191 Early Out retirement takers at DL

[Smarta$$]

Isn't it when you go over 250k it bumps you into the higher tax bracket which an increase of 3.6% to a topped out tax bracket of 39.6% would mean at least an increase of $9,036 on top of the $87,500 of Just federal taxes that is being paid before any deductions. By the time you take SS, local, state, property and of course don't forget the additional TAXES as ruled by the supreme court that Obama also wants from employers, people making over $200,000, even your own "Cadillac" health insurance to help pay for Obamacare. It comes close to about 50% of your income going to taxes.

All this while around 49% pay little to no taxes.

Sorry, not correct at ALL. Your favorite "News" and "experts" has been misleading you about BASIC facts.

 

[Crizz]

Exactly right. ALL of it. If you don't understand this already, you have NO business having political/tax debates or discussions, as you don't know you head from your A$$$.

Do you guys realize how foolish your arguments are? Marginal tax rates tax the "next dollar earned" - lets agree on the fundamentals. Your assessment of how we are taxed is mostly correct.

However - in your rich loathing dogma ideology - you fail to see how damaging those tax conditions are to productivity, wealth creation, and standard of living.

You mentioned the 1950s tax code with a 91% marginal rate above $200k. Do you realize that inflation adjusted income level is well in excess of $2 million in income today? Just so we are talking apples to apples, a person under that prior tax code making $200k then would likely have a lower effective tax rate than a person making $2 million today because the person today would have over 3/4 of their income taxed at our top marginal rate.

So if you are a small business owner who files a Schedule-C on your personal income taxes, your businesses profits are rolled into your own personal income. Lets say you are a dry cleaner. You don't need new equipment this year, but you know in two years time you will. You have to save cash for this large purchase and that cash will be personal income dollars taxed at our personal income rate. You certainly aren't wealthy or rich, as many small business owners do not take nearly the income that their small business generates in profit. They re-invest and save. However, the bottom line on their taxes each year is greatly reduced with this behemoth we call the Federal Tax Code. With a reduced bottom line their ability to reinvest, save, or even HIRE people is certainly reduced. Incidentally small business as defined by the SBA employs well in excess of 70% of our working population. Is it any wonder we cant get unemployment below 8%?

And how did our nation get wealthy in the first place? Why do we enjoy the highest standard of living the earth has ever known? You loathers are cringing when I say those words but the fact remains most households in the "99%" (hell, even the lowest 25%) have multiple automobiles, a home with walls, windows, a roof, and likely running water, heat, and even air conditioning. They eat out several times a week and enjoy food prices still relatively cheap to their income level. (In many 3rd world countries people spend nearly all their income merely on sustenance). Its likely their kids have iPods, iPhones, nike tennis shoes, they have a flat screen in the living room with cable or satellite and get picked up in a big yellow school bus to go to their free indoctrination... err education paid by society.

The point is that it is no mistake we have gotten to where we are. The only thing that produces our standard of living is productivity. And with a tax code that punishes people attempting to be productive it is no surprise we have a lack of takers. Our current tax code is a joke and I'd argue needs to be completely burned and re-written. It gives all the incentive to non-productive earners, and punishes those who stick their neck out and dare to produce.

The issues this country faces have nothing to do with "revenue". Our "revenue" today is within a percent of what it was during any of the Clinton -or- Bush years, however our spending has gone through the roof. We have collected approximately 18%+/- of GDP in tax receipts for the last two decades, but the year BO took office under all democrat house and senate our federal spending went from 19% of GDP to over 25% of GDP and has remained there throughout his term.

If we confiscate the entire wealth of the top "1%" we can fund the federal government's deficits for only a few months. Doesn't this say something about the state of our nation?

Thanks for reading.

 

[Smarta$$]

I wish I had more time, but mostly disagree with most of your assertions. But at least you understand how taxes are paid, that is a start.

 

[MountainFreak]

Do you guys realize how foolish your arguments are? Marginal tax rates tax the "next dollar earned" - lets agree on the fundamentals. Your assessment of how we are taxed is mostly correct.

However - in your rich loathing dogma ideology - you fail to see how damaging those tax conditions are to productivity, wealth creation, and standard of living.

You mentioned the 1950s tax code with a 91% marginal rate above $200k. Do you realize that inflation adjusted income level is well in excess of $2 million in income today? Just so we are talking apples to apples, a person under that prior tax code making $200k then would likely have a lower effective tax rate than a person making $2 million today because the person today would have over 3/4 of their income taxed at our top marginal rate.

