djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 2:06:20 GMT -5
50% of household have stocks, so we're talking about extra taxes on half the population here, not just the ultra rich. first of all, the top 10% own 81% of all stock. that leaves the bottom 90% with 19% of all stock. most of this stock is held in retirement accounts, so it is not taxable. but finally, the taxes that Obama is talking about don't apply to capital gains. so i really don't know what your point is, here. So do you really believe that raising taxes in times like these are a bad idea, or are you just blindly supporting a plan because of politics? The fact that the title of this thread and the premise of the video is that the rich don't create jobs is laughable to me. yeah, i knew that most people would laugh. sounds absurd, right? funny thing tho, you know- it really isn't. generally speaking, it is the truth.In fact I have laid out a plan above here to help create jobs using money that the ultra rich want to give away to the middle and lower class. are you referring to the charities thing again? i looked at that, and it appeared to me to be a philanthropic endowment that was not geared to creating jobs. i will review it again, tho.
edit: i reviewed it again, and i was absolutely right. it has nothing to do with creating jobs. so, good night yourself. But apparently that isn't the point of the thread. of course it is.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Oct 7, 2012 5:50:14 GMT -5
"Since an LLC is a pass through entity and cannot retain earnings, all of our net profits for 2011 were taxed, even though we only put 20% of net profits into our personal accounts. We re-invested 80% of our profits from 2011 and used them to fund our business in 2012. We had to pay individual taxes on that money, all of that money, even the 80% we re-invested. " Anyone who makes a profits pays tax on the profit.... if it is distributed or not.... Exxon Mobil has made huge profits over the last 5 quarter... www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AXOM&fstype=ii&ei=yVpxUKDpEabJ0AHhjgEProfit summarized (over the last 4 quarter noted 6/30/12, 3/31/12, 12/31/11, 9/30/11) 79.427 billion before taxes.... amounts paid out in dividends 22.892 billion.... retained cash (statement of cash flows) 19.18 billion So, because Exxon Mobil withheld this 19.18 billion to "invest" in the future of the company, should that not be taxed? "The amount our business made put us in the top 1%, but we didn't collect or keep anywhere near that amount in salaries. We will spend every penny of that money in 2012 buying services and making payroll. " While that is great, you are also making money in 2012.... Example... Year 1 Profit before owner's draw 1,000,000 Owners draw 200,000 Reinvested in the company 800,000 Year 2 Profit before owner's draw 1,100,000 Owner's draw 200,000 Reinvested in the company 900,000 Add in last years carry over 800,000 Now you have 1,700,000, which you chose to once again reinvest.... Are you saying it is not fair that you need to pay tax on profits you made because you did not take them? You may want to consider changing your "corporate" structure so you can take advantage of the 15% and 25% built into the corporate tax structure.... I have a number of clients who "make a profit" that gets rolled back into their company for future investment and savings for a rainy day, we use the C structure because the overall "tax" is often lower....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 7:48:55 GMT -5
What do you mean government has done nothing Every single dollar the government hands out in terms of aid.... creates jobs. After all, those terrible welfare queens with coach bags and iphones etc.... they create jobs buy buying all that stuff.... Not to mention the works projects... i've had several in the last few years with government funds that are creating jobs... If the government actually stopped handing out $$ tomorrow... the economy would come to a crunching halt.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 7:51:37 GMT -5
"You may want to consider changing your "corporate" structure so you can take advantage of the 15% and 25% built into the corporate tax structure.... I have a number of clients who "make a profit" that gets rolled back into their company for future investment and savings for a rainy day, we use the C structure because the overall "tax" is often lower.... " That's exactly what I was thinking when they kept talking about the 3% of small business owners that employ, what was it 50% of the people?, ... why in the heck would they choose to structure their business that way I'm betting most of those in that catagory do not...
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 7, 2012 8:48:49 GMT -5
djwhateveritisnow, you are very wise at nuts and bolts but always seem to miss the big picture. It seems that profit, to you, is the pile of money that Scrooge MacDuck piles up in his safe for the occasional swim. If profit were the last gasp of life in a dollar, then your arguments would make some sense. Unfortunately, as explained by others, profit is just the first breath, and that dollar will be profit again someday, after being used to purchase multiple consumables/investments and paid for many services rendered. When a dollar of profit is taken from the private sector it becomes mired in the gears of bureaucracy, and returns into the system more slowly.
