Extending Tax Cuts, Why Can't the Politicians Compromise?

[Darwin333]

I think it's Obama's deep seated psyche and anti-colonialism against those he perceives to be holding others down. That and his end goal is the destruction of western capitalism.

Listen to his words, his reasoning, watch his actions, you can see very clearly how he perceives his world.

I don't listen to any politicians words. I strictly pay attention to their actions and his actions are much closer to GW's then what you speak of. As a politician, his words (at least his words to citizens/press) are rather irrelevant to me.

 

[LegendKiller]

Umm, I see no porsche in my driveway. I see a 235K mile car and my wife's lease of 240 a month and yet we are the "evil rich". I see both our properties worth 500k with 230 outstanding and despite all time lows nobody is buying, and yest they are priced well below FMV. I see my taxes going up that restricts our investment thanks to AMT and Obama's outlandish tax hikes. Basically we aren't spending shit because of Obama and our personal situation to make the most of capital investment in real estate and pulling all of my high dividend stocks out before year end because most all of them are LTCG.

So basically, we're hunkering down for the continuation of the Obama Economy. Holding onto our wallets, specifically because of his policies. Now if we were truly rich we could take advantage of these super low rate, but we ain't rich and I see no porsche, only making sure I have enough cash to withstand the Obama Assault.

The "Obama Economy" is the Bush Economy. Pure and simple, Bush and the Repuglicans set us up for failure. You're intellectually bankrupt if you believe anything but.

As far as Obama's current moves, they are not great, but I'm 100% positive they are either the same, or better, than any moves McLame and Caribou Barbie would have made.

 

[Craig234]

What's amusing is that these shitstains parrot this shit over and over, all at the behest of the Kochs and Waltons. After all, these are the same shills who run around bemoaning the Estate Tax. The special interests are the same, they just manipulate the meat shields forward to take the brunt of the blowback.

Then they just sit back and laugh at the Teabaggers and the rest of their merry band of fuckups, and enjoy the fact that they are making money with no effort, all thanks to the moron "republicans" doing all of the heavy work.

Corrupted democracy is far better for the elites than authoritarianism, because people who know they're oppressed tend to rebel, while if they're told 'of the people, by the people, for the people, this is YOUR government you own it and run it' and they believe it but it's false, they tend to put up with quite a lot.

 

[Darwin333]

The right wants to cut the deficit on the backs on the poor and middle class. The right is adamantly opposed to letting the tax cuts for the rich expire. Instead, they want to reduce the size of government. But what programs, exactly would they reduce or axe? I defy the right to inform us of a single government program or agency they would cut where the cost of that cut isn't borne MORE by the poor and middle classes than the rich.

I defy you to tell me how a $70B a year tax increase, hell lets round it up to $100B even though the CBO averages $70B/year, will do a damned thing to a $1.3T deficit? We are talking about 5% (round it up to 10 if you want). If what you say is correct, you haven't taken anything substantial off of the backs of anyone.

 

[Jhhnn]

No wonder your denial is so bitter, spidey- you got chumped by the ownership society rhetoric, right? The fact that you're trying to sell in a down market tells me that you know you made a mistake when you bought, that you tried to shoot the moon but didn't have the cards to do it.

Guess what? Real estate crashed for good reason *before* Obama was elected, and if pounding cash into the economy with enormous deficits won't bring it back up, nothing will. The estimated $70B that those earning over $250K would save in taxes next year isn't squat compared to the nearly $2T that's been poured in, and won't go in the right direction to stimulate the economy, by your own admission.

Tip #2- FMV is a completely meaningless buzz phrase that realtors love to bandy about. Property is worth what it'll fetch on the open market, period, manipulable only by lending terms. I can't help it if your free market heroes let lending and securitization standards become so lax that it drove prices through the roof, leaving you holding the bag.

Tip #3- Real estate investment is a long game, often requiring decades to achieve fruition. Real estate speculation is another game entirely, a very fast one, and is basically gambling on margin.

Right now, lots of speculators would love to sell so as to cut their losses, but the faux prosperity of the Bush era is over. It wouldn't matter if Jesus Christ himself were president and the apostles were congress, because the price would still be headed lower...

Get used to it. Man up- blame yourself for your own decisions.

 

[Acanthus]

I defy you to tell me how a $70B a year tax increase, hell lets round it up to $100B even though the CBO averages $70B/year, will do a damned thing to a $1.3T deficit? We are talking about 5% (round it up to 10 if you want). If what you say is correct, you haven't taken anything substantial off of the backs of anyone.

