On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:02:57 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In short, Gary, while I agree with you that Erik can be more tactful in > expressing his viewpoint, I also see some things from Erik's point of view > (or at least I think I do...Erik is obviously free to correct me here). > Both Erik and I are very interested in what the facts are. I think he has > done more legwork than me, but I've done at least some analysis to try to > understand things. I try hard to lay out my assumptions, so someone can > correct them, when I was questioning the 80%+ marginal net tax rate. I'd > bet a beer that this figure involves some funny math, that in a practical > sense the marginal tax rate is not close to this high between 20k/year and > 40k/year, but I am more interested in seeing the actual facts than winning > this bet. So, I am grateful to Erik for the work he promises to do. I have avoided this part of the discussion as it starts with the wrong assumptions. You get the high marginal tax rates by assuming SS is something it is not. Does the lesser earning person in a marriage get less out of SS. Of course. Can you correct this? Sure, reduce benefits 25% or raise taxes 25% if you thought that was the plan you want. Do you want this? Should males who support their families be penalized? Should those women who raised kids be penalized? Perhaps you can kick those freeloading wives who never worked off of SS and cut that to a 10% reduction in benefits. You are changing SS into something it isn't - a defined benefit retirement plan that only benefits those who fully contribute to it - not a social welfare program for old age. > I think you could help too. I interpret Erik's post as criticism that you > are not adding to our basis for understanding...that your posts contain > more partisan rhetoric and reference to partisan websites than analysis > that advances our common understanding.
I cannot quite agree with this. Erik references to websites I would have to linked to Marxist economists to find a comparable extreme positions and you seem to be blaming me for linking to partisan sites. > Your reference to your work indicates that you can provide useful thought > on this issue. I would find that helpful. Obviously this is a YMMV issue, > not everyone wishes to take a busman's holiday and do analysis on a mailing > list. > You could even quote Erik to make your point, I think. :-) Erik continues to confuse time frames in his rhetoric, has replies to every post of mine by only addressing portions of my posts, selected quotes that I am selectedly parroting him and is seems to be mostly parroting some economists that were too extreme for a previous GOP administration. Now, is this rhetoric - yes, is it factually accurate - yes. > Finally, Erik and I don't need to like your posts any more than you need to > like mine. I appreciate the fact that you haven't been rude in replying to > my posts...so they don't really upset me. I guess I'm just greedy and want > more. I occasionally like Erik posts, ROTF, has not only been rhetoric. Gary Denton _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
