Logic and Taxes

[jazzman]

I guess we can respectfully disagree. It's a matter political philosophy. Obviously you are a liberal, I am conservative. Liberals will agree with you, conservatives with me.

Not to change the subject, but if you really want to stir up the pot -----what do you think of Feather blades?

Only an uninformed, morally depraved, and otherwise evil person would disagree with my clearly well thought out opinion on Feathers.

Each of us is looking for fairness and effectiveness within the confines of our excellent but flawed system of government. Our agreements far outnumber our disagreements.

 

[oc_in_fw]

Perhaps thats how Government Officials in Australia are but I put a little more trust in ours.

Jay

I wouldn't. What do you think all those jackals on K street are doing? K street is where legislation is written and politicians are bought.

 

[BigDawg]

Watch this video and tell me that your entitled to every dollar you earn.

here is the video i meant to post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

 

[BigDawg]

When JFK took office in 1961, the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. It's 35% now.

That being said one of my instructors always tells us (I'm a financial planning major) that there are 2 tax codes: one for the informed, and one for the uninformed.

I agree with this. I stated this in my "essay" about the tax margins up until the 70's.
I will say that I wrote this essay out of anger, but I tried to be as truthful to the facts as possible. I went all the way back to the 1920's and up till today. I'll say it again though: People who think the rich aren't taxed enough just need to research what happened in the 30's through the 60's to see that it was a good thing for this country, and when Nixon and Reagan took office, it all went downhill.

Jon Stewart was correct to say that it's idiotic to call a 4% increase on taxes on the rich as class warfare. Especially since all it would be doing is putting that tax rate back to what it was during the Clinton administration.

But I understand people have different opinions on the subject at hand and I respect that. I was just posting about it here because I know there are many people on this forum of different backgrounds, and it's good to hear the opposing side's story.

 

[professorchaos]

here is the video i meant to post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

Oh, come on. She's just awful. By her logic, how does she justify the amount in taxes Harvard - who signs her paycheck - pays? Does Harvard not benefit by those same government services?

Government provided services are universal - rich and poor alike use them. They don't determine outcomes, success or poverty. The reality is that the factory she refers to pays more for that road, the cop and public school.

Where is the limit - how much taxation is too much? Does our social contract with the government demand no accountability for how tax dollars are spent?

Okay, them there's fighting words

That's it. Thread's closed

 

[Fileroman]

That's why I love this country, even though I b**tch and moan about. If I want/need to buy a $25,000 pair of sunglasses or $1,000 cased, mint toggle (to make it shave related) that's my business. Even in this economy people who have the drive and determination are making money. The point is you can still do very well in this country. Think about this: an ex-partner said he would like to pay no tax to any entity. His alternative would be, if you want to drive somewhere, you pay a toll to drive on the public street; you have a heart attack, you pay for the ambulance/ET to take you to the ER; your house catches fire, you pay the fire department, etc. I'd rather pay taxes. Makes it much easier, but that's just me.

Ron

 

[oc_in_fw]

That's it. Thread's closed

Hey, raisindot started it

 

[cb91710]

Considering the wealthiest few in America have more representation than everybody else combined

Not exactly.

A family of four making less than $36,000 gets more back on their tax refund than they paid in withholdings.

They get the same Senator and Representative that everyone else gets... and those votes are bought and paid for.

So the politicians pushing the socialist agenda are buying votes that will keep them in power, while they turn around and sell their own votes to both the corporations, and the lobbying groups that represent the various groups that are not paying taxes.

Ya, everyone should pay their fair share.
It's wrong for someone making $36,000 to pay no taxes, when a person making a million pays more every year than my home was worth in 2005.

The top 10% already pay 95% of the taxes and the bottom 40/50% pay no Federal taxes other than fuel tax and SSI... what more do you want?

 

[cb91710]

They have more representation because they have more money. Being able to vote means nothing when somebody else can bribe your elected officials.

We have 20 million illegal aliens who pay no taxes and have plenty of political representation... especially in California.

 

[Mako72]

Only an uninformed, morally depraved, and otherwise evil person would disagree with my clearly well thought out opinion on Feathers.

Each of us is looking for fairness and effectiveness within the confines of our excellent but flawed system of government. Our agreements far outnumber our disagreements.

Aahhh.

But I only have 2 Feather Blades and can otherwise only afford Astras, so in the interest of "Fairness" you need to give us an accounting of how many Feathers you have and then the Mods will decide how many you can keep and how many you must redistribute to those of us who can't afford Feathers. All in the interest of "Fairness" you understand.

Jay

 

[noahpictures]

here is the video i meant to post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

Elizabeth Warren for president!

 

[JellyFox]

Ya, everyone should pay their fair share.
It's wrong for someone making $36,000 to pay no taxes, when a person making a million pays more every year than my home was worth in 2005.

The top 10% already pay 95% of the taxes and the bottom 40/50% pay no Federal taxes other than fuel tax and SSI... what more do you want?

We could argue about this until the cows come home, but I really don't think we're going to get anywhere. Some people believe a consumption based tax only is fair, some people believe a flat tax is fair, and I believe that a fair tax is one that has an equivalent tangible effect on everybody.

 

[Masterkova]

As someone who has been in both the top and bottom tax brackets at various times in my life, I offer the following personal reflections.

When in the top tax bracket, an increase in my tax bill of 3-4% would mean virtually nothing – just $X,000 less to add to existing savings. (N.B. Whatever people tell you, tax breaks on the rich do NOT lead to significantly increased consumption or job creation – unless a second nanny for the summer in the Hamptons is the type of job you want to create, or the purchase of a Swiss watch is the type of consumption you want to encourage.)

When in the bottom, the extra few thousand dollars I had due to a progressive tax rate meant the world to me. It can mean having health insurance, funds for further education to get a better job, giving your children experiences so that they have a better chance in the future, or a new pair of shoes for a job interview – all things that others take for granted.

From a personal perspective, I was very glad to have been taxed more when I had more in order to have a bit more when I was less fortunate. It is not difficult to extrapolate this to society as a whole.

Not having money is not a moral failure - people in dire straits don't necessarily deserve to be - stuff happens.

It is obvious that the success of the wealthy is predicated on the hard work of millions of others, be they factory workers, subway operators, coal miners or firemen. To me it’s a no-brainer that the fortunate should give a relatively painless bit to help prevent those they depend on from enduring unnecessary hardship. It’s the ethical thing to do and, if you swing that way, the Christian thing as well.

As for higher taxes being a de-motivator for the wealthy, this is a complete canard. I have never met a banker, trader, or CEO who would work any less hard if his taxes went up a few percent. Bonuses in this stratum can easily vary 50% or more year-to-year depending on performance and/or market conditions. Multi-millionaires are not motivated by small amounts of money.

Just some personal observations…

 

[jazzman]

As someone who has been in both the top and bottom tax brackets at various times in my life, I offer the following personal reflections.

When in the top tax bracket, an increase in my tax bill of 3-4% would mean virtually nothing – just $X,000 less to add to existing savings. (N.B. Whatever people tell you, tax breaks on the rich do NOT lead to significantly increased consumption or job creation – unless a second nanny for the summer in the Hamptons is the type of job you want to create, or the purchase of a Swiss watch is the type of consumption you want to encourage.)

When in the bottom, the extra few thousand dollars I had due to a progressive tax rate meant the world to me. It can mean having health insurance, funds for further education to get a better job, giving your children experiences so that they have a better chance in the future, or a new pair of shoes for a job interview – all things that others take for granted.

From a personal perspective, I was very glad to have been taxed more when I had more in order to have a bit more when I was less fortunate. It is not difficult to extrapolate this to society as a whole.

Not having money is not a moral failure - people in dire straits don't necessarily deserve to be - stuff happens.

It is obvious that the success of the wealthy is predicated on the hard work of millions of others, be they factory workers, subway operators, coal miners or firemen. To me it’s a no-brainer that the fortunate should give a relatively painless bit to help prevent those they depend on from enduring unnecessary hardship. It’s the ethical thing to do and, if you swing that way, the Christian thing as well.

As for higher taxes being a de-motivator for the wealthy, this is a complete canard. I have never met a banker, trader, or CEO who would work any less hard if his taxes went up a few percent. Bonuses in this stratum can easily vary 50% or more year-to-year depending on performance and/or market conditions. Multi-millionaires are not motivated by small amounts of money.

Just some personal observations…

And you are an excellent writer: clear and concise.

 

[ackvil]

As someone who has been in both the top and bottom tax brackets at various times in my life, I offer the following personal reflections.

As for higher taxes being a de-motivator for the wealthy, this is a complete canard. I have never met a banker, trader, or CEO who would work any less hard if his taxes went up a few percent. Bonuses in this stratum can easily vary 50% or more year-to-year depending on performance and/or market conditions. Multi-millionaires are not motivated by small amounts of money.

Just some personal observations…

I have to disagree with that statement that higher taxes are not a "de-motivator."

Before I retired completely I did consulting work for two years. When my income kicked me into a higher tax bracket (NJ and Fed taxes) I decided it was no longer worth it to me to take on more business since I was paying so much more in taxes. In effect, my "Hourly Wage" went down too much so I decided to hang it up completely.

Further, prior to the Bush tax cuts I knew of a number of individuals who took steps to minimize their taxable income. Their R.O.I may have been less but their "take home" pay was higher.

There are accountants and tax lawyers who make a very nice living giving people advice on how to minimize taxes. The wealthy set up irrevocable trusts, for example. Others switch to municipal bonds instead of investing in stocks and regular bonds. Various tax shelters are used by these individuals. I know of three professionals who are now "independent contractors" for companies they previously worked for. They get paid an hourly amount for work they perform with no benefits. They have set up Keogh Plans and other investment vehicles that result in lower income and taxes. They have set up home offices and take deductions that they could not take when they were "employees." All of these steps were taken to minimize their federal and state tax bills because they were highly compensated and felt they were paying too much in taxes.

