|
|
Will Obama's tax plan kill small businesses ? (Page 2)
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
But a rich person making a lot of money should pay more for national defense.
They are worth more, thus they should pay more for national defense because they have more to loose. Consider it "Homeland Security" Insurance.
This was the prevailing theory in the Depression, in WWII, and Vietnam. Rich people were asked to pay almost punitive levels of tax because they had a higher interest in preserving the overall system that they sat atop of. In WW II, the rich paid 91% marginal tax rate on the top dollars they made. In Vietnam, they paid 70% + there was a surcharge on Capital Gains that was specifically earmarked for the defense/war budget.
I think you are making your post in jest but that actually WAS the way things worked in our not-too-distant past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
No man, I'm being serious. People who have nothing to lose, don't care that much about national security. Those who have a lot to lose, care more about national security. You think those people who are trying to make ends meet, care that much about Iraq? No. They care about how to pay the bills and having enough money to buy food, or enough money to pay their rent.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Krusty
Sales tax is somewhat regressive but not because of the tax rate. It's somewhat regressive only because poor people typically have to spend far greater portions of their incomes on necessities that are taxed. A rich person does not have to spend his entire income on necessities and can divert a good chunk of it away to non-taxable items (tax shelters, such as a second home) or investments that actually provide income. If you have a person that makes $400k/yr vs someone who makes $40k/year, the first person doesn't have to spend 10x the amount for gas, food, clothes, or even consumer goods than the person making $40k.
I don't think that's a valid argument.
In that respect, even a progressive tax would ultimately be regressive.
It makes the distinction useless.
It's a typical view from a class-warfare perspective.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
But a rich person making a lot of money should pay more for national defense.
They are worth more, thus they should pay more for national defense because they have more to loose. Consider it "Homeland Security" Insurance.
No, they are protecting people's lives.
Are you saying a rich person's life is worth more ?
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
No man, I'm being serious. People who have nothing to lose, don't care that much about national security. Those who have a lot to lose, care more about national security. You think those people who are trying to make ends meet, care that much about Iraq? No. They care about how to pay the bills and having enough money to buy food, or enough money to pay their rent.
And it's not just national security either. Who benefits the most from a functioning criminal justice system? Who benefits the most from parks and museums and art and science and universities? Everyone benefits, but I think the more successful you are, the more you benefit from such things. There's this view that "the government gives all my money to the poor people," but that's at best an incomplete picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
No, they are protecting people's lives.
Are you saying a rich person's life is worth more ?
-t
Their assets are worth more.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
I don't think that's a valid argument.
In that respect, even a progressive tax would ultimately be regressive.
It makes the distinction useless.
It's a typical view from a class-warfare perspective.
-t
That's what I'm saying ... the sales tax is ultimately regressive but it is pretty pointless to try to "correct" it. It's about as fair as it reasonably can be.
You are correct that is its the view from a class-warfare perspective ... which is why I won't bother to push the point hard. Its the LAST tax we need to be worried about right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's worth noting that all the conservatives' proposals for a national sales tax to replace the income tax have some type of rebate in order to make the tax less regressive/more progressive. Is that class warfare? Why do they propose such a rebate if there's no progressivity/regressivity problem with such taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Krusty
I think you are making your post in jest but that actually WAS the way things worked in our not-too-distant past.
And they did it out of "noblesse oblige." And therefore expected the "rest of us" to stay "in our place." If we go back to that, expect the divisions between "class" to widen.
Ultimately, the agenda is to drive out the middle class. Devalue our votes, devalue our homes, devalue our income-generating capacity. Only then can the revolution continue. Viva!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BRussell
And it's not just national security either. Who benefits the most from a functioning criminal justice system? Who benefits the most from parks and museums and art and science and universities? Everyone benefits, but I think the more successful you are, the more you benefit from such things. There's this view that "the government gives all my money to the poor people," but that's at best an incomplete picture.
