"When you have eliminated the impossible , whatever remains, however improbable, must

[Decepticon]

be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.

In order to continue reading this thread, you must accept that middle class income mobility was highest from the end of WW2 to the 1970's. If you can't accept this basic reality, there's nothing to discuss on this thread so don't bother poasting on it.

Redirect Notice

AND

You're Born Into It America | The Economic Populist

Now, given that TOP income tax rates during the administration of that PINKO COMMIE EISENHOWER, were OVER 90% and stayed there until Kennedy dropped them to the 60% then dropped again under Reagan and the Bush's down to under 25% today, if cuts to the top tax rate helps the middle class, we should see it.

If one looks at middle class income mobility (the ability to move UPWARD on the socio-economic ladder) during that time, it was the MOST PROSPEROUS TIME in the country's HISTORY for the middle class. Today, not so much.

So, what does this ELIMINATE? The notion that HIGH TAXES ON TOP EARNERS stunts economic growth. CLEARLY, it does NOT.

So while no DIRECT CAUSAL RELATION can be found between high tax rates and middle class economic mobility, the data shows that neither do high top tax rates PRECLUDE middle class upward mobility.
Now, when we look at what happened to middle class income mobility AFTER those tax cuts for the uber-rich were implemented, what happened? Why income mobility went DOWN, didn't it? Almost as if letting rich people keep their own money instead of paying it in taxes, ENCOURAGED rich people to keep MORE of the pie for themselves.

Again, while not PROVING that low tax rates on top earners is a DIRECT CAUSAL CORRELATION to a lower percentage of upward mobility, we CAN eliminate the idea that low tax rates are GOOD for the upward mobility for the middle class, can't we?

So what have I just done here? Through the process of elimination, I've just destroyed the credibility of anyone who suggests that cutting top tax rates is good for the vast majority of Americans AND demonstrating that top tax rates DO NOT act as a barrier to the middle class doing better.


RepubliCON policies regarding taxation are not in the best interests of 99% of Americans.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Want to shut me the hell up?

Show me how middle class wages have grown since the 80's.
Show me that the middle class has realized the same kind of relative gains as the uber rich!
Show me WHO picks up the tab for the deficits when revenues don't meet spending? Is it the people who got the sweetheart tax deals that CAUSED the deficits, or does EVERYONE get dumped on?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Interesting, nobody has posted so far....

 

[Decepticon]

Interesting, nobody has posted so far....

Telling indeed.

 

[Decepticon]

I hereby declare this thread a complete and utter victory for THE DECEPTICON!

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Sun Tzu

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Not to destroy your thuinder, but that has little to do with the new deal. Which is presumably what you believe you are "winning" in here as you blow your own horn.

 

[g5000]

This is the first I have seen the topic. From what I can tell it was posted just a short time ago.

Too soon to declare victory.

And even though the opening post says that if I cannot accept the stupidity of the opening post, not to even consider "poasting", well, I cannot resist.

The opening post is a textbook example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. You see, Sherlock, you eliminated other possibilities which may be causing a lack of upward mobility without evidence they should be excluded.

You did not do the work. You just blithely dismissed all other possibilities and then declared the one you want as the only possible answer. Frankly, I think you are a one track record who is only capable of thinking of one cause.

That is not how it works.

You used this fallacious method because you have no evidence to support the idea that low taxes cause low upward mobility. So you covered up this lack of evidence by eliminating all other possibilities with a logical fallacy.

Nice try, but you lose.

And there you were, in the jaws of victory.

What a shame.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

it appears g5000 just completely stole your thunder and also pwn'd you intertron gnueb style. You can put you pants back on and take off your victory hat.

 

[g5000]

The opening post also demonstrates the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

 

[Decepticon]

The opening post also demonstrates the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.

NOWHERE did I claim that high top tax rates cause middle class mobility.
NOWHERE did I claim that low top tax rates stifle middle class mobility.

MY CLAIM, which you were apparently too stupid to figure out, is that HIGH TOP TAX RATES did not PREVENT upward middle class mobility. That's a FAR CRY from your assertion that I excluded the middle, huh?

Come back when you have re-read what I wrote and apologize for your false accusations.

