands out and saying "hey fucker you got money, I need some."

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

One more quick point Ursus. Over the last 30 years, productivity in the U.S. has increased and wages have gone down. I realize even the working poor in this country have it better than most of the rest of the world and have shown terrible spending and savings habits. None the less, each generation expects at least the same standard of living as their predecessor's and it's tough to change that particular human behaviour.

What the working class expects doesn't mean a god damn thing. Have we reached a point where we may need to just stop expecting things? I think we're close. If we are living with less than our parent's I am pretty sure that it can be fairly directly related to our overall culture of not working to work hard to achieve.

Now this is just from my own personal experience over the last 20 years but back in about 1990 for every four I guys I would hire ONE would be a piece of shit that couldn't work and bitched all the time. The last 5 yrs. that has gone completely the other way...I can find ONE guy that can work like the workers of 15-20 yrs. ago. The other 3 are shit bags that don't want to do the job. I am hiring in the exact same area, doing the exact same work, and hiring from the same pool I always have been. I'm sure these guys have a lot of expectations that they will not reach because they lack the drive and integrity to achieve what those that came before saw as everyday life.

This country as a whole is getting softer and if you don't believe it then try and put a shovel in a young man's hands and see how much work he can do.

[kalm]

One more quick point Ursus. Over the last 30 years, productivity in the U.S. has increased and wages have gone down. I realize even the working poor in this country have it better than most of the rest of the world and have shown terrible spending and savings habits. None the less, each generation expects at least the same standard of living as their predecessor's and it's tough to change that particular human behaviour.

What the working class expects doesn't mean a god damn thing. Have we reached a point where we may need to just stop expecting things? I think we're close. If we are living with less than our parent's I am pretty sure that it can be fairly directly related to our overall culture of not working to work hard to achieve.

Now this is just from my own personal experience over the last 20 years but back in about 1990 for every four I guys I would hire ONE would be a piece of **** that couldn't work and bitched all the time. The last 5 yrs. that has gone completely the other way...I can find ONE guy that can work like the workers of 15-20 yrs. ago. The other 3 are **** bags that don't want to do the job. I am hiring in the exact same area, doing the exact same work, and hiring from the same pool I always have been. I'm sure these guys have a lot of expectations that they will not reach because they lack the drive and integrity to achieve what those that came before saw as everyday life.

This country as a whole is getting softer and if you don't believe it then try and put a shovel in a young man's hands and see how much work he can do.

I've literally done that with different results. I felt that 15 years ago, only 1 out 5 workers busted their ass and over-achieved. That number hasn't changed across the board for me. But I have noticed that the manual laborers work harder than ever, while the rest seem to slack a little. That being said, overall productivity across the country has increased. And my peers in management positions in a variety of industries have really been taking up the slack for the same pay while the wealth of the nation's extremely rich is continuing to increase. That's not a good thing.

But I get what you're saying about going soft. Of course it's anectdotal evidence in both of our cases.

[kalm]

Or the rich could own six houses instead of seven, reinvest there excess back into their own companies, not offshore jobs, pay their workers a little more, and we all might be a little better for it.

I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you, but to a certain degree, the uber wealthy remain uber wealthy because they are born uber wealthy and less because they are harder working or more deserving.

So **** what? Working hard is one of many ways to get there. That's what I never understand about people with this "life isn't fair" mindset. No ****, life ain't fair. Some people are lucky, some hard working, some innovative as hell...and those that have all that come together at the right time have a CHANCE at being wealthy.

If you are born uber wealthy then good for you. You got lucky.

If you hit the genetic lottery and end up being someone like Michael Jordan then should we redistribute some of your talent so that it is fair?

Hell they are paying the tab for us, let's say thank you and instead of trying to bring people down to our level why don't we start playing this game out and see if some of us can get up somewhere close to theirs...no matter how they got there. That way if we're ever there you and I can look at each other and say "Look at Mortimer over there, poor **** never had the satisfaction of achieving this **** on his own!! He had everything given to him."

