Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 01:55pm PT
|
ALL income should be taxed at regular personal income tax rates.
That includes capital gains and dividends.
It is BULLCRAP that "risk" should reduce the tax rate. Risk my ass.
A 10 million dollar hedge fund manager should pay the same SS and Medicare
tax RATE as a $40,000 a year regular working person.
One: Money which is invested and put at risk has already been earned and taxed. Now you say that earnings made by investing already taxed money should be taxed again at the same rate? Not much of an economist are you. Or do you actually believe that our economy will thrive and unemployment will be vanquished if investors are punished for making good decisions?
Two: A 10 Mil hedge fund manager pays way higher tax rates than the 40K worker. Her income is salary, commissions and bonuses, all taxed at full rate. WTF are you talking about? No comparison there. Get real. The great majority of taxes in the US are paid by people who actually make money. Poor people don’t pay income taxes. Of course all you progressive folks think “sin” taxes are great (cigarettes, booze, gasoline, etc.) because you’re trying to influence people’s behavior, even though they hurt poor people more.
Lift the cap on income, make everyone pay the SAME % rate of their earnings including capital gains and dividends, collecting SS and Medicare taxes.
NO EXCEPTIONS
Are you proposing a flat tax? Everyone the same rate? That's the opposite of progressive.
edit: And what is "the cap on income?"
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:02pm PT
|
K, read my post again, you seem to be focusing on the wrong thing.
I am stating that, in my opinion, the present upper limits of social security
and Medicare earning should be lifted, so there is no limit.
For example, right now you and your employer pay 6.2% of your income to go
to the SS administration. The cap now is around $105,000 or so.
So right now, one would NOT pay that 6.2% on income OVER the 105K
The same applies to Medicare at 1.4% or so of income. There is an earnings cap
I propose there should be no caps on either.
One should pay the same SS and Medicare percent rate on ALL earned income,
and that includes dividends and capital gains.
I said nothing about a "flat tax" or any other change in the tax structure.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:03pm PT
|
"Of course all you progressive folks think “sin” taxes are great (cigarettes, booze, gasoline, etc.) because you’re trying to influence people’s behavior, even though they hurt poor people more."
Whatever.
Repugs like to use the 'unfair taxation of impoverished' a lot because it supports their overall 'no taxes for any reason' mantra, and gives them the completely transparent cover of appearing compassionate. Pfft.
Yeah, taxing booze, cigarettes, and the current suggestion to tax sugar filled foods (i.e. soda) probably do hit lower income citizens more than others. Whatever. The best way to escape those taxes is very simple, and everyone knows they should do it: stop smoking, drink reasonably, stop eating sh~t-foods, and go exercise. That's called personal responsibility, something else the Repugs like to wave around- remember it?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:22pm PT
|
jstan,
There's still a comparison problem with the tax rates. The Reagan rate cuts broadened the definition of AGI. It basically eliminated a lot of deductions and tax shelter opportunities and, in exchange, lowered overall rates. AGI before then was a smaller number for otherwise high-rate taxpayers.
Ksolem,
You are,as usual, right on target. I think, however, that we should use the term "progressive" either in quotes, or substitute "self-styled progressive." In fact, the tenets they propose are not forward-looking; they are reactionary. They essentially want to eliminate the industrial revolution, and the consequent rise of the middle class, and return to the dark ages when the paternalistic ruler was responsible for the welfare of his vassals and, in exchange, owned virtually everything.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:26pm PT
|
John-
I noted MH's acknowledgement of your letter in the WSJ- congratulations. It comes as no surprise to me that your articulate, respectful writing style would be valued by the editors and readers of the WSJ.
Well done.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:29pm PT
|
"Of course all you progressive folks think “sin” taxes are great (cigarettes, booze, gasoline, etc.) because you’re trying to influence people’s behavior, even though they hurt poor people more."
I'm a centrist not a progressive, but I always thought "sin" taxes are more for recouping the cost to society for those sins, rather than to influence people.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:32pm PT
|
John wrote: It basically eliminated a lot of deductions and tax shelter opportunities and, in exchange, lowered overall rates. AGI before then was a smaller number for otherwise high-rate taxpayers.
John so how did the eliminated of deductions and tax shelter under Reagan help the middle class?
Who really benefited from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts?
Let me think...
