tax bill

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: tax bill

Post by Kpdemello »

The coherency of my posts increases in direct proportion to the level of the reader's intelligence.
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19563
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: tax bill

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

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.
Then how do you 'tax' the 'wealthy'. If someone goes to state school, parents pay their way, the kid goes on to be an engineer, makes $100k / year, saves 40%, he/she is going to have a few million saved (if invested properly) by the time he/she is 50. Does this person get taxed now because they're wealthy? Or maybe they get their estate tax when they pass it on to their children? I'm not sure what you mean by taxing the wealthy ... wealthy, for the majority of the population, is primarily a result of purposeful saving (not a windfall).
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:The coherency of my posts increases in direct proportion to the level of the reader's intelligence.
which I guess is why they make sense to you but no one else...

you give an example of someone who has amassed 250k in debt but makes 150k/yr and call them not wealthy, i.e. should be taxed much....take the same income for person B who has no debt, they are wealthy and s/b taxed more...then you say you never said that those who squandered their money should not have to be taxed nor are you imposing a tax on those who live within their means and save?


again you seem to have no idea what you are saying...
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 »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Then how do you 'tax' the 'wealthy'. If someone goes to state school, parents pay their way, the kid goes on to be an engineer, makes $100k / year, saves 40%, he/she is going to have a few million saved (if invested properly) by the time he/she is 50. Does this person get taxed now because they're wealthy? Or maybe they get their estate tax when they pass it on to their children? I'm not sure what you mean by taxing the wealthy ... wealthy, for the majority of the population, is primarily a result of purposeful saving (not a windfall).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that I ever said we should "tax the wealthy" ?
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: tax bill

Post by Kpdemello »

madhatter wrote:you give an example of someone who has amassed 250k in debt but makes 150k/yr and call them not wealthy, i.e. should be taxed much....take the same income for person B who has no debt, they are wealthy and s/b taxed more...then you say you never said that those who squandered their money should not have to be taxed nor are you imposing a tax on those who live within their means and save?
Is this English? Who is this person B you speak of? What is s/b? I am very confused.

I think what you're trying to say, maybe, is that if a guy making $150k has no debt, that person would be wealthy? Because that is also not correct. Someone with a net worth of $0 but who earns $150k a year is not wealthy. They might become wealthy through savings and investment and a long period of time, true. But they could also get hit by a bus and become disabled after one year of earning that money and never accumulate any wealth at all.

Not sure where the squandering thing comes in. I mean, maybe you think someone who invested $250k into law school so they could become a lawyer is squandering money, but if it leads them to a career that lets them earn $150k+ per year for a long time, then I'd say that's a sound investment.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Then how do you 'tax' the 'wealthy'. If someone goes to state school, parents pay their way, the kid goes on to be an engineer, makes $100k / year, saves 40%, he/she is going to have a few million saved (if invested properly) by the time he/she is 50. Does this person get taxed now because they're wealthy? Or maybe they get their estate tax when they pass it on to their children? I'm not sure what you mean by taxing the wealthy ... wealthy, for the majority of the population, is primarily a result of purposeful saving (not a windfall).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that I ever said we should "tax the wealthy" ?
Image
Kpdemello wrote: You keep assuming that when I'm talking about taxing rich people I'm talking about taxing YOU. Do you have $100 million lying around that I don't know about? Are you even worth $5 mil? I can understand your belief that any politician who talks about taxing the rich really ends up taxing the upper middle class. That's probably because that's what Democrats do, but Democrats, like Republicans, are largely servants of the billionaire class that funds their campaigns.
Kpdemello wrote:
Dickc wrote:My personal view is that there should be no inheritance taxes as everything you have after death as assets has already been taxed and that should be enough.
Ah, you are clearly a member of the middle class. Do you know how I know? Because if you were in the wealthy class, you would know that wealthy people have lots and lots of assets that are *never* subject to taxation during a person's life.

Take for example Bob the Billionaire, who started Company A. Company A was worth nothing when he started it, but eventually it grew, went public, and became worth $5.2 billion. Bob owns Company A via the common stock that he issued to himself when he started the company. He never sold any of it, and at his death his stock was valued at $3.2 billion. That company stock does not include any of the dividends or income paid to Bob from Company A during his life. When Bob dies, he leaves all his common stock in Company A to his hot 23 year old wife Melinda. That $3.2 billion in common stock that Melinda inherited will be subject to taxation for the very first time via the estate tax at Bob's death.

That's just one example but there are plenty of others. Wealthy people typically don't pay taxes the same way the rest of us do. The estate tax is one way to tax the super wealthy without burdening the middle class, so long as you set the estate tax threshold the way the federal government does it (federal estate tax only applies to estates larger than $5 million in assets).

