WT- Nate unlikely to be back (WAIT! + instagram pic pg 81!)

[HomoSapien]

Oh Gar Paxdorf ... you're going to be regretting this one.

[dafunky1]

keeping nate and adding a good big like brand or whoever might make this the best Bulls team of all time IMO.

Oh Lord have mercy

Can I have some of what U are smoking??

[Hokie]

keeping nate and adding a good big like brand or whoever might make this the best Bulls team of all time IMO.

I think you've forgotten that the 95-96 Bulls have the best record in NBA history and are widely considered to be the best team of all time. I think you've also forgotten that the Bulls won six titles in the 90s.

If you haven't forgotten that and genuinely think this team can approach that level of greatness, then I think you've lost your marbles.

[wonderboy2]

All time? lol no. But I do agree and think this can be the best bulls team since the jordan year if rose is completely healed and everybody is healthy. We just ned to sign brand/dalenbert, nate/ellington tho and we can run with anyone.

[pylb]

Whoever we add at this point doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Health will be so much more important.

[Ben]

I think we'll be a really good team, but I find it hard to believe the difference in us being good (all-time) and elite is Dunleavy, Brand, and Nate.

It's not. The difference between being damn good (2010-11) will be an improved Rose and Noah, and having the much better players Nate, Dunleavy, Jimmy, and Brand over the relative scrubs (outside of Asik) they replaced.

I think you could argue that almost every player outside the top 4 on the 95-96 Bulls couldn't make our roster this year.

My hope is that when you make statements like this, you're only trying to promote vigorous debate by being intentionally provocative during the slow summer months and hence strengthen the board.

Because after all of this time of watching and following NBA basketball, I'm sure that you wouldn't confuse depth (the ability to field 12 pretty decent players) with power and brilliance (the ability to field the GOAT in his prime plus another Top-50 player, another all-star-caliber wing, and a HOF rebounder/dirtybird).

I don't have the energy to go through the mid-90s Bulls lineups vs. ours, or to talk about how many able big men the mid-90s teams fielded, or the question of which 95-96 "top 4" you mean to indicate. I don't have the energy to ask if by the "top 4" you're thinking of Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc and Rodman, which would mean that you don't think prime Steve Kerr (TS% of 66.3%!!!) could make this year's Bulls team, or prime Luc Longley, or Ron Harper, Bill Wennington, etc. Or if you're thinking of Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc and Kerr, which would mean that a HOF rebounder and dirtybird (Rodman) couldn't make this year's Bulls' team.

And again, I don't have the energy to ask how many points prime Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen would score in today's NBA, with the no-hand-check rules that would send them to the line about once every 2 minutes.

Since I don't have the energy for any of that, I'm just going to assume that you're being canny and altruistic in sacrificing your own b-ball integrity for the good of board discussion.

[MrFortune3]

keeping nate and adding a good big like brand or whoever might make this the best Bulls team of all time IMO.

you're a high quality poster. but please tell me you were drunk when you posted this.
this is a good team that would be made better with Nate but it won't be all time by adding those 2.

[Mr Funk]

Agreed. Without derailing this into an argument none of us want to have, the blanket statement "the rich and wealthy pay little in taxes" is just completely untrue.

Yeah, basketball players get murdered as far as that stuff goes. The tax code is geared towards killing people with high incomes as part of a job. Someone let me know the next time a basketball player gets paid in deferred stock options. When you add agent fees, just assume that your typical basketball player loses half their income before they see any money.

The top income tax rate in the US is currently 39.6%.

Under Eisenhower the top income tax rate was 92% - 91%, and under Nixon it was 77% - 70%.


Anyways let's just sign Nate.

[CousinOfDeath]

The Warriors just signed Toney Douglas, so in theory they're out. It almost feels like the rest of the league is purposefully ignoring Nate so that he has to go the Bulls because they all know that the only thing that can stop the Heat is Derrick+Nate+Joakim side by side.

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

The Warriors just signed Toney Douglas, so in theory they're out. It almost feels like the rest of the league is purposefully ignoring Nate so that he has to go the Bulls because they all know that the only thing that can stop the Heat is Derrick+Nate+Joakim side by side.

I think that it's simply the underlined alone, Cuz.

This is almost a repeat of last off-season for Nate. He does not appear to be valued around the league & I feel that it mostly has to do with his size.

[kdapiton]

It's so meant to be.

