|
Post by robbase on Jul 4, 2011 12:47:57 GMT -5
Today at 10:32am, robbase wrote:... will now be more inclined to use their extra time (since they are not earning their "gravy') to do thier lawns themselves, watch their kids themselves, whatever else....
which is a good thing.
more unemployed nannies and landscapers in this economy would be a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by robbase on Jul 4, 2011 12:54:02 GMT -5
djlungrot- I am not saying they will "stop" working--they will be less inclined to work longer / harder though. In regards to them just giving themselves a 4% raise--if it was that easy why would they not already give themselves a 4% raise now in the "good" tax times?
for your specific situation, what you would do if taxes were raised I can not speak too. But if I am making "gravy", and suddenly I make less gravy by putting in the same amount of work, I am less likely to amke a smuch gravy. To me it is common sense, but maybe I am wrong.
And what about the almost half of the nation that pays no federal tax?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2011 18:12:53 GMT -5
djlungrot- I am not saying they will "stop" working--they will be less inclined to work longer / harder though. why? i mean, is it not just as easy to assume that they WOULD work longer and harder to make up for the 4%? it makes no sense to me that someone who is taking home less pay would work LESS hard. but let's illustrate what we are talking about here. we are talking about income over $200k (appx). so, up to $200k, there would be no difference at all. for every dollar above $200k, i would give up an extra four cents to help fix the deficit. what kind of a person would say "no way, i am not going to settle for making 96 cents on the dollar to what i made before. i quit". i honestly can't imagine anyone saying that. that sort of petulance and entitlement is reserved for only the most frumpy elitists. perhaps unemployment would suit them better.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2011 18:17:54 GMT -5
And what about the almost half of the nation that pays no federal tax? everyone who earns money pays federal tax. it is in the form of SSI and Medicare tax. even "illegals" pay it. they also pay federal fuel taxes- and in a much higher proportion to their income than upper income folks like me. here is something really interesting to chew on. do you know that my effective tax rate is higher than Warren Buffet's and Bill Gate's? it is true. do you know why? it is because his income is not pegged for 6.2% payroll tax above $105k. the result is that both he AND i end up paying about $6,000. which is lame.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:46:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2011 19:08:07 GMT -5
it is because his income is not pegged for 6.2% payroll tax above $105k. the result is that both he AND i end up paying about $6,000. which is lame. djlungrot get ready for the new world order. That's where we don't have enough "rich" people to pay for new programs so they won't end the programs or make them work with less money. The one solution that they will come up with is: Welcome to the promotion djlungrot. You just became rich (even though you aren't making more money). This is you new tax rate....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2011 19:16:13 GMT -5
it is because his income is not pegged for 6.2% payroll tax above $105k. the result is that both he AND i end up paying about $6,000. which is lame. djlungrot get ready for the new world order. That's where we don't have enough "rich" people to pay for new programs so they won't end the programs or make them work with less money. The one solution that they will come up with is: Welcome to the promotion djlungrot. You just became rich (even though you aren't making more money). This is you new tax rate.... i don't buy the scare tactics, tex. in the 50's, the top incremental rate was 94%. during that decade, businesses didn't simply fold up (many predicted this would happen after the war was over due to overcapacity), they thrived. we had the biggest economic boom in our history. now, nobody is suggesting that we should go back to 94%, but the idea that somehow HALF that top incremental rate will destroy our nation and turn us into a socialist state is incredible to me. happy 4th, btw. i have to leave in a few minutes- but i wish everyone here a pleasant independence day. USA!
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 4, 2011 19:25:54 GMT -5
I know why - because both of these men, despite their demands that they pay more, have structured their income to be taxed primarily as capital gains instead of income to decrease their tax liability as much as possible. They despise the federal government and distrust it so much with their money that both of them have structured each of their $50+ billion estates to escape the death tax. I think the word you're looking for is hypocrite.
Your theory couldn't be more wrong.
Your social security benefit is determined by your the income that is taxed [i.e. that $106k]. Increase the threshold would **should** only increase the benefit that these people would receive...unless you're suggesting unleashing further welfare components on the system and not give a higher benefit to higher earners.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2011 19:27:41 GMT -5
I know why - because both of these men, despite their demands that they pay more, have structured their income to be taxed primarily as capital gains instead of income to decrease their tax liability as much as possible. They despise the federal government and distrust it so much with their money that both of them have structured each of their $50+ billion estates to escape the death tax. I think the word you're looking for is hypocrite. Your theory couldn't be more wrong. Your social security benefit is determined by your the income that is taxed [i.e. that $106k]. Increase the threshold would **should** only increase the benefit that these people would receive...unless you're suggesting unleashing further welfare components on the system and not give a higher benefit to higher earners. it is not a theory, it is a fact. but i don't have time to prove it, now. i have to leave on a 4th of july outing with my family in 3 mins. i will try to remember to post the proof later......
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 4, 2011 19:27:55 GMT -5
In the 50's, the country had a monopoly on all industry because of WWII.
