I dunno, but the 1990s rates are less unfair than what we have now, IMHO.

Good point.Definitely not.That's true, as of 2013, though the income at which the top rate kicks in is higher now than it was then.

Why did I think we still had the so-called Bush tax cuts? Did those go away?Got a link for us?You first.

By taking taxes from people with a little bit "extra" (however that is defined) and paying it to people who will spend the money immediately. This is really mainstream stuff. I'm not sure why it's so surprising to you.

EDIT: And what j.o.b. are you referring to? Not enough of those to go around lately.

Lived in several homes and a few apartments. Never had an issue with neighbors. Perhaps it's not them.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Vastly depends. I have OK neighbors now, but I had a few asshats in NJ. (Angry closet case who was in everyone's business without the charm of Ms. Marple, internet spammer with a serious taste for heroin, HS dropout chick who lived with her grandparents and who'd steal from cars to satisfy her drug habit, or maybe just because.)

It just varies depending on luck and location.

If you adjust for inflation, I think the top rates will kick in at about the same level - though I've not taken the time to run the numbers.

Effective tax rates over time by quintile: Greg Mankiw's Blog: Federal Tax Rates by Income Quintile. Note it's ends in 2010 so does not reflect the reversion to Clinton rates for top tiers.

You started it, you go first.

It surprises me that people believe that kind of thinking. It comes from the assumption that a few people are better at determining the needs of many people than individuals making their own choices en masse.

Perhaps one reason there aren't enough jobs is that there isn't enough money in the market to support more jobs. Some folks argue that this is a good reason to create further debt and expand the government payroll -- as though debt expansion were the same as wealth creation.

No, it comes from studying history.Some economists think so. Others disagree. I have not seen any data to support your side, but then I have not studied the matter in detail, so please show me where I've gone wrong.I have never heard anyone make that argument.

They are but are marketing it as luxury.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

That chart shows the tax rate for each quintile. My pea brain can't go from marginal rates to overall rates that way. This analysis also doesn't account for all of the economic gains rich people have that are not included in "income" for tax purposes.No way. You're the one who brought up the idea of picking a number out of the air. I never suggested that I had any such number in mind.

We can study right here and now. We've spent roughly a brazilian dollars of debt since the 1960's and are currently running the spending engine flat-out but we can't get the tire out of the mud.

History is always equivocal when it comes to the economy. I'll bet a yankee dime I can find articles by Nobel Laureates who think gov spending to get out of debt is a bad idea. I can also find them that think just the opposite. On any given subject within economics I can find reputable experts who disagree.

I'm with you on not studying economic theory. It's not from laziness or lack of interest. It's from lack of respect for the art form.

[QUOTE=Honus;3252063]No, it comes from studying history.Some economists think so. Others disagree. I have not seen any data to support your side, but then I have not studied the matter in detail, so please show me where I've gone wrong.I have never heard anyone make that argument.[/QUOTE]


Do you live under a ROCK?

Jim asked you first.

Yes.

What is this, 1st grade?

OK, he asked me first. Here's my answer: I don't know. Tag. You're it.