"Americans in the overall top 1 percent, the 2007 CBO data showed, did quite well in the Reagan era's first quarter-century. Their average incomes, after taking inflation into account, essentially tripled, rising 201 percent.
But these top 1 percent stats, the new CBO data help us understand, hardly tell the full story. The truly stunning income increases over recent decades have gone to the tippy-top of the U.S. income distribution, not the top 1 percent, but the top tenth — and top hundredth — of that top 1 percent.
The higher up you go on the income ladder, in other words, the sweeter the Reagan era.
Between 1979 and 2005, the bottom half of the top 1 percent saw their average incomes only double, after inflation. These incomes increased 105 percent. The next highest four-tenths of the top 1 percent somewhat raised the income bar. Their average incomes, after inflation, rose 161 percent.
That brings us to the top 0.1 percent of Americans. Their incomes, from 1979 to 2005, rose a staggering 294 percent after taking inflation into account. Not bad at all. But the top 0.01 percent did even better. The 11,000 households in this rarified air took home an average $35.5 million in 2005, a 384 percent increase over average top 0.01 percent incomes in 1979."
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:34pm PT
|
...because it supports their overall 'no taxes for any reason' mantra,
Laugh out loud!
Find me any rational member of any political party who seriously ever proposed "no taxes for any reason."
You are so over the top today. Too much coffee?
Yeah Norton, that's 7.6% up to about 8K a year. That's about 320K over a typical working career for someone who earns enough to hit the cap, and the Gov gets to use that money as it grows over those years before they finally get to dribble it back to the contributor. Before I would raise the SS cap I would means test benefits.
edit: Norton I thought you might be referring to the SS cap, but your words read like a flat tax proposal so I thought i'd ask...
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:42pm PT
|
"Find me any rational member of any political party who seriously ever proposed "no taxes for any reason."
Tru dat, Ksolem, and it still mystifies the way so many Repubs swallow that mantra hook, line and sinker, when it is complete and utter bullsh*t.
Given that taxes are a reality and required for any of us to enjoy the highest standard of living on the planet, along with all of it's 'socialized' benefits such as roads, law enforcement, military, schools, etc., the question becomes what is a reasonable level of taxation, and more to the point, how are those revenues used. Overly simplistic sound bites like 'No more taxes' or 'Taxed enough already' gain votes from simplistic minds, but even the most entrenched Repub politician knows they are a reality.
Which brings me back to one of your former points: sin taxes. I say bring 'em on- they provide a perfect disincentive to socially-destructive habits.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:44pm PT
|
Reply to the OP . . .
It is about time. It may not be perfect, but at least it is a start. We can fix it to make it better over time.
We have a social obligation to take care of one another, and to take care of those less fortunate. It is the right thing to do.
If you are against this, then I would think you have some serious issues and hang-ups with morality.
It is a start.
|
|
dktem
Trad climber
Temecula
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 02:50pm PT
|
Ksolem:
Your point about double taxation is valid, but it is trumped by the fact that your second point is completely incorrect.
A 10 Mil hedge fund manager pays way higher tax rates than the 40K worker.
You will need to collect some more data to back up this one.
For starters, here is a very high profile statistic, from someone who knows a little about money:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
Our income tax system has increasingly become regressive.
Back in the 1950's and 60s, when our economy was at its strongest, tax rates on the rich were much higher. There is ample evidence that shows steep progressive taxes do not hinder capital investment.
A country with a high standard of living requires two critical components:
1) A capitalist system based upon transparent free markets.
2) A robust middle class that can produce and consume the majority of it's own goods.
Policy that is biased towards the rich satisfies the first requirement, but a sustainable economy requires both components. In the past two decades we have slowly been eroding the second component.
I'm of part the middle class (and I suspect you are also). I want a fair tax policy because it will help me, and the entire country.
It's not a "bleeding heart" thing. It's based upon sound, capitalist economics.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:06pm PT
|
dktem, The Buffet example is such an extreme anomaly as to be irrelevant. It also does seem unfair although I am not in command of the facts regarding his situation.
What makes me cringe is all this language coming out of Washington about people who make 200K being rich and not paying their share. That may sound like real money to someone living in rural America, but in a big city with a family...? Not rich. So I don't think we are in disagreement except perhaps about who, in this day and age, is middle class.
Apogee, sorry I cannot abide with the use of taxes to modify people's behavior. A slippery slope there.
