tax bill

[madhatter]

no one cared that mitt Romney paid over 5 milliion in annual taxes a couple years ago they were all concerned about the percentage rate...now those same people don't care about the percentage rate they only care about the number of dollars...the rest of us don't care what those people think...

[madhatter]

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...

[madhatter]

sorry, let me know when the avg 50k household gives a crap...

Probably won't happen until 30 years from now I'll be in my 80'swhen that avg 50k household's children reach age 65 when those kids reach age 65 the parents will likely be dead...and have to work another 10 years before social security and medicare kick perhaps one should make alternative plans that over those 30 years that don't rely on the gov for retirement sustenance...plenty of time...in because Congress had no choice but to continue to increase the age of eligibility because the increasing national debt interest payments have consumed more and more of the budget.

By the way, why should the average 50k household be in favor of millionaires and billionaires getting massive define massive in real terms...tax breaks?

why should they care? its not their money...

Oh okay. So these people who are paying FICA and Medicare taxes should just keep paying for you and your generation while they don't get the same benefits when they retire, just so we can give billionaires tax breaks todaythe politics of envy...? Sure, that makes lots of sense.

hmmm that's what I did...

[Kpdemello]

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.

[Mister Moose]

As is typical in politics, this tax cut was driven by political and personal motivations rather than looking at real economics.

The theory of supply-side economics is that high tax rates are regressive and cause business/people to stop producing once taxed at a certain level. However, the progression isn't linear. At a certain point, taxes are no longer regressive and do not really discourage growth. See Laffer Curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A 35% corporate rate is not regressive, and the empirical data suggests that this tax reduction will not pay for itself with further growth. What is most likely to happen is a huge tax reduction for big corporations and wealthy individuals with little corresponding benefit for the average joe, followed by growing deficits.

In short, it's a really stupid idea.

Your Laffer curve was literally drawn on the back of a napkin.
I just scanned the article and may have missed it, but is there any actual empirical data to support it? (where the peak actually is)

The Laffer curve seeks to extract the maximum revenue. Why even do that? For one, if you operate at the maximum, there is no reserve. Hit a rainy day and you're at the top of the curve and the only way off the top is down. Bad place to be.

A 35% corporate tax rate is absolutely regressive if your competition (other countries) have lower tax rates and take your industry away from you. If you have shrinking employment due to capital flight, you are in deep trouble, and no domestic personal income tax policy will fix that. You don't address at all what will happen if more and more companies leave the US due to lower taxes elsewhere. (If we were to keep the oppressive 35% rate) You only theorize that the savings from a lower tax rate will all go to yachts and caviar and not towards domestic production increases and jobs.

Lastly, you cannot legislate risk away. Investors need a large enough return to mitigate the risk. When you tax too high, sure the winners can pay. However, all the losers can't. They tried an idea and failed. They need to be able to try again and recover that expense. High tax rates discourage risk, the lifeblood of invention and growth.

[Kpdemello]

Your Laffer curve was literally drawn on the back of a napkin.

It's not mine. The Laffer curve was the economic theory underpinning Reaganomics / supply side economics. There are lots of places you can read more about it if you are interested, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to provide a macroeconomics lesson on this forum. The article however cites to several examples of tax breaks that did not result in increased revenue due to increased economic activity. It seemed to me that most of them involved cuts to tax rates that were already relatively low.

My point was that based on the theoretical underpinnings of supply side economics, i.e. based on the theory relied upon by the people in favor of this tax bill, it is unlikely to pay for itself or generate much economic growth.

The question of capital flight due to high corporate tax rates is an interesting one. I think I would need more information on the numbers of how much capital flight is really affecting our economy, and what we can do to prevent it. Like I said earlier, is cutting corporate tax rates the best way to achieve it? Did we cut enough? Did we cut too much? Many corporations don't have the means or desire to flee oversees. Is there a way to tax the ones that do, and is that a better situation than a blanket corporate tax rate cut? One thing I can guarantee you is that nobody involved in the passage of this tax bill asked any of those questions.

[madhatter]

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?how often do they use the bus, any public transit, send their kids to public school etc? seems those who make the least benefit most from the system paid for mostly w dollars from the wealthy...they also make HUGE voluntary contributions that benefit the less wealthy...

Are you in favor of eliminating graduated income taxes? Do you think that you and Bill Gates should bear the exact same tax liability?10%
of my salary and 10% of gates salary are rather different...he does pay far more dollars...how is that exactly the same...

The truth is we all believe that wealthy people should pay more. No we ALL do not believe that...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.

again the left argues dollars when it suits their need and percentage when it suits their need always distorting reality in the process...

obviously you wholeheartedly embrace the politics of envy...

http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kpdemello]

again the left argues dollars when it suits their need and percentage when it suits their need always distorting reality in the process...

obviously you wholeheartedly embrace the politics of envy...

I am not "the left" and last I checked I was a registered Republican, although I am probably more of an independent these days.

I'm not sure what the "politics of envy" is. Is that when middle class people support policies largely beneficial to the wealthy because they are envious and hope to one day enter that class?

[Kpdemello]

The truth is we all believe that wealthy people should pay more. No we ALL do not believe that...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.

Oh okay. So you think that if you pay $1,000 in taxes, Bill Gates should also pay $1,000 in taxes? Everyone should pay exactly the same?

Or do you think it should just be the same rate? If the same rate, well Bill Gates is going to pay a hell of a lot more real dollars than you. Is that fair? If you believe it is fair, then you believe it is fair that Bill Gates should pay more. So we agree on that.

The only thing we disagree on is how much more Bill Gates should pay.

