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.
Furthermore, to the "But the top 10% are paying 70% of the taxes!" crowd- that is what a progressive system of taxation is. The people earning the bulk of the money pay the bulk of the taxes. Maybe you just don't like the current system. That is a separate discussion.
Ronald Reagan when acting refused to do 4 films per year, as the 4th was done at a far steeper level of taxation. Now what the class envy folks forget about is his unwillingness to do film #4 meant less work for the hundreds of production employees, 99% of whom would be considered middle class. So if one thinks we best improve on a path to end 3.5 years of 8% plus unemployment, 15% U6 rates, one best entice those with the means, with an environent conducive and welcoming to their investment potential.
Ronald Reagan when acting refused to do 4 films per year, as the 4th was done at a far steeper level of taxation. Now what the class envy folks forget about is his unwillingness to do film #4 meant less work for the hundreds of production employees, 99% of whom would be considered middle class. So if one thinks we best improve on a path to end 3.5 years of 8% plus unemployment, 15% U6 rates, one best entice those with the means, with an environent conducive and welcoming to their investment potential.
If the production couldn't find a better actor than Ronald Reagan, the movie was probably going to flop anyway and waste a lot more money LOL.
Maybe you and I are paying enough in taxes, but I don't think Mitt Romney is. Do you think a ~13% rate for him is fair?
Honestly, our government is so completely dysfunctional that I really think that in the end, both *everyone's* taxes are going to go up, and programs and benefits will be reduced or eliminated.
I did not used to care much about this issue, until I took a class on federal income tax in law school. Only after studying the tax code did I come to realize how atrocious it is. The middle class and even the upper middle class are absolutely screwed by the current system. I would say that the government is probably getting the bulk of the income tax from people earning 75k-500 or maybe 600k. Many of these people are well-to-do, but they're not "rich," as in Mitt Romney rich. There are many, many loopholes and tricks of the trade for the ultra-rich that you could never access. Things like the AMT should have been indexed to inflation, but that never happened. But nothing can be fixed or changed or tweaked because of the political paralysis.
Furthermore, to the "But the top 10% are paying 70% of the taxes!" crowd- that is what a progressive system of taxation is. The people earning the bulk of the money pay the bulk of the taxes. Maybe you just don't like the current system. That is a separate discussion.
I'm honestly OK with that rate of tax for them because the way their taxes get so low are not based on "earned income" but rather investment income that comes from dividends and other investments which I think do a much better job of stimulating the economy as compared to the earned wages of most workers.
I agree with you that the tax system is a mess...my biggest issue with it is that the government and many voters are completely fine with the idea that taking almost 1/3 of my (and many other peoples income) income and digging a multi trillion dollar hole of debt with it is ok, and that they need more. I mean seriously, you are taking a third of my income and you arent even close to breaking even? Serioulsy? Simply taking more from the rich is not going to solve the problem, I firmly believe that we need to put strong measures in place to address the waste and messy spending before we ask anyone for more money.
...my biggest issue with it is that the government and many voters are completely fine with the idea that taking almost 1/3 of my (and many other peoples income) income and digging a multi trillion dollar hole of debt with it is ok, and that they need more. I mean seriously, you are taking a third of my income and you arent even close to breaking even? Serioulsy? Simply taking more from the rich is not going to solve the problem, I firmly believe that we need to put strong measures in place to address the waste and messy spending before we ask anyone for more money.
The big problem is the poverty pimps are not held accountable. Continued employment at a government service agency which is entrusted for example with finding employment for those on welfare should be based on what percentage of ones clients found and kept jobs. In other words, a government worker in said agency not placing enough should be terminated.
To reduce the cost of entitlements, one must be insistent such aid is short-term, teaching one to fish, instead of providing fish for life for free. The desire to keep entitlement costs exploding is the underlying reason lefties keep reaching for more from you..forever.
The big problem is the poverty pimps are not held accountable. Continued employment at a government service agency which is entrusted for example with finding employment for those on welfare should be based on what percentage of ones clients found and kept jobs. In other words, a government worker in said agency not placing enough should be terminated.
To reduce the cost of entitlements, one must be insistent such aid is short-term, teaching one to fish, instead of providing fish for life for free.
Agreed. Government jobs are a difficult proposition, many of them are "needed" but they also don't produce measurable economic value but cost real dollars. They need to be more efficient and held more accountable for their results.
I'm honestly OK with that rate of tax for them because the way their taxes get so low are not based on "earned income" but rather investment income that comes from dividends and other investments which I think do a much better job of stimulating the economy as compared to the earned wages of most workers.
I agree with you that the tax system is a mess...my biggest issue with it is that the government and many voters are completely fine with the idea that taking almost 1/3 of my (and many other peoples income) income and digging a multi trillion dollar hole of debt with it is ok, and that they need more. I mean seriously, you are taking a third of my income and you arent even close to breaking even? Serioulsy? Simply taking more from the rich is not going to solve the problem, I firmly believe that we need to put strong measures in place to address the waste and messy spending before we ask anyone for more money.
I basically have a big problem with the idea that investment income should be taxed less than regular income, for a few reasons. If you have, for example, $100,000 sitting in an account, are you going to just not invest it because you'll be taxed on the gains? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think Warren Buffet basically said the same thing at one point. Capital gains should be taxed at a level where it's competitive and it's still a better idea to keep your money in the U.S., but I think the rate now is too low.
