Yet another reason to tax the rich more

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Cool let's tax the "rich" some more! Let's see were that get's the lower income people when the rich quit making new job's and start firing people to pay those taxes. Great idea

Let's take the last 28 years, it's a good referencce point - feel free to expand it if you wish.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Unemp rates actually point toward tax increases being better for lower rates. It rose under Reagans tax cuts, then fell and started to rise before GHWB raised taxes in 1990. Then it maintained and when Clinton raised taxes it really dropped off. It fell to 3.9 in 2000, then GWB came in and cut taxes and it rose again, then fell until his term's end and then it rose sharply.

It's not totally determinable, but I think the data shows taxing favors lower unemp rates. We have to look at other factors too, recessions, wars, gross spending on other things as a stimulus, etc. But I don't think you can make the argument that taxation leads to unemployment.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So, you are willing to give up all symbols and rewards of status?

ALL? There's that binary again.

Quote

If you've worked twenty years, in a company, and studied, and gone through an apprenticeship program, [Oops. that ugly class thing, raising its head, again] and moved up, you are willing to split your pay, and prestige and parking spot, with the rookie, who just walked in the door?

That's ridiculous, class has its progression within itself, you're trying to take people from the same class, but in earlier stages of occupational progression and call it class disparity. Class disparity simply means you have people than span for really low to really high.

Quote

Even if we could truly redistribute the wealth, evenly, amongst us all, those who have spent their lives, believing that the world owes them a free living, for whatever reason, they wouldn't turn it into a profit making business. They'd enjoy it, for as long as it lasted, and then, expect some more redistribution.

Yes, and it's all or nothing. Why not close the classes a bit and still be able to achieve, but not have the spread somuch?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If you've worked twenty years, in a company, and studied, and gone through an apprenticeship program, [Oops. that ugly class thing, raising its head, again] and moved up, you are willing to split your pay, and prestige and parking spot, with the rookie, who just walked in the door?

careful, there, Lucky - I'm assuming you are also pro-union, so the pecking order must be supported in your answer even though it conflicts with your other philosophies.....

You can have unionization and allow for seniority while reducing class disparity. Union seniorty can be realized within while reducing class disparity without.

[rushmc 23]

I think many would agree CA is in bad shape when is come to gov spending and their budget. CA leads the nation is stated many times

So in the context of the current condition there, consider the following


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443413742032356.html

Quote

A California Quake
A tax commission releases a ground-breaking plan.


No state's economy, with the exception of Michigan, has careened into a deeper ditch than California in this recession. The state now has the fourth-highest unemployment rate (12.2%), the third-highest rate of mortgage foreclosures, and for two years has had the biggest budget deficit in the history of the 50 states. So it is very good news that yesterday Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's bipartisan tax commission recommended a road out of this mess.
[1parsky]

The heart of the new plan is to broaden the tax base and slash tax rates on personal income, business and sales. California currently ranks at or near the top in all three categories. This has, paradoxically, contributed to the state's inability to pay its bills by driving men and women from the state and leading to revenue boom and bust. We don't agree with everything in this report, but there's no question it would be a huge improvement over the current tax code in its economic incentives, simplicity, revenue stability and fairness.

The commission hasn't recommended a pure flat tax, but something much closer to it. As shown in the nearby table, the income tax rate, which currently tops out at 10.55%, would be chopped to a more reasonable (but still high) 7.5%. (The plan doesn't eliminate the one-percentage-point millionaire income tax surcharge, alas.) Because about 70% of small businesses pay the personal California income tax, the commission found that California's high rate is driving enterprises to the likes of Nevada, Texas and Idaho. The number of tax rates is reduced to three from seven (we prefer one), and thanks to the elimination of credits and loopholes, the new California tax form would fit on a postcard.

Even more impressive is the recommendation to eliminate the corporate income tax and the 5% of the sales tax that contributes to the general fund. These would be replaced by a broad-based Business Net Receipts Tax of no higher than 4%. This taxes businesses on what they produce, minus their costs of purchases from other firms. This is similar to a value added tax.

One benefit of this new levy is that it creates a level playing field among industries and reduces tax favoritism based on the power of lobbyists in Sacramento. The greater virtue is that this tax would exempt all California investment and capital income from taxation. (Michael Boskin and John Cogan offer more details nearby.)

The commission—chaired by California businessman and former U.S. Treasury official Gerald Parsky—also calls for a rainy day fund by requiring annual revenues above a 10-year rolling average to be put into a reserve fund rather than being spent.