When the private sector dollar of profit is earned by the rich, it is quickly redeployed as consumption, investment or savings. You have made it clear that consumption creates jobs, so can we at least agree on that. Investment, creates capital which seeks profit, utilizing products and services in creation of an end product. Utilizing products and services is consumption, as we have already agreed creates jobs, and employees are a product/service, which is typically employed, again jobs. Most business owners understand leverage, and don't just use the dollar in profit, but multiply that with dollars borrowed cheaply from ... you guessed it people that save. So a dollar of profit in the private economy will turn multiple times for every time a dollar in the public coffers turns once.
Yes people become frustrated, dj when you describe eloquently, in great detail, how to be a fast runner, but ignore the biking and swimming aspect of a triathlon. Rich people do create jobs, and higher taxation slows their ability to do so. That can be said the same for both middle class and the poor.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 10:02:51 GMT -5
"Since an LLC is a pass through entity and cannot retain earnings, all of our net profits for 2011 were taxed, even though we only put 20% of net profits into our personal accounts. We re-invested 80% of our profits from 2011 and used them to fund our business in 2012. We had to pay individual taxes on that money, all of that money, even the 80% we re-invested. " Anyone who makes a profits pays tax on the profit.... if it is distributed or not.... i am aware of that. as i said, i have two LLC's, two S Corps, a C Corp and an investment company. i know how they are taxed. but in the case of an LLC, one is taxed as an individual. the corporate rate is really really low. in the case of S Corps it is 1.5% in CA. in many states it is zero.Exxon Mobil has made huge profits over the last 5 quarter... www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AXOM&fstype=ii&ei=yVpxUKDpEabJ0AHhjgEC Corps are totally different. i already pointed that out. but i am not talking about C Corps on this thread. neither is the OP, thought it might very well apply (just not in terms of tax policy).
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Oct 7, 2012 10:09:06 GMT -5
I liked the video probably because I think the cycle of life is a great way of explaining things. I thought his emphasis on the fact that he as a rich person could create less demand in areas than more people having some money could. I think he was eloquent in explaining that while the rich do consume by definition they are one person not thirty or one hundred or more certain things they consume are going to be proportionally smaller than if thirty or one hundred people had the resources to purchases those same things.
I think both demand and perceived demand create jobs. However, if perceived demand does not materialize quickly after launching a business most businesses do fold if actual demand for what they are selling doesn't follow quickly.
I agree with perhaps what his meta message is - concentrating wealth like the top 1% or less does by definition overall has to stifle demand. Rich people do consume more than less wealthy people in general but overall not in proportion to their wealth. Oprah probably hasn't bought 10,000 Apple products personally nor does Trump probably own 2000 suits. Imelda Marcos didn't make the Philippines rich by buying all those shoes. Many of the shoes were made abroad anyway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 10:11:24 GMT -5
djwhateveritisnow, i am dropping the dj after the election. i like polldancer.you are very wise at nuts and bolts but always seem to miss the big picture. It seems that profit, to you, is the pile of money that Scrooge MacDuck piles up in his safe for the occasional swim. don't know how you figured that. i have stated repeatedly that profit is what comes after all other costs, including labor, are accounted for.If profit were the last gasp of life in a dollar, then your arguments would make some sense. Unfortunately, as explained by others, profit is just the first breath, and that dollar will be profit again someday, after being used to purchase multiple consumables/investments and paid for many services rendered. this is a separate discussion which i guess is part of this thread. i don't have much time for it, but i would argue that most flow through profit does not create wealth for the middle class. that is the crux of the argument. you might ask "why should it"?, and that is a fair question- but there is an answer to it, which i alluded to, earlier.When a dollar of profit is taken from the private sector it becomes mired in the gears of bureaucracy, and returns into the system more slowly. that is not necessarily true. the half a billion that Romney has offshored might NEVER make ANY gears turn here. ditto for all of the factories built in China, repayments on debt, investments in existing property, etc.When the private sector dollar of profit is earned by the rich, it is quickly redeployed as consumption, did you even watch the video, skweet? the rich consume very little in proportion to what they make.investment or savings. You have made it clear that consumption creates jobs, so can we at least agree on that. Investment, creates capital which seeks profit, utilizing products and services in creation of an end product. Utilizing products and services is consumption, as we have already agreed creates jobs, and employees are a product/service, which is typically