P.S. I believe you have misconstrued the 4th amendment but that's another discussion for another day.
Kpdemello wrote:
Clearly you don't hear every word because I never said I wanted the state to do what I consider best for everyone, nor have I said anything about what I want the state to do with the money it gets from taxation. I am actually a big believer in (somewhat) limited government that is as lean as possible while still delivering essential services (like public schools, police, fire, regulation, etc). But even those essential services cost money, right? How do you get it? Is there any other way besides levying taxes?

Again, all I have talked about on this thread is what the tax code should be. You seem to think that anybody who wants to change the tax code to increase taxes on wealthy individuals is a Marxist. That's not actually the case.
Kpdemello wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Kpdemello wrote:My question goes to why the laws are written that way. In other words, why should the government enforce some instructions left by a dead guy regarding who gets the property he owned while he was alive? And I'm not just talking about estate taxes here - if a guy decides to stiff his wife and kids and leave all his property to the Kzone folks after he dies, why should that be allowed? (in some states that in fact is not allowed).
Because, like most our laws, they came from the British? Maybe your question is why did the British write their laws in such a fashion, but something tells me you know the answer. Are you proposing possessions after death should be the property of the Gov't?
No. I'm trying to get at the philosophical underpinnings, the rationale, of the law. Why is it a good thing? Or is it a good thing? And yes, I do know where inheritance law came from - inheritance was a creature of feudal law. It was designed to allow lords to pass on their possessions to the eldest son to maintain the nobility. So in reality it is a very un-American idea.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think estate taxes are some inherent evil thing. And I don't think anyone has some kind of natural right to decide what happens to their possessions when they die. Further, I don't think anyone should have some inherent right to lay claim to the stuff that a relative worked for, accumulated, and saved just because they happen to be a relative.

I also don't believe that people's possessions should become the property of the government at death. But obviously we as a society have to decide how those possessions get distributed. It's a good thing to allow people to pass on some stuff, particularly heirlooms and things that have sentimental value, maybe real estate, and some amount of money. But estate taxes are a part of it, too, and practically speaking they are a good way to fund the government. They can also be a way to help mitigate the development of rich, powerful, dynastic families that could become, in effect, today's feudal nobility. (I don't know about you, but I don't want to bow down to a Lord Trump or Lord Clinton any time soon).

So estate taxes are not about entitlement, or interfering with someone's natural property rights, or anything like that. They're just a tool that can be used for good (or ill) in society. I've argued that they should be structured in a certain way (high, but only imposed on the very wealthy) and there's nothing at all controversial about that if you accept my premise above.
Kpdemello wrote:
Mister Moose wrote: What about the father passing on a car dealership, or a medium size farm, or a tool and die company, or a ski hill the size of say, Smuggs? You want to force a sale and throw it out of the family after it was built by the family over the last 50 years? Why are you focusing on Trump's kids instead of them?
That's kind of a red herring. Those passing on businesses have lots of options for avoiding federal estate taxes, like key man life insurance or structured buyouts or the like. All it takes is a little succession planning to avoid it. The only people who pay Federal estate taxes are people with more wealth than middle class families will ever have (and even then there are lots of ways to minimize the impact). People like you and me pass most of our assets on in ways that completely bypass the estate, like 401ks, real estate trusts, and that sort of thing.

The real estate tax takers are the states. In Massachusetts, for example, a lot of upper middle class folks end up paying some estate tax.

But like I said before, you wouldn't like my position on estate taxes. I think they should be high, though I think they should only be imposed on the very wealthy (like $10 mil plus estates). I don't think having multimillionaire and billionaire legacy families is productive to our economy or our society. It does not encourage innovation, hard work, or productivity to allow large amounts of wealth to be transferred to the next generation. Still, I'm not saying we should outlaw estates or anything like that, but I do think the government should take a nice hunk of a large estate when the rich old farts die. Use that money to allow productive members of society who pay a lot in taxes to pay a little less.
Kpdemello wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:Why should anyone pay an estate tax?
Why should anyone be allowed to pass on their possessions to their kids after they die? I mean, why is that inherently a good thing? I realize it's what everyone is used to, and because you're used to it, it seems "right" and "just." But is it really something that is productive for society?
Mister Moose wrote:You seem to think the government somehow has rights to your savings after your death, and the larger they are, the more rights the government has. I have trouble with that. I'm not against estate taxes, but your approach is born from something other than a fair share. It has to do with eliminating "princes". And don't forget that state estate taxes essentially double the federal.
It's not about what the government has a right to. It's about what kind of society you want to live in and how you want to pay for the system of government that we all need to survive. I would rather have a wealthy dude with $10 mil in the bank have to give $5 mil of it to the government when he dies instead of having actual working productive citizens having to pay for that $5 mil worth of taxes.
Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:ya sure did, you claimed you and many others funded the system that made gates wealthy...and now he woes that system...
Well, you said earlier that I claimed to fund him... I never said that. I said that myself and many other funded the system that *allowed* him to create wealth. That's a fact, isn't it? No where did I claim that the system *made* him wealthy. Huge difference, there.

