Originally posted by sonhouseNot quite.
So you make 1 million and the state took 980,000 leaving you with 20,000 which puts you in poverty level financially.
That rate applied to incomes over £20,000 (£186,150 in today's terms). So you weren't going to starve. And it only applied to investment income, not earned income.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyHere's an actual basic primer on marginal utility which is a rather non-controversial and common sense concept:
Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says moonbats in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"
Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?
W ...[text shortened]... o someone who does "need" it
I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?
Utility means satisfaction, usefulness, happiness gained. Utility could be measured by the amount you are willing to spend on a good.
Marginal utility of first £100
If you have zero income, and gain £100 a week. This £100 will improve your living standards significantly. With this £100 you will be able to pay for basic necessity of life – food, drink, shelter and heating. Without this basic £100 a week, life would be tough.
Marginal utility of income increasing from £500 to £600 (6th £100)
However, if you already gain £500 a week, an extra £100 has a proportionately smaller increase in utility. You may be able to eat out at restaurants more often, but it doesn’t significantly affect your standard of living and happiness. At £500 a week, you can afford most things you need. But, still most people would be happy to gain an extra £100 to spend on luxuries like going out.
Marginal utility of income increasing from £10,000 to £10,100
If you are earning £10,000 a week – you would hardly notice an extra £100 a week. You may not even have time or ability to spend it; this extra income is liable to be just saved. Therefore, we say the marginal utility of an extra £100 at this income level is very limited.
Therefore as income increases, the extra marginal benefit to individuals declines.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/12309/concepts/diminishing-marginal-utility-of-income-and-wealth/
What exactly makes taxation based on marginal utility "blatantly unfair"? In truth, the entire US tax system is only slightly progressive since many taxes are either proportional or actually regressive.
Originally posted by no1marauderMarginal utility is subjective. There is no concrete amount people should or should not make in terms of money, no matter what the moonbats bay say.
Here's an actual basic primer on marginal utility which is a rather non-controversial and common sense concept:
Utility means satisfaction, usefulness, happiness gained. Utility could be measured by the amount you are willing to spend on a good.
Marginal utility of first £100
If you have zero income, and gain £100 a week. This £100 will improve ...[text shortened]... em is only slightly progressive since many taxes are either proportional or actually regressive.
Therefore, they can turn it into whatever they like and spin it anyway they like. It all boils down to their need to control incomes and redistribution.
One wonders what the marginal utility of the shrinking middle class is under the Progressive taxation is. Perhaps it should be called the marginal rage.
It is as subjective as taking a law abiding citizens right away to fly on a plane or their right to obtain a fire arm. The US is run by judges that don't even grant us trial or consider us as individuals who may not conform to the expected herd mentality.
Originally posted by whodeyThis type of pointless ranting and raving is tiresome. Anybody with even the smallest bit of common sense knows that taxing income on the poor and working class hurts them more in their ability to afford the necessities of life than taxing the well to do an equal percentage. Therefore, if income is to be raised it stands to reason that the taxing system should be progressive. You've made no serious argument to the contrary and seem incapable of making one.
Marginal utility is subjective. There is no concrete amount people should or should not make in terms of money, no matter what the moonbats bay say.
Therefore, they can turn it into whatever they like and spin it anyway they like. It all boils down to their need to control incomes and redistribution.
One wonders what the marginal utility of the shrink ...[text shortened]... grant us trial or consider us as individuals who may not conform to the expected herd mentality.
EDIT: In fact, the US tax system is almost flat as it is: http://ctj.org/images/taxday2012table.jpg
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat is exactly how all other transactions in our society work. We don't say a hamburger costs 1% of your income. We have a bill based on the cost of providing a service.
If this is "bad enough", why not simply give everyone the same tax bill rather than levying a flat tax which asks for much more taxes from the wealthy?
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquackThe value of the service provided by organized society goes disproportionately to the wealthy (obviously). Therefore, simple justice says they should pay more for it (quite besides the clear benefits of progressive taxation on economic stability).
That is exactly how all other transactions in our society work. We don't say a hamburger costs 1% of your income. We have a bill based on the cost of providing a service.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseYou don't understand marginal tax rates.
Are you forgetting the time in the US and UK where the max tax was over 90%? Remember the Beetles song 'Tax man'? That song was written because the max tax in the UK ATT was 98%. So you make 1 million and the state took 980,000 leaving you with 20,000 which puts you in poverty level financially.
Was that ok?
You do know after all the compromises c ...[text shortened]... make sure it stays that way.
But by god, we are making sure Romney has a platinum parachute.
Say the highest marginal rate was 98%, and that kicked in on income over $500,000. Only that income over the margin was taxed at that rate. Your guy earning a million would pay the 98% on his last $500,000.
His income on lower levels would be at whatever the rate was for those income levels.
High marginal rates come with two distinct problems.
1. They discourage economic activity. With such a burden on income in excess of a certain point, why work, invest, or try?
2. They are seldom collected, as there are often loopholes and credits to care for the problems raised by #1.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, here is a clause for you. Can you say whether you agree or disagree?
Marginal utility is subjective. There is no concrete amount people should or should not make in terms of money, no matter what the moonbats bay say.
Therefore, they can turn it into whatever they like and spin it anyway they like. It all boils down to their need to control incomes and redistribution.
One wonders what the marginal utility of the shrink ...[text shortened]... grant us trial or consider us as individuals who may not conform to the expected herd mentality.
Marginal utility decreases as a function of income.
If we can agree that marginal utility decreases as a function of income, then we can argue about how much.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by normbenign1. Boo-hoo.
You don't understand marginal tax rates.
Say the highest marginal rate was 98%, and that kicked in on income over $500,000. Only that income over the margin was taxed at that rate. Your guy earning a million would pay the 98% on his last $500,000.
His income on lower levels would be at whatever the rate was for those income levels.
High margin ...[text shortened]... eldom collected, as there are often loopholes and credits to care for the problems raised by #1.
2. A) It depends on your definition of "high marginal rates"; recent increases in US rates on "investment" income have resulted in significant revenue gains;
B) There are loopholes and credits because the well to do want them and have a disproportionate influence over the political process. They are not a necessary and/or inevitable feature of a system with "high" marginal rates.
12 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYour obvious, isn't so obvious to everyone. A wealthy person may live in a gated mansion, with all sorts of alarms and security, including guards.
The value of the service provided by organized society goes disproportionately to the wealthy (obviously). Therefore, simple justice says they should pay more for it (quite besides the clear benefits of progressive taxation on economic stability).
Who gets the most benefit from police protection? The guy living in the mansion, or the single mom, where the police are routinely called for burglaries, fights with her boyfriends, and accusations that her kids are engaged in the burglaries?
This is obviously just one public service, of many, but I suspect that you'll find that the wealthy provide a lot of services for themselves, and still pay for the public ones at much higher rates than the poor.