#101  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:43 PM
Macca26 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,712
I knew someone like neutro. Endlessly whined and complained about taxes, especially taxes that went towards helping the community. Taxes for education? My kid isn't in school anymore, so why should I pay a cent? Taxes for public transit? I don't use the bus, so why should I pay a cent? Always endless me, me, me talk, without a single concept in their head of how paying their taxes helped them in the bigger picture. Of course, their gotcha for why their taxes wasn't helping them was corruption in the system. They believed even if having an educated workforce would help them find better employees for their business, that wasn't going to happen, because lazy teachers would just take the higher pay and not work. Or government officials would take the money and not fix the roads. Always a pointing finger at everybody else while they whined about everything under the sun. I should've asked if they were willing to repave the potholes they care so much about, personally, rather than depend on the local town to do it. I imagine they would have balked at the suggestion that they pay to make their own lives better if it managed to also help anyone else. Because they made it clear they were only in it for themselves and nobody else. I think this attitude is the clear problem with what's going on in America today. And the saddest part is, guys like this and neutro think that they're part of the elite wealthy we're always talking about! Not even close. They're making pennies compared to the people bringing in the real wealth inequality in this country. But they still can't even recognize that they're making dozens of times more than the average American and their lives aren't even remotely difficult, and they still wouldn't be even remotely difficult if they were taxed more. But of course, how dare anyone propose you give appropriately back into the system that helps generate your wealth?
  #102  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:51 PM
Macca26 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,712
Why yes, I absolutely DO have a lot of resentment towards the guy who wanted to lie his way out of worker's comp and refused to give his employees any sick days or paid vacation, but would whine to me about how his wife keeps buying designer dresses and his second home is so cold. I really weep for you, man. It must be so fucking hard to have a conversation at your open desk about reinvesting that quarter mil in what your financial advisor recommends. Just the worst.
  #103  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:52 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Example- if someone had say.... a 200 million ownership stake in some company because he's a co-founder, and the govt. says he owes them 30 million in wealth tax,
Most wealth tax proposals are a few percent, so in this example, they would have a tax bill ~$5 million, not 30.

Do you have anyone in mind who has proposed a 15% wealth tax?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
According to your theory, there is no incentive to slow down - your sales people example were people who were going to sell as much as possible even if they didn't get to collect anything above a certain amount.

To over-simplify, my theory is that people tend not to want to work for free, and your theory is that they are too driven to care if they are working for free or not. So under your theory, my surgeon wouldn't slow down at all - he would continue to produce at a rate of $3M a year even though the marginal utility of the work required to produce the extra $1M declines as tax rates increase.

Or, as mentioned, if your sales people's company didn't pay commissions above $2M per year - would the sales people continue to sell as hard as possible?

That's the theory that I disagree with - that there is no such thing as diminishing returns, or that people don't need to be paid overtime - if they are going to work 60 hour weeks, they will work those weeks whether they get paid for them or not.

Regards,
Shodan
People would only be working for "free" if they had a 100% tax on their next dollar. I don't see any proposals to that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
As I said, I get it. Most people are fine to soak anyone who makes more than them.

A fair tax system would be dividing up the budget by the number of people and sending everyone a bill. Then people would get the government they are willing to pay for.
So, everyone gets your $10k deduction, then pays 100% of their next $25,000?

If you think that having to pay 39% rather than 35% on your marginal income will disincentivize you to work hard, what disincentive do you think that your plan will have on the working class, now that they are working for free?

The government that we get then is very weak, and is not able to provide the resources that you take for granted that allow you to make millions of dollars and enjoy your Ferrari and beach house.

When Somalia is pointed out, you seem to get upset. But tell you what, you say that taxes are too high, so, you point to the country that has lower taxes than the US that has the living conditions that you would find acceptable.

When you say that the govt should "live within it's means" what specifically are you talking about cutting out of the budget. You can tell your family that the have to live within their means, but if that just means that you stop paying the bills, without actually reducing the costs, then you just find yourself homeless and hungry.

