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.
This year, we hit the 33% marginal tax bracket - alternative minimum tax and all of that. We don't own a home or have kids, so we don't really get to deduct anything.
I'm grateful for our income, and I'm not fundamentally complaining about having to work hard for it and pay my fair share. I know that we're very fortunate.
But why is it fair for my personal share to be up to TWICE the rate of the fair share of people with gargantuan incomes like Romney and Buffett who will never have real financial worries again in their lives? We're doing well, but unlike those guys, we do depend heavily on our cash flow to generate our critical savings for future needs as well as to cover our day-to-day expenses. We get hurt by the loss of that marginal dollar A LOT more than the multi-millionaires and billionaires ever would be.
And why is it "class warfare" whenever I point this out? How is it not "class warfare" for me to be reamed porportionally so much more than the super rich - many of whose enterprises I also have to pay to bail out of their bad business decisions?
I'm not saying that the Buffett rule is the way to go, but why can't we have a tax system that institutes some sense of consistent fairness relative to income all the way across the income spectrum? Why is this concept so fundamentally controversial and anti-American for conservatives?
Amen.
I wrote a five thousand dollar check to the IRS yesterday. Yet the Reps have nominated a man who pays a lower income tax rate than I do and they expect me to vote for that greedy, useless pig. It's disgusting.
And cutting spending does help reduce the deficit just like the huge government increases in spending over the past few years has got us to a $15 trillion debt.
No miracle needed. Taxes are too high. Spending is way too high.
Of course, it makes a lot of sense to cut taxes and increase spending or keep it where it is! I can see why funding for Iraq with Bush went so well!
The historical record is rather clear that Obama doesn't want taxes to rise on those earning below $250K/yr. You can try to attack him for something he doesn't want to do, but that's unfounded speculation on your part.
Next year is going to be interesting if he is re-elected....
Flat tax for anyone who makes over $400,000 a-year. I agree with that part, but flat taxes will only benefit the rich more. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think that's suitable number. Anyone who makes over $400,000 a-year which IS rich, should pay 50%.
Unless they live in New York City or San Fran or Palo Alto or similar in which case they have great cash flow and live a very comfortable life and might get wealthy over a long period but otherwise are not rich....
In my experience, people with higher incomes burden those with lower incomes. They drive up the price of housing, thereby burdening lower income people more and making them worse off.
When I use the word "system", it's in reference to all the things we are entitled to as citizens that get paid for using tax dollars....public facilities and services, roads, schools, police, fire, rescue squad, etc....
Higher income people driving up the price of homes and creating a burden for lower income people is debatable. What if you're a lower income person that already owns a home and higher income people do actually do drive the price of homes up. It doesn't change what you paid for your home or what your mortgage payments are....it in fact increases your net worth by increasing the equity you have in your home.
If someone is trying to find housing in an area where everyone has a higher income than them and has pushed the price of housing up in that area, then they're shopping in the wrong neighborhood. They're looking for housing that's beyond their means, it's not the fault of all the homeowners in that neighborhood.
Besides all that, what does that have to do with why they should have to pay a higher income tax rate? They're already paying property taxes that based on the value of the high priced home they bought.
This year, we hit the 33% marginal tax bracket - alternative minimum tax and all of that. We don't own a home or have kids, so we don't really get to deduct anything.
I'm grateful for our income, and I'm not fundamentally complaining about having to work hard for it and pay my fair share. I know that we're very fortunate.
But why is it fair for my personal share to be up to TWICE the rate of the fair share of people with gargantuan incomes like Romney and Buffett...
Your last earned dollar was taxed at 33%, not all of them. I seriously doubt that you're paying a larger percentage of your income in taxes than most of the rich folks. I remember hitting the 76% bracket one year. I made some major financial changes immediately and got the taxes more reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
In my experience, people with higher incomes burden those with lower incomes. They drive up the price of housing, thereby burdening lower income people more and making them worse off.