Your figures assume an $800B stimulus package every year.

 

[brencat]

Semantics

Micromanagement is not the problem.

Are you trying to deny there are no rich in the NY area? It probably has the highest concentration of rich in the country despite the costs and taxes you speak of which is the point. High taxes on the rich does not make them poor.

There is nothing stopping you from moving if you don't like it.

If I want to continue doing what I love on Wall St, then no I cannot move Dave. And this isn't about your definition of "rich". But rather what I and Fern have already mentioned at least 3x now....that a $275k earner and a $10 million earner are being taxed at the same stupid marginal percentage rate. Is that fair? No way. Meanwhile, those idle rich earning $182+ million are paying a mere 16.7% because most of that annual income comes from cap gains and investments taxed at lower rates than normal income. Finally, please tell me why more than 2 years after the Dems have total control of the govt is the carried interest provision still allowed?? That sh*t should have been repealed a week after Obama's inauguration.

 

[Jhhnn]

Finally, please tell me why more than 2 years after the Dems have total control of the govt is the carried interest provision still allowed?? That sh*t should have been repealed a week after Obama's inauguration.

Because progressive Dems haven't been able to rein in their corporatist comrades. Lieberman, for example, is no longer a Dem but an independent, and totally unreliable for something like that. And Dems only had a theoretical 60 votes to override repub filibusters for a short time prior to the election of Brown.

They've never had "total control" in the way you represent it to be, at all. If even a few senatorial repubs weren't corporatist whores, things might be different, but they're not.

I'll agree wrt the need for more brackets at the top, and for cap gains to be taxed at a higher rate than at present.

It's not like families at the lower end of the proposed rate increases are getting raked over the coals, however, as increases only affect that portion over $250K. Federal taxes would still be lower than during the Reagan era, and much lower than pre-Reagan...

As for your personal situation, you probably wouldn't make or need nearly as much money working somewhere other than Wall St. High total taxes and high expenses come with the territory. You clearly have more and better choices available than the vast majority, so it's a bit unseemly to whine about the not so terribly negative aspects of your own situation.

 

[Craig234]

If I want to continue doing what I love on Wall St, then no I cannot move Dave. And this isn't about your definition of "rich". But rather what I and Fern have already mentioned at least 3x now....that a $275k earner and a $10 million earner are being taxed at the same stupid marginal percentage rate. Is that fair? No way. Meanwhile, those idle rich earning $182+ million are paying a mere 16.7% because most of that annual income comes from cap gains and investments taxed at lower rates than normal income. Finally, please tell me why more than 2 years after the Dems have total control of the govt is the carried interest provision still allowed?? That sh*t should have been repealed a week after Obama's inauguration.

Yes, let's put the $1M+ people back at the pre-Reagan rate of 70%.

 

[BoberFett]

The "Obama Economy" is the Bush Economy. Pure and simple, Bush and the Repuglicans set us up for failure. You're intellectually bankrupt if you believe anything but.

As far as Obama's current moves, they are not great, but I'm 100% positive they are either the same, or better, than any moves McLame and Caribou Barbie would have made.

You really believe this is Bush's doing and not 50 years of bad policy?

/facepalm

 

[charrison]

You really believe this is Bush's doing and not 50 years of bad policy?

/facepalm

I would have to agree here. Everyone should be a homeowner attitude started long before bush took office.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would have to agree here. Everyone should be a homeowner attitude started long before bush took office.

Heh. The housing bubble before this one was, not surprisingly, part of the S&L scandal of the Reagan years... a test run by the free-market banksters-

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

The financial giants were in their infancy, and the derivatives casino was just a twinkle in their eyes...

 

[ebaycj]

Umm, I see no porsche in my driveway. I see a 235K mile car and my wife's lease of 240 a month and yet we are the "evil rich". I see both our properties worth 500k with 230 outstanding and despite all time lows nobody is buying, and yest they are priced well below FMV. I see my taxes going up that restricts our investment thanks to AMT and Obama's outlandish tax hikes. Basically we aren't spending shit because of Obama and our personal situation to make the most of capital investment in real estate and pulling all of my high dividend stocks out before year end because most all of them are LTCG.

So basically, we're hunkering down for the continuation of the Obama Economy. Holding onto our wallets, specifically because of his policies. Now if we were truly rich we could take advantage of these super low rate, but we ain't rich and I see no porsche, only making sure I have enough cash to withstand the Obama Assault.

