NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Analyze_This Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Can we please stop calling it a 4.9% raise in > the > > tax for those people who make more than $250k > and > > call it the 13% increase that it really is? > The > > increase shouldn’t be measured by the aggregate > > change in percentages. > > Then are we going to include sales, property, > excise and capital gains taxes as well? It’s a > change in marginal rates, so it’s not like someone > making 300k is going to see a 13% increase in > their tax bill. Your methodology is grossly > misleading. I’m only commenting on the income tax increase. You wouldn’t call an increase from 10% to 20% simply a 10% increase would you? I do understand the marginal rates and how they’ll only be seing an increase on earnings above 373k (09 table). Obama doesn’t have a say in sales, property or excise tax; those are set at the state and local level. Are the capital gains taxes even resetting to pre-Bush years? I haven’t heard that.
^^ Check that, there is Federal excise tax.
I can’t stand this argument that “rich people are really good at avoiding taxes, so we shouldn’t raise their taxes since they would just figure out ways to avoid paying them.” So we should force lower earners to shoulder more of the burden (on a relative sense, assuming we are giving the tax-evaders a pass - I’m not suggesting spending reductions are not part of the solution) because the top earners are so good at breaking the law?
Analyze_This Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can we please stop calling it a 4.9% raise in the > tax for those people who make more than $250k and > call it the 13% increase that it really is? The > increase shouldn’t be measured by the aggregate > change in percentages. Yeah, and while we’re at it, I want to start saying I outperformed my benchmark by 10-20%, instead of the piddling 120 basis points or so that I do now.
If you do the math, the 4.9% increase in the top rate will actually increase your tax bill by less than 4.9% as you have already paid the built in taxes at the lower rate. Or we could just say 13% and get Teapartiers all riled up. I cant stand people who claim to love America but clearly hate Americans.
BizBanker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you do the math, the 4.9% increase in the top > rate will actually increase your tax bill by less > than 4.9% as you have already paid the built in > taxes at the lower rate. What does that mean? The lower rates stay the same don’t they?
These threads are so entertaining. We have marcus phoenix, I’m just waiting for kkent to join and balance things out. To all Republicans: You had your chance for 8 years to lower taxes to 0% To all Democrats: You have your chance now to raise taxes to 100% Each side has or had their opportunity so no complaining…
> > Ok, there’s just a ton of things wrong with your > reply. I’ll list them as “FAILS” > > FAIL 1. I did NOT lump in EVERYONE as you said > “you can’t lump everyone who doesn’t make over 50k > into the same bundle.” reading skills would be > useful > > FAIL 2. You said, “Look if these people are > working odds and ends jobs to make ends meet they > are obviously not lazy” Are you kidding? have you > seen the sheer retarded-ness of the people who > work in government offices??? You clearly have > never seen what is it like. I have. Again, I’m not > saying “everyone”. > > FAIL 3… tax deductions… > > you know what, this is so not worth my time. > forget it. our society is F’ed anyway. I’ll just > make sure to bail before it hits the fan Pass. Assume people working odd end jobs usually aren’t making over 50k which is probably the people you are referring to. Pass. When was a Gov. Job considered an “Odd End Job” had you said gov workers were lazy in your original post I would totally agree. Pass tax deductions not worth my time. Don’t get me wrong iteracom I understand the pros of your point I just don’t really have a problem with the legislation.
Thanks for all your comments. I am not in that tax bracket yet, so these taxes are very good for me. I don’t know enough to contribute much further to this discussion.
They should raise taxes only on boomers no matter what they make since they are to blame for everything. If the boomer is retired then tax their kids or grand-kids.
I want taxes lower not so much bc I think I shouldn’t pay them as much as I think the gov’t shouldn’t have an inflated budget to waste. If i for one second thought that they had a reasonable plan to pay down the deficit, make some meaningful investments I’d be all for it- but now it seems to me that its an downward sticky spending machine. I’m ok with increasing revenue- but the expenditure trend is going the wrong way!!
“Thanks for all your comments. I am not in that tax bracket yet, so these taxes are very good for me. I don’t know enough to contribute much further to this discussion.” Just because you don’t have to pay more doesn’t mean they’re good for you. They’re only good for you if the money is spent wisely and adds to the quality of your life or reduces national debt.
I think most of the political and social unrest would be solved if the government just let me live and work in this country for free.
AnotherLurker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “Thanks for all your comments. I am not in that > tax bracket yet, so these taxes are very good for > me. I don’t know enough to contribute much further > to this discussion.” > > Just because you don’t have to pay more doesn’t > mean they’re good for you. They’re only good for > you if the money is spent wisely and adds to the > quality of your life or reduces national debt. Very true. I stand corrected.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BizBanker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes people are going to leave the country, > capital > > is going to flee, there will be no jobs. All > this > > can be seen in the largest non-war expansion > this > > country has ever seen. And having a tax bracket > of > > 200k mean that it hits you when you make 200k > > right everyone? Or have you ever done your > taxes? > > They are called deductions and people in the > upper > > tax brackets have good CPAs who make use of > them. > > Lets apply the theory our conservative > economics > > professors taught us. All taxes are bad, > > government is bad unless it is there to protect > > you, poor people are bad even though they keep > the > > cost of your dry cleaning and meals down, > people > > with money create all jobs and are the most > > altruistic stewards of the economy. So I will > > expect to bid my rich friends a fond farewell > and > > perhaps they can go live in the offshore tax > > havens in the Caymans like Exxon and pay > > absolutely no American taxes. Bon voyage! > > > They’ll get so bored 0ut of their mind after > living in places like the Caymans for a few years > that they will plead to be let back in. I say they > should be made to renounce their citizenship as > well. > > “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask > what you can do for your country”-- John F. > Kennedy The comments here are just so out of touch its ridiculous. People won’t move? If there is a demand for a lower tax area supply will eventually be met. You are kidding yourself if it won’t be there. Really honestly, how many people on here fall into the 250k tax bracket, let alone know someone who falls into that category? So many are making wide assumptions about what these “rich” folk will do. All i gotta say is my parents and many of my parent’s friends have moved to lower tax states such as Texas and Florida. Interestingly enough, they are now talking about moving to places such as the Caymans. I know this is a sample bias, but all my old clients were CEO and CFOs and would echo similar statements regarding themselves and their businesses. Marcus you especially are quite arrogant to think that people won’t move to lower cost areas. Businesses and rich folks have been doing this for years. What makes you think they will stop unless you do so by force? Why can’t we just stop spending so damn much and promote a business friendly environment? Do you really think higher taxes are going to save the mismanagement of government??? God your thick.
