Fuzzy
Full Metal Jacket From: Island of Misfit Toys
Karma: 61 Posts: 4836
 Offline
 
|
 |
Re: wow.
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2008, 02:45:09 PM » |
|
.........proves that money can't buy happiness..........
But you can rent one hell of a good time.    |
|
|
|
|
Logged 
|
"You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose."
From Oh the Places You'll Go, by Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2008, 02:53:16 PM » |
|
Well, sure we can.
But you're living in a dream world if you think it will make a real difference.
have to agree to flat out disagree with you on that one. I checked, and perhaps there is room for argument. Guess it all depends upon what constitutes a 'difference maker'. Looking at 2005 tax data (the most recent available, to the public anyway) I ran some numbers.... Per the article, I used $500,000 and above to constitute 'pretty wealthy to uber rich' - anyone below that as not-rich. So yes, even the guy making $450,000/year didn't make the cut in the exercise - but the point was the truly wealthy and uber rich. Also, this is all based upon taxable income - there may be games that people play to reduce this number I'm sure - but we have no numbers on that. Gotta use whats truly known and available. Anyway - effective tax rate for the RICH = 23.25%, the Not-RICH is 11.22%. In real money per capita/return, the RICH pay just over 56 times as much in taxes as the Not-RICH. So much for the loophole theory I guess. In order to maintain our tax base, the tax rate of the RICH needs to be increased at much steeper rate than a Non-RICH reduction. I did find that increasing the RICH rate to an effective 30% would allow for a reduction in Not-RICH rates to ~9.6%. Per capita/return that averages to about $986 less per return for the Not-RICH category. So, yeah - thats real money. However, remember that the $200,000 to $499,000 folks are in this category and would get back a larger percentage - so don't go thinking everyone gets $1000 less in taxes every year - it may turn out to be $200-$300 for many. In the mean time we've increased the RICH taxes by a per capita/return of $112,527 and they now pay 85 times as much tax as the Not-RICH. I could live with that even if the RICH bitched, but much more started to look punitive. So, does $200-$300 less in taxes per year for the middle class make a real change? That is the question. Guess it would mean a new driver, assuming SWMBO does not use it for something more 'useful'   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
Clive
Full Metal Jacket
Karma: 77 Posts: 4358
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2008, 03:12:11 PM » |
|
Anyway - effective tax rate for the RICH = 23.25%, the Not-RICH is 11.22%. In real money per capita/return, the RICH pay just over 56 times as much in taxes as the Not-RICH. So much for the loophole theory I guess. The RICH pay 56x as much as the NOT-RICH after loopholes are exploited. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2008, 03:15:46 PM » |
|
Anyway - effective tax rate for the RICH = 23.25%, the Not-RICH is 11.22%. In real money per capita/return, the RICH pay just over 56 times as much in taxes as the Not-RICH. So much for the loophole theory I guess. The RICH pay 56x as much as the NOT-RICH after loopholes are exploited. True enough, but if you listen to the rhetoric about loopholes you would be led to believe they don't pay anymore taxes than the 'rest of us'. I found 56 times as much to be refreshing given such tales. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
Clive
Full Metal Jacket
Karma: 77 Posts: 4358
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2008, 03:21:41 PM » |
|
I don't have an aggressive dog in this fight. Generally speaking, though, I'd tend to think if Uber-Wealthy Dude makes 100x my income and pays 56x my tax load, there's something "not fair" about it.
To answer your other question: the government-imposed "punishment" for starting one's own business and being wildly successful with it isn't particularly punitive. Average Joe can keep plodding along at what, $55k per household? Or he can become a successful business owner making ten times that? Even with the increased overall tax debt, I'd take the latter scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2008, 04:02:48 PM » |
|
I don't have an aggressive dog in this fight. Generally speaking, though, I'd tend to think if Uber-Wealthy Dude makes 100x my income and pays 56x my tax load, there's something "not fair" about it.
Thats extreme - the returns in the $500,000-$1M range are prevalent in this scenario (roughly 60% of the group) - if they're making 100x your salary you must be making $10,000/year. Its a good bet that the guys that are truly making 100x your salary are paying closer to 100x your taxes. To answer your other question: the government-imposed "punishment" for starting one's own business and being wildly successful with it isn't particularly punitive. Average Joe can keep plodding along at what, $55k per household? Or he can become a successful business owner making ten times that? Even with the increased overall tax debt, I'd take the latter scenario.