You also said that taxes are too high. That is what they said back in Reagan days, when he cut them from the 70's. That was what was said for every time that they have been cut. They were too high before this last round of tax cuts, but according to you, they are still too high. Is there a tax rate that isn't too high, or is paying taxes at all always going to be "too high"? Can you point to another country that has the tax rate that you would find acceptable?
  #104  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:58 PM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
"Tax rate" is already an abstraction though. If I make $2M and pay $500k in taxes and you make $100,000 and pay 30k in taxes you are paying a higher tax rate but I'm writing a check that's 15x larger. Of course the only way that would happen is if those are capital gains or dividends. Capital gains entail risk and dividends are double taxed.
Well, cap gains are entirely untaxed until realized, dividends are taxed at preferential rates, dividends are not double taxed on pass through entities (which are the vast majority of businesses in the U.S.), and dividends from pass through entities are also taxed at even more preferential rates. But aside from that, everything you said makes lots of sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Diminishing marginal utility is something made up to justify taking the money IMHO.
You are parading your ignorance here. This is like saying "gravity is just a theory!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
The economic part of it is fine. But people then use it to claim how people are supposed to feel about paying huge checks to the government and from that perspective it's BS. The first time I wrote a huge check it made me question where the money went a lot more.
So, you had no interest in what the government did before then? And we're supposed to respect your judgment on the way the government should run now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Meh, next time you write a check for $500k to the government we can talk. I really doubt you appreciate what it's like to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Let's have this conversation again after you've paid some heavy taxes.
In total, I've paid way more than $500k in personal federal income taxes, although it takes me several years to total up to that amount. Does that give me the right to have an opinion or am I too poor to care about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Anyway I've had this discussion before. Soak the rich is basically the mantra of most people. I get it, but I think it's kinda gross. People will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why anyone who makes more than them should get soaked before them.
I think it's kinda gross when people who succeed in America, instead of thinking "I've achieved a lot due to America's unique blend of opportunities; how can we see that others have the same opportunities to succeed?," instead say something along the lines of "Fuck you all, I'm better than you because I'm rich and I did it all by myself in a vacuum. I got mine so fuck off!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
There isn't unless you start taxing wealth. In which case you will destroy a bunch of wealth in the process.
Nope. A wealth tax is a transfer of wealth. Whether wealth is increased or destroyed depends on how the capital is used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
A flat tax with a basic deduction for everyone and a cap seems pretty reasonable to me. Say a max of $100k in taxes.
This seems arbitrary. Where do you get the idea that $100k in taxes is enough to fund the government, which let's not forget, fostered the favorable environment in which you had the opportunity to make $2 million in one year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Yes, I should be subsidized for creating jobs and get an exemption on my personal taxes for the tax my companies pay. I like that idea a lot.
So the government should subsidize you because you are so brilliant? Where is the underfunded government you want to create supposed to get the money for those subsidies. You want privatized gains but socialized losses. That's not capitalism. It's fine if you hate capitalism. Some of us still like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Employing people is not without significant risk. I've invested into projects that lost money but the employees all still got paid. That's the bargain of employment, you get paid for your time. In our case since I've made multiple people multi-millionaires through giving them stock in the company as well they also get some bonus based on performance and success of the company.
Wait, you "gave" them stock, out of the kindness of your heart? Can I get some? Or do you mean you paid them partially in stock? Because that's not giving. They earned their millions every bit as much as you earned yours. Why should you feel so entitled to take credit for their money?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
There is a reason we don't use wealth taxes. When you start chipping away at the economic base it makes everyone poorer.
Wealth taxes don't chip away at the economic base; they transfer it to different hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
I disagree. Instead I think we should pick a tax method and then live within our means. The tax revenues will grow with the economy. There shouldn't be a need in the long run to tinker with the rates much.
Real economies run better in the real world when the government can take measures to enact counter-cyclical stimulus. Ideally, that means dropping taxes and increasing spending in recessions when money and often labor are cheap. The government can borrow money, invest in public goods, hire workers, and stimulate the economy. The government should pay it back when the economy improves, it raises taxes, and reduces spending. This means that the government should be constantly tweaking tax rates as just one economic lever.
  #105  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:09 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I can't believe someone who makes $2M a year comes to this board and complains when members here are actually homeless.
Can't you though? Sometimes I think the problem with the well-to-do is not having to experience a daily existential crisis for want of money has robbed them of perspective, and along with it, their humanity. Helping them to reconnect with their countrymen and fellow earthlings, in order to preserve the person's very humanity, is as good a reason as any to tax unearned income at 99% or higher. Oh, they'll howl about how it's unfair and make up all kinds of reasons for why the rest of the world should do the actual work of being civilized, but a few months of living from obscene paycheck to obscene paycheck will at least maybe force them to acknowledge the ravages of poverty in their very own society. Well, probably not, but at least the assholes won't be obscenely rich at the expense of the less fortunate. And they wonder why the proletariat hate them so!
  #106  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:25 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Why is it that investment capital is do disregarded?

