He might just be AFK... don't use the "What are you, scared?" thing on internet debates... it's easy to make up a reason if there is none, and since it's not a real time debate, Squilliam can take all the time he wants to create a thorough counter argument.

I think that debates through message boards are the best though. You can source facts, no shouting matches, no interuptions, you don't have the pressure of publicly speaking, you don't have the pressure of limited time, etc.

I didn't accuse him of anything, or state that he is scared. I just asked him a question.

Okay, I'm not trying to argue, but I do have a question or two and there seem to be some greater fiscal minds here than mine.

1. Does GDP stay static (the actual dollars) regardless of the tax percentage on the rich, are these two things completely separate?

2. MaFoo - Are you suggesting that because the rich can change the economy that we shouldn't tax them, or cut down taxes to virtually nothing because we'll end up making the same amount of money? Because then we end up with the rich holding us hostage instead of the government, I don't want either of those scenarios.

3. How do you feel the government should deal with this? I feel more regulation on wages would be nice personally, and maybe a "Hey, Americans, don't buy cheap junk from Wal-Mart" TV campaign would help the squeeze too.

This is just my two cents, and like I said, I am not a great economical mind, so I'm probably waaaay off base.

It seemed to me that you were accusing Squilliam of not answering you due to you making such a brilliant argument. IDK, it sounded arrogant to me, nothing personal against you, I think you're an awesome poster and I won't doubt you if you say I misunderstood.

Thanks. And that's why I worded it the way I did (to try and not sound that way). I wanted it to come across more that the rephrasing of the question meant he better understood where I was coming from, then wording it in a way where it came across as "I win".

Squilliam and I happen to be friends :) (He built my computer, so a friend for life! :p)

Oh... friend for life...

...

=)

I understand now, I think it's cute that you two can fight like that, I bet you can't wait to "makeup". Well, I'll be leaving this thread now, enjoy yourself guys.

1. the GDP never stays static, and if you asked 100 economists what moves it, you will get 100 different answers. Most agree that lowering taxes on the rich raises GDP however. And that's due to the fact that the top 1% pay 25% of the taxes. If you don't take as much from them, they spend it, and spending it raises GDP.

2. I am not really making a statement in this thread on what you should tax the rich at. I am just stating that raising taxes on them won't generate more real dollars for government. I only state that, because it never has. The logic suggests that the best way to maximize dollars for government, is to have a very low tax on the rich, and raise taxes on everyone else. I am not suggesting you do that. I am just pointing out that doing the opposite and expecting to bring in more dollars, won't work.

3. Not sure what the best answer is. As for taxation, my personal feeling is a flat tax (just like sales tax). As for the "rich holding us hostage", the best way to keep that from happening, is to keep the power in your hands. The best way to do that, is small government. This is my opinion however, and many people here disagree.

Interesting stuff, and I didn't know that the top 1% pay 25% of the taxes. Thanks for the answer, it's always nice when someone has a real answer for you that doesn't start with "Listen idiot. . ."

Anytime. And actually, I was way off. The top 1% pay 40% of all tax dollars.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The top 5% pay 60% of our tax dollars.

Could we get some actual data in here? Besides percentages. I think there are way to many variables involved to generalize the situation down to a percentage of GDP revenue from taxation that has not changed. How has GDP revenue changed from year to year? How has other tax brackets changed from year to year? How was the overall economy changed from year to year? How has the threshold for the top bracket changed? Not saying that this is not the case, just saying that more data than some percentages should be given.