SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : My House
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (2467)10/9/2002 5:48:40 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 7689
 
Which "orignal statement"

My first statement to Poet -

"BTW - When taxes are increased did you ever complain that 95% of the pain went to the richest 5% or is it only a
problem when 95% of the benefit goes to them? If its only a problem when 95% of the benefit goes to them what's
to stop the top tax rate from being near or equal to 100%?"

The post that prompted your reply -

Message 18079168

or perhaps my first reply to you

"Solon if taxes go up and down and most of the tax increases go to the rich but most of the tax cuts do not go to the rich the rates for the rich will gradually increase. If this continues they will eventually approach 100%. The logic of this is simple."

I don't see how any of those statements are silliness or even incorrect. Perhaps you can show me.

The closest to an attempt from you so far was "It all depends on the RATIO of increases and decreases as to what kind of effect "most" will have."

If the tax rate is either fluctuating at about the same level or going in a broad cyclic pattern between high and low amounts that stay about the same then the overall increases and decreases will be about the same. You might have many small increases and a few large decreases or the opposite or you may have about the same number of equal sized increases and decreases but the total amount of both over the long run will be the same unless there is an overall trend in tax rates. If the overall trend is up then it just makes the highest tax rates climb even faster. If the overall trend is neutral (small fluctuations around a mean or large cyclic swings with no real trend or a combination of the two) but the majority of the benefit of the tax cuts are more often then not going to go to the "not-rich", while most of the increases add more to the taxes of the rich then the amount the rich pay will gradually increase when compared to the amount the not-rich pay and when compared to what it had been in previous times.

If the overall trend is down then it blows all of this away because the rich can get a larger share of the tax burden while still paying less taxes but I don't think anyone hear will claim that the long term trend for taxes has been for them to decrease.

What assumptions do you think I am making that do not flow from what Poet wrote and also are not true and/or where "gratuitous"?

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News