Without the capital invested in those appreciating, dividend producing assets, there would be no jobs that those companies create, no products that society consumes or enjoys, and no corporate income taxes paid on the income that those companies' generate.

Do you believe that all companies should be ESOP's? If people can't even pony up money for 401k contributions, where do you think the capital will come from to invest in companies?
Much of that is not "investment capital", but simply an investment.

If I invest in a small growing company, that's investment capital. I have taken a big risk, and the reward should be relative.

If I invest in a blue chip, then I do so with the expectation that that's just going to make me money, that's just an investment.

People still seem to be acting in a supply side mentality, even though it has been shown over and over that trickle down is invalid as an economic theory. We have a consumer driven economy. Companies will not invest in more production if there is not demand for it, no matter the tax breaks you give them. Companies will not hire workers if there is no demand for the goods and services that they create, no matter how subsidized. Companies make investments in labor and capital when, and only when, they see that there will be more demand for their product than what can be produced with their existing resources.

I think it was in this thread or maybe another that someone was complaining that a tax on trades would make high frequency trading no longer viable. I see that as a feature, not a bug. High frequency trades do not add anything to the economy, in fact, they siphon off money that could be used for actual investment capital, and increase the volatility and risk of bubbles. If you place an order to purchase 100 shares of Widget's Inc., and someone sees that you have posted that order, and because they have software that sees these trades faster than they are executed, it buys up the lot that you were going to buy, and then sells it to you for a slightly higher price, what value have they added? In cases like those, where their profit comes directly at the expense of the economy, what sense does it make to reward and encourage them to make more money?
  #107  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:02 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Companies will not invest in more production if there is not demand for it, no matter the tax breaks you give them. Companies will not hire workers if there is no demand for the goods and services that they create, no matter how subsidized. Companies make investments in labor and capital when, and only when, they see that there will be more demand for their product than what can be produced with their existing resources.
Where do you think they get the capital to invest in that demand growth?
  #108  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:05 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If I invest in a blue chip, then I do so with the expectation that that's just going to make me money, that's just an investment.
You may see it as that, and you are limited in what you see. The trading of equity securities is what makes the investing in companies more attractive for the investors. It is the liquidity of that investment that allows the investment to be more attractive to the investor. Without the liquidity of the security, many companies wouldn't be able to issue more stock to raise capital for expansions, growth, etc.

So even investing in a well established publicly traded company, is creating jobs, products, etc.
  #109  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:46 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Where do you think they get the capital to invest in that demand growth?
Where do I get my capital to grow my business? I don't have any billionaires giving me investments. How many small business start ups do you think are funded by billionaires?

Banks and loans are a good place. Getting it from customers from previous sales as well. That's the cool thing about a business, as long as you keep your money in it, it avoids quite a bit of taxation.
  #110  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:52 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
You may see it as that, and you are limited in what you see. The trading of equity securities is what makes the investing in companies more attractive for the investors. It is the liquidity of that investment that allows the investment to be more attractive to the investor. Without the liquidity of the security, many companies wouldn't be able to issue more stock to raise capital for expansions, growth, etc.

So even investing in a well established publicly traded company, is creating jobs, products, etc.
An investor that just looks at stock price, and doesn't look at actual cash flow and P/E ratios (and a list of metrics I don't feel like listing right now)is a fool.

Inflating these bubbles of speculative value contributes nothing of value to the economy.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-18-2019 at 05:53 PM.
  #111  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:55 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That's the cool thing about a business, as long as you keep your money in it, it avoids quite a bit of taxation.
Ah, so when the investor leaves his money in the business it funds growth, just as a shareholder in Amazon, Walmart, Netflix, Google, etc. their profits are used to fund growth within those businesses, which is still capital investment.
  #112  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:56 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
An investor that just looks at stock price, and doesn't look at actual cash flow and P/E ratios (and a list of metrics I don't feel like listing right now)is a fool.

