James likes to play the innoncent - taking people at their word
i knew what you meant...
i think a high rate above a million or two would be fine, tinkering with the carried interest loop hole - fixing the death tax - not getting rid of if - all the easy stuff moderates have suggested
or we could go simpson boles - which barry walked away from - his own commision - flattening and broadening the code with lower rates for individual and corporate
Joined: 24 Jan 2005 Posts: 6986 Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:49 pm Post subject:
chemman wrote:
James wrote:
Chemman, you like to quote Warren Buffet a lot. What do you think he would say to a 90% across the board tax rate for those making over 250k.
I think I have more objective idea what he would say then you but I really have no idea and neither do you so stop inferring he would be fine with your tax plan.
I only quoted Warren because he made the point that the rate is not a significant factor in deciding to invest to make a profit. To say otherwise is disingenuous at best and most likely an outright lie. He is atleast honest about the prospect of higher taxes.
I think you as well as I know that a 90% rate would never ever happen. The people that make that kind of money OWN the Senators and Represenatives that pass the laws, as is evidenced by the 15% current rate.
and you and I both know that Buffet would say that at some point well below 90% the tax rate would become a very significant factor.
I would also add that few here including myself and probably Otis are not calling even lower taxes and would be willing to live with higher taxes. This straw man of everyone on the right wanting to cut taxes gets real old.
90% Straight across the board for anyone making >$250K
Unlike you I can answer a simple question. And yes that would be a fair share.
It is not like it has not happen before, it is just that the rich run the political system now and balk at the rate.
At that level of income adjusted for inflation? No, it hasn't. And what of the other brackets? You can't have a cliff at 250k where the marginal rate hits 90%-- people will actually stop working. If you're making 300k a year, you don't have much incentive to work the last two months of the year for an effective salary of 30k/year.
If I recall correctly, those marginal rates of 90% kicked in at much higher income levels, and with a much more graduated number of brackets.
Why that is ignorant to say people will stop working, stop investing. Yea right they are gonna quit making money? No they are not.
I know that in the specific case of my wife, who is currently working as an independent contractor, that if she were to hit a magic wall where the marginal rate leaped from 25% to 90%, she most certainly would decline to work more-- it just would not be worth it. I'm on salary, so it is wrong to say that I'd decline raises above your magic number, however it would be a lot more motivational to be offered extra vacation in place of worthless raises, again effectively working less.
This straw man of everyone on the right wanting to cut taxes gets real old.
It does. But unfortunately, everyone you're able to vote for at the federal level in the GOP seems to fit the description. You hear what Jeb Bush just said? Basically, "I can't run for anything because I entertain the possibility of raising taxes" and "this party wouldn't tolerate Reagan." Bad, Jeb, bad.
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 5835 Location: Flying over the Earth poisoning you with chemtrails
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:45 pm Post subject:
James wrote:
I would also add that few here including myself and probably Otis are not calling even lower taxes and would be willing to live with higher taxes. This straw man of everyone on the right wanting to cut taxes gets real old.
So as a result you and Otis will not be voting Romney, Right?
In brief:
Quote:
The Romney Plan (Updated)
In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation.
That makes about 7 references to reduction of some form. That would not be a straw man, it is called not paying your bills so you can pocket the money. Sacrificing your country for your own pocketbook. _________________ Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 Posts: 5123 Location: Mammoth Lakes (sometimes)
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:57 pm Post subject:
I have certainly heard that the top rate under Eisenhower approached 90%, but how many people actually paid this kind of rate? I would bet that the very wealthy back then figured out ways around this just like they find ways around paying todays lower rates. _________________
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 5835 Location: Flying over the Earth poisoning you with chemtrails
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:01 pm Post subject:
stevesliva wrote:
chemman wrote:
stevesliva wrote:
chemman wrote:
90% Straight across the board for anyone making >$250K
Unlike you I can answer a simple question. And yes that would be a fair share.
It is not like it has not happen before, it is just that the rich run the political system now and balk at the rate.
At that level of income adjusted for inflation? No, it hasn't. And what of the other brackets? You can't have a cliff at 250k where the marginal rate hits 90%-- people will actually stop working. If you're making 300k a year, you don't have much incentive to work the last two months of the year for an effective salary of 30k/year.
If I recall correctly, those marginal rates of 90% kicked in at much higher income levels, and with a much more graduated number of brackets.
Why that is ignorant to say people will stop working, stop investing. Yea right they are gonna quit making money? No they are not.
I know that in the specific case of my wife, who is currently working as an independent contractor, that if she were to hit a magic wall where the marginal rate leaped from 25% to 90%, she most certainly would decline to work more-- it just would not be worth it. I'm on salary, so it is wrong to say that I'd decline raises above your magic number, however it would be a lot more motivational to be offered extra vacation in place of worthless raises, again effectively working less.