employed, again jobs. Most business owners understand leverage, and don't just use the dollar in profit, but multiply that with dollars borrowed cheaply from ... you guessed it people that save. So a dollar of profit in the private economy will turn multiple times for every time a dollar in the public coffers turns once. Yes people become frustrated, dj when you describe eloquently, in great detail, how to be a fast runner, but ignore the biking and swimming aspect of a triathlon. Rich people do create jobs, and higher taxation slows their ability to do so. Romney's 14% does not impress me in this regard.That can be said the same for both middle class and the poor. the middle class and poor use most of what they make for consumption because they have to. it is not so with the rich. to create a vibrant economy, you need the middle class to gain wealth. when they fail to do so, it creates a problem not only for them, but the rich. if you are focusing JUST on the rich, you are missing the problem.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 7, 2012 10:12:40 GMT -5
Rich people create jobs in multiple different ways. Their patterns of consumption create jobs. Just take a look at the history of the effect of the so-called "Luxury Tax" on the eastern seaboard. If you don't want to learn, if you aren't seeking the truth, and open minded enough to accept the truth when you discover it- then no one can persuade you. But I come from a long line of Chicago Democrats who became Reagan Republicans and never looked back. Once you accept that class warfare doesn't work, that wealth redistribution is one of the oldest failed ideas in the history of humanity, and that what made America great wasn't the notion that "need" entitles a person to the product of another person's labor, you will know you have grown up.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 10:19:36 GMT -5
Rich people create jobs in multiple different ways. Their patterns of consumption create jobs. that is true. however, that is not the claim that plutocrats are making. they are claiming that they create jobs in the absence of consumption patterns, out of thin air. they are NOT claiming that they need consumers to make them rich. that would be a very different claim. and a more truthful one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 10:20:54 GMT -5
Once you accept that class warfare doesn't work, that wealth redistribution is one of the oldest failed ideas in the history of humanity, and that what made America great wasn't the notion that "need" entitles a person to the product of another person's labor, you will know you have grown up. Paul- just FYI, this thread has NOTHING to do with welfare, OK? what the OP talks about is investment. if you want to talk about welfare, that is fine, but keep in mind that it is not the subject of this thread.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Oct 7, 2012 10:26:29 GMT -5
"i am aware of that. as i said, i have two LLC's, two S Corps, a C Corp and an investment company. i know how they are taxed. but in the case of an LLC, one is taxed as an individual. the corporate rate is really really low. in the case of S Corps it is 1.5% in CA. in many states it is zero."
S corp profits, like an LLC, are taxed at the shareholder level.... my comment were direct specifically to the poster who was complaining about having to pay tax at the individual level on profits retained within the business for future investment, no one escapes tax on retained profits, it's just that in many cases, depending on the specific facts, other structures may be more tax efficient.
I agree with the premise of the video in the original post (the one that the rich do not create all the jobs and that there is a circle.... if there is no market of buyers it does not matter how much money you have... you need to sell the products and 1, 2, 3% do not have enough to sustain business transactions or cover the entire deficit, but Congress and extremists on the left and right do not get it... political hacks do not get it.... real business leaders do get it and they look at tax on the profits they make as just a cost of doing business) as I have noted throughout this thread....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 10:28:22 GMT -5
"i am aware of that. as i said, i have two LLC's, two S Corps, a C Corp and an investment company. i know how they are taxed. but in the case of an LLC, one is taxed as an individual. the corporate rate is really really low. in the case of S Corps it is 1.5% in CA. in many states it is zero." S corp profits, like an LLC, are taxed at the shareholder level.... my comment were direct specifically to the poster who was complaining about having to pay tax at the individual level on profits retained within the business for future investment, no one escapes tax on retained profits, it's just that in many cases, depending on the specific facts, other structures may be more tax efficient. I agree with the premise of the video in the original post (the one that the rich do not create all the jobs and that there is a circle.... if there is no market of buyers it does not matter how much money you have... you need to sell the products and 1, 2, 3% do not have enough to sustain business transactions or cover the entire deficit, but Congress and extremists on the left and right do not get it... political hacks do not get it.... real business leaders do get it and they look at tax on the profits they make as just a cost of doing business) as I have noted throughout this thread.... ok, sorry. i think i misunderstood you. gotta go......