[Ben]

Agreed. Without derailing this into an argument none of us want to have, the blanket statement "the rich and wealthy pay little in taxes" is just completely untrue.

Yeah, basketball players get murdered as far as that stuff goes. The tax code is geared towards killing people with high incomes as part of a job. Someone let me know the next time a basketball player gets paid in deferred stock options. When you add agent fees, just assume that your typical basketball player loses half their income before they see any money.

The top income tax rate in the US is currently 39.6%.

Under Eisenhower the top income tax rate was 92% - 91%, and under Nixon it was 77% - 70%.


Anyways let's just sign Nate.

No offense intended, but since you're the one pressing the point it seems like fair game to show you the following. I'm not sure whether you fully understand how those income tax levels work. You're talking about short-term, historically high marginal income tax rates that applied to those with extremely high incomes, and that were paid only on income earned in excess of a high threshold. I don't usually recommend Wikipedia, but it seems as if they have a pretty good explanation of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... _top_rates

During the leadup to WWII the top marginal tax rates were 79% and 81%, but those were applied only to income earned in excess of $5 million (which was the equivalent of about $80 million in today's dollars). During some of the wartime and postwar years people making the equivalent of more than $2 million/year in today's dollars would pay very high rates on the marginal income over that threshold. The rates on income up until that threshold were much, much lower. I think that they were lower than what the rich pay today, but I'm no expert in this area.

To reiterate: It's not as if people making the equivalent of $2 million (in today's dollars) back then were actually paying 70-85% of their incomes in taxes. They were paying that highest rate on the amount that they earned in excess of the thresholds. There are all kinds of other issues involved that could help people hide their income or avoid paying the highest rates (or to defer their excess income to a later period).

It's a completely separate question as to what % of their overall income the very wealthy paid in earlier eras compared to this one, when all loopholes and circumventions were taken into account. I don't know about that. But it's misleading to cite those earlier marginal rates and act as if we were once the same as Sweden and hence could easily be again.

[Mr Funk]

No offense intended, but since you're the one pressing the point it seems like fair game to show you the following. I'm not sure whether you fully understand how those income tax levels work. You're talking about short-term, historically high marginal income tax rates that applied to those with extremely high incomes, and that were paid only on income earned in excess of a high threshold. I don't usually recommend Wikipedia, but it seems as if they have a pretty good explanation of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... _top_rates

During the leadup to WWII the top marginal tax rates were 79% and 81%, but those were applied only to income earned in excess of $5 million (which was the equivalent of about $80 million in today's dollars). During some of the wartime and postwar years people making the equivalent of more than $2 million/year in today's dollars would pay very high rates on the marginal income over that threshold.

Yes, Wikipedia is not a good source.

To reiterate: It's not as if people making the equivalent of $2 million (in today's dollars) back then were actually paying 70-85% of their incomes in taxes. They were paying that highest rate on the amount that they earned in excess of the thresholds. There are all kinds of other issues involved that could help people hide their income or avoid paying the highest rates (or to defer their excess income to a later period).

It's a completely separate question as to what % of their overall income the very wealthy paid in earlier eras compared to this one, when all loopholes and circumventions were taken into account. I don't know about that. But it's misleading to cite those earlier marginal rates and act as if we were once the same as Sweden and hence could easily be again.

Actually they were paying much higher taxes back then.

What's misleading however is your spin.

[Ben]

No offense intended, but since you're the one pressing the point it seems like fair game to show you the following. I'm not sure whether you fully understand how those income tax levels work. You're talking about short-term, historically high marginal income tax rates that applied to those with extremely high incomes, and that were paid only on income earned in excess of a high threshold. I don't usually recommend Wikipedia, but it seems as if they have a pretty good explanation of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... _top_rates

During the leadup to WWII the top marginal tax rates were 79% and 81%, but those were applied only to income earned in excess of $5 million (which was the equivalent of about $80 million in today's dollars). During some of the wartime and postwar years people making the equivalent of more than $2 million/year in today's dollars would pay very high rates on the marginal income over that threshold.

Yes, Wikipedia is not a good source.

And no, they wouldn't be paying very high rates today because the rate has been lowered substantially, in accordance with the dogma of neo-liberalism.

To reiterate: It's not as if people making the equivalent of $2 million (in today's dollars) back then were actually paying 70-85% of their incomes in taxes. They were paying that highest rate on the amount that they earned in excess of the thresholds. There are all kinds of other issues involved that could help people hide their income or avoid paying the highest rates (or to defer their excess income to a later period).

