The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
08-14-2012, 01:39 PM
#2701
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Scrappy yes changing the marginal rates by a few percent doesn’t do a whole lot. Changing the maximum capital gains tax rate from 30% to 15% however has a pretty significant effect on the flow of money at the upper end of the economic spectrum however. And I think it is something like 95% of tax returns don't have qualifying capital gains. It pretty much only effects people who make considerably more than what it takes to live comfortably. The super wealthy, hedge fund managers, CEO's, privite equaty moguls etc, convert most all there income to long term capital gains.
Also your table is flawed as usual Ignores payroll tax. ~15% of compensation for anybody making less than ~110k Taken out before income tax even gets calculated. Factor that in and the middle far and away pays the highest effective total tax rate.
Also your table is flawed as usual Ignores payroll tax. ~15% of compensation for anybody making less than ~110k Taken out before income tax even gets calculated. Factor that in and the middle far and away pays the highest effective total tax rate.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 01:43 PM
#2702
Without touching the issue of tax policy itself, I want to point something out here --
The decrease in revenue from corporate income tax and the increase in revenue from payroll taxes is essentially wash, not just in total revenue, but in economic burden as well. Those corporate income taxes weren't being paid off the top, directly out of profits -- they were calculated into wages and salaries, just like any other expense. It's largely immaterial (at least in terms of actual tax burden) whether you tax the corporation (who takes that expense and then adjusts all of its prices, including wages offered) or tax the workers directly.
Are there differences in implementation? Sure. But let's not pretend that corporate income tax is somehow "sticking it to the man" -- the man just turns around and sticks it to his employees and customers.
The decrease in revenue from corporate income tax and the increase in revenue from payroll taxes is essentially wash, not just in total revenue, but in economic burden as well. Those corporate income taxes weren't being paid off the top, directly out of profits -- they were calculated into wages and salaries, just like any other expense. It's largely immaterial (at least in terms of actual tax burden) whether you tax the corporation (who takes that expense and then adjusts all of its prices, including wages offered) or tax the workers directly.
Are there differences in implementation? Sure. But let's not pretend that corporate income tax is somehow "sticking it to the man" -- the man just turns around and sticks it to his employees and customers.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 01:53 PM
#2703
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
And I think it is something like 95% of tax returns don't have qualifying capital gains. It pretty much only effects people who make considerably more than what it takes to live comfortably. The super wealthy, hedge fund managers, CEO's, privite equaty moguls etc, convert most all there income to long term capital gains.
Also your table is flawed as usual Ignores payroll tax. ~15% of compensation for anybody making less than ~110k Taken out before income tax even gets calculated. Factor that in and the middle far and away pays the highest effective total tax rate.
Where's Brain? I need an enforced vacation from this board.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 01:59 PM
#2704
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Without touching the issue of tax policy itself, I want to point something out here --
The decrease in revenue from corporate income tax and the increase in revenue from payroll taxes is essentially wash, not just in total revenue, but in economic burden as well. Those corporate income taxes weren't being paid off the top, directly out of profits -- they were calculated into wages and salaries, just like any other expense. It's largely immaterial (at least in terms of actual tax burden) whether you tax the corporation (who takes that expense and then adjusts all of its prices, including wages offered) or tax the workers directly.
Are there differences in implementation? Sure. But let's not pretend that corporate income tax is somehow "sticking it to the man" -- the man just turns around and sticks it to his employees and customers.
The decrease in revenue from corporate income tax and the increase in revenue from payroll taxes is essentially wash, not just in total revenue, but in economic burden as well. Those corporate income taxes weren't being paid off the top, directly out of profits -- they were calculated into wages and salaries, just like any other expense. It's largely immaterial (at least in terms of actual tax burden) whether you tax the corporation (who takes that expense and then adjusts all of its prices, including wages offered) or tax the workers directly.
Are there differences in implementation? Sure. But let's not pretend that corporate income tax is somehow "sticking it to the man" -- the man just turns around and sticks it to his employees and customers.
Bob
Last edited by bbundy; 08-14-2012 at 02:49 PM.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 02:48 PM
#2707
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Again, you are talking out of your *** here. On a daily basis, I work with people that are not in any of the categories you listed above that have benefited from lower capital gains and qualified dividend tax rates.