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Oct 7, 2012 10:34:16 GMT -5
"Rich people create jobs in multiple different ways. Their patterns of consumption create jobs"
and so do the poor and middle class who are in the "working class."
" Once you accept that class warfare doesn't work"
Then we need to take class warfare out of the tax law.... giving the investor class special treatment adds fuel the the fire... there is no reason, in my opinion, that income created by work should be taxed more than income created by investment... both are income.... and both are required parts in free markets.... if you have no labor you cannot create goods to bring to market... if you do not have capital you cannot buy the raw materials to make those goods that are brought to market... both parts are important, integral, and mutually dependent; no one part is more important that the other, except in the eyes of the talking heads and Congress....(investment is given a great break already... many business investments, such as wages, building new plants, etc, are tax deductions.... in today's politically driven tax policy we give investors a break, in the form of deductions when they invest and we give them a break when they cash in and exit)
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Oct 7, 2012 10:36:17 GMT -5
"ok, sorry. i think i misunderstood you. gotta go...... "
no worries, I do not mind explaining my opinion and position, I may not have been clear initially... one of the problems with forums like this, it's easy to misunderstand things written when there are so many views and positions bouncing around....
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 7, 2012 23:20:00 GMT -5
Rich people create jobs in multiple different ways. Their patterns of consumption create jobs. that is true. however, that is not the claim that plutocrats are making. they are claiming that they create jobs in the absence of consumption patterns, out of thin air. they are NOT claiming that they need consumers to make them rich. that would be a very different claim. and a more truthful one. I didn't say they needed consumers to make them rich. I said they ARE consumers. When little Barry gets in one of his jealous rages over corporate jets, I'd like the GOP to roll out the mechanics, the craftsmen who stitch the leather seats together, the guys at the plant that makes the aluminum, the pilots, the airport personnel, the cleaning crews, the stewards, the limo drivers, the liquor distributors, the food service companies, the guy that works at the plant that refines oil into Jet A, and all the various players that make private jet travel work and explain to folks that if it weren't for that one rich asshole who just had to have his very on Boeing 727, all those people would be out of work. www.chilloutpoint.com/images/2009/march/private_jets/trump3.jpgWhy? Because if you tax the shit out of something the rich like, they'll just decide to like something else. Remember, I referred you to the luxury tax that has already been tried, and already failed with catastrophic results-- not for the rich. But for everyone else. There are other great examples- like the tax reform act of 1986. All the demagoguery was over tax loopholes for the "rich" and what actually happened? They did away with the business lunch and put restaurants -- and all the waiters, waitresses, bar tenders, and bus boys that work there out of business-- and those that remained? They decided for the first time to tax their income from tips. And when all those people that make private jet travel work, or that build yachts, or that serve up the business lunch are out of work? Well, they don't pay taxes for starters, because the withholding on $0 is $0. And they also stop spending and consuming themselves. So, now the deli where the guys at the shipyard that used to build yachts right here in America on the East coast used to eat their lunch at? It's gone, too. And the guy that owns the deli doesn't pay taxes on $0 either. And nobody in this group makes their house note. And the banks end up taking back the property and making fewer loans-- especially the small mom and pop lenders, the community banks. This is how raising taxes on the so-called rich is such a scam. It costs money to raise taxes, because when you tax an activity, you get less of it. And America is determined to have a tax system that taxes the production of income, savings, and investment. And when you tax the tools of the trade- and yes, a jet is a tool of the trade- you hurt everyone. When you walk into a small business that files as a pass-through entity and they hit that $250K mark, they will either consciously not hit that mark-- and btw, if you don't think people cut off their earnings at a certain point due to bracket creep you are an absolute fool-- or they will simply take a look at their staff of 10 and they'll let someone go. This is what people mean when they dynamically score tax policy and they correctly- and IMHO conservatively- estimate that ObamaCare is a job killer, and that Obama's plan to raise taxes will not only result in a reduction of revenue to the Treasury, but will also kill a minimum of three quarters of a million jobs in the first year alone. Real unemployment is at around 14%-- about where it is in France pretty much under normal circumstances. If you want to see America institutionalize the current 14% unemployment rate-- just let little Barry have his way.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 7, 2012 23:22:37 GMT -5
