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.
That's because you posted data for different years using a different set of income groups. The 2007 data from the CBO doesn't contradict anything I posted, but the use of different income groups from your IRS data and the data I posted makes the comparison more difficult. .
Come on now. There are a million ways to slice and dice the data. In a forum such as this my info was more than adequate. Just because you posted your data first doenst mean its the standard to which all other must adhere. As you said, its relevant and address the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H
No. First, your data doesn't include local and state taxes, which are the most regressive parts of our tax system. You can't convenieeeeennntly leave out the regressive components and then dub the system "highly progressive." I mean, you can, but everyone here knows what bull***** smells like. .
State and local taxes are widely divergent. Combining them all together obfuscates more than it reveals. There are, however, a few obvious truths: Property taxes are always progressive. ALWAYS. 6 states have no income tax. Thus their rates are neither progressive or regressive. Sales taxes are clearly progressive, as the more you spend the more you pay. So tell us, now how are state and local taxes the most regressive, exactly? As you say, I know what bull**** smells like too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H
Second, we can all discuss what counts as "highly progressive," but surely we can agree that a system that is REGRESSIVE at one end of the income spectrum isn't "highly progressive"? It might be "overall somewhat progressive" or "modestly progressive for most taxpayers," but "highly progressive" is flatly contradictory. .
The main argument that proponents of a progressive tax scheme make concerns the lower quintiles versus the upper income levels. Such as when lower income folk pay taxes at the same or higher rates than the upper income crowd. That is clearly NOT the case in the US. In fact, as even YOUR data would show, if broken down by quintile, tax rates RISE with each quintile. Regardless, your outrage at the "suffering" of the "next 4%" of taxpayers strikes me as a bit bizarre
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H
Yes, because historically the capital gains tax rate has had such a profound effect on investment decisions. Here's another pretty chart for you:
All things being equal, I'd prefer to tax other things than work and investment, but I'm not going to pretend that (even if it weren't a political fantasy) it would have any profound effect on investment and productivity. The kinds of tax rates that are "in play" in this country just don't vary enough to make a noticeable difference.
[/quote]
Another pretty chart...without sources or definitions. Hmmmm. How about just using some common sense? If something is taxed MORE, it is a LESS attractive option. (No PhD in economics required.) Now some will still make that choice, esp if the alternatives arent better. But on the margin, it will discourage some from doing so. That is irrefutable logic. (did I spell 'irrefutable' correctly Mr Sic? )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H
LOL. You still haven't explained why my data is "questionnable" (sic). In any case, it does not show that our tax system is "highly progressive;" it shows that it's modestly progressive except for those parts of the income spectrum where it is actually REGRESSIVE. Good grief.
Its questioNable, as I mentioned earlier, because it has no data sources or definitions. Futher, it comes from a publication with an agenda that aligns with its perspective. Moreover, it aggregates a great deal of disparate data (50 different states, 50 different tax policies) which tends to obfuscate more than clarify. All that = highly questioNable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H
Actually, the reality is that entitlement spending will NOT be cut and taxes WILL increase to the tune of about $3.6 trillion over 10 years unless Congress and the President come to an agreement prior to the end of 2012. Do you think that's going to happen? That's the reality.
The reality is that govt spending will be cut or the good ship USA will founder and sink under the weight of unsustainable ENTITLEMENT programs. Discretionary spending on defense and education could go to ZERO and the entitlement appartus would still sink us like a stone. Just like what is right now happening in the Eurozone.
What is inherently not sustainable cannot be propped up for eternity by higher and higher tax rates, more borrowing, wealth redistribution, etc. Eventually the system ALWAYS collapses. When that happens the less fortunate will suffer most of all.
If something is taxed MORE, it is a LESS attractive option. (No PhD in economics required.) Now some will still make that choice, esp if the alternatives arent better. But on the margin, it will discourage some from doing so. That is irrefutable logic. (did I spell 'irrefutable' correctly Mr Sic? )
Here's a guy who refutes your "logic" (as if the data in my pretty chart hadn't already done so).
“I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.”
Here's a guy who refutes your "logic" (as if the data in my pretty chart hadn't already done so).
“I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.”
-- Warren Buffett
buffett cant relate. When you are a multi-billionaire, whats an extra percent or more to uncle Sam?
buffett cant relate. When you are a multi-billionaire, whats an extra percent or more to uncle Sam?
It seems you didn't read the quote. Buffett isn't saying it makes no difference to him; he's saying the capital gains tax rate hasn't influenced a single investor's decision to invest or not in his 60-year career. Given the data I posted, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Quote:
What is a "sensible" potential tax rate, please?
I don't see any compelling reason to tax capital gains less than we tax work. That would protect the granny on a fixed income you're concerned about, while also allowing us to tax billionaires and trust fund babies the same way we tax people with jobs. Simplify the tax code, right? Every conservative agrees with this!!!
It seems you didn't read the quote. Buffett isn't saying it makes no difference to him; he's saying the capital gains tax rate hasn't influenced a single investor's decision to invest or not in his 60-year career. Given the data I posted, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
I don't see any compelling reason to tax capital gains less than we tax work. That would protect the granny on a fixed income you're concerned about, while also allowing us to tax billionaires and trust fund babies the same way we tax people with jobs. Simplify the tax code, right? Every conservative agrees with this!!!