It's a completely separate question as to what % of their overall income the very wealthy paid in earlier eras compared to this one, when all loopholes and circumventions were taken into account. I don't know about that. But it's misleading to cite those earlier marginal rates and act as if we were once the same as Sweden and hence could easily be again.

Actually they were paying much higher taxes back then.

What's misleading however is your spin.

Wait, what? Surely you're not serious. I just pointed you to data which, although it's on Wikipedia, is still documented data. I explained the basic, factual gist of the data. You respond simply by dismissing Wikipedia and then by calling my fact-based explanation "spin." And then you're out of here?

If that's all there were, that would be about the most unsatisfying, pathetic response to a factual debate about political economy that I have ever seen on this site. I assume that it was only temporary, and that you're going to be returning with much more and substantive data (as well as non-spinning explanations of it) that will demonstrate your point. I'll be completely open to hearing it; although I'm a professional social scientist, I certainly don't know everything about our political and economic history and I'm open to learning new facts. Hopefully that's what you're planning, and not just some immature brush-off that peaks with the incredibly unclear and overused epithet "neo-liberalism."

[League Circles]

My hope is that when you make statements like this, you're only trying to promote vigorous debate by being intentionally provocative during the slow summer months and hence strengthen the board.

I make such a statement for at least three reasons. 1) I believe it to be true 2) I am trying to provoke discussion and 3) I think it's funny

Because after all of this time of watching and following NBA basketball, I'm sure that you wouldn't confuse depth (the ability to field 12 pretty decent players) with power and brilliance (the ability to field the GOAT in his prime plus another Top-50 player, another all-star-caliber wing, and a HOF rebounder/dirtybird).

I think our bench players in the scenario I was discussing are a lot better than pretty decent players. And are you referring to Pippen twice above here, once as a top-50 player and once as another all-star-caliber wing? I hope so. But anyways, I think out starting 5 is awesome, it's not like I think we have the best 12 man roster ever and am using that to say we might be the best ever. Remember, all I said is "might". I wouldn't bet on the Bulls being the best team ever this year, certainly not in the way many would have bet on the Malone-Glove Lakers as being the best, or this past year's Laker squad being the best.

I don't have the energy to go through the mid-90s Bulls lineups vs. ours, or to talk about how many able big men the mid-90s teams fielded, or the question of which 95-96 "top 4" you mean to indicate. I don't have the energy to ask if by the "top 4" you're thinking of Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc and Rodman, which would mean that you don't think prime Steve Kerr (TS% of 66.3%!!!) could make this year's Bulls team, or prime Luc Longley, or Ron Harper, Bill Wennington, etc. Or if you're thinking of Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc and Kerr, which would mean that a HOF rebounder and dirtybird (Rodman) couldn't make this year's Bulls' team.

There was Michael, and then Scottie, and then Dennis. Then there was a pretty big dropoff to Kukoc. Then there was a large dropoff probably to Ron Harper or Brian Williams. Kerr was among the most overrated players of all time IMO, and I believed that back then. A great super low volume regular season spot up shooter off of double teams? Absolutely. A big dropoff from Armstrong and Paxson and even Harper IMO? Yes also. Kerr shot .321 from 3pt in the 95-96 playoffs. He repeated his poor playoff performances throughout most of his NBA career. A career 10 pts/36, .370 3pt% player in the playoffs who brought zero else to the table. I wouldn't take Kerr on this Bulls team ahead of Kirk or Nate, and given Teague's defensive and athletic/ball handling potential, I probably wouldn't take Kerr over him either. Now, on a team with no shooting with an unreal GOAT player who will draw double and triple teams, would I take Kerr? Sure. The Bulls big men in 95-96 sucked balls. I knew it then and was rather shocked that it wasn't a point of discussion much to address just ho wmuch worse Longley was than most other good teams' big men. The other guys were surely inferior to Nazr, who projects as our 3rd string C in the scenario I was addressing. Go look at the rebounding numbers in 95-96 for all of our bigs, in the playoffs and regular season. Those guys were terrible. They were so bad that the following year when Bison Dele was signed near the end of the season, he was probably our best big man on the team (not counting Kukoc or Rodman as "bigs").

And again, I don't have the energy to ask how many points prime Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen would score in today's NBA, with the no-hand-check rules that would send them to the line about once every 2 minutes.