Obviously, your houses are NOT priced below FMV, otherwise they would have sold.

Supply and Demand, remember?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes, let's put the $1M+ people back at the pre-Reagan rate of 70%.

I don't know about that specific rate, but I do know it is insane for someone making $250K to be in the same tax bracket as someone making $10 million a year. What's even more insane is that I'm paying a larger % of my income in taxes than most of the people who are "rich" by anyone's definition.

And no, I don't care to hear from some here the excuse of "But...but...but....they pay more in taxes!" Yes, in absolute terms, they do, but not in relative terms and that is what is important. Someone making $10 million a year, on average, pays $1.6 million/year in taxes while someone making $100K per year, on average, is paying $30K a year in taxes. I guarantee you that I would sign up in a minute to make $10 million a year even if I did have to pay $3 million a year in taxes. The moral of the story is that if I'm paying 30%, they can pay 30%. Period.

And yes, capital gains, investments, etc. need to be taxed as income, as my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that they are not taxed the same as income.

 

[HumblePie]

I believe his exact words were "that's why I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore was hardly a pivotal figure in creating the Internet, but he did support it, probably as well as any politician. He also claimed to have led House hearings which "uncovered Love Canal", which was extensively covered before he even became a Representative. Even for a politician the man has problems grasping the truth without stretching it beyond all recognition.

BTW, Gore was elected to Congress (on the strength of his father's name recognition) in 1976.

Yes and no.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

He was the first politician to recognize and put laws in place for the internet to get started outside an Air Force lab. In a sense he did start the internet as we know it.


however, the damn partisan spin doctoring for urban mythology on this shit is just retarded.

 

[brencat]

Yes, let's put the $1M+ people back at the pre-Reagan rate of 70%.

Nope. That's too high a percentage and too low a threshold. Once you add in 12% state tax for NY that's over 80 cents on the marginal dollar over $1 mil going to govt in some form. That's confiscatory and patently unfair, IMO.

You are familiar with the thread on Marginal Tax Rates I initiated a couple weeks ago... 55% is the top marginal rate I suggest for incomes over $3 mil, but I also put 5 other marginal rates with lower percentages below that. Don't forget I also suggested we need a phase out of favorable cap gains treatment for super high earners and idle rich so they pay closer to 30-35% effective tax rate at a minimum.

 

[brencat]

As for your personal situation, you probably wouldn't make or need nearly as much money working somewhere other than Wall St. High total taxes and high expenses come with the territory. You clearly have more and better choices available than the vast majority, so it's a bit unseemly to whine about the not so terribly negative aspects of your own situation.

Not whining at all as I'm nowhere near one of those super high earners. And while the money is 'okay', I do this job primarily because it is fast paced, intellectually stimulating, and I get to work with some very high achieving talented people. Can't imagine living anywhere else with nearly all family and friends within 1 hr of where we live. But I digress...

 

[Tom]

AMT, plus state, plus local = 50% or higher.

AMT is 26% or 28% with 70,000 deductible which lowers that rate quite a bit for incomes around 250k.

So what state has such a high income tax rate to bring that to 50% ?

 

[Pens1566]

Umm, I see no porsche in my driveway. I see a 235K mile car and my wife's lease of 240 a month and yet we are the "evil rich". I see both our properties worth 500k with 230 outstanding and despite all time lows nobody is buying, and yest they are priced well below FMV. I see my taxes going up that restricts our investment thanks to AMT and Obama's outlandish tax hikes. Basically we aren't spending shit because of Obama and our personal situation to make the most of capital investment in real estate and pulling all of my high dividend stocks out before year end because most all of them are LTCG.

So basically, we're hunkering down for the continuation of the Obama Economy. Holding onto our wallets, specifically because of his policies. Now if we were truly rich we could take advantage of these super low rate, but we ain't rich and I see no porsche, only making sure I have enough cash to withstand the Obama Assault.

Poor poor spidey, the world weeps for you and your misfortune ...

 

[Slew Foot]

I don't know about that specific rate, but I do know it is insane for someone making $250K to be in the same tax bracket as someone making $10 million a year. What's even more insane is that I'm paying a larger % of my income in taxes than most of the people who are "rich" by anyone's definition.

