What's new
By:
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.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
So, after years of lecturing, hectoring, tongue clucking, bloody shirt waving, head shaking, Al Gore like sighing, posturing, name calling, insults and the obligtory threats, a significant majority of us STILL think invading Iraq was a bad idea.

I guess we're just too Appeasement to get the message. Pity.
Click to expand...

FYP
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Kepler said:
FYP
Click to expand...

What was it Arte Johnson used to say at the end of "Laugh In," "very clever, but schtoopid.?" And you conveniently overlooked the D's who were all for it, then reverted to form, as usual.

"Where's my chicken switch? Has anybody seen my g.d.chicken switch?

And I suppose it's a waste of time to point out your little chart only goes back to 2006. Why would that be, unless you're trying to create a phony reality. The vast majority of Americans opposed Behead Land from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Rover said:
Do you only want to earn money in the lowest tax bracket, and refuse to earn six figures a year because you'd have to pay incrementally higher taxes on your income?
Click to expand...
The incentive to change behavior and dodge the higher rate depends on just how high the rate is and how much it jumps from one tier to the next. If your tax rate for income between $50k-$99,999 is 25% while the rate at $100,000-$150,000 is 28%, there's no real incentive to avoid paying that tax rate if you're ok with the 25% on the lower tier of income. However, if the government decided to bump that $100k tier to 50%, you would almost certainly see a significant change in behavior to lower income tax exposure.

If I was in danger of having to fork over half my income above a certain level, I would look for ways to lower my taxable income to avoid taking such a hit - as would most taxpayers, I suspect. Besides, who says all income has to be subject to the income tax? Wealthy people pay a significant portion of their taxes due to capital gains, not the income tax (and the capital gains tax is lower than most income tax rates).
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
The incentive to change behavior and dodge the higher rate depends on just how high the rate is and how much it jumps from one tier to the next. If your tax rate for income between $50k-$99,999 is 25% while the rate at $100,000-$150,000 is 28%, there's no real incentive to avoid paying that tax rate if you're ok with the 25% on the lower tier of income. However, if the government decided to bump that $100k tier to 50%, you would almost certainly see a significant change in behavior to lower income tax exposure.

If I was in danger of having to fork over half my income above a certain level, I would look for ways to lower my taxable income to avoid taking such a hit - as would most taxpayers, I suspect. Besides, who says all income has to be subject to the income tax? Wealthy people pay a significant portion of their taxes due to capital gains, not the income tax (and the capital gains tax is lower than most income tax rates).
Click to expand...

ok... then explain it because tax rates tax on every dollar thereafter... now I can see a disincentive to chase the next dollar... but not a numerical disadvantage... after all, nobody is going to crawl over the ends of the earth for a 5 dollar bill.

I don't doubt that people would want to seek out ways to minimize their exposure... and that will lead to some less than optimal situations... nevertheless, each additional "dollar" you make means you get to keep some fraction of it.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
The incentive to change behavior and dodge the higher rate depends on just how high the rate is and how much it jumps from one tier to the next. If your tax rate for income between $50k-$99,999 is 25% while the rate at $100,000-$150,000 is 28%, there's no real incentive to avoid paying that tax rate if you're ok with the 25% on the lower tier of income. However, if the government decided to bump that $100k tier to 50%, you would almost certainly see a significant change in behavior to lower income tax exposure.

If I was in danger of having to fork over half my income above a certain level, I would look for ways to lower my taxable income to avoid taking such a hit - as would most taxpayers, I suspect. Besides, who says all income has to be subject to the income tax? Wealthy people pay a significant portion of their taxes due to capital gains, not the income tax (and the capital gains tax is lower than most income tax rates).
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the tax rate on the guy who makes 100-150000 isn't 28% until after the first 100 is made. Thus 50,000 is subject to the 28% not, the full 150,000.

Thus if it goes up to 50% you are only paying that on the 50,000 above 100,000.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ScoobyDoo said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the tax rate on the guy who makes 100-150000 isn't 28% until after the first 100 is made. Thus 50,000 is subject to the 28% not, the full 150,000.