It goes both ways. MJ and Scottie hand checked the hell out of opponents while defending also which was a huge strength for the Bulls then. Not to mention, they'd be defended by Luol and Jimmy - two guys who simply do not foul - ever, even in this no-hand-check-rules league.

Since I don't have the energy for any of that, I'm just going to assume that you're being canny and altruistic in sacrificing your own b-ball integrity for the good of board discussion.

I should probably mention that I like to consider myself an open minded person and I think there are probably multiple NBA teams every season that, IF EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED, could possible be the best team of all time. It's just that that rarely happens of course and I don't think it will happen with the Bulls - but it might! I also usually think the Bulls have a chance to be the best team of all time on an annual basis, especially the 3 Cs, Fizer, Jay Will, Pippen, etc bunch.

All that means is that I'm not easily shocked and wouldn't be that shocked if the Bulls won 73 or more games this year with Nate and another good big man like Brand, and of course win the title which is the one thing I am actually predicting.

[Mr Funk]

Wait, what? Surely you're not serious. I just pointed you to data which, although it's on Wikipedia, is still documented data. I explained the basic, factual gist of the data. You respond simply by dismissing Wikipedia and then by calling my fact-based explanation "spin." And then you're out of here?

If that's all there were, that would be about the most unsatisfying, pathetic response to a factual debate about political economy that I have ever seen on this site. I assume that it was only temporary, and that you're going to be returning with much more and substantive data (as well as non-spinning explanations of it) that will demonstrate your point. I'll be completely open to hearing it; although I'm a professional social scientist, I certainly don't know everything about our political and economic history and I'm open to learning new facts. Hopefully that's what you're planning, and not just some immature brush-off that peaks with the incredibly unclear and overused epithet "neo-liberalism."

check out the sharp drop in their effective tax rate over the past 15 years—down from 30 percent in 1995 to the 18 percent rate in 2008. Compare that with the 24 percent rate paid in 2008 by people with income between $500,000 and $1 million. The rest of us also saw our tax rate drop from a peak of 15.4 percent to 12.4 percent in 2008. But that doesn’t take into account that AGI of the top 400 jumped 277 percent in real terms between 1992 and 2008, compared to a 77 percent increase for everyone else. Adding insult to injury, with so little earnings and so much investment income, the very rich pay a relative pittance in payroll taxes compared to the rest of us. - See more at: http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/ ... D0NP8.dpuf

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes," billionaire hotelier Leona Helmsley famously (and allegedly) sniffed. She wasn't entirely correct: The superrich do still pay taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers pay 32 percent of all income tax collected by the federal government.

But the superrich don't pay as much as they used to—and thanks to a combination of tax cuts and preferential tax policies, their tax obligations can be less demanding than the so-called little people's. In fact, the very wealthiest Americans' tax burden has been steadily dropping for years, even as they've enjoyed astounding income growth not seen by the vast majority of Americans. - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... arts-graph



Tax rates for the wealthy have fallen substantially since they peaked in the 1940s. During the past 30 years, they have been cut at a much faster rate than middle- and low-income taxpayers'.



Just how much of a windfall are tax cuts for the wealthy? The extension of the Bush tax cuts passed last year will provide $146,000 in annual tax savings, on average, to each of the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans.



Leona Helmsley's distaste for paying taxes eventually landed her in federal prison. But the rich have little need to break the law to avoid the tax collector. As Martin A. Sullivan of Tax.com recently calculated, a New York janitor making slightly more than $33,000 a year pays an effective tax rate of nearly 25%. And the effective tax rate for a resident of the Park Avenue building named after Helmsley, earning an average of $1.2 million annually? A cool 14.7%.



Sources

Share of taxes: Tax Policy Center

Top 400 taxpayers: IRS (PDF)

Falling tax rates: Remapping Debate

Bush tax cuts: Tax Policy Center (PDF)

Income vs. capital gains: IRS: Income tax rates (PDF); capital gains tax rates

Effective tax rates: Tax Policy Center

Source of tax revenues: Senate Joint Committee on Taxation (PDF)

GE taxes: ProPublica

Janitor vs. millionaire: Tax.com

Since 1980, total tax rates have fallen for each income group -- rich, poor, and everybody in the middle. But who got the biggest break?

This fabulous series of charts from the New York Times offers one answer -- and it exactly the group you're expecting. Total tax rates -- that's federal income + payroll + corporate + state/local -- have gone down for poor and rich alike since 1980.



