Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Most of my life raised in a 900 sq foot home. I bought my home in 86 it’s 1100 sq feet with a single garage and 3 bedrooms, paid 55 grand for it new. Raised 4 kids in it and the wife and I are still here 40 years later.
You have a predictable pattern. Whenever someone questions one of your assertions, your first response is almost never to explain or defend it. It’s usually to insult the person asking the question.
In this case I asked whether many ‘Big Cities’ having lower violent crime rates than a number of rural counties was your ‘common characteristic’. Instead of answering, you accused me of being drunk, looking down on country folk, and being Charles Schumer.
The idea that I’m ‘turning up my nose at country folk’ is pretty amusing. I grew up in a ‘town’ that had an elementary school with grades 1-6, three teachers, and I spent an hour each way on a bus getting to junior high and high school. Rural life isn’t something I read about or cosplayed, it’s how I grew up.
What’s interesting is that after all of that, you still haven’t answered your own question. I sarcastically, but correctly, suggested one common characteristic. You responded with insults.
So what is the common characteristic you were referring to?
Once again, I have to comment that I have never seen any human triy so hard to sound intelligent other than Kevin.
Addendum: I’ve never seen someone fail so much in doing so as well.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
No Shit!!!😂😂
No. I didn't say any of that.
Mostly what I was attempting to get across to you was that the rates you claimed the top brackets were paying in 1960 were bullshit.
If you are incapable of using real numbers, having a discussion about math with you is pointless.
The top marginal rate in 1960 was 91%. That’s a historical fact.
You’re talking about effective rates. I’m talking about marginal rates and the incentives they create.
If those rates were largely irrelevant, why did income concentration and CEO compensation begin moving in the opposite direction almost immediately after they were reduced?
That’s the correlation I posted.
You are obviously intelligent enough to understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. The fact that you keep returning to that 91% number despite the fact that virtually nobody was ever taxed at that rate suggests that you are willing to lie about "historical facts" so that your position makes sense.
Accusing someone of lying is a serious charge.
To support it, you’d first have to quote where I claimed all wealthy people were paying a 91% effective tax rate.
You can’t, because I never said it.
I’ve consistently referred to the marginal rate and I’ve repeatedly acknowledged the difference between marginal and effective rates.
At this point, you’re not ‘correcting’ my position. You’re substituting your own version of it and then attacking that instead.
The top marginal rate in 1960 was 91%. That’s a historical fact. The effective rate was lower. That’s also a historical fact.
Now that we’ve established the position I actually hold, do you have an explanation for the correlation I posted, or would you prefer to keep arguing against a position I’ve never taken?
Ha ha ha ha I think it's hilarious and sad at the same time the amount of time and effort he spends on here "correcting" people with his opinions and Google assistance.
In the grand scheme of things, we are on a Motocross forum--who gives a shit about any of this bs in non-moto?
I'd be more interested to hear a ride report with photos from Kevin. That would IMPRESS me, but in the over 20 plus years he's been on here arguing with people over nonsense, never once have I seen a photo of him riding.
"Accusing someone of lying is a serious charge.
To support it, you’d first have to quote where I claimed all wealthy people were paying a 91% effective tax rate.
You can’t, because I never said it."
Does anybody have the number to Judge Judy? I think we have a good case! 😂🤣
The 91% marginal rate was in effect non-existant.
Nobody paid it. It didn't exist as a tax rate that was imposed on anyone. You bringing it up in a discussion about historical tax rates is disingenuous. You just now said you understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates.
You're offended that I suggested you were lying. What word would you use to describe someone who knows the truth about something, but claims a falsehood instead?
So let me make sure I understand your argument. If a stretch of highway has a 70 mph speed limit, but only a few drivers each week are actually ticketed for exceeding it, does that mean the speed limit doesn't exist?
Of course not. The limit still influences behavior. Many people drive differently because it's there, even if they never receive a ticket.
The same applies to marginal tax rates. A 91% top marginal rate influences decisions about compensation, distributions, deductions, investments, and reinvestment whether or not many people actually paid 91%. You keep acting as though "few people paid 91%" proves the rate was irrelevant. If it was irrelevant, why was there such a political effort to reduce it? And if it has no effect on behavior, why not restore it?
The entire case for lowering top marginal rates was that people respond to incentives. You're simultaneously arguing that incentives matter and that this particular incentive didn't.
Which is it?
I've never claimed wealthy people paid a 91% effective rate. I've consistently referred to the marginal rate and the incentives it creates. The question you've still avoided is why income concentration and executive compensation began rising sharply after those rates came down.
Gary, you spend far too much time thinking about me. I definitely feel guilty for not paying you rent for the head space......
I actually made a conscious decision to not engage you that much back in February 2021 when you wrote me that message about why you act out to much when anyone doesn't agree with you completely. I understand how your upbringing formed you and caused that, so I've taken it rather easy, even when you say some seriously stupid shit.
Just when I think Kevin can’t make more of an ass out of himself, he goes ahead and proves me wrong! If this isn’t textbook pot calling the kettle black. You really have some personality disorders, Kevin. Seek help. And don’t forget to tell the doctor that you’re smarter than them.
You guys need a room?
You aren't trying to understand anything.
I'm not making an argument. I'm correcting the silly point you were attempting to make by stating facts with context.
I do appreciate the humor of your tortured speed limit analogy, no matter how dumb it seems.
Edit: "I never claimed wealthy people paid a 91% effective rate." You're right, you didnt. That's because you left the word "effective" out of your original post (and your bogus graph did, too I believe).
You didn't claim they paid a 91% effective rate, you were attempting to claim they paid 91% income tax.
Pit Row
You keep saying you're not making an argument, you're "correcting a silly point."
Okay. What exactly are you correcting?
I've never claimed wealthy people paid a 91% effective rate. I've repeatedly distinguished between marginal and effective rates.
The 91% top marginal rate existed. That's a fact.
The only way my point is "silly" is if your position is that the 91% rate was irrelevant. But that's not a correction, that's an argument.
So which is it? Are you correcting a factual error I made, or are you arguing that top marginal tax rates don't meaningfully influence behavior?
Because those are two very different things.
I went back and looked at my original post. You are incorrect. I was very clearly talking about "top tax rates", which clearly differentiates them from the lower marginal rates. The "bogus" graph very clearly says "Top Marginal Tax Rate".
You are inventing fantasies in your head and then arguing against them.
You're going to try and say that this post wasn't making a claim that income taxes were "very high"? And that your graph doesn't say that income taxes for top earners were at 90%+ in 1960?
Where are the words "effective tax rate" in this post?
This effective tax rate graph is way more honest than yours:
Edited for spelling.
There isn't any "effective tax rate" in the post, because that wasn't what it was referring to. Doh!
The post refers to the "top" tax rate. It isn't saying whether a lot of people paid it or not, but it was there and it most certainly affected how higher income and wealth people used their money.
Again, do you truly believe that the higher top marginal tax rates had zero effect on anything?
Kevin, just shut up and take the L.
Blah blah blah........ 😂
I don't even bother to read your drivel. I just can't believe how much time you spend on here trying to prove how smart you are and correct everybody. 🙄 It's like you're in some kind of college course and you are trying really hard to get that A and inpress the teacher.
Take some deep breaths and please try to remember this is a MOTOCROSS forum, we're all not very smart. Otherwise we would not be riding motorcycles. Oh that's right you don't! 🤣😂
Battle of the graphs 😂
BONK! 😂
This thread is pure gold! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Post a reply to: ‘Seattle can’t survive this’: Critics hammer socialist mayor after Starbucks reversal