Inflating these bubbles of speculative value contributes nothing of value to the economy.
As normal, you completely missed the point.
  #113  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:05 PM
neutro is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca26 View Post
But they still can't even recognize that they're making dozens of times more than the average American and their lives aren't even remotely difficult
This is really what you think?

I came here to try and give a bit of perspective to a thread about what it's like to actually pay taxes on that level. It's not pleasant.

I've been told I have a small penis. I've been told I have it easy. I've been told I don't appreciate what the country has done for me. I've been told over and over how I didn't earn that money and you all can take as much of it as you want, and it's justified.

You all can go fuck yourselves. You are completely delusional if you think money solves all the problems in life.
  #114  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:08 PM
neutro is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
Can't you though? Sometimes I think the problem with the well-to-do is not having to experience a daily existential crisis for want of money has robbed them of perspective, and along with it, their humanity. Helping them to reconnect with their countrymen and fellow earthlings, in order to preserve the person's very humanity, is as good a reason as any to tax unearned income at 99% or higher. Oh, they'll howl about how it's unfair and make up all kinds of reasons for why the rest of the world should do the actual work of being civilized, but a few months of living from obscene paycheck to obscene paycheck will at least maybe force them to acknowledge the ravages of poverty in their very own society. Well, probably not, but at least the assholes won't be obscenely rich at the expense of the less fortunate. And they wonder why the proletariat hate them so!
Also fuck you.

You people are fucking insane. You think having a few bucks removes all the barriers in life?

Fucking delusional.

Mods please delete my account from this board and the fucking losers on here.
  #115  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:19 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Also fuck you.
[clutches pearls]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
You people are fucking insane. You think having a few bucks removes all the barriers in life?
Read for comprehension, friend. Having NO bucks throws up very real barriers which your ilk seem pleased to turn a blind eye to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Fucking delusional.
Take meds, it may help. I'm sure you won't need to worry about the doctor bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Mods please delete my account from this board and the fucking losers on here.
No need to make this their problem. Just log out and exercise self-restraint. Poor people have to exercise restraint all the time when they decide to feed their own rations to the kids.


"Oh Jeeves! JEEVES! I say! Delete my account for me!"

Last edited by Inigo Montoya; 10-18-2019 at 06:24 PM.
  #116  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:26 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
This is really what you think?

I came here to try and give a bit of perspective to a thread about what it's like to actually pay taxes on that level. It's not pleasant.

I've been told I have a small penis. I've been told I have it easy. I've been told I don't appreciate what the country has done for me. I've been told over and over how I didn't earn that money and you all can take as much of it as you want, and it's justified.

You all can go fuck yourselves. You are completely delusional if you think money solves all the problems in life.
I'll give you the small penis one (which was in response to boasting about a Ferrari), but where, oh where, were you told how you "didn't earn that money and you all can take as much of it as you want, and it's justified".

That sounds like martyrdom on a pretty substantial level.

I think what people are pretty shocked by is that you won't acknowledge the enormous amount of money that must be earned to incur a half a million dollar tax liability; a person who feels "pain" in having to pay that amount must necessarily feel the "pleasure" of earning magnitudes more than the typical person. In that sense, the "pain" of a high tax bill seems trivial - I'm certain that you have other stressors and difficulties in life (we all do), but this is hardly one to complain about.
  #117  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:45 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Moved goalposts ignored. You queried my statement that "nobody AFAIK is seriously suggesting that taxation should take away all or even most of the money rich people have" with a mostly-irrelevant remark about the effects of a proposed tax plan on 400 individuals, I pointed out the irrelevance of your remark, and you changed the subject.

If you would like to include in this thread a discussion of a possible wealth tax and its effects on a tiny super-elite, feel free to raise the issue as a general remark.
No, this is IMHO. I gave my opinion; if you don't like it, tough. Plus, you don't get to dictate how or what other people post.

