It is 1:05am. I am mad at the US government I committed $1050 today to pay for an LLC to pay for my rent expenses. Should I go after them too? I am not afraid of auditors and I actually need help. - - - - This is a quote from article 2 of my NYT editorial. Currently the editorial is spanning 2 Sundays.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, it’s a strawman to point to World War II as > an example of productivity with high taxes. What > about the roaring 20s compared to the punitive tax > policy of the 1930s that resulted in nothing but a > lost decade of stagnation? Look, you are picking at details we understand, and ignoring the bigger picture (and other parts which conveniently suit you). I’m just saying that this increase of less than 5% for the top rate is in no way the end of the world, or even a huge deal. I just can’t see how when for over 30 years the top rates were 70%-91%, the country did fine, and now that we dare go back to 39.6% that everybody is going to leave the country for some magical destination.
“Ok, then add self-employment taxes and you are at 43.5%. Raise the tax rate in 2011 to 39.6% and all of a sudden, my income tax bill is around 47%,” It would have been easier to say you are over-inflating the tax rate you pay. While you add in some other taxes, and “future” taxes, you claimed that you were paying 50% in taxes in 2010, which is just false. You also clearly ignore all the thousands of deductions available, which will knock off several (possibly double digits) percentage points (you can knock off 25k in income just in the personal, standard and 401k deductions alone).
Cmon guys! You know what happened to the economy the last time the marginal rate was 39.6%!!! 1993-2001 and the country went to hell with all this money people were making and people not fleeing the country in droves! You dont want that again do you? I know plenty of people who will move their families and leave their homes to move to another country without the infrastructure and rule of law so that they can save a few thousand bucks! They might even be able to keep that job of theirs that is being taxed so much and work from home.
^lol!
NOVADCA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “Ok, then add self-employment taxes and you are at > 43.5%. Raise the tax rate in 2011 to 39.6% and all > of a sudden, my income tax bill is around 47%,” > > It would have been easier to say you are > over-inflating the tax rate you pay. While you > add in some other taxes, and “future” taxes, you > claimed that you were paying 50% in taxes in 2010, > which is just false. You also clearly ignore all > the thousands of deductions available, which will > knock off several (possibly double digits) > percentage points (you can knock off 25k in income > just in the personal, standard and 401k deductions > alone). What deductions? What 401k deductions??? I’m SELF-EMPLOYED!!! I don’t have a 401k. My standard deduction will bring my taxable gross to 215k. And they are talking about RIGHT NOW making the tax increases RETROACTIVE to 2010–the only thing that is stopping them is the questionable constitutionality of it. I just PROVED to you that my rate in at LEAST 2011 (and maybe 2010) will be 47% not counting the property taxes on my lots and your response is, well, you’re inflating your taxes. You’re full of crap–I just proved it to you! It’s 47% BEFORE adding self-employment taxes I pay out of pocket for my employees and property taxes! By the way, it would have been easier for me to say I will be paying about half of my income in taxes to the gov’t rather than saying 50%. So I will give you that point, but the point remains that I WILL be paying more than half of what I earn to the gov’t.
swe30 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, it’s a strawman to point to World War II > as > > an example of productivity with high taxes. > What > > about the roaring 20s compared to the punitive > tax > > policy of the 1930s that resulted in nothing but > a > > lost decade of stagnation? > > Look, you are picking at details we understand, > and ignoring the bigger picture (and other parts > which conveniently suit you). I’m just saying that > this increase of less than 5% for the top rate is > in no way the end of the world, or even a huge > deal. I just can’t see how when for over 30 years > the top rates were 70%-91%, the country did fine, > and now that we dare go back to 39.6% that > everybody is going to leave the country for some > magical destination. I’m not saying it’s the end of the world–I was just pointing out to you how damaging taxes are to small business owners, and this is just another onerous tax increase that directly takes away productive capacity to the economy. Also, the top tax rates in the past used to be on exorbidantly high incomes. Look at this historical chart–the top marginal rate was on $400,000 in 1963. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Virtually no one earned $400,000 in 1963. Now, many people are impacted, particularly small businesses, by the highest marginal rate. As you can see, your argument is a strawman prima facia. Tax year, %, taxable over 1913 7 500,000 1914 7 500,000 1915 7 500,000 1916 15 2,000,000 1917 67 2,000,000 1918 77 1,000,000 1919 73 1,000,000 1920 73 1,000,000 1921 73 1,000,000 1922 58 200,000 1923 43.5 200,000 1924 46 500,000 1925 25 100,000 1926 25 100,000 1927 25 100,000 1928 25 100,000 1929 24 100,000 1930 25 100,000 1931 25 100,000 1932 63 1,000,000 1933 63 1,000,000 1934 63 1,000,000 1935 63 1,000,000 1936 79 5,000,000 1937 79 5,000,000 1938 79 5,000,000 1939 79 5,000,000 1940 81.1 5,000,000 1941 81 5,000,000 1942 88 200,000 1943 88 200,000 1944 94 200,000 1945 94 200,000 1946 86.45 200,000 1947 86.45 200,000 1948 82.13 400,000 1949 82.13 400,000 1950 84.36 400,000 1951 91 400,000 1952 92 400,000 1953 92 400,000 1954 91 400,000 1955 91 400,000 1956 91 400,000 1957 91 400,000 1958 91 400,000 1959 91 400,000 1960 91 400,000 1961 91 400,000 1962 91 400,000 1963 91 400,000 1964 77 400,000 1965 70 200,000 1966 70 200,000 1967 70 200,000 1968 75.25 200,000 1969 77 200,000 1970 71.75 200,000 1971 70 60 200,000 1972 70 50 200,000 1973 70 50 200,000 1974 70 50 200,000 1975 70 50 200,000 1976 70 50 200,000 1977 70 50 203,200 1978 70 50 203,200 1979 70 50 215,400 1980 70 50 215,400 1981 69.125 50 215,400 1982 50 85,600 1983 50 109,400 1984 50 162,400 1985 50 169,020 1986 50 175,250 1987 38.5 90,000 1988 28 <8> 29,750 <8> 1989 28 <8> 30,950 <8> 1990 28 <8> 32,450 <8> 1991 31 82,150 1992 31 86,500 1993 39.6 89,150 1994 39.6 250,000 1995 39.6 256,500 1996 39.6 263,750 1997 39.6 271,050 1998 39.6 278,450 1999 39.6 283,150 2000 39.6 288,350 2001 39.1 297,350 2002 38.6 307,050 2003 35 311,950
Yeah, you’ve got a point. I was aware in general the top rates didn’t start until a much higher income. At about 1964 it does start decrease quite a bit, though. (Wasn’t actually a strawman, just misrepresentation by omission…). While I don’t consider the increase to be onerous from 250k to say 500k, but I do believe there should definitely be even higher tax rates on very high incomes in the millions. e.g Hedge fund managers (top 25 averaged >3bil) DO NOT add billions worth of value to the economy, and it would not substantially reduce their incentive to work when you are still making tens of thousands an hour of work.