Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-30-2011, 08:41 PM   #41
Full time employment: Posting here.
RetiredGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
I think the default position has become trying to figure out how to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and onto the middle class.
Who in turn should figure out how to get the government to stop spending so much in areas that are in their range of responsibilities, and cut out everything else entirely at the federal level.

Benjamin Graham said it's the responsibility of shareholders to keep the management in check. So to is it the citizens' responsibility to keep their government in check.
__________________

__________________
I'm free and I like it!
RetiredGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-30-2011, 09:13 PM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredGypsy View Post
Benjamin Graham said it's the responsibility of shareholders to keep the management in check. So to is it the citizens' responsibility to keep their government in check.
But, shareholders get a say according to their shares in the company--the more shares they own, the more their votes count.

With governments, every citizen gets the same vote. Couple this with a propensity for people to have the government take assets from others for their own use, and it's easy to see how we got to our present situation.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:20 PM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
But, shareholders get a say according to their shares in the company--the more shares they own, the more their votes count.

With governments, every citizen gets the same vote. Couple this with a propensity for people to have the government take assets from others for their own use, and it's easy to see how we got to our present situation.
Our system of reprehensible representative government is supposed to dampen, if not eliminate, this phenomenon.
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 12:48 AM   #44
Full time employment: Posting here.
RetiredGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
With governments, every citizen gets the same vote.
I think they've forgotten what they're supposed to be voting for.
__________________
I'm free and I like it!
RetiredGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 07:50 AM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Our system of reprehensible representative government is supposed to dampen, if not eliminate, this phenomenon.
Yes, and it works somewhat. But, too often, it only amounts to the people electing someone who will vote to take their fellow citizen's things on their behalf.

If limits on these wealth transfers (e.g. exactly how much is each citizen required to give to other individuals, through the government?) were in the Constitution, at least it would take more of these reps and a majority of the Supreme Court to do damage of this kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredGypsy View Post
I think they've forgotten what they're supposed to be voting for.
They know exactly what they are voting for--SFOP (Stuff From Other People)
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 08:41 AM   #46
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,356
I would be ok with removing the corporate income taxes entirely and setting the cap gains and dividend rates to ordinary income rates.

Given how good large companies have become at tax avoidance (GE actually had a negative tax rate last year, even though they were highly profitable), I suspect that this would be an increase from the 20% rate I've suggested.


Quote:
Originally Posted by traineeinvestor View Post
As to comments that the "rich" pay proportionately less tax than the shrinking "middle class", this is only true if you conveniently ignore the double taxation that taxes on dividends and capital gains represent. A number of countries already at least partly recognise that double taxation is unfair and set their tax regimes accodingly.
__________________
Hamlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 08:48 AM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,356
And if you are living off of your father's estate, you are paying just 15% (plus whatever the companies you are invested in are paying, which is generally not much anymore with all the loopholes that they have weaseled out of Congress).

I agree that work is overtaxed, especially at the 80-100k range that still includes FICA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jerome len View Post
I think they already tax the rich. If you live in California and are self employed you'll pay about 14% social security tax, the medicare part of this tax on your entire income. Then you'll pay 10% State tax and you'll pay 35% federal tax. And, if the liberals have their way, you'll pay 39.6% starting in two years, you'll also pay a new 3% health care tax (I think) and if you're retired, you'll pay tax on your social security and medicare benefits. Add it all up and the "rich" could be paying almost 2/3rds of their income in various taxes. Oh, yes, in California you also have a hefty sales tax and property tax.
__________________
Hamlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 09:32 AM   #48
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
As to taxing the rich - over the coming years that economic class will be expanding to include most of us on this board.
.
Most of the people on this board (at least those still w*rking) already pay higher marginal tax rates than the richest Americans. So maybe we can just get the rich up to our levels.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 04:00 PM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retire Soon
Do the richest 1% of our country believe that they are "divinely protected" and chosen for "great earthly wealth.?" The unemployment rate of America's young now stands at 21% compared to Egypt which has 25%. Will young Americans react with anger and hostility when they bear the brunt of tax increases? Will they be content when spending on education is drastically reduced while mortgage subsidies and entitlements for the elderly are left untouched as well as tax cuts for the rich? How long will it be before the "rest of the rich world explodes like Egypt?"

Paul Farrell of MarketWatch warns us that the U.S. is headed for a revolution and subsequent depression because the super rich simply don't care.

Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch
This might sound like a dumb question but, how does taxing the rich more lower the unemployment rate? I understand if you taxed the wealthy more to reduce the debt, but still doesn't lower the unemployment rate. I guess if you handed out more welfare money they would buy a few more things which might stimulate economy a little bit. But wouldn't that just cause people to be less inclined to get a job if their handouts were enough to live on?
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 04:21 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
This might sound like a dumb question but, how does taxing the rich more lower the unemployment rate? I understand if you taxed the wealthy more to reduce the debt, but still doesn't lower the unemployment rate. I guess if you handed out more welfare money they would buy a few more things which might stimulate economy a little bit. But wouldn't that just cause people to be less inclined to get a job if their handouts were enough to live on?

Well... an interesting question... and I will throw a half backed answer to you.... based on your post...

IF they tax the rich and give the money to the poor... then the poor might not want to look for work since they are getting enough to live on... this reduces the amount of people looking for a job which reduces unemployment... remember, the unemployed for unemployment is the number of people actively looking for work... get rid of everybody looking for work and wha-la.... no unemployment without creating one new job...


Aren't statistics grand
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 04:27 PM   #51
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,608
What is the benefit of that? Are you really suggesting we need to increase taxes on the richest Americans to create extended benefits for a new class of permanently unemployed people to live off, thus gaming the statistics to make employment numbers seem better. I don't see why you would want that, let alone why money for it has to come from a particular new kind of tax.
__________________
growing_older is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 04:42 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
Tax the super rich now or some ER.org posters will be really really mad at you!

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 05:18 PM   #53
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,356
I think everyone on this board, even those of us that are advocating a more progressive tax structure than we currently have, would agree that the article that started this thread was pretty much garbage.

I wouldn't expend a lot of effort trying to make sense of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
This might sound like a dumb question but, how does taxing the rich more lower the unemployment rate? I understand if you taxed the wealthy more to reduce the debt, but still doesn't lower the unemployment rate. I guess if you handed out more welfare money they would buy a few more things which might stimulate economy a little bit. But wouldn't that just cause people to be less inclined to get a job if their handouts were enough to live on?
__________________
Hamlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 05:31 PM   #54
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by growing_older View Post
What is the benefit of that? Are you really suggesting we need to increase taxes on the richest Americans to create extended benefits for a new class of permanently unemployed people to live off, ...
Don't know what he is suggesting, but this sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I've seen suggested in several places that unemployment in the USA is no longer cyclical, but has become structural --- meaning we can't twiddle our thumbs waiting for it to go away. If we can't create jobs for a class of the unemployed, and we can find a way for them to live nonetheless, isn't that a good thing to do? Catering to this new class is not exactly traditional American values, but, hey, times change.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 05:38 PM   #55
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Tax the super rich now or some ER.org posters will be really really mad at you!

Ha
Oh, that's just silly. There are so few of them. There's lots of poor people, so we should tax the poor.

(I think between us, we've got all the essential cases covered... )
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 06:13 PM   #56
Full time employment: Posting here.
RetiredGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
If we can't create jobs for a class of the unemployed, and we can find a way for them to live nonetheless, isn't that a good thing to do?
It's worth remembering that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Giving a government more power to do as it pleases (or to do what the so called majority pleases) and creating entitlement in a population to be the recipient of some aspect of that power is detrimental to everyone.
__________________
I'm free and I like it!
RetiredGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 07:17 PM   #57
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerome len View Post
I think they already tax the rich. If you live in California and are self employed you'll pay about 14% social security tax, the medicare part of this tax on your entire income. Then you'll pay 10% State tax and you'll pay 35% federal tax. And, if the liberals have their way, you'll pay 39.6% starting in two years, you'll also pay a new 3% health care tax (I think) and if you're retired, you'll pay tax on your social security and medicare benefits. Add it all up and the "rich" could be paying almost 2/3rds of their income in various taxes.
well this isnt correct. you only pay FICA on wages up to $106,800 which, for a single person, after deductions, probably doesnt exceed the 25% marginal tax bracket. this makes income in that particular tax bracket (using your numbers) taxed at a rate of 25%+14%+10% = 49*% total (as the new 3% health care tax doesnt apply at this level) and that isnt just "rich" people paying that rate since that income level is $106,800. lets look at what is paid in the next highest bracket: 28%+10%=38*% on gross income (not counting deductions) up to about $200k. this is no where near the 2/3s you claimed. ok, now lets skip up to the "new" highest bracket (if that bracket gets increased to the 39.6% you suggest): 39.6%+10% = 49.6*% or if it is capital gains then it would be 15%+10%(if that is still right, i am using your number)+3%=28*%. again this isnt anywhere near 2/3s

