Printable View
[QUOTE=Tres3;439693]I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.
Tres3.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/13/money_buys_happiness_three_quick_lessons_about_life_satisfaction_in_america.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;439925]Obama raised the tax rate on capital gains from 15% to 23.8% and re-implemented the Pease amendment. The end result, if someone sells out and generates a lot of income from capital gains, he'll be paying 23% federal tax, not 15%. Add state income taxes and the rate would be as high as 34.4% (California).[/QUOTE]Yes capital gains rates recently went up a few percent. Thanks for the reminder. While I overlooked that, it really doesn't change the argument one bit. State income tax is also as low as 0%, but has nothing to do with the argument or Elizabeth Warren's bill.
I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%. And I'm sure most students would say it's unfair they cannot refinance their loans while homeowners can.
Tiny apparantly fails to appreciate the economic benefit of redistributive bills like Warren's. While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments. Isn't it interesting that after Obama raised taxes for high incomes just a few percent, both the deficit and the unemployment rate have come down? Funny how that works, huh. We need more of that, and millionaires and billionaires should be paying at least a 39.6% rate, not 23%.
Tiny is a classic Wall Street shill, trying to portray the top 1% as overtaxed, while the truth is the top 1% keep amassing a greater and greater portion of the American economic pie. Some estimates put their share at 40% of all wealth, and that number keeps growing.
Wealth Inequality Is MUCH Worse Than You Realize
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you-think-2013-3[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;439932]
Tiny apparantly fails to appreciate the economic benefit of redistributive bills like Warren's. While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments. Isn't it interesting that after Obama raised taxes for high incomes just a few percent, both the deficit and the unemployment rate have come down? Funny how that works, huh. We need more of that, and millionaires and billionaires should be paying at least a 39.6% rate, not 23%.
[/QUOTE]So the 1 million jobs created by the evil fracking industry and the great wealth created from the jobs, royalties, product sales, etc. , has nothing to do with the deficit falling? And the increased capital gains from the government propping up the stock market has nothing to do the decreased deficit?
The fact that the unemployment rate falls as benefits expire has nothing to do with the unemployment rate falling? Extend unemployment benefits to 5 years and you will be back to over 10% unemployment within 1 quarter. Labor participation rate is at a 40 year low, but unemployment is falling?
Pesky facts.
[QUOTE=Esten;439932]Yes capital gains rates recently went up a few percent. Thanks for the reminder. While I overlooked that, it really doesn't change the argument one bit. [/QUOTE]0.238/0.15 - 1 = 59%. The federal rate on long term capital gains went up 59%, from 15% to 23.8%.
[QUOTE=Esten;439932] I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%.[/QUOTE]Billionaires pay 43.4% federal tax on all their income except long term capital gains and qualified dividends. Add state income tax and the rate is as high as 54% (California). With Tres' post (above) in mind, I'm assuming that billionaires make so much money their marginal rates about equal their effective rates.
[QUOTE=Esten;439932] Tiny is a classic Wall Street shill[/QUOTE]You're the one that defended the Obama / Bush bale out of Wall Street, not me. Your party (Democrat) has been bought off by Wall Street, not mine (Libertarian).
[QUOTE=Esten;439932] trying to portray the top 1% as overtaxed, while the truth is the top 1% keep amassing a greater and greater portion of the American economic pie. [/QUOTE]The top 1% receives 18.7% of income but pays 37% of federal income taxes:
[URL]http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-where-do-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html[/URL]
The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. Please note this uses data before Obama increased taxes on the top 5% of taxpayers. The contrast would be even more stark now:
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;439932]Wealth Inequality Is MUCH Worse Than You Realize
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you-think-2013-3[/URL] [/QUOTE]The level of wealth held by the poor and middle class is a very real problem. Instead of obsessing on screwing the 1%, Democrats should be thinking about how to get people who live paycheck-to-paycheck to save and invest. And how to improve the economy in ways that will create more jobs and increase wages.
[QUOTE=Esten;439932]While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments.[/QUOTE]
Do you even see the irony? You highlight wealth inequality. But you seem to want people to spend all their disposable income, so they have no wealth, thinking that consumption is the only thing that drives the economy. If most of income goes towards consumption and paying taxes, then we won't have sufficient after-tax profits, savings pools and equity investments to start new businesses and grow old ones. The economy will stagnate.
That may work well for Democrat party elites though. As long as people spend everything they make and depend on handouts provided by the party, that means more Democrat voters.
[QUOTE=Esten;439932]
I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%.