So if you are a small business owner who files a Schedule-C on your personal income taxes, your businesses profits are rolled into your own personal income. Lets say you are a dry cleaner. You don't need new equipment this year, but you know in two years time you will. You have to save cash for this large purchase and that cash will be personal income dollars taxed at our personal income rate. You certainly aren't wealthy or rich, as many small business owners do not take nearly the income that their small business generates in profit. They re-invest and save. However, the bottom line on their taxes each year is greatly reduced with this behemoth we call the Federal Tax Code. With a reduced bottom line their ability to reinvest, save, or even HIRE people is certainly reduced. Incidentally small business as defined by the SBA employs well in excess of 70% of our working population. Is it any wonder we cant get unemployment below 8%?

And how did our nation get wealthy in the first place? Why do we enjoy the highest standard of living the earth has ever known? You loathers are cringing when I say those words but the fact remains most households in the "99%" (hell, even the lowest 25%) have multiple automobiles, a home with walls, windows, a roof, and likely running water, heat, and even air conditioning. They eat out several times a week and enjoy food prices still relatively cheap to their income level. (In many 3rd world countries people spend nearly all their income merely on sustenance). Its likely their kids have iPods, iPhones, nike tennis shoes, they have a flat screen in the living room with cable or satellite and get picked up in a big yellow school bus to go to their free indoctrination... err education paid by society.

The point is that it is no mistake we have gotten to where we are. The only thing that produces our standard of living is productivity. And with a tax code that punishes people attempting to be productive it is no surprise we have a lack of takers. Our current tax code is a joke and I'd argue needs to be completely burned and re-written. It gives all the incentive to non-productive earners, and punishes those who stick their neck out and dare to produce.

The issues this country faces have nothing to do with "revenue". Our "revenue" today is within a percent of what it was during any of the Clinton -or- Bush years, however our spending has gone through the roof. We have collected approximately 18%+/- of GDP in tax receipts for the last two decades, but the year BO took office under all democrat house and senate our federal spending went from 19% of GDP to over 25% of GDP and has remained there throughout his term.

If we confiscate the entire wealth of the top "1%" we can fund the federal government's deficits for only a few months. Doesn't this say something about the state of our nation?

Thanks for reading.

Classic strawman. Nobody is here is making those claims.

Who said that income over 200K should be taxed at 90%? I was only stating historical facts. I never said tax rates should be that high, and even if they were of course they should be adjusted for inflation.

And rich-loathing? Please. Everyone should have the opportunity to be rich with the right work-ethic, plan, and some luck.

Tax code should favor your example dry-cleaning business, and other small and medium size business. Family business, and even upper middle class such as doctors, lawyers, and Delta pilots (TIC) are just as much victims of the current tax structure as the lower working class.

What isn't right though is today's system where an investment banker or high level executive can pretty much use the system to take YOUR money and make more in a year two (adjusted for inflation course) than a businessperson could make in a lifetime during the 1950's.

The unintended consequence of today's system is that bankers, investment bankers, and many executives are NOT interested in running a long-term, profitable business. They are only interested in stripping assets and paying themselves in the short-term. Then they are barely taxed on their plunder. This is bad for corporations, bad for capitalism, bad for the country, and bad for you.

The evidence supports my claim, not yours. I doubt I will change your mind, but know that you have at least two delusions. First, you think that you have a chance of being one of these super-wealthy. Realistically, you don't, unless you were born into it (Zuckerberg excepted). Second, you think these "job-creators" are reinvesting their wealth in the economy. Statistically, they aren't. Most of the excess money is placed in personal accounts, offshore, and few US jobs come of it.

 

[MountainFreak]

Crizz,

You do at least have logical view and understanding of tax code and the deficit. I just think your base assumptions are wrong. For example, we do have a revenue problem. We also have a spending problem, as you say.

Don't lose your valid points by making hysterical wingnut assertions, such as saying that that someone who thinks the rich should be taxed more is "rich loathing", or by implying socialism.

OK, done interweb debating for a while.

MF

 

[Crizz]

Classic strawman. Nobody is here is making those claims.

Who said that income over 200K should be taxed at 90%? I was only stating historical facts. I never said tax rates should be that high, and even if they were of course they should be adjusted for inflation.

And rich-loathing? Please. Everyone should have the opportunity to be rich with the right work-ethic, plan, and some luck.

Tax code should favor your example dry-cleaning business, and other small and medium size business. Family business, and even upper middle class such as doctors, lawyers, and Delta pilots (TIC) are just as much victims of the current tax structure as the lower working class.

