Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 03-12-2014, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,715 posts, read 31,096,671 times
Reputation: 9270

Advertisements

The best answer is a radically simplified tax code. No deductions. No exemptions. No behavior modification via taxes. That means no cheating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2014, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,570,693 times
Reputation: 9675
This is the definition of very mega rich in Oklahoma: Edmond Mega Mansion Could Become Largest Home In US - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 06:53 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,671,868 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
I'd don't really care if income or net worth are used to measure wealth. They are both valid measures.

But of course there is no true definition of the rich, so getting into an argument about it is just a conservative waste of time to really talk about the insane conservative conspiracy theory that the Democratic party wants to punish the rich or near rich, blah, blah, blah.

First off of course the people who run the Democratic party are themselves rich and high income. Many of the big donors to the Democratic party are rich and high income, so they are trying to punish themselves and their wealthiest donors?

How do conservatives get around that reality? With another insane conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy is that somehow the Democratic party excludes themselves and their political allies from higher taxes. They hide it in the tax code where conservative elected officials can't see them and neither can tax experts. SMH.
If I were your boss and ask you to work overtime but you will make only 60% of your current hourly pay rate would you work overtime? Why should anyone else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 06:56 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,671,868 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
How do you want to tax your targets? Please - how are you going to tax Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Beyonce and Jay Z?
Amazing that people are dumb enough to believe that Buffett, Beyonce and Jay Z would actually vote to give more money to the government. They knew they have ways to avoid it yet the naive Obama supporters bought it hook, line and "SINKER".

And the only two things the above care about is making more money and people feeding their egos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 07:05 PM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,285,112 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
If I were your boss and ask you to work overtime but you will make only 60% of your current hourly pay rate would you work overtime? Why should anyone else?
This is an absurd and irrelevant question. There simply isn't any objective economic studies that say there is a connection to modest tax increases and how hard people work to earn more money.

I can guarantee you if the tax brackets were changed so that it was guaranteed that if I worked overtime I'd go into a higher tax bracket, I'd still work overtime. That is the question to ask.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,401,836 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
the answer is irrelevant, because standard pension retirement age is 65.



Also irrelevant, because

(A) Firemen across the nation don't retire at 50

(B) Firemen across the nation don't earn a pension of $50k/year.

where i live, a firefighter makes $29,000 / year, and a fire captain makes $48,000 / year, and they retire at 55.

pensions pay roughly 50% of your annual salary, so that's between $15,000 - $25,000 / year per retired firefighter
There are millions of public-sector employees retired before 65.

Where you live is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is that millions of public-sector employees have accrued huge pensions. It is no less "wealth" than a 401(k).

If your 401k crashes you lose it. A defined benefit participant doesn't care - he's not at risk. The taxpayer just coughs up more. At least one court has ruled that they can't bankrupt themselves out of the liability, and they still have the PGF as a backdrop. Who's backstopping your 401k?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 08:07 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,671,868 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
This is an absurd and irrelevant question. There simply isn't any objective economic studies that say there is a connection to modest tax increases and how hard people work to earn more money.

I can guarantee you if the tax brackets were changed so that it was guaranteed that if I worked overtime I'd go into a higher tax bracket, I'd still work overtime. That is the question to ask.
And I'll bet you would rather get a raise than lower taxes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 09:47 PM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,285,112 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
And I'll bet you would rather get a raise than lower taxes
It depends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,469 posts, read 16,449,350 times
Reputation: 5975
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Amazing that people are dumb enough to believe that Buffett, Beyonce and Jay Z would actually vote to give more money to the government. They knew they have ways to avoid it yet the naive Obama supporters bought it hook, line and "SINKER".

And the only two things the above care about is making more money and people feeding their egos.
Your comment is flawed.

You said Jay Z, Beyonce and Buffet wouldnt vote to raise their own taxes, but then admit they would, they would just sneak around it.

That second part may very well be true(idk), but it contradicts the claim you are making because they would indeed vote for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 08:30 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,673,674 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
There are millions of public-sector employees retired before 65.
i agree. there are also millions of public sector employees who retired after 65.

Quote:
Where you live is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is that millions of public-sector employees have accrued huge pensions.
i disagree, pension plans are typically run by state governments, and thus all have different rules.

furthermore, like i said, not every state pays public workers enough salary for them to accrue "million dollar pensions." not every state allows workers to retire at 50. every state has a different plan.

you live in California, and so that colors your view about how lucrative pensions are. When your policemen start out earning $28,000 / year, like they do here, pension costs are different than Palo Alto where they make "$79,331.20 - $97,406.40 Annually"

http://agency.governmentjobs.com/pal...3Cstring%3E%3C


Your most highly-paid police Lieutenants are bringing in $195,000/year, ours are bringing in $71,000/year.

http://www.municipalinsider.com/publ...-in-palo-alto/

The highest-paid person in the city was police Lt. Kenneth Denson, who took home a whopping $407,908 in calendar year 2011. More than half that sum — $212,738 — was attributed to a “cash-out” of unused vacation and sick leave. His base salary was $195,169, according to the data released Tuesday night.


IOW, don't blame pensions for your mess, blame the leaders of the state of California.

Quote:
If your 401k crashes you lose it. A defined benefit participant doesn't care - he's not at risk. The taxpayer just coughs up more.
Right, but that's a two-way street. In periods of high growth, a pensioner doesn't get increased benefits, either, they are returned back to the state.

Quote:
At least one court has ruled that they can't bankrupt themselves out of the liability, and they still have the PGF as a backdrop.
PGF only applies to private sector pensions, not the public sector pensions we're talking about here.

Last edited by le roi; 03-13-2014 at 08:41 AM..
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top