tax bill

[Kpdemello]

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.

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]

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.

[Mister Moose]

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?

Um. Think this through. If there was no police, no railroad, no paved roads, then the milk the diary farmer produces would cost you more as the farmer would have to hire someone to ride shotgun to protect him from the robbers and pay for more fuel on the worse roads and more maintenance on his vibrated to death truck in order to get the milk to your doorstep. The farmer charges what it costs to keep himself in business. You would pay for all that you enumerated in the resultant higher cost of the end product. By virtue of the government organizing roads and police you benefit. Not the farmer.

You have been Warrenized. Nice sound bite, but totally wrong.

[Kpdemello]

Um. Think this through. If there was no police, no railroad, no paved roads, then the milk the diary farmer produces would cost you more as the farmer would have to hire someone to ride shotgun to protect him from the robbers and pay for more fuel on the worse roads and more maintenance on his vibrated to death truck in order to get the milk to your doorstep. The farmer charges what it costs to keep himself in business. You pay for all that you enumerated in the cost of the end product. By virtue of the government organizing roads and police you benefit.

You have been Warrenized. Nice sound bite, but totally wrong.

What's your point? I never said I didn't benefit. I just said that the wealthy benefit more. How is Kraft going to deliver their product without roads? How is Boeing going to sell jets with no FAA to regulate the skies? etc. Wealthy individuals and corporations NEED this stuff, and they make a lot more money than I do using it. How is that not benefiting them more than me?

What does it mean to be Warrenized? I'm not even sure what you're getting at.

[madhatter]

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?the parents paid tax on that money whe it was earned, now you want to tax it again??? when does it end? again your argument always falls back on the politics of envy...

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. of course it doesn cuz it doean have an impact on your earnings...It wouldn't bother me if the top 1% paid 50% of the taxes.probably wouldn't bother them if you starved to death so yer even there...

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%.

for the third time:

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.

$90,000 was more than 90% of Americans who earned money in 2014. Scroll down to compare yourself with specific groups.

But the annual income that gets you there depends on where you live. The Economic Policy Institute calculated how much money puts a household in the top 1% of income earners in each of the 50 US states. For the US overall, the income threshold required to be in the 1% of earners is $389,436, pre-tax.

and you want half of that? until that's no longer fair at which point you'll no doubt clamor for more...in the name of fairness...

[Kpdemello]

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?

[madhatter]

Um. Think this through. If there was no police, no railroad, no paved roads, then the milk the diary farmer produces would cost you more as the farmer would have to hire someone to ride shotgun to protect him from the robbers and pay for more fuel on the worse roads and more maintenance on his vibrated to death truck in order to get the milk to your doorstep. The farmer charges what it costs to keep himself in business. You pay for all that you enumerated in the cost of the end product. By virtue of the government organizing roads and police you benefit.

You have been Warrenized. Nice sound bite, but totally wrong.

What's your point? I never said I didn't benefit. I just said that the wealthy benefit more. and they pay more tooHow is Kraft going to deliver their product without roads? how are you going to get where you are going? on the roads they paid far more for than you did? if you have kids in school you are a net recipient of benefits not a net payer of of them...How is Boeing going to sell jets with no FAA to regulate the skies? don't think that has any effect at all on sales...etc. Wealthy individuals and corporations NEED this stuff, and they make a lot more money than I do using it. How is that not benefiting them more than me?

What does it mean to be Warrenized? I'm not even sure what you're getting at.

see the shrieking harpy below...

[Kpdemello]

Ah. I'm not a fan of Warren and did not vote for her.

[madhatter]

Mr. Hat I don't even understand your arguments anymore. you don;t seem to want to understand anything but your own politics of envy...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. they already do, exponentially...The reason it is fair is that the wealthier citizens have benefited more and have more means to support the system.fantasy, the poor benefit more from a system largely paid for by the wealthy...

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?From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen.

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?

so yer a marxist?

[madhatter]

Ah. I'm not a fan of Warren and did not vote for her.

yet you parrot her warped views and politics of envy almost verbatim...

[Coydog]

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.

Yep, typical of the GOP when it comes to taxes - they blew it. As usual, the give to they rich at the expense of the middle class. At least they don't do too much harm to the poor - only because the poor don't make enough to pay much in taxes.

The 35% corporate tax rate is a canard, it was never the effective tax rate paid by any corporation worth their accounting salt. And if 35% is so onerous, why did corporate profits and the stock market set record highs during the Obama years?

Companies hire more workers when the demand for their products/services increases - it has little to do with corporate tax rates (well, I suppose at some point the tax rate could be so regressive that it actually doesn't pay to sell more products). I could pay zero tax, but if nobody buys my widgets, I'm not gonna hire more employees to make them.

So what's the best way to increase demand via taxes? Significant tax cuts for the middle class. The middle class buys stuff, lots of stuff. If they have more money, they'll buy more, driving demand for products they buy up. If the wealthy have more money, they buy more stock, driving the demand for stock up which is good for people who have most of their wealth in the stock market, i.e. the wealthy.

Trickle down has never worked and if it did, there's a good reason they call it "trickle".

Doubling the standard deduction sounds good until you find out they eliminated the personal exemption and cap deductions for SALT ($10K for both individuals and couples). So if you're married and own property in a relatively high tax state, no tax break for you. Probably only a very few Kzoners fall into this category.

