AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > topher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I’m in the “tax the rich” camp. BO is not > > proposing anything too drastic. Many points > have > > already been made, but basically the rich can > > afford to pay a little more. > > If the high earners voluntarily pay more or better > yet, give to charities of their choices, that’s > fine. But for the government to TAX them more > simply because they make more and can afford more, > isn’t this discouraging entrepreneurship and > anti-capitalism? In my opinion, no. Raising the tax rate 3% - 4% for the wealthiest is not going to stop them from continuing to run their businesses. Government: Instead of making 190k after-tax, you’ll be making 180k after-tax (assuming about 300k pre-tax income). Sorry for draining your resources. Maybe you should stop running your business?
I have no issue with raising taxes- I am no way near the top bracket and would be happy to pay more if I thought it would solve anything- but your arguments just don’t make any sense. You are doing the whole have vs have not argument that is so popular and failing to recognize that there are way more relationships and linkages than appear to exist. You never responded to my question about almost 35% of returns pay 0 or negative taxes and whether that was fair. You also keep stating how the “rich” get more out of the budget- using your example above lets take a look at the logic… Forest Service $5.38 billion DNR state agency schools state agency FAA $9.336 billion. vs DOD $671 billion SS $695 billion Medicare $453 billion You really think that 1% need to pay more because they go to the national parks more often? I am open to hearing you out- my issue is that you have failed to provide any logic or solid reasoning behind it- other than talking about fancy cars and private lakes. I don’t know anyone who makes 250k that fits that lifestyle you are so vehemently against. Although I bet those who do have those cars and lakes and jets employ plenty of ppl both directly and indirectly to maintain those vises.
I agree it wont cause people to shut their business down. In fact, I have a small business and I told the girl in NJ (employee) that if my taxes go up that she will be getting a pay reduction to help offset. But I never thought about actually shutting the doors…so to speak.
I can’t stand the logic that raising income tax by a few % is going to make people less motivated and hurt productivity. When has anyone turned down a bigger salary or a bonus because of tax implications? It also drives me nuts when people don’t take into account the progressive nature of taxes. If you make $1k over the 250k level only that $1k will see a higher tax rate, not the whole thing.
Great point. I don’t think many folks understand that.
^Yeah my numbers are messed up because I didn’t calc the taxes correctly. But my point (and your point) is still the same. A few % points on the rich isn’t going to kill them. A few % points on the poor or middle class very well could screw them over.
steph96 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about the small business owner that pays > himself via the profits that his company makes (s > corp)? I don’t think he’s going to take a cut in > after-tax pay, while continuing to run his > business as usual. Instead, he’ll get rid of an > employee or two. The business owner will be > unaffected while the workers are the ones that are > impacted. > > It’s not necessarily the wealthy that are impacted > by tax increases on the wealthy…And there are a > hell of a lot of small business owners that fall > in the $250+ category. Ok so using this example, the marginal tax rate goes from 36% to 39% over 250k right? Laying someone off would take away from his deductable expenses and therefore increase his tax liability. Say he makes 350k and his 100k is at risk of the increased tax. He pays an extra 3k a year. Lay off an employee for say 30k and his taxable income goes up to 380k and an extra 39% on the 30k. This doesnt hold water for small busines owners at all and it irritates me when I hear this from Congress. For large companies, I get the point that massive layoffs to decrease expense and continue consistent dividend payments, but this is just a BS arguement for small business owners.
^^hardly, since they aren’t paying anything to begin with. poor people are a negative externality that must be eliminated! j/k or am i?
BizBanker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > steph96 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What about the small business owner that pays > > himself via the profits that his company makes > (s > > corp)? I don’t think he’s going to take a cut > in > > after-tax pay, while continuing to run his > > business as usual. Instead, he’ll get rid of > an > > employee or two. The business owner will be > > unaffected while the workers are the ones that > are > > impacted. > > > > It’s not necessarily the wealthy that are > impacted > > by tax increases on the wealthy…And there are > a > > hell of a lot of small business owners that > fall > > in the $250+ category. > > > Ok so using this example, the marginal tax rate > goes from 36% to 39% over 250k right? Laying > someone off would take away from his deductable > expenses and therefore increase his tax liability. > Say he makes 350k and his 100k is at risk of the > increased tax. He pays an extra 3k a year. Lay off > an employee for say 30k and his taxable income > goes up to 380k and an extra 39% on the 30k. This > doesnt hold water for small busines owners at all > and it irritates me when I hear this from > Congress. For large companies, I get the point > that massive layoffs to decrease expense and > continue consistent dividend payments, but this is > just a BS arguement for small business owners. But by laying off that worker, he has effectively avoided the tax. In fact, he is really no worse off than before. He probably has a little more work to do himself since the worker is gone, and he is paying more tax, but he is still rich after the tax increase. What about the 30k/year worker? He/she is f-in out of a job and probably struggling to make the rent next month.
