Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

[dxmnkd316]

I'll be dammed if I let some Oxford comma-hatin' basterd take over.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Subscribed because apparently starting a thread on mobile doesn't subscribe you.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

There will be trolls and cant and barely concealed cut and paste from Cato and polysyndetons.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

GD it.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Another serious non-sectarian non-partisan question for the redistribution crowd: how does your math actually work in practice?

it sounds great (to some) in concept to say, "tax the rich more and give it to the poor." How do you implement it?

For example, let's say that for annual income above $5 million, the marginal federal rate is 80%. Is that "fair"?

So you implement that plan, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

So, for annual income above $1 million, say, the marginal federal rate is 60%.

So you implement that plan too, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

So, for annual income above $650,000, say, the marginal federal rate is 50%.

So you implement that plan too, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

How far down do you keep going? How high do you keep raising rates?


I did some rough and ready math using census data and IRS data found online and it looks like you have to raise taxes on annual income above $120,000 to about 45% AND have steeply-graduated rates and brackets above that level too.


We are left with a situation in which you cannot find a practical way to tax enough money away from the "rich" to reach your goals. Now what?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Where some of that bailout money is going: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...8-billion-five-plead-guilty-to-market-rigging

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Another serious non-sectarian non-partisan question for the redistribution crowd: how does your math actually work in practice?

it sounds great (to some) in concept to say, "tax the rich more and give it to the poor." How do you implement it?

For example, let's say that for annual income above $5 million, the marginal federal rate is 80%. Is that "fair"?

So you implement that plan, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

So, for annual income above $1 million, say, the marginal federal rate is 60%.

So you implement that plan too, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

So, for annual income above $650,000, say, the marginal federal rate is 50%.

So you implement that plan too, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

How far down do you keep going? How high do you keep raising rates?


I did some rough and ready math using census data and IRS data found online and it looks like you have to raise taxes on annual income above $120,000 to about 45% AND have steeply-graduated rates and brackets above that level too.


We are left with a situation in which you cannot find a practical way to tax enough money away from the "rich" to reach your goals. Now what?

Why are you only taxing income and not capital gains? I don't see why you would tax income and not another source of income that is taxed at an absurdly low rate.

Honestly I don't know what the ideal rates should be but I know I've seen Kepler lay it out before.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Another serious non-sectarian non-partisan question for the redistribution crowd: how does your math actually work in practice?

it sounds great (to some) in concept to say, "tax the rich more and give it to the poor." How do you implement it?

For example, let's say that for annual income above $5 million, the marginal federal rate is 80%. Is that "fair"?

So you implement that plan, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

So, for annual income above $1 million, say, the marginal federal rate is 60%.

So you implement that plan too, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

So, for annual income above $650,000, say, the marginal federal rate is 50%.

So you implement that plan too, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

How far down do you keep going? How high do you keep raising rates?


I did some rough and ready math using census data and IRS data found online and it looks like you have to raise taxes on annual income above $120,000 to about 45% AND have steeply-graduated rates and brackets above that level too.


We are left with a situation in which you cannot find a practical way to tax enough money away from the "rich" to reach your goals. Now what?

1) Go back to Clinton era tax rates when the budget was balanced.
2) Adjust spending accordingly
3) Tweak tax rate and spending accordingly for needed changes made since then (AMT adjustment, should raise gas tax for infrastructure, ACA bonus tax).
4) The end.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Let me know when labor is as important as capital. Until then the system is still rigged.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Why are you only taxing income and not capital gains? I don't see why you would tax income and not another source of income that is taxed at an absurdly low rate.

Honestly I don't know what the ideal rates should be but I know I've seen Kepler lay it out before.

It's already subjected to corporate taxes, is it not?

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I guess I should specify that I meant raising that tax and not just income is probably the way to go. It makes no sense to simply increase income tax and leave that one untouched.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I guess I should specify that I meant raising that tax and not just income is probably the way to go. It makes no sense to simply increase income tax and leave that one untouched.

