Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:17 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
if he is such a bad candidate then more exposure of him would hurt him right? Then again that did not work with Trump.
So true.

But Trump had the power of racism--specifically, 25-30 million white-supremacists who'd never before gotten so close to having a President of their own--behind him.

Schultz, so far, has...the number of voters who are also billionaires, and who resonate to his message of 'balance the budget on the backs of Social Security and Medicare recipients and leave us to enjoy our yachts and $75 ice cubes.'

How many could that be? Granted, those people can buy the votes of stupid poorer people with lavish spending on social media messaging, but...still. It's not like having the white supremacists behind you.
  #252  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:25 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
So true.

But Trump had the power of racism--specifically, 25-30 million white-supremacists who'd never before gotten so close to having a President of their own--behind him.

Schultz, so far, has...the number of voters who are also billionaires, and who resonate to his message of 'balance the budget on the backs of Social Security and Medicare recipients and leave us to enjoy our yachts and $75 ice cubes.'

How many could that be? Granted, those people can buy the votes of stupid poorer people with lavish spending on social media messaging, but...still. It's not like having the white supremacists behind you.
about 50% of GOP voters are white supremacists? that seems way over the top . and if there are that many how on Earth did Obama get elected twice?
  #253  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
about 50% of GOP voters are white supremacists? that seems way over the top . and if there are that many how on Earth did Obama get elected twice?
I think your math is wrong if you think 50% of Republicans being racist would have stopped Obama from being elected.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-06-2019 at 03:28 PM.
  #254  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:30 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
so where is the evidence 50% of Trump voters are white supremacists? Like anybody who runs people vote for the guy based on many issues - supreme court, abortion, taxes, gun control, immigration, and so on.
  #255  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
so where is the evidence 50% of Trump voters are white supremacists? Like anybody who runs people vote for the guy based on many issues - supreme court, abortion, taxes, gun control, immigration, and so on.
That discussion has been done in many threads before; I'd suggest we not hijack this one to do it over again.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #256  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:37 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
just to be clear I view people like the KKK to be white supremacists. That goes way beyond just being a racist. I don't see 30 million people being the same as a KKK member.
  #257  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:38 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That discussion has been done in many threads before; I'd suggest we not hijack this one to do it over again.
I agree. The proposition '50% of Trump voters are white supremacists' is discussed elsewhere; it's not really relevant to Howard Schultz's chances. I was pointing out that he probably does not have the support of those people, who will surely stick with Trump. The relevance was that Schultz's natural constituency---billionaires---is smaller than Trump's natural constituency.
  #258  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:40 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,001
About those $75 ice cubes. The waters of Lake Baikal are the last reserves of completely pure fresh water on the planet. Ice cubes must be formed individually and wrapped in thermic insulation, then attached to the foot of a Siberian sparrow. Do you know the carrying capacity of a Siberian sparrow? I daresay you do not!
  #259  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:42 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
only billionaires would be the primary Schultz voters? I think I read that there are about 400 billionaires in the US. Given that number then Schultz would set a record for having the smallest ever base of support.
  #260  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:46 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
if he is such a bad candidate then more exposure of him would hurt him right? Then again that did not work with Trump.
The fundamental currency of the marketplace of ideas is not truth. It is not accuracy. It's not insight. It's attention. And because the media often cannot or will not state things plainly, and has to give the illusion of balance even when none is there, they pretty much cannot give someone a negative enough slant to where that attention will actually hurt the candidate. The attention grants them legitimacy in a way.
  #261  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:01 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
About those $75 ice cubes. The waters of Lake Baikal are the last reserves of completely pure fresh water on the planet. Ice cubes must be formed individually and wrapped in thermic insulation, then attached to the foot of a Siberian sparrow. Do you know the carrying capacity of a Siberian sparrow? I daresay you do not!
You are correct. That knowledge is far above my pay grade.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
only billionaires would be the primary Schultz voters? I think I read that there are about 400 billionaires in the US. Given that number then Schultz would set a record for having the smallest ever base of support.
Which is what I was saying. Purchased social-media promotion would buy him more votes, of course, which is why he might become a spoiler. But the platform he's outlined so far is appealing only to the one-percenters.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
The fundamental currency of the marketplace of ideas is not truth. It is not accuracy. It's not insight. It's attention. And because the media often cannot or will not state things plainly, and has to give the illusion of balance even when none is there, they pretty much cannot give someone a negative enough slant to where that attention will actually hurt the candidate. The attention grants them legitimacy in a way.
Excellent point. (AKA "The Donald Trump Story".)