Also, you ignored the issue of a Constitutional Amendment being needed to pass a wealth tax.
  #118  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:51 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
You may see it as that, and you are limited in what you see. The trading of equity securities is what makes the investing in companies more attractive for the investors. It is the liquidity of that investment that allows the investment to be more attractive to the investor. Without the liquidity of the security, many companies wouldn't be able to issue more stock to raise capital for expansions, growth, etc.

So even investing in a well established publicly traded company, is creating jobs, products, etc.
And privately held companies don't create jobs? Startups which have not yet IPOed don't create jobs?
The fact is, these days the need for investment is so great that many companies are using their excess cash to buy back stock, which does not create jobs at all. Except maybe for people who sell yachts to the big stockholders whose share value goes up due to fewer shares out there.
Liquidity is good - but the exemplar of liquidity is high speed trading or day trading. Do these create jobs?
  #119  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:52 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Where do you think they get the capital to invest in that demand growth?
Only a few established companies get it by selling stock. Mostly it comes from bonds and for start ups from venture capital. Or bank loans and savings for small businesses.
  #120  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:39 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,977
Forgive me for moving this discussion in another direction - While I am in favor of raising taxes on the rich I dont see how it would be done seeing that the wealthy are careful to donate money to both parties and people like Hilary often give $150,000 speeches to business groups.

I also dont see how to tax the rich since so many of them keep their money offshore.
  #121  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:42 PM
cornopean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 395
If we switched to a national sales tax, there would be no way the wealthy could avoid the tax and hence, no need to raise taxes on the rich. I support something like the Fairtax or a value added tax and the elimination of all other taxes.
__________________
--
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. --George Bernard Shaw
  #122  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:53 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
If we switched to a national sales tax, there would be no way the wealthy could avoid the tax and hence, no need to raise taxes on the rich. I support something like the Fairtax or a value added tax and the elimination of all other taxes.
Sales taxes are notoriously regressive - which is short for "the wealthy avoid the tax". Slamming the sales taxes up to 50 or 100 or 200 percent or whatever it would take to match the 'all other taxes' you're proposing to eliminate would result in people who currently live paycheck to paycheck starving to death due to their wages being functionally slashed, while wealthy people grin and easily pay the increase with a tiny fraction of the massive windfall they got from you cutting their income taxes.
  #123  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:21 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,584
Moderator Warning

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Also fuck you.

You people are fucking insane. You think having a few bucks removes all the barriers in life?

Fucking delusional.
This is an official warning for insults and Pit-style comments outside of the Pit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Mods please delete my account from this board and the fucking losers on here.
We don't delete anything here, but I can certainly remove your posting privileges.
  #124  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:38 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Also fuck you.

You people are fucking insane. You think having a few bucks removes all the barriers in life?

Fucking delusional.

Mods please delete my account from this board and the fucking losers on here.
I can't believe that someone making $2M a year is this angry about a bunch of anonymous internet posters.
  #125  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:44 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Ah, so when the investor leaves his money in the business it funds growth, just as a shareholder in Amazon, Walmart, Netflix, Google, etc. their profits are used to fund growth within those businesses, which is still capital investment.
Are you under the impression that when someone sells stock, the company buys it back? That's not typically how it works, unless the company is doing a buyback, which it does when it has a ton of cash on hand, and nothing to invest it in.

In any case, that is why I favor going back to, and extending the long term/short term capital gains rates. I would put a punitive level of taxation on gains for securities held less than 6 months, and wouldn't actually give you benefits until you had held it at least 5 years, with additional benefits at 10 and 20. This would encourage more long term considerations, and discourage vulture capitalism.

But yeah, I only take from my company the minimum I need to live a rather frugal lifestyle, as every dollar I leave in is a dollar that is working for me. The tax code is favorable to that, as I am only taxed on my profits, only what I take from the company. If you increased taxes, that would not affect my plans at all.

Let me ask you, if the tax code stayed the same, except adding a new bracket at 1 million at 40%, one at 10 million at 60%, 25 million at 75%, 100 million at 90%, and 1 billion at 95%, would that change the way that you made any financial or employment decisions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
As normal, you completely missed the point.
No, I don't think so. You seem to think that just buying stock and raising its price is something that is good for the economy. The DOW is not the economy. The stock market is not the economy. The economy is consumer spending.

