[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
And why don’t you quote figures and points of view that aren’t from corporate think tanks?
[/quote]
As anyone could have guessed by now, you can’t back your asertions up with any sort of fact or figure.
Shocking, I know.
I didn’t make a claim to wealth distribution, what do I have to back up?[/quote]
You made accusations that my sources are untrustworthy with the implication that your source "Thomas Sowell " is…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
And why don’t you quote figures and points of view that aren’t from corporate think tanks?
[/quote]
As anyone could have guessed by now, you can’t back your asertions up with any sort of fact or figure.
Shocking, I know.
I didn’t make a claim to wealth distribution, what do I have to back up?[/quote]
You made accusations that my sources are untrustworthy with the implication that your source "Thomas Sowell " is…
[/quote]
So again, you avoid proving your asertions, why is that?
Secondly, read the book, you’ll see how silly you sound when you do. This isn’t a partisian look, not at all.
Please point out my “accusation”.
Pretty sure I asked for a source for your asertion.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Please point out my “accusation”.
Pretty sure I asked for a source for your asertion. [/quote]
Dude you have said several times for me to quote a more credible source that those left-wing nut jobs. This is an accusation you’ve made to me before or something like it. You implicitly infer that your sources are reliable i.e. Thomas Sowell
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
And why don’t you quote figures and points of view that aren’t from corporate think tanks?
[/quote]
As anyone could have guessed by now, you can’t back your asertions up with any sort of fact or figure.
Shocking, I know.
I didn’t make a claim to wealth distribution, what do I have to back up?[/quote]
The more wealth distribution the better for the majority. We had the most productive economy in the 1950’s and tax rates were upwards for 90%. During the last 12 years we’ve has tax cuts for the so-called “job creators” and the economy is in the shitter. I don’t have to quote conservative buffoons to try and make someone believe my ideology I can just point to the empirical evidence of history. Truth doesn’t lie.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
And why don’t you quote figures and points of view that aren’t from corporate think tanks?
[/quote]
As anyone could have guessed by now, you can’t back your asertions up with any sort of fact or figure.
Shocking, I know.
I didn’t make a claim to wealth distribution, what do I have to back up?[/quote]
The more wealth distribution the better for the majority. We had the most productive economy in the 1950’s and tax rates were upwards for 90%. During the last 12 years we’ve has tax cuts for the so-called “job creators” and the economy is in the shitter. I don’t have to quote conservative buffoons to try and make someone believe my ideology I can just point to the empirical evidence of history. Truth doesn’t lie.
[/quote]
You are conflating your interpretation of the data with the data and the last sentence is a tautology.
Are you of DMaddox´s tribe?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Please point out my “accusation”.
Pretty sure I asked for a source for your asertion. [/quote]
Dude you have said several times for me to quote a more credible source that those left-wing nut jobs. This is an accusation you’ve made to me before or something like it. You implicitly infer that your sources are reliable i.e. Thomas Sowell[/quote]
First off, asking for a less biased source isn’t a accusation. Look up what the word means. Secondly, again, read the book, you’ll see how foolish this statement is. Because I’m not “inferring” anything, and no matter how many time you keep saying it, it won’t be true.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The more wealth distribution the better for the majority.[/quote]
How about no. The simple fact is wealth is earned not distributed in America. If you have a problem with what we as a citizenry reward, than take it up with the citizens, but you are wrong, because we don’t distribute wealth here.
We give lower income people money to live on, and that is in fact distribution, but that isn’t enough to be remotely close to wealth, and was never intended
We’ve been through this before, your appeal to authority isn’t going to work this time again. You don’t understand the IRC enough for this statement to carry any weight.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
But for shits and giggles:
When you are done with these, I’ll have a few more areas that you’ll have to explain before your false characterization and simplification of a larger and more complex issue will be fully shown to be as false as it is.
“We’ve has” tax cuts for everyone over the last 12 years, everyone. But nice try at cherry picking details.
[quote] I don’t have to quote conservative buffoons to try and make someone believe my ideology I can just point to the empirical evidence of history. Truth doesn’t lie.
[/quote]
Correct, truth doesn’t lie, and you don’t have to quote buffoons. But you haven’t actually posted any truth, and you my friend are quickly showing yourself to be the buffoon, particularly when it comes to discussions on basic economics and taxes.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Please point out my “accusation”.
Pretty sure I asked for a source for your asertion. [/quote]
Dude you have said several times for me to quote a more credible source that those left-wing nut jobs. This is an accusation you’ve made to me before or something like it. You implicitly infer that your sources are reliable i.e. Thomas Sowell[/quote]
First off, asking for a less biased source isn’t a accusation. Look up what the word means. Secondly, again, read the book, you’ll see how foolish this statement is. Because I’m not “inferring” anything, and no matter how many time you keep saying it, it won’t be true. [/quote]
I know what the word means. If you want to spend all day splitting hairs we can. Your argument is basically such: Anything you quote is from an unbiased source and something in which someone else quotes- that doesn’t agree with you- is obviously biased. This is your philosophy distilled.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The more wealth distribution the better for the majority.[/quote]
How about no. The simple fact is wealth is earned not distributed in America. If you have a problem with what we as a citizenry reward, than take it up with the citizens, but you are wrong, because we don’t distribute wealth here.