There's another, related political tack that goes "either pay now or pay later." Pay higher taxes or the streets won't be safe, that kind of rhetoric. Ordinary folks get tired of hearing that. How about we expect the streets to be safe and do something about it if they aren't? Ahhhhhh, living in Texas is quite refreshing sometimes.
Class warfare is class warfare. Dressing it up and putting lipstick on it doesn't help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa
My favorite part of that article is "analysis of projected 2009 filings" by the "nonpartisan" TPC. Kinda like how Bloomberg has been reporting hypotheticals lately.
I'm not sure how it clears up the mischaracterizations -- it argues for different definitions of small business and doesn't settle on one. The fact is that small businesses pass their income through their owners, and their owners are going to be taxed at higher rates. How freaking hard is that to understand? I guess it's harder to understand if you have an agenda to push.
I don't really have an agenda on this, but I just hate for people to be misled so blatantly. If Obama disagrees with or doesn't believe in the incentives of small businesses, he can just say so. But when cornered on it he rolls his eyes and tells us that he just explained it. OK. Either he's stupid or he thinks we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by finboy
I don't really have an agenda on this, but I just hate for people to be misled so blatantly. If Obama disagrees with or doesn't believe in the incentives of small businesses, he can just say so. But when cornered on it he rolls his eyes and tells us that he just explained it. OK. Either he's stupid or he thinks we are.
You're the one doing the misleading. The vast majority of small businesses don't even make $250K profit per year. Of the ones that do, they'll still be getting a pass on cap gains and health care, so a lot of them will still come out ahead of the current situation. For the remaining few, they're still paying less than it's been for most of the century. Do you think the Bush way has been a net success for small businesses; are they doing better now than they were under Clinton or Reagan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by finboy
I don't really have an agenda on this, but I just hate for people to be misled so blatantly. If Obama disagrees with or doesn't believe in the incentives of small businesses, he can just say so. But when cornered on it he rolls his eyes and tells us that he just explained it. OK. Either he's stupid or he thinks we are.
I'm not sure how you got that as the take away message of the article. It's pretty clear that the vast majority of small businesses won't see any hike under Obama's plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by finboy
There's another, related political tack that goes "either pay now or pay later." Pay higher taxes or the streets won't be safe, that kind of rhetoric. Ordinary folks get tired of hearing that. How about we expect the streets to be safe and do something about it if they aren't? Ahhhhhh, living in Texas is quite refreshing sometimes.
Class warfare is class warfare. Dressing it up and putting lipstick on it doesn't help.
Somehow it's not considered class warfare when politicians give tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest, and then raise payroll taxes on the poor and middle class, as has happened over the last 25 years. But then it is class warfare when politicians want (but never seem to get around to actually implementing) the reverse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Utah
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BRussell
Somehow it's not considered class warfare when politicians give tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest, and then raise payroll taxes on the poor and middle class, as has happened over the last 25 years. But then it is class warfare when politicians want (but never seem to get around to actually implementing) the reverse.
That is absolutely not true.
And the great Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
No man, I'm being serious. People who have nothing to lose, don't care that much about national security. Those who have a lot to lose, care more about national security. You think those people who are trying to make ends meet, care that much about Iraq? No. They care about how to pay the bills and having enough money to buy food, or enough money to pay their rent.
Then in conjunction with that there should be a graduated degree of direct say in how the parts of government they are paying disproportionately higher into are run. Not by donations for access influence or direct lobbying opportunities but by fundamental value in their votes. You pay in at a 64% tax rate? Then you're vote should be weighted 3 times more than the vote of someone paying in at 20%
That is the upside of your plan right? Someone is taxed heavier because they have greater assets to protect so therefore they should benefit according to that proportion as well. I pay 3 times the real estate tax and the majority goes fund some school in an impoverished neighborhood across the city so therefore I should get that much more say in who is on their school board plus my own and how the expenditures are made?
|
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In a jar.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Will Obama's tax plan kill small businesses?
