mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Agree
This after all is a transfer payment (not retirement fund) furnished by taxes. There should be no limitations on taxation levels. No shielded income.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
- Thread starter FlagDUDE08
- Start date
- Status
Agree
This after all is a transfer payment (not retirement fund) furnished by taxes. There should be no limitations on taxation levels. No shielded income.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
There should not be a separate tax at all. It should all be general fund, one tax, full transparency.
I do like that you understand tax caps are wrong. There may be hope for you yet.
There should not be a separate tax at all. It should all be general fund, one tax, full transparency.
I do like that you understand tax caps are wrong. There may be hope for you yet.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/...l-trump-corker.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3089423
Hey, Collins, Corker, and Murkowski. Enjoy Hell.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/...l-trump-corker.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3089423
Hey, Collins, Corker, and Murkowski. Enjoy Hell.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
If you're a single income earner at $150k with three kids, that's a heck of a lot different than dual income at $300k with three kids. Your flat rise/run does a disservice to one family while artificially aiding the other.
If you're a single income earner at $150k with three kids, that's a heck of a lot different than dual income at $300k with three kids. Your flat rise/run does a disservice to one family while artificially aiding the other.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
I'm not stating a policy. I'm stating numbers that I think the middle class ends and the well-to-do begins.
I'm not stating a policy. I'm stating numbers that I think the middle class ends and the well-to-do begins.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
You know what's funny? I see all these left-wingers in NYS, including Cuomo, whining about the 10k tax cap towards itemizing of deductions. OK, that's not the funny part, aside from maybe Cuomo, who could actually do something about it at the state level. The funny part comes when it's pointed out that what they're doing is advocating for... wait for it... a tax cut for the rich.
You know what's funny? I see all these left-wingers in NYS, including Cuomo, whining about the 10k tax cap towards itemizing of deductions. OK, that's not the funny part, aside from maybe Cuomo, who could actually do something about it at the state level. The funny part comes when it's pointed out that what they're doing is advocating for... wait for it... a tax cut for the rich.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
Q3 GDP growth rate is out. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/us-final-reading-on-q3-2017-gdp.html
3.2%.
Q3 GDP growth rate is out. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/us-final-reading-on-q3-2017-gdp.html
3.2%.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
Yeah because poor people with medical bills are rich мошенник
Yeah because poor people with medical bills are rich мошенник
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
And where does the state and local taxes (including property) have anything to do with medical bills?
And where does the state and local taxes (including property) have anything to do with medical bills?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
It has everything to do with it.
It has everything to do with it.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
Please elaborate, including how a "poor person" has a housing asset of, let's say given I'm in NYS, half a million bucks. Adjust for your locale where the property, school, and state/local income tax cost is over $10,000.
Please elaborate, including how a "poor person" has a housing asset of, let's say given I'm in NYS, half a million bucks. Adjust for your locale where the property, school, and state/local income tax cost is over $10,000.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
You were talking about itemizing deductions, medical bills were one of the things where you can do that.
You were talking about itemizing deductions, medical bills were one of the things where you can do that.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
And it's not subject to the 10k limit on property taxes that your plea for a tax cut for the rich would repeal.
And it's not subject to the 10k limit on property taxes that your plea for a tax cut for the rich would repeal.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
Very well written piece on the tax bill, it's unpopularity, and what that could mean in 2018. A great read even if you are for the bill.
Very well written piece on the tax bill, it's unpopularity, and what that could mean in 2018. A great read even if you are for the bill.
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
So have the Democrats figured out yet whether the tax bill gives too much away to the rich, or whether it is too punitive for the rich in high-income tax states by capping the deduction for state and local taxes?
They've been saying both lately.
I ran the numbers for a few states to see the net effect.
Top effective federal rate before the cut: 44.6% (39.6% +3.8% Medicare surcharge + 1.2% Pease amendment).
Top effective federal rate after the cut: 40.8% (37.0% + 3.8% Medicare surcharge)
How does that work out in conjunction with the loss of the deduction for state and local taxes?
Minnesota: Before, effective top marginal rate was 50.5%, after it is 50.7% (+.2%)
NY State (outside of NYC): Before, effective top marginal rate was 49.9%, after it is 49.6% (-.3%)
Basically, the "breakeven" state income tax rate is 9.5% or so; if your state rate is higher than that, for top earners (e.g., annual income > $1 million) it is a net loss, otherwise it is a net gain.
That's why California and NY City were screaming the loudest. The top 1% there pay about 40% - 45% of all state income taxes.
California: Before, effective top marginal rate was 52.6%, after it is 54.1% (+1.5%).
So have the Democrats figured out yet whether the tax bill gives too much away to the rich, or whether it is too punitive for the rich in high-income tax states by capping the deduction for state and local taxes?
They've been saying both lately.
I ran the numbers for a few states to see the net effect.
Top effective federal rate before the cut: 44.6% (39.6% +3.8% Medicare surcharge + 1.2% Pease amendment).
Top effective federal rate after the cut: 40.8% (37.0% + 3.8% Medicare surcharge)
How does that work out in conjunction with the loss of the deduction for state and local taxes?
Minnesota: Before, effective top marginal rate was 50.5%, after it is 50.7% (+.2%)
NY State (outside of NYC): Before, effective top marginal rate was 49.9%, after it is 49.6% (-.3%)
Basically, the "breakeven" state income tax rate is 9.5% or so; if your state rate is higher than that, for top earners (e.g., annual income > $1 million) it is a net loss, otherwise it is a net gain.
That's why California and NY City were screaming the loudest. The top 1% there pay about 40% - 45% of all state income taxes.
California: Before, effective top marginal rate was 52.6%, after it is 54.1% (+1.5%).
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
Actually, during WWII, the Treasury came up with a somewhat similar proposal, and it was just a few votes away from being passed into law. It is hard to understate how differently our country would have developed since then, it would be more prosperous with a much wider dispersal of wealth had it been enacted.
It was very simple and had clear incentives toward saving and investment.
1) Take everything that comes into your household during the course of a year, from whatever source (income, gift, inheritance, sale of investments, etc.)
2) Deduct the following:
-- deposits into savings and investment accounts
-- asset purchases (e.g., including the principal payments on a mortgage, not the interest).
-- insurance premiums
3) Have graduated tax structure on the difference, similar to structure of income tax today.
One way to look at it would be that all savings and investment would be tax deductible. YAY!!
Another way to frame it would be to call it a "consumption" tax. BOO!!
Either way, the ripple effects would have been enormous, especially when compounded over time:
-- there would be so much more capital investment in business development, equipment, machinery, the kinds of things that promote higher wages because more skills are required
-- our educational system would be so much better because the focus would have been on preparing people to live in that kind of world
-- look how much better it would have been for the environment: no one would want to pay for fancy packaging and disposable stuff that overflows our landfills today.
Actually, during WWII, the Treasury came up with a somewhat similar proposal, and it was just a few votes away from being passed into law. It is hard to understate how differently our country would have developed since then, it would be more prosperous with a much wider dispersal of wealth had it been enacted.
It was very simple and had clear incentives toward saving and investment.
1) Take everything that comes into your household during the course of a year, from whatever source (income, gift, inheritance, sale of investments, etc.)
2) Deduct the following:
-- deposits into savings and investment accounts
-- asset purchases (e.g., including the principal payments on a mortgage, not the interest).
-- insurance premiums
3) Have graduated tax structure on the difference, similar to structure of income tax today.
One way to look at it would be that all savings and investment would be tax deductible. YAY!!
Another way to frame it would be to call it a "consumption" tax. BOO!!
Either way, the ripple effects would have been enormous, especially when compounded over time:
-- there would be so much more capital investment in business development, equipment, machinery, the kinds of things that promote higher wages because more skills are required
-- our educational system would be so much better because the focus would have been on preparing people to live in that kind of world
-- look how much better it would have been for the environment: no one would want to pay for fancy packaging and disposable stuff that overflows our landfills today.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
The rich will all turn themselves into passthrough corporations and carried interest.
The rich will all turn themselves into passthrough corporations and carried interest.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands
It would be extremely regressive. Let's a take a low wage laborer under this system. They make just enough to pay their bills, they can't afford a house, they have no savings to speak of. Under this system every cent of their wages is taxed. Now take me, with a big mortgage, a big and growing savings, and big retirement portfolio. A huge portion of my wages is deductible.
Now, we could eliminate that by having a steep graduated tax, with a significant 0% bracket, say on the first $50k or so of inputs, making it up on the back-end with 90% on very high inputs say over $10M.
There is one good thing about this idea: it rewards savings and punishes spending. But of course that's also bad for the economy as a whole, and is probably unworkable.
It seems like all these plans look at the baseline economic condition from the POV of the wealthy, when we should design our taxation system with the needs and realities of the lower middle class and the poor in mind. The entire point of government intrusion into the economy is the improvement of the lives of those least fortunate.
It would be extremely regressive. Let's a take a low wage laborer under this system. They make just enough to pay their bills, they can't afford a house, they have no savings to speak of. Under this system every cent of their wages is taxed. Now take me, with a big mortgage, a big and growing savings, and big retirement portfolio. A huge portion of my wages is deductible.
Now, we could eliminate that by having a steep graduated tax, with a significant 0% bracket, say on the first $50k or so of inputs, making it up on the back-end with 90% on very high inputs say over $10M.
There is one good thing about this idea: it rewards savings and punishes spending. But of course that's also bad for the economy as a whole, and is probably unworkable.
It seems like all these plans look at the baseline economic condition from the POV of the wealthy, when we should design our taxation system with the needs and realities of the lower middle class and the poor in mind. The entire point of government intrusion into the economy is the improvement of the lives of those least fortunate.
Last edited:
- Status