Pages:
Author

Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 22. (Read 20467 times)

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 20, 2012, 04:56:30 PM

Now you have the numbers, you can see a nice correlation between high US debt, high taxes and high growth.

Correlation != causation.

I am not an economist, and I doubt you are either, to draw conclusions from those numbers.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 20, 2012, 04:53:58 PM

Now you have the numbers, you can see a nice correlation between high US debt, high taxes and high growth.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 20, 2012, 04:37:05 PM
Here is a tax chart from 1913.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

If you bothered to google it, there is a helpful summary.

"The rate had reached 94 percent during World War II, on income over $200,000 (approx. $2.49 million in today's dollars). It dropped down to 91 percent in 1946 and remained there until the Kennedy tax cuts in 1962-64. Brackets weren't inflation adjusted back then, so it still applied on income over $200,000, which by then had reached $1.41 million in today's dollars."

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 20, 2012, 04:32:48 PM
Of course its circular reasoning.  You ask for facts; I provide facts and your reply is "I don't like those facts.  Please give me facts."  

No, I asked for numbers, you gave me words, and when I asked for the numbers that backed up those words, you pointed me back to the words.

I provided a nice wikipedia article with nice sets of numbers all neatly sourced.  Your problem is that you don't like the numbers.

Oh, I see plenty of numbers in that article, but all for 2007. Isn't that "early twenty-first century", not "mid twentieth century"?
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 20, 2012, 04:28:40 PM
Of course its circular reasoning.  You ask for facts; I provide facts and your reply is "I don't like those facts.  Please give me facts."  

No, I asked for numbers, you gave me words, and when I asked for the numbers that backed up those words, you pointed me back to the words.

I provided a nice wikipedia article with nice sets of numbers all neatly sourced.  Your problem is that you don't like the numbers.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 20, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
Of course its circular reasoning.  You ask for facts; I provide facts and your reply is "I don't like those facts.  Please give me facts."  

No, I asked for numbers, you gave me words, and when I asked for the numbers that backed up those words, you pointed me back to the words.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 20, 2012, 04:06:09 PM
Of course its circular reasoning.  You ask for facts; I provide facts and your reply is "I don't like those facts.  Please give me facts."  

Its a historical fact that the tax rate was 90% after WW2.  Whining that you don't like it is pointless.  I can't find a different set of facts in Google for you because that is what happened.

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 20, 2012, 03:52:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 

It's your assertion, back it up.

I regard wikipedia as adequate back-up. 

And as I said, [citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 20, 2012, 03:37:42 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 

It's your assertion, back it up.

I regard wikipedia as adequate back-up. 

And as I said, [citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 20, 2012, 03:32:24 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 

It's your assertion, back it up.

I regard wikipedia as adequate back-up. 

And as I said, [citation needed].
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 20, 2012, 03:20:00 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 

It's your assertion, back it up.

I regard wikipedia as adequate back-up. 
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 20, 2012, 03:00:58 PM
#99
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 

It's your assertion, back it up.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 20, 2012, 02:50:47 PM
#98
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]

Google.  Stop being lazy. 
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 20, 2012, 02:45:53 PM
#97
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

I asked for stats, and since you instead gave me a wikipedia quote, I'm going to have to ask this way: [citation needed]
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 20, 2012, 02:22:00 PM
#96
...snip...

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

...snip...

Interesting isn't it.  When income tax was over 90%, the economy boomed and poverty was falling.  Those were the good old days.

So, could you point out stats to back up your claim of 90% income tax after WWII?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax

In the mid-twentieth century, marginal tax rates (the rate applied to the last bit of income) in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%

If you are genuinely interested, check the correlation between tax rates and growth.  As the tax rate comes down, the growth rate falls too.  The good old days of the booming US economy were the days when the top rate was 70% and above.  

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
June 20, 2012, 01:12:44 PM
#95
...snip...

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

...snip...

Interesting isn't it.  When income tax was over 90%, the economy boomed and poverty was falling.  Those were the good old days.

So, could you point out stats to back up your claim of 90% income tax after WWII?

It's already been done. Search the forums.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 20, 2012, 12:42:42 PM
#94
...snip...

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

...snip...

Interesting isn't it.  When income tax was over 90%, the economy boomed and poverty was falling.  Those were the good old days.

So, could you point out stats to back up your claim of 90% income tax after WWII?
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
June 19, 2012, 08:26:35 AM
#93
...snip...

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

...snip...

Interesting isn't it.  When income tax was over 90%, the economy boomed and poverty was falling.  Those were the good old days.
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
June 19, 2012, 05:54:54 AM
#92
If you're worried about the poor being attacked, pay your defense agency to defend them as well as yourself.

If people want the poor to be taken care of, a market will emerge to provide this service. This form of charity will be much more common when the government stops stealing > %50 of our wealth.

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

Consider the massive burden the government places on the economy; diverting typically half a nations resources to beurocracy and other unproductive uses. This inefficiency results in less production, meaning less wealth to go around and therefore higher prices. The poor suffer the most. Voluntary trade results in the most efficient allocation of capital, thus the most production/wealth. When the state introduces force in to the equation, everyone loses.
Pages:
Jump to: