tax bill

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:sooooo? how do you apply that metric to taxation?
A couple of different ways. One, estate taxes are a good thing. Two, you tax income progressively. Three, you make sure the top rate is not so regressive that people are reluctant or unable to earn more than a certain amount.

Progressive income tax is not supposed to be punitive for high earners. It is supposed to distribute the tax burden in a way that lessens the burden on people who earn less and increases the burden on those who earn more. The ones earning more are better able to afford the necessities and luxuries of life and still shoulder a higher burden of the taxes.

But also one needs to keep in mind that people with great wealth can have surprisingly low relative incomes. So capital gains taxes and property taxes are also necessary to ensure that tax burden is not entirely placed on wage earners.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that someone who is a high wage earner isn't necessarily wealthy. People talk about 1%ers but rarely distinguish weather they are referring to people earning the top 1% of incomes or who are the top 1% in terms of net worth. Those are not the same groups. There are a lot of policies, usually pushed by democrats, that are unnecessarily harmful to high wage earners under the assumption that high wage earners are wealthy. That is bad policy in my opinion, as true 1%ers, meaning those with the highest net worth, typically derive most of their income not from wages but in other ways (like capital gains) and many very middle class families can be swept up in the definition of high wage earners.
you've said nothing , for the hundredth time...

HOW do you apply net worth to income tax? or are you proposing a net worth tax?
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: tax bill

Post by Kpdemello »

No, not proposing a new net worth tax. Arguably an estate tax is sort of like a net worth tax... bah I'm not sure it's worth repeating myself yet again. It's all up there in my last post.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:No, not proposing a new net worth tax. Arguably an estate tax is sort of like a net worth tax... bah I'm not sure it's worth repeating myself yet again. that's problem you keep repeating the SAME thing ...It's all up there in my last post.
really whats all up there?

you said you want to use net worth, not income to decide who is "wealthy"...how do you apply that to income tax? or do you only want an estate tax? what % of the population do you imagine actually has a taxable estate? or even a positive net worth from which to extract?

you said you would rather pay out of your estate at the end of life than throughout life via income tax...in what fantasy world does that work?
you tax income progressively. Three, you make sure the top rate is not so regressive that people are reluctant or unable to earn more than a certain amount.
a rate which you have placed at 50% or greater... Meanwhile people are bitching about 36% and finding any and every way around it, but somehow you think it won;t be regressive at 50%?

you want an estate tax that takes HALF of ones life savings and accumulation, yet you don't think that's politics of envy or that people will simply make sure they aren't in possession of ANYTHING when they die...

finally you start from the position that trump is an idiot barely capable of anything and that he was handed life on a silver platter otherwise he'd be a loser, but yer not envious...you simply make a lot of emotion based assumptions that have no basis in reality...



you keep regurgitating the same unworkable points...it's like arguing with a child...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: tax bill

Post by Mister Moose »

Kpdemello wrote: Finally, it is important to keep in mind that someone who is a high wage earner isn't necessarily wealthy. People talk about 1%ers but rarely distinguish weather they are referring to people earning the top 1% of incomes or who are the top 1% in terms of net worth. Those are not the same groups. There are a lot of policies, usually pushed by democrats, that are unnecessarily harmful to high wage earners under the assumption that high wage earners are wealthy. That is bad policy in my opinion, as true 1%ers, meaning those with the highest net worth, typically derive most of their income not from wages but in other ways (like capital gains) and many very middle class families can be swept up in the definition of high wage earners.
So if I read this right, it's ok if you spend it all, but if you live well below your means, save and invest and dream, well then we're going to tax you like no tomorrow.
Image
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19563
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: tax bill

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Mister Moose wrote:
Kpdemello wrote: Finally, it is important to keep in mind that someone who is a high wage earner isn't necessarily wealthy. People talk about 1%ers but rarely distinguish weather they are referring to people earning the top 1% of incomes or who are the top 1% in terms of net worth. Those are not the same groups. There are a lot of policies, usually pushed by democrats, that are unnecessarily harmful to high wage earners under the assumption that high wage earners are wealthy. That is bad policy in my opinion, as true 1%ers, meaning those with the highest net worth, typically derive most of their income not from wages but in other ways (like capital gains) and many very middle class families can be swept up in the definition of high wage earners.
So if I read this right, it's ok if you spend it all, but if you live well below your means, save and invest and dream, well then we're going to tax you like no tomorrow.
Pretty much seems like what he's saying.
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: tax bill

Post by Kpdemello »

Mister Moose wrote:
Kpdemello wrote: Finally, it is important to keep in mind that someone who is a high wage earner isn't necessarily wealthy. People talk about 1%ers but rarely distinguish weather they are referring to people earning the top 1% of incomes or who are the top 1% in terms of net worth. Those are not the same groups. There are a lot of policies, usually pushed by democrats, that are unnecessarily harmful to high wage earners under the assumption that high wage earners are wealthy. That is bad policy in my opinion, as true 1%ers, meaning those with the highest net worth, typically derive most of their income not from wages but in other ways (like capital gains) and many very middle class families can be swept up in the definition of high wage earners.
So if I read this right, it's ok if you spend it all, but if you live well below your means, save and invest and dream, well then we're going to tax you like no tomorrow.
Not at all. I mean I'm not even sure where you got that from because I never said it. All I'm saying is that someone who has a high income but little wealth isn't necessarily wealthy. Incomes can vary quite a bit throughout a person's career, especially if you're a small business owner.

Do you think it is cool for people who earn high wages but aren't really wealthy to pay higher tax rates than people who have accumulated vast sums of wealth? Because that's kind of how it works right now. Warren Buffet has made the point that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That seems a bit unfair to me.
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: tax bill

Post by Kpdemello »

madhatter wrote:you said you want to use net worth, not income to decide who is "wealthy"...how do you apply that to income tax?
I already said it. Basically, don't set the top rates too high, because high earners aren't necessarily wealthy.
madhatter wrote: or do you only want an estate tax?
No, never said that.
madhatter wrote: what % of the population do you imagine actually has a taxable estate? or even a positive net worth from which to extract?
No idea, as I haven't done that research. Not sure why it's relevant.
madhatter wrote: you said you would rather pay out of your estate at the end of life than throughout life via income tax...in what fantasy world does that work?
I would, and I never said that's how it worked. But every dollar paid in estate tax for each budget year is a dollar less that has to come from other forms of taxation, right? Without an estate tax, we'd either have to cut the budget by the amount the estate tax brings in, or we'd have to increase other taxes to compensate. I mean it's just math. Estate taxes to me are preferable to income tax. Why is that a fantasy?

We can get into a long discussion about how people try to avoid the estate tax. There's an entire business built on it (estate planning attorneys, etc). But that's not really the subject of discussion. Yes, I agree, estate taxes aren't always very effective because people try to avoid them. So what? That means you just get rid of them? Or how about you try to figure out ways to make it more effective? (as the government already has, by imposing gift taxes, for example).

madhatter wrote:
you tax income progressively. Three, you make sure the top rate is not so regressive that people are reluctant or unable to earn more than a certain amount.
a rate which you have placed at 50% or greater... Meanwhile people are bitching about 36% and finding any and every way around it, but somehow you think it won;t be regressive at 50%?
We can argue about where the top rate should be but I don't think 50% is necessarily regressive. As I said previously, the top rate used to be around 70% when Regan was around, and that was definitely regressive. But that's not really at issue, because the top rate right now before Trump lowered it was only 39.6%. I don't think that rate was regressive at all.
madhatter wrote:you want an estate tax that takes HALF of ones life savings and accumulation, yet you don't think that's politics of envy or that people will simply make sure they aren't in possession of ANYTHING when they die...
I don't really care what you want to label it. Call it politics of envy, call it theft, it doesn't really matter to me. I'd rather see a world where bill gates dies with 50 billion and half that money goes to finance the government, and his relatives can get half, than a world where his relatives get to keep the whole thing and we have to try to pay for government a different way. By the way, the current federal estate tax is 40%, so 50% really isn't that far off.

Remember, we're not talking about an estate tax applicable to people who have middle class estates. The federal estate tax excludes like the first $11 million of a person's estate. But I've already discussed at length how I feel about the estate tax and why. I'm not sure why you feel the need to regurgitate.
madhatter wrote:finally you start from the position that trump is an idiot barely capable of anything and that he was handed life on a silver platter otherwise he'd be a loser, but yer not envious...you simply make a lot of emotion based assumptions that have no basis in reality...
I think you're overstating my point, but again, questioning trump's qualifications for holding public office has nothing to do with envy. It has to do with whether I think he is qualified to hold office. I happen to think he's not qualified. But I don't see what is emotional about it.
madhatter wrote:you keep regurgitating the same unworkable points...it's like arguing with a child...
Yeah. What's that like. :roll:
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
Kpdemello wrote: Finally, it is important to keep in mind that someone who is a high wage earner isn't necessarily wealthy. People talk about 1%ers but rarely distinguish weather they are referring to people earning the top 1% of incomes or who are the top 1% in terms of net worth. Those are not the same groups. There are a lot of policies, usually pushed by democrats, that are unnecessarily harmful to high wage earners under the assumption that high wage earners are wealthy. That is bad policy in my opinion, as true 1%ers, meaning those with the highest net worth, typically derive most of their income not from wages but in other ways (like capital gains) and many very middle class families can be swept up in the definition of high wage earners.
So if I read this right, it's ok if you spend it all, but if you live well below your means, save and invest and dream, well then we're going to tax you like no tomorrow.
Not at all. I mean I'm not even sure where you got that from because I never said it. All I'm saying is that someone who has a high income but little wealth isn't necessarily wealthy. Incomes can vary quite a bit throughout a person's career, especially if you're a small business owner.

Do you think it is cool for people who earn high wages but aren't really wealthy to pay higher tax rates than people who have accumulated vast sums of wealth? Because that's kind of how it works right now. Warren Buffet has made the point that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That seems a bit unfair to me.
you have a complete disconnect from reality....your tax "ideas" are simplistic, unworkable and quite frankly , laughable...I'm not sure you even understand what it is you are saying, but it's certainly not coming across as you imagine...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:you said you want to use net worth, not income to decide who is "wealthy"...how do you apply that to income tax?
I already said it. Basically, don't set the top rates too high, because high earners aren't necessarily wealthy.
madhatter wrote: or do you only want an estate tax?
No, never said that.
madhatter wrote: what % of the population do you imagine actually has a taxable estate? or even a positive net worth from which to extract?
No idea, as I haven't done that research. Not sure why it's relevant.how you going to finance the govt on an undetermined number of dollars from an undetermined tax base? you just have a fantasy idea w nothign to substantiate it...
madhatter wrote: you said you would rather pay out of your estate at the end of life than throughout life via income tax...in what fantasy world does that work?
I would, and I never said that's how it worked. But every dollar paid in estate tax for each budget year is a dollar less that has to come from other forms of taxation, right? Without an estate tax, we'd either have to cut the budget by the amount the estate tax brings in, or we'd have to increase other taxes to compensate. I mean it's just math. Estate taxes to me are preferable to income tax. cuz you don;t have an estate worth taxing but income tax comes out of every check... got it...Why is that a fantasy?

We can get into a long discussion about how people try to avoid the estate tax. There's an entire business built on it (estate planning attorneys, etc). But that's not really the subject of discussion. Yes, I agree, estate taxes aren't always very effective because people try to avoid them. So what? That means you just get rid of them? Or how about you try to figure out ways to make it more effective? (as the government already has, by imposing gift taxes, for example).

madhatter wrote:
you tax income progressively. Three, you make sure the top rate is not so regressive that people are reluctant or unable to earn more than a certain amount.
a rate which you have placed at 50% or greater... Meanwhile people are bitching about 36% and finding any and every way around it, but somehow you think it won;t be regressive at 50%?
We can argue about where the top rate should be but I don't think 50% is necessarily regressive. not to you, you aren;t paying it but it most certainly is to those who are subject to it...how do you not get that?As I said previously, the top rate used to be around 70% when Regan was around, and that was definitely regressive. But that's not really at issue, because the top rate right now before Trump lowered it was only 39.6%. I don't think that rate was regressive at all.the peopel paying it thought so..."rules for thee but not for me" in play again...
madhatter wrote:you want an estate tax that takes HALF of ones life savings and accumulation, yet you don't think that's politics of envy or that people will simply make sure they aren't in possession of ANYTHING when they die...
I don't really care what you want to label it. Call it politics of envy, call it theft, it doesn't really matter to me. I'd rather see a world where bill gates dies with 50 billion and half that money goes to finance the government, and his relatives can get half, than a world where his relatives get to keep the whole thing and we have to try to pay for government a different way. By the way, the current federal estate tax is 40%, so 50% really isn't that far off.