"Rich people create jobs in multiple different ways. Their patterns of consumption create jobs" and so do the poor and middle class who are in the "working class." " Once you accept that class warfare doesn't work" Then we need to take class warfare out of the tax law.... giving the investor class special treatment adds fuel the the fire... there is no reason, in my opinion, that income created by work should be taxed more than income created by investment... both are income.... and both are required parts in free markets.... if you have no labor you cannot create goods to bring to market... if you do not have capital you cannot buy the raw materials to make those goods that are brought to market... both parts are important, integral, and mutually dependent; no one part is more important that the other, except in the eyes of the talking heads and Congress....(investment is given a great break already... many business investments, such as wages, building new plants, etc, are tax deductions.... in today's politically driven tax policy we give investors a break, in the form of deductions when they invest and we give them a break when they cash in and exit) You're talking to someone that doesn't believe we should tax the production of income, savings, or investment AT ALL. Taxes should be at ZERO for anything productive. Consumption should largely be tax-free as well. We should tax imports, and we should tax consumption past a certain point- and some items should be taxed at dollar number one. I'm really a believer in the www.fairtax.orgI'm for giving everyone, regardless of their earnings, their entire paycheck to keep for themselves.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 23:44:47 GMT -5
that is true. however, that is not the claim that plutocrats are making. they are claiming that they create jobs in the absence of consumption patterns, out of thin air. they are NOT claiming that they need consumers to make them rich. that would be a very different claim. and a more truthful one. I didn't say they needed consumers to make them rich. I said they ARE consumers. yes. they are consumers that consume a disproportionately small amount relative to their income. that is the point of the OP, actually. the CENTRAL point. Romney makes 300x as much as i do. does he consume 300x as much as i do? no. 30x? no. 10x? probably. so, who would you rather have consuming? 300 me's or one Romney? the answer is pretty clear. and there was a time when people like Romney understood that part of their job was to lift up the middle class, not to systematically destroy them. it is not a welfare thing. it is an economic justice thing. and we are going to have to find a way to do it if we want sustained long term growth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 23:48:21 GMT -5
"Rich people create jobs in multiple different ways. Their patterns of consumption create jobs" and so do the poor and middle class who are in the "working class." " Once you accept that class warfare doesn't work" Then we need to take class warfare out of the tax law.... giving the investor class special treatment adds fuel the the fire... there is no reason, in my opinion, that income created by work should be taxed more than income created by investment... both are income.... and both are required parts in free markets.... if you have no labor you cannot create goods to bring to market... if you do not have capital you cannot buy the raw materials to make those goods that are brought to market... both parts are important, integral, and mutually dependent; no one part is more important that the other, except in the eyes of the talking heads and Congress....(investment is given a great break already... many business investments, such as wages, building new plants, etc, are tax deductions.... in today's politically driven tax policy we give investors a break, in the form of deductions when they invest and we give them a break when they cash in and exit) You're talking to someone that doesn't believe we should tax the production of income, savings, or investment AT ALL. Taxes should be at ZERO for anything productive. Consumption should largely be tax-free as well. We should tax imports, and we should tax consumption past a certain point- and some items should be taxed at dollar number one. I'm really a believer in the www.fairtax.orgI'm for giving everyone, regardless of their earnings, their entire paycheck to keep for themselves. i will do my best to make sure that the "fair tax" never happens. i am convinced it will be the end of us if it does. edit: i love the fact that they use the words of that great economist and president CALVIN COOLIDGE in this video. the perfect spokesman for a totally insane idea that should be shitcanned like a $2 Chinese end wrench.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 7, 2012 23:54:29 GMT -5
This is how raising taxes on the so-called rich is such a scam. the 2% are not so called rich. they are, generally speaking, rich.It costs money to raise taxes, because when you tax an activity, you get less of it. not following you here. how does it cost money to raise taxes?When you walk into a small business that files as a pass-through entity and they hit that $250K mark, they will either consciously not hit that mark-- and btw, if you don't think people cut off their earnings at a certain point due to bracket creep you are an absolute fool-- or they will simply take a look at their staff of 10 and they'll let someone go. horsefeathers. if i made $260,000, and the last $10k was taxed 4% higher, i would do NOTHING to modify my earnings behavior. and candidly, anyone else who would rather give up 60% of $10k than earn it is a complete idiot- so irrational that they can't even do what is best for them over their ideology.This is what people mean when they dynamically score tax policy and they correctly- and IMHO conservatively- estimate that ObamaCare is a job killer, i would like to see these studies. can you post them? tyia. and that Obama's plan to raise taxes will not only result in a reduction of revenue to the Treasury, but will also kill a minimum of three quarters of a million jobs in the first year alone. again, post the studies. tyia.Real unemployment is at around 14%-- about where it is in France pretty much under normal circumstances. If you want to see America institutionalize the current 14% unemployment rate-- just let little Barry have his way. real unemployment was 15% under Reagan, then. we came out of that just fine, and we will come out of this fine, as well, imo.
