Uisce Beatha
Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat From: In the Jar
Karma: 116 Posts: 7357
 OfflineGet me the tank!
 
|
 |
Re: wow.
« Reply #45 on: January 22, 2008, 12:41:55 PM » |
|
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.
Looking solely at earnings, you're right, there's no disincentive. But often that kick up into the next tax bracket (or two) requires you lay something on the line - bust your ass 60-70 hours a week, take a sales job that has you on the road 20 days a month, hire employees, live off your savings, expend capital, open yourself up to liability, etc. Still might be worth it. Millions of entrepreneurs (such as yourself) think it is. But others might not. I've been there, done that. With no more than two decades (and hopefully not much more than one) left in my 'career' I'm content to work for the man making a good but not fantastic salary, enjoy my insurance and benefits, delight in three weeks of vacation per year and just ride it out. Shooting for the stars is a young man's game. I don't believe a progressive tax system is best for our country but I can live with it. Mostly because I'm confident there's *fudge* all I can do about it. |
|
|
|
|
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 #46 on: January 22, 2008, 12:45:51 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. This is precisely why I'd rather have a lower tax burden when I'm living in poverty for 10 years and gladly pay the higher rate later when I'm wealthy. Not having enough money through the lean years and possibility of failure due to lack of funds are what dissuades people from starting businesses--not the potential higher tax burden in the event of success. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 12:48:55 PM by gleek »
|
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 #47 on: January 22, 2008, 01:07:56 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. This is precisely why I'd rather have a lower tax burden when I'm living in poverty for 10 years and gladly pay the higher rate later when I'm wealthy. Not having enough money through the lean years and possibility of failure due to lack of funds are what dissuades people from starting businesses--not the potential higher tax burden in the event of success. Just to clarify, I've been using effective rates all this time. Regardless of what money is taxed at what rate, under the calls made in this thread - you would be getting 46% of your income taken in taxes. If you think I've overstated a reduction in incentives, ok. But the arguments about wealth creation, finding (but not breaching) that Laffer curve apex, and 'fairness' still apply. |
|
|
|
|
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 #48 on: January 22, 2008, 01:27:40 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. This is precisely why I'd rather have a lower tax burden when I'm living in poverty for 10 years and gladly pay the higher rate later when I'm wealthy. Not having enough money through the lean years and possibility of failure due to lack of funds are what dissuades people from starting businesses--not the potential higher tax burden in the event of success. Just to clarify, I've been using effective rates all this time. Regardless of what money is taxed at what rate, under the calls made in this thread - you would be getting 46% of your income taken in taxes. If you think I've overstated a reduction in incentives, ok. But the arguments about wealth creation, finding (but not breaching) that Laffer curve apex, and 'fairness' still apply. If you're talking about effective rates, there isn't a "stepping into the next bracket" like you mentioned then. It's only seems "unfair" if you're born into a high tax rate and never had the benefit of being taxed at a lower rate as you earn your way into a higher tax rate. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Woman, open the door, don't let it sting. I wanna breathe that fire again.
|
|
|
Clive
Full Metal Jacket
Karma: 77 Posts: 4358
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #49 on: January 22, 2008, 01:56:00 PM » |
|
Hobbit, if you're getting that 46% tax rate on the rich from one of my posts, I was just tossing out numbers (e.g. 10x my income and 40x my tax debt) to compare the 10 and 40. Didn't mean to imply I thought taxes on the super-rich should be nearly 50%.
And Laffer curve this, Laffer curve that -- if you like your Laffer curve so much, why don't you marry it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Walfredo
Straitjacket
Karma: 18 Posts: 2013
OfflinePaintin the town brown
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #50 on: January 22, 2008, 02:25:41 PM » |
|
How come every time we talk about the tax code some midget has to pull the Lafer curve out his ass. Lafer curve, lafer curve, it ain't *feces*. I mean it's okay for supply siders I suppose but unless you know where we are on the curve it don't mean *feces*. The Neo-Laffer curve could kick the Laffer curve's ass.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 02:28:33 PM by 'fredo »
|
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.
|
|
|
spacey
Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat From: Group W Bench
Karma: 98 Posts: 7733
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #51 on: January 22, 2008, 02:40:22 PM » |
|
How come every time we talk about the tax code some midget has to pull the Lafer curve out his ass. Lafer curve, lafer curve, it ain't *feces*. I mean it's okay for supply siders I suppose but unless you know where we are on the curve it don't mean *feces*. The Neo-Laffer curve could kick the Laffer curve's ass.