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think most of the political and social unrest > would be solved if the government just let me live > and work in this country for free. Not solved, but mitigated through your contributions: interview and cover letter business, as well as your postings. Good work man.
To add on top of this. People are so much more mobile today than before. Its not that difficult for someone such as myself that doesn’t come close to the 250k bracket to just move to another country. Maybe they won’t go somewhere with lower taxes… but have you ever thought they may move to a place where they get more value out of their taxes?
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BizBanker Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Yes people are going to leave the country, > > capital > > > is going to flee, there will be no jobs. All > > this > > > can be seen in the largest non-war expansion > > this > > > country has ever seen. And having a tax > bracket > > of > > > 200k mean that it hits you when you make 200k > > > right everyone? Or have you ever done your > > taxes? > > > They are called deductions and people in the > > upper > > > tax brackets have good CPAs who make use of > > them. > > > Lets apply the theory our conservative > > economics > > > professors taught us. All taxes are bad, > > > government is bad unless it is there to > protect > > > you, poor people are bad even though they > keep > > the > > > cost of your dry cleaning and meals down, > > people > > > with money create all jobs and are the most > > > altruistic stewards of the economy. So I will > > > expect to bid my rich friends a fond farewell > > and > > > perhaps they can go live in the offshore tax > > > havens in the Caymans like Exxon and pay > > > absolutely no American taxes. Bon voyage! > > > > > > They’ll get so bored 0ut of their mind after > > living in places like the Caymans for a few > years > > that they will plead to be let back in. I say > they > > should be made to renounce their citizenship as > > well. > > > > “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask > > what you can do for your country”-- John F. > > Kennedy > > The comments here are just so out of touch its > ridiculous. People won’t move? If there is a > demand for a lower tax area supply will eventually > be met. You are kidding yourself if it won’t be > there. > > Really honestly, how many people on here fall into > the 250k tax bracket, let alone know someone who > falls into that category? So many are making wide > assumptions about what these “rich” folk will do. > > All i gotta say is my parents and many of my > parent’s friends have moved to lower tax states > such as Texas and Florida. Interestingly enough, > they are now talking about moving to places such > as the Caymans. I know this is a sample bias, but > all my old clients were CEO and CFOs and would > echo similar statements regarding themselves and > their businesses. > > Marcus you especially are quite arrogant to think > that people won’t move to lower cost areas. > Businesses and rich folks have been doing this for > years. What makes you think they will stop unless > you do so by force? Why can’t we just stop > spending so damn much and promote a business > friendly environment? > > Do you really think higher taxes are going to save > the mismanagement of government??? > > God your thick. It’s you’re, not your. Well maybe you’re right that some people would move. But I don’t think many rich people would. You need to sell your house, uproot your family, take your kids out of school, have your significant other find a new job, change friends, you might need to find a new job, and so on. Of course my network isn’t as extensive and wealthy as yours is. I’m not in constant contact with CFO’s and CEO’s. So my thinking may be just thick-headed.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I want taxes lower not so much bc I think I > shouldn’t pay them as much as I think the gov’t > shouldn’t have an inflated budget to waste. If i > for one second thought that they had a reasonable > plan to pay down the deficit, make some meaningful > investments I’d be all for it- but now it seems to > me that its an downward sticky spending machine. > I’m ok with increasing revenue- but the > expenditure trend is going the wrong way!! This is an argument for lower taxes that I can support, at least in principle. The challenge is trying to figure out what parts to cut. It always seems to boil down to, “yeah, let’s cut off those guys’ retirement funds!”
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > akanska Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I want taxes lower not so much bc I think I > > shouldn’t pay them as much as I think the gov’t > > shouldn’t have an inflated budget to waste. If > i > > for one second thought that they had a > reasonable > > plan to pay down the deficit, make some > meaningful > > investments I’d be all for it- but now it seems > to > > me that its an downward sticky spending machine. > > > I’m ok with increasing revenue- but the > > expenditure trend is going the wrong way!! > > > This is an argument for lower taxes that I can > support, at least in principle. The challenge is > trying to figure out what parts to cut. It always > seems to boil down to, “yeah, let’s cut off those > guys’ retirement funds!” We spend more money on defense than all of the other countries in the world combined. The cold war is over. That’s your answer. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in January 2009 that the U.S. should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing nature of threats in the world: “What all these potential adversaries—from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers—have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance’s persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners.”