Adriennebanker
New Member
Cash: $ 1.45
Posts: 7
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Location: NY
|
Idealistic, but highly unlikely. He can't possibly bite the hand that fed and continues to feed him.
Secure your future by participating in a Solo 401K today.
|
Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:40 pm |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adriennebanker
Idealistic, but highly unlikely. He can't possibly bite the hand that fed and continues to feed him.
I agree. It was a nice speech, but I will believe it when I see it. I would like to see it happen but it will probably be blocked by republicans if it even goes that far. Herein lies the problem with campaign finance.
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:45 pm |
|
|
oldguy
Senior Member
Cash: $ 309.30
Posts: 1481
Joined: 21 May 2006
Location: arizona
|
quote:
What do you think about the possibility of tax increases on the wealthy?
The top 1% of earners currently pay 38% of the income taxes.
And the top 5% pay just over 50% of the taxes. So they are already carrying way more than their share.
But the 'tax the rich' cry is always popular with the less productive - and it will probably happen yet again. But, in general, the rich don't whine about it much - they know that it falls on deaf ears - and most of the wealthy are willing to step up to the task - and that is probably why they are wealthy to start with.
But I would like to see the bottom 50% that now pays nothing, have to pay a small tax. It is dangerous situation when 50% of the populus gets their services for free - so obviously they will vote for any & all giveaway programs.
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:35 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
|
 |
|
quote:
Originally posted by oldguy
and most of the wealthy are willing to step up to the task - and that is probably why they are wealthy to start with.
Nice point.
And "taxing the rich" never produces as much revenue as planned.
One point and one story:
Point: I did an in-depth and thorough study of tax revenues versus marginal tax rates over a time period of about a hundred years (as much data as was provided by the government, anyway). This study was done on behalf of a local talk radio show host who wanted to disprove the conservatives' assertion that lower marginal tax rates produce higher tax revenues; basing their assertion primarily on the economic results of the Reagan administration's tax policy. The result surprised both of us: tax revenues are not at all correlated to marginal tax rates. i.e. increasing or decreasing marginal tax rates isn't necessarily accompanied by increasing or decreasing tax revenues correspondingly. What tax revenues are correlated to is GDP; which is largely beyond the control of government. And this is a conclusion that just makes sense, and is seldom heard by either side of the issue.
Story: in Ronald Reagan's autobiography, he cites a time when he was still a Hollywood actor; a time when the top marginal tax rate was around 90%. He was offered a part in a movie that would have bumped his income into the top rate and decided to decline the offer because it just wouldn't be worth it: to keep only 10 cents on every dollar he was paid. This story illustrates the unintentional consequences of the tax code; and an example of why "taxing the rich" isn't the answer.......
|
|
Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:04 pm |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by oldguy
The top 1% of earners currently pay 38% of the income taxes.
And the top 5% pay just over 50% of the taxes. So they are already carrying way more than their share.
This type of logic is flawed. The top 1% have 40% of the wealth, so if they pay 38% of the tax that is less than their fair share.
quote:
But the 'tax the rich' cry is always popular with the less productive - and it will probably happen yet again. But, in general, the rich don't whine about it much - they know that it falls on deaf ears - and most of the wealthy are willing to step up to the task - and that is probably why they are wealthy to start with.
Our overall tax code is regressive not progressive as you contend, this is due to lower corporate tax rates, capital gains tax (where most of the income of the rich is derived) as well as low inheritance tax, so that money can be passed from generation to generation irrespective of "productivity".
Speaking of productivity: This argument is popular to use when justifying staggering inequality in the US (which is closer to Russia and Iran than Europe). Although this is a nice argument in defense of inequality and lower tax burden on the rich, there is no merit to the idea that there is a one for one relationship between productivity and income. See the Stiglitz article from a previous post http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105.
The rich don't whine? Those who "whine" are those who don't have the power or means to defend themselves. The rich don't have to whine when their lobbyists in Washington, crafty accountants, and campaign contributions protect their positions of wealth.
