16 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderso i guess you loved Bush's stimulus package huh? Tax rates on wealthy people have nothing to do with this recession, and there hasn't been "massive cutting of taxes for the wealthy"..Everyone i know with a household income of 50k or less had there taxes consistently cut under Bush. Do you consider that income "wealthy".
Since lower income people spend more of their income, a shift in taxes raised from lower income people to higher income people will result in more spending. That's an expansionary fiscal policy which is the proper response to a recession. The massive cutting of taxes for the wealthy certainly didn't avoid an economic downturn, did it? With retail sales plunging, some cash in the pockets of those who would spend it would be a good idea.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderWrong again:
No, genius, socialists don't believe in capitalism. However, many people who believe in capitalism also believe that the last 25 years of radical reduction in rich folk's income taxes has had significant negative effects on our capitalist economy.
The idea that a 3% increase in marginal tax rates for the highest income bracket is "socialism" is bizarre and a bit insane.
New IRS data shows that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history:
* The top 1 percent of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40 percent of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years.
* The top 10 percent in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71 percent.
* The top 50 percent in income paid 97.1 percent.
* Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9 percent of all income taxes.
The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Instead of bashing the "rich" and engaging in the politics of envy, a more equitable plan would be to start collecting taxes from the 40 percent of Americans who currently pay no federal income taxes at all.
Source: Editorial, "Their Fair Share," Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2008.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWhat rubbish. Take a look here: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
so i guess you loved Bush's stimulus package huh? Tax rates on wealthy people have nothing to do with this recession, and there hasn't been "massive cutting of taxes for the wealthy"..Everyone i know with a household income of 50k or less had there taxes consistently cut under Bush. Do you consider that income "wealthy".
In 1980, the highest incomes paid a 70% marginal tax rate; it is now 35%. And that includes when it was raised under Clinton back up to 39.6%. Not surprisingly, the deficit has soared under this policy. And this actually understates the favorable tax treatment given the rich; dividend income and capital gains income which is skewed heavily to the rich is now taxed at a lower rate than the average workers' salary.
BTW, your statement: "Tax rates on wealthy people have nothing to do with this recession" logically contradicts your argument that a tax increase on the wealthy would be detrimental to end it.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI disagree. Let's say Obama gets elected and enacts his "slight increase in marginal tax rates." Taco Casa -- a successful small business I occasionally frequent and employs 30 individuals (mostly teenagers) -- gets its tax bill under the Obama plan. Higher taxes means less profit and less capital. The owner decides to charge more for his tacos, so this means fewer customers. Fewer customers means less work, so somebody has to go. The owner cuts the least productive members of the taco assembly line. That means these individuals don't have any income and must now go on unemployment. Their lost income is no longer spent in the economy, which affects more businesses in the same way I just described. Surely you can see how Obama's "spreading the wealth around" quickly takes this country from a recession to a depression?
A better "wake up call" would be for them to talk to an accountant if they don't understand that making more money is still favorable even if there is a slight increase in marginal tax rates.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you wouldn't mind paying 35% of your income to taxes? What should that tax rate be? 40%, 50%?? How is that fair?
What rubbish. Take a look here: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
In 1980, the highest incomes paid a 70% marginal tax rate; it is now 35%. And that includes when it was raised under Clinton back up to 39.6%. Not surprisingly, the deficit has soared under this policy. And this actually understates the favorable tax treatment ...[text shortened]... contradicts your argument that a tax increase on the wealthy would be detrimental to end it.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou really don't understand economics. If Taco Casa is a rational business, it is already charging as high a price as it can to maximize revenue. With all else being equal, charging more if you have to pay higher taxes doesn't make any sense; it will decrease revenue. So if Taco Casa is run by a poor businessman and does what you say, it will probably fail. However, some of the 95% of the people who now have more income will be free to spend it including to open businesses that won't be run as stupidly as Taco Casa would be if it took your advice. Also the 80% or more of small businesses which make less than $250,000 profit a year will see their sales increase as consumers now have more disposable income.
I disagree. Let's say Obama gets elected and enacts his "slight increase in marginal tax rates." Taco Casa -- a successful small business I occasionally frequent and employs 30 individuals (mostly teenagers) -- gets its tax bill under the Obama plan. Higher taxes means less profit and less capital. The owner decides to charge more for his tacos, ...[text shortened]... spreading the wealth around" quickly takes this country from a recession to a depression?
The country thrives again; Obama is re-elected in a landslide! The Democrats control more than 2/3 in both the House and Senate! Happy days are here again!
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo, let's say that he is making $300k in profits. He currently pays $105k in taxes, correct? So, under Obamas plan he would pay $117k. So, instead of making $195k a year, he would be making 183k.
I disagree. Let's say Obama gets elected and enacts his "slight increase in marginal tax rates." Taco Casa -- a successful small business I occasionally frequent and employs 30 individuals (mostly teenagers) -- gets its tax bill under the Obama plan. Higher taxes means less profit and less capital. The owner decides to charge more for his tacos, ...[text shortened]... spreading the wealth around" quickly takes this country from a recession to a depression?
I am certainly not an accountant, but that is my understanding of the tax plan.
Is this correct or am I way off base?
If I am correct would you find it reasonable of him to raise his prices, possibly resulting in loses to his business, to further feather his nest? Sounds kinda stupid to me. But like I said, I'm not an accountant.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by CliffLandinNo Cliff, the 3% increase applies only to the taxable income over $250,000. So in your example, the business' increased in taxes would be 3% of $50,000 or $1,500.
So, let's say that he is making $300k in profits. He currently pays $105k in taxes, correct? So, under Obamas plan he would pay $117k. So, instead of making $195k a year, he would be making 183k.
I am certainly not an accountant, but that is my understanding of the tax plan.
Is this correct or am I way off base?
If I am correct would you find it ...[text shortened]... o further feather his nest? Sounds kinda stupid to me. But like I said, I'm not an accountant.
16 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by CliffLandinObviously..nor are you an economist.
If I am correct would you find it reasonable of him to raise his prices, possibly resulting in loses to his business, to further feather his nest? Sounds kinda stupid to me. But like I said, I'm not an accountant.
The price of gasoline goes up so it costs him more to transport his goods to market. Should he NOT raise prices since his costs have gone up?
Of course he should. All costs, whether they are taxes, transport cost, raw material costs, or labour costs. THEY ALL GO UP! They are ALL just COSTS.
Why treat taxes any differently. Taxes are just part of the cost of doing business. Americans are so afraid of taxes it's incredible.
"What's that? You raised my cup of coffee 10cents because coffee bean prices have gone up 10%? Ok, that's fine, I understand."
"What's that? You raised my cup of coffee 10 cents because the government imposed a coffe bean tax of 10%. Hell with you, I ain't buying coffee from you no more!"
😕
"...and to Joe the Plumber, if you're out there, I just want to add that Plumbers, and essentially Contractors of all kinds, all across this great nation of ours, are nothing more than petty crooks. 150 bucks an hour and you complain about getting ripped off by taxes?? GFY, little Joey. GFY."
- Barack Obama