What isn't right though is today's system where an investment banker or high level executive can pretty much use the system to take YOUR money and make more in a year two (adjusted for inflation course) than a businessperson could make in a lifetime during the 1950's.

The unintended consequence of today's system is that bankers, investment bankers, and many executives are NOT interested in running a long-term, profitable business. They are only interested in stripping assets and paying themselves in the short-term. Then they are barely taxed on their plunder. This is bad for corporations, bad for capitalism, bad for the country, and bad for you.

The evidence supports my claim, not yours. I doubt I will change your mind, but know that you have at least two delusions. First, you think that you have a chance of being one of these super-wealthy. Realistically, you don't, unless you were born into it (Zuckerberg excepted). Second, you think these "job-creators" are reinvesting their wealth in the economy. Statistically, they aren't. Most of the excess money is placed in personal accounts, offshore, and few US jobs come of it.

Where are your statistics backing up your claim that the "Job creators" aren't reinvesting? Let me dissect my own "delusions".

Do you comprehend what a "personal account" is? Lets stipulate you are correct and these people are putting their money in "personal accounts" and "offshore". Does that money then sit there doing nothing? Or do they buy stocks, bonds, mutual funds, hedge funds, or use it for private capital financing of business?

Do you really think the money is sitting there "offshore" hanging out on the beach drinking pina coladas? If you DONT take advantage of tax strategy and planning you are a fool. This assertion that you have offshore accounts hiding money is absurd. Offshore accounts serve as a low tax-burden avenue for reinvestment of capital. Period. It is NOT illegal, and offers highest return on investment for those with money to invest. WHY WOULDN'T you want the highest return for your investment dollar?

However, if they choose to invest for a return in any of the above avenues they are - in fact - CREATING JOBS and funding the growth of a multitude of enterprise. No one person can fathom the depth and complexity of our economy. Taxing investments and capital formation does nothing to promote either, and thus has a negative impact on economic growth. I believe the evidence supports my assertions, and a large majority of serious and thoughtful people happen to have agreed throughout our nations history - most notably the architects of it all - our founding fathers.

PLEASE watch this short video regarding the complexity of our economic system. No one person can understand the complicated web that is woven in a free market system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8



I believe it is YOU who has succumb to the rhetoric purveyed on nightly mainstream trash news networks who are more interested in dealing out political hyperbole with buzz words intended to invoke emotion and sway an unformed voter than actually stating the facts and educating the public why things are as they are.

 

[Crizz]

I wish I had more time, but mostly disagree with most of your assertions. But at least you understand how taxes are paid, that is a start.

All show, no go

 

[MountainFreak]

Where are your statistics backing up your claim that the "Job creators" aren't reinvesting? Let me dissect my own "delusions".

Do you comprehend what a "personal account" is? Lets stipulate you are correct and these people are putting their money in "personal accounts" and "offshore". Does that money then sit there doing nothing? Or do they buy stocks, bonds, mutual funds, hedge funds, or use it for private capital financing of business?

Do you really think the money is sitting there "offshore" hanging out on the beach drinking pina coladas? If you DONT take advantage of tax strategy and planning you are a fool. This assertion that you have offshore accounts hiding money is absurd. Offshore accounts serve as a low tax-burden avenue for reinvestment of capital. Period. It is NOT illegal, and offers highest return on investment for those with money to invest. WHY WOULDN'T you want the highest return for your investment dollar?

However, if they choose to invest for a return in any of the above avenues they are - in fact - CREATING JOBS and funding the growth of a multitude of enterprise. No one person can fathom the depth and complexity of our economy. Taxing investments and capital formation does nothing to promote either, and thus has a negative impact on economic growth. I believe the evidence supports my assertions, and a large majority of serious and thoughtful people happen to have agreed throughout our nations history - most notably the architects of it all - our founding fathers.

PLEASE watch this short video regarding the complexity of our economic system. No one person can understand the complicated web that is woven in a free market system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8



I believe it is YOU who has succumb to the rhetoric purveyed on nightly mainstream trash news networks who are more interested in dealing out political hyperbole with buzz words intended to invoke emotion and sway an unformed voter than actually stating the facts and educating the public why things are as they are.

Can't help it, drawn back in!

First, I don't succumb to any network's view, I don't even have cable. Get my news from multiple sources, print and online. Left and right leaning sources, hopefully nothing with a rigid agenda.

I fully agree with the idea that no one person can understand the full workings of the economy. It is chaos theory full-scale. I also understand the concept that money "offshore" will be reinvested in stocks, bonds, etc which should then drive new production. Otherwise known as supply-side economics (or as Bush Sr. called it, Voodoo economics). It is actually a valid theory, up to a point. Up to what point, I can't say. As you state, nobody can fully understand the economy.

