A Serious Question for Liberals - Tax Rates

[akelch]

Get rid of income tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax and replace it with HR 25 consumption tax.....ready to voted on.

 

[Old Rocks]

No.

By having sleepless nights for the first few years of running the busioness.
By sacrificing family time and free time for the first several years.
By not having the luxury of vacation days and sick days and personal days for the fiorst few years.
By worrying about meeting payroll and venodr bills during a recession

By not being able to turn to the emnployee handbook and saying "I have my rights...I can take tomorrow off" when they heard that a relative died.

Not in my experience! Having your own business gives you more freedom and more flexible schedule too. And and you don't have to be a business owner to work long hours or to lose sleep over a looming deadline.

So no, not buying that. There are hard working people out there, but no on works hard enough to justify 100 times the average salary.

you have never owned a business.

You have never been part of a start up.

I had no freedom for my first 4 or 5 years.....and as for flexible schedule......really? I was working 7 days a week.....for over 3 years.

Asd for the hard working people...there are plenty of them...and they do not earn 100 times less than the CEO's....they are paid for their talent...and actually deemed as the rich evil executives.

It is the ones that are wrapped up in their rights that are shit on...and rightfully so. They sit there and complain about their pay...and then come in late becuase the "bus was late"...and miss a day becduase "it snowed out...didntcha see?"....and they are allowed berevement days to go to their long lost aunts funeral....they shopw no dedication to anything but one thing..

THEIR PAYCHECK..

Word of advice.....

Those that are dedicated to the cause are well compensated...those that are dedicated to their paycheck are given CoL raises.

There are 2 types of employees....

1) those that look for valid reasons to not go to work
2) those that find ways to get to work.

Who do you think gets a nicer cut of the pie?

You think I need that advice? 2009, 2010, and 2011, no raises where I worked because of economic conditions. But I got a merit raise every year.

And you are correct. Our CEO gets about a million or two a year. And I made about 10% of the lesser figure. That is why many of our craftmen have 30 to 40 years with this company. I have only about 12, so am a newcomer.

As for the first type of employee, most where I work are telling the supervisors to get rid of that person before the supervisors realize they have a dud. We get profit sharing when times are good, and the duds drag that down. Also, while we have an excellant safety program, it only takes one of that type to ruin that. In the steel industry carelessness exacts a high price.

Now if our CEO were recieving compensation in the range of tens of millions of dollars, as many CEOs are, whether or not the company was making money, then I would be looking to retire. For those kinds of companies are soon trying to take the money wasted at the top out of the wages of those at the bottom.

 

[ilia25]

Asd for the hard working people...there are plenty of them...and they do not earn 100 times less than the CEO's..

Of course they do! You think that anyone making less than 70K a year is not working hard? Or you think there no CEOs making 7 million a year?

..they are paid for their talent.

Which they were lucky to be born with -- thanks for making my point.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

youre argument doesnt account for inflation. you would be correct only to say that the top tax bracket of 94% would be on incomes over $2.54M annually.

 

[Jarhead]

Considering the business fed his family, I'd say he did care about them quite a bit.

No offense, but you even stated your work history. Business isn't something you apparently know first hand.

Yes, I understand business very well. Well enough to know I have no talent in that direction. Well enough to have observed those that did, and realize that there were the obsesive ones that considered their talents so unique that the often destroyed themselves and their families by overwork. Well enough to have noted many of the most successful, owners or managers, arranged to have people in their organization that could assume the burden at a moments notice. That not only gave them time for their families, but protected the business in case of mishaps on their part.

One does not have to be a musician to appreciate music.

My wife and I had a choice...I could start a business and put everything I had into it...oir continue to be someone leses money maker.

We knew there were sacrifices.

We accpeted them...and in the long run they paid off.

So do not sit there and type to me how bad an owner I was for not having a manager in place to take over...or how bad a family man I was....

You crossed the line Old Rocks.

To acheive success requires sacrifice.

Although now the mantra is....I want to share in your success WITHOUT tghe sacrifice.

Oh...and just an FYI....

By the end of 5 years, I had a manager in place...a good one...and I sold him the company...gave him 5 years to pay it off....I wanted to go in another direction,.,,,,.and then I started a n company that wound up with three different divisions over 23 years...and in January, I sold that off as well...and retired at the age of 54.

Marriued nearly 3 decades to the same woman...both chioldren well adjusted and throguh college and acheiving success on their own....nice house..althoiugh flooded out in the storm.....and I was able to afford to fix it and turned FEMA down.....,many others needded it a hell of a lot more than I did.,

 

[Jarhead]

Asd for the hard working people...there are plenty of them...and they do not earn 100 times less than the CEO's..

