Is it even possible to be in a 60's percent tax bracket???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's not how law works. Law is on the 'asshole NRA's' side. Therefore, it's not them that needs to come up with a reason not to enact it. It's up to Obama to come up with valid reasons TO enact it. And if he had those, he would not be using executive order.

By that logic, no executive order ever has a valid reason behind it. Obviously that is not true.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why people believe it is unreasonable for people of any income to want to keep what they earn. There is a tipping point when it comes to taxes. California may very well have reached that point. I wouldn't live there when other options are available.

[Anonymous]

Pro golfers belief they should not pay taxes. They belief that b/c they have no guaranteed contracts and start the year at "o" earnings, they should not pay taxes. Some how this makes them different, they are special. Everyone else has their salaries guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people believe it is unreasonable for people of any income to want to keep what they earn. There is a tipping point when it comes to taxes. California may very well have reached that point. I wouldn't live there when other options are available.

He's a golfer, he can live in Florida if he wants. It's not that hard, you don't need some mythical tax tipping point.

[Anonymous]

It isn't mythical.

[Anonymous]

50 or 60 years ago when the rates went up to 90%, people got rich anyway. Maybe they worked harder (or smarter).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It isn't mythical.

It is mythical. The proof is that tax rates have been substantially higher in the past, and yet no major catastrophe.

[jsteele]

I noticed that Mickelson backed away from his remarks:

"I think it was insensitive to talk about it publicly to those people who are not able to find a job, that are struggling paycheck to paycheck."

"I've never had a problem paying my fair share. I don't know what that is right now, but I've never had a problem paying my fair share."

"I've said some stupid things in the past that have caused a media uproar before," he said. "It's part of my life, and I'll deal with it."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-phil-mickelson-taxes-20130123,0,1236129.story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't mythical.

It is mythical. The proof is that tax rates have been substantially higher in the past, and yet no major catastrophe.

1. Yes, from the late 1940s though the early 1960s, economic growth averaged 3.7% even though top tax rates were around 90% (though effective tax rates were much lower). From 1983 through 2007, when top tax rates were 50% or less, GDP growth averaged around 3.3%.

2. But as I have written frequently, the post-World War II decades were affected by many one-off factors, not the least of which was that they occurred right after a devastating global war that left America’s competitors in ruins. A National Bureau of Economic Research study described the situation this way: “At the end of World War II, the United States was the dominant industrial producer in the world. … This was obviously a transitory situation.”

And as former Bain Capital executive Edward Conard notes in his new book, Unintended Consequences:

The United States was prosperous for a unique set of reasons that are impossible to duplicate today, including a decade-long depression, the destruction of the rest of the world’s infrastructure, a failure of potential foreign competitors to educate their people, and a highly restricted supply of labor. For the sake of mankind, let’s hope those conditions aren’t repeated. It seems to me anyone who makes comparisons between today’s economy and that of the 1950s and 1960s without fully disclosing their differences is deceiving their readers.

3. Starting in the early 1970s, economic growth slowed in advanced economies (perhaps because the benefits from great innovations from the Second Industrial Revolution had run their course.) But growth slowed less in nations that embraced pro-market reforms such as deregulation and lower marginal tax rates. For instance, while U.S. per capita GDP grew by 55% from 1981-2000, French per capita GDP grew by just 39%.

4. Then there are the Clinton years. Clinton raised taxes and the economy did just fine. What about that?

Well, a) when Clinton signed that tax hike bill, the economy had been growing for 9 straight quarters, including by 3.4% annually over the previous six quarters; b) the ’90s saw a big drop in oil prices, from $23 a barrel in 1991 to $12 in 1998, boosting real disposable incomes; c) government spending declined from 22.3% of GDP in 1991 to 18.2% in 2000, meaning fewer resources as a share of the economy were being used unproductively by Washington; d) the late 1990s saw a big cut in the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%; e) the late 1990s also saw a big surge in private investment, particularly in the software and business equipment category which contributed a full point to GDP during those years. Did the Clinton tax hikes cause that or was it a combo of the Internet Bubble, Year 2000 preparations, the cap gains cut, and the beginning of a computer networking and communications revolution? My bottom line on the 1990s:

The U.S economy entered the 1990s after undergoing a huge revamp in the 1980s: marginal tax rates were lowered from 70% to 28%, the inflation menace slayed, regulations reduced, and businesses got restructured and way more efficient. Then in the 1990s, government spending and debt were reduced, investment taxes cut, and a technological revolution kicked into high gear. Plus the Soviet Empire collapsed and the cloud of possible nuclear holocaust was lifted. Market capitalism was on the march. People were optimistic as heck about the future. And in the midst of all that, taxes were raised in 1993. So that means taxes should be raised now — and Obama wants to do so in the most economically harmful and inefficient ways — in a time of economic stagnation and pessimism?

Taxes and tax rates aren’t the only things that matter to economic growth, of course. And every tax cut won’t pay for itself. Moreover, government needs enough revenue to pay for defense, basic research, and a safety net.

But taxes are pretty important. And pro-growth tax reform – particularly if the U.S. shifted from an income tax to a consumption tax – could boost employment and income growth and give government more revenue to pay down debt.

Have mercy on the nation that doubts that.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/sorry-new-york-times-tax-cuts-sure-do-lead-to-economic-growth/

[Anonymous]

And:

http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It isn't mythical.


It is mythical. The proof is that tax rates have been substantially higher in the past, and yet no major catastrophe.




Great. Lets increase rates on the middle class and make the 47% who pay no federal income tax chip in their "fair share".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It isn't mythical.


It is mythical. The proof is that tax rates have been substantially higher in the past, and yet no major catastrophe.




Great. Lets increase rates on the middle class and make the 47% who pay no federal income tax chip in their "fair share".

We can't reverse the policies of Ronald Reagan.

[Anonymous]

Libs live to demonize Reagan. To hell with his policies. Let them pay tax!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Libs live to demonize Reagan. To hell with his policies. Let them pay tax!!

fine. Put in the GOP platform the following: "We repudiate the tax policies of Ronald Reagan." Then we'll talk.

Or you can just admit that liberals need to run the country because conservatives have failed.

[Anonymous]

Let me see......we are in the middle of the worst recovery in our lifetimes.....hmmmm....Nope, can't say that liberals need to run the country. You are running it into the ground.