Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 94

Thread: GOP Tax Plan

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Clem72 View Post
    So we have seen that excessive taxes on the wealthy don't work, because they can afford to find ways of not paying. And we have seen that excessive tax breaks on the wealthy do not work, because it doesn't trickle down.

    So what's the (reasonable) answer? Lots of flat tax/fair tax style proposals seem great, but they are NEVER given any credence in DC because they don't allow wealthy donors to cheat as effectively (I.E. better to have 39% taxes that I don't actually have to pay then 15% taxes that I do).
    The bright spot I see in it all is a dramatic reduction in corporate income tax rates. The rest of it, involving individual rates, is just noise as far as I'm concerned. And they are not even proposing any significant reductions for the wealthiest tax payers.
    You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer. -Frank Zappa

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    Sure. I'm just saying that their current evaluation is like trying to complain because a car won't go if you don't take into account the tires.
    Well, a Democrat requested it likely knowing full-well dynamic scoring wouldn't be included in the estimate.
    Crybaby Cripplecrow Hanging on a Monkey's Toe Club

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Clem72 View Post
    because they don't allow wealthy donors to cheat as effectively (I.E. better to have 39% taxes that I don't actually have to pay then 15% taxes that I do).
    And I simply cannot find evidence that wealthy people "get away" with paying a lot less - because of this ---

    We know how much any given strata of taxpayers make - say, the top 1% or top .1 %. We know their income - mostly.
    We also know how much they PAY in taxes - as a whole.
    Now, none of them will pay 39% because of the progressive nature of the tax brackets - your first x amount taxed at such and such a level, but numerically the higher you go, that little difference becomes insignificant.

    And what you find is, while the strata as a group doesn't pay EXACTLY the taxation level - it's usually close. And predictable.

    Basically - we DON'T have a whole pile of rich folks dodging taxes completely. Fact is, they're paying most of them. If the top 10% of taxpayers dodged their taxes completely, this nation would be royally screwed, because they're paying 70% of all the taxes.

    Here's a nice page illustrating what I am saying - look at Table 1.

    https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/

    And as you can see as expected - each strata designated pays a higher and higher portion of their income in taxes.

    Ok - so you might think YEAH but it ain't 39% or 35 or 33. Right. But then you must account for just how many people actually FALL into those higher brackets.
    See, the top 10% of filers - by AGI - the bottom of that stratum is around 133k - putting them in the 25% bracket.
    Looking at THIS table :

    https://taxfoundation.org/how-many-t...e-tax-bracket/

    THAT puts a lot of the top 10% in that last large bar graph.

    It really only gets dicey when you're talking strictly about the REALLY REALLY rich. Like - the top 0.1%
    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster

  4. #84
    Registered User
    Member Since
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    We know how much any given strata of taxpayers make - say, the top 1% or top .1 %. We know their income - mostly.

    It really only gets dicey when you're talking strictly about the REALLY REALLY rich. Like - the top 0.1%
    So the top 0.1, or 0.001 or whichever it turns out to be was entirely who I was speaking about. People who make their income primarily through investments and rent seeking (actual rents, intellectual property, etc.) and other untraceable means.

    As the last two large dumps of off-shore banking data have shown, it's trivially easy for wealthy (truly wealthy, not mom&pops deli owner millionaires) to hide how much they make, and how much should be subject to taxes.

    And even if they don't hide their income, I am of the opinion that a dollar earned sitting on your ass shouldn't be taxes less than a dollar earned busting your ass. But for whatever reason, we decided that passive income should be taxed less (probably because the rich folks making the rules get all their money from passive income).

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Clem72 View Post
    But for whatever reason, we decided that passive income should be taxed less (probably because the rich folks making the rules get all their money from passive income).
    The idea being that there's much less reason to invest money - and thus grow the economy - if it's still going to be taxed the same.
    If you're going to tax income that has already been taxed once - a second time when it's making money again - then the prudent thing to do would be to not bother at all.
    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster

  6. #86
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    33,347
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    - then the prudent thing to do would be to not bother at all.





    I wouldn't bother
    We’re tempted to suggest a conspiracy here — but it’s just liberals agreeing yet again that conservatives have hidden, evil motives, because modern liberals simply can’t conceive of any other reason to disagree with the liberal consensus.

  7. #87
    Registered User
    Member Since
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    The idea being that there's much less reason to invest money - and thus grow the economy - if it's still going to be taxed the same.
    If you're going to tax income that has already been taxed once - a second time when it's making money again - then the prudent thing to do would be to not bother at all.

    And that, is a load of horse #### and you (should) know it. If you have enough disposable income sitting around that you would make enough money off of investments to be subject to significant taxes, you are not going to "not bother at all" if it is taxed.

    A good portion of my retirement portfolio pays out dividends, and because they are ordinary dividends (not qualified dividends) I pay income tax on that income. The fact that I have to do so hasn't kept me (or millions of other people) from investing in those stocks/mutual funds, or forced me to stuff the money in my mattress.

    But if I sell those stocks and make a profit, I will only have to pay up to 20% of it in taxes because it is a capital gain.

    Regardless, the argument that someone wouldn't invest money because they might have to pay at most an extra 19% is foolish. If there is ANY money to be made, people will invest (even if they only make 1% after taxes/inflation), because not doing so would mean they lose potential earnings.

    It might make it more profitable for them to invest in other ways, but those other ways would also stimulate the economy. But the argument that investors would simply sit it out is wrong as proven by many many other countries that tax investment income as normal income and yet still have thriving investors/financial markets.

    Or, they cou

  8. #88
    Registered User
    Member Since
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by GURPS View Post




    I wouldn't bother
    And leave money on the table? You're an idiot, or a liar. And judging by what I have heard of your business prowess, I suspect I know which one.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Clem72 View Post
    And that, is a load of horse #### and you (should) know it. If you have enough disposable income sitting around that you would make enough money off of investments to be subject to significant taxes, you are not going to "not bother at all" if it is taxed.
    I suppose that is a BIT of hyperbole. I think FIRST - I would put my money where it ISN'T going to be taxed, if I had THAT much (which I don't).
    I would then choose to put my money where it will be taxed less - which is what we're talking about.
    If it is taxed more - a lot more - my first inclination would be to just spend it because I'll be dead in a few years anyway.

    I put money into retirement funds only because of - well - fear.
    Truth be told, I'm going to be carrying DEBT into retirement and it might be better to fix that NOW, but that's another matter.

    The larger part of my statement is still true - if it is taxed LESS, it does encourage people to put their money there.
    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster

  10. #90
    Registered User
    Member Since
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    The larger part of my statement is still true - if it is taxed LESS, it does encourage people to put their money there.
    Sure. But I suppose my question is why does it need encouragement. Why isn't income = income. Why is it okay to take 39% of the profits from an auto mechanic but not acceptable to take the same amount from a CEO who is paid in vesting stock options (when they sell of course)? Why would you only take 20% of profit made from royalties on an album sales (requiring no additional work), but take 39% from a live performance of the same music?

    If all income is taxed alike, people will still have money to invest and investments will still pay out better than mattresses. And why artificially encourage people to invest in a stock market (with cheaper taxes) instead of, say, encouraging them to start new businesses or become venture capitalists?

Members who have read this thread: 52

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |