teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Btw, to avoid total derailment, if you disagree with any of the programs I mentioned above, please simply say you disagree and don't let us get into it
I think of it exactly backwards from that. Tax hikes on the rich don't hurt anybody. Romney isn't even going to notice if the balance on his Swiss bank account dropped by a few million so he certainly couldn't be considered to be hurt by that. On the other hand, "cutting spending" is a euphemism for people losing their jobs and people who rely on services having to pay for whatever the service provided out of pocket. It is essentially the same as putting a tax on the middle class. Say you cut subsidized student loans, that means middle class people need to save up more for their kids' college each month. Same impact as if you just taxed them for that amount. And middle class people who are living much closer to the line already actually are hurt by that. Now, military cuts aren't as bad. They also mean people losing their jobs, but that's pretty much the extent of the harm.
where you are wrong is that you pretend the rich are like Romney
Fair enough
I loathe vouchers, I like alternative school structuring, (although that is a very broad phrase so we might not agree on the specifics) I'd go 2-1 instead of 3-1, but we're in the same ball park on that.
If somebody is working I don't want to raise their taxes. I'm talking about actual rich people, not upper middle class people. Lets say, more than $1m/year in investment profits. Those folks are not hurt in any way by paying their taxes and that's who we need to raise taxes on. First of all by treating investment income the same as we treat other income.
If you mother were alive and raking in $300k a year without working, I'm sure she would be able to get by just fine paying the same tax rates working people do... Besides, there are exclusions for retirements savings to cover at least some of that.
If somebody is working I don't want to raise their taxes. I'm talking about actual rich people, not upper middle class people. Lets say, more than $1m/year in investment profits. Those folks are not hurt in any way by paying their taxes and that's who we need to raise taxes on. First of all by treating investment income the same as we treat other income.
If you mother were alive and raking in $300k a year without working, I'm sure she would be able to get by just fine paying the same tax rates working people do... Besides, there are exclusions for retirements savings to cover at least some of that.
well your dem buddies are not so charitable. and lots of people in that 200-400K a year have lots of dividend income especially if they are widows or older
they already pay far more than most people
Again, when you look at state and federal taxes combined, that isn't true.
I agree that many of the Democrats are missing the mark by focusing on taxes on wages. The real issue is the capital gains tax break. Maybe that's just a bigger fish than they have the political will to try to fry. Many of them are talking more and more about capital gains though. OWS and whatnot most definitely is focused on that angle.
Again, when you look at state and federal taxes combined, that isn't true. Most people in the top 1% pay a total of 30% where the median American is just over 27%. So they only pay about 3% more than your average middle class person. Maybe eliminating the tax break for capital gains would bump up your typical 1%er to 33% or something. A 3% bump in the taxes a person makes $300k/year pays is basically a non-event.
Where it has a more dramatic effect is on actual rich people. Romneys. People who make all their money off investments and make millions. They won't feel the tax, but it will generate a boatload of revenue. Big win.
C'mon Tea! We discussed this. If you want to attack state taxes, which of the 51 separate governments, economies, and societies do you want to attack first?
You have to deal with facts and reality. We spend 1.4 trillion more ayear than we take in and we dont even bat an eyelash. The 'super' committee of democrats and republicans cant even begin to agree on minimal targeted deficit cuts over a 10 year span. You really live in this dream world where all of a sudden a federal government that has spent us into a 15.5 trillion dollar hole is suddenly fiscally responsible? Sorry...the sky is blue on my planet and I know that you give those folks more to spend and all they will do is spend it. And for what? What do we have to show for that 15.5 trillion dollar debt? Hell...we arent even investing in product.How much revenue we collect and how much we spend have no relationship at all. That's why we have a $1.4 trillion deficit. The only thing revenue determines is how much of what we spend we have to borrow to cover.
Personally I would like to see us reduce the deficit by about $600 billion/year. Increase revenues by about $200 billion/year, cut about $200 billion/year from the military and cut about $200 billion/year from domestic spending. That should put us about on track to be balanced as we come out of the recession.
But from a deficit perspective, fighting tax increases is exactly the same thing as fighting against spending cuts. A $1 tax break means $1 more deficit just like $1 of spending does.
C'mon Tea! We discussed this. If you want to attack state taxes, which of the 51 separate governments, economies, and societies do you want to attack first?
so you claim that the average person is paying say 100K or more in combined taxes.
You have to deal with facts and reality. We spend 1.4 trillion more ayear than we take in and we dont even bat an eyelash. The 'super' committee of democrats and republicans cant even begin to agree on minimal targeted deficit cuts over a 10 year span. You really live in this dream world where all of a sudden a federal government that has spent us into a 15.5 trillion dollar hole is suddenly fiscally responsible? Sorry...the sky is blue on my planet and I know that you give those folks more to spend and all they will do is spend it. And for what? What do we have to show for that 15.5 trillion dollar debt? Hell...we arent even investing in product.
How is someone who makes50-75K a year pay combined state and federal taxes higher than someone who makes 500K in investment income? that is impossible. that investor pays more taxes than someone making 75K a year makes
What?
