Brought to you courtesy the tight fisted GOP.

History I think will show the 50’s and 60’s as America’s golden days. We been pretty much in decline since then.

But hey the rich are getting richer. To my son I am truly sorry he will inherit an America worse off than I found it.

It’s not too late you know. Almost but not yet.

We need a new new deal and a return to the booming buiding of the Roosevelt and post Roosevelt years. All it takes is rolling back some tax cuts.Let’s roll!

Posted by: Chas. | August 04, 2007 at 03:04 PM

I don’t care who’s steel they use as long as they build the bridge right.

Given the addictive properties of nicotine, I would argue that there exists price inelasticity of demand for those products as well, which argues against using increased tobacco taxes as an incentive for giving up smoking.

I would suggest that increased alcohol taxes has had an indirect effect in the overall level of consumption, that enhanced penalties for DUI, better education, and, in some small way, the increase in the drinking age have been more of a factor.

After all, one of the social benefits of tobacco and alcohol taxes is that they are supposed to reduce consumption, right?

By the way, for the “NO BLOOD FOR OIL” crowd:

If gasoline rose to $5.00 a gallon, because America was not willing to defend the supplies in Kuwait, Saudi and elsewhere, wouldnt the consumption go WAY down, hurting our infrastructure even more?

Prof. Laffer gives credit for the development of the underlying theory behind the infamous curve to a fourteenth century Muslim scholar, and, in more recent times to John Maynard Keynes’ explication thereof.

It’s FALSELY used to argue for lower tax rates.

There’s an OPTIMAL point — cut below that, and revenues drop.

And Laffer’s curve becomes much more complicated with numerous tax rates, but it still might work to peg your suggested rates by bracket.

I’d be for a flat rate of 18% on all income (no deductions or credits) above a $20,000 exemption credit per tax filer.

I’m not a “Socialist”… and I’m busy today, not “afraid” to post.

I think that rates should be high enough to pay for needed services.

Rates should be at or near the optimal point on the Laffer curve, for each of the income brackets.

When a bipartisan majority in Congress suggested increasing the federal excise tax on gasoline back in 2004 for the first time since 1993 to pay for road and bridge projects, the White House threatened to veto the measure because it contained a tax increase.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot1004.htm

Posted by: Econ101 | August 04, 2007 at 01:00 PM

If it “did NOT apply to very many people”, why did Kennedy drop it to 70%?

You can’t have it both ways.

And it’s much lower than 70% today.

His Socialist side would be revealed. There’s no tax rate too high for Socialist, their rate is always 0% or even negative due to the Unearned Income Credit.

And if Social Security isn’t part of American Infrastructure…it is a critical part of American life for sure.

I’m amazed at how much of the Social Security debate is about whether there is a problem, instead of debates about solutions.

This same trend of denial is what has gotten the US to this point of Fiscal Crisis, and it appears the trend will continue….

Top 1%?Top 2-5%?Top 6-25%?Top 26-50%?Top 51-75%?Top 76-100%?

Posted by: Econ101 | August 04, 2007 at 01:05 AM

The marginal tax rate was 91% (NINETY-ONE %!) when Kennedy said that. He cut it to 70%.

‘JUST LIKE AL [GORE] SAID! Russert pushed them RNC points. Somebody go wake Fred Barnes!’http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120202.shtml

And I’m still waiting re the levee lawsuits. Crickets chirping…

Calling something “wartime” doesn’t mean a war has been, as required by the Constitution, declared. No matter how much Bush tries to say we’re “at war,” Congress has _never_ declared it. If you can find the official declaration, I’d be happy to read it.