So, we all get a break. But who got the biggest?

Divide the first by the 2010 rate by the 1980 rate, and you get an answer. Taxes fell 5% for the poorest households. They fell about 7% for the typical household. And they fell 14% for the richest households. It is fair to say that between President Carter and President Obama, taxes have fallen by twice as much for the richest families as for the median family.



When it comes to taxes, "fair" is a four-letter word, and one that splits liberals and conservatives. I'd encourage anybody on either side of the debate to go back and study these New York Times graphs to see three points: (1) the richest households pay a growing share of our taxes, because (2) they earn a growing share of national income and (3) the tax code is largely progressive, except for the tippy-top. - http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... e/265804/#

BTW - If you want to continue discussing this, we should do it over PM. I've totally sidetracked the thread and I regret doing so, as my life currently is revolving around obsessing over Nate Robinson and checking this board and thread multiple times a day.

[cubbiefan009]

Just get this done already. If we get Nate + Brand let's freaking go November.

[dafunky1]

My hope is that when you make statements like this, you're only trying to promote vigorous debate by being intentionally provocative during the slow summer months and hence strengthen the board.

I make such a statement for at least three reasons. 1) I believe it to be true 2) I am trying to provoke discussion and 3) I think it's funny

Because after all of this time of watching and following NBA basketball, I'm sure that you wouldn't confuse depth (the ability to field 12 pretty decent players) with power and brilliance (the ability to field the GOAT in his prime plus another Top-50 player, another all-star-caliber wing, and a HOF rebounder/dirtybird).

I think our bench players in the scenario I was discussing are a lot better than pretty decent players. And are you referring to Pippen twice above here, once as a top-50 player and once as another all-star-caliber wing? I hope so. But anyways, I think out starting 5 is awesome, it's not like I think we have the best 12 man roster ever and am using that to say we might be the best ever. Remember, all I said is "might". I wouldn't bet on the Bulls being the best team ever this year, certainly not in the way many would have bet on the Malone-Glove Lakers as being the best, or this past year's Laker squad being the best.

I don't have the energy to go through the mid-90s Bulls lineups vs. ours, or to talk about how many able big men the mid-90s teams fielded, or the question of which 95-96 "top 4" you mean to indicate. I don't have the energy to ask if by the "top 4" you're thinking of Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc and Rodman, which would mean that you don't think prime Steve Kerr (TS% of 66.3%!!!) could make this year's Bulls team, or prime Luc Longley, or Ron Harper, Bill Wennington, etc. Or if you're thinking of Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc and Kerr, which would mean that a HOF rebounder and dirtybird (Rodman) couldn't make this year's Bulls' team.

There was Michael, and then Scottie, and then Dennis. Then there was a pretty big dropoff to Kukoc. Then there was a large dropoff probably to Ron Harper or Brian Williams. Kerr was among the most overrated players of all time IMO, and I believed that back then. A great super low volume regular season spot up shooter off of double teams? Absolutely. A big dropoff from Armstrong and Paxson and even Harper IMO? Yes also. Kerr shot .321 from 3pt in the 95-96 playoffs. He repeated his poor playoff performances throughout most of his NBA career. A career 10 pts/36, .370 3pt% player in the playoffs who brought zero else to the table. I wouldn't take Kerr on this Bulls team ahead of Kirk or Nate, and given Teague's defensive and athletic/ball handling potential, I probably wouldn't take Kerr over him either. Now, on a team with no shooting with an unreal GOAT player who will draw double and triple teams, would I take Kerr? Sure. The Bulls big men in 95-96 sucked balls. I knew it then and was rather shocked that it wasn't a point of discussion much to address just ho wmuch worse Longley was than most other good teams' big men. The other guys were surely inferior to Nazr, who projects as our 3rd string C in the scenario I was addressing. Go look at the rebounding numbers in 95-96 for all of our bigs, in the playoffs and regular season. Those guys were terrible. They were so bad that the following year when Bison Dele was signed near the end of the season, he was probably our best big man on the team (not counting Kukoc or Rodman as "bigs").

And again, I don't have the energy to ask how many points prime Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen would score in today's NBA, with the no-hand-check rules that would send them to the line about once every 2 minutes.

It goes both ways. MJ and Scottie hand checked the hell out of opponents while defending also which was a huge strength for the Bulls then. Not to mention, they'd be defended by Luol and Jimmy - two guys who simply do not foul - ever, even in this no-hand-check-rules league.