Also I never said that he owed the system. I just think he should bear a greater share of the costs of maintaining it now that he is wealthy. Why is that wrong?
madhatter wrote:you most likely don't even cover your own govt services let alone contribute to someone elses,

You base this conclusion on what data?well lets see it cost about 12-18k per yr to send a kid to school...anyone in the middle class is not covering that bill alone with their tax contributions...unless you are in the upper echelon you are a net recipient not a payor...
I have no children. Next argument.
madhatter wrote:yep you demand that the rich pay more to cover what you deem necessary...so yes you are making a demand via your elected official...
So again, you think the government has no right to levy taxes? What are you saying here? Again, I'm talking about the tax code, and what the tax code should be. As a citizen and a voter, I have every right to provide input into the tax code, as do you, as does Bill Gates.

We have already established that you agree that the wealthy should pay more, as they would even under a flat tax. The only question is precisely how much more they should pay. There is really not an extreme difference between our positions.
Kpdemello wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:That the sweat on my brow goes mostly to feed my family, with less than a third (to pick a number) going to pay for the government. That if I stay up late at night and invent the next heart valve I get to ski powder at Vail, and not feel guilty about it. That if I invent the next best miracle after the heart valve, you don't take my profit away because I have enough money and don't "deserve" it. Because I want that guy to be motivated to invent it.
Great example. How about the trust fund kid that inherited $250 million from his parents? At what point does a higher tax bracket discourage that kind of motivation? That, by the way, is what the Laffer curve addresses - how much can you tax before discouraging economic activity.
Mister Moose wrote: You logic is flawed - just how does your hypothetical 1%er look when tax-stressed enough in his jet or yacht? Because your statement implies that by virtue of having one, he isn't taxed enough, and the end result of that policy is taxing the wealthy until they no longer can afford the trappings of wealth. Hello socialism.

Having met a lot of 1%ers, be careful what you wish for. Money is not a miracle panacea. There's a lot of unhappiness there.
Look I'm not one of these liberal types who thinks everyone should be equal and we should robin hood the rich out of existence. I'm just saying that the top 1% paying 40% of the tax doesn't bother me. It wouldn't bother me if the top 1% paid 50% of the taxes.

I think wealthy individuals should bear more of the tax burden than middle class people like you and me who work hard to put food on the table and save enough to ski on weekends. That's all I'm saying. I think cutting the highest tax bracket in the U.S. is silly. The highest bracket was only 39.6%. By contrast, in many other developed countries, the highest bracket is well over 50%.
Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:Notwithstanding that basic stuff above, how often do their corporations get tax breaks and corporate welfare?taking less of their money is not welfare... How often do they benefit from policies like the tax bill we are discussing that allow them to keep more and more of their own money? it's THEIR money how much do you think belongs to your cause?
Corporate welfare is them keeping their money? What about that AIG bailout? The Chrystler bailout? What about the sweet heart deals that large corporations swing with local cities and towns to pay far lower tax rates than everyone else for locating in a particular town? These are not welfare? These are not benefits? There are lots more examples that happen every day.

I never said any of their money belongs to my cause. I just said the wealthy should bear more of the burden than the middle class. It's really not that controversial or radical.
Kpdemello wrote:Mr. Hat I don't even understand your arguments anymore. You seem to be espousing some notion of fairness in taxation, and that somehow taxing wealthier people at a certain level isn't fair. I'm not sure why you care about being fair to wealthy people since you seem solidly middle class, but okay.

I too am making a fairness argument, but my argument is this: there's a cost to government which the citizens have to pay. It is fair to require wealthier citizens to bear more of that cost. The reason it is fair is that the wealthier citizens have benefited more and have more means to support the system.

There's also a practical dimension - for every dollar less the wealthier citizens pay, middle class people like me have to pay more. Frankly, I and many like me would have trouble affording it. The wealthier citizens would not. What's the problem here?

I'm not saying we should kill all the rich and take their money. I'm just saying that a 39.6% top tax bracket is low. I think a 50% top tax bracket probably makes even more sense. Why is that an issue?
Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Kpdemello wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of the federal taxes. Forty percent.
I don't see this as a problem, and I'm not sure why you do. I don't see many 1% ers suffering overmuch from being overtaxed as they fly around in their private jets and play on their private yacts. The wealthiest 1% in the US enjoy a standard of living unmatched in history, and lead lives that most of us can only dream about. Isn't it fair that people who have benefited so disproportionately in our system pay that much more to support the system?BS argument...