Another issue I have is that for people in Mitt Romney's sector and a few others, basically a huge portion of their paycheck is in stock options, carried interest, and capital gains. They're never taxed as income. Mitt Romney has a gigantic 100 million IRA, and for all we know, the money in it was never taxed as income. To me this signals a very unfair advantage. Why should a corporate CEO have that kind of opportunity, but a surgeon who is just as intelligent and more important to our society, does not? That's my beef with it.
Another problem is the berserk corporate tax system, but that's also full of difficult questions that I don't think either party is prepared to address. Nothing is going to be fixed as long as Grover Norquist holds the entire discussion hostage, that's all I'm saying.
I basically have a big problem with the idea that investment income should be taxed less than regular income, for a few reasons. If you have, for example, $100,000 sitting in an account, are you going to just not invest it because you'll be taxed on the gains? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think Warren Buffet basically said the same thing at one point. Capital gains should be taxed at a level where it's competitive and it's still a better idea to keep your money in the U.S., but I think the rate now is too low.
Another issue I have is that for people in Mitt Romney's sector and a few others, basically a huge portion of their paycheck is in stock options, carried interest, and capital gains. They're never taxed as income. Mitt Romney has a gigantic 100 million IRA, and for all we know, the money in it was never taxed as income. To me this signals a very unfair advantage. Why should a corporate CEO have that kind of opportunity, but a surgeon who is just as intelligent and more important to our society, does not? That's my beef with it.
Another problem is the berserk corporate tax system, but that's also full of difficult questions that I don't think either party is prepared to address. Nothing is going to be fixed as long as Grover Norquist holds the entire discussion hostage, that's all I'm saying.
I make a comfortable living, and I dont have anywhere near $100k waiting to be invested, but I do have a much smaller amount sitting in a "high interest" savings account right now that I'm on the fence with. Its earning .80% APR, and I'm contemplating putting it into a dividend focused ETF, but I'm honestly reluctant because I'd be fine with it at a 15% tax rate, but double that to a 30% tax rate and now I'm a little more reluctant. An investment like that could do well, but it could lose value too, so for the extra risk I'm taking where I could lose principal I want to minimize my expenses with it, which includes the taxes that I'd pay.
Personally, I've also lost a lot of respect for Buffet over the last few years. I mean here is a guy that cant stop telling us how wrong it is that his secretary has a higher tax rate than he does, yet he was spending all kinds of money on a team of accountants and lawyers to reduce his tax bill. His opinions have lost a lot of their authority and weight to me as a result of that.
I see where you are going, but I strongly disagree that just because someone has an MD after their name, they are more important to our society than someone with a CEO or MBA after their name. It scares me that our society is making business people out to be evil, although a small minority do deserve that label.
I agree that Norquist is probably part of the problem, but again to me the bigger part of the problem relates to spending, not taxes.
I make a comfortable living, and I dont have anywhere near $100k waiting to be invested, but I do have a much smaller amount sitting in a "high interest" savings account right now that I'm on the fence with. Its earning .80% APR, and I'm contemplating putting it into a dividend focused ETF, but I'm honestly reluctant because I'd be fine with it at a 15% tax rate, but double that to a 30% tax rate and now I'm a little more reluctant. An investment like that could do well, but it could lose value too, so for the extra risk I'm taking where I could lose principal I want to minimize my expenses with it, which includes the taxes that I'd pay.
Personally, I've also lost a lot of respect for Buffet over the last few years. I mean here is a guy that cant stop telling us how wrong it is that his secretary has a higher tax rate than he does, yet he was spending all kinds of money on a team of accountants and lawyers to reduce his tax bill. His opinions have lost a lot of their authority and weight to me as a result of that.
I see where you are going, but I strongly disagree that just because someone has an MD after their name, they are more important to our society than someone with a CEO or MBA after their name. It scares me that our society is making business people out to be evil, although a small minority do deserve that label.
I agree that Norquist is probably part of the problem, but again to me the bigger part of the problem relates to spending, not taxes.
True, but you can't reduce taxes and spending and think that anything is going to change. Taking in more money and cutting spending will reduce the problems. Also it would be nice to see us cut back the military spending, there is no need to out spend so many countries combined. We are not a country with dangerous neighbors and we should try and act like the world's police.
True, but you can't reduce taxes and spending and think that anything is going to change. Taking in more money and cutting spending will reduce the problems. Also it would be nice to see us cut back the military spending, there is no need to out spend so many countries combined. We are not a country with dangerous neighbors and we should try and act like the world's police.
I'm not arguing to reduce taxes, I think we need to leave them where they are. I want to take in the same amount...and eventually less, while drastically spending less money. Like I said, there is no excuse to take almost 1/3 of the income of many Americans and still run an unfathomably large deficit. Personally I find it insulting and offensive that my money is being wasted like this...regardless of if our president has "D" or "R" after their name.
Totally with you on the military spending...I just get annoyed with people that somehow think that there is a difference between Obama and Romney when it comes to military spending. I mean Obama got us into multiple conflicts that can't be blamed on Bush, AND he is going overboard with the drone programs.
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.
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.