Of course they do! You think that anyone making less than 70K a year is not working hard? Or you think there no CEOs making 7 million a year?

..they are paid for their talent.

Which they were lucky to be born with -- thanks for making my point.

You are seriously misguided.

If you think luck is what makes one a talented employee, you will never acheive success.

And just an FYI....there are tens of thousands of CEO's in Ameirca...and most mkae well less than 1 million a year....heck...most make 75K to 500K.

You are seriously misguided.

Or stupid.

 

[tooAlive]

Get rid of income tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax and replace it with HR 25 consumption tax.....ready to voted on.

I'm inclined to go this route as well.

 

[ilia25]

Now...at a 20% chance of losing all 5000......a 325 return MAY be worth it.....But that is just a maybe wortth it......but a 150 return? Likely not worth risking 5000.

OK, let's forget about capital loss deductions. Say you have not invested 5000 because of the high taxes. What are you going to do with those money -- put it in a bank? And what do you think the bank will to with those money?

They would still be invested -- if not by you, then by the bank.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes, I understand business very well. Well enough to know I have no talent in that direction. Well enough to have observed those that did, and realize that there were the obsesive ones that considered their talents so unique that the often destroyed themselves and their families by overwork. Well enough to have noted many of the most successful, owners or managers, arranged to have people in their organization that could assume the burden at a moments notice. That not only gave them time for their families, but protected the business in case of mishaps on their part.

One does not have to be a musician to appreciate music.

My wife and I had a choice...I could start a business and put everything I had into it...oir continue to be someone leses money maker.

We knew there were sacrifices.

We accpeted them...and in the long run they paid off.

So do not sit there and type to me how bad an owner I was for not having a manager in place to take over...or how bad a family man I was....

You crossed the line Old Rocks.

To acheive success requires sacrifice.

Although now the mantra is....I want to share in your success WITHOUT tghe sacrifice.

Oh...and just an FYI....

By the end of 5 years, I had a manager in place...a good one...and I sold him the company...gave him 5 years to pay it off....I wanted to go in another direction,.,,,,.and then I started a n company that wound up with three different divisions over 23 years...and in January, I sold that off as well...and retired at the age of 54.

Marriued nearly 3 decades to the same woman...both chioldren well adjusted and throguh college and acheiving success on their own....nice house..althoiugh flooded out in the storm.....and I was able to afford to fix it and turned FEMA down.....,many others needded it a hell of a lot more than I did.,

pardon my typing...I can spell...just too lazy to use spell check.

My wife calls me TYPO......

 

[Jarhead]

Now...at a 20% chance of losing all 5000......a 325 return MAY be worth it.....But that is just a maybe wortth it......but a 150 return? Likely not worth risking 5000.

OK, let's forget about capital loss deductions. Say you have not invested 5000 because of the high taxes. What are you going to do with those money -- put it in a bank? And what do you think the bank will to with those money?

They would still be invested -- if not by you, then by the bank.

lol....you are not in my league.

Your argument is childish and grossly misinformed.

Sorry...gotta lkeave it here with you. I can see I lost you somewhere around "I gots me rights"

 

[tooAlive]

Now...at a 20% chance of losing all 5000......a 325 return MAY be worth it.....But that is just a maybe wortth it......but a 150 return? Likely not worth risking 5000.

OK, let's forget about capital loss deductions. Say you have not invested 5000 because of the high taxes. What are you going to do with those money -- put it in a bank? And what do you think the bank will to with those money?

They would still be invested -- if not by you, then by the bank.

But you're not risking anything by having the bank invest it for you.

BTW, what country are you from, Ilia?

 

[Jarhead]

Get rid of income tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax and replace it with HR 25 consumption tax.....ready to voted on.

I'm inclined to go this route as well.

Tax what one spends...not what they earn.....the wealthy will pay plenty and the middle class can make a choice.

I always liked the idea.

 

[tooAlive]

Get rid of income tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax and replace it with HR 25 consumption tax.....ready to voted on.

I'm inclined to go this route as well.

Tax what one spends...not what they earn.....the wealthy will pay plenty and the middle class can make a choice.

I always liked the idea.

That's truly the only "fair" method of taxation I can think of.

It would however eliminate the need for the IRS.

 

[ilia25]

Asd for the hard working people...there are plenty of them...and they do not earn 100 times less than the CEO's..

Of course they do! You think that anyone making less than 70K a year is not working hard? Or you think there no CEOs making 7 million a year?

..they are paid for their talent.

Which they were lucky to be born with -- thanks for making my point.

You are seriously misguided.

If you think luck is what makes one a talented employee, you will never acheive success.

I think that is the case -- a talent is something you are born with. And the last thing I need from you is an advice on how to become successful.