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by midwinter
That is absolutely not true.
And the great Ronald Reagan.
The only way for you to win this argument, midwinter, is if you throw in a "maverick."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status:
Offline
|
|
I heard Obama's tax plan will result in the death of millions of kittens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by finboy
Either he's stupid or he thinks we are.
Why does that have to be an either/or?
The fact is, he's stupid and the vast majority of the voting public are stupid.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
We certainly have come a long way in this country.
Where on one hand it is considered "fair" for a family to pay 20% of their income in taxes to the federal government, yet it is NOT "fair" for someone else who makes more to pay the same percentage.
Where 20% in federal taxes is considered fair at all, especially light of the state and local income taxes, property tax, gas tax, "sin" tax, airline ticket tax, excise tax, capitol gains tax, FICA tax, sales tax, phone taxes, usage tax, "wheel" taxā¦
For citizens (as opposed to elected officials) to sit here and honestly argue on the side of raising already high taxes on people in favor of gifting that money (in the form of tax credits) to people who have not earned and do not deserve that money is unbelievable to me.
The government has almost NEVER had a better use for your money than you do. Yes, there are services and duties that the government should perform but we passed that point a LONG time ago. I'm convinced that to believe that we need to give more and more of our money in taxes in order for the government to make things better for us is a bizarre form of Stockholm syndrome.
|
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
I'm convinced that to believe that we need to give more and more of our money in taxes in order for the government to make things better for us is a bizarre form of Stockholm syndrome.
No, it's the deep unspoken belief that many sheep have that the government will take away from SOMEBODY ELSE and give to THEM. What they don't get is that 'we have met the enemy, and they is us.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa
I heard Obama's tax plan will result in the death of millions of kittens.
You forgot about turning us into
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
We certainly have come a long way in this country.
Where on one hand it is considered "fair" for a family to pay 20% of their income in taxes to the federal government, yet it is NOT "fair" for someone else who makes more to pay the same percentage.
Where 20% in federal taxes is considered fair at all, especially light of the state and local income taxes, property tax, gas tax, "sin" tax, airline ticket tax, excise tax, capitol gains tax, FICA tax, sales tax, phone taxes, usage tax, "wheel" taxā¦
For citizens (as opposed to elected officials) to sit here and honestly argue on the side of raising already high taxes on people in favor of gifting that money (in the form of tax credits) to people who have not earned and do not deserve that money is unbelievable to me.
"We've come a long way" since what? The last time the top bracket was significantly lower than it is now was the 4 years leading into the Great Depression (exactly how old are you, that you remember these "good old days?"). The last year of "lower than now" before that was 1916, the first year there even was a tax. Your claim that todays taxes are "already high" is inaccurate and misleading.
Here's the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...ral_income_tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
"We've come a long way" since what? The last time the top bracket was significantly lower than it is now was the 4 years leading into the Great Depression (exactly how old are you, that you remember these "good old days?"). The last year of "lower than now" before that was 1916, the first year there even was a tax. Your claim that todays taxes are "already high" is inaccurate and misleading.
Here's the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...ral_income_tax
Stop posting facts. It confuses the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Your claim that todays taxes are "already high" is inaccurate and misleading.
Well, higher than the 13% flat rate Russia has.
You have high taxes in the US. Period.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
Well, higher than the 13% flat rate Russia has.
You have high taxes in the US. Period.
Actually, the nominal tax rates are high but the actual effective tax rate is pretty low after decades of loophole creation. Unfortunately, these loopholes are most effectively exploited by the big corporations who can hire teams of accountants and lawyers to squeeze them out. The small business guy typically pays a lot closer to the actual rate. If you look a measure that is independent of the stated rate, the percentage of total federal tax revenue footed by corporations, it steadily dropped from about 33% of all revenues in the early 50s to an average of about 10% for most of the last 20 years. Currently, under Bush, it roughly matches a record low of about 7.4%, a low point that it reached also during one of the Reagan years (can't remember if it was 83 or 86). The converse is also true, the percentage of federal tax revenue footed by individuals has skyrocketed from about 65% to about 90-92% in the same period.