You do know how dumb this argument is right?
So let me put it to ya like this. Let's say your wife has came a long ways up in her business. She started contract work at $10 per hour, now she makes $150 per hour. You are saying she will not work beyond the magic wall because she won't lower herself to her previous position? It is like saying "Oh I have paid for everything so now I will just QUIT, I don’t need any more” If you are wealthy and want to be prosperous you are not going to do that. Everyone else is in the same boat. In order to out earn the Jones's you will have to earn more money, It's not like it is costing you money. For every hour you work more money goes into your savings account. _________________ Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 5835 Location: Flying over the Earth poisoning you with chemtrails
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:05 pm Post subject:
French For Cant Tele wrote:
I have certainly heard that the top rate under Eisenhower approached 90%, but how many people actually paid this kind of rate? I would bet that the very wealthy back then figured out ways around this just like they find ways around paying todays lower rates.
I would be willing to bet the rich people would have excellent tax lawyers and accountants who could get over on the system just like they do now and could get away with 30% when the rate id 90%. _________________ Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 5700 Location: Colorado Higher Country
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:06 pm Post subject:
chemman wrote:
James wrote:
I would also add that few here including myself and probably Otis are not calling even lower taxes and would be willing to live with higher taxes. This straw man of everyone on the right wanting to cut taxes gets real old.
So as a result you and Otis will not be voting Romney, Right?
In brief:
Quote:
The Romney Plan (Updated)
In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation.
That makes about 7 references to reduction of some form. That would not be a straw man, it is called not paying your bills so you can pocket the money. Sacrificing your country for your own pocketbook.
Do you even understand what is meant by broadening the tax base?
Hint: It's not the same as tax reduction. _________________ otis
Federal policy is dividing society between "those who work for a living and those who vote for a living".
-H.L. Mencken
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.
-Ambrose Bierce
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 5835 Location: Flying over the Earth poisoning you with chemtrails
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:16 pm Post subject:
otis of moab wrote:
chemman wrote:
James wrote:
I would also add that few here including myself and probably Otis are not calling even lower taxes and would be willing to live with higher taxes. This straw man of everyone on the right wanting to cut taxes gets real old.
So as a result you and Otis will not be voting Romney, Right?
In brief:
Quote:
The Romney Plan (Updated)
In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation.
That makes about 7 references to reduction of some form. That would not be a straw man, it is called not paying your bills so you can pocket the money. Sacrificing your country for your own pocketbook.
Do you even understand what is meant by broadening the tax base?
Hint: It's not the same as tax reduction.
Come on, who is being stupid here? We have been playing this same game since the trickle down games of Reagan. It does not work.
Explain exactly how this is going to come about: "broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences"
This sounds good and it will get him votes because everyone wants more money right? It is bullshit until you explain exactly how this base is going to get increased. _________________ Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.
90% Straight across the board for anyone making >$250K
Unlike you I can answer a simple question. And yes that would be a fair share.
It is not like it has not happen before, it is just that the rich run the political system now and balk at the rate.
At that level of income adjusted for inflation? No, it hasn't. And what of the other brackets? You can't have a cliff at 250k where the marginal rate hits 90%-- people will actually stop working. If you're making 300k a year, you don't have much incentive to work the last two months of the year for an effective salary of 30k/year.
If I recall correctly, those marginal rates of 90% kicked in at much higher income levels, and with a much more graduated number of brackets.
Why that is ignorant to say people will stop working, stop investing. Yea right they are gonna quit making money? No they are not.
I know that in the specific case of my wife, who is currently working as an independent contractor, that if she were to hit a magic wall where the marginal rate leaped from 25% to 90%, she most certainly would decline to work more-- it just would not be worth it. I'm on salary, so it is wrong to say that I'd decline raises above your magic number, however it would be a lot more motivational to be offered extra vacation in place of worthless raises, again effectively working less.
You do know how dumb this argument is right?
So let me put it to ya like this. Let's say your wife has came a long ways up in her business. She started contract work at $10 per hour, now she makes $150 per hour. You are saying she will not work beyond the magic wall because she won't lower herself to her previous position? It is like saying "Oh I have paid for everything so now I will just QUIT, I don’t need any more” If you are wealthy and want to be prosperous you are not going to do that. Everyone else is in the same boat. In order to out earn the Jones's you will have to earn more money, It's not like it is costing you money. For every hour you work more money goes into your savings account.
If you make $150/hour and net $100, you'll work. If that suddenly switches to netting $15/hour, you decide to spend time with your family. Especially if you're paying for daycare. Duh. Given what that shit costs, it could be a net gain not to work more and switch to family vacation time.
