U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2008, 10:40 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,516,394 times
Reputation: 1573

Advertisements

Originally Posted by TKramar
Quote:
There's a difference between OWNING a house--which I don't want. And HAVING a house to live in. I'm fine with renting.
Be that as it may, there is no difference between having a home and renting a house.
Even owning a house will not protect you from becoming homeless if a hurricane comes along and sweeps it up and throws it into another state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2008, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Be that as it may, there is no difference between having a home and renting a house.
Even owning a house will not protect you from becoming homeless if a hurricane comes along and sweeps it up and throws it into another state.
We do not have hurricanes where I live - so, your example is impossible.

That said - even those in states with hurricanes - if their home is damaged, they repair or replace it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 10:45 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,419,281 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher View Post
The shoplifting analogy fails at least because the cost to the store of shoplifted merchandise is already built into the price of the goods that are sold - whether or not the goods are shoplifted.

As for the tax rates, they've gone down, not up, since 2000, for everybody but the folks between roughly $6000 and $28400 (in net income, depending on the year). There were drops in the tax rates for the top 4 tax brackets in 2001, 2002, and 2003. The top group dropped from 39.6% down to 35%, a savings of $460 per $1000 in income. At the same time, the income level at which that rate kicks in climbed 8% in that same 3 year period, and 24% from 2000 to 2008 (which is the same rate increase at all of the other levels, save the newest level which did not exist in 2000).
You seem well versed in economics.

Explain to me how this will be incentive to work harder to achive the goal of being called "rich".

Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.


High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.

European Levels of Taxation: Barack Obama's Tax Plan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 10:47 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,419,281 times
Reputation: 4016
Perhaps a larger worry than the damage to the economy is the long-run budget problem of the United States. While Senator Obama raises taxes a great deal on upper income individuals, the overall tax plan increases the national deficit. As a result, the country will be even less prepared to pay for current and future Social Security and Medicare obligations. When money is needed to pay for those programs, it will be hard to tax the rich even more, given that the top rate will already be so high. Instead, in order to pay the government's spending and entitlement shortfalls, taxes would fall most heavily on middle-income Americans. After all, even successful taxpayers are not an infinite source of revenue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Thumb of Michigan
4,489 posts, read 6,657,270 times
Reputation: 2522
In light of the debate as to to whether it's fair that the top 5 to 10 percent pay more taxes than everyone else, i foresee draconian measures to take place over time within the U.S. which will lead us all on a slippery slope.

The U.S. Congress and the IRS "good intentions" will be a road paved to hell.

Sidenote in lieu of taxation - Remember reading an autobiography of Thomas Edison making a reference of the common man working a 9 to 5 job will kill the creativity/incentive of the U.S. just as around the same time, the 16th Amendment was passed.

We're seeing evidence of lack of incentive and small-time entrepreneurship dwindling.

I'll bear the agrument in favor of MikeJaquish's assessment of "Yes it's fair and No, it's not fair".

We should, as a nation, evolve out of this perpetual stalemate called the tax code and government-as-we-know-it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 01:52 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,187,061 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
You seem well versed in economics.

The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.


High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.
I'm not particularly well versed in economics, but have a decent sense of math (though humanoid would disagree). If I seem well versed, it's a tribute to research skills, I suspect, more than anything else.

The top income tax rate you've got right, there, but while the payroll taxes are at 15.3% (rather than 15.65%, unless I am mistaken), that is not the amount to add to the 39.6%. Individuals only pay half of that, or 7.65% (see my earlier example, in which rounding brought it to 7.66% of the extra salary). Therefore the combined tax percentage would be 47.25%.

California, as far as I know, has an income tax of 9.3% for its highest bracket, bringing it to 56.55%. But even with the erroneous payroll tax figure of 15.65%, it would not exceed two-thirds of each new dollar.

Maryland's rate, even in its most expensive county (as they each have their own income tax and rate, collected by the state), is lower than California's - as is Maryland's non-resident income tax rate.

NYC is worse, with a combined ~10.5% state and city income tax, which would bring things up to 57.75%.
*******

The only way the full 15.3% comes down on one's head is if one is self-employed. But, at that point a raft of deductions and expenses take hold making the impact on an hour's income far less than the apparent 15.3%. Even without deducting any expenses like 50% of self-employment health insurance, the actual calculation is not on 100% of your post-expense income, but on ~92.35% of it, making it 'only' ~14.13%. One then only pays ~36.57% of what had been the whole business income total, because one subtracts half of the SE tax. So...we're now at [b]~50.7%[b] of income in the 39.6% bracket, including the equivalent of payroll taxes. And adding on NYC brings us to a whopping 61.2%.

But here's the kicker. The self-employment tax is not limited by the same upper bound that the regular FICA/MEDI withholding is - people in NYC who are in that tax bracket are currently paying ~56.95% in income taxes.
********

So, you asked me to explain how this will be incentive to work harder to achive the goal of being called "rich" with such outrageous income levels as those we are discussing here.
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

From 1932 through 1986, the lowest the tax rate had been on the highest earners was 50%. It was, at time, well over 80%.

We did not seem to lack for people with the incentive to "be called rich" for all those decades. Why do you think it would be different now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by TKramarBe that as it may, there is no difference between having a home and renting a house.
Even owning a house will not protect you from becoming homeless if a hurricane comes along and sweeps it up and throws it into another state.

A "house" is built under specific construction rules, so that it is "hurricane-resistant". Even mobile homes/trailers, have hurricane straps to hold on to it.

Why are we off on this tangent again? Yes, suffice it to say that there IS a difference between owning and renting...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 02:06 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,419,281 times
Reputation: 4016
Those years were some of the slowest growth we have ever had.

The problem is once you tax rich folks like that and it still isn't working you can't tax them even more after all they are an infinite source of tax income. Eventually it rolls down and people don't get rich in our society from taking it laying down.....they pass cost on to the consumer which in turn removes more of their disposable income. It's a domino effect. Of course everyone has the want to be rich or independently wealthy. How effective is this to most Americans? It's effectively like being on the 40 yard line and suddenly moving the goal post 20% further back. You took the chance to even try for a field goal away by doing that. Why was the largest number of millionaires ever registered during the "trickle down" period?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 02:09 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,419,281 times
Reputation: 4016
http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/usdebt_files/image008.jpg (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 02:15 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,419,281 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Those years were some of the slowest growth we have ever had.

The problem is once you tax rich folks like that and it still isn't working you can't tax them even more after all they are an infinite source of tax income. Eventually it rolls down and people don't get rich in our society from taking it laying down.....they pass cost on to the consumer which in turn removes more of their disposable income. It's a domino effect. Of course everyone has the want to be rich or independently wealthy. How effective is this to most Americans? It's effectively like being on the 40 yard line and suddenly moving the goal post 20% further back. You took the chance to even try for a field goal away by doing that. Why was the largest number of millionaires ever registered during the "trickle down" period?

I should say slower to be more accurate slowest is misleading.

Also:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > Great Debates
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