World welcomes Obama win

#301
#301
TennNC said:
And the fact that he pays them much less than he'd pay the same workers here was coincidental? No correlation btwn. wealth and payroll, right?
Click to expand...
There is absolutely correlation between INCOME and limiting EXPENSES. Always has been.

Oh, I get it. He's rich because he made other poor people work for him, that bastage.
 
#302
#302
TennNC said:
separate issue. separate argument.

this goes back to a quote I made (yesterday) and was then bastardized. it's a really simple statement that has been turned into "You're a Marxist." Which, if you can't prove that the original statement was false or accept it as the truth, makes your argument much easier. B/c then you get to debate against a theory (an incredibly loaded one) rather than the actual statement made.
Click to expand...
you're being jerked around as badly as all those poor laborers who are mandatorily making people rich. Life's hard when the world and its dastardly wealthy are pitted against you.

Trying to pretend that my calling your argument Marxist is somehow off base is incorrect. You are absolutely making Karl's argument the basis of the entire debate. I'm taking the opposite stand that American wealth is rooted in something entirely different than cheap labor. Singapore's wealth, that's an altogether different animal.
 
#303
#303
BigPapaVol said:
There is absolutely correlation between INCOME and limiting EXPENSES. Always has been.

Oh, I get it. He's rich in part because a larger group of people is working for much less than he is.
Click to expand...

fyp.

that's all I ever said. Not that they're forced to do that. Not that it's evil. Not that it can't be good for everyone involved. Not that I even disagree with it. You made those posts. You said I said those things.

And yes, you need capital and smarts and drive and creativity and many, many other things.
 
#304
#304
TennNC said:
fyp.

that's all I ever said. Not that they're forced to do that. Not that it's evil. Not that it can't be good for everyone involved. Not that I even disagree with it. You made those posts. You said I said those things.

And yes, you need capital and smarts and drive and creativity and many, many other things.
Click to expand...
but the innocuous omission of the other pile of factors that lead to wealth is where my heartburn originates. It's the same trick that the greater media pulls when pandering to the would be voters and for them, it's not inadvertent.

Hell, I think luck / fortune is an enormous player in individual wealth, but I neglect it almost always because it doesn't support my argument. It's not on purpose at all. It's just my predisposition and while you might not think so, I'm fully aware that I'm predisposed to certain positions.
 
#306
#306
BigPapaVol said:
but the innocuous omission of the other pile of factors that lead to wealth is where my heartburn originates. It's the same trick that the greater media pulls when pandering to the would be voters and for them, it's not inadvertent.

Hell, I think luck / fortune is an enormous player in individual wealth, but I neglect it almost always because it doesn't support my argument. It's not on purpose at all. It's just my predisposition and while you might not think so, I'm fully aware that I'm predisposed to certain positions.
Click to expand...

Ha! See, I'm not predisposed to any positions ever (sarcasm).

The innocuous omission (it was innocuous - there was no intent to discredit the other pile of factors b/c it wasn't relevant to the point I was originally responding to) obviously touched a nerve, and that's cool. Obviously you've worked hard for what you've earned and continue to earn, and you have every right to enjoy it and not feel guilty. As for me in this discussion, I just want to be understood. And I think I am now.
 
#308
#308
Good Lord, I missed a lot... I don't even know where to jump in.

Someone say something so I can debate them.
 
#310
#310
TennNC said:
I know this is an old post, but I just read it for the first time. And you actually made it incorrect. Nobody pays less than 10% in income taxes. My post was about what % of your income you pay in federal taxes.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. The site you sent us to calculated taxes on “taxable income”. Everyone gets a minimum standard deduction of:

Married filing jointly - $10,900
Head of Household - $8,000
Single - $5,450

Then subtract from that $3,500 for every personal exemption that you can claim.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf?portlet=3
 
#311
#311
VolDad said:
You are incorrect. The site you sent us to calculated taxes on “taxable income”. Everyone gets a minimum standard deduction of:

Married filing jointly - $10,900
Head of Household - $8,000
Single - $5,450

Then subtract from that $3,500 for every personal exemption that you can claim.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf?portlet=3
Click to expand...

Don't forget tax credits for various items. There are plenty of income earners who pay no income tax.
 
#312
#312
#314
#314
volinbham said:
Don't forget tax credits for various items. There are plenty of income earners who pay no income tax.
Click to expand...
there are hordes this year who will get rebate checks and have never paid a dime. In fact, there are hordes each year who pay no taxes yet still get a check when filing because of standard deducts, child rebates and earned income tax credits.

It's almost humorous that any educated American could even mistake the info bdly enough to assume that all Americans pay at least 10%.
 
#315
#315
VolDad said:
You are incorrect. The site you sent us to calculated taxes on “taxable income”. Everyone gets a minimum standard deduction of:

Married filing jointly - $10,900
Head of Household - $8,000
Single - $5,450

Then subtract from that $3,500 for every personal exemption that you can claim.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf?portlet=3
Click to expand...