Remember, we're not talking about an estate tax applicable to people who have middle class estates. The federal estate tax excludes like the first $11 million of a person's estate. But I've already discussed at length how I feel about the estate tax and why. I'm not sure why you feel the need to regurgitate.

more politics of envy rules for thee but not for me...
madhatter wrote:finally you start from the position that trump is an idiot barely capable of anything and that he was handed life on a silver platter otherwise he'd be a loser, but yer not envious...you simply make a lot of emotion based assumptions that have no basis in reality...
I think you're overstating my point, but again, questioning trump's qualifications for holding public office has nothing to do with envy. It has to do with whether I think he is qualified to hold office. I happen to think he's not qualified. But I don't see what is emotional about it.its pure emotion you have absolutely nothing to back that up except for your own conjecture...
madhatter wrote:you keep regurgitating the same unworkable points...it's like arguing with a child...
Yeah. What's that like. :roll:
this has become painfully tedious...

mh--out...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: tax bill

Post by Kpdemello »

MH the way you type in quotes using different colors is really annoying and makes it hard to respond.

The long and the short of it is, I pretty much disagree with everything you put in red, and I'll leave it at that.
MH wrote:you have a complete disconnect from reality....your tax "ideas" are simplistic, unworkable and quite frankly , laughable...I'm not sure you even understand what it is you are saying, but it's certainly not coming across as you imagine...
Most of what I have been talking about is currently in implementation in our tax code and in other countries around the world. We currently have an estate tax, a graduated income tax, etc. So... not sure what you're talking about.
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19563
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: tax bill

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Kpdemello wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
Kpdemello wrote: Finally, it is important to keep in mind that someone who is a high wage earner isn't necessarily wealthy. People talk about 1%ers but rarely distinguish weather they are referring to people earning the top 1% of incomes or who are the top 1% in terms of net worth. Those are not the same groups. There are a lot of policies, usually pushed by democrats, that are unnecessarily harmful to high wage earners under the assumption that high wage earners are wealthy. That is bad policy in my opinion, as true 1%ers, meaning those with the highest net worth, typically derive most of their income not from wages but in other ways (like capital gains) and many very middle class families can be swept up in the definition of high wage earners.
So if I read this right, it's ok if you spend it all, but if you live well below your means, save and invest and dream, well then we're going to tax you like no tomorrow.
Not at all. I mean I'm not even sure where you got that from because I never said it. All I'm saying is that someone who has a high income but little wealth isn't necessarily wealthy. Incomes can vary quite a bit throughout a person's career, especially if you're a small business owner.

Do you think it is cool for people who earn high wages but aren't really wealthy to pay higher tax rates than people who have accumulated vast sums of wealth? Because that's kind of how it works right now. Warren Buffet has made the point that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That seems a bit unfair to me.
So it's 'not cool' to tax people who make a higher income but squander it, but it's 'cool' to tax folks that live within their means and build wealth over their lifetime?
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: tax bill

Post by Kpdemello »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:So it's 'not cool' to tax people who make a higher income but squander it, but it's 'cool' to tax folks that live within their means and build wealth over their lifetime?
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Who said anything about squandering money? Who said anything about imposing additional taxes on people who live within their means?

All I said, and it's pretty straight forward, is high income does not necessarily mean wealthy. How is that hard to understand? I know folks who graduated from law school $250k in debt, then got jobs right out of law school making upwards of $150k. These people had negative net worth. They were NOT wealthy, but they had high income.

That was pretty much all I said. All the other BS you're adding is based on pure assumption on your part. I mean I'm basically arguing here that high earners shouldn't be taxed too much. I thought that was right in line with your thinking.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:So it's 'not cool' to tax people who make a higher income but squander it, but it's 'cool' to tax folks that live within their means and build wealth over their lifetime?
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Who said anything about squandering money? Who said anything about imposing additional taxes on people who live within their means?

All I said, and it's pretty straight forward, is high income does not necessarily mean wealthy. How is that hard to understand? I know folks who graduated from law school $250k in debt, then got jobs right out of law school making upwards of $150k. These people had negative net worth. They were NOT wealthy, but they had high income.

That was pretty much all I said. All the other BS you're adding is based on pure assumption on your part. I mean I'm basically arguing here that high earners shouldn't be taxed too much. I thought that was right in line with your thinking.
Image
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: tax bill

Post by Kpdemello »

As always, MH, a well thought-out response.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:As always, MH, a well thought-out response.
congratulations, your first coherent post...
:Toast
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Post Reply