Europe and the IMF to Bail Out Greece

[opebo]

But that is not what you said! You specifically said going back to the top rates of the 70s would be enough and it clearly wasn't. You were, as usual, trying to claim that everything was better in the 70s and this was a good illustration of the fact that this is not based on real analysis from your side.

That isn't what I said, of course, but in any case it is worth noting that there was both no deficit and higher employment in the 1970s.  Certainly the 70s were enormously better than the present, though perhaps not 'everything' was better.

Your method of argumentation, Gustaf, is solely to put words into your opponents mouth and then make misleading claims about their supposed claims.  As your own source (the website) shows, there is plenty of money in the hands of the upper class to close the deficit.

[Gustaf]

But that is not what you said! You specifically said going back to the top rates of the 70s would be enough and it clearly wasn't. You were, as usual, trying to claim that everything was better in the 70s and this was a good illustration of the fact that this is not based on real analysis from your side.

That isn't what I said, of course, but in any case it is worth noting that there was both no deficit and higher employment in the 1970s.  Certainly the 70s were enormously better than the present, though perhaps not 'everything' was better.

Your method of argumentation, Gustaf, is solely to put words into your opponents mouth and then make misleading claims about their supposed claims.  As your own source (the website) shows, there is plenty of money in the hands of the upper class to close the deficit.

Lol. You were the ones to mention tax rates on the rich from the 70s, even being as specific as talking about 70%-90% and claiming that those levels would be enough to get rid of the deficit. It isn't as if that was my idea.

All I did was point out that increasing taxes by such a huge amount would hurt the people paying them. You waved this away by saying that it would be sufficient to return to the tax levels of the 70s on the rich. I demonstrated that this was false.

You then changed your position, based on the data I gave you, no less, to develop a more sophisticated argument that may have more merit. The point is that you clearly had no idea what you were talking about and is not man enough to admit it. And it is, really, terribly shameless of you to try and run away from your argument now that you have been proven wrong.

It must take considerable powers of delusion to ignore facts to this dramatic extent.

[opebo]

All I did was point out that increasing taxes by such a huge amount would hurt the people paying them. You waved this away by saying that it would be sufficient to return to the tax levels of the 70s on the rich. I demonstrated that this was false.

You then changed your position, based on the data I gave you, no less, to develop a more sophisticated argument that may have more merit. The point is that you clearly had no idea what you were talking about and is not man enough to admit it. And it is, really, terribly shameless of you to try and run away from your argument now that you have been proven wrong.

No, I never 'changed my position', Gustaf, I never took the position you said I did in the first place.  I stated:

Well, I don't know about 'tough or unusual' - would simply returning to the reasonable tax rates which prevailed before the Reagan debacle be 'tough' or 'unusual'?  More like a return to normalcy from my point of view.

Firstly, I was speaking in the context of Europe, so obviously my point was not very specific about exactly what rates (and after all 'before the Reagan debacle' does include a lot of history, with top rates at varying amounts - but the point being they were mostly higher).  Secondly I also never made a specific claim about what this 'return' would do, beyond making the situation better and 'sustainable'.

Whether a return to a 90% top tax rate would precisely eliminate 100% of the deficit or not (who can say?) it would certainly make it a lot better.  And besides, 'hurting' those persons in that class is a benefit, not a downside for those of my political preferences.

My point or claim was obviously not as specific as you represent - I was presenting the idea that the general tax structure which prevailed throughout the world before 'the Reagan debacle' (neoliberalism/Thatcherism/etc.) was more normal, sustainable, and better than what is the situation now, and that returning to a rough approximation of same is a good idea. (and who could deny such a reasonable observation?)  I later examined your web site sources, and we can see from those that the elite class does have plenty of income that they are keeping (they only pay a very small percentage), so it is clear that their under-taxation could be considered a major part of the cause of the deficit.

Your attempt to pin me to the claim that a particular tax rate does not do a particular thing is disingenuous.

Lastly I'd like to point out that saying someone 'has no idea what he is talking about' is borderline personal attack. 

[Gustaf]

All I did was point out that increasing taxes by such a huge amount would hurt the people paying them. You waved this away by saying that it would be sufficient to return to the tax levels of the 70s on the rich. I demonstrated that this was false.

You then changed your position, based on the data I gave you, no less, to develop a more sophisticated argument that may have more merit. The point is that you clearly had no idea what you were talking about and is not man enough to admit it. And it is, really, terribly shameless of you to try and run away from your argument now that you have been proven wrong.

No, I never 'changed my position', Gustaf, I never took the position you said I did in the first place.  I stated:

Well, I don't know about 'tough or unusual' - would simply returning to the reasonable tax rates which prevailed before the Reagan debacle be 'tough' or 'unusual'?  More like a return to normalcy from my point of view.

