This is tax policy brilliance

[skipbelt 0]

what ? libs don't mind raising taxes because they don't PAY them
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/11hedge.html?ref=todayspaper[url]

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

what ? libs don't mind raising taxes because they don't PAY them

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/11hedge.html?ref=todayspaper[url]

what does this have to do with liberals?

We do know that Blue states pay more taxes than Red, and Red states take more back in services.

More to the point, this notion of 250k being super duper rich or not is a pretty stupid conversation when it continues to ignore location. Cost of living is double in SF as it is in Knoxville, for example. A household income of 250k (no kids) means you can buy an average sized home in the city, but in the nicer neighborhoods, it may only get you a 2 bed condo.

[billvon 3,120]

>libs don't mind raising taxes because they don't PAY them

Liberal states do indeed pay more than conservative states - so in effect we carry the deadbeat conservatives, who (ironically) are the ones bleating about how unfair it all is.

But that's fine. We'll continue to support the red welfare states while they complain.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

If I made $15,000 a year and lived on it, I might well count $250,000 as uber-rich; it'd be a fairly unimaginable level.

Wendy, thats sort of my point. We all look at the group ABOVE us as the group that should pay more (other than you and Bill because you two are exceptionally decent people )

BUT:

"For simplicity, we'll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures." (FactCkeck.org)

Forgive the copy/paste!

My point is that in general MOST people earn there money and if they (that group) is paying 43.6% of all personal federal income taxes....that seems like enough.

Of course I believe that there should be a higher rate....it just needs to start one dollar higher than I am

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>libs don't mind raising taxes because they don't PAY them

Liberal states do indeed pay more than conservative states - so in effect we carry the deadbeat conservatives, who (ironically) are the ones bleating about how unfair it all is.

But that's fine. We'll continue to support the red welfare states while they complain.

And the red states (being more rural and hence, earning less income and paying less taxes in comparison) will continue to feed the blue states while being insulted by them.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

what ? libs don't mind raising taxes because they don't PAY them
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/11hedge.html?ref=todayspaper[url]

what does this have to do with liberals?
We do know that Blue states pay more taxes than Red, and Red states take more back in services.
More to the point, this notion of 250k being super duper rich or not is a pretty stupid conversation when it continues to ignore location. Cost of living is double in SF as it is in Knoxville, for example. A household income of 250k (no kids) means you can buy an average sized home in the city, but in the nicer neighborhoods, it may only get you a 2 bed condo.

BILL AND HILLARY AREN'T LIBS ? ? ? ? ? ????

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

>libs don't mind raising taxes because they don't PAY them

Liberal states do indeed pay more than conservative states - so in effect we carry the deadbeat conservatives, who (ironically) are the ones bleating about how unfair it all is.

But that's fine. We'll continue to support the red welfare states while they complain.

And the red states (being more rural and hence, earning less income and paying less taxes in comparison) will continue to feed the blue states while being insulted by them.

By skipbelt's definition, they don't work hard and/or have no ambition.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

More to the point, this notion of 250k being super duper rich or not is a pretty stupid conversation when it continues to ignore location. Cost of living is double in SF as it is in Knoxville, for example. A household income of 250k (no kids) means you can buy an average sized home in the city, but in the nicer neighborhoods, it may only get you a 2 bed condo.

I agree, there's comfortably well off and then there's uber-rich. Unfortunately the argument seems to limit itself to those making anything over $250,001 and small businesses that might get caught up in that figure. That's why the administration is lobbying hard for separate tax benefits for the latter. The idea is to return to the tax rate of a decade ago, back when we were thriving as a country. Right now we're in a tough spot fiscally and taxing people such as these "uber rich folks" is not unreasonable. If I'm not mistaken, most of the income from these folks is taxed at the capital gains rate, which is less than half of what it would be if it were "income".

[idrankwhat 0]

I'm in a hurry today so somebody please check my math on this one. At $3.7 billion/yr the person cleaning the bathrooms in his office building at $8/hr would have to work for 222,355 years to make what he did in one year alone.

edited to add: That's assuming that they both work 40 hr/wk.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm in a hurry today so somebody please check my math on this one. At $3.7 billion/yr the person cleaning the bathrooms in his office building at $8/hr would have to work for 222,355 years to make what he did in one year alone.

edited to add: That's assuming that they both work 40 hr/wk.

So? Your point being...?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>And the red states (being more rural and hence, earning less income
>and paying less taxes in comparison) will continue to feed the blue states
>while being insulted by them.

Why should they be insulted? Why wouldn't they be grateful for the financial support given to them by the blue states?

If getting that welfare money upsets them, they could always refuse it. Or they could decide not to sell food or something, which would make them poorer, but perhaps would make them feel better.

Or (scary thought here) they could make more money. Success really isn't a four letter word.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm in a hurry today so somebody please check my math on this one. At $3.7 billion/yr the person cleaning the bathrooms in his office building at $8/hr would have to work for 222,355 years to make what he did in one year alone.

edited to add: That's assuming that they both work 40 hr/wk.

I've yet to see a CEO work a 40 hour week. Those that are doing their job are putting in closer to double that.