One danger is that the revenue-generating efficiency of the Business Net Receipts Tax would eventually increase the overall tax burden in California. To protect against this, the commission calls for a permanent cap on the BNRT at 4%. Some business groups don't like the new business tax because it means they'd have to pay tax even if they don't make money. But a sales tax has that same feature.

A higher rate would defeat the purpose of this corporate tax reform, which by eliminating the corporate income tax would go far to restore the state's competitiveness with other states, as well as Japan, China and Europe. Conservatives should insist that the current two-thirds vote requirement in the legislature to raise taxes applies to this new business tax to protect against jacking up the rate to grow the state government.

Part of Mr. Parsky's achievement here is political, because he managed to convince a bipartisan majority of nine of the commission's 14 members to endorse its proposals. This includes notable liberal Christopher Edley, while Democrats like Senator Dianne Feinstein and former Governor Gray Davis have also praised much of the plan.

They may be motivated by the reality that California's steeply progressive tax rates are defeating the purposes of progressive government. To wit, only a growing economy can create opportunity for the middle class and enough state revenues to finance schools and health care for the poor. A tax code that depends on 1% of taxpayers, 144,000 filers, to finance 50% of state income tax revenues has proven to be unsustainable, notwithstanding the liberal dogma that says tax rates don't matter.

Mr. Schwarzenegger will call for a special session of the legislature to approve this plan later in October, so let the debate begin. The only painless way to rebalance the Golden State's $150 billion annual budget is to expand the tax base by luring capital and jobs back to the West Coast. That's what happened when California passed Proposition 13 to cap its property taxes in 1978. If the legislature fails to act, as it probably will, then the Parsky plan should become central to next year's election debate over how to revive this once dynamic state.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

People that have major illnesses that cannot get them seen until they are about to pass out and/or die because they don't have HC....that's obscene. Homeless kids, that's obscene. Come on Bill, did someone steal your password too! You are a compassionate guy, this is not typical of you.

You know, it's too bad taht ACORN is going to bite teh dust. You could have gone to teh Obama School for Community Organizing, and done some real good, in tihs world... You know, starting community gardens,[Michelle, Ma Belle, will teach you how] or maybe rehabbing tenement houses.

Awwww, are you so out of gas that you have to resort to grammatical errors? Too bad, the last sign of a defeated neo-con. I like the issues over grammar. And are you saddened that your lovely party and their ideology must sit and watch...... I feel your pain.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Widens the gap - doesn't get much wider than we now have it....don't get your logic there. Countries with Socialism have a closer disparity; your point isn't factually supported in any way.

Animosity of those people - There is far more animosity here now than in Socialized countries

That's because those who would be industrious, of their own will, can't seem to reach the golden ring, when the govt. is taking the largest portion of it, so that everything is equal, they simply see no reason, to keep striving for excellence.
Socialism breeds mediocrity, it's that simple.

There are billionaires in Socialist countries, how do you explain that? Ooopps, ya can't, ya stepped in it.

According to this: http://financialranks.com/?p=33 Capitalism is inneffective and Communism is the most effective. Also, we have one of the lowest tax rates here, yet the biggest crybabbies over taxation.

Quote

Socialism breeds mediocrity, it's that simple.

Capitalism breeds greed and debt.

[billvon 3,085]

>Socialism breeds mediocrity, it's that simple.
>Capitalism breeds greed and debt.

Which is why we have a blend of both that works better than either one alone.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hey, Lucky, let me play a little numbers game with you.

For this exercise, $100,000 is considered middleclass, which is taxed, at 25%. Anything above that, gets taxed at 95%.

Let's say that it takes six months to make your first $100,000. After taxes, you have $75,000.
The next six months, after taxes, you only get to keep $5,000.

Are you really going to go to the effort, just to receive $5,000?
That's why bums stay on welfare. Minimum wage just isn't worth it.

Now, if the govt. kept a flat rate of 25%, the man would gladly work the extra six months, and the govt. would actually have a $25,000 gain, as opposed to nothing.

What you've described is a version of FDR's tax plan, I think over 50K everything was taxed at 91%. Again, 50k in the 30's/40's was probably at least 250k now, but his major tax rates pulled us out of the great Depression.

