|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It must suck to have so much hate. |
Quote:
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do. $11,500 > $1000 The guy making $250k benefited more. |
Quote:
See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates. Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6. |
Quote:
Listen, I'm all about lower taxes on the people. I completely agree with your suggestions on how to cut costs, but forgot to include social services as an area where a lot can be saved. I'd also support closing that large number of easily exploited tax loopholes, along with removing a lot of deductions and then instituting a flat tax. It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now. |
Quote:
You want to switch from percentages (which is all that matters) to absolute dollars? That's where you REALLY get blown out of the water. We have a progressive tax system. The rich should pay more, and they do. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
benefited more? no, both are keeping more of the income that they earn...the difference between the two is the level of compensation based on the value or the amount of the work being performed, you can't set the numbers side by side and say that one is benefiting more than the other...unless you are fostering class envy "look...he got to keep more than you....KILL HIM!" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you. And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot. If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more. |
[QUOTE=JohnnyD;808316]If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill
QUOTE] if you are truly a liberal you will take a hundred dollar bill from your neighbor and give it to the bum...:uhuh: and then congratulate yourself....see, you both benefit now to debate who benefits more...the bum or the liberal |
Johnny, I have re-read this thread and not once has anyone even came close to proving Jim wrong.
If you want to take Jim literally, "that every single Democrat" like PaulS did, well yes, Jim is wrong. But us classy people (Hi Paul!) know Jim meant that every single Democrat voice, leader or spokesperson has said that and its demontrably true. Go to google and type in __________ on Bush tax cuts and fill the blank in with any lead Democrat you'll see Jim is correct. |
Quote:
|
George Bush hates black people.
I just thought I'd throw that in there for Kanye West. |
Quote:
Consider the bum getting $100 or Warren Buffet getting $1 million. The $1 million is meaningless to Buffet, it doesn't change his life at all. $100 to a homeless person can have a very meaningful impact (that's the 'diminishing marginal returns' I was referring to). A bum "makes out better" getting $100 than Buffet does getting $1 million. You practically said that yourself. Because the $100 adds more incrementalutility to the bum's life than $1 million does to Buffet. Same logic with the tax decrease, it's the same thing. |
Quote:
When I was a Marine, I felt like I was part of a system that worked the way it was supposed to, I really felt like we had all the support we needed. And because I was wounded, I received some pretty nice healthcare benefits. I feel like that system worked the way it's supposed to...probably because politicians don't run the military, the military runs the military. |
Quote:
i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life. No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In my first post, I said that if your tax rate decreases from 15 percent to 10 percent, that's a 33% decrease in your tax obligation. You disagreed. I was right. You were wrong. You see, "10" is a number that is exactly 33.33 percent less than "15". I'm glad you are not my accountant. You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds... |
:fence::lurk:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now certainly when earnings are up it's possible to see an uptick in net revenues with lower rates, but there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated. You could also argue that tax incentives for lower brackets are much more likely to be pushed back into the economy than those at the top who will just park it long-term. It's not like we're talking about a massive restructuring of the tax code that could cause a shift in how people invest, this is just an increase back to about where things were 10 years ago when I seem to remember the economy doing quite well. Besides, businesses (bigger) have tons of cash right now...a lack of money at the top isn't the problem with the economy. Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. Any potential gain from stimulative effects has to be balanced against the increasing costs of servicing that debt. I think the fair question for Obama would be, if you're going to argue the rich need to pay more because we can't afford it, why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses? Quote:
It's going to be fun watching the incoming Republicans play with the old guard. -spence |
Spence -
"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues " So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that... "there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated." You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress. "those at the top who will just park it long-term." Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump. "why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?" Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend... " I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs." When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns. Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him. Good, fair, probing questions. |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;808490]Spence -
"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues " this is because they already have the money spent that they were planning on getting when the tax cuts expire, so in their minds they are "losing money" the same way that they raced to spend the supposed budget surplus projections at the end of the Clinton admin. before the surplus ever even materialized..... they need to be cut off like addicts |
Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.
The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease. The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent. The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6". The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease. |
Sorry, meant to say that the tax cuts "if maintained in full" will cause a lack in revenues that's currently not planned for.
-spence |
Quote:
Fact is you make it seem like the US Gov't is doing big favors to those in the low bracket. We all know the tax code favors those with wealth. I was at a tax seminar in Sept where this tax attorney from Chicago coud not believe George Steinbrenner and this oil baron from TX died in 2010 and their estates paid ZERO TAX! BTW estate tax in '11 reaches 55% on top end. I lost 2 blue collar uncles this year and they also paid ZERO ESTATE TAX(and would have paid zero in '09 and '11) I guess that is the same benefit huh? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com