The problem is that eventually, even when stocks and mutual funds are purchased from the "job-creator's" offshore account, much of it just remains in cash accounts at the corporation if the the corporation is too afraid to increase production. Or worse, then used for stock and dividend payments to those very same people, and for stock buybacks to pump up their other shares. Sort of a vicious cycle, a self-driving pyramid scheme for the rich.

You know that I have a point. Just like I see your point. We all know that zero taxes would never work, otherwise we would live in Somalia. We also know that 100% taxes would never work, otherwise old Communist Russia would have been a success. The "sweet spot" is somewhere between 0 and 100%, hopefully much closer to 0, low enough to keep personal ambition involved, yet high enough to pay for essentials. The hard part is figuring out where that is.

Our current structure allows the richest to pay rates approaching zero, while everyone else picks up the tab. It isn't sustainable.

 

[Crizz]

You say:

First, I don't succumb to any network's view

But then you say:

Our current structure allows the richest to pay rates approaching zero, while everyone else picks up the tab.

This is so outwardly false. You are clearly listening to someone with an agenda.

FACT: The top 10% of income earners pay over 71% of federal taxes.

The top 1% pay 40%

If your assertion that a person in those categories is "paying rates approaching zero" how do their tax reciepts total such a large share?

The bottom 50% of income earners not only pay ZERO, but have a net INCOME from the government.

The problem is that eventually, even when stocks and mutual funds are purchased from the "job-creator's" offshore account, much of it just remains in cash accounts at the corporation if the the corporation is too afraid to increase production. Or worse, then used for stock and dividend payments to those very same people, and for stock buybacks to pump up their other shares. Sort of a vicious cycle, a self-driving pyramid scheme for the rich.

You touch on a few interesting (unrelated) points here.

The first assertion that they are too afraid to increase production and spend their capital. This is absolutely ACCURATE! Do you know why they are too afraid? They have no idea what brainchild this current administration is going to spawn next! That's why. Discussion of new health care mandates, capital gains tax rate changes, corporate tax rate changes, as well as an administrative state so incredibly drunk with power under this administration (check out the EPA!!) business leaders are terrified of becoming illuminated by the spotlight of political mantra. If you cannot accurately estimate your expenses and obligations in the future because of irrational, ever changing governmental policy then it's impossible to commit to growth.

Your second point discusses "or worse" paying stock dividends. This is so perverse. Lets discuss.

Why does a company issue stock? They issue stock to raise capital. They raise capital to reinvest in assets or people to continue to grow their company.

Why does an individual (or a group) purchase stock? To enjoy a return on their investment.

One cannot exist without the other. A return can be a speculative return (i.e. a stock price going up), or an income return (i.e. a dividend payment). People owning stocks rely on one or the other, and in many cases both to make their investment worthwhile. Without a satisfactory return on their investment, people are likely to invest elsewhere. Without investors, a company has no capital to produce or grow (i.e. HIRE people).

Lets discuss the "Buffet Rule" and how that will somehow allow for justice to be served to greedy "Wall street fatcats".

The vast majority of people taxed at the capital gains rate we currently enjoy are not "Wall Street Fatcats", but they are average retail investors, retirees, and large investment groups with wealthy shareholders.

Heres the problem - The money these people "earn" is done so under a completely different set of assumptions than that of a W2 income, and our tax code to some extent reflects that. Capital CANNOT form without someone willing to lend their money to someone else (known as an investment), and people will not invest without a potential for a rate of return.

And there's another problem - its only a POTENTIAL for a return. You may be rewarded with double digit ROI, or you may lose the entire sum.

These two factors dictate that if you want capital to form, you cannot kneecap it from the start with a high tax burden.

The Buffet rule has been proven to net the federal government less than $80b in annual revenue (Barely HALF the budget defecit in MAY alone), but would stifle capital investment and growth into the Trillions.

We have a tremendous spending problem in Washington, and all the talk and demagoguery about "Millionaires and Billionaires" is driving a very real and dangerous wedge in our civil society.

This division is intended to foster short term political gain, but our country may never recover from the damage that has been done.

 

[MountainFreak]

You say:



But then you say:



This is so outwardly false. You are clearly listening to someone with an agenda.

FACT: The top 10% of income earners pay over 71% of federal taxes.

The top 1% pay 40%

If your assertion that a person in those categories is "paying rates approaching zero" how do their tax reciepts total such a large share?

The bottom 50% of income earners not only pay ZERO, but have a net INCOME from the government.



