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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
if you want to stimulate the economy, raise taxs to 1950's levels and then give them more write off capability for spending the money.

the rich are rich becuase they don't spend money.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
if you want to stimulate the economy, raise taxs to 1950's levels and then give them more write off capability for spending the money.

the rich are rich becuase they don't spend money.

You may have a point there, encourage circulation. However I get the feeling that's not really what a lot of people advocating raising taxes want to see. They don't want higher investment and circulation, they actually want to stick it to those damn rich people they're so envious of.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
if you want to stimulate the economy, raise taxs to 1950's levels and then give them more write off capability for spending the money.

the rich are rich becuase they don't spend money.

Yes, the pre-Reagan tax laws gave tons of write-offs that we no longer have. And that did encourage people to blow money or invest in all kinds of stuff, some pretty stupid.

But back then the products you brought were US products. I'm afraid with that type of policy employed today we'd just have people buying foreign made stuff, and not benefiting our economy so much as China's etc.

Fern
 

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
Yes, the pre-Reagan tax laws gave tons of write-offs that we no longer have. And that did encourage people to blow money or invest in all kinds of stuff, some pretty stupid.

But back then the products you brought were US products. I'm afraid with that type of policy employed today we'd just have people buying foreign made stuff, and not benefiting our economy so much as China's etc.

Fern


limit tax rebates to only american made products.

problem solved.
 

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
You may have a point there, encourage circulation. However I get the feeling that's not really what a lot of people advocating raising taxes want to see. They don't want higher investment and circulation, they actually want to stick it to those damn rich people they're so envious of.


yes becuase 2% of the population has 98% of the wealth. circulation will destagnate the market.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
limit tax rebates to only american made products.

problem solved.

I highly doubt we could do that.

I've noticed that Liberals who are all in a frenzy about outsourcing (I'm not directing this at you ModestGamer etc) also seem to love the UN and all that one-world government stuff, treaties and 'international law'.

But I think all that (the UN, GATT, the WTO etc,) is precisley what helped bring about outsourcing. And our agreements in the big world organizations greatly limits our ability to combat outsourcing.

Outsourcing is favored by the these world organizations, it helps stimulate the poorer countries' economies. And of course it Eff's up ours.

I don't think we could give rebates for domestically made products only and not be in violation of these UN-type trade agreements/rules.

Fern
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
<snip>

I don't think we could give rebates for domestically made products only and not be in violation of these UN-type trade agreements/rules.

Fern

Japan did it with their cash for clunkers/auto sales stimulus program.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Japan did it with their cash for clunkers/auto sales stimulus program.

I thought I remembered this type of problem (non-discrimination on foreign made products)

When U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) proposed the "Cash for Clunkers" program to bolster the U.S. auto industry last year, she limited the government purchase incentives to cars produced in North America.

But the exclusion soon aroused complaints from overseas automakers and free-trade advocates, and she relented.

In recent weeks, the Japanese clunkers program, which may soon be extended, has become the focus of growing complaints from U.S. automakers and other interests.

As far back as October, the U.S. trade representative urged Japan to amend the program.

And on Tuesday, Sutton filed a resolution calling for the U.S. trade officials to initiate a trade case against Japan if its program continues to exclude U.S. brands.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010604595.html

Japan opens cash-for-clinker to US made cars:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/19/report-japan-opens-cash-for-clunkers-to-u-s-brands/

Fern
 

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
My give a fuck factor ends where the international water begin. simply I don't give a fuck about other countrys and generally speaking they don't give a fuck about us.

BTW the republitards have been far more imperialistic for the last 5 decades then any of the liberals have been.

BTW it is as easy as adding these word to the rebates.

Only valid for good made in the united states of america.

See that wasn't that hard now was it ?



I highly doubt we could do that.

I've noticed that Liberals who are all in a frenzy about outsourcing (I'm not directing this at you ModestGamer etc) also seem to love the UN and all that one-world government stuff, treaties and 'international law'.

But I think all that (the UN, GATT, the WTO etc,) is precisley what helped bring about outsourcing. And our agreements in the big world organizations greatly limits our ability to combat outsourcing.

Outsourcing is favored by the these world organizations, it helps stimulate the poorer countries' economies. And of course it Eff's up ours.

I don't think we could give rebates for domestically made products only and not be in violation of these UN-type trade agreements/rules.

Fern
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
My give a fuck factor ends where the international water begin. simply I don't give a fuck about other countrys and generally speaking they don't give a fuck about us.

That's awesome sig material right there. I love it!!! :biggrin:
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
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

But the Fed tax rate isn't 35%, it isn't close to that until income is deep into the highest bracket, probably over a million a year.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
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 &#37; 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.

It's a common misconception about graduated income tax that whatever tax bracket your highest income is in is the tax rate you pay.

THAT IS NOT CORRECT. Only the income above that bracket threshold is taxed at that rate. Because of that the highr the income a person has the higher their ACTUAL TAX RATE is. So a person making 250k doesn't pay the same percentage overall, as someone making 10 million.

The person making 10 million has a lot more income taxed at the highest rate, that means his overall tax rate is closer to that higher percentage.
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Federal rate 35&#37;

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

Current rates would equal $60,331 federal tax (assuming $250,000 AFTER deductions) = 24.13% effective burden. Then throw in other taxes.

