VAmazda

A well done video makes the explanation easy:


PS the guy speaking is a multi-millionaire...

The point being made is that schools, police, fire, roads, public services rely on tax contributions. If you think it should be flat rate you're not thinking about HOW those that own businesses made their money. They have employees that all need roads and public transportation to get there, but now they don't want to pay for it. Their reasoning is that the more people use public transportation, the better it does, which is correct IF there is initial investment to make it works well (something my city has to learn or it's going to fall on it's face).

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Yes, everyone needs roads and bridges. However our society does not require things like free cell phone programs, endless welfare without work, millions of dollars every time Airforce One sends the president and his wife somewhere, separately, or general programs that require exemptions among political officials. If you review the percentages of tax revenue, you'll find that "evil rich" pay for those roads more than the altruistic poor. I also don't hear any of these evil rich people suggesting they should pay nothing in taxes, so they aren't saying they "don't want to pay for it". You need it to be sensational though so you can feel victimized by evil rich people, I get that.

Do you have any idea what public transportation costs for the rider? Without a car payment, it generally costs more to take the DART train in my area than to drive your car after parking and the fare. It was the same case when I visited Seattle, when I visited DC, visited Shitcago, and the same for Austin. Now, if you have live downtown, live on welfare and get to ride for free, or it's Sunday in Seattle, it makes sense to bankroll public transportation. From everything I've ever read, it does not make sense to venture out into areas with less population density.

VAmazda

And for reference, here are tax brackets:

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

There are quite a few problems with that video as he uses no actual data or studies to back up his view. He also makes it sound as if business owners just open a business and consumers decide oh let me go shop there so I can create jobs. The business owner has to capture a client with a product that entices them to spend money on it. The business owner tends to have to put a lot of their own personal capital on the line as well as invest significant amounts of time to make a new business work. They have to bring the right product to the consumer. He over simplifies the process and credits the consumer with the job creation.

His analogy with the squirrel was ******* stupid. A better analogy would be that it is like crediting the fish for creating the meal because he bit the lure as opposed to crediting the fisherman who built the rod, made the lure, and used correct technique to catch the fish. All those that the fisherman feeds should then take a portion of his catch for nothing because afterall he did not provide the meal. The fish just sacraficed itself for everyone to eat. The other problem is that this is a global economy. If you want to raise taxes on the rich and on corporations, fine. Then don't bitch when they flee and shift production oversees where the tax climate is more beneficial.

Yes the tax system needs to be progressive, that is perfectly acceptable. However, raising taxes past where they currently are would be idiotic. Many economists have proven with real data that tax revenues go up when tax rates are competitive in the economic environment which is now GLOBAL. (Just look at how California is holding up if you want current proof of how this concept would work within the U.S.)

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

If you want to be picky, the 2012 thresholds are slightly higher, but not so much as to make a real difference in broader terms (i.e. the more money you make, the higher your marginal Federal income tax bracket).

Also note that the 10% marginal Federal income tax bracket was put in place by the Bush Tax cuts of 2003 which disproportionally benefited the financial genius types. Prior to that, the lowest marginal Federal income tax bracket was 15%.

VAmazda

Edited your statement to make a point, removed 'evil' since you were the only person in this thread to use the word, and took out the sensationalizing since you were the only one doing it. It reads a bit better now.

Agreed on needless expenditures, but some like security of the President of the USA who has nuclear launch codes I'd say get to stay.

I'm stating an investment in public transportation would allow current wages to go further? Oh how dare I? Fewer people on the road? Less need for road maintenance? Less fuel used? Holy **** what am I thinking?!?! If you can't calculate cost of operation per mile accurately we're all lost. Add it up: all maintenance, payment with interest, taxes, registration, gas, insurance. We'll see how 'economical' it is. It also doesn't make sense to assume 'without a payment' when you're talking about those not rich enough to pay cash for a car (like myself).

Capital gains is increasing to match income tax rate. I think that's perfectly fair, income is income. Especially since:

Here a chart of WHO actually claims capital gains, and I think justifies why it should be taxed on the same scale. I certainly don't get any of my income from capital gains.


I agree the govt spends way more than they should on a lot of things, and I think they should start digging there. I agreed with Ron Paul with the "why the F are we spending so much money on the military overseas?" argument. Two big thumbs up for that.

