RE: Where is the Conservative utopia?

RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 3:51:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway If you confiscate the money of the top earners, they will stop earning. They will leave. Actually that is not true. Th US had unbelieveably high top tax rates (90%+ was the top marginal rate) during the late 40's and throughout the 50's and we still built enormous wealth and we had vibrant and expanding upper and middle classes. That was due to, ..."expense accounts." No, it was due to tax shelters that were closed or not needed after the rates were dropped. The proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy increased, as they did after every other tax rate cut had time to take effect. Kendoll thinks you can repeat the same half truths enough they become true.

DomKen -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 4:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway If you confiscate the money of the top earners, they will stop earning. They will leave. Actually that is not true. Th US had unbelieveably high top tax rates (90%+ was the top marginal rate) during the late 40's and throughout the 50's and we still built enormous wealth and we had vibrant and expanding upper and middle classes. That was due to, ..."expense accounts." No, it was due to tax shelters that were closed or not needed after the rates were dropped. The proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy increased, as they did after every other tax rate cut had time to take effect. Kendoll thinks you can repeat the same half truths enough they become true. The proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy increased because the proportion of wealth held by the wealthy increased. That is what is expected to happen when you lower progressive marginal tax rates. You of course will not understand why that is a bad thing. BTW all the major tax shelters were unaffected by the early 60's tax cuts under discussion.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 4:37:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway If you confiscate the money of the top earners, they will stop earning. They will leave. Actually that is not true. Th US had unbelieveably high top tax rates (90%+ was the top marginal rate) during the late 40's and throughout the 50's and we still built enormous wealth and we had vibrant and expanding upper and middle classes. That was due to, ..."expense accounts." No, it was due to tax shelters that were closed or not needed after the rates were dropped. The proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy increased, as they did after every other tax rate cut had time to take effect. Kendoll thinks you can repeat the same half truths enough they become true. The proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy increased because the proportion of wealth held by the wealthy increased. That is what is expected to happen when you lower progressive marginal tax rates. You of course will not understand why that is a bad thing. BTW all the major tax shelters were unaffected by the early 60's tax cuts under discussion. ' Nonsense. The growth into the category of wealthy was nowhere near enough to account for the growth in the proportion of taxes paid after the tax rate cuts. And no, its not a bad thing when more people grow into the class of the wealthy. And since your ADHD has apparently caught up to you in the middle of this thread, we were talking about the largest reductions in the marginal tax rate...from 77 down to 50 during the 60s and 70s. The biggest rollback in tax shelters was in the mid to late 70s and early 80s. The drop you are talking about, from 91 to 77 under Kennedy and Johnson, and you are correct, there was little done re tax shelters. And guess what...they resulted in immediate increases in revenues. Why? Because existing tax shelters had to be used less, even though they existed. (Though part of the increase was due to a tax surcharge in 68-69.)

DomKen -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 6:19:06 PM)
who said the proportion of wealthy in the population increased? I certainly didn't. What happened in 61 is that the top earners became wealthier, fairly obviously because they kept more of what they were paid. That means, since the money pool is fairly static, that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of those top earners. This is bad because it directly impoverishes the rest of society which must effectively pay more for the same, due to the decrease in the size of the money pool available to them. And if you will simply look at the quoted posts you will see that actually yes I'm only talking about pre 1961 tax rates. You're continuing attempts to put words in my mouth is boring.

MrRodgers -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 6:36:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 People shouldn't confuse conservatism and capitalism. China is a capitalist utopia because it's all about the haves and the have nots and North Korea is a conservative utopia because nothing ever changes there. I think the new leader is a genetic clone of Kim Yong Il. You have it in a couple of lines where I was ready to write an essay. Our brand of unregulated banking/wall street/capitalism is all about turning paper into money. Whether you call it a stock, bond or future, all of our commodities and our capital are priced by the speculator trading this paper. When the capitalist is ready to cash-out, he turns his paper into our money. When he can't cash out, he quickly becomes a socialist coming to Washington (govt.) with his hand out. So we do have socialism...for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Conservatism was for over a century in this country, in battle against these forces...hence the term neocons or for elective office, RINO.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 7:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 People shouldn't confuse conservatism and capitalism. China is a capitalist utopia because it's all about the haves and the have nots and North Korea is a conservative utopia because nothing ever changes there. I think the new leader is a genetic clone of Kim Yong Il. You have it in a couple of lines where I was ready to write an essay. Our brand of unregulated banking/wall street/capitalism is all about turning paper into money. Whether you call it a stock, bond or future, all of our commodities and our capital are priced by the speculator trading this paper. When the capitalist is ready to cash-out, he turns his paper into our money. When he can't cash out, he quickly becomes a socialist coming to Washington (govt.) with his hand out. So we do have socialism...for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Conservatism was for over a century in this country, in battle against these forces...hence the term neocons or for elective office, RINO. Another clueless one who doesnt know the derivation or meaning of "neo-cons"

MrRodgers -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 7:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen who said the proportion of wealthy in the population increased? I certainly didn't. What happened in 61 is that the top earners became wealthier, fairly obviously because they kept more of what they were paid. That means, since the money pool is fairly static, that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of those top earners. This is bad because it directly impoverishes the rest of society which must effectively pay more for the same, due to the decrease in the size of the money pool available to them. And if you will simply look at the quoted posts you will see that actually yes I'm only talking about pre 1961 tax rates. You're continuing attempts to put words in my mouth is boring. What everybody wants to dodge is the fact that corporate and individual tax rates have steadily been coming down for all of those 50 years and to what end ? Where are the jobs ? They are legion...overseas. All of this while the fortune 500 has not created one net new job since the 60's. Corporate America does not create new jobs. It is in the business of cutting costs among the first is employees and tax liabilities are irrelevant. BTW the expression of 'proportion of the wealthy' is a misnomer in statistical terms as we measure the changes in wealth in the percentage of the population and assessing its top 1 or 5% of filers. From there we see those 5% enjoyed a raise...a raise in income since 1980 in real terms...more than the entire income of the bottom 20% of filers. In the Forbes 200 richest of 1980, there were only a few billionaires. To make that list of 200 now, you must be a multi-billionaire. Even the next 40 or 50 are paultry billionaires. Capitalism is means by which wealth is concentrated and debt is distributed.

rulemylife -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 7:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I see. So you think that you can sustain an argument that has no basis in reality by redefining your terms. Even by moving the goalposts, you can't get around the fact that the trend to move assets out of the 'States and outsource production started under Reagan. Presumably he wasn't offering big enough tax cuts?" See...that is why I quote your effusions....so everyone knows what I am responding to. I didn't move any goal posts or redefine any terms, buddy. Now that you have said it, go do your due diligence and prove your statement about the "trend starting under Ronald Reagan". Ok???? Put some facts on the board with some citations. You know it's interesting you said that because I've noticed your lengthy, convoluted posts never contain any citations that you are asking for from someone else. But that must undoubtedly be because what you say is obviously right.

rulemylife -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 7:57:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Close, but no cigar. He dropped tax rates as a bribe to encourage people to vote for him. he'd doubtless noticed how well that had worked for his bitch on the other side of the pond. Of course, in his case there weren't an publically owned services to sell off in order to cover the revenue shortfall, so he started inflating your deficit by farting around with the tax rate. LIAR! Deceptive and duplicitous! You should be ashamed of yourself. I want your mother's telephone number so I can tell her! The tax reform act was done in 1986 during Reagan's second term, genius. Know what? You probably knew that. You just wanted to disseminate false information for those liberal swine too lazy to fact check you. Except you conveniently forgot to mention the Economic Recovery Tax Act in 1981. But I'm sure that was just an honest mistake, so I won't need your mother's telephone number.

MrRodgers -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/3/2010 8:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Close, but no cigar. He dropped tax rates as a bribe to encourage people to vote for him. he'd doubtless noticed how well that had worked for his bitch on the other side of the pond. Of course, in his case there weren't an publically owned services to sell off in order to cover the revenue shortfall, so he started inflating your deficit by farting around with the tax rate. LIAR! Deceptive and duplicitous! You should be ashamed of yourself. I want your mother's telephone number so I can tell her! The tax reform act was done in 1986 during Reagan's second term, genius. Know what? You probably knew that. You just wanted to disseminate false information for those liberal swine too lazy to fact check you. Except you conveniently forgot to mention the Economic Recovery Tax Act in 1981. But I'm sure that was just an honest mistake, so I won't need your mother's telephone number. What is important for this post is that for the original conservatism, all of this tax debate is superfluous. Conservatism holds that society does not tax production with any income tax. All neocon tax policy theories are irrelevant as it is their goal to amass debt in the west and trust me...they won't be joining us. They are the lenders.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 9:58:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk But one can't equate a socialist state (ie Norway) with a totalitarian state (ie north korea) and call them the same thing. So the Norwegian welfare state is going to be your model of socialist perfection, Yngblk? No, I was stating that you can't equate one with the other.......but then again a socialist country laden with tall blondes can't be all bad :)

mnottertail -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 10:11:23 AM)
nor is the fact that the whip our ass in nearly every measure.

Moonhead -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 10:32:37 AM)
They even have better metal bands...

DomYngBlk -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 11:03:33 AM)
And the aforementioned tall blondes

FirmhandKY -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 11:03:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That means, since the money pool is fairly static, that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of those top earners. This is bad because it directly impoverishes the rest of society which must effectively pay more for the same, due to the decrease in the size of the money pool available to them. So, economics is a zero-sum game? Firm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 11:32:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That means, since the money pool is fairly static, that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of those top earners. This is bad because it directly impoverishes the rest of society which must effectively pay more for the same, due to the decrease in the size of the money pool available to them. So, economics is a zero-sum game? Firm Of course..isnt that obvious? There is no more wealth in the world today than there was in 1492.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 2:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That means, since the money pool is fairly static, that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of those top earners. This is bad because it directly impoverishes the rest of society which must effectively pay more for the same, due to the decrease in the size of the money pool available to them. So, economics is a zero-sum game? Firm Of course..isnt that obvious? There is no more wealth in the world today than there was in 1492. Why start at 1492? Let's go back to the Neolithic. I just love my new improved flint axe, with tendon bindings! State of the Art for bringing home the bacon to my warm, snug cave! [:D] Firm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 4:14:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That means, since the money pool is fairly static, that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of those top earners. This is bad because it directly impoverishes the rest of society which must effectively pay more for the same, due to the decrease in the size of the money pool available to them. So, economics is a zero-sum game? Firm Of course..isnt that obvious? There is no more wealth in the world today than there was in 1492. Why start at 1492? Let's go back to the Neolithic. I just love my new improved flint axe, with tendon bindings! State of the Art for bringing home the bacon to my warm, snug cave! [:D] Firm I started there because Isabella was a capitalist extraordinaire!

DomKen -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 8:27:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That means, since the money pool is fairly static, that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of those top earners. This is bad because it directly impoverishes the rest of society which must effectively pay more for the same, due to the decrease in the size of the money pool available to them. So, economics is a zero-sum game? Firm Maybe you should try reading what I wrote again. Sound out all the big words and look up the ones you don't understand.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Where is the Conservative utopia? (10/5/2010 8:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That means, since the money pool is fairly static, that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of those top earners. This is bad because it directly impoverishes the rest of society which must effectively pay more for the same, due to the decrease in the size of the money pool available to them. So, economics is a zero-sum game? Firm Maybe you should try reading what I wrote again. Sound out all the big words and look up the ones you don't understand. Neat side-step in failing to answer the question, with the ubiquitous personal insults thrown in to deflect from the fact that you can't or won't answer. Rule 5, right? Firm

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875