If you make it there and I don't though kalm you can rest assured that I will be saying "thanks for picking up the tab my man" instead of coming to you with my hands out and saying "hey **** you got money, I need some."

The uber wealthy and corporate CEO's in this country won't turn their noses up at a hand out either. They just happen to do it through politics.

A sense of entitlement runs on both sides of the tracks.

You might already consider me one of the lucky albeit hard working ones. But if I really make it Ursus, I won't expect a thank you, only a celebratory toast in Missoula or Cheney.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

What the working class expects doesn't mean a god damn thing. Have we reached a point where we may need to just stop expecting things? I think we're close. If we are living with less than our parent's I am pretty sure that it can be fairly directly related to our overall culture of not working to work hard to achieve.

Now this is just from my own personal experience over the last 20 years but back in about 1990 for every four I guys I would hire ONE would be a piece of **** that couldn't work and bitched all the time. The last 5 yrs. that has gone completely the other way...I can find ONE guy that can work like the workers of 15-20 yrs. ago. The other 3 are **** bags that don't want to do the job. I am hiring in the exact same area, doing the exact same work, and hiring from the same pool I always have been. I'm sure these guys have a lot of expectations that they will not reach because they lack the drive and integrity to achieve what those that came before saw as everyday life.

This country as a whole is getting softer and if you don't believe it then try and put a shovel in a young man's hands and see how much work he can do.

I've literally done that with different results. I felt that 15 years ago, only 1 out 5 workers busted their ass and over-achieved. That number hasn't changed across the board for me. But I have noticed that the manual laborers work harder than ever, while the rest seem to slack a little. That being said, overall productivity across the country has increased. And my peers in management positions in a variety of industries have really been taking up the slack for the same pay while wealth of the nation's extremely weathly is continuing to increase.

But I get what you're saying about going soft. Of course it's anectdotal evidence in both of our cases.

Yes it is and I understand that of course. I don't where you are getting the manual laborers but if you have any extra please help a brother out.

Heck Kalm I'm not even talking about the real go getters here. I'm talking about guys that can just show up for more than a week or two and do the job. I just can't believe that I live in the only area where this is happening and that everywhere productivity on an employee level is going up. I'm talking about a guy and a piece of equipment or a shovel without the aid of technology...just plain ol' work.

[CitadelGrad]

Everybody is for eliminating waste in government. But moving past that, we are still operating under the assumption of cheap oil which won't last that much longer. Other countries are heavily investing in alternative energy. Are we doing the same? I'm not sure, but to pooh pooh our reliance on cheap transportation costs with no regard for the future is very shortsighted.

Well, no. Not everybody is for eliminating waste in government. Evidently, those who are wasting the money aren't for eliminating waste. Of course the real problem isn't only pork and bloated government -- it's entitlements that given demographic realities, are nothing more than Ponzi schemes.

Oh, and despite our confiscatory tax rates of the 50's-70's we were still able to do ok. Record growth, the ability to loan Europe and Japan money, the interstate highway system, the GI Bill, the space program, and high taxes were not a coincidence.

As I wrote at some length and detail earlier, global economic conditions and structures are far different now than they were in the 50s and early 60s, when we had confiscatory tax rates. Although the top tax rates were still relatively high from the mid-60s through the 70s, they were much lower after JFK reduced them in 1963. That is when you saw NASA develop the Apollo program and the bulk of the interstate highway system built. As for your comment that record growth and higher taxes were not coincidental is absurd. Suggesting that higher taxes produced higher economic growth during that era exposes your very poor understanding of rudimentary economics. I explained clearly how the US was able to achieve significant growth during that era despite very high upper tax rates. I guess all that went over your head, just like the beltlines of all those men in the bus station restroom.