You are saying that without high stock prices, companies will not reinvest to increase their production. You have that entirely backwards. Without demand, companies will not reinvest to increase production. If a company has more demand for a product they produce than they are able to, then coming up with financing for expansion is the easiest of your problems.

We may run into a situation where there is not enough investment to meet the demands of the consumer, but that is a very rare situation, and it is very far from where we are now.

In order to have consumer spending, you have to have wages. So, in order to increase demand, you have to increase the take home pay of your customers. You cannot increase the take home pay of your customers by increasing your stock price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Forgive me for moving this discussion in another direction - While I am in favor of raising taxes on the rich I dont see how it would be done seeing that the wealthy are careful to donate money to both parties and people like Hilary often give $150,000 speeches to business groups.

I also dont see how to tax the rich since so many of them keep their money offshore.
We still have the ultimate power of the vote. We are their bosses, if we actually agree on something, and hold them to it, they actually do have to do what we say.

And offshore accounts are not that big a deal anymore, as most countries have voluntary reporting, and if you use other countries, you get very scrutinized. It still happens, I'm sure, but it's only accounting for a small fraction of the available tax base.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
If we switched to a national sales tax, there would be no way the wealthy could avoid the tax and hence, no need to raise taxes on the rich. I support something like the Fairtax or a value added tax and the elimination of all other taxes.
I would go with a national property tax. Not based on the property, but on the owner. A progressive tax that doesn't kick in until you own somewhere around $5 mill in real estate. This is much easier to audit than money in an account or under a mattress, as real estate is hard to hide. It also has the advantage of reducing the hoarding of land for speculative use, which would help to solve the housing crisis.
  #126  
Old 10-19-2019, 01:32 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
You all can go fuck yourselves. You are completely delusional if you think money solves all the problems in life.
Thanks for helping us shed that delusion. We now know of an American with $1,500,000 in after-taxes annual earnings who is enraged by the unfairness that that's all he gets.

Thanks for sharing.
  #127  
Old 10-19-2019, 05:07 PM
BrickBat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: US
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I can't believe that someone making $2M a year is this angry about a bunch of anonymous internet posters.
( very ) Sore winner perhaps?

Last edited by BrickBat; 10-19-2019 at 05:07 PM.
  #128  
Old 10-20-2019, 12:55 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I can't believe that someone making $2M a year is this angry about a bunch of anonymous internet posters.
I can't help but feel partially responsible for the penis comment.
  #129  
Old 10-20-2019, 04:46 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,296
Yeah, if it hadn't been for the penis-measuring we'd still have him here so we could point out the flaws in his argument/viewpoint to him.

Actually, I get the impression he showed up here to Enlighten the Masses and got all pissy when the peasantry didn't buy it and in fact kept insisting that, actually, he did not have any clothes on. (I understand the impulse to point and laugh, but seriously, guys, next time let's avoid penis comments). Don't we understand that the fact we have less money than him proves that we are less intelligent and suffer less than he does? [/sarcasm]

More seriously - I've suffered through the problems of the poor and the middle class. I'm willing to take a stab the problems of the wealthy, once I figure out how to become wealthy. Pretty sure I'll be able to manage those, too.
  #130  
Old 10-20-2019, 05:27 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
You know what the difference is between economics and geology? Nobody ever goes up to a geologist and says "Igneous rocks are bullshit!"
Well I'll be the one to say it then. Because igneous rocks are bullshit. I simply don't believe they're rocks at all. They're just lazy liquids.
  #131  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:05 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,293
Actually I think bullshit is more likely to be sedimentary rock. Eventually.
  #132  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:38 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,169
The word's coprolite. Or, possibly, Senate majority leader.

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-20-2019 at 09:38 AM.
  #133  
Old 10-20-2019, 12:02 PM
Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Why is it that investment capital is do disregarded?
It isn't. What's disregarded is who invests that capital. What difference is there between you buying 300 shares of Microsoft, and I taxing you that dollar value and using it to buy 300 shares of Microsoft?

Quote:
Without the capital invested in those appreciating, dividend producing assets, there would be no jobs that those companies create, no products that society consumes or enjoys, and no corporate income taxes paid on the income that those companies' generate.
The capital is still invested. Just by me, not you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Do you believe that all companies should be ESOP's? If people can't even pony up money for 401k contributions, where do you think the capital will come from to invest in companies?
From taxes.
  #134  
Old 10-20-2019, 02:53 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
The whole wealth tax is a sham and isnít even feasible to enforce or even be attempted.