A person/couple making that much should have quite a few deductions so the effective rate on Gross income should be quite a bit lower on the federal level.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
But the Fed tax rate isn't 35%, it isn't close to that until income is deep into the highest bracket, probably over a million a year.

Don't play dumb. You know we're talking about the tax rate that starts above a certain income via the tax tables. Yes, income below that bracket is taxed lower. But the minute a single dollar that you earn is taxed more than 50% in total taxes that's slavery.

35% starts at 350k or there abouts which isn't too difficult to do because of the phase out rules for exemptions.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Current rates would equal $60,331 federal tax (assuming $250,000 AFTER deductions) = 24.13% effective burden. Then throw in other taxes.

A person/couple making that much should have quite a few deductions so the effective rate on Gross income should be quite a bit lower on the federal level.

You lose a lot of the deductions thanks to AMT and the phase out.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Don't play dumb. You know we're talking about the tax rate that starts above a certain income via the tax tables. Yes, income below that bracket is taxed lower. But the minute a single dollar that you earn is taxed more than 50&#37; in total taxes that's slavery.

35% starts at 350k or there abouts which isn't too difficult to do because of the phase out rules for exemptions.

Yes, it's pure slavery to make over $350,000 after deductions. :biggrin:

You lose a lot of the deductions thanks to AMT and the phase out.

That may be the case but regardless, $250,000 AFTER deductions (of any sort) = 24.xx% federal tax rate effective (Burden).

Edit: Checking to see whether that's for a couple or single...be right back. For Singles, it would be 27.0467 % Federal tax rate after any deductions (i.e. $250,000 after all deductions).

Calculated from here...
 
Last edited:

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Don't play dumb. You know we're talking about the tax rate that starts above a certain income via the tax tables. Yes, income below that bracket is taxed lower. But the minute a single dollar that you earn is taxed more than 50&#37; in total taxes that's slavery.

35% starts at 350k or there abouts which isn't too difficult to do because of the phase out rules for exemptions.

Excuse me, it isn't dumb to talk about reality.

The argument is always framed about pople making 250k not being rich..but those people aren't affected at all, and people making twice that much aren't affected that much either.

Arguing about one part of complicated system as if it represents the whole thing is misleading.

In any case, not paying for the government we have is not an option; and nobody can cut spending drastically unless we are going to be a different country.
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Excuse me, it isn't dumb to talk about reality.

The argument is always framed about pople making 250k not being rich..but those people aren't affected at all, and people making twice that much aren't affected that much either.

Arguing about one part of complicated system as if it represents the whole thing is misleading.

OK, so you're fine with me taking 5-8 thousand dollars extra out of your bank account every year for your fair share? The bush tax cuts were much more than just the tax tables, I've outlined them many times before and even instructed people what they need to do this year to avoid the massive obama tax hikes and I'm not repeating them. You can google the changes that are outside of just the fed tax rates.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
OK, so you're fine with me taking 5-8 thousand dollars extra out of your bank account every year for your fair share? The bush tax cuts were much more than just the tax tables, I've outlined them many times before and even instructed people what they need to do this year to avoid the massive obama tax hikes and I'm not repeating them. You can google the changes that are outside of just the fed tax rates.

If I made that much money, sure.

Oh, and capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. Why the fuck should your capital be taxed less than my labor?

Massive Obama tax hikes? LOL.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Current rates would equal $60,331 federal tax (assuming $250,000 AFTER deductions) = 24.13% effective burden. Then throw in other taxes.

A person/couple making that much should have quite a few deductions so the effective rate on Gross income should be quite a bit lower on the federal level.

Again, we're talking about marginal rates.

It's axiomatic when discussing the rates on only those making above $250k that it's a marginal rate discussion. We shouldn't have to keep emphasizing that.

Marginal rates are very important because of the effect they have on peoples willingness to either work for more money (why should work hard enough to make more than $250K if Uncle Sam gets most of my income above $250K, I'll just go home instead of working more) or recognize income (I'm not selling XYZ asset now. The rates are too high so I'll wait until they change).

Economist know this. The debate is only over at what rate/level do high tax rates become counter-productive.

Fern
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Yes, it's pure slavery to make over $350,000 after deductions. :biggrin:
*facepalm*

I've done this exercise before. It doesn't even include local/city tax.

Your Pay Check Results

Bi-weekly Gross Pay
$11,538.46

Federal Withholding
$3,162.91

Social Security
$715.38

Medicare
$167.31

Kentucky
$674.36


Net Pay
$6,818.50


Calculation Based On

Tax Year
2010

Gross Pay
$300,000.00

Pay Frequency
Bi-weekly

Federal Filing Status
Single

# of Federal Exemptions
1

Additional Federal W/H
$0.00
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
*facepalm*

I've done this exercise before. It doesn't even include local/city tax.

Your Pay Check Results

Bi-weekly Gross Pay
$11,538.46

Federal Withholding
$3,162.91

Social Security
$715.38

Medicare
$167.31

Kentucky
$674.36


Net Pay
$6,818.50


Calculation Based On

Tax Year
2010

Gross Pay
$300,000.00

Pay Frequency
Bi-weekly

Federal Filing Status
Single

# of Federal Exemptions
1

Additional Federal W/H
$0.00

And?

Oh, and after $106,800, that $700+ SS drops off.