As well, your extreme example is abstract, you can't post a reasonable scenario so you shoot for ridiculous. But to play along, that peson would bust ass for 6 months and then go on vacation; istaht so bad? Then someone else would absorb the business and they would prosper.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Now, if the govt. kept a flat rate of 25%, the man would gladly work the
>extra six months, and the govt. would actually have a $25,000 gain, as
>opposed to nothing.

He would also gladly work if taxes were progressive to the point where he always made more by working more. An example of this would be that you pay 25% if you make $100,000 and 50% if you make $20 million a year, with a linear slope in between.

Would you rather make (net) $75,000 a year or $10 million a year? Answer to that is pretty clear.

And that was my point to him, he used an abstract that was further out there than was the case in the Great Depression. Abstarcts are fine in that context, but then you have to adjust it for reality and he failed to do so.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I think many would agree CA is in bad shape when is come to gov spending and their budget. CA leads the nation is stated many times

Agreed, their spending outreaches their taxation, so they must spend less and/or tax more.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Socialism breeds mediocrity, it's that simple.
>Capitalism breeds greed and debt.

Which is why we have a blend of both that works better than either one alone.

Of all the things, I could not agree with you more, ever. The problem is we have 75% Capitalism and 25% Socialism. More of a 50-50 quasi would be effective. Canada has it nailed pretty well.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Now, if the govt. kept a flat rate of 25%, the man would gladly work the
>extra six months, and the govt. would actually have a $25,000 gain, as
>opposed to nothing.

He would also gladly work if taxes were progressive to the point where he always made more by working more. An example of this would be that you pay 25% if you make $100,000 and 50% if you make $20 million a year, with a linear slope in between.

Would you rather make (net) $75,000 a year or $10 million a year? Answer to that is pretty clear.

Your statement that one will always work for a marginal dollar is not true. The tax rate matters.

Certainly with Royd's 95% marginal rate, all but the most pathetic of people will stop working and instead enjoy leisure time. At 50%, which is pretty close to your and my marginal rate in CA, I suspect most will keep working, but mostly because the cost of housing in CA drives the need.

[billvon 3,085]

>Certainly with Royd's 95% marginal rate, all but the most pathetic of people
>will stop working and instead enjoy leisure time.

Agreed.

> At 50%, which is pretty close to your and my marginal rate in CA, I suspect
>most will keep working, but mostly because the cost of housing in CA drives the
>need.

Well, when you say "most will keep working" you mean "most will work harder to make more even if they do not see all of their gains." If they keep working at the level where they make the same amount of money their tax status is not changed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> At 50%, which is pretty close to your and my marginal rate in CA, I suspect
>most will keep working, but mostly because the cost of housing in CA drives the
>need.

Well, when you say "most will keep working" you mean "most will work harder to make more even if they do not see all of their gains." If they keep working at the level where they make the same amount of money their tax status is not changed.

By keep working, I mean given a choice of working more hours for more income, or playing more, they'll likely take the work.

[justinb138 0]

If capitalism is so bad for health care, why does laser eye surgery cost continue to drop, despite the fact that costs for things covered by medicare and insurance continue to rise?

[billvon 3,085]

>If capitalism is so bad for health care . . .

?? It's not. That's why any system should remain competitive. That's why I support a public option - so that insurance companies actually have some competition for low cost health care.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>If capitalism is so bad for health care . . .

?? It's not. That's why any system should remain competitive. That's why I support a public option - so that insurance companies actually have some competition for low cost health care.

You will not get any of what you want with what is being proposed.
All you will get with this is higher costs and less care

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,085]

>You will not get any of what you want with what is being proposed.

So you want less competition? Interesting.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Would you rather make (net) $75,000 a year or $10 million a year? Answer to that is pretty clear.

Assuming the time involved in both cases is reasonable I'd take $10M, but a more realistic situation would be

Would you rather make $100K/year working 40-50 hours a week for Big Company, Inc. or $100K/year with a potential $3.5M pay-off (which you can make more likely) working for Next Great Thing Venture Startup Co or You and Friends Want An Acquisition LLC which requires working 80-100 hours a week?

With a 25% tax on the $3.5M I'd be likely to take that bet since I'd be left with $2.625M and could retire without having a change in cash flow. The $175K left with a 95% marginal tax rate wouldn't be enough to change my life in a way I'd consider meaningful and wouldn't be worth 40-50 hours a week of my time.

At some point the work needed to earn (or potentially earn) each additional dollar is too much.

I think Royd's original example would remove most of the motivation for starting new companies.