Oh, and I never took off my victory hat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.

In order to continue reading this thread, you must accept that middle class income mobility was highest from the end of WW2 to the 1970's. If you can't accept this basic reality, there's nothing to discuss on this thread so don't bother poasting on it.

Before we even get started, I have to accept that your premise is true, even though it is demonstrably false.

End of thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

The opening post also demonstrates the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.

NOWHERE did I claim that high top tax rates cause middle class mobility.
NOWHERE did I claim that low top tax rates stifle middle class mobility.

MY CLAIM, which you were apparently too stupid to figure out, is that HIGH TOP TAX RATES did not PREVENT upward middle class mobility. That's a FAR CRY from your assertion that I excluded the middle, huh?

Come back when you have re-read what I wrote and apologize for your false accusations.

Oh, and I never took off my victory hat.

You never had one. Because you're a dunce.
It is impossible to compare merely tax rates from one period to another. The whole tax structure has changed radically over the years. At one time, someone could average his income over 3 years. Now you can't.
The OP is a textbook example of "a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing."

 

[code1211]

be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.

In order to continue reading this thread, you must accept that middle class income mobility was highest from the end of WW2 to the 1970's. If you can't accept this basic reality, there's nothing to discuss on this thread so don't bother poasting on it.

Redirect Notice

AND

You're Born Into It America | The Economic Populist

Now, given that TOP income tax rates during the administration of that PINKO COMMIE EISENHOWER, were OVER 90% and stayed there until Kennedy dropped them to the 60% then dropped again under Reagan and the Bush's down to under 25% today, if cuts to the top tax rate helps the middle class, we should see it.

If one looks at middle class income mobility (the ability to move UPWARD on the socio-economic ladder) during that time, it was the MOST PROSPEROUS TIME in the country's HISTORY for the middle class. Today, not so much.

So, what does this ELIMINATE? The notion that HIGH TAXES ON TOP EARNERS stunts economic growth. CLEARLY, it does NOT.

So while no DIRECT CAUSAL RELATION can be found between high tax rates and middle class economic mobility, the data shows that neither do high top tax rates PRECLUDE middle class upward mobility.
Now, when we look at what happened to middle class income mobility AFTER those tax cuts for the uber-rich were implemented, what happened? Why income mobility went DOWN, didn't it? Almost as if letting rich people keep their own money instead of paying it in taxes, ENCOURAGED rich people to keep MORE of the pie for themselves.

Again, while not PROVING that low tax rates on top earners is a DIRECT CAUSAL CORRELATION to a lower percentage of upward mobility, we CAN eliminate the idea that low tax rates are GOOD for the upward mobility for the middle class, can't we?

So what have I just done here? Through the process of elimination, I've just destroyed the credibility of anyone who suggests that cutting top tax rates is good for the vast majority of Americans AND demonstrating that top tax rates DO NOT act as a barrier to the middle class doing better.


RepubliCON policies regarding taxation are not in the best interests of 99% of Americans.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Want to shut me the hell up?

Show me how middle class wages have grown since the 80's.
Show me that the middle class has realized the same kind of relative gains as the uber rich!
Show me WHO picks up the tab for the deficits when revenues don't meet spending? Is it the people who got the sweetheart tax deals that CAUSED the deficits, or does EVERYONE get dumped on?

I'm younger than the parents mentioned and older than the kids. I just don't fit.

However, my Dad's income was about in the middle of the middle class. So is mine.

My parents did not have a garage until all the "kids" had moved out. They made all the finishing touches on their house: trim, floors priming and painting. One black and white TV, 1 phone, 1 car, few vacations beyond comping, virtually no extravagances at all.

My house was finished when i bought it, 2 cars 2 TV's (both color and one is 3D), three phones that are in service and several that are obsolete, vacations in jamaica and others, redecorate as the magazine Decor might incite and eating out and ordering when the mood strikes.

By the table you posted, this is impossible and yet it is reality. Obviously, i also have a computer and that count is up to three for my household. Maybe your table is accurate and my life and that of my parents are just anomalous.

When comes down to believing my own eyes or believing your table, you probably already know which way I'm leaning.

 

[hortysir]

Damned elusive victories