U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 10-10-2010, 08:06 PM
 
20,950 posts, read 17,374,400 times
Reputation: 10270

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette View Post
In a 2008 debate Obama admitted that capital gains tax doesnt increase the tax revenue for the US, but he still endorsed it because "it was fair." In other words, wealth redistribution and class warfare. Would you like it if your total taxes were 50%? No? Then why is it right to do it to anyone else? Fair treatment means treating everyone EQUALLY!!!!
You are so wrong. It was on ABC and the question was asked by Charlie Gibson.......

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]Gibson: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

[/SIZE][/SIZE]OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

So, it appears that Obama is about "fairness". In his pea sized progressive brain, he would rather lower revenues than act responsibly.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2010, 01:41 AM
 
1,113 posts, read 2,044,901 times
Reputation: 839

So, it appears that Obama is about "fairness". In his pea sized progressive brain, he would rather lower revenues than act responsibly.



Mission Accomplished?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 06:47 AM
 
5,391 posts, read 5,121,929 times
Reputation: 4723
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
So fairness is an extremely regressive tax plan?

You need to acquaint yourself with the concepts of discretionary income and of the marginality of money.
You need to stop assuming people who's opinions don't align perfectly with yours don't understand basic money concepts.
You now need to learn to properly quote in context as well as explain how an extremely regressive tax plan is "fair".

And you still need to demonstrate a grasp of economics. So far all I've seen is your unsupported opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Maybe so, maybe not. I submit the secretary has just as much relying on the wealth she has built up as anyone else, she could have a million bucks after 30 years and be counting on that for a retirement just as much as finance guy is counting on his to maintain his lifestyle.
Except that in your regressive tax plan (10% for secretaries earning $50K, 5% for the manager earning $500 million) it will take that secretary all of her working life to possibly build up a million dollars, barring another economic meltdown and assuming that we ever return to the robust days of the 1990's.

The hedge fund manager makes that one million dollars in one day.

Yet you still believe the secretary needs to be taxed at twice the rate as the hedge fund manager?

Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Either one would face an unexpected hardship without the system in place to protect their wealth.
You really think that someone earning $50K annually has true wealth when compared to someone earning half a billion dollars each year?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 07:39 AM
 
8,265 posts, read 11,254,170 times
Reputation: 4788
I'd like to have this discussion I find it interesting, but you're being rude so forget it I'm not in the mood.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 09:25 AM
 
5,391 posts, read 5,121,929 times
Reputation: 4723
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
I'd like to have this discussion I find it interesting, but you're being rude so forget it I'm not in the mood.
Ah, I see!

Disagreement with your unsupported opinion is rude.

Point taken, please accept my apology. I should not have atttempted to debate with an opponent unable to defend his position.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 11:06 AM
 
8,265 posts, read 11,254,170 times
Reputation: 4788
No, your tone was rude and still is, I think your use of the word "opponent" spells out pretty clearly how you approach things. Like I said shame cause I think it would be an interesting discussion.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 11:18 AM
 
8,265 posts, read 11,254,170 times
Reputation: 4788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
but I have read elsewhere that nearly half of Americans are now paying no income tax at all.
I always wonder when I hear this. Is it mainly from families that make so little money that their personal exemptions/deductions keep them at a zero threshold or is it from child tax credits and such?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
23,630 posts, read 50,594,981 times
Reputation: 18455
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
I always wonder when I hear this. Is it mainly from families that make so little money that their personal exemptions/deductions keep them at a zero threshold or is it from child tax credits and such?
It's both.

Poverty level for a single person in WI is $10,800 annual income. That person gets a $200 earned income credit and about $200 in food stamps, plus energy assistance of $50 month and Medicaid (I think). That person has deductions of $8,650, so may have ostensibly a federal tax of $221 offset by the $200 EIC - thus zero tax.

Poverty level in WI for family of 4 is now $22,500 year. After SS deduction, this family is left with $20,778 year. Federal standard deduction is $11,400 married filing jointly, four dependents @ $3650 each = 14,600. Total deductions $25,600 vs gross income of $22,500. Zero federal and state tax liability.

At this point they probably qualify for a refundable earned income tax credit of about $4,000 and food stamps of $6,000 year, energy assistance of $600/yr and Medicaid (I think). So, add that $10,000 to the $20,788 - family has $31,378 to spend, or $2,614.

Then deduct cost of housing including utilities $1,000 (not a great place for that amount), food another $800-$1,000, auto/transportation expense $300 (low - monthly bus fare here is about $90), that family is left with $514 - maybe. You still have to buy clothes for the kids and pay the dentist.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 10-11-2010 at 01:35 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 02:13 PM
 
8,265 posts, read 11,254,170 times
Reputation: 4788
Interesting, thanks.

The wife and I get killed on taxes. We both work relatively well paying jobs, have no children, and nowhere near enough deductions to even approach the standard for mjoint. I remember the glory days of April being a time to look forward to for some extra spending money coming back that I had been loaning Uncle Sam, now it is carnage despite both claiming 0.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
23,630 posts, read 50,594,981 times
Reputation: 18455
Yep, I get sick when I see the $$ in taxes the high earners pay. I was never in that category and always maxed out 401k, IRA, HSA, plus itemize all my deductions. Every move I made was with tax consequences in mind. Just for giggles I did a projection the other day on a family earning $250,000. Even utilizing all retirement vehicles and assuming a standard deduction (not realistic, really), among state, federal and ss, their taxes were $70,000 - more than I ever earned in a year in my whole life. Course, that still left them with $180,000. Assuming they max out 401ks at $33,000 and live on $100,000, they still have another $47,000 to save. Which, given what this country is going through today, is exactly what I would do. Save every red cent.
Rate this post positively 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 > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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