[/QUOTE]Once again you try to obfuscate the issue by comparing apples to oranges. You do not tell us what the MARGINAL rate is for billionaires, you only tell us the EFFECTIVE rate. At the same time you do not tell us the EFFECTIVE rate of higher earners, you only tell us the MARGINAL rate. Why do you not compare apples to apples for a change? I am not a billionaire. I am one of your "higher earners". In 2014 I had an effective rate of less than 20%, but a marginal rate of more than 40%.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;439933]So the 1 million jobs created by the evil fracking industry and the great wealth created from the jobs, royalties, product sales, etc. , has nothing to do with the deficit falling? And the increased capital gains from the government propping up the stock market has nothing to do the decreased deficit?[/QUOTE]This reminds me of the earlier discussion about the role of government and high tax rates in the post-WWII economic expansion. I never said or implied that the private sector did not play a role. Of course it played a huge role, just as it does today. But some people seem to think if I don't mention the private sector, I'm giving all the credit to the government. That's not the case. I'm simply pointing out the positive role of the government and government policy. In addition to Dccpa's misguided argument, I never called the fracking industry evil either.
My points about the post-WWII economic expansion and the situation today are the same:
(i) High tax rates on the wealthy do not interfere with economic growth;
(ii) High tax rates enable greater deficit reduction and government spending; and
(iii) Government spending stimulates the economy.
[QUOTE=Esten;439955]This reminds me of the earlier discussion about the role of government and high tax rates in the post-WWII economic expansion. I never said or implied that the private sector did not play a role. Of course it played a huge role, just as it does today. But some people seem to think if I don't mention the private sector, I'm giving all the credit to the government. That's not the case. I'm simply pointing out the positive role of the government and government policy. In addition to Dccpa's misguided argument, I never called the fracking industry evil either.
My points about the post-WWII economic expansion and the situation today are the same:
(i) High tax rates on the wealthy do not interfere with economic growth;
(ii) High tax rates enable greater deficit reduction and government spending; and
(iii) Government spending stimulates the economy.[/QUOTE]You call my facts a misguided argument and then you list 3 Keynsian fallacies.
The post WW2 growth was due to pent up demand. During the war, there wasn't much to buy as factories were diverted to the war effort. Everyone was buying war bonds. Once the war was over, the pent up demand drove growth for several years. Come on Esten, you can do better than that.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;439958]You call my facts a misguided argument and then you list 3 Keynsian fallacies.
The post WW2 growth was due to pent up demand. During the war, there wasn't much to buy as factories were diverted to the war effort. Everyone was buying war bonds. Once the war was over, the pent up demand drove growth for several years. Come on Esten, you can do better than that.[/QUOTE]Esten maintains that economic growth and employment participation are most strongly correlated with tax rates on the top 1% or 2% of the population. If you point out factors that actually are correlated with economic growth and employment, like growth of the energy sector, wars, interest rates, and unemployment benefits, he tells you you're misguided.
Does Esten actually believe this? Does he actually believe government can take enough away from 1% or 2% of the population to pay for universal health care, unlimited unemployment benefits, unfunded social security, a balanced budget, etc.? My guess is no. He just realizes it's a good argument for Democrats to get votes from LIV's.
Throughout the developed world, you will find a strong, long-term correlation between government expenditures as a % of GDP and the rate of growth of GDP. Long term, higher government expenditures correlate with lower economic growth and higher unemployment rates. In the USA, the size of government has grown dramatically since World War II, and the GDP growth rate has dropped accordingly. There were other factors at play too. The tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was not one of them.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;439934]0.238/0.15 - 1 = 59%. The federal rate on long term capital gains went up 59%, from 15% to 23.8%.[/QUOTE]LOL! Calculations like this just show how desperate you are to attempt to show how highly taxed the rich are. That 23.8% is still lower than what many other people pay (whether marginal or effective) who have lower incomes. Why should the very rich be allowed such tax breaks?
[QUOTE]You're the one that defended the Obama / Bush bale out of Wall Street, not me. Your party (Democrat) has been bought off by Wall Street, not mine (Libertarian).[/QUOTE]That bailout was needed just as much for Main Street as Wall Street. If Democrats have been bought off by Wall Street, why are Democrats the most likely party to regulate Wall Street and raise their taxes?
[QUOTE]The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. [/QUOTE]Except for the part where the very rich benefit from lower tax rates on financial "investments" (typically non-job creating), and end up with effective tax rates far lower than top marginal rates. Let's try a Tiny-like calculation: they pay 23.8% but should be paying at least 39.6%, so that's a 40% tax break.