* actually all of these percentages would be lower since state income taxes paid are deductable when calculating federal income taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerome len View Post
Some of my numbers may be off a little but it's easy to understand productive people working less......why work hard for the tax man. So, don't think taxing the rich is the answer; if we raise taxes any further small business won't have the cash to invest and then who will create jobs? The answer is cut spending, we just can't keep giving healthy, capable people more and more freebies while taking from those that work hard and achieve success.
soo not true since investment in your business would be either totally deductable or depreciated so it is tax advantaged.
__________________
jdw_fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 07:31 PM   #58
Full time employment: Posting here.
Retire Soon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
This might sound like a dumb question but, how does taxing the rich more lower the unemployment rate? I understand if you taxed the wealthy more to reduce the debt, but still doesn't lower the unemployment rate. I guess if you handed out more welfare money they would buy a few more things which might stimulate economy a little bit. But wouldn't that just cause people to be less inclined to get a job if their handouts were enough to live on?
I don't think that Paul Farrell is advocating taxing the "super rich" in order to donate the increased revenue to the 21% of our youth that are currently unemployed. This is what he said in his article:

"1. Warning: Super Rich want tax cuts, creating youth unemployment
Bloomberg warns: “The Kids Are Not Alright.” Worldwide, youth unemployment is fueling the revolution. In a New York Times column, Matthew Klein, a 24-year-old Council on Foreign Relations researcher, draws a parallel between the 25% unemployment among Egypt’s young revolutionaries and the 21% for young American workers: “The young will bear the brunt of the pain” as governments rebalance budgets. Taxes on workers will be raised and spending on education will be cut while mortgage subsidies and entitlements for the elderly are untouchable,” as will tax cuts for the rich. Opportunities lost. “How much longer until the rest of the rich world” explodes like Egypt?"

Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

Matthew Klein, in the New York Times article that Paul Farrell cites had this to say:

"About one-fourth of Egyptian workers under 25 are unemployed, a statistic that is often cited as a reason for the revolution there. In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in January an official unemployment rate of 21 percent for workers ages 16 to 24."

Later in his article Klein went on to point out:

"As governments across the developed world balance their budgets, I fear that the young will bear the brunt of the pain: taxes on workers will be raised and spending on education will be cut while mortgage subsidies and entitlements for the elderly are untouchable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21klein.html

In other words, Paul Farrell's arguement is that the young, who can least afford it will be victims of higher taxes (i.e., if and when they do find a job). I think his point is that if we increase taxes on the "super rich" (the top 1% of our population) the burden of tax increases will be less for the middle and lower classes. This includes people who are collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits. Our politicians bailed out Wall Street, but now wants to put the screws to Main Street.
__________________
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."

--Henry David Thoreau
Retire Soon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 07:39 PM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
This might sound like a dumb question but, how does taxing the rich more lower the unemployment rate? I understand if you taxed the wealthy more to reduce the debt, but still doesn't lower the unemployment rate. I guess if you handed out more welfare money they would buy a few more things which might stimulate economy a little bit. But wouldn't that just cause people to be less inclined to get a job if their handouts were enough to live on?
how bout we spend more on upgrading america's infrastructure (anybody see the tv show the crumbling of america?). that would employ people and america, as a nation, gets something more for that spending than increased debt.
__________________
jdw_fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 10:25 PM   #60
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
What possible reason exists for participating in this craziness? Impolite is bad enough, but couple impolite with gross misunderstanding of the issues and principles involved make it ludicrous.

Ha
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Happy or rich? The entrepreneurship "myths"... Nords Young Dreamers 26 02-08-2008 02:17 PM
"Greetings, workers, there's no need to fear: Super 401(k) is here!!" Nords FIRE and Money 22 12-06-2007 10:58 AM
Great article "Ten Reasons You Aren't Rich" Surfdaddy FIRE and Money 5 03-24-2007 01:19 AM
How'd you spoil yourself when you feeling "rich"? Enuff2Eat FIRE and Money 67 09-25-2006 10:34 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:43 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.