I've heard specious arguments from folks who seem to think that if they cross a marginal rate threshold from 25% to 28% that they suddenly are taxed at 28% on all their income. That's not this argument. If your marginal earnings go from effectively $100 to effectively $15, you really will find something else to do with your time other than work those marginal hours.
Really high tax rates make a little sense when they apply to people who are not earning at an hourly rate, but when you apply it to the 250k tax bracket, you certainly catch professionals who will decline to work more. Fewer surgeries, fewer billable hours, fewer clients. That's not a dumb argument. It's reality.
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 5835 Location: Flying over the Earth poisoning you with chemtrails
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject:
stevesliva wrote:
chemman wrote:
stevesliva wrote:
chemman wrote:
stevesliva wrote:
chemman wrote:
90% Straight across the board for anyone making >$250K
Unlike you I can answer a simple question. And yes that would be a fair share.
It is not like it has not happen before, it is just that the rich run the political system now and balk at the rate.
At that level of income adjusted for inflation? No, it hasn't. And what of the other brackets? You can't have a cliff at 250k where the marginal rate hits 90%-- people will actually stop working. If you're making 300k a year, you don't have much incentive to work the last two months of the year for an effective salary of 30k/year.
If I recall correctly, those marginal rates of 90% kicked in at much higher income levels, and with a much more graduated number of brackets.
Why that is ignorant to say people will stop working, stop investing. Yea right they are gonna quit making money? No they are not.
I know that in the specific case of my wife, who is currently working as an independent contractor, that if she were to hit a magic wall where the marginal rate leaped from 25% to 90%, she most certainly would decline to work more-- it just would not be worth it. I'm on salary, so it is wrong to say that I'd decline raises above your magic number, however it would be a lot more motivational to be offered extra vacation in place of worthless raises, again effectively working less.
You do know how dumb this argument is right?
So let me put it to ya like this. Let's say your wife has came a long ways up in her business. She started contract work at $10 per hour, now she makes $150 per hour. You are saying she will not work beyond the magic wall because she won't lower herself to her previous position? It is like saying "Oh I have paid for everything so now I will just QUIT, I don’t need any more” If you are wealthy and want to be prosperous you are not going to do that. Everyone else is in the same boat. In order to out earn the Jones's you will have to earn more money, It's not like it is costing you money. For every hour you work more money goes into your savings account.
If you make $150/hour and net $100, you'll work. If that suddenly switches to netting $15/hour, you decide to spend time with your family. Especially if you're paying for daycare. Duh. Given what that shit costs, it could be a net gain not to work more and switch to family vacation time.
I've heard specious arguments from folks who seem to think that if they cross a marginal rate threshold from 25% to 28% that they suddenly are taxed at 28% on all their income. That's not this argument. If your marginal earnings go from effectively $100 to effectively $15, you really will find something else to do with your time other than work those marginal hours.
Really high tax rates make a little sense when they apply to people who are not earning at an hourly rate, but when you apply it to the 250k tax bracket, you certainly catch professionals who will decline to work more. Fewer surgeries, fewer billable hours, fewer clients. That's not a dumb argument. It's reality.
There will be particular cases when what you say above could be the case. It is not all bad because in order to get the work done someone else must come in and do the job. It would put more people to work. _________________ Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.
There will be particular cases when what you say above could be the case. It is not all bad because in order to get the work done someone else must come in and do the job. It would put more people to work.
Might work with lawyers. But with other professions there's not that much slack. It would take a long time to adjust.
And you really would lose some trickle-down effects, too. The nanny loses hours, the mechanic's client has fewer cars, etc. This is why tax rates are graduated, not a flipping step function. What you're arguing for would be such a weirdly perverse incentive that it really is not a net benefit. As I implied earlier, you'd prove Laffer right.
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 5700 Location: Colorado Higher Country
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:42 pm Post subject:
chemman wrote:
otis of moab wrote:
chemman wrote:
James wrote:
I would also add that few here including myself and probably Otis are not calling even lower taxes and would be willing to live with higher taxes. This straw man of everyone on the right wanting to cut taxes gets real old.
So as a result you and Otis will not be voting Romney, Right?
In brief:
Quote:
The Romney Plan (Updated)
In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation.
That makes about 7 references to reduction of some form. That would not be a straw man, it is called not paying your bills so you can pocket the money. Sacrificing your country for your own pocketbook.
Do you even understand what is meant by broadening the tax base?
Hint: It's not the same as tax reduction.
Come on, who is being stupid here? We have been playing this same game since the trickle down games of Reagan. It does not work.
Explain exactly how this is going to come about: "broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences"
This sounds good and it will get him votes because everyone wants more money right? It is bullshit until you explain exactly how this base is going to get increased.
Okay, you don't understand the concept. _________________ otis
Federal policy is dividing society between "those who work for a living and those who vote for a living".
-H.L. Mencken
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.
-Ambrose Bierce
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
