tax bill

[Mister Moose]

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

By the theme of the thread I assume you're talking income tax cuts for the wealthy, which decreased from 39.6% to 37% for those making $500k (single-filer) to $600k (joint+). Is there a particular study that demonstrates these types of cuts result in the wealthy keeping more of their capital in the US? Personally, I don't buy it.

Now if you're talking the corporate tax rate then I agree it changes the allocation of their resources. However, it does not consistently result in more jobs ... investment, yes. Expect higher dividends, more share buy backs, more returning of profits to shareholders .... one might argue these disproportionately benefit the 'wealthy'.

What do the wealthy do with their money that isn't taxed?

When does a corporation decide to build product instead of buy back shares or raise the dividend?

[Bubba]

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

By the theme of the thread I assume you're talking income tax cuts for the wealthy, which decreased from 39.6% to 37% for those making $500k (single-filer) to $600k (joint+). Is there a particular study that demonstrates these types of cuts result in the wealthy keeping more of their capital in the US? Personally, I don't buy it.

Now if you're talking the corporate tax rate then I agree it changes the allocation of their resources. However, it does not consistently result in more jobs ... investment, yes. Expect higher dividends, more share buy backs, more returning of profits to shareholders .... one might argue these disproportionately benefit the 'wealthy'.

What do the wealthy do with their money that isn't taxed?

When does a corporation decide to build product instead of buy back shares or raise the dividend?

Define wealthy? At what income level is someone wealthy? At what net worth is someone wealthy?

[madhatter]

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

By the theme of the thread I assume you're talking income tax cuts for the wealthy, which decreased from 39.6% to 37% for those making $500k (single-filer) to $600k (joint+). Is there a particular study that demonstrates these types of cuts result in the wealthy keeping more of their capital in the US? Personally, I don't buy it.

Now if you're talking the corporate tax rate then I agree it changes the allocation of their resources. However, it does not consistently result in more jobs ... investment, yes. Expect higher dividends, more share buy backs, more returning of profits to shareholders .... one might argue these disproportionately benefit the 'wealthy'.

What do the wealthy do with their money that isn't taxed?

When does a corporation decide to build product instead of buy back shares or raise the dividend?

Define wealthy? At what income level is someone wealthy? At what net worth is someone wealthy?

dafvck does net worth have to do with income?

[Mister Moose]

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

By the theme of the thread I assume you're talking income tax cuts for the wealthy, which decreased from 39.6% to 37% for those making $500k (single-filer) to $600k (joint+). Is there a particular study that demonstrates these types of cuts result in the wealthy keeping more of their capital in the US? Personally, I don't buy it.

Now if you're talking the corporate tax rate then I agree it changes the allocation of their resources. However, it does not consistently result in more jobs ... investment, yes. Expect higher dividends, more share buy backs, more returning of profits to shareholders .... one might argue these disproportionately benefit the 'wealthy'.

What do the wealthy do with their money that isn't taxed?

When does a corporation decide to build product instead of buy back shares or raise the dividend?

Define wealthy? At what income level is someone wealthy? At what net worth is someone wealthy?

For my question, you can use XJ's bracket of $500k plus in income, since they are getting the tax break in question. I would cast a wider net and include anyone with money in the bank not needed for day to day living expenses, regardless of income. If you want to actually define wealthy, it's frequently someone with more money than you. Webster says: "characterized by abundance".

[XtremeJibber2001]

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

By the theme of the thread I assume you're talking income tax cuts for the wealthy, which decreased from 39.6% to 37% for those making $500k (single-filer) to $600k (joint+). Is there a particular study that demonstrates these types of cuts result in the wealthy keeping more of their capital in the US? Personally, I don't buy it.

Now if you're talking the corporate tax rate then I agree it changes the allocation of their resources. However, it does not consistently result in more jobs ... investment, yes. Expect higher dividends, more share buy backs, more returning of profits to shareholders .... one might argue these disproportionately benefit the 'wealthy'.

What do the wealthy do with their money that isn't taxed?

When does a corporation decide to build product instead of buy back shares or raise the dividend?

Assuming by 'money' you mean 'personal income' ... it is taxed. They can lower their AGI through a variety of means, but otherwise they pay tax on their income.

When the benefits of building a product outweigh the benefits of a buy back.

dafvck does net worth have to do with income?

I'd say a lot ... I'd argue the common voter can't (or chooses not to) distinguish the difference between income and wealth.

[madhatter]

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

By the theme of the thread I assume you're talking income tax cuts for the wealthy, which decreased from 39.6% to 37% for those making $500k (single-filer) to $600k (joint+). Is there a particular study that demonstrates these types of cuts result in the wealthy keeping more of their capital in the US? Personally, I don't buy it.

Now if you're talking the corporate tax rate then I agree it changes the allocation of their resources. However, it does not consistently result in more jobs ... investment, yes. Expect higher dividends, more share buy backs, more returning of profits to shareholders .... one might argue these disproportionately benefit the 'wealthy'.