[kalm]

Everybody is for eliminating waste in government. But moving past that, we are still operating under the assumption of cheap oil which won't last that much longer. Other countries are heavily investing in alternative energy. Are we doing the same? I'm not sure, but to pooh pooh our reliance on cheap transportation costs with no regard for the future is very shortsighted.

Well, no. Not everybody is for eliminating waste in government. Evidently, those who are wasting the money aren't for eliminating waste. Of course the real problem isn't only pork and bloated government -- it's entitlements that given demographic realities, are nothing more than Ponzi schemes.

Oh, and despite our confiscatory tax rates of the 50's-70's we were still able to do ok. Record growth, the ability to loan Europe and Japan money, the interstate highway system, the GI Bill, the space program, and high taxes were not a coincidence.

As I wrote at some length and detail earlier, global economic conditions and structures are far different now than they were in the 50s and early 60s, when we had confiscatory tax rates. Although the top tax rates were still relatively high from the mid-60s through the 70s, they were much lower after JFK reduced them in 1963. That is when you saw NASA develop the Apollo program and the bulk of the interstate highway system built. As for your comment that record growth and higher taxes were not coincidental is absurd. Suggesting that higher taxes produced higher economic growth during that era exposes your very poor understanding of rudimentary economics. I explained clearly how the US was able to achieve significant growth during that era despite very high upper tax rates. I guess all that went over your head, just like the beltlines of all those men in the bus station restroom.

I understand friedmanomics and reaganomics quite well.

But if lower taxes are where it's at, why did the two most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression occur right after high end taxes and corporate taxes were cut? What happened to the top marginal tax rate in the 20's?

The post war world economy certainly set us up for success, but it was one reason among many. And again, the high taxes at the time certainly weren't devastating enough to eliminate strong growth. (BTW, JFK's tax cuts focused more on reducing loopholes and actually increased revenues).

If you claim to understand economics, surely you realize it's not an exact science. We are both just pushing forth theories. But recent history is smiling less favorably on yours.

[CitadelGrad]

Well, no. Not everybody is for eliminating waste in government. Evidently, those who are wasting the money aren't for eliminating waste. Of course the real problem isn't only pork and bloated government -- it's entitlements that given demographic realities, are nothing more than Ponzi schemes.



As I wrote at some length and detail earlier, global economic conditions and structures are far different now than they were in the 50s and early 60s, when we had confiscatory tax rates. Although the top tax rates were still relatively high from the mid-60s through the 70s, they were much lower after JFK reduced them in 1963. That is when you saw NASA develop the Apollo program and the bulk of the interstate highway system built. As for your comment that record growth and higher taxes were not coincidental is absurd. Suggesting that higher taxes produced higher economic growth during that era exposes your very poor understanding of rudimentary economics. I explained clearly how the US was able to achieve significant growth during that era despite very high upper tax rates. I guess all that went over your head, just like the beltlines of all those men in the bus station restroom.

I understand friedmanomics and reaganomics quite well.

But if lower taxes are where it's at, why did the two most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression occur right after high end taxes and corporate taxes were cut? What happened to the top marginal tax rate in the 20's?

The post war world economy certainly set us up for success, but it was one reason among many. And again, the high taxes at the time certainly weren't devastating enough to eliminate strong growth. (BTW, JFK's tax cuts focused more on reducing loopholes and actually increased revenues).

If you claim to understand economics, surely you realize it's not an exact science. We are both just pushing forth theories. But recent history is smiling less favorably on yours.

Exactly which two post-Depression recessions are you talking about? I can't recall any time in history when tax cuts produced recessions. Although the tax cut bill during the Kennedy administration did close loopholes, it also dramatically reduced tax rates, and yes, there was a subsequent increase in revenue. The Reagan tax cuts also produced a subsequent revenue increase. Spending at a higher rate than the revenue increases is what produced the budget deficits of the 80s. As for the tax policies of the 20s, who cares? Fiscal policy had nothing to do with the causes, duration and severity of the Great Depression.