Did you even look at the chart?
Where's Brain? I need an enforced vacation from this board.
Did you even look at the chart?
Where's Brain? I need an enforced vacation from this board.
I must admit I did not look closely at the chart but I do find it odd that payroll tax seems low. There are no deductions or brackets for the payroll tax paid each paycheck it is ~15% for anything less than $110 K of income. How are the bottom not paying it? Must be allot of poor retired people not actually working.
FWIW when I go back and calculate several years I typically pay between 25 and 30%.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 02:59 PM
#2709
on the subject.If someone makes more than me, and pays less than me (percentage of income less) in taxes, it pisses me right the **** off.
Romney paying 13.9% only pisses me off because it's so much less than what I paid.
If he paid as much as me, I could deal with that. But less? Come on. If he paid 0.82% and I paid 0.82%, I'd be fine. But if I pay (large number) and Romney pays (much smaller number) while Romney makes a much larger amount, that pisses me off.
However he achieves it, if I am unable to take the same avenues to achieve equal results, I think that's a flaw in the tax code that is in severe need of a fix. If the fix means my taxes get the **** cut out of them, hey. I'm fine with that. If it means Romney needs a raise, well, that's fine. If it means I need a cut and Romney needs a raise, I'm also fine.
What I'm not fine with is people spouting the pure ideological line of "But we need to cut taxes on Romney even more and raise your taxes to support the tax cut!" See previous posts of extensive analysis on this as supporting evidence.
Please also note that I'm not even demanding Romney (or anyone else) pay more than I do, just the same goddamn tax rate I am.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 03:38 PM
#2710
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
I am so not picking a fight about finance with Scrappylicious, but...here's my on the subject.
If someone makes more than me, and pays less than me (percentage of income less) in taxes, it pisses me right the **** off.
Romney paying 13.9% only pisses me off because it's so much less than what I paid.
If he paid as much as me, I could deal with that. But less? Come on. If he paid 0.82% and I paid 0.82%, I'd be fine. But if I pay (large number) and Romney pays (much smaller number) while Romney makes a much larger amount, that pisses me off.
However he achieves it, if I am unable to take the same avenues to achieve equal results, I think that's a flaw in the tax code that is in severe need of a fix. If the fix means my taxes get the **** cut out of them, hey. I'm fine with that. If it means Romney needs a raise, well, that's fine. If it means I need a cut and Romney needs a raise, I'm also fine.
What I'm not fine with is people spouting the pure ideological line of "But we need to cut taxes on Romney even more and raise your taxes to support the tax cut!" See previous posts of extensive analysis on this as supporting evidence.
Please also note that I'm not even demanding Romney (or anyone else) pay more than I do, just the same goddamn tax rate I am.
on the subject.If someone makes more than me, and pays less than me (percentage of income less) in taxes, it pisses me right the **** off.
Romney paying 13.9% only pisses me off because it's so much less than what I paid.
If he paid as much as me, I could deal with that. But less? Come on. If he paid 0.82% and I paid 0.82%, I'd be fine. But if I pay (large number) and Romney pays (much smaller number) while Romney makes a much larger amount, that pisses me off.
However he achieves it, if I am unable to take the same avenues to achieve equal results, I think that's a flaw in the tax code that is in severe need of a fix. If the fix means my taxes get the **** cut out of them, hey. I'm fine with that. If it means Romney needs a raise, well, that's fine. If it means I need a cut and Romney needs a raise, I'm also fine.
What I'm not fine with is people spouting the pure ideological line of "But we need to cut taxes on Romney even more and raise your taxes to support the tax cut!" See previous posts of extensive analysis on this as supporting evidence.
Please also note that I'm not even demanding Romney (or anyone else) pay more than I do, just the same goddamn tax rate I am.
What is also interesting I have been maxing out my IRA contributions for a few years and then I see Romany’s result contributing the same dollar amount as me into his when he did actually work for a living has grown to 20 to 100 million? Seems ridiculous. Like cheating.