Bob, that is funny. Seems like a long time ago. And BTW Thanks for posting under your own name, it's a lot more like a campfire when you know who your chatting with.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:12pm PT
|
"For example, right now you and your employer pay 6.2% of your income to go to the SS administration. The cap now is around $105,000 or so.
So right now, one would NOT pay that 6.2% on income OVER the 105K
The same applies to Medicare at 1.4% or so of income. There is an earnings cap"
I had always thought the reason for the SS cap was that it was somehow calculated to take into account a person didn't have deductions at a level that wouldn't be able to be paid out to them when they began collecting SS. Like say you can only get $800/mo SS(I don't know the actual number). No matter how much income you had/how much was deducted throughout your life. So if someone had a gazillion dollars taken out along the way, for SS, but would only be able to draw out a bazillion from the time they reached the age of entitlement till death, it wouldn't be fair to have taken the gazillion away in the first place.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
|
What makes me cringe is all this language coming out of Washington about people who make 200K being rich and not paying their share.
You only hear that from Republicans trying to confuse the issue.
Tax rates are going up on the top tax brackets.
Your tax bracket is the rate you pay on the "last dollar" you earn.
The rate goes up on income above $200,000 annually for individuals, or above $250,000 for families. Income under those amounts see no tax increase.
Income over $250,000 going back to the rates before Bush cut them, I'm ok with that.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:31pm PT
|
"...sorry I cannot abide with the use of taxes to modify people's behavior. A slippery slope there."
I don't get you people. You tout the importance of personal responsibility, but when it comes to a mechanism that has the potential to balance the impacts of other people's destructive personal choices ()esp. when they are indirectly impacting you, me, and everyone else), you balk. You would never admit it, but you are an idealist when it comes to the concept of taxation- so much of an idealist that you are a bit separated from reality.
'Slippery slope' arguments are weak. They are a fearmongering effort to achieve an unrealistic ideal- in this case, no sin taxes because it will result in higher taxes everywhere. Pretty hard to find reasonable solutions when one side is entrenched so completely.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:33pm PT
|
You only hear that from Republicans trying to confuse the issue.
No. I have heard it repeatedly from our President and the leaders in the House and Senate.
The tax brackets group the family living in LA on 200K in with the very rich. And should this family be frugal enough to invest a little money, the Dems want to tax what they earn on that investment as if it were new income. Tell me this is fair.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:42pm PT
|
"What makes me cringe is all this language coming out of Washington about people who make 200K being rich and not paying their share."
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan#Demographics, the Median Household income in Manhattan in 1999 was $47,030, and the NYC median was $38,293, and the state was $43,393(for households). Someone might say "Manhattan is full of single person households, but for individuals, the medians were $42,922, $22,402, and $23,389, respectively.
I know that was 10 years ago(last census data) and numbers have changed but can't be changed by that awful much?
So, if the average family in Manhattan can "get by" on less than $50K... maybe $200K isn't all that unreasonable.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:46pm PT
|
'Slippery slope' arguments are weak. They are a fearmongering effort to achieve an unrealistic ideal- in this case, no sin taxes because it will result in higher taxes everywhere. Pretty hard to find reasonable solutions when one side is entrenched so completely.
Apogee, I am not fear mongering. Sin taxes simply say that you are at liberty to behave in ways which others do not approve of, or which could even be detrimental in some way to society, so long as you can afford it.
Ultimately many people's very existence is detrimental to society so should we tax them just because they are alive? Oh wait, we just did that.
Taxes should be levied for the real business of Government. No more. What that business is of course is where we tend to disagree. But I really wish that this whole idea of using the tax laws to change people's behavior would end up in front of the Supreme Court some day. That would be interesting.
Right now for example there is a 10% tax benefit for first time home buyers. Didn't we just learn a tough lesson about what can happen when the gov stimulates people to buy homes over their ability to pay?
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
|
As fattrad indicated, there is a tax loophole that allows hedge fund managers to treat most of their income as capital gains, and thus have it taxed at 15%.
As far as I know, this loophole still exists.
I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people making 200K in LA, SF or NY. You chose to live there, are getting paid better for it, and by almost anyone's standards, you're doing well. I don't think there are too many people in Manhattan Beach or Atherton that spend alot of money on housing but then shop at Walmart. Your 200K might make you feel average next to your neighbor who makes 2mil, but you're usually still doing pretty well.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!