You touch on a few interesting (unrelated) points here.

The first assertion that they are too afraid to increase production and spend their capital. This is absolutely ACCURATE! Do you know why they are too afraid? They have no idea what brainchild this current administration is going to spawn next! That's why. Discussion of new health care mandates, capital gains tax rate changes, corporate tax rate changes, as well as an administrative state so incredibly drunk with power under this administration (check out the EPA!!) business leaders are terrified of becoming illuminated by the spotlight of political mantra. If you cannot accurately estimate your expenses and obligations in the future because of irrational, ever changing governmental policy then it's impossible to commit to growth.

Your second point discusses "or worse" paying stock dividends. This is so perverse. Lets discuss.

Why does a company issue stock? They issue stock to raise capital. They raise capital to reinvest in assets or people to continue to grow their company.

Why does an individual (or a group) purchase stock? To enjoy a return on their investment.

One cannot exist without the other. A return can be a speculative return (i.e. a stock price going up), or an income return (i.e. a dividend payment). People owning stocks rely on one or the other, and in many cases both to make their investment worthwhile. Without a satisfactory return on their investment, people are likely to invest elsewhere. Without investors, a company has no capital to produce or grow (i.e. HIRE people).

Lets discuss the "Buffet Rule" and how that will somehow allow for justice to be served to greedy "Wall street fatcats".

The vast majority of people taxed at the capital gains rate we currently enjoy are not "Wall Street Fatcats", but they are average retail investors, retirees, and large investment groups with wealthy shareholders.

Heres the problem - The money these people "earn" is done so under a completely different set of assumptions than that of a W2 income, and our tax code to some extent reflects that. Capital CANNOT form without someone willing to lend their money to someone else (known as an investment), and people will not invest without a potential for a rate of return.

And there's another problem - its only a POTENTIAL for a return. You may be rewarded with double digit ROI, or you may lose the entire sum.

These two factors dictate that if you want capital to form, you cannot kneecap it from the start with a high tax burden.

The Buffet rule has been proven to net the federal government less than $80b in annual revenue (Barely HALF the budget defecit in MAY alone), but would stifle capital investment and growth into the Trillions.

We have a tremendous spending problem in Washington, and all the talk and demagoguery about "Millionaires and Billionaires" is driving a very real and dangerous wedge in our civil society.

This division is intended to foster short term political gain, but our country may never recover from the damage that has been done.

Last reply on this topic. Important subject, but I hate thread drift yet I've been helping it along.

You stated earlier that:

"If we confiscate the entire wealth of the top "1%" we can fund the federal government's deficits for only a few months."

Then you state that the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes.

They both can't be mathematically true, otherwise the wealth of everyone would only last for a 6 months to a year of deficit, which isn't the case.

But here is another fact: the 400 richest individuals in the U.S. have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million people combined.

So even if true that the top 1% is paying 40% of the taxes overall, it really just proves my point. They have such vast wealth, that even when taxed at a much lower rate than you or me, it is still an unreal amount of money.

The term "1%" is a bit misleading, many of us might get close to being in the top 1%. The real gap is above that. More like the top 1% of the 1%. Very small number of people, yet most of the wealth.

Your arguments about capital gains only go so far. It wouldn't be hard write the tax code to protect middle and upper class investment in stock, while taxing the capital gains of super-wealthy at a rate which reflects income, not investment. Why else do you think CEOs are paid so much in stock vice cash? It is so they will be taxed at the lower rate.

You think business doesn't invest because of Obama? Paranoid. You see some wild-eyed radical socialist, yet I see a slightly left-of-center moderate President, who should have pushed for prosecution of the architects of the 2008 banking crisis. Many of those bankers should be in jail, instead they are rich.

I appreciate the lesson on the market, but I don't need it. I've done just fine with my investments. Yes, I agree that trust in the market is critical to the economy.

Per your statement that many in the lower 50% actually get money from the feds. In some cases true, but it was a Republican idea. The EITC was meant to provide incentive to get a job, even if a low paying job. The concept being that you want people to be in the workforce, versus getting welfare or unemployment. I take no position on whether is is a good idea or not, I don't know that much about the program.

Finally, you never addressed my assertion that low tax rates (whether through income or capital gains) of the super-wealthy have the perverse incentive against long-term solid management of a business. I assume you don't agree, but why not? Why should a few be able to take the money of labor, investors, creditors, and god knows who else, and make themselves absurdly rich by picking the carcass of a company? And then pay probably less than 15% taxes on it?

I look forward to your reply, but as I said after this I will stay out of the fray.

MF