We give lower income people money to live on, and that is in fact distribution, but that isn’t enough to be remotely close to wealth, and was never intended
We’ve been through this before, your appeal to authority isn’t going to work this time again. You don’t understand the IRC enough for this statement to carry any weight.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
But for shits and giggles:
When you are done with these, I’ll have a few more areas that you’ll have to explain before your false characterization and simplification of a larger and more complex issue will be fully shown to be as false as it is.
“We’ve has” tax cuts for everyone over the last 12 years, everyone. But nice try at cherry picking details.
[quote] I don’t have to quote conservative buffoons to try and make someone believe my ideology I can just point to the empirical evidence of history. Truth doesn’t lie.
[/quote]
Correct, truth doesn’t lie, and you don’t have to quote buffoons. But you haven’t actually posted any truth, and you my friend are quickly showing yourself to be the buffoon, particularly when it comes to discussions on basic economics and taxes. [/quote]
The Nizkor project sounds a lot like you!
Effective tax rates are what one actually pays. Nominal or marginal is the tax bracket.
In 1986 the tax rate was restructured going from a 14 tier to a 2 tier. Eventually phasing out the 33% tax bracket.
Here is a study done to show the low level of taxation on the wealthy in the U.S. over the last century. All info taken from the left-wing GAO: http://pdflike.com/read.php?url=http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf
Cherry picking? You act as if the middle class benefitted as the wealthy have. The percentage increase in after-tax income tilts greatly in the favor of those who make over 1MM per year.
If truth doesn’t lie then why are the austerity measures in Europe plundering them into a depression yet Ecuadors stimulus is causing them to get out of the economic doldrums? This empirical observation flies in the face of conservative economics. Yet it is happening right before our eyes. What could be going on? One does not need to know the intricacies of taxation on on S-corp or C-corp or LLC’s to see what is going on around them.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your argument is basically such: Anything you quote is from an unbiased source and something in which someone else quotes- that doesn’t agree with you- is obviously biased. This is your philosophy distilled.
[/quote]
No, it isn’t my “philosophy”, not at all. If you didn’t spend so much time seeing people with a different perspective as an enemy you would know that.
My “philosophy” would be more accurately defined as: Your confirmation bias is just as bad if not worse than anyone’s, so seeing as I’m here to debate and learn, I’m going to challenge you to provide sources to back up your claims. Just so happens your sources tend to omit information that doesn’t fit in the neat confines of the box you paint, so it is only intellectually honest to look deeper for other sources than lefty think tanks and Rolling Stone partisan hacks.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The Nizkor project sounds a lot like you![/quote]
Is this an attempt at an insult? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
So… You intentionally only mention marginal rates when comparing taxation across eras? Or are you just waiting until the right moment to unleash the comparison of effective rates?
This is just the beginning of the changes, please go on…
[quote]Here is a study done to show the low level of taxation on the wealthy in the U.S. over the last century. All info taken from the left-wing GAO: http://pdflike.com/read.php?url=http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf
[/quote]
Did you not just contradict yourself?
Also, these graphs do not lend the credence you think they do to your argument. At least to those that can think.
Please show me the change in taxes paid, effective rates. Also define “middle class”. Oh and please do this tracking individuals, because all the stats broken out strictly by income quintile just so happen to ignore the income mobility in America.
Source?
I suppose you have the analysis comparison of these two vastly different situations done by more than one person with any sort of credentials in economics?
What is the difference in debt levels? Which European countries? What are the difference in GDP? What was government spending differences between the two? Which natural resources do each country being compared have, what are their tax rates and rates of nationalization? What social services do each country provide?
I mean, are the two situations you are trying to compare even remotely similar?
Um, to talk about tax rates across eras and not sound like you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, I suggest one would have to understand the detail of the situation…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your argument is basically such: Anything you quote is from an unbiased source and something in which someone else quotes- that doesn’t agree with you- is obviously biased. This is your philosophy distilled.
[/quote]
No, it isn’t my “philosophy”, not at all. If you didn’t spend so much time seeing people with a different perspective as an enemy you would know that.
My “philosophy” would be more accurately defined as: Your confirmation bias is just as bad if not worse than anyone’s, so seeing as I’m here to debate and learn, I’m going to challenge you to provide sources to back up your claims. Just so happens your sources tend to omit information that doesn’t fit in the neat confines of the box you paint, so it is only intellectually honest to look deeper for other sources than lefty think tanks and Rolling Stone partisan hacks. [/quote]
And Sowell somehow escapes these “think tanks”. Who has he written for and joined up with in his career? The sad truth is that conservative economics doesn’t work. It is failing miserably in Europe and just the opposite is triumphing in Ecuador. But because you are so married to your ideology it blinds you to see the truth. You’d rather wax poetic over the minutiae and get into the DNA because it gives you the feeling of intelligence rather than noticing what is currently going on in the world when these economics are applied actually.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The Nizkor project sounds a lot like you![/quote]
Is this an attempt at an insult? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
So… You intentionally only mention marginal rates when comparing taxation across eras? Or are you just waiting until the right moment to unleash the comparison of effective rates?
