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.
I believe in progressive taxes: for rich Republicans and Democrats. There is a point where you won't notice the money is missing. Does anyone making over $100M a year really notice the difference between 33% and 38%? Didn't think so.
(I don't think the higher rates on progressive taxes should start until $1M in annual income. We can leave the rates lower until then, sparing about 95% of Americans (and Californians) higher taxes.
Some will notice the difference, some will not. Some will notice the difference when its 50%, 60%, 70%. What would be the percentage for you to notice, 100%? Or would you leave if only 90% of your income was taxed?
Some will notice the difference, some will not. Some will notice the difference when its 50%, 60%, 70%. What would be the percentage for you to notice, 100%? Or would you leave if only 90% of your income was taxed?
Our tax policies are completely out of whack. For example the tax rates for "investment income" is far too small. And why do hedge fund managers get taxed at investment income rates and not the same scale as wages?
The wealth gap these days is completely ridiculous. As I mentioned before, the serious progressive taxes would start at $1M of annual income (not $100M). 95% of the population would be exempted from this. But reforming the rules on investment income and instituting a steeper progressive tax rate on incomes above $1M would help with revenue generation and still offer protection to the poor, middle class and upper middle class people.
Our tax policies are completely out of whack. For example the tax rates for "investment income" is far too small. And why do hedge fund managers get taxed at investment income rates and not the same scale as wages?
I know many well to do individuals invest in municipal bonds because they offer tax benefits...
Do you think there would still be a market if the tax rate increased?
Also, if muni bonds no longer offered tax advantages I imagine the cities, counties and State would have see at least a 25 to 30% increase in the cost of funds...
I've never owned any... just stating they are a favorite of those I know with means...
Our tax policies are completely out of whack. For example the tax rates for "investment income" is far too small. And why do hedge fund managers get taxed at investment income rates and not the same scale as wages?
The wealth gap these days is completely ridiculous. As I mentioned before, the serious progressive taxes would start at $1M of annual income (not $100M). 95% of the population would be exempted from this. But reforming the rules on investment income and instituting a steeper progressive tax rate on incomes above $1M would help with revenue generation and still offer protection to the poor, middle class and upper middle class people.
You really think we should be taxing investment income? We have a massie problem in that not nearly enough baby boomers were responsible enough to save for retirement (and it ain't getting better with later generations) and have a pathetic national savings rate.
Your solution? Tax it more! One would think adopting a strategy to improve savings rates might be called for. I mean, you pay social security tax and income taxes when you earn it, you pay sales tax and a multitude of other taxes when you spend it, if you invest it, you get taxed and then get taxed again if you spend it. And if you try to pass it on and saved too much, well, there's a tax for that, too.
The problem isn't a revenue problem. It's a spending problem. Clearly.
There is no data to substantiate a correlation between business tax rates in CA and job losses. None whatsoever. Its a NeoCon myth.
The overwhelming majority of job losses in CA are explicitely tied to the housing meltdown which was a national event that affected CA worse because of high home equity.
What about that makes it "NeoCon?" Just curious. It doesn't seem to fit at all.
And you might want to bring that issue up with Nissan. They must have known that housing bubble was coming and packed up their bags and moved to Tennessee.
Quote:
Nissan Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn said the Japanese automaker, which set up shop in Southern California in 1958, would spend more than $70 million to build a corporate headquarters complex in Franklin, about 15 miles southwest of Nashville.
Ghosn said the widely anticipated decision was prompted chiefly by cheaper real estate and lower business taxes.
"The costs of doing business in Southern California are much higher than the costs of doing business in Tennessee," he said.
The problem is that most people, rightly or wrongly, don't think they're really getting much benefit from government. The things they use a lot of schools and roads are perceived as having their own revenue sources, property and gas taxes, separate from the income tax. Most people probably feel their income and capital gains taxes are just being sucked up for use in programs they really can't touch and feel every day like foreign aid, defense, and social welfare programs for the poor, basically things for others. Politicians, mainly Democrats, have done a poor job of changing this perception, partly because supporting programs for the larger middle class brands them as big government socialists.
The problem is that most people, rightly or wrongly, don't think they're really getting much benefit from government. The things they use a lot of schools and roads are perceived as having their own revenue sources, property and gas taxes, separate from the income tax. Most people probably feel their income and capital gains taxes are just being sucked up for use in programs they really can't touch and feel every day like foreign aid, defense, and social welfare programs for the poor, basically things for others. Politicians, mainly Democrats, have done a poor job of changing this perception, partly because supporting programs for the larger middle class brands them as big government socialists.
It is easy to see why...