For the 1% it makes all the sense in the world. Screw labor.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I guess I should specify that I meant raising that tax and not just income is probably the way to go. It makes no sense to simply increase income tax and leave that one untouched.

FlagDUDE was making the point that before a capital gain is taxed by the government at the corporate level prior to its distribution. He's confusing it with dividend income, which can be taxed as many as three times during its payout cycle from corporation to investor. Capital gains are not the same as dividends.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

For the 1% it makes all the sense in the world. Screw labor.

Well yeah, and people who think they're in the 1%

FlagDUDE was making the point that before a capital gain is taxed by the government at the corporate level prior to its distribution. He's confusing it with dividend income, which can be taxed as many as three times during its payout cycle from corporation to investor. Capital gains are not the same as dividends.

Ok that makes more sense.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

FlagDUDE was making the point that before a capital gain is taxed by the government at the corporate level prior to its distribution. He's confusing it with dividend income, which can be taxed as many as three times during its payout cycle from corporation to investor. Capital gains are not the same as dividends.

Both, however, are subjected to lower rates, which is the basis behind trixR4kids's argument. Plus, long-term capital gains, otherwise known as the sale of an asset held for longer than one year for a value higher than the cost or other basis, were taxed at a lower rate during the Clinton days, albeit at 20% (and is taxed at that rate today if your total income is over ~$400,000).

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Honestly I don't know what the ideal rates should be but I know I've seen Kepler lay it out before.

Yeah, I've seen that before too and if you actually apply the rates he suggests to the data, you have an enormous shortfall between what you collect and what you want to spend.

So where do you make the adjustments? Spend less, or collect more?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

1) Go back to Clinton era tax rates when the budget was balanced.

Epic fail.
1) The annual rate of spending increase since then has been substantially higher than the annual rate of increase in income. It won't work these days.
2) Using those tax rates would mean tax increases for everyone except the rich, since we already have Clinton-era tax rates on the rich.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Epic fail.
1) The annual rate of spending increase since then has been substantially higher than the annual rate of increase in income. It won't work these days.
2) Using those tax rates would mean tax increases for everyone except the rich, since we already have Clinton-era tax rates on the rich.

Not entirely true; "qualified dividends" would no longer exist.

However, to add to your point, there's no dot-com boom to spur the transfer of money. And if you look at the the policies of the Federal Reserve in targeting 2% inflation per year, they're trying desperately to get money to change hands, mostly so the government can tax it. It'll only be a matter of time before a savings tax will be put into place where you have to pay to hold money in a bank account, while pushing for a cashless society (they're already trying it in Europe).

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Epic fail.
1) The annual rate of spending increase since then has been substantially higher than the annual rate of increase in income. It won't work these days.
2) Using those tax rates would mean tax increases for everyone except the rich, since we already have Clinton-era tax rates on the rich.

Which is why I posted:

"2) Adjust spending accordingly"
"3) Tweak tax rate and spending accordingly for needed changes made since then (AMT adjustment, should raise gas tax for infrastructure, ACA bonus tax)."

So, getting back to Clinton era tax rates, and the accompanying revenue it would generate, as your starting point. If that means taxes go up on people, so be it. Then institute other tax breaks/hikes over the last several years if you'd like. Again the AMT adjustment makes sense. You may want to reduce the lowest level tax rate. Also ACA bonus tax would come back. I would also set the gas tax at whatever amount of $$$ we'd like to spend on infrastructure, so that may also go up.

 

[unofan]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Epic fail.
1) The annual rate of spending increase since then has been substantially higher than the annual rate of increase in income. It won't work these days.
2) Using those tax rates would mean tax increases for everyone except the rich, since we already have Clinton-era tax rates on the rich.

But going to a flat tax, which you have often advocated, is a great idea? Concern troll sounds concerned.