Search
Forum Home | Login
Draginol
Draginol
Join Date 03/2001
+137

A look at taxes as they are now

November 26, 2008 1:35:59 PM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

I've seen the argument that we should have the federal government raise taxes back to where they were in the Clinton years.  Such an argument ignores the bigger picture because when the federal government lowered taxes, a lot of states, including Michigan where I live, raised theirs.

Let's look at Mr. Rich guy who makes $1M a year (after deductions) and owns a $1M home and lives in Michigan.

About $300,000 of his income will go to federal income taxes.

Another $40,000 will go to the state of Michigan.

He will have about $20,000 in property taxes on his house.

So this person, with 1 vote who is using the same roads, schools, and other services as everyone else is paying $360,000 right off the bat.

When he goes to buy something, another 6% is taken for sales tax.

Often times, I'll read about someone not understanding why many people who aren't rich are so adamantly opposed to such taxation even though they're not affected. The reason is principle. There is something inherently corrupt about the idea that one person with one vote is having $360k taken from them purely based on the argument that "he can afford it".

This becomes especially true when one looks at how Mr. Rich would have spent that $360k versus how the government spends it. Because that wealth is going to be spread either way. It's merely a question of who spends it better.

We can all talk about social contracts and what not until the cows come home but at the end of the day, there is something just plain wrong about the government taking so much more from some people than others in an age where increasing amounts of that money are simply being given to others based on "need" where "need" is defined in narrow political terms.

Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
watertown1978
Join Date 03/2008
+1
Reply #1 November 26, 2008 1:58:01 PM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums

To be honest Gov has shown any ability recently to actually spend money wisely. I rather have the induvidual decide how to spend it, heck even probually give some to charity.  This whole "because they can afford it" BS is getting old and that is usually the only counter people that support more taxes on the wealthy can come up with.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
stevendedalus
Join Date 11/2003
+8
Reply #2 November 26, 2008 2:34:20 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

It's merely a question of who spends it better.
There's the rub. Most of the wealthy--since they have enough excess to invest--have chosen  all too heavily to invest in non-productive items or foreign markets. After marginal rates go back to 39% I'd like to see a moratorium on capital gains for those who invest in America, especially the green market and other infrastructure.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Frogboy
Join Date 03/2001
+2424 sdemperor
Reply #3 November 26, 2008 6:02:27 PM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums

Quoting stevendedalus,
comment 2


It's merely a question of who spends it better.There's the rub. Most of the wealthy--since they have enough excess to invest--have chosen  all too heavily to invest in non-productive items or foreign markets. After marginal rates go back to 39% I'd like to see a moratorium on capital gains for those who invest in America, especially the green market and other infrastructure.

So who decides what "non productive" items are?  

Where do you even get your statistics on "most of the wealthy"?

Most of the wealthy, as in stastistically >50% are small business owners and they take their profits and invest them back into their companies.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
stevendedalus
Join Date 11/2003
+8
Reply #4 November 27, 2008 12:37:02 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Where do you even get your statistics on "most of the wealthy"?
Talking about the truly big guys; certainly not small business owners who work their ass off to survive.

So who decides what "non productive" items are?
Never heard of drivatives and default swaps? Ask the 800 Starbucks franchise owners that were shut down if it was "productive."

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
watertown1978
Join Date 03/2008
+1
Reply #5 November 27, 2008 10:16:40 AM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums

Quoting stevendedalus,
reply 4

Where do you even get your statistics on "most of the wealthy"?Talking about the truly big guys; certainly not small business owners who work their ass off to survive.

So who decides what "non productive" items are?Never heard of drivatives and default swaps? Ask the 800 Starbucks franchise owners that were shut down if it was "productive."

but saying that anything above 250k is going to hurt the small guys.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Frogboy
Join Date 03/2001
+2424 sdemperor
Reply #6 November 28, 2008 3:10:45 PM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums

Talking about the truly big guys; certainly not small business owners who work their ass off to survive.

