U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-09-2018, 06:58 PM
 
5,251 posts, read 2,401,232 times
Reputation: 5124

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Everything that went into his being able to do the services he does, use the products he does and amass the clients he has. He "used more" to get to his position; I disagree with the mindset that says he owes nothing further as a result.
Infrastructure is available to everyone. You havenít provided any substantiation to the the claim that he uses more.

Break it down for us. How much more does a rich man use?

 
Old 03-09-2018, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,203 posts, read 1,094,645 times
Reputation: 4151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Infrastructure is available to everyone. You havenít provided any substantiation to the the claim that he uses more.
Oh, nonsense. It's your example.

He and his 50 workers made proportionately greater use of almost every resource - roads, fuel impact, polluting capacity, reduction of natural and created resources, etc. - and that greater use ended up disproportionately in his pocket and accounts and accumulated wealth. He took more to get where he is; he owes more back to the system that let him take it.

Quote:
Break it down for us. How much more does a rich man use?
Your inept phrasing. I never said "a rich man uses more"; I said his wealth depends on taking more from the system that supports his wealth accumulation. Some of that is paid and taxed along the way, but a large part of it is not - just as a silly, tiny example, how many people were delayed in their travels because of his trucks moving material around or blocking streets?
 
Old 03-09-2018, 07:21 PM
 
5,251 posts, read 2,401,232 times
Reputation: 5124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Oh, nonsense. It's your example.

He and his 50 workers made proportionately greater use of almost every resource - roads, fuel impact, polluting capacity, reduction of natural and created resources, etc. - and that greater use ended up disproportionately in his pocket and accounts and accumulated wealth. He took more to get where he is; he owes more back to the system that let him take it.


Your inept phrasing. I never said "a rich man uses more"; I said his wealth depends on taking more from the system that supports his wealth accumulation. Some of that is paid and taxed along the way, but a large part of it is not - just as a silly, tiny example, how many people were delayed in their travels because of his trucks moving material around or blocking streets?
I get it. You canít quantify it.

This whole line of discussion came about from a claim that the rich pay more than their share of taxes (which is true). They are paying, through their taxes, for their use of the system. To expect them to pay more is unjustifiable.
 
Old 03-09-2018, 07:39 PM
 
10,951 posts, read 3,826,011 times
Reputation: 4757
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
I get it. You canít quantify it.

This whole line of discussion came about from a claim that the rich pay more than their share of taxes (which is true). They are paying, through their taxes, for their use of the system. To expect them to pay more is unjustifiable.
The rich pay more for a simple reason. You go where the money is. And we do it in a progressive fashion.
That is we take a higher percentage of income or wealth for that matter from those who are furthest above the level required for a reasonable life.

It is a perfectly reasonable algorithm which we can adjust to provide rational outcomes. We can reward behavior or punish other.

And when we finally do the rational thing on health care the rich will carry a lot of the load as hopefully will the revisit to the medical delivery system to make it more efficient.
 
Old 03-09-2018, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Central IL
13,521 posts, read 7,221,623 times
Reputation: 31357
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post



That ďpointĒ doesnít stand at all as it is simply untrue. The actual, correct point is that every provision of the tax code is available to all. To claim otherwise is simply ignorance.
No...you're incredibly disingenuous...perhaps since you bill yourself as TaxPhD you have been brainwashed by your wealthy clients that they'd be penniless without your skills at finding legitimate way for them to pay less in taxes....not that I have any idea of your profession but you have little empathy for the common man.

The point is that the rich have incredibly complicated and convoluted business arrangements...purposefully so as to take advantage of very specific provisions in the law. Technically, of course they are available to all, but for all intents and purposes the typical taxpayer either can't set up these entities or can't pay someone knowledgeable enough to advise them that by paying one thing early or lumping another thing with something else or claiming something they can avoid tens of thousands (or certainly even more) of dollars in taxes.
 
Old 03-09-2018, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,203 posts, read 1,094,645 times
Reputation: 4151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
I get it. You can’t quantify it.
I could, but I have neither the inclination nor time to do so. You'd just take the quantification and find some other ground to invalidate it, based on your vast knowledge of economics as it is currently cast.

You can never get a king to understand why monarchy is obsolete. And you can never get someone with, what, 8 years of secondary education in economics to be able to see outside their elaborately-constructed box. You're the guy in the audience I politely ignore after a couple of questions; I'm addressing the majority who still have enough flexibility in their mindset to understand a highly contrarian viewpoint. Disagree? Fine. You're thanked and excused. And may go mutter in your scotch with your peers if you like.

Economics is not a science. It's a codified set of opinions based on an agreed set of stipulations. Change the the stipulations, change the outcome. But not when the stips and ips are fossilized.
 
