Moderator: Community Team
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Symmetry wrote:Just as a heads up, France uses Euros, rather than Dollars. Carry on.
spurgistan wrote:Your quick reminder that this refers to marginal income over euro sign 1,000,000. Nobody will be taxed at a 75% effective rate. Also, he's going to get rid of most loopholes. And he's cutting corporate taxes pretty hard. So there's that.
Symmetry wrote:I guess I'm being pedantic at this point, but $ is the sign for dollars. ā¬ is the sign for Euros. Or you can just say 1 million Euros if you don't have a key on your keyboard for it.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Symmetry wrote:I guess I'm being pedantic at this point, but $ is the sign for dollars. ā¬ is the sign for Euros. Or you can just say 1 million Euros if you don't have a key on your keyboard for it.
Woah, I just realised I don't have a euro or pound key on this keyboard.
Feels, weird.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
john9blue wrote:lol wow guys.
you should feel a little bad about being completely clueless about the french currency.
regarding the topic: 75% marginal tax rate is kind of ridiculous at any level of income.
Symmetry wrote:john9blue wrote:lol wow guys.
you should feel a little bad about being completely clueless about the french currency.
regarding the topic: 75% marginal tax rate is kind of ridiculous at any level of income.
Not sure it's ridiculous for any level of income, but perhaps for the 1 million Euro threshold. The US has run similar, and even larger levels of income taxation in the past and still prospered, albeit at higher threshold levels.
Link
Symmetry wrote:
Not sure it's ridiculous for any level of income, but perhaps for the 1 million Euro threshold. The US has run similar, and even larger levels of income taxation in the past and still prospered, albeit at higher threshold levels.
Link
BigBallinStalin wrote:
real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).
Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Symmetry wrote:
Not sure it's ridiculous for any level of income, but perhaps for the 1 million Euro threshold. The US has run similar, and even larger levels of income taxation in the past and still prospered, albeit at higher threshold levels.
Link
those were during times of war. you're sure the same thing could work in a peaceful economic climate?
john9blue wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).
Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.
psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...
BigBallinStalin wrote:john9blue wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).
Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.
psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...
Unfortunately, it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.
It's a progressive in his finest hour!
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:john9blue wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).
Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.
psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...
Unfortunately, it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.
It's a progressive in his finest hour!
Now even taxing people who earn over a million, let's say US dollars, is a progressive thing? Dude, yeah of course I support taxing them. At what point would you say that no taxes should be paid?
Symmetry wrote:BBS, if you're just doing the trolling thing again, don't bother. If you're genuinely trying to say that once you hit the million mark in any currency, then you shouldn't be taxed and anyone who argues for taxation of people earning above that nice round figure are progressives, then you're being a bit silly. Even within the boundaries of pounds, US dollars and Euros, surely you can agree that millionaires should be taxed?
BigBallinStalin wrote:john9blue wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).
Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.
psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...
Unfortunately,it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.
It's a progressive in his finest hour!
BigBallinStalin wrote:I didn't change my stance.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165937#p3624628
To summarize:
Basically, you say, "hey that tax policy would work; look at this past data, john!"
I say, "Nope, that's dumb data to use because X, Y, and Z"
BigBallinStalin wrote:Unfortunately,it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.
It's a progressive in his finest hour!
BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:john9blue wrote:lol wow guys.
you should feel a little bad about being completely clueless about the french currency.
regarding the topic: 75% marginal tax rate is kind of ridiculous at any level of income.
Not sure it's ridiculous for any level of income, but perhaps for the 1 million Euro threshold. The US has run similar, and even larger levels of income taxation in the past and still prospered, albeit at higher threshold levels.
Link
real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).
Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.
BigBallinStalin wrote:john9blue wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).
Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.
psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...
Unfortunately, it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.
It's a progressive in his finest hour!
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users