But the tax increases proposed aren't targeting the truly big guys. They target the small business owners.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
stevendedalus
Join Date 11/2003
+8
Reply #7 November 29, 2008 12:38:41 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

but saying that anything above 250k is going to hurt the small guys.
Only if you continue the chop logic of some on this site that claims there will be mass layoffs or that investments will fall short. Relax it ain't gonna happen.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
stevendedalus
Join Date 11/2003
+8
Reply #8 November 29, 2008 12:46:13 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

But the tax increases proposed aren't targeting the truly big guys. They target the small business owners.
Wrong conclusion. The misunderstanding of returning to the Clinton marginal rate of 39½% is that the percentage is for the entire income. What really happens is a bump of around 3½% per dollar above 250k. If a "small" business gleans a net profit of 300k he's paying that much more on just 50k.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
joeKnowledge
Join Date 03/2004
+2
Reply #9 December 5, 2008 7:06:53 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums

 

It is my belief that the rich, or more particularly those who are in the high net worth range (4.7 Million Plus) have more of a marginal propensity to save their money  than a person who makes say 100,000 a year or a person who makes 60,000

 

Because of that high MPS (marginal propensity to save... or spend, its been a while since my economics class lol) and the very large posibility that the money in the "rich" circle will stay within a very small portion of the economy, progressive taxes on higher incomes during times of economic goodness is helpful.

During downturns like this one, not so much.

 

Also keep in ming that someone who is earning more than 500,000 gets more utility out of the money earned than someone earning 35,000. For example buying food in bulk, being able to purchase better quality goods,larger downpayments on homes, and possibly better credit... possible lol

Also keep in mind that anyone earning over 200,000 is considered by the SEC as a accredited investor. Which means that there are investments open to you that are not open to others. Hopefully, not only could you recover from a loss of an investment, but since you are earning such a wage, it is a hope that you will be smart with your money and invest well and grow what you have.

My personal opinion about this is that the rich should pay proportionally more taxes BUT as a total of their take home earnings not business earnings. AND it should never exceed 40% (and not just federal, but federal, state and city COMBINED should not take more than 40%). I am sure there are places that already pass this level of taxation such as NYC or Los Angeles, but for most of the nation, it should never exceed 40%

Do not tax small and mid size businesses as if they are "rich" and believe me, 250,000 a year in net income is not rich for a small business. Do not tax investment income at a higher rate. Do not tax inheretance at a higher rate (death tax anyone?).

I will write it again:

Do not tax investment. Do not tax small business, do not tax mid size businesses. 250,000 in net earning means nothing if you end up in the red 300,000 the following year trying to survive. That net income fter taxes is retained earnings tht can be used to hire, invest, build, and grow the business. Credit may rule, but CASH IS KING.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #10 December 5, 2008 1:48:10 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Wrong conclusion. The misunderstanding of returning to the Clinton marginal rate of 39½% is that the percentage is for the entire income. What really happens is a bump of around 3½% per dollar above 250k. If a "small" business gleans a net profit of 300k he's paying that much more on just 50k.

Wrong only if you beleive what you hear, and not what you see.  Right if you beleive what you see.  History has proven him right, and politicians have been proven to lie.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
watertown1978
Join Date 03/2008
+1
Reply #11 December 5, 2008 4:11:27 PM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums

Quoting Dr Guy,
reply 10
Wrong only if you beleive what you hear, and not what you see.  Right if you beleive what you see.  History has proven him right, and politicians have been proven to lie.

 

Politicans lie? no way@?!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
stevendedalus
Join Date 11/2003
+8
Reply #12 December 7, 2008 3:49:33 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

politicians have been proven to lie.
Except the Bush administration in terms of Iraq, of course.
Do not tax investment. Do not tax small business, do not tax mid size businesses
...do not tax, period...dream on. Investments and re-investments of shares should be taxed since it is unearned. Re-investment in a business is not taxed; only the excess profit or salaries.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #13 December 8, 2008 5:00:04 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Except the Bush administration in terms of Iraq, of course.

I put no qualifier on it.  Beleive what you want.  I am sure that Obama and Clinton never ever lied.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
watertown1978
Join Date 03/2008
+1
Reply #14 December 8, 2008 5:51:14 PM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums

Quoting Dr Guy,
reply 13

Except the Bush administration in terms of Iraq, of course.
I put no qualifier on it.  Beleive what you want.  I am sure that Obama and Clinton never ever lied.

 

BO already lied and hes not even office... was not one of his things durring the Run being that " I WILL BALANCE THE BUDGGEEETTT!!!!!"

 

opps i guess he went back on that too

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Stardock Entertainment

Press | Support
Copyright © 2026 Stardock Entertainment. The Political Machine is a trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved.