The US is insolvent !

Thanks Cypress, So he is just mind tripping. Has listening to rush been declared an addiction or mental illness yet ?
 
uscitizen said:
Where did you read or hear 90% dix ?
Or you just tripping again ?
Click to expand...

We used to have a top marginal rate of 90%, it's not tripping to think that liberals would just love to return us to a 90% top marginal rate for the rich. I never said that anyone had suggested it, or that it was in the works, I made a sarcastic remark! Do you goofy bitches understand what a sarcastic remark is?

From my point of argument, it really doesn't matter if it's 90% or 40%, the results will be the same, you will discourage the rich old farts from spending their money, and encourage them to keep it in the mattress. I don't need to listen to Rush to understand this, it's basic fucking common sense. The more you tax the rich, the more the rich will find ways to avoid your taxation.


Now, do any of you silly bastards want to argue the point, or stay on topic here, or are you all caught up this frenzy of bashing Dixie for no reason? If you're all going to act like a bunch of menopausal old ladies at the beauty parlor, at least find something tangible I've said to pick apart, and stop trying to create gossip from a sarcastic remark!
 
Dixie said:
From my point of argument, it really doesn't matter if it's 90% or 40%, the results will be the same, you will discourage the rich old farts from spending their money, and encourage them to keep it in the mattress. I don't need to listen to Rush to understand this, it's basic fucking common sense. The more you tax the rich, the more the rich will find ways to avoid your taxation.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that a marginal increase in the highest marginal tax rate for the very richest of Americans will cause those otherwise astute financial investors to take their money out of equity instruments that offer them opportunities for semi-sheltered capital gains, and from other legitimate tax sheltered investment opportunities in the equities markets and, instead, put their money in their mattresses where they will earn ZERO interest and be subject to the diminishing effects of inflation, not to mention bedbugs? Why, pray tell, would anyone QUIT taking steps to earn more money simply because the top end marginal tax rate for personal income was increased by three or four percent? That is irrational. It is clear that you really never have had any substantial equity that required any thoughtful pondering on your part as to how to protect it and maximize its earning potential. If you had, you would know that changes in the marginal tax rates may indeed have your accountant searching for loopholes in the tax law and other sheltered investment opportunities to move a portion of your portfolio into, but it would not cause you to abandon the equities market.... quite the contrary. The rich will find ways to avoid taxation, to be sure - they always do regardless of the marginal tax rates - but they will certainly not chose methods that take them away from the profits to be made by investing in American business.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
We used to have a top marginal rate of 90%, it's not tripping to think that liberals would just love to return us to a 90% top marginal rate for the rich. I never said that anyone had suggested it, or that it was in the works, I made a sarcastic remark! Do you goofy bitches understand what a sarcastic remark is?

From my point of argument, it really doesn't matter if it's 90% or 40%, the results will be the same, you will discourage the rich old farts from spending their money, and encourage them to keep it in the mattress. I don't need to listen to Rush to understand this, it's basic fucking common sense. The more you tax the rich, the more the rich will find ways to avoid your taxation.


Now, do any of you silly bastards want to argue the point, or stay on topic here, or are you all caught up this frenzy of bashing Dixie for no reason? If you're all going to act like a bunch of menopausal old ladies at the beauty parlor, at least find something tangible I've said to pick apart, and stop trying to create gossip from a sarcastic remark!
Click to expand...
They ignore that taxes are only collected on realized gains, and that if the tax is simply too high they don't realize the gain, they keep it on paper and therefore less is collected.

If the rich are unwilling to rotate investment revenues become stagnated.

Now, if the Rs are willing to spend like Bush it doesn't matter that we increase revenue through the tax cut, because we outspend the increase by a magnitude of 3 and thus increase our debt...

(And Cypress, please do remember that I have been talking about Bush's spending since NCLB and the Pill Bill... )
 
Dixie said:
...Like a bunch of menopausal old ladies at the beauty parlor enjoy gossiping!
Click to expand...

did you used to cut women's hair, by the way? I, myself, have never spent any time at a beauty parlor - and certainly would never go near one that was frequented by menopausal old ladies. How would YOU know about such a group's like and dislikes? Is that where you go to meet women?
 
Dixie said:
We used to have a top marginal rate of 90%, it's not tripping to think that liberals would just love to return us to a 90% top marginal rate for the rich. I never said that anyone had suggested it, or that it was in the works, I made a sarcastic remark! Do you goofy bitches understand what a sarcastic remark is?

From my point of argument, it really doesn't matter if it's 90% or 40%, the results will be the same, you will discourage the rich old farts from spending their money, and encourage them to keep it in the mattress. I don't need to listen to Rush to understand this, it's basic fucking common sense. The more you tax the rich, the more the rich will find ways to avoid your taxation.


Now, do any of you silly bastards want to argue the point, or stay on topic here, or are you all caught up this frenzy of bashing Dixie for no reason? If you're all going to act like a bunch of menopausal old ladies at the beauty parlor, at least find something tangible I've said to pick apart, and stop trying to create gossip from a sarcastic remark!
Click to expand...


-We used to have a top marginal rate of 90%, it's not tripping to think that liberals would just love to return us to a 90% top marginal rate for the rich

Please, you're embarrassing yourself. NO ONE has suggested returing the top marignal rate to 90%. That was an artifact of World War Two - a national emergency when we needed to raise revenues to wage a global war and defeat worldwide fascism and imperialism. John Kennedy (rightly) reduced this world war two artifact, by reducing the top marignal rate. And he was a liberal.


-From my point of argument, it really doesn't matter if it's 90% or 40%, the results will be the same, you will discourage the rich old farts from spending their money, and encourage them to keep it in the mattress.

this is moronic. The ultra rich keep most of their money in investments that are only taxed at, perhaps, a 15% effective rate - dividends, capital gains, property. Or in investment vehicles that pay zero federal taxes on interest earned- state or municipal bonds.

Don't worry about the ultra-rich Dixie. They NEVER paid 90 cents on the dollar in taxes, as you suggested, and since investment income is taxed differently that payroll wage income, its easy for them to pay a lower effective tax rate than most schmucks in the middle class drawing a paycheck
 
Cypress said:
-We used to have a top marginal rate of 90%, it's not tripping to think that liberals would just love to return us to a 90% top marginal rate for the rich

Please, you're embarrassing yourself. NO ONE has suggested returing the top marignal rate to 90%. That was an artifact of World War Two - a national emergency when we needed to raise revenues to wage a global war and defeat worldwide fascism and imperialism. John Kennedy (rightly) reduced this world war two artifact, by reducing the top marignal rate. And he was a liberal.


-From my point of argument, it really doesn't matter if it's 90% or 40%, the results will be the same, you will discourage the rich old farts from spending their money, and encourage them to keep it in the mattress.

this is moronic. The ultra rich keep most of their money in investments that are only taxed at, perhaps, a 15% effective rate - dividends, capital gains, property. Or in investment vehicles that pay zero federal taxes on interest earned- state or municipal bonds.

Don't worry about the ultra-rich Dixie. They NEVER paid 90 cents on the dollar in taxes, as you suggested, and since investment income is taxed differently that payroll wage income, its easy for them to pay a lower effective tax rate than most schmucks in the middle class drawing a paycheck
Click to expand...

Who is embarrassing themselves? Dixie clearly said he was being fascetious and that nobody had suggested a return to a 90% marginal tax rate. Shoot, you even quoted the lines that said that while saying that "nobody suggested a return... blah"... Come on Cypress, don't just read the name and then go off.
 
Damo rides to the rescue of dixie.

Yeah, Dixie said he was being sarcastic that anyone had publically proposed a return to a 90% top marginal rate. But, he stated that liberals were at least thinking about it, and would love to return to a 90% top marginal rate.

-We used to have a top marginal rate of 90%, it's not tripping to think that liberals would just love to return us to a 90% top marginal rate for the rich


Moronic. It was a great american liberal who reduced the top marginal rate of 90%, and that top marginal rate was an outdated artifact left over from world war two, to pay for the war on germany and japan.

