Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 7928057" data-attributes="member: 549629">If you were to take what I said in context, instead of chopping out everything but that one sentence, you would realize I was disagreeing with the idea of discouraging spending. The part of what I said, that you conveniently left out, was: &quot;Im not at all sure I believe in discouraged spending. People will always want and need things.&quot;As for the &#039;paying 20% of $500,000 is worse than paying 0% of $50,000&#039;, you are ignoring one entire side of the argument. You concentrate only on the fact that the guy making $500k still takes home more money than the guy earning $50k. But in your usual way, you marginalize the higher income earner&#039;s work that earns him that increased income. Let me spell it out for you. One side of the argument claims the richer guy should pay more, because he can better afford it (I believe you once characterized this as he will own one less ferrari than he otherwise would). The other side of the argument says that the richer guy pays less % of his income, but over all pays more in taxes when you look at actual dollars. The &#039;fair truth&#039; lies somewhere in between these two extremist views. Your continuing to completely ignore the validity of the other side of the argument is why Ive called you an extremist in the past.Furthermore, the chart you always post in these threads, and the same argument you always fall back on, that the economy was stronger back when we had higher tax rates for the richest citizens, implies that the only contributing factor to the strength of an economy is its tax rates. This completely ignores other factors such as a housing or dot-com bubble, or wall street catastrophe.Hope that clears things up for you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 7928057, member: 549629"] If you were to take what I said in context, instead of chopping out everything but that one sentence, you would realize I was disagreeing with the idea of discouraging spending. The part of what I said, that you conveniently left out, was: [I]"Im not at all sure I believe in discouraged spending. People will always want and need things."[/I] As for the 'paying 20% of $500,000 is worse than paying 0% of $50,000', you are ignoring one entire side of the argument. You concentrate only on the fact that the guy making $500k still takes home more money than the guy earning $50k. But in your usual way, you marginalize the higher income earner's work that earns him that increased income. Let me spell it out for you. One side of the argument claims the richer guy should pay more, because he can better afford it (I believe you once characterized this as he will own one less ferrari than he otherwise would). The other side of the argument says that the richer guy pays less % of his income, but over all pays more in taxes when you look at actual dollars. The 'fair truth' lies somewhere in between these two extremist views. Your continuing to completely ignore the validity of the other side of the argument is why Ive called you an extremist in the past. Furthermore, the chart you always post in these threads, and the same argument you always fall back on, that the economy was stronger back when we had higher tax rates for the richest citizens, implies that the only contributing factor to the strength of an economy is its tax rates. This completely ignores other factors such as a housing or dot-com bubble, or wall street catastrophe. Hope that clears things up for you. [/QUOTE]

Verification