Last edited by Sherrerd; 02-06-2019 at 04:02 PM. Reason: s for d yet again! Zounds!
  #262  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:06 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
Trump was very well known due to his hit TV show so even without CNN etc he probably would have done very well in the race. and the premise of the show was that he was a great businessman.
  #263  
Old 02-06-2019, 08:47 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,001
Gary Busey isn't President, so maybe we should count our blessings.
  #264  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:48 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
only billionaires would be the primary Schultz voters? I think I read that there are about 400 billionaires in the US. Given that number then Schultz would set a record for having the smallest ever base of support.
The drive time talk show host on local radio here in Baltimore, a self-described "centrist" (centrist defined as "claiming the Democratic base is way too extreme" and never ever talking about Donald Trump -- last night's three hours was mostly consumed with Liz Warren's self identification as native American on an old form) also complained last night that Howard Schultz wasn't getting a fair look from Dem voters, who should obviously identify with his "centrist" platforms and admire his skill in attaining great wealth from humble beginnings.
  #265  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:16 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
That of course is the lie of Schultz's "Centrist" claims. He spends ninety-nine percent of his time complaining the Democrats are too extreme, because they're the ones who might tax him a little more.

The fact CNN is giving free advertising to him solely because he's rich is a disgrace.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #266  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
That of course is the lie of Schultz's "Centrist" claims. He spends ninety-nine percent of his time complaining the Democrats are too extreme, because they're the ones who might tax him a little more.

The fact CNN is giving free advertising to him solely because he's rich is a disgrace.
CNN has been a disgrace for quite some time now. And 70% is more than just "a little more".

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-07-2019 at 12:03 PM.
  #267  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:06 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
That's a marginal rate, one that applies only in eight digits, not a base rate. So it isn't going to affect any payer's lifestyle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Gary Busey isn't President, so maybe we should count our blessings.
That would be worse?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Trump was very well known due to his hit TV show
Long before that. He got the show because he was already a famous media clown, and had been since the Seventies.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 02-07-2019 at 12:08 PM.
  #268  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:35 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
CNN has been a disgrace for quite some time now. And 70% is more than just "a little more".
OK, you don't like 70%. Maybe we can compromise on 60%. OK, 59%, you've talked me into it, this is the best I can do. All right, 58%, but I gotta get approval from the sales manager for that.

The only reason for the 70% number is that we used to have marginal tax rates on the super-rich that were that high. Then under Reagan we dropped them, and 40 years later it turns out that the super-rich are much much much richer, while everyone else is treading water. It turns out to be an empirical fact that a rising tide lifts the boats of the super-rich much more than it lifts the boats of Joe Meatball and Sally Housecoat and Eddie Punch-clock.

70% is just a number trotted out to show that we once used to have high taxes on the super-rich and it didn't cause a Mad Max apocalypse.

And it turns out that raising taxes on the rich is a super popular policy. Like, really popular, not just among Socialists. Even a guy like Donald Trump at one point pretended that he was in favor of higher taxes on the rich, that's how popular it is.

And it turns out that cutting taxes for the rich is extremely unpopular. And since that's Schultz's core policy, his appeal is limited to billionaires who wish Trump wasn't so vulgar.
  #269  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:41 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That's a marginal rate, one that applies only in eight digits.
Right, intended to apply only on income amounts over $50 million. It's entirely possible that Schultz never had that much income in any year ever, so it would have no impact on him at all.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #270  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Right, intended to apply only on income amounts over $50 million. It's entirely possible that Schultz never had that much income in any year ever, so it would have no impact on him at all.
Huh? Maybe I've been reading poor sources of journalism again, but Vox said:

Quote:
... Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a 70 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $10 million ...
  #271  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:18 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Gosh I have no idea how I would possibly get by on only 30% of my yearly income above 10 Million dollars. I wonder where the nearest soup kitchen is from me, I'd probably have to sell my car, so I hope its walking distance...
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #272  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
It's not a question of whether the poverty line should be $10M or $50M. It's a question of whether Evil Economist is right and Vox is full of shit, or Evil Economist is wrong and Vox is correct. I'm good either way, but I would like to know.
  #273  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:31 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not a question of whether the poverty line should be $10M or $50M. It's a question of whether Evil Economist is right and Vox is full of shit, or Evil Economist is wrong and Vox is correct. I'm good either way, but I would like to know.
Regardless of the bracket, whether it begins at $10m or $50m, it's still a marginal rate. You got that part, right?

(Also, "poverty line??")
.

Last edited by andros; 02-07-2019 at 01:31 PM.
  #274  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:37 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Freudian slip I'm assuming. What with all the poor persecuted billionaires these days. I'm sorry, persons of means.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #275  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Regardless of the bracket, whether it begins at $10m or $50m, it's still a marginal rate. You got that part, right?
Yes, I get that part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
(Also, "poverty line??")
.
It was an attempt at humor (apparently too subtle or off-key) based off Airbeck's "I wonder where the nearest soup kitchen is from me, I'd probably have to sell my car, so I hope its walking distance"

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-07-2019 at 01:38 PM.
  #276  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:43 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Yes that was called sarcasm
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #277  
Old 02-07-2019, 02:19 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
You know, whether Ocasio-Cortez thinks that we should have a marginal rate of 70% on incomes of 10 million or 50 million is somewhat interesting. But it's completely theoretical, because it's just one freshman representative suggesting a policy.

I'm curious about all you Republican socialism fighters. What do you think? Do you think the super-rich are taxed too heavily? Too lightly? Or did we somehow get it exactly perfect with the latest tax cuts for the super-rich? Or are the super-rich paying too much, and we need to finally give them the tax relief they deserve?
  #278  
Old 02-07-2019, 02:21 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
The super-rich? You mean the Job Creators, don't you?
  #279  
Old 02-07-2019, 02:28 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Please. Persons of means. That is now the preferred nomenclature.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #280  
Old 02-07-2019, 02:44 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Beats "capitalist pigs", I guess.
  #281  
Old 02-07-2019, 02:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
... I'm curious about all you Republican socialism fighters. What do you think? Do you think the super-rich are taxed too heavily? Too lightly? Or did we somehow get it exactly perfect with the latest tax cuts for the super-rich? Or are the super-rich paying too much, and we need to finally give them the tax relief they deserve?
I think our tax rates are still a long ways from the point where I might get heartburn over concern that they're too low.
  #282  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:01 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not a question of whether the poverty line should be $10M or $50M. It's a question of whether Evil Economist is right and Vox is full of shit, or Evil Economist is wrong and Vox is correct. I'm good either way, but I would like to know.
Whoops 10 million. Point still stands.

Ps do you actually read Vox? That would surprise me.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #283  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:03 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think our tax rates are still a long ways from the point where I might get heartburn over concern that they're too low.
If you want your tax rate to go down that missing revenue is going to have to come from somewhere. Which means you are also in favor of higher taxes on the rich.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #284  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:06 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Deficits bad
Taxes also bad
Wall money very good

Waiting for consistency seems like folly
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #285  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Whoops 10 million. Point still stands.
Thank you for clarifying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Ps do you actually read Vox? That would surprise me.
Yes, occasionally. I'm not eagerly devouring every article the instant it's published.
  #286  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
If you want your tax rate to go down that missing revenue is going to have to come from somewhere. Which means you are also in favor of higher taxes on the rich.
No, there is another option here that you seem to be missing. Think hard about what it might be.
  #287  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:32 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, there is another option here that you seem to be missing. Think hard about what it might be.
Is it “cut Medicare”? If so, focus on taxes.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #288  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:34 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Cut military spending?
No wall money?
Disband ICE?

Am I close?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #289  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:40 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Cut military spending?
No wall money?
Disband ICE?