Remember when we had presidents who actually paid for their wars?
 
maineman said:
Do you really think that a marginal increase in the highest marginal tax rate for the very richest of Americans will cause those otherwise astute financial investors to take their money out of equity instruments that offer them opportunities for semi-sheltered capital gains, and from other legitimate tax sheltered investment opportunities in the equities markets and, instead, put their money in their mattresses where they will earn ZERO interest and be subject to the diminishing effects of inflation, not to mention bedbugs? Why, pray tell, would anyone QUIT taking steps to earn more money simply because the top end marginal tax rate for personal income was increased by three or four percent? That is irrational. It is clear that you really never have had any substantial equity that required any thoughtful pondering on your part as to how to protect it and maximize its earning potential. If you had, you would know that changes in the marginal tax rates may indeed have your accountant searching for loopholes in the tax law and other sheltered investment opportunities to move a portion of your portfolio into, but it would not cause you to abandon the equities market.... quite the contrary. The rich will find ways to avoid taxation, to be sure - they always do regardless of the marginal tax rates - but they will certainly not chose methods that take them away from the profits to be made by investing in American business.
Click to expand...


You sound like a freakin Royal Bank of Scotland commercial!

The statement I made about putting their money in the mattress, was not intended to be taken literally! Jeesh!

I know that a change of two or three percent in the top marginal rate, seems like no big deal to a washed up swabbie who has nothing, but to the top marginal rate taxpayer, it can mean millions of dollars. And YES, millions of dollars lost in taxes, is reason for a rich old fart to NOT spend his money. Why would I take money out of a secure shelter, where it's earning 7%, to put it into a business venture that might return 10%, with 40% taxation? Why would I give up making a sure $2 million next year, for the hope of making $3 million, and letting Uncle Sam take $1.7 million of it in taxes?

Again, we aren't talking about something static. Rich people come in all shapes and sizes, some are richer than others. Some of them spend a considerable amount of time, researching their options for investment. If the investment is not going to produce favorable results for them, they have no reason to make such an investment. When the top marginal rate is low, it opens a lot more avenues for the rich to explore, regarding investments and business ventures. Increasing it by just a few percent, changes these options quite considerably.

Even a change as little as 1% will change the dynamics, because 1% is a lot of money when you are talking billions. I realize, with you Navy pension, 1% doesn't seem like all that much, and to you, it's probably not, but to a billionaire, 1% is a million dollars.
 
Dixie said:
You sound like a freakin Royal Bank of Scotland commercial!

The statement I made about putting their money in the mattress, was not intended to be taken literally! Jeesh!

I know that a change of two or three percent in the top marginal rate, seems like no big deal to a washed up swabbie who has nothing, but to the top marginal rate taxpayer, it can mean millions of dollars. And YES, millions of dollars lost in taxes, is reason for a rich old fart to NOT spend his money. Why would I take money out of a secure shelter, where it's earning 7%, to put it into a business venture that might return 10%, with 40% taxation? Why would I give up making a sure $2 million next year, for the hope of making $3 million, and letting Uncle Sam take $1.7 million of it in taxes?

Again, we aren't talking about something static. Rich people come in all shapes and sizes, some are richer than others. Some of them spend a considerable amount of time, researching their options for investment. If the investment is not going to produce favorable results for them, they have no reason to make such an investment. When the top marginal rate is low, it opens a lot more avenues for the rich to explore, regarding investments and business ventures. Increasing it by just a few percent, changes these options quite considerably.

Even a change as little as 1% will change the dynamics, because 1% is a lot of money when you are talking billions. I realize, with you Navy pension, 1% doesn't seem like all that much, and to you, it's probably not, but to a billionaire, 1% is a million dollars.
Click to expand...

why would anyone take money out of the stock market, where it can earn significantly more than a money market account, just because the tax rate goes up? Dixie..... look.... when someone earns money from a sheltered investment, what do you think really happens to their money? When someone puts money into a tax free muni bond, or an insured money market account, do you think that the stack of bills sits inside a vault and magically grows by some percentage each night? Do you think elves are busy inside the vault printing new money so that the investment earns a return? WHere do you think the money goes, if not into our economy?

And it seems that you still have no idea what the term "marginal tax rate" means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top