And at risk of sound elitist, the value of their work is vastly different.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm in a hurry today so somebody please check my math on this one. At $3.7 billion/yr the person cleaning the bathrooms in his office building at $8/hr would have to work for 222,355 years to make what he did in one year alone.

edited to add: That's assuming that they both work 40 hr/wk.

So? Your point being...?

To provide some perspective.

[billvon 3,120]

>Right now we're in a tough spot fiscally and taxing people such as these
>"uber rich folks" is not unreasonable.

Agreed. Fortunately, we already do.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

we don't tax wealth directly , yet !

Sure we do, wealth, even with simple interest, which it never is, draws a few % interest, so that gain is taxed. You can try to make them mutually exclusive all you want and I'm sure you will.

Arguing mutual exclusivity of wealth and income would, indeed, be more ridiculous than your flippant interchange of them in your arguments about why the rich need to be taxed more, but that's not what anyone is saying. Note that he used the word "directly" in his post.

Quote

250k earners are not the uber-rich, SDR or whatever you want to call them. The top 20% are the uber-sick-filthy rich, but in order to try to fabricate what appears as a cogent argument you need to try to bring in the average 250k earner.

What income do you think someone at the 20th percentile makes? At what percentile do you think a $250K earner sits?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm in a hurry today so somebody please check my math on this one. At $3.7 billion/yr the person cleaning the bathrooms in his office building at $8/hr would have to work for 222,355 years to make what he did in one year alone.

edited to add: That's assuming that they both work 40 hr/wk.

I've yet to see a CEO work a 40 hour week. Those that are doing their job are putting in closer to double that.

And at risk of sound elitist, the value of their work is vastly different.

And the housekeepers are probably working at least 60 hr weeks as well because they need a second job to make ends meet. And yes, the jobs are vastly different. And the pay is vastly different. But 222,000:1 different?

What I wanted to do was provide perspective to those who repeatedly state "the top earners pay the majority of the taxes". When you make 222,000 times what your housekeeper makes, a very small percentage of your tax will have a much great impact on the Treasury's balance sheet. A 1% increase would add $37M (admittedly the analysis is overly simplified but the scale isn't).

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

>Right now we're in a tough spot fiscally and taxing people such as these
>"uber rich folks" is not unreasonable.

Agreed. Fortunately, we already do.

Agreed, and at the same rate as a dual income family making less than $68K.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And the housekeepers are probably working at least 60 hr weeks as well because they need a second job to make ends meet. And yes, the jobs are vastly different. And the pay is vastly different. But 222,000:1 different?

I forgot to ask - who made 3.7B last year as a CEO? No one. If someone with 46B in assets gained 8% last year, that's not 3.7B in earnings from his job. I think you'll find very few that clear 100M, and those are from option grants which may (or may not) rely on company performance in the eyes of the investors. Steve Jobs takes in $1 in salary.

In 2008, the CEOs of the Fortune 500 collectively earned 5.7B. This was down 11% from the year prior, which was down 15% from the previous year. The average then is 11.4M, a far cry from your 3.7B figure (1/325th). It's also a typical salary for a pro athlete.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/executive-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-09-ceo_land.html

[rehmwa 2]

what a waste - you people are arguing about tax rates on INCOME - while the real pile of disagreements is that one side doesn't want to tax savings while the other side does but can't, so they want to make up for it by taking away all the income they can from those with savings

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>And the red states (being more rural and hence, earning less income
>and paying less taxes in comparison) will continue to feed the blue states
>while being insulted by them.

Why should they be insulted? Why wouldn't they be grateful for the financial support given to them by the blue states?

If getting that welfare money upsets them, they could always refuse it. Or they could decide not to sell food or something, which would make them poorer, but perhaps would make them feel better.

Or (scary thought here) they could make more money. Success really isn't a four letter word.

It is if you are punished for your success more than one is for failure.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>It is if you are punished for your success more than one is for failure.

I think most people would much rather be punished like Bill Gates was than "rewarded" like a homeless person in Manhattan is.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>It is if you are punished for your success more than one is for failure.

I think most people would much rather be punished like Bill Gates was than "rewarded" like a homeless person in Manhattan is.

Do you always use the exeptions and most extreme examples?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I forgot to ask - who made 3.7B last year as a CEO?

John Paulson.
Link posted above, my post #18something.

Sorry to be so short but I have to run.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I forgot to ask - who made 3.7B last year as a CEO?

John Paulson.
Link posted above, my post #18something.

Sorry to be so short but I have to run.

Ok, I see it. Hedge funds tend to charge 2 and 20 - 2% of assets plus 20% of gains. And I believe you're correct in that they may be paying at lower tax rates than income, though most capital gains at a hedge fund would be short term, not long term.

It's pretty extravagant fees, though it's rich people paying other rich people. And it really is paying for performance. I wouldn't pay that much myself, and I think the failures of many hedges during this last 2 year stretch will probably diminish their significance.

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you always use the exeptions and most extreme examples?

Nope, and they are neither exceptions nor extreme.

To take a few examples that are closer to me -

I would much rather be "punished" the way I am than "rewarded" like my out-of-work cousin is. I would much rather be "punished" the way Irwin Jacobs was than "rewarded" the way my neighbor across the street is who just lost his job.