 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Aske
Lederhosen
Karma: 120 Posts: 31405
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #52 on: January 22, 2008, 02:42:19 PM » |
|
just for my own clarification...
and what is the incentive for the highly* successful business owner to NOT accept a higher tax burden when times dictate that if he does not, the majority of his clientel will evaporate as they no longer have spendable income?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century. -- Chimpy McFlightsuit, CEO of Bu$hco Industries of 'Merka |
|
|
stroh
Sleeveless Hoodie From: Impact Crater Springs, CA
Karma: 155 Posts: 16135
OfflineWe're doomed!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #53 on: January 22, 2008, 02:44:15 PM » |
|
How come every time we talk about the tax code some midget has to pull the Lafer curve out his ass. Lafer curve, lafer curve, it ain't *feces*. I mean it's okay for supply siders I suppose but unless you know where we are on the curve it don't mean *feces*. The Neo-Laffer curve could kick the Laffer curve's ass.
 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #54 on: January 22, 2008, 03:04:23 PM » |
|
If you're talking about effective rates, there isn't a "stepping into the next bracket" like you mentioned then.
But there is - all of the steps in the tax rate average out to be your effective rate. Add larger rates, get a larger effective rate - there is a stepping pattern to it. |
|
|
|
|
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 #55 on: January 22, 2008, 03:14:33 PM » |
|
Henry & Richard Bloch surrender.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hobbit
Tartan Jacket From: The Shire
Karma: 27 Posts: 1823
Offline
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2008, 03:28:23 PM » |
|
Hobbit, if you're getting that 46% tax rate on the rich from one of my posts, I was just tossing out numbers (e.g. 10x my income and 40x my tax debt) to compare the 10 and 40. Didn't mean to imply I thought taxes on the super-rich should be nearly 50%.
And Laffer curve this, Laffer curve that -- if you like your Laffer curve so much, why don't you marry it?
I did take it from your post, and I understand you were just tossing numbers - but no one else stepped up to offer one, and only one other person than me (and now you too) has yet said its too much  . I offered an increase from 23% to 30% and am being cast a guy that is not in favor of progressive tax rates  . Without any alternative offer of what 'fair' is, I went with 'double it'. Apparently 30% is too soft for the 'mob' - they want more  (over the top characterization - I know). I'm trying to understand why, and it seems there are vastly different views on what generates wealth and a healthy economy. I thought socialistic/communistic methods were already proved to be ineffective. |
|
|
|
|
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 #57 on: January 22, 2008, 10:18:46 PM » |
|
socialistic/communistic Reading that phrase is like opening a small box and finding seventeen strings of Christmas lights tangled in a ball. There's always been some aspect of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" in US social programs. How that gets to "socialist/communist" probably even MFAWG couldn't fathom. How much extra revenue would a 30% effective rate generate? And anyway, I'm a fiscal conservative -- I'd much rather see the federal government pull back on spending before jacking anyone's taxes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gleek
Flak Jacket
Karma: 107 Posts: 9510
OfflineE chu ta!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #58 on: January 22, 2008, 10:42:43 PM » |
|
And anyway, I'm a fiscal conservative -- I'd much rather see the federal government pull back on spending before jacking anyone's taxes.
I'm definitely for pulling back on spending, but we also have that $1 trillion boondoggle to pay for. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Woman, open the door, don't let it sting. I wanna breathe that fire again.
|
|
|
gleek
Flak Jacket
Karma: 107 Posts: 9510
OfflineE chu ta!
|
|
Re: wow.
« Reply #59 on: January 22, 2008, 10:50:42 PM » |
|
Would anybody cry about fairness if these fat cats were taxed at even a 50% tax rate? http://articles.moneycent...ndfallForCEOs.aspx?page=1 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Woman, open the door, don't let it sting. I wanna breathe that fire again.
|
|
|