The power associated with wealth and the ability of families to create empires and pass their wealth to their children is why "they are wealthy to start with."
quote:
But I would like to see the bottom 50% that now pays nothing, have to pay a small tax.
Show me a reputable source to back this up. This is a completely fallacious claim. [/quote]
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
Last edited by shanecurran on Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:23 pm |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coaster
Point: I did an in-depth and thorough study of tax revenues versus marginal tax rates over a time period of about a hundred years (as much data as was provided by the government, anyway). This study was done on behalf of a local talk radio show host who wanted to disprove the conservatives' assertion that lower marginal tax rates produce higher tax revenues; basing their assertion primarily on the economic results of the Reagan administration's tax policy. The result surprised both of us: tax revenues are not at all correlated to marginal tax rates. i.e. increasing or decreasing marginal tax rates isn't necessarily accompanied by increasing or decreasing tax revenues correspondingly. What tax revenues are correlated to is GDP; which is largely beyond the control of government. And this is a conclusion that just makes sense, and is seldom heard by either side of the issue.
The point is that lowering the tax rates do not increase revenue. The curve that is used to describe this theoretic point is called the Laffer curve. I agree that at some point increasing taxes will decrease tax revenue (on the right hand side of the curve), but we are not at this point. In order to find the effect of each relevant variable on tax revenue, one would have to run a regression with tax revenue as the dependent variable. Depending on the type of regression, one could look at the coefficients or the marginal effect of marginal tax rates to see if, given all else equal, raising tax rates increases revenue.
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:58 pm |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coaster
Story: in Ronald Reagan's autobiography, he cites a time when he was still a Hollywood actor; a time when the top marginal tax rate was around 90%. He was offered a part in a movie that would have bumped his income into the top rate and decided to decline the offer because it just wouldn't be worth it: to keep only 10 cents on every dollar he was paid. This story illustrates the unintentional consequences of the tax code; and an example of why "taxing the rich" isn't the answer.......
It is true that Regan faced tax rates of 90% during WWII, which probably gave him the idea to use the Laffer curve as an argument to lower tax rates when he was president. Regan lowered tax rates and used the Laffer curve and increases in tax revenue to say "see lowering tax rates increases tax revenue" Regan failed to recognise the most fundamental point, which is that tax revenue is not independent of government spending. True tax revenue increased, but so did government spending (especially defense spending related to the cold war). As it turns out, government spending rose faster than tax revenue, which increased the deficit (this is contrary to the ultimate goal of increasing tax revenue, namely decreasing the deficit).
When talking about fairness of tax policy, one must consider the marginal tax rate. The rich should not be taxed unfairly (by paying a higher marginal tax rate), but it is dangerous to look only at income tax rates, when in fact tax rates on capital gains and corporate tax rates play a larger role in the overall burden. Inheritance tax is a whole other ball of wax, one which I do agree with taxing aggressively progressive.
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:17 pm |
|
|
littleroc02us
Moderator
Cash: $ 205.35
Posts: 1015
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
|
[quote="shanecurran"] quote:
Originally posted by oldguy
The top 1% of earners currently pay 38% of the income taxes.
And the top 5% pay just over 50% of the taxes. So they are already carrying way more than their share.
This type of logic is flawed. The top 1% have 40% of the wealth, so if they pay 38% of the tax that is less than their fair share.
[quote]
Explain your math, I don't get it? If 5% of the wealthiest Americans pay 50% of the taxes, that leaves the other 95% paying 50%. What's not to get????
Romans 13:8 “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”
|
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:27 pm |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
quote:
Originally posted by littleroc02us
Explain your math, I don't get it? If 5% of the wealthiest Americans pay 50% of the taxes, that leaves the other 95% paying 50%. What's not to get????
If i make 50% of the income I should pay 50% of the taxes. If I make 25% of the money I should pay 25% of the taxes.
Are you saying every American should pay the same $ amount of taxes in an absolute sense? This would mean that every income earning individual would pay around $15000, regardless of income. So you would pay $15K if you made $10, or if you made $15 million. I am sorry, but that is not fair. Fair is paying the same marginal tax rate. What do you not understand about that?????