Firstly, I was speaking in the context of Europe, so obviously my point was not very specific about exactly what rates (and after all 'before the Reagan debacle' does include a lot of history, with top rates at varying amounts - but the point being they were mostly higher).  Secondly I also never made a specific claim about what this 'return' would do, beyond making the situation better and 'sustainable'.

Whether a return to a 90% top tax rate would precisely eliminate 100% of the deficit or not (who can say?) it would certainly make it a lot better.  And besides, 'hurting' those persons in that class is a benefit, not a downside for those of my political preferences.

My point or claim was obviously not as specific as you represent - I was presenting the idea that the general tax structure which prevailed throughout the world before 'the Reagan debacle' (neoliberalism/Thatcherism/etc.) was more normal, sustainable, and better than what is the situation now, and that returning to a rough approximation of same is a good idea. (and who could deny such a reasonable observation?)  I later examined your web site sources, and we can see from those that the elite class does have plenty of income that they are keeping (they only pay a very small percentage), so it is clear that their under-taxation could be considered a major part of the cause of the deficit.

Your attempt to pin me to the claim that a particular tax rate does not do a particular thing is disingenuous.

Lastly I'd like to point out that saying someone 'has no idea what he is talking about' is borderline personal attack.  

You said this:

What now?  I was proposing that a solution to our problems was merely to increase the tax rates on the rich to what they used to be.   The meaning of your response was quite unclear.

So, you claimed that increasing the tax rates on the rich (which means increasing the top rates) to what they used to be would solve the problem of a deficit. This was wrong, and, quite  clearly  from what you've been saying, you were not actually basing this statement on any kind of facts.

Is it so hard for you to admit this? It IS possible to favour high taxation without making things up, you know. I have good friends who favour substantially higher taxation than what we're discussing here, but they have the intellectual honesty to not base this position on fantasies.

[opebo]

Your post wasn't very clear, as it was poorly formatted, but from what I guess to be your meaning, you are again precisely accusing me of what I did not do.  Yes, obviously I favor much higher taxation, but I did not post anything specific enough to be called a 'fantasy'.

In any case, as the web site you provided clearly shows, the deficit is very small compared to the income of the elite class, so it is hard to see how anyone could dispute the fact that 1.5 trillion could, in some way, be subtracted from 4.2 trillion. 

[Democratic Hawk]

Your post wasn't very clear, as it was poorly formatted, but from what I guess to be your meaning, you are again precisely accusing me of what I did not do.  Yes, obviously I favor much higher taxation, but I did not post anything specific enough to be called a 'fantasy'.

In any case, as the web site you provided clearly shows, the deficit is very small compared to the income of the elite class, so it is hard to see how anyone could dispute the fact that 1.5 trillion could, in some way, be subtracted from 4.2 trillion.  

In the UK, the personal wealth of the Sunday Times Rich list (1000) is circa twice that of the deficit

[opebo]

Your post wasn't very clear, as it was poorly formatted, but from what I guess to be your meaning, you are again precisely accusing me of what I did not do.  Yes, obviously I favor much higher taxation, but I did not post anything specific enough to be called a 'fantasy'.

In any case, as the web site you provided clearly shows, the deficit is very small compared to the income of the elite class, so it is hard to see how anyone could dispute the fact that 1.5 trillion could, in some way, be subtracted from 4.2 trillion.  

In the UK, the personal wealth of the Sunday Times Rich list (1000) is circa twice that of the deficit

Well I was talking about their income of course (that of the top 10%).  It would be nice to confiscate all their assets, but, perhaps we'd have a bit of a bloodletting getting to that level of reform.

[Democratic Hawk]

Your post wasn't very clear, as it was poorly formatted, but from what I guess to be your meaning, you are again precisely accusing me of what I did not do.  Yes, obviously I favor much higher taxation, but I did not post anything specific enough to be called a 'fantasy'.

In any case, as the web site you provided clearly shows, the deficit is very small compared to the income of the elite class, so it is hard to see how anyone could dispute the fact that 1.5 trillion could, in some way, be subtracted from 4.2 trillion. 

In the UK, the personal wealth of the Sunday Times Rich list (1000) is circa twice that of the deficit

Well I was talking about their income of course (that of the top 10%).  It would be nice to confiscate all their assets, but, perhaps we'd have a bit of a bloodletting getting to that level of reform.

When it comes to taxes, I'll be criticising the 'Coalition', which I do not support, from the left (VAT) - it's regressive - and the right (capital gains tax and on second homes) should they decide to proceed with any of them.

My third-cousin who owns the 'Village Kitchen' and employs six part-time staff - above the minimum wage - worries that any increase in VAT will put her out of business

Not to mention any VAT hike infringing on my liberty as a consumer. I felt the benefit when it was temporarily reduced to 15%