Bascially, despite the nominal tax rates you see, the actual collections are really quite low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Krusty, what you say is right.
Too bad none of the candidates promised to close the loopholes.
THAT would have been something drawing my vote.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Krusty, what you say is right.
Too bad none of the candidates promised to close the loopholes.
THAT would have been something drawing my vote.
-t
Hasn't Obama mentioned this before as a way to pay for his cuts?
|
AXP
ĪĪ£Ī¦
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by TheMosco
Hasn't Obama mentioned this before as a way to pay for his cuts?
Don't know. Sources ? Links ?
I don't consider just plainly raising taxes as a fix. A comprehensive tax reform is what's needed.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
We certainly have come a long way in this country.
Where on one hand it is considered "fair" for a family to pay 20% of their income in taxes to the federal government, yet it is NOT "fair" for someone else who makes more to pay the same percentage.
Where 20% in federal taxes is considered fair at all, especially light of the state and local income taxes, property tax, gas tax, "sin" tax, airline ticket tax, excise tax, capitol gains tax, FICA tax, sales tax, phone taxes, usage tax, "wheel" taxā¦
For citizens (as opposed to elected officials) to sit here and honestly argue on the side of raising already high taxes on people in favor of gifting that money (in the form of tax credits) to people who have not earned and do not deserve that money is unbelievable to me.
The government has almost NEVER had a better use for your money than you do. Yes, there are services and duties that the government should perform but we passed that point a LONG time ago. I'm convinced that to believe that we need to give more and more of our money in taxes in order for the government to make things better for us is a bizarre form of Stockholm syndrome.
well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
AXP
ĪĪ£Ī¦
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Where on one hand it is considered "fair" for a family to pay 20% of their income in taxes to the federal government, yet it is NOT "fair" for someone else who makes more to pay the same percentage.
No. As you make more money you are less dependent on the source of the income. While income tax may be disproportionately high based on salary, the majority of a rich person's money comes not from a pay cheque, but from interest, dividends, and "gifts."
Warren Buffet pays 17% in taxes on his $49,000,000/year income. His secretary pays 30% on her $60,000/year cheque. This is without taking advantage of tax loopholes. The reason is because Warren Buffet doesn't get a pay cheque for $49 million, his money comes from sources that are taxed differently than your standard income.
|
"ā¦I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
No. As you make more money you are less dependent on the source of the income. While income tax may be disproportionately high based on salary, the majority of a rich person's money comes not from a pay cheque, but from interest, dividends, and "gifts."
Warren Buffet pays 17% in taxes on his $49,000,000/year income. His secretary pays 30% on her $60,000/year cheque. This is without taking advantage of tax loopholes. The reason is because Warren Buffet doesn't get a pay cheque for $49 million, his money comes from sources that are taxed differently than your standard income.
And guess what: if you change that, we're all toast once we want to retire.
There is no way you can accumulate enough passive income to retire off of that if it is taxed like regular income.
But hey, no problem for the socialists, the government will take care of you anyways. No more having to take care of your own future and retirement. Welcome to the big nanny state. Welcome to Europe.
Thanks, o great Obama
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Retirement accounts are a different beast than what olepigeon is talking about, o great turtle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
And guess what: if you change that, we're all toast once we want to retire.
There is no way you can accumulate enough passive income to retire off of that if it is taxed like regular income.
But hey, no problem for the socialists, the government will take care of you anyways. No more having to take care of your own future and retirement. Welcome to the big nanny state. Welcome to Europe.