[kalm]

I understand friedmanomics and reaganomics quite well.

But if lower taxes are where it's at, why did the two most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression occur right after high end taxes and corporate taxes were cut? What happened to the top marginal tax rate in the 20's?

The post war world economy certainly set us up for success, but it was one reason among many. And again, the high taxes at the time certainly weren't devastating enough to eliminate strong growth. (BTW, JFK's tax cuts focused more on reducing loopholes and actually increased revenues).

If you claim to understand economics, surely you realize it's not an exact science. We are both just pushing forth theories. But recent history is smiling less favorably on yours.

Exactly which two post-Depression recessions are you talking about? I can't recall any time in history when tax cuts produced recessions. Although the tax cut bill during the Kennedy administration did close loopholes, it also dramatically reduced tax rates, and yes, there was a subsequent increase in revenue. The Reagan tax cuts also produced a subsequent revenue increase. Spending at a higher rate than the revenue increases is what produced the budget deficits of the 80s. As for the tax policies of the 20s, who cares? Fiscal policy had nothing to do with the causes, duration and severity of the Great Depression.

The three most severe economic downturns of the 20th century followed the reduction of top marginal tax rates in the 1920's to around 25%, Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980's (remember, stagnation got worse after the cuts and started to turn around once Reagan began spending and instituted the greatest tax increase in history on the middle class - and yes, I recognize Volker's raising of interest rates had a big contribution too), and following the Bush tax cuts. Were there other contributing factors? Of course. But again, economics is not an exact science, and there's certainly a reason to see more than a coincidence. Surely, given your stance on the fed, you'll agree that free money is a dangerous thing. ?

[CitadelGrad]

Exactly which two post-Depression recessions are you talking about? I can't recall any time in history when tax cuts produced recessions. Although the tax cut bill during the Kennedy administration did close loopholes, it also dramatically reduced tax rates, and yes, there was a subsequent increase in revenue. The Reagan tax cuts also produced a subsequent revenue increase. Spending at a higher rate than the revenue increases is what produced the budget deficits of the 80s. As for the tax policies of the 20s, who cares? Fiscal policy had nothing to do with the causes, duration and severity of the Great Depression.

The three most severe economic downturns of the 20th century followed the reduction of top marginal tax rates in the 1920's to around 25%, Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980's (remember, stagnation got worse after the cuts and started to turn around once Reagan began spending and instituted the greatest tax increase in history on the middle class - and yes, I recognize Volker's raising of interest rates had a big contribution too), and following the Bush tax cuts. Were there other contributing factors? Of course. But again, economics is not an exact science, and there's certainly a reason to see more than a coincidence. Surely, given your stance on the fed, you'll agree that free money is a dangerous thing. ?

Again, reduction of tax rates in the 20s did not lead to the Depression. Massive market speculation created a bubble that led to a massive loss of liquidity when the bubble burst. Fiscal policy wasn't a factor. The Depression's severity and duration was caused primarily by the Fed's monetary policy and overly protectionist legislation.

I'm afraid you have muddled the chronology of Fed policy changes and tax cuts in from 1980 to 1983. The bulk of tax cuts passed in 81 weren't even implemented until Fiscal '82 (October 81) and didn't have a discernible impact until late '82, which happened to coincide with the effects of monetary tightening being realized. Within months, GDP began a long-term uptrend with downward trending inflation and interest rates. From the time Reagan took office until the end of his second term, federal revenues increased by more than 90%. Unfortunately, spending during that period increased at an even higher rate. I'm sure you'll claim that the deficits were attributable solely to defense spending and you might even claim that defense spending was the largest portion of the federal budget. In truth, defense spending even after the increases during the Reagan administration did not account for a larger part of the budget than entitlement outlays and social spending, which actually increased at slightly higher rates than the defense budget.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Until we define our terms this conversation is meaningless. What is rich? How much income? What net worth? Until we do that the conversation is so much wasted time. And I just read it all. How bored must I be?