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Oct 8, 2012 1:39:42 GMT -5
I beg to differ... Reagan's "trickledown" tax breaks (give-aways to the wealthy and privileged) are what set us on our current course of financial ruin. The cold hard fact is that 30 years of revenue was lost... and now people wonder why we are going broke. It was just a matter of time!
Back in 1984, Walter Mondale told us taxes would have to be raised to ensure future economic security... and America spurned him for his honesty, rejecting him to re-elect a photogenic detergent spokesman with incipient Alzheimer's.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Oct 8, 2012 5:54:32 GMT -5
"There are other great examples- like the tax reform act of 1986. All the demagoguery was over tax loopholes for the "rich" and what actually happened? They did away with the business lunch and put restaurants -- and all the waiters, waitresses, bar tenders, and bus boys that work there out of business-- and those that remained? They decided for the first time to tax their income from tips." hahahahahahaha... any proof...or is this just an opinion....the enforcement of the taxing to tip income goes back before the TRA of 1986. The enforcement of a law is not the not the same as deciding for the first time to tax income from tips and changing the way to enforce it is not unfair.... (during Reagan) "In 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) added IRC section 6053(c), which required employers whose employees failed to report at least 8% of gross sales as tips to allocate tips equal to 8% of revenue among employees (See PL 100-203)" www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/1206/essentials/p30.htm"tips" are income.... please refer to the law, specifically Internal Revenue Code Section 61, to paraphrase, taxable income is any increase to wealth, unless specially exempted by Congress. "When you walk into a small business that files as a pass-through entity and they hit that $250K mark, they will either consciously not hit that mark-- and btw, if you don't think people cut off their earnings at a certain point due to bracket creep you are an absolute fool-- or they will simply take a look at their staff of 10 and they'll let someone go. " Okay, so, for every $10,000 over $250,000 one would pay approximately $460 more in tax (today the maximum rate for income from work is 35%.... and the President proposes making that 39.6%, so 4.6% more.... or $460/$10,000) and that will cause someone to fire people... wow! Some really short sided business owners out there I guess. If tax was 100% or higher then one would be foolish to make more, but that is not the case. What I find funny about the peddlers of the fair tax.... do you agree with state and local sales taxes? Do you remit the tax to your state when you buy so meting in a neighboring state to bring it home... or do you potentially commit a "crime" (for most civil) and not report it as may be required.... the fair tax is a sales tax....and it will not, in my opinion, solve our problem of tax fairness or equity....states will not miraculously give up their sales tax, their income taxes.... Congress will not give up Medicare and Social Security taxes..... Congress will not give up the income tax.... you may get what you want, as a new level of tax, just like the Europe and other countries who have income taxes and VATs (it's the same things as this fair tax).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2012 6:07:29 GMT -5
This is one extremely interesting thread. I do not know what or who to believe. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 6:09:36 GMT -5
Personally, I agree with you. If there is no demand (or not enough discretionary income to facilitate demand) there is no need for product. If there is no product, there is no need for the business that creates the product, no matter how great that product might be. That, as I see it, is just common sense.
Right now, there is plenty of consumer demand. Consumer spending has reverted to the levels, just prior to the 2008 meltdown. Though in the last quarter there has been some softening. What has not recovered is business investment.
