burrrton wrote:If so, funny how we've been in that situation virtually every time tax rates have been lowered, isn't it?
No, we haven't. We've seen falling wages and a continued concentration of wealth amongst a very select group manipulating the system to their benefit. We've actually seen consolidation, job losses due to free trade agreements, and general attempts to further reduce capital expansion in favor of profitability through lower tax rates and the big eating the small. It's been that way for years.
I didn't ask if they pay more (of course they do- VASTLY more)- I asked if their contribution went up or down. You only call it a trick question because you don't like the answer (and that answer for those following along is that it went UP).
It is the same question. If their contribution goes up, they pay more. If the contribution of the working class goes down, they pay less. You somehow think that the upper class tax burden going up is indicative of economic health and equity.
As I stated, in a feudal system of old, you would have seen the same thing: the wealthy paying a far higher contribution of taxes because the lower classes had less. That has nothing whatsoever to do with a healthy economy. You were using it as some example of the effectiveness of supply-side economics, which it is not.
A healthy, growing economy would have both sides tax contribution rising at a similar rate.
Oh sht- you're one of those loons that gets a hard-on from Ayn Rand? Good talk, Asea.
That's the burrton, I know. Has a weak argument to support his point, then comes up with something cooky to extricate himself from the discussion.
I haven't even Ayn Rand. You tend to see supply-side economic supporters espousing Ayn Rand's ridiculous philosophy as they turn job creators into feudal lords that will take their toys and go home if the taxes get too high.