Old 03-09-2018, 08:40 PM
 
5,251 posts, read 2,401,232 times
Reputation: 5124
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
No...you're incredibly disingenuous...perhaps since you bill yourself as TaxPhD you have been brainwashed by your wealthy clients that they'd be penniless without your skills at finding legitimate way for them to pay less in taxes....not that I have any idea of your profession but you have little empathy for the common man.

The point is that the rich have incredibly complicated and convoluted business arrangements...purposefully so as to take advantage of very specific provisions in the law. Technically, of course they are available to all, but for all intents and purposes the typical taxpayer either can't set up these entities or can't pay someone knowledgeable enough to advise them that by paying one thing early or lumping another thing with something else or claiming something they can avoid tens of thousands (or certainly even more) of dollars in taxes.
Thatís the point. Glad you understand.
 
Old 03-09-2018, 08:43 PM
 
5,251 posts, read 2,401,232 times
Reputation: 5124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
I could, but I have neither the inclination nor time to do so. You'd just take the quantification and find some other ground to invalidate it, based on your vast knowledge of economics as it is currently cast.

You can never get a king to understand why monarchy is obsolete. And you can never get someone with, what, 8 years of secondary education in economics to be able to see outside their elaborately-constructed box. You're the guy in the audience I politely ignore after a couple of questions; I'm addressing the majority who still have enough flexibility in their mindset to understand a highly contrarian viewpoint. Disagree? Fine. You're thanked and excused. And may go mutter in your scotch with your peers if you like.

Economics is not a science. It's a codified set of opinions based on an agreed set of stipulations. Change the the stipulations, change the outcome. But not when the stips and ips are fossilized.
Not surprising that the argument breaks down when pressed for details.

As for the highlighted portion - you canít. Itís an impossibility.
 
Old 03-09-2018, 09:25 PM
 
2,275 posts, read 1,413,768 times
Reputation: 4943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Obviously you never met a loophole you didn't like. You chose to gloss over the corporate murders that happen every day. Deepwater Horizon was just a disaster that claimed a lot of lives in one event. Coal mining claims a constant toll of lives, and it apparently doesn't bother you that big money just rolled back mine safety regulations so they could make bigger profits.

There is absolutely no justification for taxing capital gains differently from any other income Of course, if the basis was just indexed to the CPI, rich folks would have to take the same shaft that John Q. Public has been getting all along. I don't have a problem writing off losses against gains for a limited amount of time, like three years, but letting that run for a decade is just a scam. Our whole system is biased toward invariable positive returns. Sometimes you should lose. Sometimes you should admit you bet on the wrong horse and move on.

Congress wrote the laws that way because, without exception, they are rich people who want to get richer. Greed is a strong motivator. Before long they manage to rationalize their greed as only reasonable.
This thread is too much.

So let’s say a person earns wages, and pays payroll taxes and federal income taxes. They then decide, they would like to invest in equities. The corporation pays federal income tax. Then you want the dividend paid and stock appreciation to the original investor to be taxed yet AGAIN at the same wage rate? The capital gain rate is lowered for a reason....the same money is getting hit multiple times. If the capital gain rate was the same as all income types, flowthrough entities would be given a massive advantage over corporations....since the income would only be taxed once vs multiple times....

Secondly, capital gains are paid at “nominal” amounts, meaning they aren’t indexed for inflation like wage taxes are. In other words, without a lower rate they would be paying tax on inflation created by the federal reserve AND on their “real”asset appreciation.

Congress has actual data to show lower capital gain rates not only increase investment and growth, but also results in MORE revenue overall. And who is hurt most by destroying the incentive to invest and slower growth? Regular people who needs jobs.

Deep water horizon indeed. It looks like you weren’t ready for that bite. Nuuuhuh.

Last edited by Thatsright19; 03-09-2018 at 09:59 PM..
 
Old 03-09-2018, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,203 posts, read 1,094,645 times
Reputation: 4151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Not surprising that the argument breaks down when pressed for details.
As you say. This isn't the thread to get into it, anyway.

I'm not one of the OCD types here who has to win every single argument with every single person; I long ago learned to cut my losses.

I'll just say that I've had my core argument with names that would undoubtedly impress you, and while I didn't convince them, they had valuable insight that came from reaching outside their indoctrination. (The true mark of genius: realizing your own viewpoint may not be the only or only correct one.) And... I've had Econ professors storm out of the room screaming at me. Doesn't bother me.

Let me put it simply: I don't think you're wrong. You're just obsolete, the way Einstein was obsolete in the face of quantum theory - which he never fully accepted. (That list goes way back, as I'm sure you know.) We are at a point where our economic theory and practice must change radically - no matter how perfect and polished and "true" it's been made. Some will see this. Others will defend current theory until they die. There are enough people grasping and supporting my ideas that I don't care about outliers - be they some idiot who read Adam Smith once or, say, Econ Ph.D.s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top