Do you think nobody pays taxes?

Of course not; but people who actually see the effect of higher taxes in their paychecks are usually a lot more upset regarding government waste and generally dislike having their taxes raised.

I did not dislike having my taxes raised.

When were your taxes raised, at least on the federal level?

Has the tax brought in enough revenue to offset the business that didn't come? I'm guessing no. There are qualitative differences of course too. Taxes are a nuanced subject and should probably be done in certain cycles, yes, I'm just tired of reading Teahadist fiscal inanity lately and get testy.

When they were raised.

How would you go about quantifying that effect? More importantly, why is it relevant? Is the justification for any tax in the trade-offs that it creates?

What you just said is completely meaningless.


As opposed to Mr. I don't pay any taxes yet I feel completely justified in making fun of people who are against raising them.

Got it!

Federal income taxes haven't been increased since before you were in grade school.

Do these ad hominem arguments usually work for you?

When they were raised.

That was not an ad hominem (fancy Latin term gets italicized), but nice try!

I think it was, at least in the making.

You think incorrectly.

Uh, yeah? Isn't that most policy humans agree to set forth, justification based on trade-offs?



I'm not sure I remember what I meant either. Quaaludes cloud my thinking.



Yeah, I'm living the high life. No, I'm against raising it for anyone that isn't in the top 2%. That real wages have stagnated at best for all but the wealthy since the 70s is not a coincidence. Economic inequality and staggered social mobility is a hell of a good way to perpetuate long-term societal instability.

Does the first question go unanswered then?

To answer the second point: any tax that is levied will lead to reduced economic activity; the reduction in economic activity will always be higher than the revenue the tax raises - and this is without accounting for government waste. So, by your logic, ALL taxes should be abandoned due to negative tradeoffs. That is something that I would welcome, of course, but I doubt that's where you were going with it.



Why the top 2%? Why not 3, 5, 10, 25 or 50? What's so magical about that percentage?

That's just not true, but even if it were, the statement does not take into account lowered taxation, because wages are considered before-tax. And taxes have indeed decreased for all the groups. Additionally, inflation affects people in the lower income levels less than people who are richer - something that real wage growth statistics do not take into account.


Are you seriously suggesting that society today is less stable than at any point between the 60's and the 90's? Sheesh!

How would it be implemented? I have no clue. Could it be implemented? No idea.

No, I am trying to say policy is generally based when weighing positive, negative, neutral and mixed trade-offs.

Top 2% for obvious reasons.

And yes, that's true. Christ, even the Mises Institute has acknowledged this shit. A bunch of real reds there.

And no, I didn't say that. It is indisputably a factor, it is not in itself an inevitable cause nor will its effects always be visible immediately in some or many forms.

What are you talking about? All I asked about was how it could be quantified, not if the effect could be implemented.

Great! So now that we've established that taxation has negative economic effects that outweigh positive taxation revenue, are you onboard with getting rid of taxation altogether?

Which are?

Here's the real wage chart from 1967 to 2003. As you can see your original statement is NOT true. And this is BEFORE taking into account lower taxation and the fact that inflation has a lower impact on the poor than on the rich.



So how do you explain the fact that as income inequality has increased, societal stability has also increased? What are the other factors that are accounting for this seeming discrepancy?

Not sure. Anyone here that does these studies for a living?



Oh yeah, I was clearly talking about all taxes.



Best way to get cash?



Where's the top 2%? A less than 15%-looking (I hate tiny graphs like this) increase compared to the 50% increase for the 95 percentile doesn't count as stagnation? 15% over 30 years for the 50 percentile is pretty meager. When you go higher than 5%, it's even worse. 27 times to 300 times for executives, for example, since 1980. I fully blame the slash-taxes-for-the-rich-and-spend-wildly policies of Raygun. And since you want to take in external factors, how about debt and loansharking or that the real inflation of necessities have outstripped the dollar's inflation?



A decrease in racial tension since the 60s? Technological and culture developments? Having a strong dictatorship? EI certainly has hurt Latin America. Chile's solid development (and probably less drug transport, and having a smaller population) from economic liberalization has kept it from looking like Brazil or Mexico, though if infrastructure starts decaying or it starts to fall behind its neighbors, this can change. The income inequality is already there. The smog in Santiago looks a bit less toxic than that of Cairo. What's to stop this from happening in America? We've got the income inequality that isn't stopping, plenty of people left behind by de-industrialization, overcrowded prisons, and a sturdy illicit materials culture. We just need the inequality to continue to increase and to be surpassed in average health, infrastructure and quality of life by former and current monarchies and authoritarian states. Oh wait, that's already happened in a few cases and the rest isn't far away. That the economy and energy squeeze will make the next twenty years very painful won't help.

Did Tyler win?

think so

celebrate?

The Enfrenchment of Nico.

yes, by virtue of having posted last

And all its implications.

Were you trying to say something?

I did say something.