I like what you’ve said there chadwick and I fully agree. Higher corporate taxes and higher taxes on lucrative small business will create a more competitive environment in the long-run. It will allow for less barriers to entry as there isn’t as much money blocking them out. And also, a major reason why I like these taxes is that rich freeloaders are a much sicker disease than poor freeloaders. Being rich and doing nothing with your time and/or money made by someone else in your family is a disgrace compared to someone coming from a background of slavery who has a hard time finding the motivation to fight through the 10000x more adversity than the well-off individual. Opportunity is not equal when some are born with 99% of the world’s wealth. You have to remember, slavery created money for those who took advantage of it, same with serfdom in the the middle ages and all other forms of slavery and persecution before that. Not all money is made from hard work, but I believe that every individual must work for their income, not make it off of daddy’s wealth and be taxed less than the guy who your family took advantage of for centuries. This isn’t just a tax issue, its a form of reparations, not just for colour, but for a class that is given little chance. And us talking on this forum, likely middle class, get the benefit of that and if we’re smart, will use it to make more.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will be harder for > marginally profitable businesses to expand rapidly > with a higher tax cut, but there is at least a > quarter million dollar profit cushion where taxes > are higher than they are now. If a business is > truly marginally profitable, it will likely fall > in this neutral area. Got my logic shifted around… this should have said: It will be harder for marginally profitable businesses to expand rapidly with a higher tax RATE, but there is at least a quarter million dollar profit cushion where taxes are NO higher than they are now. If a business is truly marginally profitable, it will likely fall in this neutral area.
Can you name a country who were able to tax their way to prosperity? If someone has money and chooses to “sit on it”, why is it your right to judge them? Why is a class not given a chance? I went to school, did what I had to do, and now make more than my father did. It’s about the American dream. There is equal opportunity, you want equal outcome. MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like what you’ve said there chadwick and I fully > agree. > > Higher corporate taxes and higher taxes on > lucrative small business will create a more > competitive environment in the long-run. It will > allow for less barriers to entry as there isn’t as > much money blocking them out. > > And also, a major reason why I like these taxes is > that rich freeloaders are a much sicker disease > than poor freeloaders. Being rich and doing > nothing with your time and/or money made by > someone else in your family is a disgrace compared > to someone coming from a background of slavery who > has a hard time finding the motivation to fight > through the 10000x more adversity than the > well-off individual. > > Opportunity is not equal when some are born with > 99% of the world’s wealth. You have to remember, > slavery created money for those who took advantage > of it, same with serfdom in the the middle ages > and all other forms of slavery and persecution > before that. Not all money is made from hard work, > but I believe that every individual must work for > their income, not make it off of daddy’s wealth > and be taxed less than the guy who your family > took advantage of for centuries. > > This isn’t just a tax issue, its a form of > reparations, not just for colour, but for a class > that is given little chance. And us talking on > this forum, likely middle class, get the benefit > of that and if we’re smart, will use it to make > more.
Can someone give me a good reason why higher taxes mean fewer jobs? It seems to me like the rewards for letting go of an employee are better in a low tax scenario. Consider… 20% TAX - I fire Bob and get to keep his $100,000 salary. It goes to my personal profits at a tax rate of 20%, meaning I make $80K extra. 50% TAX - I fire Bob and get to keep his $100,000 salary. It goes to my personal profits at a tax rate of 50%, meaning I get $50K extra. I’ve left out whatever income I lost by giving up Bob’s productivity, but it seems like that is constant across both scenarios. What’s wrong with my logic here? It seems more tempting to fire Bob at the 20% tax rate.
dlpicket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I’ve left out whatever income I lost by giving up > Bob’s productivity, here is your problem. say bob’s 100,000 salary produces 200,000 in revenue so EBT is 100,000 20% tax rate: NI = 80,000 50% tax rate = 50,000 that’s $30,000 less you have to invest in your business.
^ business investments are tax deductable. Un-reinvested profits are taxed.
KrukVT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dlpicket Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > I’ve left out whatever income I lost by giving > up > > Bob’s productivity, > > here is your problem. say bob’s 100,000 salary > produces 200,000 in revenue so EBT is 100,000 > > 20% tax rate: NI = 80,000 > 50% tax rate = 50,000 > > that’s $30,000 less you have to invest in your > business. And to make it easy, lets say Bob is a Consultant or Lawyer. Can you really bill all those hours that Bob was billing on top of your hours? And how motivated are you going to be to work all those hours when the gov’t is taking 50%?
Don’t lower taxes also mean that our economy can crank up to high gear faster, enabling companies to get back up to speed and start to hire people again?
Its not equal outcome I want, its opportunity to grow. Cost is ‘free’ for someone who has the money to pay off their education while they take it. Funding an education after the fact is like having a mortgage before you own any assets. Especially if you wished to head into acedemia in any way. It severely limits your cash flows and your ability to pay down that mortgage. It limits your ability to own other assets, period. Unearned money should never make more than earned money, period, especially when that earned money is just enough to get by. If the first 200K is untaxed, that IS equal to ALL because everyone who makes more than that is free of that tax as well.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^ business investments are tax deductable. > Un-reinvested profits are taxed. Precisely. Given the choice to reinvest (hire people, buy PP&E) or hoard profits, I want to reinvest if taxes are high, but hoard if taxes are low. projectplatnyc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Don’t lower taxes also mean that our economy can crank up to high gear faster, enabling >companies to get back up to speed and start to hire people again? I’ve heard this all my life. I’m just trying to get someone to give me a dumbed-down example of why its true. Given my admittedly simplistic example, it seems like the economy gets a bigger kick from high taxes than low.