Wait, are you a 1%er? No? Then what is your issue exactly?
remind me again how much of your salary I am entitled to? and why...
Why is it a BS argument? I never said I was entitled to any of your salary. All of us have to pay to maintain our system of government. Why shouldn't the people who benefit the most from the system pay the most to maintain it?

Are you in favor of eliminating graduated income taxes? Do you think that you and Bill Gates should bear the exact same tax liability?

The truth is we all believe that wealthy people should pay more. Even with a flat tax, the higher earners would pay far more than the lower level earners. The only question is the degree to which the wealthy bear the costs of the system. I personally have no problem with the wealthy bearing the overwhelming majority of that burden since 1) they can afford it and 2) they benefit more than anyone else from it.

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:bottom line: when people see an increase in their paychecks that is going to feel like a raise...they are never even remotely going to feel or consider the projected 10 yr debt/deficit increase....
This is the problem with most political policy in a nutshell. People see a short term, small benefit but they neglect the huge, looming, long term consequence.

Will this tax bill be some kind of disaster that hurts the economy? No, and I never said it would. But that doesn't mean it's not a stupid, short-sighted policy that's going to cause damage down the road.
Bubba wrote:Business tax rates needed to come down, along with other factors that kept multinationals from bringing overseas earnings and cash back to the US. Expensing capital investment should spur capital investment although I'm not sure 100% in year one is necessary. If these changes are at least partially offset by reducing other loopholes, that's all good.
The competitive advantage of our business tax rates versus overseas is an interesting question that I think bears scrutiny. I'm not sure the answer is a blanket decrease in U.S. business tax rates, but I'm open to argument on that one.

But why in the world does it make sense to cut the top income tax bracket? How does that even make sense when it isn't all that high to begin with? If anything, it might make some sense to increase the top income tax bracket to help offset corporate tax cuts.
Kpdemello wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of the federal taxes. Forty percent.
I don't see this as a problem, and I'm not sure why you do. I don't see many 1% ers suffering overmuch from being overtaxed as they fly around in their private jets and play on their private yacts. The wealthiest 1% in the US enjoy a standard of living unmatched in history, and lead lives that most of us can only dream about. Isn't it fair that people who have benefited so disproportionately in our system pay that much more to support the system?

Wait, are you a 1%er? No? Then what is your issue exactly?
Kpdemello wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that I ever said we should "tax the wealthy" ?
I'm not sure you have any idea what you are saying...
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 give an example of someone who has amassed 250k in debt but makes 150k/yr and call them not wealthy, i.e. should be taxed much....take the same income for person B who has no debt, they are wealthy and s/b taxed more...then you say you never said that those who squandered their money should not have to be taxed nor are you imposing a tax on those who live within their means and save?
Is this English? Who is this person B you speak of? What is s/b? I am very confused.confused doesn't even begin to scratch the surface...

I think what you're trying to say, maybe, is that if a guy making $150k has no debt, that person would be wealthy? Because that is also not correct. Someone with a net worth of $0 but who earns $150k a year is not wealthy. They might become wealthy through savings and investment and a long period of time, true. But they could also get hit by a bus and become disabled after one year of earning that money and never accumulate any wealth at all.

Not sure where the squandering thing comes in. I mean, maybe you think someone who invested $250k into law school so they could become a lawyer is squandering money, but if it leads them to a career that lets them earn $150k+ per year for a long time, then I'd say that's a sound investment.
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 »

You spent all that time digging up all those posts and not a single one says that I advocate that we should "tax the wealthy" in the manner that XtremeJibber2001 suggests.

I'm increasingly thinking that you and I, MH, don't speak the same language.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:You spent all that time digging up all those posts and not a single one says that I advocate that we should "tax the wealthy" in the manner that XtremeJibber2001 suggests.

I'm increasingly thinking that you and I, MH, don't speak the same language.
no one here is sure what you speak/type, especially you...
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 »

madhatter wrote:no one here is sure what you speak/type, especially you...
Then how come you're the only one saying that?
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: tax bill

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:no one here is sure what you speak/type, especially you...
Then how come you're the only one saying that?
I'm just going by context ( maybe that's why you don't see it)

I can't answer for anyone else but I have no issue understanding their clearly articulated interpretation of what you posted , whereas you continually insist you never said exactly what it is they say you said...

I'll leave it up to you to figure out whether or not you are getting your point across to anyone in the way you intend...
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 »

Look, man, I'm just a lovable little fuzzball spouting my opinions. You don't have to agree to be cool.
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19563
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: tax bill

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Kpdemello wrote:You spent all that time digging up all those posts and not a single one says that I advocate that we should "tax the wealthy" in the manner that XtremeJibber2001 suggests.

I'm increasingly thinking that you and I, MH, don't speak the same language.
Sprechen sie Deutsch?
Post Reply