But the politicians will never define those terms because they want us to look at each other with jealousy. The man living in the park in a tent is richer than the man living under a bench in the park.

[OL FU]

During 1951-63 when the US economy was booming with very high tax rates, it was because Japan and Europe went boom (literally) in the 40s and were still digging out of the rubble. We had no competitors. We could manufacture at relatively high costs and export to rebuilding countries who purchased our goods with money that we lent them. It was a pretty good deal for us. Unfortunately it isn't today's reality.

Well you gave them the answer and everyone ignored it

[CitadelGrad]

During 1951-63 when the US economy was booming with very high tax rates, it was because Japan and Europe went boom (literally) in the 40s and were still digging out of the rubble. We had no competitors. We could manufacture at relatively high costs and export to rebuilding countries who purchased our goods with money that we lent them. It was a pretty good deal for us. Unfortunately it isn't today's reality.

Well you gave them the answer and everyone ignored it

Yeah, funny how that happens.

[Baldy]

I understand friedmanomics and reaganomics quite well.

Umm, no. No idea whatsoever.

But if lower taxes are where it's at, why did the two most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression occur right after high end taxes and corporate taxes were cut? What happened to the top marginal tax rate in the 20's?

Thankfully the marginal tax rates were cut. The policies of the "progressive" Wilson era, 73% confiscatory tax rates, was the main cause of a severe depression in 1920. Wilson's bloated federal bureaucracies and massive debt caused the US economy to retract by 25% from 1919 to 1920. Unemployment more than doubled, we were swimming in debt, productivity diminished, salaries were retracting, innovation was stymied, etc. Thankfully Americans rejected these cancerous policies and restored fiscal discipline. Once Harding was elected, government spending was cut by more than half (in 2 years), the highest marginal tax rates were cut from 73% to 25% on "the rich" and cut from 25% to 5% for "the poor", and the US was actually enjoying a long period of budget surpluses while paying down its debt.
The 20's were a time of unprecedented prosperity. GNP increased every year without inflation. Productivity and real wages soared. The stock market tripled in size, and there was unimagined expansion of the middle class. Ordinary Americans were now able to obtain things only "the rich" could afford...things like cars, radios, etc.

We are now at that same point in the road. Do we take the road leading to economic growth and prosperity, or do we stay on this "progressive" road of massive spending and government bloat that Europe is now attempting to exit?

[OL FU]

Everybody is for eliminating waste in government. But moving past that, we are still operating under the assumption of cheap oil which won't last that much longer. Other countries are heavily investing in alternative energy. Are we doing the same? I'm not sure, but to pooh pooh our reliance on cheap transportation costs with no regard for the future is very shortsighted.

Oh, and despite our confiscatory tax rates of the 50's-70's we were still able to do ok. Record growth, the ability to loan Europe and Japan money, the interstate highway system, the GI Bill, the space program, and high taxes were not a coincidence.

you also make the assumption that people paid those tax rates. If some one has to pay 90% of marginal income to the government, they either won't make it or they will cheat. That's the facts. There would be absolutely no reason (other than possibly in a time of war like the big one not the little ones since) for a person to risk their capital to give 100% of their gains to the government.

Also, at least during the 70s there were tremendous partnership loopholes that allowed reductions in income. The good news is that people could invest in partnerships that provided reduced taxable income. The bad news was the dollars were allocated where the government wanted them allocated and not where the market would have placed them. Thus you had a double whammy, the government didn't get the money its marginal rates said it should get and the economy didn't get an effective allocation of resources.

[houndawg]

You see, neigher, I am rich and successful. The percentage of the planet's population that wouldn't trade places with me in a heartbeat is vanishingly small.

I didn't realize sucking cocks down at the bus station's men's room could be that lucrative.

Too bad, you could have been making money at the same time you were qualifying for the Citadel.