Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

[joecct]

I don't remember what our final terms were, which is bad since I'm a co-writer.

That's why we have staff and aides.

Count it all equally
Everyone files single
Deduct $45,000 (indexed on cost of living for your area).

Where we disagree is the rates. You favored a 90% top rate. Mine was 45%.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

That's why we have staff and aides.

Count it all equally
Everyone files single
Deduct $45,000 (indexed on cost of living for your area).

Where we disagree is the rates. You favored a 90% top rate. Mine was 45%.

Oh. OK, yes, I can go with that.

I believe I said 90% top marginal personal income tax rate if we dropped the corporate rate to 0. If we kept the corporate rate then top marginal rate could top out around 75%.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

That's why we have staff and aides.

Count it all equally
Everyone files single
Deduct $45,000 (indexed on cost of living for your area).

Where we disagree is the rates. You favored a 90% top rate. Mine was 45%.

no deductions or exceptions

 

[Kepler]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

no deductions or exceptions

Correct. No nothing.

 

[joecct]

Correct. No nothing.

And nothing above or below the line.
Let's say Spouse A makes $62,000 and
Spouse B makes $90,000. Let's also say they live in a high cost area and the index takes the deduction to $50,000.

The taxable income on A would be $12,000 and on B $40,000.

Both their rates are 15%.
A would pay $1,800 & B would pay $6,000.

In our second example, on the other side of town, C makes $200,000 and D makes $2,000,000.
C's tax would be $22,500 (150K • .15)
I believe Kep and I diverge on D
D would pay $387,500 ($150,000 on first million and the 25% on the $950,000 balance)

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

It's too bad in a way that they did not pass a standalone corporate tax reform bill first and then address personal income tax separately.

Obama in 2012 proposed a significant cut in the corporate rate.

If it was a good idea then, why isn't it still a good idea now?

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

no deductions or exceptions

Definitely not. I'm tired of offering deductions just because you didn't wear a rubber or take the pill (or your religion forbids those). You have a kid? Then prepare to pay the price for your lack of vision for at least the next 18 years!

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

It's too bad in a way that they did not pass a standalone corporate tax reform bill first and then address personal income tax separately.

Obama in 2012 proposed a significant cut in the corporate rate.

If it was a good idea then, why isn't it still a good idea now?

It wasn't a good idea then.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

I’m in favor of lowering the corporate rate. But I’d also eliminate most deductions. Entertainment, advertising, insurance, interest. No more pass throughs either. Corporate taxes are collected on all income. If a subsidiary makes a buck overseas, too bad.

And I’d also restructure how write offs are taken. No more spreading them out over years. There’s a cap on how long you can wait to take them. If that’s not feasible, then write offs are also gone. Maybe that’s insane. I’m not a corporate tax expert.

Basically I want to see the effective rate for corporations at 20% plus. I honestly don’t really care how we get there.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

Basically I want to see the effective rate for corporations at 20% plus.

I am perfectly willing to have corporate taxes at zero as long as wealthy owners of corporations and their high salary lackeys pay very high rates and all use of corporate property by owners and managers is taxed as income.

The obvious way to do this is to spread ownership of corporations across the entire worker population and into the user base as much as is feasible, and in a real, flat way, not in the nonsense way now where principle owners still retain majority shares. Imagine if a shareholders' meet was real and not just banana republic bullsh-t? Imagine if the people who decided corporate policy were directly incentified to build a strong company for themselves and their kids and not just Wall Street parasites?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

I am perfectly willing to have corporate taxes at zero as long as wealthy owners of corporations and their high salary lackeys pay very high rates and all use of corporate property by owners and managers is taxed as income.

The obvious way to do this is to spread ownership of corporations across the entire worker population and into the user base as much as is feasible, and in a real, flat way, not in the nonsense way now where principle owners still retain majority shares. Imagine if a shareholders' meet was real and not just banana republic bullsh-t? Imagine if the people who decided corporate policy were directly incentified to build a strong company for themselves and their kids and not just Wall Street parasites?

why do you hate america?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

I am perfectly willing to have corporate taxes at zero as long as wealthy owners of corporations and their high salary lackeys pay very high rates and all use of corporate property by owners and managers is taxed as income.

The obvious way to do this is to spread ownership of corporations across the entire worker population and into the user base as much as is feasible, and in a real, flat way, not in the nonsense way now where principle owners still retain majority shares. Imagine if a shareholders' meet was real and not just banana republic bullsh-t? Imagine if the people who decided corporate policy were directly incentified to build a strong company for themselves and their kids and not just Wall Street parasites?

I’m also not a fan of different classes of shares. Maybe it’s because I don’t understand the nuances.

I’m 100% on board with your first paragraph. The use of corporate property should be taxable regardless. It’s insane what some of these CEOs get. I know what mine gets and he effectively has zero expenses.

 

[joecct]

Definitely not. I'm tired of offering deductions just because you didn't wear a rubber or take the pill (or your religion forbids those). You have a kid? Then prepare to pay the price for your lack of vision for at least the next 18 years!

Do you thank your parents for their lack of vision?

 

[MissThundercat]

Do you thank your parents for their lack of vision?

There are times I do and times I don't. I inherited my mom's temper, her attitude of service, her love of Neil Diamond, and her sick sense of humor.

I don't thank her for the depression or anxiety, though.

I got my love of hockey and my sarcasm from my biological father.

 

[alfablue]

Definitely not. I'm tired of offering deductions just because you didn't wear a rubber or take the pill (or your religion forbids those). You have a kid? Then prepare to pay the price for your lack of vision for at least the next 18 years!

If you don’t deduct for kids or dependents, how do you justify a lower limit for no taxes?

Also, the idea of taxing only individuals means everyone pretty much has to work just to have a family. I don’t see that as a good thing, either.

Both of those have some side effects that few will want, one being that the unemployment rate will spike up for the tax breaks for fully working families will get.

 

[alfablue]

That's why we have staff and aides.

Count it all equally
Everyone files single
Deduct $45,000 (indexed on cost of living for your area).

Where we disagree is the rates. You favored a 90% top rate. Mine was 45%.

Here’s an obvious problem:

Two couples make $100k.

One does it with a single earner, so their taxable income is $55k.
The other does it with dual $50k income, their taxable income is only $10k.

That hardly seems like a good and fair idea. Unless you want to force both in a family to work.

So much for stay at home parents being an option.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

Do you thank your parents for their lack of vision?

*snort*

It was a joke; mostly. Your sarcasm detector needs tuning.

If you don’t deduct for kids or dependents, how do you justify a lower limit for no taxes?

Also, the idea of taxing only individuals means everyone pretty much has to work just to have a family. I don’t see that as a good thing, either.

Both of those have some side effects that few will want, one being that the unemployment rate will spike up for the tax breaks for fully working families will get.

Your mistake was taking my post seriously.

 

[alfablue]

*snort*

It was a joke; mostly. Your sarcasm detector needs tuning.



Your mistake was taking my post seriously.

Even with the non serious post, the question of joe’s arbitrary $45k remains.

 

[mookie1995]

Even with the non serious post, the question of joe’s arbitrary $45k remains.

Have to pick a number, no?

 

[BassAle]

Even with the non serious post, the question of joe’s arbitrary $45k remains.

I’m less concerned about the 45k he pulled out of his *** and more with the fact that his plan penalizes single income families that make the same as dual income families