I also want guns everywhere, all the time, but not in the hands of stupid people, can we test for that?

Ryan_G, the business owner sometimes does all of that, but why are you ignoring the fact that they don't do it alone? Are you only referring to sole proprietorships? There are many flavors of business, and trying to think they all operate on the same model is impossible. The guy in the video's analogy is incomplete, and your analogy is crap since no fisherman does it alone, so let's just ignore them all since they're nearly always flawed. Companies didn't flee because of a specific event, they always look to save cost, so don't pin it on one thing (taxes). GE is a company that barely pays any taxes, they didn't do it because of 1 event, they started dodging taxes in the beginning. And you make some pretty bold statements that have no reference or correlation to the individual or corporation, and you try to say because California? I'm just lost.

2013 Rough because the brackets change a tad as well:
***and to those youngus out there, this is a tax schedule, you pay every rate on the way up, and only once on each dollar. EX: income at 50k pays 15% on $32,950 + 25% on $17,050 = $9,205 or 18.41% BEFORE deductions***

And if you look, even me with my 34k income pays more next year. So if you make a ton of money, why are you opposed to me paying more of my share? What would you rather? Who has the end all be all plan?

Nobody, but I'd take an increase in taxes over a decrease when there's not enough budget cuts. Have people that make WAY more than enough provide for their employees/workers/community a bit more heavily and I'm sure they'll get something nicer out of it like less on welfare, better schools, better roads... You can't hoard cash and expect a circular system to survive.

VAmazda

Exactly, when more of your income is cap gains, you'd pay WAY less on what is essentially, income.

bbundy

Also note that before any of those calculations on marginal rates on income is considerd ~15% comes out as FICA tax of earned incom to pay tax before you calculate income tax on top of that as long as you make less than 110k. dosn't come out if you have enough money that you can convert most of your income to capital gains and it drops if you make more than 110k.

Bob

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

This is much more significant than my last nit-pick:

That is a chart of how much of a person's income is derived from capital gains, broken down by income strata. That is not the same as who actually claims capital gains. For all we know, from that chart, 100% of people in the 0-80% income group claims 0.7% of their income via capital gains.

I would also wager all of my capital gains for the year that the chart is using net realized gains. I might have realized $10k in LTCG, $20k in STCG but then offset that with $25k in STCL and $15K in LTCL. My tax return would show I had a $3k income deduction.

I think you would really benefit from an exposure to the concept of sectoral balances (a la Wynne Godley), especially as it relates to household balance sheet recessions. It might significantly change your outlook on some of the above. I get the impression you are less dogmatic than some people involved in these threads and might find it eye-opening.

Fair play. If the majority of your income is from qualified dividends, tax-exempt municipal bond income and long-term capital gains - all of which are types of income - you pay a very low Federal income tax rate (marginal and effective).

I would love to see a breakdown of how many people fitting that description are the Top 1% or 0.1% vs the number of people that are in the 99% and are retirees.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Bob - Help me out with how you are calculating that roughly 15% of an average American's earned income is taxed via FICA (Social Security + Medicare).

Also, can you help me understand why (in theory, if nothing else) there is an income threshold on the Social Security portion?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

You are exactly right. They do not do it alone. As you look at a Corporate ladder you notice something very striking. As an individuals influence over the direction of a business increases......so does....... their INCOME, exponentially. It is not just the business owner that has to do these things but it is the people that have the most control of the company that reep the largest benefits not the secretary sitting at the desk up front.

It is business owners and executives that control the environment for creating the jobs. That is my point. It may not be an individual but the concept is the same and the market works the same way.

I do not disagree with having a progressive tax system and I am not even necessarily opposed to changes that might bring the highest marginal rate in line with the capital gains rate. However, I disagree with saying that we should accomplish that by bringing the capital gains rate up to the current highest marginal tax rate. They should meet somewhere in the middle if you want to take that approach.

Your argument is basically, "You have more then them so you should have to pay more because you can." That is bullshit. Most people who have more were not born into riches. They worked their *** off and recognized good opportunities when they presented themselves and capitalized off of them. It is not their responsibility to support those who were unable to do the same.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

It has become significantly easier for the best and brightest to contribute substantially more to their employers.

