Walfredo
Straitjacket
Karma: 18 Posts: 2013
 OfflinePaintin the town brown
 
|
 |
Re: wow.
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2008, 08:05:34 AM » |
|
So x % of a number 2-4 million higher than the other results in a much higher number. Well I'll be a son of a bitch   |
|
|
|
|
Logged 
|
For hither not, I am the stallion.
Come fear, come love, I am the stallion.
You know that I am the stallion, mang.
I am, I am the stallion, mang.
You know that I am the stallion, mang.
I live, I walk, I am the stallion, mang.
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2008, 11:20:32 AM » |
|
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.
Well, your co-corker either mispoke or is an idiot  But, there's a big difference between something for nothing and risking it all for possible success. And no, raising the tax rate significantly will not remove all incentives to succeed - but it will have an affect when moving into the next income catergory starts costing you 40-50% of your income. If we're skeptical of income sheltering now - imagine the lengths people would goto then. They could either stop growing their income (as it would be taken anyway) or find new ways to hide it. The result is less creation of wealth, less tax receipts, and the point of diminishing returns predicted by Laffer curves (raise tax rates too much and you'll actually collect less taxes over time). I thought my suggestion that an increase from 23% to 30% for the 'RICH' was palatable - seems many of you want to take more, and I honestly think thats starting to look punitive. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2008, 11:21:40 AM » |
|
So x % of a number 2-4 million higher than the other results in a much higher number. Well I'll be a son of a bitch I wish I could address your question, but my simple mind does not follow you here. Sorry.  |
|
|
|
|
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 #33 on: January 22, 2008, 11:25:05 AM » |
|
I thought my suggestion that an increase from 23% to 30% for the 'RICH' was palatable - seems many of you want to take more, and I honestly think thats starting to look punitive.
You think that looks punitive? There's one for you, nineteen for me. |
|
|
|
|
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 #34 on: January 22, 2008, 11:28:56 AM » |
|
I thought my suggestion that an increase from 23% to 30% for the 'RICH' was palatable - seems many of you want to take more, and I honestly think thats starting to look punitive.
You think that looks punitive? 30% (effective rate, comapred to 23% today)  Uh, no obviously. But continue heading north from there - yes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
Walfredo
Straitjacket
Karma: 18 Posts: 2013
OfflinePaintin the town brown
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2008, 11:54:28 AM » |
|
So x % of a number 2-4 million higher than the other results in a much higher number. Well I'll be a son of a bitch I wish I could address your question, but my simple mind does not follow you here. Sorry. I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal. I too have a problem with the gov't taking much more than a 1/3 of anyone's salary cause I hopes to be rich some day. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
For hither not, I am the stallion.
Come fear, come love, I am the stallion.
You know that I am the stallion, mang.
I am, I am the stallion, mang.
You know that I am the stallion, mang.
I live, I walk, I am the stallion, mang.
|
|
|
gleek
Flak Jacket
Karma: 107 Posts: 9510
OfflineE chu ta!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2008, 12:00:01 PM » |
|
So x % of a number 2-4 million higher than the other results in a much higher number. Well I'll be a son of a bitch I wish I could address your question, but my simple mind does not follow you here. Sorry. I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal. I too have a problem with the gov't taking much more than a 1/3 of anyone's salary cause I hopes to be rich some day. Would your desire to become rich be tempered if the tax rate were higher? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Woman, open the door, don't let it sting. I wanna breathe that fire again.
|
|
|
Walfredo
Straitjacket
Karma: 18 Posts: 2013
OfflinePaintin the town brown
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2008, 12:02:54 PM » |
|
So x % of a number 2-4 million higher than the other results in a much higher number. Well I'll be a son of a bitch I wish I could address your question, but my simple mind does not follow you here. Sorry. I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal. I too have a problem with the gov't taking much more than a 1/3 of anyone's salary cause I hopes to be rich some day. Would your desire to become rich be tempered if the tax rate were higher? Of course not, and that suggestion is retarded at best. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
For hither not, I am the stallion.
Come fear, come love, I am the stallion.
You know that I am the stallion, mang.
I am, I am the stallion, mang.
You know that I am the stallion, mang.
I live, I walk, I am the stallion, mang.
|
|
|
gleek
Flak Jacket
Karma: 107 Posts: 9510
OfflineE chu ta!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2008, 12:03:38 PM » |
|
So x % of a number 2-4 million higher than the other results in a much higher number. Well I'll be a son of a bitch I wish I could address your question, but my simple mind does not follow you here. Sorry. I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal. I too have a problem with the gov't taking much more than a 1/3 of anyone's salary cause I hopes to be rich some day. Would your desire to become rich be tempered if the tax rate were higher? Of course not, and that suggestion is retarded at best. Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
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 #39 on: January 22, 2008, 12:08:13 PM » |
|
I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal.
