this will happen to America

#202
#202
Ed12111 said:
You know who loved a progressive tax? Adam Smith. The rest of your post is nonsense. Egregious in the mind of you not on a historical or world-wide level.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against a progressive tax. I'm making fun of your senseless posts that imply there isn't one today. Level of egregiousness is about who's paying what. Broke kids like the earned income credits - it makes them happy and by God that's what it's all about. My happiness, on your idiotic happiness index, somehow doesn't seem to matter to your egregious relativity. Why not?
 
#203
#203
BeecherVol said:
Are you happy?
Click to expand...

This is getting absurd. What else matters other than happiness when it comes to taxation policies? It's a completely subjective thing. Your outrageous progressive tax policy would have been an amazing tax cut in another era. Your chief argument is that it's not fair which makes you unhappy. Get a grip guys.
 
#205
#205
BigPapaVol said:
I'm not arguing against a progressive tax. I'm making fun of your senseless posts that imply there isn't one today. Level of egregiousness is about who's paying what. Broke kids like the earned income credits - it makes them happy and by God that's what it's all about. My happiness, on your idiotic happiness index, somehow doesn't seem to matter to your egregious relativity. Why not?
Click to expand...

So your arguing with a straw man. Because I sure as Hell never claimed there wasn't a progressive tax. Now you're getting to the crux of the problem I'm concerned with average happiness on a nationwide scale. Whereas, you're concerned with your happiness.
 
#206
#206
Ed12111 said:
When pretty simple and effective tools don't go your way you dismiss them, and make up outright falsehoods to discredit them. Who's the idiot?
Click to expand...

I didn't dismiss anything. Your non answer didn't address why it's this enormous problem relative to immigration. You've routinely held this up as a gigantic issue and your lone answer has been a happiness index, which is stupid as hell, period. If it's about happiness, let's just roll out the heroin and be happy.
 
#207
#207
Ed12111 said:
So your arguing with a straw man. Because I sure as Hell never claimed there wasn't a progressive tax. Now you're getting to the crux of the problem I'm concerned with average happiness on a nationwide scale. Whereas, you're concerned with your happiness.
Click to expand...

National happiness is your justification for this problem you can't seem to explain but want to address. Awesome.
 
#210
#210
Ed12111 said:
This is getting absurd. What else matters other than happiness when it comes to taxation policies? It's a completely subjective thing. Your outrageous progressive tax policy would have been an amazing tax cut in another era. Your chief argument is that it's not fair which makes you unhappy. Get a grip guys.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't completely subjective, period. It's not about relative levels of taxation and happiness.
 
#211
#211
Ed12111 said:
Except those economics aren't grounded in reality. We've tried that experiment it failed.
Click to expand...

No. It absolutely DID NOT fail. Bush inherited an economy headed toward recession. I know the propagandists don't like it... but it IS a historical reality. He and the GOP Congress in one of their few genuinely conservative efforts, cut taxes. We had a VERY robust recovery with LOTS OF JOBS that even 9/11 could not quell. Reagan inherited one of the worst economies since the Depression. Through cuts in taxes and regulations, a robust recovery was realized. Kennedy did the same thing. Clinton did something similar after 94 with his "strong dollar" policy which was effectively a tax cut for the business/investment class without calling it one.

EACH of these recovery policies produced jobs and simultaneously increased revenues to the Treasury. The only one of the periods in which spending was held even weakly in check was when the GOP and Clinton gridlocked each other. If the resulting minimal reduction in spending increases could produce a surplus and robust economy... imagine what REAL cuts could do.

By contrast, LBJ's policies led to the 70's problems... Nixon's Keynesian/Progressive approach to economics only made things worse... Carter doubled down.

Obama's "recovery" has been anemic and has CLEARLY favored the elites and "super rich".
 
#212
#212
Ed12111 said:
Can't seem to explain? You're lost.
Click to expand...

Clearly I'm the lost one. You've labeled this one of your key issues to denote your enormous level of caring on the left and your response to why it's a national issue is to check happiness indices around the world. Pure genius.
 
#213
#213
The ONLY thing that failed about the Supply Side approach is that each increase in revenues was met with an even greater increase in spending.
 
#214
#214
Ed12111 said:
In a perfectly fair system that stayed forever fair? You would never see the divide you do. Human talents are not distributed that way.
Click to expand...

So you take what belongs to someone else to try to achieve a definition of fairness that could never possibly exist? It doesn't matter how much money you redistribute to people there will always be those that squander it away and ask for more, and there will always be people out there that fight tooth and nail to give it to them so the cycle can repeat.
 
#217
#217
lumberjack4 said:
So you take what belongs to someone else to try to achieve a definition of fairness that could never possibly exist? It doesn't matter how much money you redistribute to people there will always be those that squander it away and ask for more, and there will always be people out there that fight tooth and nail to give it to them so the cycle can repeat.
Click to expand...

Huh? What we have today wouldn't exist in a fair system(which was your question). Human talent isn't distributed that way.
 
#219
#219
Ed12111 said:
Oh really? Pray tell, what should tax policy be based on? What is the ultimate goal?
Click to expand...

In America, it's to fund the government. The debate should be about what is being funded and finding a way to develop a self-perpetuating tax structure. The ultimate goal would be about ensuring our way of life to the extent that we can.
 
#222
#222
BigPapaVol said:
In America, it's to fund the government. The debate should be about what is being funded and finding a way to develop a self-perpetuating tax structure. The ultimate goal would be about ensuring our way of life to the extent that we can.
Click to expand...

That's not an answer. Ensuring our way of life to the extent that we can? That doesn't mean anything. You've already said your not against a progressive tax, so what is the ultimate goal?
 
#225
#225
Ed12111 said:
So your arguing with a straw man. Because I sure as Hell never claimed there wasn't a progressive tax. Now you're getting to the crux of the problem I'm concerned with average happiness on a nationwide scale. Whereas, you're concerned with your happiness.
Click to expand...
If the field is "slightly" (Ithink that was the word you used) more equal.

Whos to say that makes them happy?

If the rich only want to get richer, why would this not work the same with those on the bottom.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top