What do the wealthy do with their money that isn't taxed?

When does a corporation decide to build product instead of buy back shares or raise the dividend?

Assuming by 'money' you mean 'personal income' ... it is taxed. They can lower their AGI through a variety of means, but otherwise they pay tax on their income.

When the benefits of building a product outweigh the benefits of a buy back.

dafvck does net worth have to do with income?

I'd say a lot ... I'd argue the common voter can't (or chooses not to) distinguish the difference between income and wealth.

inability to comprehend isn't an excuse or an explanation....it's just ignorance...

[Mister Moose]

What do the wealthy do with their money that isn't taxed?

When does a corporation decide to build product instead of buy back shares or raise the dividend?

Assuming by 'money' you mean 'personal income' ... it is taxed. They can lower their AGI through a variety of means, but otherwise they pay tax on their income.

When the benefits of building a product outweigh the benefits of a buy back.

1) Sorry, let me clarify. What do the wealthy do with their after tax money, the money that is left over after they are housed and fed, the money that isn't paid in taxes?

2) Exactly. The return on building the product drives the decision. What creates the demand for the product from a US corporation?

[madhatter]

FYI 90k household income puts you in the top 10% of earners...are the top 10% wealthy?

[Bubba]

FYI 90k household income puts you in the top 10% of earners...are the top 10% wealthy?

And having a million dollar net worth is what many people think of as "wealthy", even though one can have a million dollars in property but still struggle day to day. My question had to do with simply defining terms for the discussion.

[madhatter]

FYI 90k household income puts you in the top 10% of earners...are the top 10% wealthy?

And having a million dollar net worth is what many people think of as "wealthy", even though one can have a million dollars in property but still struggle day to day. My question had to do with simply defining terms for the discussion.

which should only apply to current year income, as that's what we base taxes on...

net worth only applies to estate taxes ( for now anyway)...but seeing as how net worth can be stored outside the reaches of the US gov and can also be liquidated etc any tax on it will fail to reap anywhere near the imagined level...

[XtremeJibber2001]

1) Sorry, let me clarify. What do the wealthy do with their after tax money, the money that is left over after they are housed and fed, the money that isn't paid in taxes?

2) Exactly. The return on building the product drives the decision. What creates the demand for the product from a US corporation?

1) They invest it - whether the investments result in job creation is anyone's guess. However, that's not the point you were making as you were pointing out the 'location' of wealthy capital ... whether the rate stayed at 39.6% or 37% the location stays the same. Capital gains /dividend tax remains the same.

2) Depends on the industry, not all products reach the build stage, independent of how bad consumers want it.

[madhatter]

1) Sorry, let me clarify. What do the wealthy do with their after tax money, the money that is left over after they are housed and fed, the money that isn't paid in taxes?what is they spend that discretionary income, alex...

2) Exactly. The return on building the product drives the decision. What creates the demand for the product from a US corporation?

1) They invest it - whether the investments result in job creation is anyone's guess. However, that's not the point you were making as you were pointing out the 'location' of wealthy capital ... whether the rate stayed at 39.6% or 37% the location stays the same. Capital gains /dividend tax remains the same.

2) Depends on the industry, not all products reach the build stage, independent of how bad consumers want it.

anyone got any idea how any of this relates to actual tax policy in any meaningful or significant way??

#1INCOME tax is being reduced on every tax class, the idea is people keep more of their own money and spend as they see fit...some of that money will obviously find its way into the general economy in numerous ways including retail sales and investments where it will again be taxed in some way......

#2CORPORATE taxes are reduced to be more competitive globally and with the idea that corporations will expand and hire in the US as a result...perhaps personal income will increase as a result of this improving on #1 above

#3ESTATE tax is a tax on accumulated wealth ( net worth) and thus far is not an indicator of "wealth" as it applies to income....


thus when we are discussing what constitutes wealthy as it applies to income tax I don't see where net worth is part of the equation...

[Kpdemello]

I think it isn't very good policy to equate income and wealth. A person can have a high income for a short period of time and not be wealthy, and someone who earns in the top 10% of incomes isn't necessarily wealthy. Conversely, a person can have a great deal of wealth and very little income (i.e. you're scrooge mcduck with a bin full of money that you never invest or spend).

A wealthy person is someone who has accumulated a quantity of wealth. Accordingly, net worth is probably the single biggest indicator of whether someone is wealthy or not.

[madhatter]

I think it isn't very good policy to equate income and wealth. A person can have a high income for a short period of time and not be wealthy, and someone who earns in the top 10% of incomes isn't necessarily wealthy. Conversely, a person can have a great deal of wealth and very little income (i.e. you're scrooge mcduck with a bin full of money that you never invest or spend).

A wealthy person is someone who has accumulated a quantity of wealth. Accordingly, net worth is probably the single biggest indicator of whether someone is wealthy or not.

sooooo? how do you apply that metric to taxation?

[Kpdemello]

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.