This is just the beginning of the changes, please go on…
[quote]Here is a study done to show the low level of taxation on the wealthy in the U.S. over the last century. All info taken from the left-wing GAO: http://pdflike.com/read.php?url=http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf
[/quote]
Did you not just contradict yourself?
Also, these graphs do not lend the credence you think they do to your argument. At least to those that can think.
Please show me the change in taxes paid, effective rates. Also define “middle class”. Oh and please do this tracking individuals, because all the stats broken out strictly by income quintile just so happen to ignore the income mobility in America.
Source?
I suppose you have the analysis comparison of these two vastly different situations done by more than one person with any sort of credentials in economics?
What is the difference in debt levels? Which European countries? What are the difference in GDP? What was government spending differences between the two? Which natural resources do each country being compared have, what are their tax rates and rates of nationalization? What social services do each country provide?
I mean, are the two situations you are trying to compare even remotely similar?
Um, to talk about tax rates across eras and not sound like you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, I suggest one would have to understand the detail of the situation…
[/quote]
An article written with graphs to show who benefitted most during the Bush tax cut yeahttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/
Once again you want to make yourself feel intelligent by talking about GDP and debt levels but every time one uses austerity as a means to reign in the debt it hurts the economy BESIDE those factors. And every time a government uses an appropriate stimulus to help a sagging economy it works. Is this just coincedence?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
And Sowell somehow escapes these “think tanks”. Who has he written for and joined up with in his career?[/quote]
Again, read the book. Anyone that has actually read the book knows how silly you sound.
Someone should have told that to JFK and Reagan, particularly Reagan. Things sure slowed down to a grinding halt in the 80’s.
Already addressed your newest talking point.
You are projecting. Why, I have no idea. Maybe you feel less guilty accusing others of your own faults, I don’t know.
Pardon me, I’d rather take the time to actually understand a situation, and look at the micro, which creates the macro BTW, than just jump to conclusions based on my confirmation bias, quite like you do.
Yeah, I’m sure I’m going to suffer for wanting to understand the entire picture rather than just a small section. Whoa is me.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but every time one uses austerity as a means to reign in the debt it hurts the economy BESIDE those factors. And every time a government uses an appropriate stimulus to help a sagging economy it works. Is this just coincedence?
[/quote]
Source?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your argument is basically such: Anything you quote is from an unbiased source and something in which someone else quotes- that doesn’t agree with you- is obviously biased. This is your philosophy distilled.
[/quote]
No, it isn’t my “philosophy”, not at all. If you didn’t spend so much time seeing people with a different perspective as an enemy you would know that.
My “philosophy” would be more accurately defined as: Your confirmation bias is just as bad if not worse than anyone’s, so seeing as I’m here to debate and learn, I’m going to challenge you to provide sources to back up your claims. Just so happens your sources tend to omit information that doesn’t fit in the neat confines of the box you paint, so it is only intellectually honest to look deeper for other sources than lefty think tanks and Rolling Stone partisan hacks. [/quote]
Actually I have a good idea for you. You can comment on this open forum debate and try to impress people with you GDP, social services effective tax rate side show arguments on why tax cuts for the rich and austerity easures are good for a failing economy. Maybe you can educate these folks. What's the Best Way to Stimulate the Economy? - NYTimes.com
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but every time one uses austerity as a means to reign in the debt it hurts the economy BESIDE those factors. And every time a government uses an appropriate stimulus to help a sagging economy it works. Is this just coincedence?
[/quote]
Source?[/quote]
Evidence. History. Current economic affairs.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
An article written with graphs to show who benefitted most during the Bush tax cut yeahttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/
[/quote]
Chart 1: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities? Would need a concurring opinion before that couple be accepted, because total government receipts went up under Bush43.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0469.pdf
So, not sure how those tax cuts were somehow magically a reduction of revenue according to CBPP and an increase according to the government…
Chart 2: This ignores income mobility and assumes the same people are making the same amount of money each year. In short, it measures year over year income. Anyone with any sort of understanding of business or wealth management knows income fluxes year to year. Shoot in 1980 Bill Gates would be bottom 10% and 2010 he is top 1%…
Chart 3: lol, just lol. Share of what? Savings? Expenses? Payments? Payments as a percent of income? Just lol at a journalist putting this non-descriptive garbage in an article.
Chart 4: Actually supports my position, but I’m weary that it may be garbage as well. Sowell addresses the issues with median income in his book. The fact is that rising tides lift all boats. Wealth and income are two different things, and I’m not about to take this chart at face value due to the fact it supports my claim that everyone benefited from the cuts.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but every time one uses austerity as a means to reign in the debt it hurts the economy BESIDE those factors. And every time a government uses an appropriate stimulus to help a sagging economy it works. Is this just coincedence?
[/quote]
Source?[/quote]
Evidence. History. Current economic affairs.[/quote]
In other words: you can’t back up your opinion in any meaningful way other than “because I said so”?