Example:
An uneducated, hard-working carpenter in the 50's hammered nails into wood for a living. In the present day, that same uneducated carpenter benefits from better equipment, so now he can hammer nails into wood faster. The best uneducated hard-working carpenters today might be able to increase their individual production by well over 200% by using better saws, nailguns, levels, etc.

An very well educated, hard-working investment firm manager in the 50's might manage a 5-15 personnel organization with each member making 20-30 transactions per day. That same very-well educated, hard-working investment firm manager today might manage between 10 and 20 people, each with semi-autonomous computers making between 500 and 2000 transactions per day. That's a productivity increase of about 3,650.00%

Now, lets take this carpenter, and we'll make him the very best carpenter in the whole wide world. How much is his work worth to the most interested employer in the world?

Alternatively, lets call this financial manager the very best financial manager in the world - how much is HIS work worth to the most interested employer in the world?

It should be no surprise that the gap between the top 1% and the average person has grown substantially in the last several decades. No one is "keeping a man down" by paying him "less than he's worth" - every single man earns "his worth". Those that are in the top 1% of income earners have simply leveraged their careers over as many "effort multipliers" as possible, usually in the form of technology. A person who earns 100x as much does so because they've created/produced 100x as much...or more. I have a friend whose contributions are saving a large company tens of millions of dollars; and for that, they pay her almost a six-figure salary. It's fair to say that she probably contributes 200x what the carpenter can contribute, but look - she's only making 3x the income of the carpenter, and paying 8x the income taxes.

If you *really* want a solution to the problem, eliminate all of the social programs, and eliminate federal minimum wage. Finally, reduce the tax burden on the high-earners and put more of that burden on the low-earners.

When you eliminate federal minimum wage, employers can start hiring people at the market rate - which is below FMW right now. Once people are employed, they can start buying **** again. Once people are buying **** again, sales go up for companies. Once sales go up for companies, they are willing to pay more for labor. Soon enough, wage rates make it back up to current FMW. Combine with this the fact that companies will pay significantly less in taxes, which means that they have more money to pay employees - and now the employees pay the taxes - individually and at a much lower rate than the companies would have paid those taxes. In the end, the employees make more money, the employer makes more money, and jobs being "shipped overseas" becomes documented history because people whose labor was once considered "worthless" because their potential output was lower than their potential cost are now the gold mine of hard-working America because now they can get low-skilled job in textile mills, and plastic toy factories, and, and, and....making all of those things that we now let china make for us - because china is the most capitalistic country in the world - and they aren't afraid to work their asses off to eek out a living...because of all this, the cost of living drops drastically as we're able to manufacture the basics of life at home instead of putting them on a huge oil-eating vessel and shipping them halfway around the world....

*deep breath*

federal minimum wage....kill it....kill it with fire!!!

VAmazda

So if the best and brightest aren't the employers, what does that say?

I think removing the exemption of taxes from religious institutions would do more to recover lost taxes than most anything. There's a church local to me that had too much money so they bought the top guys loaded Harleys. (they also have a tattoo parlor in the church) Just seems ridiculous.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Well Foogy, let's assume for a second that minimum wage could be implemented in a first world country in...I don't know, 1999? 2000?

Let's assume for a second it also had a similar standard to living. And let's even futher assume we could independently track the variables you are alleging. Wait, you mean a first world country did that? It's already been done, analyzed, and came to a conclusion that that entire talking point is nothing more than delusional sycophantry?

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19742/1/Why...Employment.pdf

Yep, the UK went to a national minimum wage in 1999. And it has been extensively studied. And the end result? What you are arguing is nothing more than simple ideology and/or myth.

P.S. In for when people only read the first page or two and try to completely distort what the paper actually said.

krissetsfire

iTrader: (1)

our tax system fundamentally is flawed to start with. it's based on the honor system. The tax code book is strictly a code of conduct for irs agents. Having a discussion on wealth and including taxes always leads me down the same path. Our country needs some serious tax reform. The way it's setup is so convoluted anyone with a decent lawyer or accountant can manipulate their money to the point where these %'s that get thrown around are so skewed it's impossible to setup some sort of budget.