Letís use Jeff Bezos as an example. The Federal Government is going to arbitrarily pick one day every year to measure his wealth. AMZN stock is a volatile security, so which day does the government want to pick? December 31st? So they end of the year is selected. It says that Bezos wealth is $85 billion and the government wants 3% of that, $2.6 billion. But almost all of Bezosí wealth is tied up in his ownership of AMZN, so the government is going to force him to liquidate a portion of his company to pay his wealth tax.

Now thatís for the owner of a publicly traded company. What about people that privately own their companies, no publicly traded exchange to value them. What mechanism will be used to value their companyís, some journalist at Forbes? And then they are forced to sell off a portion of their private company to pay the wealth tax?

This thing would be tied up in the courts forever.

It will never happen.
These are feasible, straightforward even. Just think a little orthogonal.

Assets eventually change hands for a price from a disinterested buyer/seller.

As a government, do we care what the dollar amount is, or the percentage?

The simplest thing to do would be to say "we own x% of that asset." So if the wealth tax is 1% a year, the government owns "1%" of that asset. The next year, 2%.

Whenever the asset finally is sold in a transaction between a disinterested buyer/seller, the government gets whatever percent they are entitled to.

These are a mechanism similar to liens. The other option is the owner can instead "clear" these liens each year by establishing a price by showing a transaction with a disinterested buyer to establish a price, then they can pay the lien.

So for illiquid assets, where the owner is not willing to sell to a disinterested party or have it appraised by a disinterested party (I am using the term "disinterested" to mean a party that doesn't have any other financial interest besides this single transaction), I guess they can just choose the lien instead.

Inheritance wouldn't work like it does now. For major assets above a certain dollar level, the heirs would need to outbid other bidders for the asset to continue to own it as well as pay the lien. If they can't pay it, it goes to whoever bid the most, and the heirs get the money instead, minus the amount of the lien.

The government can wait. In most cases this would be beneficial to the government - most real assets, whether it be land or shares in a corporation, increase in value over time. Similarly, it can afford to wait 40 years or however long it takes. From a government's perspective, it's going to long outlive any individual citizen.
  #135  
Old 10-22-2019, 09:39 AM
PunditLisa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: 'burbs of Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 14,119
I think that it's the American dream to work hard and become a millionaire. I also don't think that ANYONE ought to pay more than 40% of their income towards taxes.

That being said, I think that the easiest, and fairest, way to tax people is to get rid of voluntary deductions, from the mortgage interest deduction to charitable contributions. Take away the loopholes and let everyone pay where their income lands on the grid.

For those who think that taxing the rich more is a great idea, I'll remind you that those with the most resources have the most options. Many of the richest people in the world have residences in Dubai and Monaco for the sole purpose of avoiding usurious taxes.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." - Paul Simon
  #136  
Old 10-22-2019, 05:53 PM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Why is it that investment capital is do disregarded?

Without the capital invested in those appreciating, dividend producing assets, there would be no jobs that those companies create, no products that society consumes or enjoys, and no corporate income taxes paid on the income that those companies' generate.

Do you believe that all companies should be ESOP's? If people can't even pony up money for 401k contributions, where do you think the capital will come from to invest in companies?
I'm not sure how you get any of this from my statement.

I don't think "investment capital is so disregarded" (whatever that means). I think there is a danger of too much investment capital consolidated within too small a group for several reasons:
1) It tends to exacerbate wealth inequality because capital tends to beget more capital.
2) It is inherently undemocratic as it allows a small group of people enormous decision-making ability into what society should invest in.

OTOH, living in a country that allows private cities to become billionaires through their own industriousness has led to great advances in railroads (Vanderbilt), steel (Carnegie), chemistry (DuPont), automobiles (Ford), aviation (Hughes), petroleum (Rockefeller), personal computers (Gates), overpriced hipster electronics (Jobs), and connecting with people so they can annoy the shit out of each other (Zuckerberg).
  #137  
Old 10-23-2019, 09:32 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
... Do we need to find ways to balance our federal budget? Definitely. That needs to come from increased taxes and a smaller federal budget.
Do you propose to increase taxes on the rich, or on the working class? Before answering recall that even before the Trump-Hannity tax cuts, Warren Buffett was taxed at a lower rate than his secretary.

