Who is John Galt?

[JDogger]

Clip from Atlas Shrugged Part II
http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/at...II+Trailer+now

It is a movie, Gerry. Just like 'The Lord of the Rings' , and 'Red Dawn' A movie, just a movie. That's all...
There are no secret meanings, no hidden truths, no prognastications waiting to unfold....JD

[Gerry Clinchy]

It is a movie, Gerry. Just like 'The Lord of the Rings' , and 'Red Dawn' A movie, just a movie. That's all...
There are no secret meanings, no hidden truths, no prognastications waiting to unfold....JD

Did I say there were secret meanings?

[JDogger]

Did I say there were secret meanings?

No...but you chose for some reason to bring back a two-year old thread. JD

[john fallon]

With all the conjecture regarding the state of the nation in 2016 were BHO to be re-elected,it would seem that the Objectivist* prognostications of Ayn Rand presented to us in this movie, depecting a possible scnerio, is very apropos.

* http://andrej.com/objectivism/

john

[ARay11]

How do today's tax rates compare to when the book was written in 1957?





How about before the Bush tax cuts?



The top rate today is at 35% starting at $373,650, in 1957 a 34% rate kicked in at $16,000. So today's 35% rate kicks in at a level 23 times where it did in 1957. The median income of $5000 in 1957 paid a marginal rate of 22%, whereas the median income of $50,000 today pays a marginal rate of 15%.

I have looked at these numbers in the past, and spent a little time looking over them. It does appear at first blush that we are paying a lower tax rate. HOWEVER.... my question, which no one seems to be able to answer, is:
What was the EFFECTIVE tax rate during those years?

[Gerry Clinchy]

No...but you chose for some reason to bring back a two-year old thread. JD

Relax, JD. I didn't see a point in starting a new thread for a very brief post. So I just did a search for "Atlas Shrugged" and picked up on the first thread that showed up that looked related. I didn't look at the date.

Sometimes there are no secret meanings.

[huntinman]

No...but you chose for some reason to bring back a two-year old thread. JD

Jdog, why are you so angry?

[Uncle Bill]

Jdog, why are you so angry?

Hugh is ALWAYS in a angry mood...like many that bought into their "empty suit in the White House"...and they have no way to defend the actions of him OR their party.

Thanks for reviving this thread, Gerry. It's especially enlightening to read some of the posts of various members of the left that are no longer among us. Even the brilliant photog has packed in his lexicon and moved away, no doubt to lead the Democrats in their vote to exclude God from their platform.

While I missed the original posting of this thread, let me concur with what Jack had to say about Mr. Harriman. He was indeed an Icon of the Retriever growth in this nation, and should be remembered by all of us, whether we are involved in field trials, hunt tests, or just hunting. All of us that own and love a retriever for whatever purpose, owe him a thank you.

UB

[menmon]

I have looked at these numbers in the past, and spent a little time looking over them. It does appear at first blush that we are paying a lower tax rate. HOWEVER.... my question, which no one seems to be able to answer, is:
What was the EFFECTIVE tax rate during those years?

Much lower if you were in the higher brackets because of the loopholes, but no different than now for the lower bracket individuals that could not take advantage of the loopholes

[Gerry Clinchy]

Much lower if you were in the higher brackets because of the loopholes, but no different than now for the lower bracket individuals that could not take advantage of the loopholes

Do I read this correctly: You are saying that the rich are now taxed more, and the middle & lower income levels are about the same.

Yet, the rich are still not paying their fair share?