And just an FYI....there are tens of thousands of CEO's in Ameirca...and most mkae well less than 1 million a year....heck...most make 75K to 500K.

I don't say we have to tax the CEOs. I said we need 70% tax on incomes above 500K.

 

[Jarhead]

Of course they do! You think that anyone making less than 70K a year is not working hard? Or you think there no CEOs making 7 million a year?



Which they were lucky to be born with -- thanks for making my point.

You are seriously misguided.

If you think luck is what makes one a talented employee, you will never acheive success.

I think that is the case -- a talent is something you are born with. And the last thing I need from you is an advice on how to become successful.

And just an FYI....there are tens of thousands of CEO's in Ameirca...and most mkae well less than 1 million a year....heck...most make 75K to 500K.

I don't say we have to tax the CEOs. I said we need 70% tax on incomes above 500K.

First..I was not offering you advice on how to be successful. It would be irresponsible to offer such advice without knowing anything about you....but you are wrong...a talent is something you develop....you know...practice...trial and error....

Curious...you say 70%....why that exact number? What do you base it on? Why not 60% or 80%....why not 300K or 650K?

70% on income above 500K....what do you base that on?

 

[ilia25]

Now...at a 20% chance of losing all 5000......a 325 return MAY be worth it.....But that is just a maybe wortth it......but a 150 return? Likely not worth risking 5000.

OK, let's forget about capital loss deductions. Say you have not invested 5000 because of the high taxes. What are you going to do with those money -- put it in a bank? And what do you think the bank will to with those money?

They would still be invested -- if not by you, then by the bank.

But you're not risking anything by having the bank invest it for you.

My point, tooAlive, is that high taxes do not slow down investment or consumption. If some people would choose not to invest their money, then someone else will do it for them.

 

[ilia25]

You are seriously misguided.

If you think luck is what makes one a talented employee, you will never acheive success.

I think that is the case -- a talent is something you are born with. And the last thing I need from you is an advice on how to become successful.

And just an FYI....there are tens of thousands of CEO's in Ameirca...and most mkae well less than 1 million a year....heck...most make 75K to 500K.

I don't say we have to tax the CEOs. I said we need 70% tax on incomes above 500K.

First..I was not offering you advice on how to be successful. It would be irresponsible to offer such advice without knowing anything about you....but you are wrong...a talent is something you develop....you know...practice...trial and error....

Curious...you say 70%....why that exact number? What do you base it on? Why not 60% or 80%....why not 300K or 650K?

70% on income above 500K....what do you base that on?

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

And I disagree -- you cannot develop a talent. You can develop skills and learn how to use the talents you are born with. Most people earning big money are lucky to be born with the right sets of talents.

 

[Jarhead]

OK, let's forget about capital loss deductions. Say you have not invested 5000 because of the high taxes. What are you going to do with those money -- put it in a bank? And what do you think the bank will to with those money?

They would still be invested -- if not by you, then by the bank.

But you're not risking anything by having the bank invest it for you.

My point, tooAlive, is that high taxes do not slow down investment or consumption. If some people would choose not to invest their money, then someone else will do it for them.

True...but a flawed premise as it pertains to the US.

Having someone else invest my money is by no means the same as using my money to start a company...or exapnd my company.

You see...it is all about what makes the US great and why people come to the US to start a business....make it not worth my while, and I wont...and yes, I will put it in the bank, and Citibank will invest it in the solar panel company in China....

Do you see where I am going?

DO you prefer your neighbor starts a company or a Chinese company getting a larger peice of the world market?

 

[jasonnfree]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

Good question. I sometimes think that if the very wealthy had to pay higher taxes, they would lose their incentive to keep on working so hard. Maybe they'll back off and create only say 80% of the products and services they formerly did before taxation. This 20% void of products and services will be filled by others who are willing to work hard to fill this demand. This would create a new class of entrepeneurs who would just love to be making the kind of money required to put them into higher tax brackets. IMO anyway.

 

[Jarhead]

I think that is the case -- a talent is something you are born with. And the last thing I need from you is an advice on how to become successful.



I don't say we have to tax the CEOs. I said we need 70% tax on incomes above 500K.

First..I was not offering you advice on how to be successful. It would be irresponsible to offer such advice without knowing anything about you....but you are wrong...a talent is something you develop....you know...practice...trial and error....

Curious...you say 70%....why that exact number? What do you base it on? Why not 60% or 80%....why not 300K or 650K?

70% on income above 500K....what do you base that on?

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

And I disagree -- you cannot develop a talent. You can develop skills and learn how to use the talents you are born with. Most people earning big money are lucky to be born with the right sets of talents.

Thank you. I will read this evening and give you my thoughts.