Corporations have set up elaborate devices to reward their executives with compensation plans that minimize taxes. Keep in mind a 5% increase on $300,000 is $15,000. One of the companies I worked for at one time had international operations. The tax free executive packages that were put in place in the U.K., Germany, and Spain were solely to minimize the high tax rates of these countries. For example, at that time certain upper executives were given the use of autos, company employees cleaned their homes, the were offered free hair cuts and many other personal items. In turn, they took less of a salary to avoid taxes.

Some seem to feel it is the moral and ethical to pay higher taxes. I, for one, disagree since I see so much government waste and useless government programs. I, for one, would rather give more to a charity that I approve of than to a government that spends funds so lavishly. As I said previously, I find it ironic that some individuals - such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc. - say they want to pay more in taxes, which they are free to do, and then take huge charitable deductions to minimize their taxes.

 

[devorenm]

I have to disagree with that statement that higher taxes are not a "de-motivator."

Before I retired completely I did consulting work for two years. When my income kicked me into a higher tax bracket (NJ and Fed taxes) I decided it was no longer worth it to me to take on more business since I was paying so much more in taxes. In effect, my "Hourly Wage" went down too much so I decided to hang it up completely.

I don't quite understand this. You don't really get "kicked" into a higher tax bracket the more you make - rather once your taxable income passes a certain threshold that portion of your income gets taxed at the higher rate. Say for example the threshold is 150K. The first 150k you makes gets taxed at the lower rate, only the amount over 150k gets taxed at the higher rate. Are you saying you decided the effective 3 percent pay cut on your income above the bracket threshold was enough to make you quit altogether or that you stopped taking on work that would put you above the bracket threshold?

 

[devorenm]

Oh, come on. She's just awful. By her logic, how does she justify the amount in taxes Harvard - who signs her paycheck - pays? Does Harvard not benefit by those same government services?

Government provided services are universal - rich and poor alike use them. They don't determine outcomes, success or poverty. The reality is that the factory she refers to pays more for that road, the cop and public school.

Where is the limit - how much taxation is too much? Does our social contract with the government demand no accountability for how tax dollars are spent?



That's it. Thread's closed

I don't think this statement is completely accurate. Harvard like other public institutions likely pays a significant amount in taxes and "fees". Besides the obvious payroll taxes and the like large non-profits typically negotiate an assessment amount with municipalities because they recognize that even though they technically don't have a tax liability they occupy large amounts of prime urban real estate and it costs the municipality money to maintain the relevant infrastructure.

 

[ackvil]

I don't quite understand this. You don't really get "kicked" into a higher tax bracket the more you make - rather once your taxable income passes a certain threshold that portion of your income gets taxed at the higher rate. Say for example the threshold is 150K. The first 150k you makes gets taxed at the lower rate, only the amount over 150k gets taxed at the higher rate. Are you saying you decided the effective 3 percent pay cut on your income above the bracket threshold was enough to make you quit altogether or that you stopped taking on work that would put you above the bracket threshold?

Keep in mind this was back in 2000. My tax rate, as I recall, went up 5% on the federal, 4% in NJ, and 3% in NY. I don't recall the NYC tax rates at the time. And yes, after I paid all of these taxes plus FICA, S.S., and other expenses, I did not think it was worth the effort.

 

[jazzman]

Keep in mind this was back in 2000. My tax rate, as I recall, went up 5% on the federal, 4% in NJ, and 3% in NY. I don't recall the NYC tax rates at the time. And yes, after I paid all of these taxes plus FICA, S.S., and other expenses, I did not think it was worth the effort.

Everyone's free to decide whether to have more money in his pocket under those circumstances. But, as devorenm noted, the higher tax rates only applied to that potential extra income; the tax rate on the dollars you received up to that point did not go up. And FICA (Social Security) taxes would not have been collected on even one dollar after you passed the maximum for that particular tax. It's easy for me to see a person turning down a small consulting job because the total taxes on that income would make the project unattractive; I have been in that situation myself. But a slightly higher tax bracket for that last project would not be the deciding factor for me.

In the context of the current political discussion, I really can't see how anyone making more than a million dollars a year would decide not to take the next million because of a slightly higher rate on the next million, which would not apply to the first million. Unfortunately, I am not faced with the choice of whether to earn a second million every year--I'm still trying to figure out how to get the first million without becoming left-handed and learning how to pitch--but I'd like to think that I would if I could, considering the fact that my tax rate on the second million still would be small in comparison with other countries or the US in the recent past, and considering the fact that I would still have hundreds of thousands of dollars to use as I pleased.

 

[StillShaving]

Logic and Taxes? Isn't the tax system and tax rates (up or down) and appropriations defined by politicians? When did logic enter discussion?