Bob
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 05:20 PM
#2711
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
While I am waiting for Brain to ban me...
Blaen - I will bet you another $20 that you are confusing effective and marginal tax rates when you say that Romney paid a lower percentage than you did in Federal income taxes. I can't be bothered to try and back in to yours or his total Federal taxes (including payroll).
Virtually every "tax loophole" available to Romney is available to everyone else whether you utilize it or not: mortgage deduction, charitable contributions, capital gains taxation, qualified dividend taxation, etc. Hell, I take advantage of three of those four in addition to various real estate depreciation and sales tax write-offs and I am not in any of Bob's favorite group of Evil Capitalist Pigs.
If you want to debate the pros and cons of treating capital gains and dividend income differently from ordinary income, that's fine. But do so intelligently, for the love of gods.
Bob - If I had a way of proving it, I would bet you $1,000 that Romney's IRAs are not the result of growth of IRA contributions alone but consist of rollovers from a variety of sources like defined contribution plans, ESOPs, etc after he terminated employment with various employers.
Your talk of "Got to pay full income tax on your middle class 401K" completely ignores potentially decades of tax deferral in which those investments are not taxed at all. Would you rather pay 15% per year, every year, on your investment income (assuming all of it is sourced from qualified dividends which is a lousy assumption) or pay whatever your future marginal income tax rate is in retirement?
Good news, everybody! You are not limited to just one of those choices! You can do either or both at the same time! Hurray!
Although, note, you are capped at how much you can save in various tax-shelters. "You mean, like Cayman Island based blind trusts, Jack?" No, you dipshit. I mean vehicles like IRAs, Roths, SEPs, SIMPLEs, 401(k)s, etc.
This thread makes me very sad for the future of the USA. We have a lot of otherwise VERY bright people that have their heads so far up their own asses that they absolutely refuse to take objective perspectives when they can just regurgitate whatever bullshit their favorite partisan sources have spoonfed them, like good little drones.
Blaen - I will bet you another $20 that you are confusing effective and marginal tax rates when you say that Romney paid a lower percentage than you did in Federal income taxes. I can't be bothered to try and back in to yours or his total Federal taxes (including payroll).
Virtually every "tax loophole" available to Romney is available to everyone else whether you utilize it or not: mortgage deduction, charitable contributions, capital gains taxation, qualified dividend taxation, etc. Hell, I take advantage of three of those four in addition to various real estate depreciation and sales tax write-offs and I am not in any of Bob's favorite group of Evil Capitalist Pigs.
If you want to debate the pros and cons of treating capital gains and dividend income differently from ordinary income, that's fine. But do so intelligently, for the love of gods.
Bob - If I had a way of proving it, I would bet you $1,000 that Romney's IRAs are not the result of growth of IRA contributions alone but consist of rollovers from a variety of sources like defined contribution plans, ESOPs, etc after he terminated employment with various employers.
Your talk of "Got to pay full income tax on your middle class 401K" completely ignores potentially decades of tax deferral in which those investments are not taxed at all. Would you rather pay 15% per year, every year, on your investment income (assuming all of it is sourced from qualified dividends which is a lousy assumption) or pay whatever your future marginal income tax rate is in retirement?
Good news, everybody! You are not limited to just one of those choices! You can do either or both at the same time! Hurray!
Although, note, you are capped at how much you can save in various tax-shelters. "You mean, like Cayman Island based blind trusts, Jack?" No, you dipshit. I mean vehicles like IRAs, Roths, SEPs, SIMPLEs, 401(k)s, etc.
This thread makes me very sad for the future of the USA. We have a lot of otherwise VERY bright people that have their heads so far up their own asses that they absolutely refuse to take objective perspectives when they can just regurgitate whatever bullshit their favorite partisan sources have spoonfed them, like good little drones.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 05:32 PM
#2712
While I am waiting for Brain to ban me...
Blaen - I will bet you another $20 that you are confusing effective and marginal tax rates when you say that Romney paid a lower percentage than you did in Federal income taxes. I can't be bothered to try and back in to yours or his total Federal taxes (including payroll).