Am I close?
Fewer FBI investigations.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #290  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:41 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Please. Persons of means. That is now the preferred nomenclature.
I'll go with "food".
  #291  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Is it “cut Medicare”? If so, focus on taxes.
I'll take the unsolicited advice under advisement. The next time you feel tempted to compose a sentence (fragment) with this format ("Which means you are also in favor of _____.") I'd like to urge you to first consider alternative explanations.

The question was asked "What do you think?" not whether it was politically feasible or likely to occur.
  #292  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:52 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'll take the unsolicited advice under advisement. The next time you feel tempted to compose a sentence (fragment) with this format ("Which means you are also in favor of _____.") I'd like to urge you to first consider alternative explanations.
I will also take the unsolicited advice under advisement.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #293  
Old 02-07-2019, 04:49 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Regardless of the bracket, whether it begins at $10m or $50m, it's still a marginal rate. You got that part, right?

(Also, "poverty line??")
.

I would support a 70% marginal rate on incomes above $10M. But the case many economists would make against it has nothing to do with how comfortable the person so taxed would be. They would say it removes too much incentive for executives and holders of private equity to create wealth for their companies and therefore also for the people who work there, and those who hold stock in the company, and all the businesses those people patronize, etc.

I doubt 70% is high enough to be a major problem in that regard. But it’s approaching that point, I think.
  #294  
Old 02-07-2019, 06:54 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I would support a 70% marginal rate on incomes above $10M. But the case many economists would make against it has nothing to do with how comfortable the person so taxed would be. They would say it removes too much incentive for executives and holders of private equity to create wealth for their companies and therefore also for the people who work there, and those who hold stock in the company, and all the businesses those people patronize, etc.

I doubt 70% is high enough to be a major problem in that regard. But it’s approaching that point, I think.
A look at history would be illuminating in this regard. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the USA had a marginal tax rate around 70% on earnings above some large number of millions of dollars, for quite a few years.

Did executives quit in any noticeable numbers? Did innovation and entrepreneurial activity slacken during those decades? Did Americans of means just stop what they'd been doing and sit on their hands?

Or did the USA have an ever-increasing surge of invention and creativity and growth?

...Imma gonna say, the latter.
  #295  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:26 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
A look at history would be illuminating in this regard. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the USA had a marginal tax rate around 70% on earnings above some large number of millions of dollars, for quite a few years.

Did executives quit in any noticeable numbers? Did innovation and entrepreneurial activity slacken during those decades? Did Americans of means just stop what they'd been doing and sit on their hands?

Or did the USA have an ever-increasing surge of invention and creativity and growth?

...Imma gonna say, the latter.

Well, I said I didn't think 70 percent was too high, but that my sense is that it is approaching the "too high" line (that is, if you value capitalistic growth incentives, which is not necessarily the case for everyone).

In any case, hardly anyone was paying that 70 percent. My grandfather was a real estate tycoon who used all kinds of perfectly legal tax shelters.

https://www.aier.org/article/rich-ne...aid-70-percent
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #296  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:49 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Please. Persons of means. That is now the preferred nomenclature.
"Wealth enhanced."
  #297  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:34 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think our tax rates are still a long ways from the point where I might get heartburn over concern that they're too low.
So taxes on the super rich are too high, even after the last round of Republicantax cuts for the rich. But they didn't go far enough. Good to know. I'm sure the Republicans are going to be campaigning on that issue in 2020, just like they did in 2018.
  #298  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:37 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
And obviously the "Third Option" is record breaking budget deficits. We can fund tax cuts for the super rich by borrowing more money from China, I'm sure it will work out great.
  #299  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:41 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
So taxes on the super rich are too high, even after the last round of Republicantax cuts for the rich. But they didn't go far enough. Good to know. I'm sure the Republicans are going to be campaigning on that issue in 2020, just like they did in 2018.
I have no doubt they're not going to campaign on this issue in 2020, but that wasn't the question. Again, I was asked "What do you think?" not "What's a winning campaign strategy?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
And obviously the "Third Option" is record breaking budget deficits. We can fund tax cuts for the super rich by borrowing more money from China, I'm sure it will work out great.
Think harder.
  #300  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:11 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Let poor kids and senior citizens die in the street by eliminating or severely cutting social security and medicare and programs like WIC?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 02-08-2019 at 11:11 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017