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
Last edited by shanecurran on Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:50 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
quote:
Originally posted by shanecurran
When talking about fairness of tax policy, one must consider the marginal tax rate.
Right. Consider doing away with marginal rates. A flat rate on all income (above a threshold) is the only fair way. Tax code should be used to generate revenue, and only to generate revenue, not to implement social and economic policies.
|
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:51 pm |
|
|
shanecurran
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 32.70
Posts: 161
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Chico
|
quote:
Originally posted by coaster
quote:
Originally posted by shanecurran
When talking about fairness of tax policy, one must consider the marginal tax rate.
Right. Consider doing away with marginal rates. A flat rate on all income (above a threshold) is the only fair way. Tax code should be used to generate revenue, and only to generate revenue, not to implement social and economic policies.
I agree with you 100%. If you are above the poverty line you get taxed at a rate of X%. But you must include traditional income as well as capital gains etc. This type of tax would be seen as transparent and fair, which I think would decrease the amount of money lost to fraud. Can you imagine how much less money would be wasted on the IRS and accountants?
Would you like to earn money from home?
Click here to find out how!
http://qitrck.com/b?p=316412&t=18108&c=&a=SW
|
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:57 pm |
|
|
littleroc02us
Moderator
Cash: $ 205.35
Posts: 1015
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
|
|
|
|
Are you saying every American should pay the same $ amount of taxes in an absolute sense? This would mean that every income earning individual would pay around $15000, regardless of income. So you would pay $15K if you made $10, or if you made $15 million. I am sorry, but that is not fair. Fair is paying the same marginal tax rate. What do you not understand about that?????[/quote]
Maybe your not getting it, what it means is that 5% of americans are paying 50% of the taxes, whereas 95% are dividing up the remainder 50%.
Here are the current tax cuts:
10% Bracket $0 – $8,375 $0 – $16,750
15% Bracket $8,375 – $34,000 $16,750 – $68,000
25% Bracket $34,000 – $82,400 $68,000 – $137,300
28% Bracket $82,400 – $171,850 $137,300 – $209,250
33% Bracket $171,850 – $373,650 $209,250 – $373,650
35% Bracket $373,650+ $373,650+
As you can see the richest are paying the most taxes and the poorest are paying the least. I am in total agreement with the Bush Tax cuts.
Romans 13:8 “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”
|
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:08 pm |
|
|
oldguy
Senior Member
Cash: $ 309.30
Posts: 1481
Joined: 21 May 2006
Location: arizona
|
|
|
|
quote:
The top 1% of earners currently pay 38% of the income taxes.
And the top 5% pay just over 50% of the taxes. So they are already carrying way more than their share.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This type of logic is flawed. The top 1% have 40% of the wealth, so if they pay 38% of the tax that is less than their fair share.
You aren't understanding the data - the income tax is based on 'income', not accumulated wealth, your 40% value is irrelant.
quote:
Our overall tax code is regressive not progressive as you contend, this is due to lower corporate tax rates, capital gains tax (where most of the income of the rich is derived) as well as low inheritance tax, so that money can be passed from generation to generation irrespective of "productivity".
You should google and check your assumptions - most millionaires are self-made, only a few are 'trust babies'. And our corporate tax rates are actually higher than our personal tax rate. As for "where most of the income of the rich is derived" , not true. I keep my capital invested, seldom sell and actualize profits - as do most of my friends of similar wealth. Inheritance tax? The inheritance tax rate has been 55% until the recent few yrs.
|
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:20 pm |
|
|
littleroc02us
Moderator
Cash: $ 205.35
Posts: 1015
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
|
Most of the millionaire's I know worked hard for their money. My parents are self made millioniare's as I plan to be before any type of inheritance. They want us to be self sufficient before we receive. I'm surprised the jealousy that takes place of those who bust their butts their whole life and now people who don't have, expect the rich to pay more.
Romans 13:8 “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”
|
|
Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