[dsandreas 0]

Luckyboy...don't you ever get tired of the same old ignorant argurent you keep making. When Reagan was President, revenues to the government more than doubled. Expenditures increased even more than the revenue gains. Same thing happens over and over. No matter how much the revenue increases the spending increases more. You are an idiot and don't have a clue what you are speaking about.

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AKA.... I can't so I'll say it's been done and run. Dude, there is no legislative correlation between ANY spending and ANY taxation. You might say the difference is the deficit/surplus which affects the debt that will never get paid off, but no correlation betwen welfare and your wallet: NONE.

In fact, taking the last 4 presidents over 28 years, as they spent more they taxed less, so there is an inverse correlation between spending and taxing. Of course you will 1-line me and run; I'm used to it.


-------------------------
Quote
------------------------------------------------------------

All other things remaining the same, providing better health care to people who can't pay for it would also increase the amount coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. Rather obvious isn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Show me. Reagan blew military spending thru the roof and cut taxes, GWB did the same. GHWB and Clinton cut spending, esp military spending and raised taxes: go figure!!!!

Your point has just been dumped. I don't expect you to own up to it, but it would be refreshing.

• Quote

[billvon 3,085]

>With a 25% tax on the $3.5M I'd be likely to take that bet since I'd be
>left with $2.625M and could retire without having a change in cash flow.
>The $175K left with a 95% marginal tax rate wouldn't be enough to
>change my life in a way I'd consider meaningful and wouldn't be worth
>40-50 hours a week of my time.

I agree. Any income-taxation scheme should be structured such that increasing income always equals increasing net.

To go back to the 95% example, I bet you'd be willing to take the risk on netting $175K if your annual net salary was $5K due to that 95% tax rate. Needless to say, it would be foolish to tax anyone at that rate, no matter what their income.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If capitalism is so bad for health care, why does laser eye surgery cost continue to drop, despite the fact that costs for things covered by medicare and insurance continue to rise?

Probably because it is getting more and more fast food in its process. Perhaps because of competition and more people performing the process. Finally, that's a microcosm of the HC system, let's talk aboutteh larger issues.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>If capitalism is so bad for health care . . .

?? It's not. That's why any system should remain competitive. That's why I support a public option - so that insurance companies actually have some competition for low cost health care.

G Damnit, that's twice I agree with you. WTF

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Luckyboy...don't you ever get tired of the same old ignorant argurent you keep making. When Reagan was President, revenues to the government more than doubled. Expenditures increased even more than the revenue gains. Same thing happens over and over. No matter how much the revenue increases the spending increases more.

Then if the revenues were so great, why did the debt triple in 8 years? Why did unemp hit 10.8%? Saying revenues hit records, which you haven't shown but it could be true is like saying you just got a job for 3 times what you were making, but you are more in debt. It really isn't a bragging point. The same could be said of GWB, who was very much the same president that Reagan was. GWB has huge tax revenues too, but look at the mess: doubled teh 5.5T debt, left unemp a mess, crashed the market, ruined the housing market, etc.... BIG PICTURE.

Quote

You are an idiot and don't have a clue what you are speaking about.

Could there be a more direct PA than that?

[Royd 0]

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you've worked twenty years, in a company, and studied, and gone through an apprenticeship program, [Oops. that ugly class thing, raising its head, again] and moved up, you are willing to split your pay, and prestige and parking spot, with the rookie, who just walked in the door?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

That's ridiculous, class has its progression within itself, you're trying to take people from the same class, but in earlier stages of occupational progression and call it class disparity. Class disparity simply means you have people than span for really low to really high.

You are doing, exactly, the same thing. You have no clue, as to the struggles a person has gone through, to achieve their financial station, in life, which you are calling class. They may have started at a lower station, than you, but worked harder, had different natural gifts, which they took advantage of, and simply achieved more.
You simply want to punish them, becuase they have more than you.

Quote

Yes, and it's all or nothing. Why not close the classes a bit and still be able to achieve, but not have the spread somuch?

Tell me, why does it make you feel good, that the fastest runners, be mechanically hobbled, just so that those, at the back of the pack, will finish closer to them? I.E. close the gap.
One of the stupidest things, this feel good, liberal society has done, is to eliminate competition, amongst children, because someone might have their self esteem crushed.
Are we not to learn from nature? There's one head stallion, buck, rooster and everyone else gets second pickings and the castoffs.