Thus if it goes up to 50% you are only paying that on the 50,000 above 100,000.
Click to expand...
But many of the tax credits that lower income people enjoy get phased out, so not only do they pay this higher tax rate on the last 50k, but you also don't get treated the same on the first 100k.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
What was it Arte Johnson used to say at the end of "Laugh In," "very clever, but schtoopid.?" And you conveniently overlooked the D's who were all for it, then reverted to form, as usual.
Click to expand...

Most Dems just gave authorization...which the GOP had anyway.

Blame for Iraq is strictly on conservatives.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ScoobyDoo said:
Thus if it goes up to 50% you are only paying that on the 50,000 above 100,000.
Click to expand...
That is what I said when I mentioned "forking over half my income above a certain level". It's the logical basis for engaging in behavior to keep your marginal rate low by shielding income to stay in the lower bracket.

Patman - yes, you get to keep "some fraction" of income earned above each threshold. My point concerning that is if the graduated rate is significantly higher from one threshold to the next, people will look for ways to keep themselves below that cut-off point. The easiest way to do that is to max out the 401(k) deduction.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ted-city-used-stimulus-funds/?test=latestnews

While we discuss economics and tax policies, let's consider that LA has spent 111 million of those "stimulus" dollars to "save or create" an astounding 55 jobs. And the same president responsible for this union-loving loblolly wants to spend more tax dollars on similarly pointless endeavors. His union thug pals will love it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Patman said:
ok... then explain it because tax rates tax on every dollar thereafter... now I can see a disincentive to chase the next dollar... but not a numerical disadvantage... after all, nobody is going to crawl over the ends of the earth for a 5 dollar bill.

I don't doubt that people would want to seek out ways to minimize their exposure... and that will lead to some less than optimal situations... nevertheless, each additional "dollar" you make means you get to keep some fraction of it.
Click to expand...

That's impossible, we have folks, right here on this very thread, that can quote economic theory proving that a business would pursue additional $$, no matter what amount of risk.

There are no step functions to risk or reward...it is all a straight line and it is possible to expand a business exactly along that line...haven't you been following?

It is clear that no business has ever expanded and not only lost the second investment but also lost the base enterprise. So, that is why instead of sitting on cash, the business owner would be compelled by economic theory to use that cash, take on additional debt and commit to additional obligations to expand in pursuit of another $1, no matter what rate of return they MIGHT realize.

They wouldn't put it in bonds, add to the college fund, pay down debt, buy a boat etc. They would embrace a rising tax and regulatory environment and an uncertain economy and bet the ranch and the dog, literally, because economic theory says that is what they would do.

I mean its not like the current set of facts support the exact opposite...companies and individuals aren't sitting on cash, holding to reduced spending targets, delaying hiring, delaying capital projects...none of that is happening.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ted-city-used-stimulus-funds/?test=latestnews

While we discuss economics and tax policies, let's consider that LA has spent 111 million of those "stimulus" dollars to "save or create" an astounding 55 jobs. And the same president responsible for this union-loving loblolly wants to spend more tax dollars on similarly pointless endeavors. His union thug pals will love it.
Click to expand...

On the subject of spending tax dollars on pointless endeavors, wake me up when Obama spends 3 trillion to kill 3 thousand patriots.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I don't doubt that taxes constrict businesses and constrict the economy... most of these businesses take their money and feed it back into further improvements because they want a bigger slice... this a healthy phenomena.

That being said, on the micro-level, yes risks change the equation, but generally people will still chase the next dollar.

Now of course, if you increase the rates on business income then you can push a company into the negative territory as its always income - expenses.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

walrus said:
So they approved of the action?
Click to expand...

Dems did not approve but rather authorized the use of force. Big difference. It 'encouraged' using the UN to enforce UN resolutions. And even then, only 39% of Dems voted to give the administration the authorization that technically it already had.

The decision to go to war was strictly made by the administration and was supported wholeheartedly by conservatives even long after the rest of the country felt it was wrong. Indeed conservatives on the board were arguing its benefits long after most Americans saw that it was a bad decision.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Are you ****ing dense? If they didn't approve of the war they should have voted against it. One more reason I miss Paul Wellstone despite him being pretty far left. He didn't bull**** you like the current government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XYZ
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top