Since I don't have the energy for any of that, I'm just going to assume that you're being canny and altruistic in sacrificing your own b-ball integrity for the good of board discussion.

I should probably mention that I like to consider myself an open minded person and I think there are probably multiple NBA teams every season that, IF EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED, could possible be the best team of all time. It's just that that rarely happens of course and I don't think it will happen with the Bulls - but it might! I also usually think the Bulls have a chance to be the best team of all time on an annual basis, especially the 3 Cs, Fizer, Jay Will, Pippen, etc bunch.

All that means is that I'm not easily shocked and wouldn't be that shocked if the Bulls won 73 or more games this year with Nate and another good big man like Brand, and of course win the title which is the one thing I am actually predicting.

Man,72 wins is one of those unattainable records.........like Edwin Moses 140 meet unbeaten streak or Bob Beamon's record long jump which I believe still stands.I can imagine it's hard as hell to win 72 games.TWTW,that is what MJ was about.

[Ben]

There was Michael, and then Scottie, and then Dennis. Then there was a pretty big dropoff to Kukoc.

Really and truly false. Why are you sleeping on Kukoc like that? He was better than anyone on our current team except Rose. Wonderful passer, capable scorer and rebounder, beautiful shot... he was terrific. Kukoc was a better all-around player than Rodman, in fact. Rodman was just better at his one skill than anyone else around-- well, let's call it 2 skills, because one of them was getting under the other team's skin.

Kerr was among the most overrated players of all time IMO, and I believed that back then.

Dude.
It doesn't matter what his career 3P was; that year he was absolutely unbelievable. 50.6% from the floor, 51.5% from 3, and you're going to call him overrated on that particular team? Like we have anyone even remotely like that. (We don't.) You say that you would take Kirk over Kerr, but they play very different roles-- and as a dead-eye sharpshooter Kerr was probably the best in the league that year, whereas as a utility guard Kirk is far below average.
And taking Marquis Teague over probably the league's best sharpshooter? I won't respond b/c I don't know what to say.

The Bulls big men in 95-96 sucked balls. I knew it then and was rather shocked that it wasn't a point of discussion much to address just ho wmuch worse Longley was than most other good teams' big men. The other guys were surely inferior to Nazr, who projects as our 3rd string C in the scenario I was addressing. Go look at the rebounding numbers in 95-96 for all of our bigs, in the playoffs and regular season. Those guys were terrible. They were so bad that the following year when Bison Dele was signed near the end of the season, he was probably our best big man on the team (not counting Kukoc or Rodman as "bigs").

The big men were sub-par but adequate, and not worse than Nazr. The thing was that we were so deep, we could just rotate guys in and out and give fouls. The rest of the team was tremendous at rebounding and D, so it didn't matter so much. Team rebounding was probably better on the 95-96 squad, compared to its opponents, than it is on our current squad compared to our opponents.

Again, you're just not getting how incredibly important it is to have TWO giants like MJ and Pippen, who together were better than LBJ and Wade, plus an incredibly skilled player like Kukoc and an absolutely elite rebounder like Rodman. That foursome is just incredible. They blew everyone else out of the water. Our team now is neat, I love them, but it will be a big surprise to most of us if we win the title.

Anyway, I'll let others take a hand in this. I appreciate the diversion, and you do a good job in giving us something else to talk about besides Nate and FA.

[Ben]

BTW - If you want to continue discussing this, we should do it over PM. I've totally sidetracked the thread and I regret doing so, as my life currently is revolving around obsessing over Nate Robinson and checking this board and thread multiple times a day.

We can talk via PM. Just want to say one more thing here. You're giving data that does not pertain to your claim about the super-high rates during WWII and thereafter. It's mainly about the last 15-20 years. The one graph, from "remapping debate," that goes back historically contains the misleading marginal rates rather than indicating what everyone actually paid.

I'm very familiar with all of the other arguments; I teach all about them in a couple of classes. There are a variety of good books on the subject, including one by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. But they don't make the point about the rich paying 90% of their income earlier in the century, because the rich didn't. That's all I was pointing out earlier, that marginal rates are different from overall taxes paid. No spin.

Anyway, I'm exactly with you on the Nate obsession. I've been at the computer around the clock finishing some overdue stuff, and late at night I've taken to following twitter in one little window in case anything about Nate comes up. Mostly I just see fans of different teams all saying how much they'd like their clubs to sign him.