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 10-06-2017, 08:44 AM
 
10,513 posts, read 5,167,683 times
Reputation: 14056

Advertisements

REPUBLICAN ECONOMICS


1. What's the cure for the trade deficit? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

2. What's the cure for underemployment? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

3. How can we reduce the budget deficit? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

4. What can we do to raise stagnant wages? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

5. How can we alleviate the student loan crisis? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

6. How can we increase the rate of GDP growth? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

7. What's the best way to trigger a recession and balloon the deficit? A: Tax cuts for the rich.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-06-2017, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,294,125 times
Reputation: 34059
Maybe instead of wringing your hands about the tax burden of the wealthy, take a look at income taxes paid as a percent of income



https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-ec...-taxes-bracket

The point of my posting that is to illustrate that there is a huge difference between living on $50,000 after paying $7,000 in federal income tax + all other payroll state and local taxes than there is in living on $1,000,000 after paying out $310,000.

And those calculations ignore the fact that the millionaire probably sheltered another million from taxation while the schlock making $50,000 is taxed on every single penny he earns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 10:40 AM
 
10,513 posts, read 5,167,683 times
Reputation: 14056
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
And those calculations ignore the fact that the millionaire probably sheltered another million from taxation while the schlock making $50,000 is taxed on every single penny he earns.
Bingo. Another thought is to not to rely only on taxing income but to also tax what I call "idle wealth." If the wealthy have large sums in cash, CD's or bonds, it's basically dead money not contributing to the economy. We should discourage that and encourage them to invest in growing companies, jobs, etc. I do agree with Repubs that the 35% corporate tax is too high. Dropping that rate plus an idle wealth tax would nudge the idle wealthy to put their money to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 10:59 AM
 
1,131 posts, read 2,026,497 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Bingo. Another thought is to not to rely only on taxing income but to also tax what I call "idle wealth." If the wealthy have large sums in cash, CD's or bonds, it's basically dead money not contributing to the economy. We should discourage that and encourage them to invest in growing companies, jobs, etc. I do agree with Repubs that the 35% corporate tax is too high. Dropping that rate plus an idle wealth tax would nudge the idle wealthy to put their money to work.
I'm sorry, but neither CD's nor bonds are "dead money not contributing to the economy." CD's allow banks to lend money to individuals or businesses. Bonds are essentially a direct loan to either a business or a government entity. Whether the proceeds of the loan/bond issues are used to buy a car, replace old equipment, expand a manufacturing plant, or build a new school, CD's and Bonds facilitated the economic activity. In fact, they do exactly what you say you want....get idle capital out of the hands of people who aren't using it and into the hands of those who want to do something economically stimulating, but lack the capital.

Last edited by madpaddy; 10-06-2017 at 11:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 11:21 AM
 
8,157 posts, read 3,678,584 times
Reputation: 2720
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
First read a post before replying. Read the text highlighted in red in my previous post (quoted below).

I started my business in 2006. My products were geared toward the rich and my company really took off around 2011. Prior to that, it was paying debt, reinvesting, working my butt off to build that. And finally around 2011 enjoying the benefit of taking the risk, Obama and Democrats pulled his tax "the rich... insinuating that a high income, means making that kind of money for years, having many years to build net worth, insinuating that high income means you must have load of money, a couple houses, a personal jet.

It was good and bad timing. Good timing because I served people who had alot of money, bad timing because I didn't have enough time in to build wealth and got caught in the Obama years where making good money was looked down upon and the mentality was you had money to give away.

The rhetoric (lie) was pathetic and disgusting, worse, he and Democrats mislead the American people to believe a lie all to funnel more money to the government. Who knows, it might be your kid that tries to make a go of it and the anti-business, you didn't build that mentality may still exist.

OK, but that has nothing to do with Obama or whoever. The tax is on income in the particular year. In some countries there is wealth tax but that's in addition. High income in one year and low in another happens to multiple people in many different scenarios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 11:33 AM
 
1,131 posts, read 2,026,497 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post

The point of my posting that is to illustrate that there is a huge difference between living on $50,000 after paying $7,000 in federal income tax + all other payroll state and local taxes than there is in living on $1,000,000 after paying out $310,000.

To be fair, the chart is for adjusted gross income. An unmarried individual with no dependents, no itemized deductions, and a gross annual income of $50,000, has ~$12000 of his income shielded from any Federal Income Tax. His effective tax rate is closer to 11% than 14.

A married couple with two kids, no itemized deductions, and a gross annual income of $50,000, effectively (after Child Tax Credits) has all but ~$6700 of their income shielded from any Federal Income Tax. Their effective tax rate is less than 4%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 08:57 AM
 
1,915 posts, read 3,241,580 times
Reputation: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
The phaseout is already in the tax code. pfft, I wonder what media outlet is trying to attribute the phaseout to Trump because they know people like you don't know the phaseout is already in the tax code. Amazing! Don't let the media educate you because they'll lie. In fact I wonder if the Child Care Tax Credit phaseout was part of the 2012 Obama tax changes. I'd have to do some research.
I know the phaseout is already in the tax code and is not new. My point was that many families making around $150k or slightly above will see a significant tax increase to the tune of many thousands of dollars.

They will not benefit from an increased child tax credit, since it already is and will remain phased out for them. Do not forget that charitable contributions will no longer be deductible for many families under the proposed plan, since they will no longer itemize under the new tax code.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 09:05 AM
 
1,915 posts, read 3,241,580 times
Reputation: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
Exactly. 60% of those earning 150k-300k/year will get a tax increase. 60%! That's the majority.

These consist of regular everyday middle class and upper middle class workers where both spouse works.

Maybe one spouse earns $95k and the other spouse earns 75k. One could be a cop and the other could be a teacher or nurse. They could have 2 kids and a house with mortgage and be your typical suburban family. 60% of these will be getting their federal income taxes increased.
THIS. And while a young couple who has ~$3200/year less taxable income @25% will see $800 more take home, many middle and upper-middle class families will pay THOUSANDS more. I estimate we will be paying at least $3000 more, possibly $6000-$7000 more a year under this proposed tax plan. This will really hurt us.

So maybe 70% of people making 50-150k or 40% of those making 150k-300k will pay a few hundred dollar less, many hard-working families in those income ranges will be be paying many thousands of dollar more so the ultra elite multi-millionaires and billionaires will take home the lions share of our hard work.

I have never been a liberal, but this proposal and its significant adverse impact to my family and others like us is seriously making me question the Republican party like never before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 09:17 AM
 
1,915 posts, read 3,241,580 times
Reputation: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
REPUBLICAN ECONOMICS


1. What's the cure for the trade deficit? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

2. What's the cure for underemployment? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

3. How can we reduce the budget deficit? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

4. What can we do to raise stagnant wages? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

5. How can we alleviate the student loan crisis? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

6. How can we increase the rate of GDP growth? A: Tax cuts for the rich.

7. What's the best way to trigger a recession and balloon the deficit? A: Tax cuts for the rich.
The problem is that NEITHER PARTY has the best economic interest of the hardworking American Middle Class and Upper Middle Class family. Both parties view these hardworking groups as people to take more from and make their lives harder.

Democrat definition of Rich (who get hurt) - $100k income or above

Republican definition of Rich (who get helped) - $1 Million income up and semi-rich: 400k-$1 Million

Sad to say, but while Democrats would have increased taxes across the board, they would most likely not have increased taxes on middle and upper middle class families (i.e. $100-$250k folks) as much as the Republican plan and certainly not single out this group for what may ultimately be the highest effective tax increase for that group in modern history.

Last edited by Htown2013; 10-07-2017 at 09:46 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:01 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