How do you propose to decrease the federal budget? Recall that SocSec is self-funding: it is not financed by income taxes. Be aware that Discretionary Federal Government Spending as a percent of GDP is lower now than it has ever been since the end of World War II. The biggest items, by far, among Non-Mandatory Spending are: Military, Interest on the Debt, and Veterans' Assistance.
  #138  
Old 10-27-2019, 04:58 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Do you propose to increase taxes on the rich, or on the working class? Before answering recall that even before the Trump-Hannity tax cuts, Warren Buffett was taxed at a lower rate than his secretary.

How do you propose to decrease the federal budget? Recall that SocSec is self-funding: it is not financed by income taxes. Be aware that Discretionary Federal Government Spending as a percent of GDP is lower now than it has ever been since the end of World War II. The biggest items, by far, among Non-Mandatory Spending are: Military, Interest on the Debt, and Veterans' Assistance.
My question, directed at present-day "fiscal conservatives," was met with deafening silence. It's very difficult to treat the self-label "fiscal conservative" seriously, or even as meaningful.
  #139  
Old 10-27-2019, 05:15 AM
Musicat is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
A country needs a certain amount of money to be run to a particular standard. Ideally, you should get that money from where it will be missed the least.
Jean Baptiste Colbert:
Quote:
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.
  #140  
Old 10-27-2019, 05:27 AM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,755
Also stolen and re-purposed by Pratchett, as are so many juicy sayings

"Taxation, gentlemen, is very much like dairy farming. The task is to extract the maximum amount of milk with the minimum of moo. And I am afraid to say that these days all I get is moo."
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #141  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:37 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by PunditLisa View Post
Many of the richest people in the world have residences in Dubai and Monaco for the sole purpose of avoiding usurious taxes.
Yes, but there already exists a tech solution for that ancestral problem. It's called the guillotine.
  #142  
Old 10-27-2019, 12:10 PM
Civil Guy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,674
"...and the Engineer says, wait a second! I see where the blade is catching!"
  #143  
Old 10-27-2019, 01:06 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
My question, directed at present-day "fiscal conservatives," was met with deafening silence. It's very difficult to treat the self-label "fiscal conservative" seriously, or even as meaningful.
I describe myself as a fiscal conservative and I'm well to the right on this board. Personally, if I was in charge, I'd reduce military spending by 50% within 4 years (with a target of defence spending at 2% of GDP within a decade) and pull 20% out of the rest of discretionary spending which will save us about $450 billion per year and leave us about 350 billion short annually. To raise that difference I'd bump up all personal tax rates by 20% so the top rate would be just over 46%.

Last edited by Oredigger77; 10-27-2019 at 01:08 PM.
  #144  
Old 10-28-2019, 09:21 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,200
Thanks for answering, Oredigger77 ! Not to start a fight, but Discretionary Spending is already cut to the bone. ó and there's very little of it anyway, outside VA (and Medicare if you consider that discretionary). A 50% military cut is also rather drastic.

But I still appreciate the answer!
  #145  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:43 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thanks for answering, Oredigger77 ! Not to start a fight, but Discretionary Spending is already cut to the bone. ó and there's very little of it anyway, outside VA (and Medicare if you consider that discretionary). A 50% military cut is also rather drastic.

But I still appreciate the answer!
I disagree that we're any where near the bone. First off we're spending 20 billion per year on ag subsidies and 15 billion on housing subsidies and 15 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. Without even trying I just cut 50 billion out of the 100 billion in discretionary spending I proposed. I could get into specific programs and write out the full detailed proposal but it'll never be enacted and totally isn't worth the work.

As far as the military goes. I'll just assume you and I disagree that the purpose of the military is to defend the US and only the US. I'd cut their budget further if we didn't have treaty obligations to NATO at the 2% of GDP level. I'f I'm elected president our military excursions would be extremely limited to the bare minimum that we've agreed to and I'd be working to cut back our treaty obligations. We can more then deal with our eighth of the world with have of what we have.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017