Dr DuFunny wrote:

"Alun Harford" <alunharford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f890d8e3.0309230259.6d9cf5ac@posting.google.com...

"Dr DuFunny" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message

news:<8kKbb.2726$gR1.967@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Alun Harford" <alunharford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bknmk7$kmn$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HpmdnV2BzvRS0vKiU-KYgw@comcast.com...

Ranges of top marginal income tax rates during wars;

W.W.II 88-94%
Korea 91-92%
Vietnam 70-91%
Iraq 37.5%

It's time to put some burden of the war on the people who's

interests

the kids of the poor are fighting for.
Taking the range of previous wars of 70-94%, it would be just to

have

the top marginal income tax rates of;
70% over $500,000 income,
94% over $1,000,000 income.

Why give more money to the morons who want to fight wars?

Alun Harford

Otherwise they might shoot the moron trolls like you.

I'm not trolling. I'm replying to a post in alt.atheism
If the origional poster X-posted to alt.politics.republicans (or
wherever you happen to linger) that's not my fault.

Alun Harford
Student at the University of Cambridge

the problem I had was your calling them morons who want to fight wars
implying that the rich are morons who want to fight wars. It's hardly a

to start a rational discussion. the rich have always stolen from the

that's how they got rich, but part of the payback is military alleged
protection for the poor schnooks who can't buy armaments to wage their

private wars.

But the war on Iraq had very little to do with "protection" even at the
start. As it turned out it had nothing to do with it. It was an
aggressive war to instal a friendly regime, establish military bases and
privatize (loot) the oil industry. An important step to achieve world
domination.
The idea was that Iraq's oil will pay for all of this adventure. But
the Bush administration had to take the fall back position. Now the
American tax payers are about to pick up the tab for the
military-industrial-oil complex.
It's ironic but not unusual, that they are to pay for their eventual
enslavement. [dapra]

dapra wrote:

Thomas Curmudgeon wrote:

...

Here is a web site, it explains the difference;
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/302/1/119/

Under present tax rates if one makes $500,000, he has about a 30%
effective tax rate (assuming no or small deductions). Let's say he is
taxed 70% of the next $500,000. So, if he earns $1,000,000, he would
end up with $500,000 after federal taxes. (500K x .7 + 500K x .3 =
350K + 150K = 500K) I would not call this a communist system. He
could still afford a $2000/plate dinner at a Bush fund raising dinner.
Most sensible people would not think, I better keep my 50K job because
I have to pay 500K and only end up with 500K if I get a job that pays
1 million.
I grant you, the tax on the next million would be stiff. So, one
making 2M would get "only" $560,000 in his hand. Maybe the 94% should
kick in only after 2-5M.

so ... you begin to re-think your proposition. It needs to be re-thought.

If you take 94% of the money someone makes, they loose incentive to be
productive. Besides it's terribly unfair. That's what was wrong with
high tax rates before, and that's what's wrong with them now.

Why would you want to remove the incentive for someone to be productive?

The top marginal income tax rate of 94% were in effect during
W.W.II, decided by the "greatest generation".

Which means what? You explicitly say that the generation that fought
in WWII was also the general voting public at the time. That's not
true, is it.

You have to explain that. I had the impression, we used to have a
democracy at time.

Questioning something in the middle of it's explaination is not
argument, it's stupid.

The "generation" you spoke of could only be a subset of voters at the
time. They were kids. Kids don't have much say politically and don't
decide the fate of war or taxpayers.

If the voting public at the time voted in an enormous tax rate, those
people were those worn down by the depression, also worn down by the
idea that people with money were the evil of society. That's not true
either, not then or not now.

You forget that the American dream is that anyone can attain wealth
and comfort. You seem to want to rob us of that dream.

Progressive taxes don't rub anyone from dreaming. If you earn 50K and
say after federal tax you get 40K, you can still dream to make 1M even
if you get in your hand "only" $500,000. Isn't $500,000 better than
$40,000?

You're saying that someone should get to keep 60k out of a million.

Nowadays, I think, we have the greediest generation.

Why do you say that? By and large the majority seems to be socialist
like you. Oh yeah, that is greedy, because you expect the hated "rich
people" to pay your way because there's fewer of them, so their votes
subsequently mean less.

You're the new king of your greediest generation. Here's your saying
... ***** THE RICH BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ME. Probably also, ***** THE
POOR BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ME. You get the point.

I got your point. You are wrong.
I don't say " ***** THE RICH". But in the last 30 years the income
distribution shifted more and more toward the rich and especially the
super rich. This large difference in income distribution undermines
our basic democracy. [dapra]

You want corporations to make the money? I believe that the individual
should be more respected by our laws than the companies. I believe your
belies are based on jealosy, not a basis of fair play.