For all of you on here making the, “raising the tax rate 3% - 4% for the wealthiest is not going to stop them from continuing to run their businesses.-topher” argument You need to realize it is logically baseless as it can be used to expand taxation on the wealthy without bound. i.e. instead of raising the tax on the rich by say 90% right away we can just raise their taxes by 1% every so often until we get to 90% while using this ridiculous logic to justify it. The problem with 3-4% increase is that they eventually add up and none of you are in a position to set the limiting boundary on what WILL or WON’T stop them from working.
I haven’t said anything about fancy cars, and there’s no lifestyle I’m vehemently against (except perhaps white male self righteous evangelical Christians, but that’s for another day).
lol I didn’t say increasing without bound is fine. I said increasing 3% or 4% really is a drop in the bucket for someone making a lot of money. The rich can circumvent taxes in many ways and pass on their taxes to their employees. C’mon 90% tax rate? You’re taking this example to an unfathomable extreme.
adavydov7 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For all of you on here making the, > “raising the tax rate 3% - 4% for the wealthiest > is not going to stop them from continuing to run > their businesses.-topher” argument > > You need to realize it is logically baseless as it > can be used to expand taxation on the wealthy > without bound… Slippery slope arguments are great in classrooms but hold no water in the real world. The highest marginal tax rate will still be under where it was under Reagan (and yes, I know there were rampant tax shelters at that time. There still are.)
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19 No, 90% tax rate is in fact not a ridiculous assumption when you see that it has been as high as 94% in 1944-5
adavydov7 - exactly NakedPuts - my bad- got you and bizbanker mixed up as far as the small business thing goes I know from personal experience that it is a big deal. My parents ran a home cleaning service that didn’t come close hitting that bracket but sure did serve it. Their business was insanely correlated to the market and taxes. Whenever there was any inkling of a downturn or increased taxes their clients would either leave or cut down the frequency of their services. Yeah- those rich ppl don’t need ppl cleaning their houses anyway right? It was not fun for my dad to have to fire his mostly uneducated struggling single mom employees. They suffered more than the family in the nice house that now had to make their own beds.
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lol I didn’t say increasing without bound is fine. > I said increasing 3% or 4% really is a drop in the > bucket for someone making a lot of money. The rich > can circumvent taxes in many ways and pass on > their taxes to their employees. C’mon 90% tax > rate? You’re taking this example to an > unfathomable extreme. Look at the top marginal tax rate in the early 1980’s before Reagan put the smackdown. It was 90%+.
In this day and age, 90% tax rate over 250k is completely unreasonable. That 94% in 1944 was based on income over 200k, which accounting for inflation, is well over 1 mill in today’s dollars.
SMIRK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > topher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > lol I didn’t say increasing without bound is > fine. > > I said increasing 3% or 4% really is a drop in > the > > bucket for someone making a lot of money. The > rich > > can circumvent taxes in many ways and pass on > > their taxes to their employees. C’mon 90% tax > > rate? You’re taking this example to an > > unfathomable extreme. > > Look at the top marginal tax rate in the early > 1980’s before Reagan put the smackdown. It was > 90%+. As I stated already, tax shelters were rampant at the time, and Reagan simplified all that - slashed tax rates and got rid of the tax shelters. You people aren’t going to argue tax policy without a solid understanding of tax policy history, are you? Anybody remember Macadamia nuts? Comparisons to pre-Reagan tax rates aren’t really applicable.
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BizBanker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > steph96 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > What about the small business owner that pays > > > himself via the profits that his company > makes > > (s > > > corp)? I don’t think he’s going to take a > cut > > in > > > after-tax pay, while continuing to run his > > > business as usual. Instead, he’ll get rid of > > an > > > employee or two. The business owner will be > > > unaffected while the workers are the ones > that > > are > > > impacted. > > > > > > It’s not necessarily the wealthy that are > > impacted > > > by tax increases on the wealthy…And there > are > > a > > > hell of a lot of small business owners that > > fall > > > in the $250+ category. > > > > > > Ok so using this example, the marginal tax rate > > goes from 36% to 39% over 250k right? Laying > > someone off would take away from his deductable > > expenses and therefore increase his tax > liability. > > Say he makes 350k and his 100k is at risk of > the > > increased tax. He pays an extra 3k a year. Lay > off > > an employee for say 30k and his taxable income > > goes up to 380k and an extra 39% on the 30k. > This > > doesnt hold water for small busines owners at > all > > and it irritates me when I hear this from > > Congress. For large companies, I get the point > > that massive layoffs to decrease expense and > > continue consistent dividend payments, but this > is > > just a BS arguement for small business owners. > > > But by laying off that worker, he has effectively > avoided the tax. In fact, he is really no worse > off than before. He probably has a little more > work to do himself since the worker is gone, and > he is paying more tax, but he is still rich after > the tax increase. What about the 30k/year worker? > He/she is f-in out of a job and probably > struggling to make the rent next month. Did you understand my post? It doesnt look like it from this response. If he could do without the worker, he would regardless of the tax. I said that to avoid the extra 3%, if he makes a business decision like this he would increase his income and be exposed to more taxes as the extra income would be taxable.
you think Obama wouldn’t love to tax people making over a million dollars at 90%?