Yes, the "average" middle class family will see a tax cut around 1.5% - for awhile. That 1.5% gradually disappears in about seven years until 70% end up with a tax increase 10 years out when the cuts sunset. Even the lower quintiles will pay more in tax. But the wealthy? 76% of the wealthy get to keep their tax cut (double the middle class percentage) 10 years out. The corporate rate doesn't sunset at all.

So sure, 80% of Americans will receive a tax cut - at first. But the sad reality is in the details - 53% will ultimately end up paying more in taxes.

This is what we get when we elect privileged narcissists to make a tax plan - tax cuts for big corporations and wealthy families paid with Chinese dollars. Working stiffs get stuck with a $1.5T bill ($150B/yr, hardly a rounding error) in exchange for a $75 temporary increase in the monthly paycheck.

[Kpdemello]

Mr. Hat I don't even understand your arguments anymore. you don;t seem to want to understand anything but your own politics of envy...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. they already do, exponentially...The reason it is fair is that the wealthier citizens have benefited more and have more means to support the system.fantasy, the poor benefit more from a system largely paid for by the wealthy...

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?From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen.

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?

so yer a marxist?

So wanting to increase the top tax bracket makes me a Marxist? That seems a bit over the top.

You correctly state that the wealthy currently pay more to maintain the system. Do you think this something that should change? If not, then we are in pretty close agreement, and the only question is one of degree.

We disagree as to who benefits more from the system and I've already largely explained my position so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Ah. I'm not a fan of Warren and did not vote for her.

yet you parrot her warped views and politics of envy almost verbatim...

Which views would those be? She might have one or two good ideas. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[madhatter]

Mr. Hat I don't even understand your arguments anymore. you don;t seem to want to understand anything but your own politics of envy...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. they already do, exponentially...The reason it is fair is that the wealthier citizens have benefited more and have more means to support the system.fantasy, the poor benefit more from a system largely paid for by the wealthy...

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?From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen.

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?

so yer a marxist?

So wanting to increase the top tax bracket makes me a Marxist? That seems a bit over the top.your philosophy is clearly from each to each marxism in a nutshell...

You correctly state that the wealthy currently pay more to maintain the system. Do you think this something that should change? If not, then we are in pretty close agreement, and the only question is one of degree.

We disagree as to who benefits more from the system and I've already largely explained my position so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.you parroted warren, moose rebuffed you...

Ah. I'm not a fan of Warren and did not vote for her.

yet you parrot her warped views and politics of envy almost verbatim...

Which views would those be? your whole idea that the wealthy benefit from the fruits of the rest of us...which is EXACTLY what tin pot lizzie said...She might have one or two good ideas. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.liz would do well to achieve broke clock status...

[Mister Moose]

What's your point? I never said I didn't benefit. I just said that the wealthy benefit more. How is Kraft going to deliver their product without roads? How is Boeing going to sell jets with no FAA to regulate the skies? etc. Wealthy individuals and corporations NEED this stuff, and they make a lot more money than I do using it. How is that not benefiting them more than me?

What does it mean to be Warrenized? I'm not even sure what you're getting at.

How does the wealthy benefit more? Does Bill Gates live any happier life than you? Do you benefit from the internet and a laptop at all? Didn't Bill Gates play a part in that? Is that laptop worth $10 in convenience to you every single day? Boom, either Gates delivers a half billion a day in productivity gain ($10 x 50 million users) or you don't get to look up the 6 day forecast tonight. So I say you benefit more. It's worth what you spend on the stuff Gates invented, and then some. (Yeah, yeah, you use an Apple, same thing applies)

And the Wright brothers sold aircraft to the US government long before the FAA. Just sayin. But I get your point. Here's mine. Boeing builds the airplane. You use the infrastructure when you use the airplane to fly to Denver. Boeing does not use the infrastructure. You do.

You work 8 hours a day and grow enough corn to feed your family. I work 12 hours a day, and use the excess corn to sell it. I then buy more land and grow even more corn. I take that extra money buy a bigger tractor. I grow so much corn I can afford a fishing boat. Now you want to tax me more because I bought a fishing boat. Why do you get to work less and stick me with a higher tax bill? And why can't I pass my after tax dollars on to my kid? Or pass on my farm that is bigger than yours, because I worked harder than you?

While this is a vigorous conversation, I need to go fix the tractor to get ready for Spring.

[Kpdemello]

How does the wealthy benefit more?

Financially.

Boeing builds the airplane. You use the infrastructure when you use the airplane to fly to Denver. Boeing does not use the infrastructure. You do.

Yes. And so does American Airlines. They make a lot more money using it than I do. They make so much money that they can afford to buy more planes from Boeing. So Boeing benefits, too, and also makes a lot more money than I do.

You work 8 hours a day and grow enough corn to feed your family. I work 12 hours a day, and use the excess corn to sell it. I then buy more land and grow even more corn. I take that extra money buy a bigger tractor. I grow so much corn I can afford a fishing boat. Now you want to tax me more because I bought a fishing boat. Why do you get to work less and stick me with a higher tax bill? And why can't I pass my after tax dollars on to my kid? Or pass on my farm that is bigger than yours, because I worked harder than you?

I never said any of this. I'm not sure where you got it from.

The only thing I've said here is that the tax bill is stupid, the highest tax bracket should not be cut, and the wealthy benefit more from the system than the middle class do.