Poppycock. They buy those big houses, cars and boats which provide income for those poor folks... the ones who are willing to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
AFAIAC - All increases in wealth are INCOME and should be taxed as INCOME! The entire idea of Capital Gains is just a way rich people avoid paying their fair share.
The idea of lower capital gains taxes is to provide incentive for investments, so you and I can have a job... and also pay taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
If people move their accounts "offshore" they would still be taxed on the profits. If they moved off shore they would lose their citizenship and have all their US assets confiscated. Try and cheat by hiding their money offshore and I would hunt down their money. Move themselves away and I would hunt them down. Either would cost them more than staying here and paying their fair share.
You don't just "lose" our citizenship by moving off shore. You can renounce it, but that's not grounds to have your assets confiscated. But go ahead and hunt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
... We 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.
Smart investors look at their potential after-tax gains. It's all that counts, after all. When the feds want more investment in widgets, they offer tax incentives for widget investments. Widgets may not make much money, but if the after-tax income is reasonable, I'll invest in widgets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
There is no evidence -- repeat -- none -- that lower capital gains rates induce more investment. It's a BS argument that the rich use to try to convince the rest of us that the elite should be privileged -- and it works on some people.
Total B.S. Total B.S.
No, I'm not even going to bother looking up evidence for you. I've done it myself time and again. Every business person I've ever known does it. Every investment decision includes considering the tax advantage. "A widget would be nice. What income will it produce? What will it cost after tax credits/depreciation?"
You want a booming economy? Eliminate long term capital gains taxes in the U.S. completely for the next decade. Our national unemployment rate will sink to nothing, wages will skyrocket, and we'll have manufacturing and building like we haven't seen in 50 years.
You have it back wards the homeowner would pay the fair tax when they purchased the house, whether its first or second or third house. The land owner charges rent but the renter does not pay an extra tax on his rent check.
The fair tax deals with point of sale tax.Rent is not a a sale
The fair tax applies only to NEW goods. If you buy a NEW house from a developer, you pay tax. If you buy an existing house from a homeowner who is moving, you don't pay tax.
The fair tax also applies to SERVICES. Rent is a service. So if you can't buy a house and therefore you must rent, you pay tax. Let's say the land owner currently charges $1000 a month rent. Under the fair tax the land owner will have to charge enough for him to make $1000 after tax.
Poppycock. They buy those big houses, cars and boats which provide income for those poor folks... the ones who are willing to work.
I lived through the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s. My neighbors became considerably more affluent during that decade. They couldn't buy big houses because the area was already developed, so they bid up prices for the houses which were already there.
Rents soared, I faced five rent increases in five years, had to move three times when I couldn't afford the new higher rent, and spent Reagan's last four lame duck months in my employer's offsite storage area.
p.s. I believe I cannot afford a booming economy, that's exactly what causes rents to soar.
Buffett said that his federal tax bill was $6,938,744 and the rate paid was only 17.4%.
taxable income = $6,938,744 ÷ 0.174 = $39,877,839.08
Maybe you think that $40 million isn't a lot of income; not me. If Buffett were taxed at 50% he would pay an additional ~$13 million in tax. That's a lot more tax.
In 2007, the top 400 earners paid an average tax rate of 16.6% (the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992.)
The top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income; they paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes. If they paid 50% instead of 16.6%, the government would have $46.05 billion more in revenue from just 400 taxpayers -- and those 400 would only have $69 billion left over. How would they get by?
Question. Seriously. Do you think if Warren Buffett had made less income that would have left more for you to earn? I just don't understand why some of us want the rich to pay more.
And if he would have paid the government an extra $13 million, where do you think it would have gone. 'Cause we both know it would have been spent, and probably an extra $5 million just for good measure. No, I'd rather he invest it to make jobs for non-government workers. They'll spend it, and I might actually get some of it back in sales.
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.
The idea of lower capital gains taxes is to provide incentive for investments, so you and I can have a job... and also pay taxes.