And no, I don't care to hear from some here the excuse of "But...but...but....they pay more in taxes!" Yes, in absolute terms, they do, but not in relative terms and that is what is important. Someone making $10 million a year, on average, pays $1.6 million/year in taxes while someone making $100K per year, on average, is paying $30K a year in taxes. I guarantee you that I would sign up in a minute to make $10 million a year even if I did have to pay $3 million a year in taxes. The moral of the story is that if I'm paying 30%, they can pay 30%. Period.

And yes, capital gains, investments, etc. need to be taxed as income, as my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that they are not taxed the same as income.

Concur with this, tax ALL income the same, and start up a new higher bracket, say 500K or 1Million, and tax it at a higher rate.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes, let's put the $1M+ people back at the pre-Reagan rate of 70%.

are we going to open all the loopholes back up as well?



there are 3 goals to a tax system. that it not warp choices, that it be transparent/administratively simple, and that it be fair (which is subdivided into people with the same amount of whatever being taxed pay the same tax and that people with more of whatever being taxed pay more tax than people with less). the income tax system is a failure at all 3 (mostly due to the intentional warping of choices the tax system encourages)

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by brencat
Finally, please tell me why more than 2 years after the Dems have total control of the govt is the carried interest provision still allowed?? That sh*t should have been repealed a week after Obama's inauguration.

Because progressive Dems haven't been able to rein in their corporatist comrades. Lieberman, for example, is no longer a Dem but an independent, and totally unreliable for something like that. And Dems only had a theoretical 60 votes to override repub filibusters for a short time prior to the election of Brown.

They've never had "total control" in the way you represent it to be, at all. If even a few senatorial repubs weren't corporatist whores, things might be different, but they're not.
-snip-

For the umpteenth bazillion, changing a tax law likethe "carried interest" rule is a budget matter and can done done with the Budget Reconcilliation Process that only requires a simple majority.

From what I've heard, it's Charles Shumer who won't allow the change.

Fern

 

[ayabe]

AMT is 26% or 28% with 70,000 deductible which lowers that rate quite a bit for incomes around 250k.

So what state has such a high income tax rate to bring that to 50% ?

In order to sufficiently outraged you also have to ignore that those states with an income tax have higher base salaries to compensate.

It's more or less a meaningless number without taking everything else into consideration.

 

[Craig234]

are we going to open all the loopholes back up as well?

No, but we won't go back to the 91% top rate.

there are 3 goals to a tax system.

Says who?

that it not warp choices

Actually, warping choices is an excellent thing for a tax system to do.

In CA, you don't pay sales tax when you buy unprepared food, but you do when you buy a new TV or a restaurant dinner.

When you donate to a non-profit charity, you get a tax deduction.

When you invest in hiring in an 'Enterprise Zone' with an especially high rate of poverty and problems and that helps society, you can get a tax credit.

There's the 'R&D tax credit' for corporations.

Cigarette taxes discourage smoking.

Good tax incentives are a great tool for government to help society. Of course, corrupt tax incentives are bad.

that it be fair (which is subdivided into people with the same amount of whatever being taxed pay the same tax and that people with more of whatever being taxed pay more tax than people with less). the income tax system is a failure at all 3 (mostly due to the intentional warping of choices the tax system encourages)

Well, fair is an arguable definition, but even using yours, last I checked our earned income tax fits your definition, with progressively higher tiers.

Now, passive versus earned income, you can argue unfair - but you did say 'the same amount of whatever' and some would argue they're two different things.

I'd have a different definition of 'what makes a good tax system'. Incent things good for society, productive things; raise enough to pay the bills, or not far off.

They should be distributed so that 'a rising tide lifts all boats' again.

 

[Fern]

AMT is 26% or 28% with 70,000 deductible which lowers that rate quite a bit for incomes around 250k.

So what state has such a high income tax rate to bring that to 50% ?

Federal rate 35%

FICA (above $250K) is 1.45% or 2.9% (if self-employed)

(2 New Tax in HCR law) add another 1% on salary.

Add an additional 3.8% on non-salary income.

The phaseouts for itemized deductions and personal exemptions were good for another 3% or so. Let's be conservative and say 2%.

We're now around 40% or so (and a little higher if self-employed).

Now look at the chart of state income taxes:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

Quite a few states have a high enough marginal rate to put you at 50% or higher. (E.g., see HI, NY and CA)

Then, click on the link at the top of that chart for local taxes. Many of those people subject to local income taxes, in addition to their state income tax, are easily over 50%.


Fern