Okay. If we're going to use that measurement, then you also should have corrected the other part of my post -- the 33% that someone making $200K pays. Do you not think those people find a way to reduce their "taxable income" as well?

Do that, and then we're comparing apples to apples.
 
#316
#316
volinbham said:
Don't forget tax credits for various items. There are plenty of income earners who pay no income tax.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

And how much revenue would this add to the federal budget if they were to pay the same rate as the $200K earner? How much of an impact would that added tax revenue make versus the $$ it would take out of the economy?
 
#317
#317
TennNC said:
Fair point.

And how much revenue would this add to the federal budget if they were to pay the same rate as the $200K earner? How much of an impact would that added tax revenue make versus the $$ it would take out of the economy?
Click to expand...

If you can direct me to the quote that started this I can respond (I'm not sure what the argument is). My response was meant to show that a great deal of people pay less than 10%.

Answering without context I'll just say that I don't have any problem with some people paying no taxes (or anything less than the top marginal rate).

I haven't looked at the Fair or Flat tax proposals enough to determine if they make better sense/are more equitable.
 
#318
#318
TennNC said:
Okay. If we're going to use that measurement, then you also should have corrected the other part of my post -- the 33% that someone making $200K pays. Do you not think those people find a way to reduce their "taxable income" as well?

Do that, and then we're comparing apples to apples.
Click to expand...
I think business owners can fairly readily reduce their tax burden to some degree, but when my accountant hands me a piece of paper that shows my net tax burden, it is exactly what it is. If I remitted 30% of my gross income, I remitted 30% of my gross income.

Some people can reduce their burden at times with tax schemes, but they're only deferring taxes for the most part. Everyone eventually pays the piper.
 
#319
#319
volinbham said:
I haven't looked at the Fair or Flat tax proposals enough to determine if they make better sense/are more equitable.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is any doubt that the flat tax would be most equitable.

I think the consumption tax would be the most effective and would even tax wealth, which is untaxed today.

For instance, the Kennedys bootlegged and then insider traded to extreme wealth. Much of that wealth has been sheltered and then passed along to the worthless clan that now oversees the cash. That cash will never be taxed in any way. The consumption tax would actually tax their expenditures of that pile of wealth and consumption would be a very good measure of an individual's use of the national infrastructure, IMO.

I'm not advocating a consumption tax, but think would most effectively place the burden on the heaviest users of our national provisions.
 
#320
#320
TennNC said:
Okay. If we're going to use that measurement, then you also should have corrected the other part of my post -- the 33% that someone making $200K pays. Do you not think those people find a way to reduce their "taxable income" as well?

Do that, and then we're comparing apples to apples.
Click to expand...

I take it that you are not familiar with the "Alternative Minimum" tax for income earners in the higher brackets?
 
#321
#321
VolDad said:
I take it that you are not familiar with the "Alternative Minimum" tax for income earners in the higher brackets?
Click to expand...
while the AMT is a complete disaster and beginning to hit more and more people, most high earners pay well more than enough to ever even consider AMT.
 
#323
#323
Just a quick anecdote on the demotivating effect of marginal rates.

When I lived in Illinois, I did some consulting. Since it was "self-employed" income, I had to pay double the payroll tax (almost 15%). Add that to the marginal rate and about 50 cents of every dollar earned went to the Federal Government. There wasn't any good way to shield the money and due to my retirement system in the job I had, I never hit the payroll tax threshold on consulting earnings.

In short, if I had a chance for a $500 job I'd pass since after all was said and done I would pocket about $200.
 
#324
#324
volinbham said:
Just a quick anecdote on the demotivating effect of marginal rates.

When I lived in Illinois, I did some consulting. Since it was "self-employed" income, I had to pay double the payroll tax (almost 15%). Add that to the marginal rate and about 50 cents of every dollar earned went to the Federal Government. There wasn't any good way to shield the money and due to my retirement system in the job I had, I never hit the payroll tax threshold on consulting earnings.

In short, if I had a chance for a $500 job I'd pass since after all was said and done I would pocket about $200.
Click to expand...
and that situation is very hard to explain to people when you're telling them that as a business owner, high marginal tax rates force me to downsize on the employee front. It makes no sense to take on the same risks for the dramatically lower margins.

The argument that turning down income just to avoid taxes is insanity, is in fact not insanity. The risk / return model gets turned completely upside down. I know it sounds like complaining over a good problem to have, but it's not at all. It's the reason that many business owners downsize under overburdensome tax regimes.
 
#325
#325
BigPapaVol said:
The argument that turning down income just to avoid taxes is insanity, is in fact not insanity. The risk / return model gets turned completely upside down. I know it's sounds like complaining over a good problem to have, but it's not at all. It's the reason that many business owners downsize under overburdensome tax regimes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I could have ramped up and as a result, hired administrative help but it just wasn't worth it from a risk/return perspective.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top