Business reinvestments are tax-deductible but you still have to be profitable at some points in time or else why be in business, and when you are profitable, your distributable income is much lower as taxes are higher. As this is the case, 3rd party investment comes down as it is less lucrative. With less investment in equity, and lower profits in general due to higher tax, business growth and production decreases, causing layoffs if compared to a time of lower taxes. ie. public sector gets bigger, private gets smaller. if public sector can redistribute properly to make the private sector more efficient, then the story is different and higher taxes could possibly mean lower unemployment.
Personally I get really upset at a lot of this talk. Although I recognize that the ‘system’ is in danger and haven’t really decided on which side I stand when it comes to all of the recent intervention, I cringe because I am the one who will benefit the least. My husband and I were the opposite of the ‘typical’ American. We both make solid incomes but still felt uncomfortable about buying a 800k home in SoCal on a barely six figure income- moreover we decided that the area was just too much, so we moved to Texas to grow a capital base for our future in a lower cost of living area. So now we have saved a decent amount of cash and assumed that soon housing prices would readjust to more affordable rates, allowing us to move back closer to our families- but no, rather it appears that quite possibly the gov’t will prefer to prop up prices and arguably create plenty of inflation in the process- diminishing the value of what we have been able to save. Double whammy for us- the ‘responsible ones’. This is obviously a somewhat naive and personally biased response, but the principal of readjusting ppl’s mortgage’s principal amounts so they can keep the homes they never should have bought seems wrong to me.
drs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So when he’s elected - the current policy will > stay the same until when? What is the definition > of “not in a recession” to him? I would assume that he will wait for the economy to stabilize, so perhaps a couple of quarters of positive GDP, before he attempts to enact his tax reforms. This is just speculation on my part, of course. My point is that Obama has enough sense to wait to do this until it won’t be another kick in the teeth for an economy that doesn’t need it.
akanaska: I think most of the people on this forum are the ones paying for the mess.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I get really upset at a lot of this > talk. Although I recognize that the ‘system’ is > in danger and haven’t really decided on which side > I stand when it comes to all of the recent > intervention, I cringe because I am the one who > will benefit the least. My husband and I were the > opposite of the ‘typical’ American. We both make > solid incomes but still felt uncomfortable about > buying a 800k home in SoCal on a barely six figure > income- moreover we decided that the area was just > too much, so we moved to Texas to grow a capital > base for our future in a lower cost of living > area. So now we have saved a decent amount of cash > and assumed that soon housing prices would > readjust to more affordable rates, allowing us to > move back closer to our families- but no, rather > it appears that quite possibly the gov’t will > prefer to prop up prices and arguably create > plenty of inflation in the process- diminishing > the value of what we have been able to save. > Double whammy for us- the ‘responsible ones’. > This is obviously a somewhat naive and personally > biased response, but the principal of readjusting > ppl’s mortgage’s principal amounts so they can > keep the homes they never should have bought seems > wrong to me. couldn’t agree more actually. Government has no business buying houses so people can stay in them. It’s thing to take toxic debt off a bank’s balance sheet so that the entire system doesn’t gum up, but this a much worse thing as it involves rewarding bad decisions by taxing good ones…
I agree. Japan’s housing market is down 50% from where it used to be yet the U.S’s is only down 20%. Who’s to say it isn’t supposed to fall another 30% before things are affordable, or who’s to say that that 20% shouldn’t be maintained. Don’t back mortgages, give people money through lower taxes so they can go rent an apartment and begin to rebuild.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I get really upset at a lot of this > talk. Although I recognize that the ‘system’ is > in danger and haven’t really decided on which side > I stand when it comes to all of the recent > intervention, I cringe because I am the one who > will benefit the least. My husband and I were the > opposite of the ‘typical’ American. We both make > solid incomes but still felt uncomfortable about > buying a 800k home in SoCal on a barely six figure > income- moreover we decided that the area was just > too much, so we moved to Texas to grow a capital > base for our future in a lower cost of living > area. So now we have saved a decent amount of cash > and assumed that soon housing prices would > readjust to more affordable rates, allowing us to > move back closer to our families- but no, rather > it appears that quite possibly the gov’t will > prefer to prop up prices and arguably create > plenty of inflation in the process- diminishing > the value of what we have been able to save. > Double whammy for us- the ‘responsible ones’. > This is obviously a somewhat naive and personally > biased response, but the principal of readjusting > ppl’s mortgage’s principal amounts so they can > keep the homes they never should have bought seems > wrong to me. Agree 100%. reminds of this quote by none other than greenspan: The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
‘The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.’ The issue is what our definiton of protection is… lucractive growth, or preservation of capital.
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ‘The financial policy of the welfare state > requires that there be no way for the owners of > wealth to protect themselves.’ > > > > The issue is what our definiton of protection > is… lucractive growth, or preservation of > capital. Legal lucrative growth and capital preservation are both required for a progressive society. I dont know who told me this but someone once said that if everyone in the world became true Christians in the spirit of how Jesus wanted people to be, that the world wouldnt last a month. This applies to any system religious or oterwise which emphasizes on subsidizing and earmarking.
What the heck is this thread about? There is more BS on this thread than I can shake a stick at.