bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You work harder/longer, you get more money. 40% > of it goes to protect you from being lynched by > people who have less, protecting cheap oil, > ensuring that your contracts can be enforced, and > paying some money to your mom so that you can just > throw her on the dung-heap and not care. You > still get 60%. Maybe you decide that it’s not > worth it, and you’d rather spend some time with > your family. That’s fine. People earning less > than you will still want to work hard to get to > your level. Sure but it seems that instituting a progressive tax system that depends on the fact that some people due to their nature to strive to improve themselves, their family and society as a whole will work harder and longer regardless is not fair either. They contibute more already because they make more. There is no need to be punative about it.
flynnch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You work harder/longer, you get more money. > 40% > > of it goes to protect you from being lynched by > > people who have less, protecting cheap oil, > > ensuring that your contracts can be enforced, > and > > paying some money to your mom so that you can > just > > throw her on the dung-heap and not care. You > > still get 60%. Maybe you decide that it’s not > > worth it, and you’d rather spend some time with > > your family. That’s fine. People earning less > > than you will still want to work hard to get to > > your level. > > > Sure but it seems that instituting a progressive > tax system that depends on the fact that some > people due to their nature to strive to improve > themselves, their family and society as a whole > will work harder and longer regardless is not fair > either. They contibute more already because they > make more. There is no need to be punative about > it. Progressive tax system is wrong, but when a guy making $5m is paying only 10% net income tax and a guy making $50k is paying close to 25%, then that is wrong.
^Sure, but I don’t see Obama cutting taxes for those making 50-150K so…
> Progressive tax system is wrong, but when a guy > making $5m is paying only 10% net income tax and a > guy making $50k is paying close to 25%, then that > is wrong. Agreed. The only way is to have a flat tax rate.
flynnch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Progressive tax system is wrong, but when a guy > > making $5m is paying only 10% net income tax and > a > > guy making $50k is paying close to 25%, then > that > > is wrong. > > Agreed. > > The only way is to have a flat tax rate. I currently work in a flat tax rate environment (20%). I have to say I like it, having worked in other variable tax rate environments (all low tax ones mind!).
I like progressive tax systems as long as the top marginal rate is not overly punative. I think it is fair for someone on minimum wage to pay 10% tax and someone on 100k per annum to pay 30%. The danger I think lies in making the top marginal rate too high so that it discourages work and encourages tax evasion.
$250K isn’t “rich,” particularly in high cost of living areas. Fortunately, as others point out, I would have to earn far more than this for my AGI to exceed $250K. I would rather make $100k in some random place in the Midwest than try to survive in the NYC area with a family on $250K per year.
Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like progressive tax systems as long as the top > marginal rate is not overly punative. I think it > is fair for someone on minimum wage to pay 10% tax > and someone on 100k per annum to pay 30%. The > danger I think lies in making the top marginal > rate too high so that it discourages work and > encourages tax evasion. I second that and think it has long been a policy espoused by the Lib Dems in the UK. I think we can agree that most governments do not have a flat rate or reasonalbe sliding scale due to political expediency. As Franklin said, there are two certainties in life… It’s up to the workers to choose their working environment. Like I say, i’m in a relative tax haven compared to the US/UK/others. But I wont be working in Saudi any time soon (unless I really need to save the cash/sell my soul to the devil).
Currently, the top marginal tax rate in the US kicks in at $372,950 AGI and is 35%. Here’s more data: Single Filing Status (Tax Rate Schedule X) 10% on income between $0 and $8,350 15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950; plus $835 25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250; plus $4,675 28% on the income between $82,250 and $171,550; plus $16,750 33% on the income between $171,550 and $372,950; plus $41,754 35% on the income over $372,950; plus $108,216 Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status (Tax Rate Schedule Y-1) 10% on the income between $0 and $16,700 15% on the income between $16,700 and $67,900; plus $1,670 25% on the income between $67,900 and $137,050; plus $9,350 28% on the income between $137,050 and $208,850; plus $26,637.50 33% on the income between $208,850 and $372,950; plus $46,741.50 35% on the income over $372,950; plus $100,894.50 Married Filing Separately Filing Status (Tax Rate Schedule Y-2) 10% on the income between $0 and $8,350 15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950; plus $835 25% on the income between $33,950 and $68,525; plus $4,675 28% on the income between $68,525 and $104,425; plus $13,318.75 33% on the income between $104,425 and $186,475; plus $23,370.75 35% on the income over $186,475; plus $50,447.25 Head of Household Filing Status (Tax Rate Schedule Z) 10% on the income between $0 and $11,950 15% on the income between $11,950 and $45,500; plus $1,195 25% on the income between $45,500 and $117,450; plus $6,227.50 28% on the income between $117,450 and $190,200; plus $24,215 33% on the income between $190,200 and $372,950; plus $44,585 35% on the income over $372,950; plus $104,892.50
cfa2grunt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > $250K isn’t “rich,” particularly in high cost of > living areas. Fortunately, as others point out, I > would have to earn far more than this for my AGI > to exceed $250K. I would rather make $100k in > some random place in the Midwest than try to > survive in the NYC area with a family on $250K per > year. That’s my point. But if you listen to BO’s speech, he made it sound like that people making $250k are evil and should be taxed to death…
I comepletely disagree…$250K is a lot of money even in NYC where there are tonnes of people making less than half of that and raising a family to boot. It takes some sacrifice…unless you want to drink fine wine and have expensive everyday etc. Anyways IMHO our federal tax code brackets should be adjusted to reflect the cost of living. In places like NYC the threshold should be around $350K. For the uber cheap places it should be around 200K.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I comepletely disagree…$250K is a lot of money > even in NYC where there are tonnes of people > making less than half of that and raising a family > to boot. > > It takes some sacrifice…unless you want to drink > fine wine and have expensive everyday etc. > > Anyways IMHO our federal tax code brackets should > be adjusted to reflect the cost of living. In > places like NYC the threshold should be around > $350K. For the uber cheap places it should be > around 200K. Well thats a reason to let the states/municipalities control their own taxing regimes and programs keep since they can relate the expenses and rates to their local scenarios as opposed to the federal gov’t continuing to have a broader scope into areas that are very local in nature. I think most will agree that a family of four w/ income of 200k in Manhattan != the same family in San Antonio, Texas.
Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like progressive tax systems as long as the top > marginal rate is not overly punative. I think it > is fair for someone on minimum wage to pay 10% tax > and someone on 100k per annum to pay 30%. The > danger I think lies in making the top marginal > rate too high so that it discourages work and > encourages tax evasion. Sorry but I have to disagree … as you say you may think this is fair but it clearly is not because it is punative not progressive (progressive is simple a misnomer). It is not fair to have higher income earners pay a higher percentage of thier income. Fair implies some type of equality and a higher tax rate is clearly not equal If anybody is concerned with poverty have the first 20k or so tax free the rest a flat percentage.
IMHO the rate should not be adjusted per location as that is a personnal choice and the cost of living is driven in a large part due to supply and demand. Higher cost of living locations tend to provide more benefits/opportunities that is why there is a high demand to live there.
marcus phoenix, those people are either living 2 hours from home, sending their kids to PS 97 (NOT an option to me) or living in a pretty lame place (not places that would be considered “nice” elsewhere in the country). Also, many people making $250K all-in are making a base that is half of that so it’s not like you can reliably live around NYC and have a reasonable commute and decent schools on your base salary.
flynnch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If anybody is concerned with poverty have the > first 20k or so tax free the rest a flat > percentage. That’s precisely the argument for progressive tax rates. It also sounds like what you’ve said is “let’s not have a progressive tax, just have this progressive tax so that the bottom 20k doesn’t get taxed.” We could have a flat tax of 33% across the board for everyone, and then simply have a bunch of transfer payments to the bottom parts of the pyramid. That would be roughly the same as a progressive tax, except it would pass through many more bureaucratic hands and have many more opportunities for deviation to earmarks and porkbarrel projects. If we could rely on the bureaucracy to be efficient about it, I could be comfortable with a structure like that. You can never get convergence on what is an “equal” tax rate because there are different ethics of equality. For example: * Everyone is equal, because pays the same amount: that’s the argument for government one-time fees on services. Everyone pays the same amount. * Everyone is equal, because they all pay the same %: that’s the argument for a flat tax. * Everyone is equal, because everyone pays in proportion to the amount that they use: this is a fee-for-service argument. * Everyone is equal, because their burdens are equally difficult for them: this is the argument for progressive tax systems: the poor sacrifice a little bit of their dinner, the middle class maybe have to wait longer before they can send their children to college, and the rich have to buy a Porsche instead of a Lamborghini. The progressive tax makes sense under the law of diminishing marginal utility, which, by the way, is the same law that explains why investors should be compensated with a risk premium. Throw the utility curve argument out “because it’s not measurable,” and the only consistent conclusion is that you should be investing without expecting any premium for risk.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >…and the rich have to buy a > Porsche instead of a Lamborghini. For the record, Porsche 911 is a lot more fun to drive than a Lamborghini… The Lambo feels too heavy and sometimes takes 2 parking space…
bchadwick Wrote: > The progressive tax makes sense under the law of > diminishing marginal utility, which, by the way, > is the same law that explains why investors should > be compensated with a risk premium. Throw the > utility curve argument out “because it’s not > measurable,” and the only consistent conclusion is > that you should be investing without expecting any > premium for risk. To clarify. I think the only fair and equal treatment as I see it is to have a flat tax system. The percentage paid is the same but as you enjoy more financial suscess and the rewards that go with it you pay a higher dollar amount to help run society (ie pay the gov’t) My comment about the first 20k or so being tax free was in my opinion a comment regarding poverty and social welfare and how to assist in dealing with it. I can see how it would seem like I was supporting the punative tax system but I was just trying to acknowledge that there are ways to deal with poverty other than the current disaster. I think this is a better way than getting the gov’t (read black hole) involved because that just costs as you said. I can see how theoretically it makes sense but everyones utility curve is shaped differently and I don’t need the goverment telling me how mine is shaped relative to someone else. When you impose these things on a diverse population it might have a best fit in a macro sense but truly that means that it is not appropriate for most individuals. Risk premium as I understand it is not some vague notion put upon market participants but rather it is attributed to individual invesment products in such a way that investors in market based systems can customized thier risk profile of their portfolio and the premiums they pay. As for cars I have resigned myself to the BMW for various reasons