Would you and I take it? Sure. So why haven't we? Because of the associated risk I'll bet. In order to take such risks many people need to see a pot of gold. Again, I'm for increasing the progressiveness of the taxes, as I've already laid out - but to make the difference many people 'believe' it will, we would likely reach a punitive level of taxation. <insert Laffer curve here>. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
stroh
Sleeveless Hoodie From: Impact Crater Springs, CA
Karma: 155 Posts: 16135
OfflineWe're doomed!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2008, 04:09:44 PM » |
|
I think indicators are pointing towards another Ben Stein picture posting to self-fulfill the prophecy hobbit eluded to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2008, 04:22:46 PM » |
|
I think indicators are pointing towards another Ben Stein picture posting to self-fulfill the prophecy hobbit eluded to.
Ben Stein is (nearly) a *goshdarn* genius! Stupid Investors, Rejoice! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
gleek
Flak Jacket
Karma: 107 Posts: 9510
OfflineE chu ta!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2008, 05:01:30 PM » |
|
I think indicators are pointing towards another Ben Stein picture posting to self-fulfill the prophecy hobbit eluded to.
Ben Stein is (nearly) a *goshdarn* genius! Stupid Investors, Rejoice! Is it merely a coincidence that Ben Stein is a Baby Boomer who'd like to keep the market buoyed long enough for him to cash out of his stocks? His main argument for his sanguine view of the market is that the consumer will continue to spend despite the so-called "sub-prime mess", citing the increased consumer spending even after the tech-bubble burst. What he's forgotten is that the tech bubble was immediately followed by the real estate bubble. People continued to spend because they felt wealthier than they really were as their home values went up. IMHO, much of this spending was financed either through equity loans or credit cards. Consumer debt is now at an all-time high. At some point, this economy has to pay the Piper. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Woman, open the door, don't let it sting. I wanna breathe that fire again.
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2008, 05:11:19 PM » |
|
I think indicators are pointing towards another Ben Stein picture posting to self-fulfill the prophecy hobbit eluded to.
Ben Stein is (nearly) a *goshdarn* genius! Stupid Investors, Rejoice! Is it merely a coincidence that Ben Stein is a Baby Boomer who'd like to keep the market buoyed long enough for him to cash out of his stocks? His main argument for his sanguine view of the market is that the consumer will continue to spend despite the so-called "sub-prime mess", citing the increased consumer spending even after the tech-bubble burst. What he's forgotten is that the tech bubble was immediately followed by the real estate bubble. People continued to spend because they felt wealthier than they really were as their home values went up. IMHO, much of this spending was financed either through equity loans or credit cards. Consumer debt is now at an all-time high. At some point, this economy has to pay the Piper. Whether his argument for the short term proves true or not, this is the crux of the article I came away with.... I have no idea what the S&P will be ten days from now, but I am confident it will be a lot higher ten years from now, and for most Americans, that's what we need to think about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
Clive
Full Metal Jacket
Karma: 77 Posts: 4358
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2008, 05:58:42 PM » |
|
I don't have an aggressive dog in this fight. Generally speaking, though, I'd tend to think if Uber-Wealthy Dude makes 100x my income and pays 56x my tax load, there's something "not fair" about it. Thats extreme - the returns in the $500,000-$1M range are prevalent in this scenario (roughly 60% of the group) - if they're making 100x your salary you must be making $10,000/year. Its a good bet that the guys that are truly making 100x your salary are paying closer to 100x your taxes. Oh, you get my point: I meant "my" in the Everyman sense. Wiki says the median household income in 2006 was ~$48k. So substitute "me" making $48,000 and Uber-Wealthy-Dude making $4.8 million -- is he really paying 100x as much in taxes as "me"? And personally, I'd wager the guy really making 100 times MY income is NOT paying 100 times what I pay. I can't afford to cover charge for most significant income shelters, can't afford the advice to find shelters, and/or the cost-benefit to discover them doesn't pan out compared to savings. To answer your other question: the government-imposed "punishment" for starting one's own business and being wildly successful with it isn't particularly punitive. Average Joe can keep plodding along at what, $55k per household? Or he can become a successful business owner making ten times that? Even with the increased overall tax debt, I'd take the latter scenario. Would you and I take it? Sure. So why haven't we? Because of the associated risk I'll bet. In order to take such risks many people need to see a pot of gold. If I could increase my current total income 10x AND my current tax debt 20x, I'd take it and run. Hell, I'd take 10x and 40x. I haven't struck out on my own because the risks are too high -- I have a mortgage, a family to feed, retirement to plan for and a college fund to build. If I were single or childless and with a wife who worked, though, ... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 21, 2008, 06:00:58 PM by Clive »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