Our economic boom was caused by the destruction of the rest of the industrialized world.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2011 19:29:18 GMT -5
In the 50's, the country had a monopoly on all industry because of WWII. Our economic boom was caused by the destruction of the rest of the industrialized world. good point. but the fact still remains that the top incremental tax rate was 94% during most of that decade. gotta go. sorry.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 4, 2011 19:36:08 GMT -5
Today at 10:32am, robbase wrote:... will now be more inclined to use their extra time (since they are not earning their "gravy') to do thier lawns themselves, watch their kids themselves, whatever else....
which is a good thing. more unemployed nannies and landscapers in this economy would be a good thing? More people taking care of their own lawns and kids would be a good thing for our society. It would also free up opportunities for others to get into much more lucrative fields than landscaping and childcare.
|
|
|
Post by robbase on Jul 5, 2011 4:14:45 GMT -5
everyone who earns money pays federal tax. it is in the form of SSI and Medicare tax
This tells me pretty much everything I need to know, you are really unreachable if you think someone that pays ONLY SSI and Medicare (no Federal Income Tax) is the same as someone who pays SSI, Medicare AND actually pays Federal Tax too.
Federal fuel tax too? really? Thats the same as someone that pays Federal tax? wow
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 5, 2011 7:15:19 GMT -5
Dezi, let's go back to Econ 101. As a home mortgage shows everyone, if you make an extra payment every year, your "time liability" (the mortgage) can virtually be cut in half, leaving the homeowner with lots of extra money to spen when the motgage is paid off. The Federal Government is no different. Quit spending money they do not have, and start making an extra payment on the debt every few months, and soon your profit and loss statement starts looking a lot better. It will even strengthen the dollar, and whether you believe it or not, that would be good for taxpayers and consumers. American taxpayers know when their limit has been reached, and the Federal Government has to still learn when their limit has been reached. We have to quit saying we can take care of it years down the road. They said that in the 1970's and that is why we are in such a sad state of economic affairs today. If we have to increase taxes on the rich, so be it.
BUT, also do away with the Federal (un)earned income credits, and institute a "minimum tax" on the 49% of people that pay no Federal tax. I do not care if it is a minimum of only $25 or $50, institute it. I am even agreeable, if income is under $15,000, it is only maybe $10. Same goes for state income taxes. There is no free ride for freedom. Eveyone should pay something.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 5, 2011 10:26:12 GMT -5
everyone who earns money pays federal tax. it is in the form of SSI and Medicare tax This tells me pretty much everything I need to know, you are really unreachable if you think someone that pays ONLY SSI and Medicare (no Federal Income Tax) is the same as someone who pays SSI, Medicare AND actually pays Federal Tax too. i never claimed they were the same. i claimed that your statement that 50% of the population pays "no federal taxes" is nonsense.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 5, 2011 10:27:42 GMT -5
everyone who earns money pays federal tax. it is in the form of SSI and Medicare tax Federal fuel tax too? really? Thats the same as someone that pays Federal tax? wow yes, i really do think that federal fuel tax is a federal tax. and i think that people from all tax brackets pay them. are you having some difficulty with that?
|
|
|
Post by robbase on Jul 5, 2011 10:45:57 GMT -5
you are playing semantics again, you know that by my statement of "almost 50 % of people pay no federal tax" that I was referring to Federal Income tax on pay.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 5, 2011 10:47:16 GMT -5
the tax rate above $106,800 is actually surprisingly flat. there is basically no difference in effective federal rate between $106,000 and $180,000 in individual income. the "sweet spot" in the tax code is at the break between 28 and 33%, which occurs at $174,000. at that level, your net % of federal taxes (w2) is 29.6%, which is 0.1% LESS than what a person making $107,000 pays.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 5, 2011 10:55:22 GMT -5
you are playing semantics again, you know that by my statement of "almost 50 % of people pay no federal tax" that I was referring to Federal Income tax on pay. i am sorry to tell you that i am not a mind reader. i can only work with what you give me. my point was that everyone that earns money pays federal taxes. the federal burden to the lower 50% is about 10% of income. the federal burden to those making $107-175k is about 30% of income. does that seem unfair to you?
|
|
|
Post by robbase on Jul 7, 2011 3:44:36 GMT -5
More people taking care of their own lawns and kids would be a good thing for our society. It would also free up opportunities for others to get into much more lucrative fields than landscaping and childcare.
free up opportunities? if those childcare and landscaping people WANT to move into a different field, what is currently stopping them? so we should take jobs away to "FORCE" people to move into a different field because you feel these jobs are not lucrative enough? Could you please list your approved list of what qualify as lucrative jobs so we can eliminate all the non-lucrative jobs ASAP?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 7, 2011 8:44:28 GMT -5
More people taking care of their own lawns and kids would be a good thing for our society. It would also free up opportunities for others to get into much more lucrative fields than landscaping and childcare. free up opportunities? if those childcare and landscaping people WANT to move into a different field, what is currently stopping them? so we should take jobs away to "FORCE" people to move into a different field because you feel these jobs are not lucrative enough? Could you please list your approved list of what qualify as lucrative jobs so we can eliminate all the non-lucrative jobs ASAP? Yes, free up opportunities. What is currently stopping the people is lack of demand. If an engineer who is working 60 hours a week cuts back to 40, that frees up the demand he/she is meeting working those 20 hours to be met by someone else. More people becoming engineers does not, in and of its, create more demand for engineers. (Okay, lawyers seem to have the ability to independently create their own demand.) Jobs are or are not "lucrative" based on what I or anyone else "feels". If you want a list of jobs that are low paying to start and have little to no opportunities for career advancement, I recommend you use the search engine of your choice and find your own list.
|
|