Plenty of headlines on government waste coupled with excess and exorbitant pensions drive the point home.
Just this week, the California Legislature said it has warehoused vehicles ordered by elected officials because the officials no longer wanted them... the story went on to the say the Dealers would not take these new vehicles back which is an utter fabrication because any dealer will take back a new car taking into account depreciation because the car is no longer new...
Government spent millions retrofitting the Navy Hospital a stones throw from where I live... the base was shuttered and vandals were not prevented from stripping the facility of anything of value... this was a military installation and they couldn't keep it secure from low-lifes? Anyway, with much fan-fare the complex was reduced to rubble by implosion this year because the damage was too extensive...
I've posted before about High School friends that went right into law enforcement from Community College Administration of Justice programs... all but two are retired at age 50/51 with full medical... one has a 180k pension from Oakland, a city with severe financial problems and has laid off more than 10% of the current force.
Older retirees from the department had pensions based on the rank they retired and kept current with what officers in the same position today earn... imagine being retired 20 or 30 years ago and receiving a pension 2 1/2 times more than you ever earned working...
Another is the perception of why work when the neighbor down the street is living in the same house, sends the kids to the same schools, drives the same roads for a fraction of the money it costs you...
Section 8 rent subsidies can be found just about anywhere in the country and opens the door to many programs such as free school meals, medical care, lower utility rates, etc...
There is a trend of people fleeing city services with the associated costs by moving to un-incorporated areas or to more rural States...
Just comparing Property Tax Bills is an eye-opener between urban and rural areas...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 07-31-2011 at 12:56 PM..
Reason: typo
There is a trend of people fleeing city services with the associated costs by moving to un-incorporated areas or to more rural States....
Perhaps in California but here on the East Coast it's the opposite. People are moving into the cities or the inner suburbs and away from the exurbs and rural areas, not so much because of the services, but because they like the ability to walk rather than drive mega-miles to eat, work and shop. DC for example is turning from a formerly majority poor, black city to a majority affluent, educated white one. They seem willing to pay for that and have the belief that they will be able to shape the government to represent their interests. In California, you seem alienated from government at almost all levels. People here seem much happier with what they get from the government. My state of Virginia just reported a $300 million budget surplus and we've not had any tax increases in years. Of course a lot of that is because of the state taxes paid by Federal workers. As you rightfully state, you perceive your government is screwing you over. I don't know what's going to change that anytime soon.
Gentrification was a hot issue a few years ago... I attended many city council meetings where the open forum was dominated with concerns over young professionals buying all the old downtown properties and fixing them up... the complaint was not about the renovation... only that the renovation provided no benefit for the people that have living in the neighborhood the last couple of decades.
The funny thing is when the young professionals reached their 40's... many looked to escape the city... especially if they had young children... many of the attractive qualities of urban living were no longer so attractive... simply moving another 10 minutes away would often put a person in a semi-rural environment which also equated with lower tax rates...
I realize the Bay Area is not typical of the country and Oakland has many issues uniquely Oakland...
Many truly embrace the rural lifestyle and wonder what took them so long to make the change... sure they still commute to their office in town for the most part... but, they also do things like support the volunteer fire department.... last year, they needed to update equipment and held a raffle among other fundraisers... in the city it would have been simply presented as a need to increase taxes...
Law Enforcement as a group seems to relocate more than others... 10 of the 12 I went to school with have left the urban environment with 8 leaving CA and taking their Oakland Pensions with them to Nevada, Idaho and Oregon.
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 07-31-2011 at 12:38 PM..
You really think we should be taxing investment income? We have a massie problem in that not nearly enough baby boomers were responsible enough to save for retirement (and it ain't getting better with later generations) and have a pathetic national savings rate.
Your solution? Tax it more! One would think adopting a strategy to improve savings rates might be called for. I mean, you pay social security tax and income taxes when you earn it, you pay sales tax and a multitude of other taxes when you spend it, if you invest it, you get taxed and then get taxed again if you spend it. And if you try to pass it on and saved too much, well, there's a tax for that, too.
The problem isn't a revenue problem. It's a spending problem. Clearly.
Obviously there are limits on how much investment income would be taxed. Put it this way, if you are making let's say under $1.5M in regular or investment income, we can keep the tax rate fairly similar to what it today, if not lower. Let's say 25%. Once you get past $1.5M it is time for progressive taxes on income and investments. Average Americans should be exempted from high taxes.
I do not disagree we have a spending problem. But unfortunately low and middle income Americans area spending a higher percentage of income on various taxes than a rich person is. We need to reduce the burden on our neediest Americans.
Rich people are paying the smallest portion of their money for taxes in 70 years. This is problematic.
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.