10char
I'm sure in some states they pay a higher percentage of their income in state taxes (consumption taxes). I'm also sure the dollar amount is nowhere near as large.
Oh you were talking about tax rates which are based on speculative state taxes which are almost impossible to accurately track rather than actual dollars paid in taxes which of course is based on the assumption that ability to pay is the only thing that counts rather than value received.
what I am saying even if an investor pays at total tax bill that is 20% of his AGI and a average person pays 27% (which I don't really believe is true) that investor still pays a hundred or more thousand dollars more taxes so he is paying too much for the value he receives and should not be the person that you look first to tax more
Well, obviously you have heard my arguments why percentage, not absolute amount is what matters 1,000 times. If you come up with any counter arguments, I'd like to hear them, but otherwise, we should just consider the matter closed.
If TD wants to argue that the rich already are carrying too much of the burden, I don't see why it makes any sense at all not to look at the full tax burden they carry. His argument is based on how their personal financial situations are impacted by taxation. From that perspective it doesn't matter one lick which level of government the check is going to.
But, as a side note, I don't buy that different states are different economies or different societies. All that stuff is interstate these days.
Which companies are you referring to and what harm was done in trying to save any of these troubled companies?
If you want to go that route, you still have to break it down state by state. Alaska isn't going to feel the same pinch as NY or NC.
Even if that was true, and I'll address that next, it's still different governments and different tax rates and methods.
They are different economies. Get rid of sugar subsidies and WA doesn't care too much, but all the beet farmers in ND go out of business. Tax the sale of oranges and Florida pays a price, but Alaska shrugs and continues on. Move taxes from Oil to Technology and TX gets rich while WA and CA lose all their jobs. Defund medical research and NC tanks after finally recovering from the loss of tobacco plants, but AL doesn't mind too much.
Yeah, that's true. A fuller analysis would break it up by state. But the overall picture would average out like I said. The median American paying 27% and the median top 1%er paying 30%.
But, it doesn't really vary that much from state to state. The lowest state (Alaska) for taxes is at 6.3% and the highest (NJ) is at 12.2%, but they're pretty unusual exceptions. Most the states are clustered right around 9%. What varies more is that some states' taxes are more regressive than others.
But today, the guy who sells oranges in Florida has more shared interests with the guy who sells oranges in California than he has with the bartender in Florida. That didn't used to be the case. It used to be that the interests of the guy who sold oranges in Florida were closely tied to the interests of the bartender in Florida, but hardly tied to the interests of the guy who sold oranges in California at all. He most likely sold his oranges exclusively to other people in Florida. If the economy of Florida was doing well, both he and the bartender would be doing well. If the schools improved, that would probably give both the bartender and the guy who sells oranges a better shot at being able to hire somebody who knew how to do the books.
Today it isn't like that at all. The guy in Florida sells his oranges on a national commodities exchange. He buys his pesticides from the same place the guy in California does. The schools in both states may be irrelevant them because they try to hire people out of various agricultural programs around the country. The orange seller in Florida may well be much more heavily impacted by a policy about orange packaging in California than the same policy in Florida because there are more orange consumers in California. His interests overlap very little with the bartender in Florida anymore. If Florida's economy booms or falls it really doesn't have any more impact on him than if the economy of Pennsylvania booms or falls and probably less impact than if they economy of California booms or falls.
Many people live in multiple states during their lives. I've lived in 4 states in the last 18 months personally. Heck, many people live in one state and work in another. Families are spread across multiple states. People have friends scattered all across the country. At work many people spend all day communicating with people from different states far more than they communicate with anybody in their own state. Many people couldn't tell you for sure which state they'll be living in 10 years from now. People identify as Americans first and Minnesotans second where they used to see themselves as Minnesotans first and Americans second. The culture doesn't vary from state to state like it used to. It's become one big country instead of 50 different ones.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not on a mission to get rid of states. I just think they aren't as meaningful as political units as they once were.
Forgive my laziness, but I'm too tired to read through the incredibly long pdf in there. Is that an effective rate including property, death, sales, and income taxes? I would believe it, but I wanted to confirm.
People can and do move states. That's right. So do businesses. That's why states need to watch what and how they tax and the federal government shouldn't be trying to counteract those choices.
The prices of Oranges go up, the guy in CA sells another fruit. It might suck a bit, but he isn't out of work. However, all those people picking, prepping, and packaging the oranges in FL now are worried about their jobs. They don't go to the bar down the street because it's a luxury item they don't want to spend on now that their income is in jeopardy. The bartender loses income and possibly his job. The bar tender starts cutting luxuries ... etc etc.
Always a pleasure debating!
No, that would have no impact on the Buffets of the world. He pays only the 15% capital gains tax, not income tax.
I think the dividend rates are too high. More than a few retirees depend on dividend income to fund their retirements. Drop the income percentage at the lower end and increase it at the higher end with brackets going to the sky, 50k/100k/250k/1mil/5mil. Buffet will get what he wants that way. Retirees wont get clobbered and revenue will go up unless and until people decide to use tax abatement, then you just adjust until revenue seems to climb slowly. Btw rates---10%/15%/20%/25%/30%.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?