[Kpdemello]

s 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?how often do they use the bus, any public transit, send their kids to public school etc? seems those who make the least benefit most from the system paid for mostly w dollars from the wealthy...they also make HUGE voluntary contributions that benefit the less wealthy...

How often do they benefit from a stable economy, security provided by the most expensive military in the world, a safe neighborhood due to well outfitted police? How about the laws that the government has passed and enforces that provide for an economic system that allows wealthy people to keep and earn more and more? Do they participate in a stock market regulated by the SEC? Do they take drugs and eat food regulated by the FDA? Do they fly in planes regulated by the FAA?

Notwithstanding that basic stuff above, how often do their corporations get tax breaks and corporate 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?

If you do not think that the system is skewed in favor of people that have money then you probably a) never had much b) never worked with or associated with people that have a lot of it and/or c) aren't really paying attention.

[madhatter]

The truth is we all believe that wealthy people should pay more. No we ALL do not believe that...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.

Oh okay. So you think that if you pay $1,000 in taxes, Bill Gates should also pay $1,000 in taxes? Everyone should pay exactly the same?NO that's not even remotely what I said....

Or do you think it should just be the same rate? that's also not the case, strike two...If the same rate, well Bill Gates is going to pay a hell of a lot more real dollars than you. Is that fair? I don;t decide what's "fair"...If you believe it is fair, then you believe it is fair that Bill Gates should pay more. So we agree on that.yeah that's kinda the point...as I said before the left cares about rate when that makes the politics of envy argument and dollars when they make the politics of envy argument...

The only thing we disagree on is how much more Bill Gates should pay.

the "wealthy" pay a higher rate and more dollars...most are ok w that...the problem is the continuous demonization of thru sh*t arguments...in nearly EVERY way imaginable the "wealthy" pay more dollars both in real dollars and as a percent while using far less govt services...

so how much of bill gates money are you entitled to demand?

[Kpdemello]

When did I ever deamonize anyone? I just think this tax bill is stupid, and cutting the highest tax bracket is dumb.

To suggest that wealthy people benefit more from our system is not deamonizing, is it? I think they do. I think most people would agree?

[Mister Moose]

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?

Do you even know what private jets are for? I'm not talking about John Travolta with a private 707. (even though he's entitled to do what he wants with his money) Frank Perdue (The chicken guy) used a private plane to travel across the country visiting his farms, his packers, and his clients. He was able to fit more into each day by saving time. Less time in security, less time going to a hub, less time going to an airport that isn't the closest airport because the closest airport has no commercial service, less time because the private airplane leaves as soon as you get done and drive to the airport, not on some inconvenient schedule. Therefore he gets more done, and is more productive. The airplane actually saves the company money, it is a business productivity tool. What you see on TV is only what grabs eyeballs and fits the narrative.

The yacht industry suffered a 10% tax (I think under Clinton) and it almost killed them. It was repealed in 93, but only after putting scores of companies out of business. You quite simply don't know what you are talking about, and you are spouting nothing more than self justified jealousy.

You, mister-not-1%er, are also living a standard of living unmatched in history. Does your household have more than one car? Do you ski recreationally? Do you fly to take any vacations? I could go on.

No, I am not a 1%er. However I do know a fair bit about what makes people spend a dollar, and what makes people work an extra hour a day to buy something just a little better for themselves.

My issue is what makes for the most growth. What sparks the most innovation. What provides the most opportunity. 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.

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.

[madhatter]

s 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?how often do they use the bus, any public transit, send their kids to public school etc? seems those who make the least benefit most from the system paid for mostly w dollars from the wealthy...they also make HUGE voluntary contributions that benefit the less wealthy...

How often do they benefit from a stable economy, security provided by the most expensive military in the world, a safe neighborhood due to well outfitted police? the same as everyone else...which they pay more dollars for as a result of their higher tax rate...How about the laws that the government has passed and enforces that provide for an economic system that allows wealthy people to keep and earn more and more? more politics of envy, again how much of their money do you feel entitled to lay claim to for whatever purpose?

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?

If you do not think that the system is skewed in favor of people that have money then you probably a) never had much b) never worked with or associated with people that have a lot of it and/or c) aren't really paying attention.

your entire argument is the failed politics of envy...I have no more time for this circular argument...

Bernie 2024...out...

[madhatter]

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?

Do you even know what private jets are for? I'm not talking about John Travolta with a private 707. (even though he's entitled to do what he wants with his money) Frank Perdue (The chicken guy) used a private plane to travel across the country visiting his farms, his packers, and his clients. He was able to fit more into each day by saving time. Less time in security, less time going to a hub, less time going to an airport that isn't the closest airport because the closest airport has no commercial service, less time because the private airplane leaves as soon as you get done and drive to the airport, not on some inconvenient schedule. Therefore he gets more done, and is more productive. The airplane actually saves the company money, it is a business productivity tool. What you see on TV is only what grabs eyeballs and fits the narrative.

The yacht industry suffered a 10% tax (I think under Clinton) and it almost killed them. It was repealed in 93, but only after putting scores of companies out of business. You quite simply don't know what you are talking about, and you are spouting nothing more than self justified jealousy.

You, mister-not-1%er, are also living a standard of living unmatched in history. Does your household have more than one car? Do you ski recreationally? Do you fly to take any vacations? I could go on.

No, I am not a 1%er. However I do know a fair bit about what makes people spend a dollar, and what makes people work an extra hour a day to buy something just a little better for themselves.

My issue is what makes for the most growth. What sparks the most innovation. What provides the most opportunity. 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.

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.

exactly

and again:

http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What Percent Are You?
Are you the 1% or the 99%? How about among millennials? Or high-school dropouts? Here’s how your income compares with your fellow Americans.