Brace yourselves

[Recursion]

Anyone with an interest in sanity would do well to stay off the board for a bit. We've been "within sight" of a deal several times now.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. Good idea...

I think I'll take...just as soon as I see the jury decision for a post about the "big Obama lie"

[Angry Dragon]

2. I need 70% for the top rate

like in the old days

[Undismayed]

3. Didn't work very well for France.

Many of their top earners just left. Other countries welcomed them with open arms.

[GeorgeGist]

4. Tell me more

[brucefan]

5. Oh goody

Romney and the Koch bros are leaving?

[Undismayed]

6. Only officially.

I'm sure that their various shell corporations and cronies will continue to screw us over.

[Aerows]

18. The Wall Street crooks

can't leave, because they have nowhere to go. Had they pulled that shit in Asian markets, they would have been executed for fraud. This fear-mongering that they will run off somewhere else is just that - fear-mongering. They desperately want people to think they can bring their special brand of "benevolence" elsewhere, but the truth is, in most other countries they would either be in jail, executed or rendered penniless.

[Angry Dragon]

7. We used to have that as the top rate

and anyone that would leave because they are asked to help their country is a traitor

[Undismayed]

8. You seriously think that anyone actually paid that rate?

Income under-reporting is rampant now, just think how easy it was back then!

[Aerows]

14. I'd rather have a far higher rate

on what they are under-reporting than a lower rate for what they are under-reporting.

Do you think if the tax rate was even lower they would report more? LOL.

[JaneyVee]

9. Lolz. No they didn't. 1 guy did.

[Undismayed]

10. I guess it's irrelevant because their supreme court threw out that 75% rate.

[Aerows]

12. I'm assuming that you don't know much

about the history of tax rates in our nation, and how during the times of highest taxation for the top brackets were the most prosperous times for our nation. Hint: It was higher than 75%.

[Undismayed]

13. If you think that anyone paid those rates, you're very naive.

Like I stated earlier, income under-reporting happens today, think about how much easier it was back when the rates were that high.

[Aerows]

15. Again

Do you think if tax rates were even lower than they are now that those that currently under-report wouldn't still under-report? Explain to me how a much higher tax rate on under-reporters would generate less revenue than a lower tax rate on under-reporters.

I await your explanation of how that works.

[Undismayed]

20. If you tax someone at 35%, the incentive to under-report is lesser than at 70%.

People will take greater risks for higher profit.

[Aerows]

27. People that under-report at 70%

are still going to under-report at 35% until they get into trouble for doing it. That's just the way it is, and it is naive to think otherwise. Also, if they under-report at 70%, when they do get caught, there's a much larger fine than there would be at under-reporting at 35%.

I sense that you are one of those that thinks the world would work a lot better if there were no taxes at all, and everyone self funded.

[Aerows]

11. Top Tax Rate under Eisenhower

was 90%. It was during the most prosperous of times for the middle class. If the top earners think they can find somewhere better to go, have at it. Let's see where they leave Wall Street to go to. Think they could function in the Asian markets? I don't, because had they done what they did here in Asian markets, they would have already been executed for fraud. They don't fool around there.

I'm serious. Head on out. Let's see where they go. Those that don't can fund a more prosperous nation for the middle class, and thereby increase their own prosperity.

[PufPuf23]

16. I have been thinking about posting about Eisenhower's 90% top tax rate

A major impact was that more $ were spent by the wealthy for tax deductable business expenses and investments that created middle classs jobs and income.

[Aerows]

24. Exactly

That's why there was much more prosperity. This idea that we can't raise taxes or they will take their balls and go somewhere else is preposterous. This idea that lower taxes make for a more prosperous nation with better services is also preposterous.

There are always going to be people that whine about paying taxes - it has happened since civilization began. It's like corporations crying about regulations. There isn't a single sensible regulation that has ever been proposed that corporations haven't declared as the apocalypse for their business. It started with outlawing child labor.

Oh look, businesses are still open without child labor.

[PufPuf23]

28. Why don't you make an OP?

I have a slow internet and not much energy so tend to parachute post.

[Aerows]

29. I just really

enjoy shooting down the "OMG taxes are horrible" crowd, and the "all the important "benevolent" people will leave us!" folks.

You can just pick their points off one by one because it's not like any of their arguments have been proven by history, but they still insist that if it doesn't work, well, we didn't cut taxes enough!

LOL. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's just why I like to mess with them, especially when they are brand new, low post count users. We are discussing raising tax rates. I can't IMAGINE why a brand new user would be on here screaming to high heaven about the dangers of raising taxes.

[Undismayed]

17. Maybe they'll just make their own nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/peter-thiel-seasteading_n_930595.html

[Aerows]

19. Mmmm

That one worked out well. Call me when you have one that actually works and is willing to create it's own standing army, because if you have wealth concentrated in one place, you'd better have a military to defend it. And those that don't want to pay taxes aren't going to be in a hurry to pay taxes necessary to defend such a colony.

Next?

[Undismayed]

22. Who knows if it will work?

It will be interesting to watch, however. Do you think they'll allow citizens to own anti-aircraft missiles, as their personal freedom principles suggest?

[Aerows]

25. Do you think other nations will allow it?

If you think some independent party is going to be allowed to arm up near the coast, or approach the coast of another nation, you are dreaming. No nation in their right mind would let such an entity threaten their coast or dock in their ports. Unless you suddenly have devised a way that they can move around without fuel, and can survive without goods from off of said ship or platform. You can't eat a portfolio located in another nation. Eventually you have to have real goods, and again, no nation is going to trade with a bunch of rogues with anti-aircraft missiles.

[Recursion]

21. Cool story, bro

Frankly I'd be willing to lose the 1%'s money if it also meant the 1% left.

[Starry Messenger]

26. I guess they'll have to move to Canada...oh wait.

Their taxes are even higher.

Somehow I'm not seeing a big exodus in the cards.

[tavernier]

23. Thanks for that

I love Sean Bean.