[QUOTE]The level of wealth held by the poor and middle class is a very real problem. Instead of obsessing on screwing the 1%, Democrats should be thinking about how to get people who live paycheck-to-paycheck to save and invest. And how to improve the economy in ways that will create more jobs and increase wages.[/QUOTE]It's about moral and sound economic policy, not about screwing anyone. Ask rich Democrats. Your approach of "let the free market work" is no longer delivering an equitable distribution of prosperity, as evidenced by the numerous statistics on growing income and wealth inequality. I do not see any way to reverse this trend other than government intervention.
[QUOTE=Esten;439969]LOL! Calculations like this just show how desperate you are to attempt to show how highly taxed the rich are. That 23.8% is still lower than what many other people pay (whether marginal or effective) who have lower incomes. Why should the very rich be allowed such tax breaks? Except for the part where the very rich benefit from lower tax rates on financial "investments" (typically non-job creating), and end up with effective tax rates far lower than top marginal rates. Let's try a Tiny-like calculation: they pay 23.8% but should be paying at least 39.6%, so that's a 40% tax break.[/QUOTE]The very rich pay 43.4% marginal federal tax rate on all their income except long term capital gains and qualified dividends. Add state income tax and the rate is as high as 54% (California). The long term capital gains tax rate for most Americans is 0% or 15%, which is lower than 23.8% paid by the very rich. Many of the "very rich" who pay the 23.8% rate don't do it year in and year out, for example a person who sells a business he's spent a lifetime creating.
The top 1% of taxpayers receives 18.7% of income but pays 37% of federal income taxes.
The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.
You're saying financial investments don't create jobs? That's nuts. Take away all the depositors' money from the banks and eliminate corporate bonds and see what happens to the jobs market. The maximum marginal tax rate on interest income is 43.4% by the way, not 23.8%
Apologies to Tres, I've assumed the marginal rate = effective rate to simplify. And failed to note the maximum marginal rate on salary income is slightly less than 43.4%.
Is this beginning to sound repetitive?
[QUOTE=Esten;439969]It's about and sound economic policy, not about screwing anyone. Ask rich Democrats. Your approach of "let the free market work" is no longer delivering an equitable distribution of prosperity, as evidenced by the numerous statistics on growing income and wealth inequality. I do not see any way to reverse this trend other than government intervention.[/QUOTE]Rich Democrats like trial lawyers? Hedge fund managers who get carried interest? Wealthy farmers and alternative energy moguls who get government handouts?
There have been studies conducted by psychologists, where they test the proposition that people would prefer to have less, as long as they have more than their neighbors. That's true, people do feel that way, and it's related to the reason why the majority of Americans agree with you.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;439970]There have been studies conducted by psychologists, where they test the proposition that people would prefer to have less, as long as they have more than their neighbors. That's true, people do feel that way, and it's related to the reason why the majority of Americans agree with you.[/QUOTE]Shucks! Finally, you gave me the answer to my sleepless nights. My neighbor's wife tits are larger than mine.
[QUOTE=RevBS;439973]Shucks! Finally, you gave me the answer to my sleepless nights. My neighbor's wife tits are larger than mine.[/QUOTE]Reverend, I have met you and I know you jest. Your tits are very large. (Just kidding).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/18/maybe-listening-to-dick-cheney-on-iraq-isnt-a-good-idea/?tid=pm_pop
What do you do with guys like that. The only patriotic act that he know is checking his bank account.
[B]They can't all be patriotic community organizers.[/B]
[QUOTE=RevBS;440013][b]Please, somebody throw a cactus at this guy![/b]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/18/maybe-listening-to-dick-cheney-on-iraq-isnt-a-good-idea/?tid=pm_pop[/url]
What do you do with guys like that. The only patriotic act that he know is checking his bank account.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MSNBC's ED Schultz]"Youre damn right, Dick Cheney's heart's a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him."[/QUOTE]Rev BS and [STRIKE]Sgt[/STRIKE] Ed Schultz cut from the same cloth?
[QUOTE=Punter127;440022][B]They can't all be patriotic community organizers.[/B]
Rev BS and [STRIKE]Sgt[/STRIKE] Ed Schultz cut from the same cloth?[/QUOTE]I don't even know who this guy is! But it was rumored that Hannity & you were caught holding hands? Oops, I mean a Koch Brothers banner? Why be a warrior for fossil fuels and high utility bills? Yes, I know, alternative energy is un-American. And you don't think there is connection between Iraq, Cheney and Halliburton. You think there is a huge difference between Cheney & Christina? They have the same mindset, to loot the system. Just in different ways while spewing patriotic jargon to inspire the choir, and misdirect & confuse the uncaring public.