In joe's example x person paying $11,600 a month in amenities and then say for arguments sake another $15,000 a year in rent/mortgage & $5,000 a year food etc.... is spending at a minimum 30K + a year not including clothes, entertainment, gas... @ an avg household income of ~45k not calculating the cost of entertainment, medical bills, gas, clothing i'm saying the average american family has ~15k of money per year to budget for retirement/investments/vacation/gas whatever right?

someone making 500k may have x expenses as well but has more compromises they could make. they can also diversify their money a bit more to avoid taxes. do they deserve that right. yeah i believe they should do whatever they can to manage their money the best they can. Generally that person made some sort of good decision making to put themselves in the position they are in. The current system is just less forgiving to the lower income household.

If our tax system was reformed and actually worked even though it would never happen theoretically taxes could drop because everyone would be paying taxes not just the honest folks. i'm sure the government would just make bigger fatter budgets to line their friends and families pockets though. anyway i quit. lol.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Minimum wage has little to no effect on an economy where the free market value of unskilled labor is at or above that minimum wage

However, when the free market value of that unskilled labor is *below* that minimum wage, there's a problem.

Had they decided that the average unskilled worker was making $5/hour and assessed a national minimum wage of $10/hour, things would have been radically different.

In your case study, the wage rate was increased by about 10% for approximately 10% of all workers. In reality, those workers probably could have made that 10% up themselves had they been willing to apply to other employers with a need for employees - thus the free market wage was (and probably will always be) above what the employee was making before the NMW went into effect. This is usually because the potential employer has information which is far closer to "perfect" than the potential employee does, and know that the employee is likely to accept less than what they are worth to the employer.

It's poor decision making to assume that the outcome from a single case study will mirror the outcomes of aesthetically similar but economically dissimilar cases. You're looking too much at the policy, and not enough at the underlying economics behind it, both micro and macro.

Eliminating the federal minimum wage and federal social programs simply opens up the door to allow for 50 different states to try 50 different approaches to solving the economic problem. Why should the federal government have any say in how much money I'm allowed to accept? At least let my state government compete with 49 other state governments, and in 5 years, we'll have a pretty clear path to what "right" looks like.

krissetsfire

iTrader: (1)

I actually agree with this especially considering how drastic things are from city to city. not even state to state. cost of living for each area can't be dictated nationally.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Apparently, you stuck your fingers in your ears and didn't bother to read anything in it, Foogy. Protip: The NMW was raised 7 times in 10 years there. And yet, there was no impact on employment.

Secondly, this goes a little bit beyond a "single case study". There are entire bodies of research on it.

Thirdly, if you want a place with no social programs or minimum wage, there are several countries like that that would be glad to have you. Why don't you move to them, instead of trying to argue that the US should completely change how we've been for over a century? Arguing that the US should return to when we were a third world country because you think it would be better for us, even though our history distinctly disagrees with that is foolish.

That's the thing that gets me with a lot of things posted on here. The best I can guess is they have no education on the history of this country. We've had no regulations, we've done the limited regulations, we've done no social programs, we've done no minimum wage, we've done everything people have advocated at one point or another. We can look back and see what happened then, and see if it is better or worse than what we have now. However, by the very criteria people argue from, it is worse - which makes it absolutely ridiculous to try to argue that. There may be better ways to do something, and I'm not arguing that. All I am arguing is going back and trying things that we've already tried and expecting a different result is completely ******* batshit insane.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I assume you are half-joking but...

A) Changing the rules for an entire sub-population based on one anecdotal example is probably not a good rule of thumb.

B) I would expect that the most "tax leakage" comes from tax-advantaged retirement accounts like IRAs (traditional and Roth), 401ks, 403bs, 457s, pensions, etc.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

No, it doesn't.
How much does it cost the president and his wife to take separate flights to their vacation spot at the expense of tax payers for the entire tirp.
Are you certain that the cost of operating a highway structure at capacity is cheaper than operating public transportation in all forms, for people that do not live in a box downtown? If I stop paying for gasoline tax, registration tax, and toll fees, where will the revenue come from to buy **** out governments don't need?
I drive an $1100 car every day and have for the last six years, it get's 30mpg, it's a miniscule expenditure compared to things like food and ammo. I don't care to cater to the interests of people who believe that their neighbor should pay more in taxes so they can afford an expensive, unreliable, or inefficient vehicle.
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/C...t.grid-6x2.jpg