Blaen - I will bet you another $20 that you are confusing effective and marginal tax rates when you say that Romney paid a lower percentage than you did in Federal income taxes. I can't be bothered to try and back in to yours or his total Federal taxes (including payroll).
The total amount of *actual* taxes paid to the federal government, divided by the total amount made. This includes social security taxes (Which are capped at 104k?), payroll taxes, and any other taxes paid to the federal government. Let's call it the Scrappy Tax Rate.
Now, take this Scrappy Tax Rate. If person X is paying a higher Scrappy Tax Rate than person Y, and person Y makes more than Person X, I would argue that the Scrappy Tax Rate is wrong.
Note that I'm not arguing that Person Y should pay a higher Scrappy Tax Rate than Person X. I am only arguing that Person X should not pay a higher Scrappy Tax Rate than Person Y.
If this is a result of distortion due to a particular tax that is applied to the Scrappy Tax Rate, than I would argue that the Scrappy Tax Rate demonstrates that either that particular tax needs to be increased, or that other taxes that go into the Scrappy Tax Rate need to be decreased. If a particular deduction or other loophole that disproportionately benefits a segment of society within the Scrappy Tax Rate (I'm talking, say, 5% or 10% compared to the average) exists, then it should probably be significantly reduced.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 06:54 PM
#2713
the United States has the most progressive tax system in place NOW of any advanced nation. We also have the highest corporate income taxes of any advanced nation. These are undisputed facts which will only get worse (depending on your POV) early next year at the celebration known as "Taxmageddon".
PROGRESSIVE simply means that the richest Americans pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, compared to those who make less. Socialist Sweden has a much flatter tax system.
Is it also any wonder why GE paid NO corporate taxes last year, as they have moved much of their operations offshore--and have an army of accountants to legally escape corporate taxes?
What do you suppose would happen if we dropped our corporate tax rate in a country that's not only the largest market in the world, but also has the most productive workers in the world?
This is not rocket science.
PROGRESSIVE simply means that the richest Americans pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, compared to those who make less. Socialist Sweden has a much flatter tax system.
Is it also any wonder why GE paid NO corporate taxes last year, as they have moved much of their operations offshore--and have an army of accountants to legally escape corporate taxes?
What do you suppose would happen if we dropped our corporate tax rate in a country that's not only the largest market in the world, but also has the most productive workers in the world?
This is not rocket science.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 07:14 PM
#2714
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
the United States has the most progressive tax system in place NOW of any advanced nation. We also have the highest corporate income taxes of any advanced nation. These are undisputed facts which will only get worse (depending on your POV) early next year at the celebration known as "Taxmageddon".
PROGRESSIVE simply means that the richest Americans pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, compared to those who make less. Socialist Sweden has a much flatter tax system.
Is it also any wonder why GE paid NO corporate taxes last year, as they have moved much of their operations offshore--and have an army of accountants to legally escape corporate taxes?
What do you suppose would happen if we dropped our corporate tax rate in a country that's not only the largest market in the world, but also has the most productive workers in the world?
This is not rocket science.
PROGRESSIVE simply means that the richest Americans pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, compared to those who make less. Socialist Sweden has a much flatter tax system.
Is it also any wonder why GE paid NO corporate taxes last year, as they have moved much of their operations offshore--and have an army of accountants to legally escape corporate taxes?
What do you suppose would happen if we dropped our corporate tax rate in a country that's not only the largest market in the world, but also has the most productive workers in the world?
This is not rocket science.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 07:20 PM
#2715
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Before listing the youtube video, all I have to say about the above post by BBundy is...WOW.
Erskine Bowles was part of Clinton's economic team--one which HAD to work with Republicans, who required those on welfare to seek work and who actually managed to balance the budget for what, three years? Which Democrat would you listen to about the economy, Bowles or Obama?
Here's what a Democrat thinks of Paul Ryan:
Erskine Bowles praises Paul Ryan, budget plan (VIDEO) | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Erskine Bowles was part of Clinton's economic team--one which HAD to work with Republicans, who required those on welfare to seek work and who actually managed to balance the budget for what, three years? Which Democrat would you listen to about the economy, Bowles or Obama?