Thanks, o great Obama
-t
A little bit of hyperbole there, no ? Every criticism you make of the Obama plan is true of the current plan as well. At what point on the 4.6% climb from Bush's current 35% to Obama's $39.6% does it become "Socialist" if its not already ? And, since that's the same rate that Clinton had, how did we become "socialist" under Clinton but find our way back to "capitalism" by lowering the rate from 39.6 to 35 ? Seriously, you're pretending that some fundamental change will take place under the Obama plan which simply isn't true ... it's literally just a change in the bargain that keeps the same plan in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BRussell
Retirement accounts are a different beast than what olepigeon is talking about, o great turtle.
No, not until the tax law is changed. Capital gains is capital gains, no matter if it's Joe the Plumber's or Warren Buffet's.
Now, you COULD argue for a progressive Capital Gains tax. But nobody brought this into play (yet).
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
No, not until the tax law is changed. Capital gains is capital gains, no matter if it's Joe the Plumber's or Warren Buffet's.
Have you not heard of IRAs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Don't want to pay high taxes?
Don't vote for Republicans who want to spend so much on national defense.
3% increase in taxes to those making $250k or more? Good. That'll start paying off a little of the Iraq War cost.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
No, not until the tax law is changed. Capital gains is capital gains, no matter if it's Joe the Plumber's or Warren Buffet's.
Now, you COULD argue for a progressive Capital Gains tax. But nobody brought this into play (yet).
-t
Capital gains that occur inside 401k-type retirement accounts have a 0% tax rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
Has Obama said anything about self-employment tax/FICA if you don't elect to be taxed as a corporation? Is that being left as it is? Or the $250k bit refers only to income tax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
"We've come a long way" since what? The last time the top bracket was significantly lower than it is now was the 4 years leading into the Great Depression (exactly how old are you, that you remember these "good old days?"). The last year of "lower than now" before that was 1916, the first year there even was a tax.
I'm not referring to the rates of taxes, I'm referring to the citizens buying into this unethical tax philosophy of wealth redistribution disguised as fairness.
No it's not. There are a bazillion taxes we pay at every level, not just the federal. Add it ALL up, it's disgusting. To top it all off when the economy gets tough higher taxes get proposed to cover the outrageous spending habits of the criminals in our government.
Cherry picking only federal income tax rates is what is misleading, and disingenuous.
|
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
No. As you make more money you are less dependent on the source of the income. While income tax may be disproportionately high based on salary, the majority of a rich person's money comes not from a pay cheque, but from interest, dividends, and "gifts."
Warren Buffet pays 17% in taxes on his $49,000,000/year income. His secretary pays 30% on her $60,000/year cheque. This is without taking advantage of tax loopholes. The reason is because Warren Buffet doesn't get a pay cheque for $49 million, his money comes from sources that are taxed differently than your standard income.
First of all, she doesn't pay 30%.
Nevertheless, the differences between the capitol gains and income tax rates is not the point. It's the idea of the progressive income tax being "fair" that I take issue with.
If it were me, I would eliminate the capitol gains tax. That is just one more attempt by the government to manipulate via the tax code and at double taxation.
|
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
Don't want to pay high taxes?
Don't vote for Republicans who want to spend so much on national defense.
3% increase in taxes to those making $250k or more? Good. That'll start paying off a little of the Iraq War cost.
Yeah vote for the Democrats so we can have trillions in new entitlements as well as the worsening problems of the current entitlements that they will never fix.
Really, we all know that the Republicans have racked up huge debt as of late but just stop with the partisan fantasies.
|
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
I'm not referring to the rates of taxes, I'm referring to the citizens buying into this unethical tax philosophy of wealth redistribution disguised as fairness.
So you're arguing that people buy in to income taxes now, more than they did almost 100 years ago when the people ratified a constitutional amendment allowing a federal income tax? What, if anything, are you basing that on?
Also, did you know there were taxes before the federal income tax? I have to ask (again), exactly what time period are you comparing to? I detect a note of Good-Ol-Days syndrome, where you long for the paradise of a yester-year that never existed.
Cherry picking only federal income tax rates is what is misleading, and disingenuous.