That is absolutely fascinating. I mean, the idea that Buffett knows what has, and has not, influenced every single investor in their decision making over 60 years, is stunning news. I knew the guy was bright but never, ever did I imagine that his skill set included mind reading. No wonder he is a billionaire!
That is the real ax you want to grind, isn’t it? The “trust fund babies”? You really do loathe how successful parents attempt to pass on a portion of their wealth, don’t you? That is the “Peoples Wealth” dammit! J
Ahh, granny pays regular income tax rates on her income when it comes from bonds and most other non-equity investments. And of course no matter what your IRA or 401k is invested in, any money that comes out is taxed at standard income tax rates. Meanwhile stock speculators (as opposed to investors) receive no advantage, as any stock owned for less than a year is taxed at regular rates.
Equity investing is unique because, as I have already pointed out, its been taxed multiple times before being invested. Furthermore, equities CREATE wealth – out of thin air. You own a stock, it goes up, you are richer. Stocks are therefore a KEY wealth creation tool. Not only that, you can let it ride, so to speak, as no taxes are due until the stock is sold. This allows for additional tax-deferred wealth creation/growth. Rising stock prices also have the effect of making people feel wealthier, further juicing the economic system. A stronger economic system means more jobs, wealth, and so on.
You can claim that tax rates haven’t hurt or inhibited stock investing. But you don’t know. For example, how much MORE stock investing might there have been if rates were even lower? (blasphemy, I know)
Wow. Dude, you obviously don't follow the tech industry. I live in it.
IBM destroyed the BUNCH (Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, CDC, and Honeywell) in the mainframe days through illegal bundling of software and services with their hardware, Microsoft's feats of manipulation and law-skirting are legion, etc.
"Free market knocked them off their high horse" my ass.
I dont follow the ins and outs of every industry, no.
If what they were doing was truly ILLEGAL, Ive already said they should be punished. However, if what they were doing was just good business/tough competition, then they should have been allowed to continue.
Are you saying these companies would have dominated their industries for the next 10000 years without govt? That they were immune to competition? Kind of like market giants Sears, GM, Xerox and Kodak... ohhhh right.....
That is absolutely fascinating. I mean, the idea that Buffett knows what has, and has not, influenced every single investor in their decision making over 60 years, is stunning news. I knew the guy was bright but never, ever did I imagine that his skill set included mind reading. No wonder he is a billionaire!
It's possible he could be a mind-reader, I suppose, but I think it's more likely that he...you know...talked about capital gains taxes with the investors to which he was offering investment advice. I can't rule out the mind-reading hypothesis, though. Good catch.
Quote:
That is the real ax you want to grind, isn’t it? The “trust fund babies”? You really do loathe how successful parents attempt to pass on a portion of their wealth, don’t you? That is the “Peoples Wealth” dammit! J
LOL.
I say "I don't see any compelling why we should tax capital gains less than we tax work" and you say "Communist!!!11!"
You're a trip.
Quote:
You can claim that tax rates haven’t hurt or inhibited stock investing. But you don’t know. For example, how much MORE stock investing might there have been if rates were even lower? (blasphemy, I know)
We don't know what might possibly have happened in a counter-factual hypothetical universe (though Buffett might, if you're on to something with the superpowers). We do know that in our universe, over the last eighty years or so, investment doesn't drop when capital gains taxes are raised, and it doesn't increase when capital gains taxes are cut.
Of course, this is only persuasive to those whose policy positions are based on evidence rather than faith.
It's possible he could be a mind-reader, I suppose, but I think it's more likely that he...you know...talked about capital gains taxes with the investors to which he was offering investment advice. I can't rule out the mind-reading hypothesis, though. Good catch.
LOL.
I say "I don't see any compelling why we should tax capital gains less than we tax work" and you say "Communist!!!11!"
You're a trip.
We don't know what might possibly have happened in a counter-factual hypothetical universe (though Buffett might, if you're on to something with the superpowers). We do know that in our universe, over the last eighty years or so, investment doesn't drop when capital gains taxes are raised, and it doesn't increase when capital
gains taxes are cut.
Of course, this is only persuasive to those whose policy positions are based on evidence rather than faith.
Oh dear. You are wildly misinformed/uninformed. Buffett doesn't offer investment advice. To anyone. He runs a publicly traded company which makes investments in various businesses. His stock (BH) is bought and sold every day, millions of times, without him talking to those doing the buying or selling. Of course. I thought everyone knew this. Goodness gracious. What is it, exactly, you THINK Buffett does, my dear little financial genius...lol
So are saying that if capital gains taxes were upped to 100%, that would have no affect on investor behavior, and this, moreover, Is a proven fact.
My. You continue to pontificate. I continue to....be "amazed"....
Lol at taxing a retired granny and trustfund kids more just becuase you hate rich people. Socialist are a trip.
Socialists are also disgruntled. Perpetually so. Doesn't sound like fun to me. But being unhappy makes some types of people happy, I guess. Weird.
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.
.
) 