stroh
Sleeveless Hoodie From: Impact Crater Springs, CA
Karma: 155 Posts: 16135
OfflineWe're doomed!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2008, 06:01:17 PM » |
|
And you may need to buy body parts. I hear Canadian penises don't come cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2008, 08:02:25 PM » |
|
I don't have an aggressive dog in this fight. Generally speaking, though, I'd tend to think if Uber-Wealthy Dude makes 100x my income and pays 56x my tax load, there's something "not fair" about it. Thats extreme - the returns in the $500,000-$1M range are prevalent in this scenario (roughly 60% of the group) - if they're making 100x your salary you must be making $10,000/year. Its a good bet that the guys that are truly making 100x your salary are paying closer to 100x your taxes. Oh, you get my point: I meant "my" in the Everyman sense. Wiki says the median household income in 2006 was ~$48k. So substitute "me" making $48,000 and Uber-Wealthy-Dude making $4.8 million -- is he really paying 100x as much in taxes as "me"? And personally, I'd wager the guy really making 100 times MY income is NOT paying 100 times what I pay. I can't afford to cover charge for most significant income shelters, can't afford the advice to find shelters, and/or the cost-benefit to discover them doesn't pan out compared to savings. Interestingly enough - I just ran the math  Not able to get granular enough, but taking the $40k-$50k range and comparing it to the $2M-$5M range (The example is at the high end of both ranges, pretty fair IMO).... they paid 110 times more in taxes on average. Sure thats post tax shelter - 'true' 100x earnings (what ever that is) may fall short of 100x taxes. We know there are ways to hide some income, I do not know of many myself, have no data on how effective it is, have no idea how much can be sheltered, etc. Its all assumptions and conjecture. With no knowledge of the extent of its usage, assuming its significant, I don't think can we make definitive statements. To answer your other question: the government-imposed "punishment" for starting one's own business and being wildly successful with it isn't particularly punitive. Average Joe can keep plodding along at what, $55k per household? Or he can become a successful business owner making ten times that? Even with the increased overall tax debt, I'd take the latter scenario. Would you and I take it? Sure. So why haven't we? Because of the associated risk I'll bet. In order to take such risks many people need to see a pot of gold. If I could increase my current total income 10x AND my current tax debt 20x, I'd take it and run. Hell, I'd take 10x and 40x. I haven't struck out on my own because the risks are too high -- I have a mortgage, a family to feed, retirement to plan for and a college fund to build. If I were single or childless and with a wife who worked, though, ... I guess you're kinda proving my point to some extent. With all that incentive, you choose to 'work for the man' and be subject to this wage gap. (and I'm not casting stones, as I work for the man and have been unwilling to take such risks as well). Those that take big risks and make it work, deserve the rewards. But again, I think we're arguing minutia. I'm for an increase in the progressiveness - I am just cautioning against going too far just because its 'not us' - mob rule and all. Besides, you reach a point of diminishing returns - hence my Laffer curve reference. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
Clive
Full Metal Jacket
Karma: 77 Posts: 4358
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2008, 08:08:47 PM » |
|
Sure thats post tax shelter - 'true' 100x earnings (what ever that is) may fall short of 100x taxes. We know there are ways to hide some income, I do not know of many myself, have no data on how effective it is, have no idea how much can be sheltered, etc. Its all assumptions and conjecture. With no knowledge of the extent of its usage, assuming its significant, I don't think can we make definitive statements. Well, then I'll leave it alone. I guess you're kinda proving my point to some extent. With all that incentive, you choose to 'work for the man' and be subject to this wage gap. (and I'm not casting stones, as I work for the man and have been unwilling to take such risks as well). Those that take big risks and make it work, deserve the rewards. But again, I think we're arguing minutia. I'm for an increase in the progressiveness - I am just cautioning against going too far just because its 'not us' - mob rule and all. Besides, you reach a point of diminishing returns - hence my Laffer curve reference. My general point was that even if you doubled the effective tax rate for the ultra-rich, I'd still want to be ultra-rich. I didn't pick wealthy parents, though, and I care too much about my family to put them through the hell of my starting and failing at my own business(es) in an attempt to be ultra-rich. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
spacey
Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat From: Group W Bench
Karma: 98 Posts: 7733
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2008, 08:34:47 PM » |
|
I had an argument with a coworker once about winning the lottery. He insisted that it wouldn't be worth it because the government takes such a big bite. I said that even if the gov't took 80% of lottery winnings, a $200 million jackpot leaves me $40 Million richer than I was before.
I don't believe a higher tax rate would specifically disincetivize (I think I heard that word at a seminar once, so I'm going with it) someone from trying to attain more wealth. Maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