Well this thread is about the federal income tax, so if you were trying to change the subject away from it, without even mentioning that fact, you're still the one being disingenuous. But getting to that, your objection seems to be against progressive taxes, and as noted already, basically all taxes except income taxes are REgressive. So by changing your argument away from the income tax, you're really shooting yourself in the foot. You might find this viewpoint interesting:
US tax disparity may be flatter than it seems
Originally Posted by smacintush
Nevertheless, the differences between the capitol gains and income tax rates is not the point. It's the idea of the progressive income tax being "fair" that I take issue with.
And that's perfectly reasonable, given that you would be just as happy living in a cabin in the woods, society-be-damned (in truth I see a lot of appeal in that myself). But most first world citizens don't agree with you or me on that, and part of maintaining an orderly society involves making sure the peasants aren't all starving and itching for a revolution. You share a lot of rhetoric with people who call progressive taxation "class warfare," but ironically if you actually manage to institute your "let them eat cake" beliefs, you're very likely to spark some actual class warfare, and then you'd be longing for the good old days (now) when all you had to worry about was one of the lowest American income taxes in the history of American income taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
If it were me, I would eliminate the capitol gains tax. That is just one more attempt by the government to manipulate via the tax code and at double taxation.
How about we eliminate the income tax and replace it with a massive capital gains tax. That way there would be no disincentive for actual work, and just pushing money around wouldn't be God's gift to humanity like it is now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Those who don't support the 3% increase in taxes for people who make more than $250k/yr are unpatriotic. The 3% goes to supporting out troops in the Iraq War. In times like this, when millions of Americans can't afford to buy food and clothes for their kids, or pay their rent and utilities, it only makes sense for those making $250k/yr to pay an extra 3% in taxes to support our troops. Americans must work together and stop bickering and whine about a minor 3% tax increase to those making $250k/yr or more. It's time to help each other out. That's the American thing to do.
Those who are making $250k/yr and whine about the 3% increase in taxes to support our troops are unpatriotic and un-American.
We must make an effort to pay for the Iraq War. We should stop spreading our wealth to countries like Iraq and to companies like Haliburton and Black Water.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
So you're arguing that people buy in to income taxes now, more than they did almost 100 years ago when the people ratified a constitutional amendment allowing a federal income tax? What, if anything, are you basing that on?
Also, did you know there were taxes before the federal income tax? I have to ask (again), exactly what time period are you comparing to? I detect a note of Good-Ol-Days syndrome, where you long for the paradise of a yester-year that never existed.
I was talking about PROGRESSIVE RATES. Yes, the income taxes have gotten MORE progressive and people are as happier than ever to push their federal tax liability on other people.
Well this thread is about the federal income tax, so if you were trying to change the subject away from it, without even mentioning that fact, you're still the one being disingenuous. But getting to that, your objection seems to be against progressive taxes, and as noted already, basically all taxes except income taxes are REgressive. So by changing your argument away from the income tax, you're really shooting yourself in the foot. You might find this viewpoint interesting:
US tax disparity may be flatter than it seems
I brought up other taxes in my first post, did you bother to read it?
And that's perfectly reasonable, given that you would be just as happy living in a cabin in the woods, society-be-damned (in truth I see a lot of appeal in that myself). But most first world citizens don't agree with you or me on that, and part of maintaining an orderly society involves making sure the peasants aren't all starving and itching for a revolution. You share a lot of rhetoric with people who call progressive taxation "class warfare," but ironically if you actually manage to institute your "let them eat cake" beliefs, you're very likely to spark some actual class warfare, and then you'd be longing for the good old days (now) when all you had to worry about was one of the lowest American income taxes in the history of American income taxes.
You lost me hereā¦
|
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Have you not heard of IRAs?
Sorry, I misread the statement about retirement accounts.
Don't know why BRussell brought it up, but of course, for businesses, that's irrelevant.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|