Business investment spurs growth and expansion. Consumer demand merely keeps the status quo. The US economy is suffering from no growth.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 6:19:04 GMT -5
nalysis: Coming hike in investment taxes may make it harder for fast-growing young firms to raise capital James Pethokoukis | October 5, 2012, 8:44 pm Does this sound like a good idea with a 14.7% unemployment rate (including part-timers who wished they have full-time jobs plus some discouraged workers)? Here is JPMorgan on the scheduled increase in the capital gains and dividend tax rates The industrialist John D Rockefeller is said to have remarked “Do you know the only thing that gives me pleasure? It’s to see my dividends coming in.” If Rockefeller were alive this coming New Year’s Day, he wouldn’t be too happy: on that day the dividend tax rate is currently scheduled to increase from 15% to the rate on ordinary income, which for taxpayers in the top bracket will mean 39.6%. When the new investment income tax that is part of the Affordable Care Act is included, as well as the re-introduction of the Pease limitation on itemized deductions, the top marginal dividend tax rate will be 44.6%. The capital gains tax rate is also set to rise, for top bracket taxpayers from 15% to 25%. … Younger firms may have greater difficulty raising funds. … Regarding the first effect—a higher cost of capital and thus lower capital spending by younger firms—the impact shouldn’t be fatal for the job market. Most private sector employment occurs in firms with no publicly traded securities, and even among publicly held firms equity issuance funds only a small fraction of capital spending. Even so, higher dividend taxes should impact some of the most dynamic firms in the economy— those young enough to be raising equity capital.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Oct 8, 2012 6:23:32 GMT -5
"This is one extremely interesting thread. I do not know what or who to believe"
It's like the old question... what came first, the chicken or the egg?
in my opinion, most economic activity comes from labor and capital working together... both parts are needed.... and one part should not be treated as more valuable than the other... but today we face a system that gives capital huge preferences that labor does not get.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2012 6:58:21 GMT -5
"This is one extremely interesting thread. I do not know what or who to believe" It's like the old question... what came first, the chicken or the egg? *in my opinion, most economic activity comes from labor and capital working together... both parts are needed.... *and one part should not be treated as more valuable than the other... *but today we face a system that gives capital huge preferences that labor does not get. * I follow you on the above and totally agree, because it's true.. Sounds like both ends ought to be growing, right? *So... Are you saying workers are being used, as in not benefiting or being compensated as they should be or could be? And only being used to keep capital's propped up only? And when no longer needful are then kicked to the curb after serving their capital for years with very little to show after their labor? *God forbid if this is what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 7:58:37 GMT -5
"This is one extremely interesting thread. I do not know what or who to believe" It's like the old question... what came first, the chicken or the egg? in my opinion, most economic activity comes from labor and capital working together... both parts are needed.... and one part should not be treated as more valuable than the other... but today we face a system that gives capital huge preferences that labor does not get. Labor does not have to worry about the business, or getting the monthly commercial credit line extended month after month, or how to bring in new business. Labor has many guarantees... the business owner has none.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 8:01:09 GMT -5
The US economy is not getting the growth it needs to expand and create prosperity. A 1.4 to 1.5% GDP growth, we can only maintain the current just keeps the economy bumbling along. In order to expand the economy and create more prosperity we need 4-6% GDP growth. The one chart that shows there’s been no jobs market recovery since the end of the Great Recession www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-one-chart-that-shows-theres-been-no-jobs-market-recovery-since-the-end-of-the-great-recession/Economist Michael Darda of MKM Partners: The U.S. lost 8.87 million private sector jobs during the Great Recession; since job growth resumed in March 2010, 4.73 million private sector jobs have been created, just more than half of the job losses suffered. However, the level of private sector jobs remains 12.6 million below the pre-crisis trend. …. In other words, a trend growth recovery has succeeded in stabilizing broad measures of labor market health, but catch-up growth is required for meaningful improvement. We are only getting trend jobs growth, just enough to deal with population growth –but not enough to close the jobs gap, as defined by Darda. We won’t fill the jobs gap unless we get much faster growth than the 1.5%-2% GDP rate we are growing at at right now.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 8:11:00 GMT -5
If the premise of the OP is accurate, this does not explain the dire conditions in the most poverty stricken, third world hell holes in Africa and other countries around the global where there is no wealth and the entire population lives in squalor.
|
|