Here's what a Democrat thinks of Paul Ryan:
Erskine Bowles praises Paul Ryan, budget plan (VIDEO) | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Ex-Reagan Budget Director: Paul Ryan's Budget 'Is Devoid Of Credible Math Or Hard Policy Choices'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/op...plan.html?_r=2
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 07:38 PM
#2716
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
How about this definition, Scrappy.
The total amount of *actual* taxes paid to the federal government, divided by the total amount made. This includes social security taxes (Which are capped at 104k?), payroll taxes, and any other taxes paid to the federal government. Let's call it the Scrappy Tax Rate.
The total amount of *actual* taxes paid to the federal government, divided by the total amount made. This includes social security taxes (Which are capped at 104k?), payroll taxes, and any other taxes paid to the federal government. Let's call it the Scrappy Tax Rate.
If I had a way to prove it definitively, I would say there is a high likelihood that Romney's total effective percentage is still higher than yours but neither of us has a convenient way to prove it and I can't be bothered to do the legwork.
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 11:21 PM
#2717
Do you live in an alternate universe? Corporate tax is the lowest percentage of US tax revenue it has been in nearly 100 years. Capital gains taxes also lowest. Tariffs on imports also lowest excise taxes also lowest. Marginal rates are meaningless nobody actually pays them. The only thing that has gone up as a percentage of total revenue is payroll tax on income from working making less than 110k. We are soaking the working middle class with the bill for running the country and also being the worlds police force. Corporations are seeing the American worker as too expensive and are going elsewhere for workers educated or not.
Not that you'll believe a word, but...Greg Mankiw's Blog: What nation has the most progressive tax system?
This shows the U.S. and it's progressive tax system, but also talks about redistribution (under the graph) as part of the equation. The last sentence says, "So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively." In other words, if you believe in the Stalinesque system of equality of outcome, you need to redistribute effectively. "Central Planning" is what Washington (both sides) is all about. I prefer something different.
World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically
World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
Reply
0
0
08-14-2012, 11:28 PM
#2718
Nice editing they did on that clip. antother perspective
Ex-Reagan Budget Director: Paul Ryan's Budget 'Is Devoid Of Credible Math Or Hard Policy Choices'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/op...plan.html?_r=2
Ex-Reagan Budget Director: Paul Ryan's Budget 'Is Devoid Of Credible Math Or Hard Policy Choices'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/op...plan.html?_r=2
There's a FAR more sinister plan put out by Republicans called the "Penny Plan", or the "One Cent Solution". I doubt the libs will go for it, because it means reducing spending by one penny per government dollar for five years. HERESY! Children will starve, and Grandma will probably still get thrown off the cliff by Ryan.
The One Cent Solution/
Last edited by cordycord; 08-15-2012 at 11:39 AM.
Reply
0
0
08-15-2012, 03:19 PM
#2719
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Welcome to my universe! Not that you'll believe a word, but...
Greg Mankiw's Blog: What nation has the most progressive tax system?
This shows the U.S. and it's progressive tax system, but also talks about redistribution (under the graph) as part of the equation. The last sentence says, "So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively." In other words, if you believe in the Stalinesque system of equality of outcome, you need to redistribute effectively. "Central Planning" is what Washington (both sides) is all about. I prefer something different.
World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically
World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
Not that you'll believe a word, but...Greg Mankiw's Blog: What nation has the most progressive tax system?
This shows the U.S. and it's progressive tax system, but also talks about redistribution (under the graph) as part of the equation. The last sentence says, "So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively." In other words, if you believe in the Stalinesque system of equality of outcome, you need to redistribute effectively. "Central Planning" is what Washington (both sides) is all about. I prefer something different.
World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically
World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
A good number of our top 500 profitable corporations are paying negative tax and over the last several years corporate tax revenue has resulted in a record low 1.2% of GDP. I am not a fan of taxing corporations to death but I am for fairness in who pays for our government. While the corporations and the super rich “job creator” investors might have purchased and own our government they are not paying for its operational cost in an equitable manner. I am only seeing that trend getting worse with more of the current crop of republican Ideologues.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/notax2012.pdf
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
0
0