Ah - but they don't both pay 20% - thats the dig. Specifically, the $40-$50K range paid an effective rate of 6.9%, while the $2-$5M range paid 24.3%. I.e., the progressive tax rates are working as they should, and I do not think that its currently 'unfair'. |
|
|
|
|
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 #40 on: January 22, 2008, 12:16:34 PM » |
|
I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal.
Ah - but they don't both pay 20% - thats the dig. Specifically, the $40-$50K range paid an effective rate of 6.9%, while the $2-$5M range paid 24.3%. I.e., the progressive tax rates are working as they should, and I do not think that its currently 'unfair'. Net after taxes: $37K-$46.5K vs. $1.5M-$3.8M I'll gladly pay the 24.3% tax rate. |
|
|
|
|
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 #41 on: January 22, 2008, 12:23:18 PM » |
|
So x % of a number 2-4 million higher than the other results in a much higher number. Well I'll be a son of a bitch I wish I could address your question, but my simple mind does not follow you here. Sorry. I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal. I too have a problem with the gov't taking much more than a 1/3 of anyone's salary cause I hopes to be rich some day. Would your desire to become rich be tempered if the tax rate were higher? To become rich, no. To step into that next income bracket that would take even more of my income, yes. Not to mention, assuming more of my income inhibits me from re-investing as much in my business, giving my employees as large of a raise, etc. These are all just a few of the things that affect the creation of wealth over the long term. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
Uisce Beatha
Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat From: In the Jar
Karma: 116 Posts: 7357
OfflineGet me the tank!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #42 on: January 22, 2008, 12:27:49 PM » |
|
I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal.
Ah - but they don't both pay 20% - thats the dig. Specifically, the $40-$50K range paid an effective rate of 6.9%, while the $2-$5M range paid 24.3%. I.e., the progressive tax rates are working as they should, and I do not think that its currently 'unfair'. The second guy should get 3.52 x voting power and a HOV lane permit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you're darker than a caramel, Reverend Al speaks for you." - Aasif Mandvi
"Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk, I'm a woman's man: no time to talk." - stroh
|
|
|
gleek
Flak Jacket
Karma: 107 Posts: 9510
OfflineE chu ta!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #43 on: January 22, 2008, 12:32:10 PM » |
|
So x % of a number 2-4 million higher than the other results in a much higher number. Well I'll be a son of a bitch I wish I could address your question, but my simple mind does not follow you here. Sorry. I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal. I too have a problem with the gov't taking much more than a 1/3 of anyone's salary cause I hopes to be rich some day. Would your desire to become rich be tempered if the tax rate were higher? To become rich, no. To step into that next income bracket that would take even more of my income, yes. Not to mention, assuming more of my income inhibits me from re-investing as much in my business, giving my employees as large of a raise, etc. These are all just a few of the things that affect the creation of wealth over the long term. But only the portion earned above the threshold for the next income bracket is taxed at the higher rate. I don't see how there's ever an incentive to earn less money. Plenty of wealth was being created even when the income tax rates were much, much higher. The Beatles didn't too bad for themselves even when they were singing, "There's one for you, nineteen for me." |
|
|
|
|
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 #44 on: January 22, 2008, 12:39:20 PM » |
|
I was just trolling and the way that read didn't make sense I know. I was just sayin' that of course the rich pay more in taxes. 20% of 50k < 20% (granted they pay more than this) of 5 million all things being equal.
Ah - but they don't both pay 20% - thats the dig. Specifically, the $40-$50K range paid an effective rate of 6.9%, while the $2-$5M range paid 24.3%. I.e., the progressive tax rates are working as they should, and I do not think that its currently 'unfair'. Net after taxes: $37K-$46.5K vs. $1.5M-$3.8M I'll gladly pay the 24.3% tax rate. As would I. Again, I think its fair - I also think 30% would be fair. But if I risked all my savings, lived in near poverty for 5 or more years, busted my ass, and finally achieved success after 10 or more years - I would certainly have a problem with the government taking 46% (as was suggested) of my income. Its really easy to say 'I'd take it!' - but its much different after risking and giving it your all to do it. Did I not earn my success? Did I not sacrifice everything to achieve it? Now you want to take almost half to give the guys that didn't do nearly what I did (or nothing at all) a break? Let us not pretend to be so altruistic - am I the only one willing to admit he'd have a problem with that? And again, it does start having an affect on wealth creation. Less money to re-invest, etc. inhibits growth. I guess everbody here are Laffer curve sketics though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.
|
|
|
