Analysts: Letting Bush tax cuts die would kill recovery...

[Apathy]

If a guy strikes it rich, I would never dare to deprive him of living it up. However, it's just that I don't think having him pay a higher percentage of his $1mil a year income than I do of my, well significantly less that $1mil a year income, does that.

Why does he make significantly more than you do?

[detlef]

Why does he make significantly more than you do?

I assume that you're trying to get at the fact that he must have done something cooler than I or better than I in order to be making so much more, so I'll just save you the trouble of connecting that dot. I'll also just ignore the number of people who simply make more than I do because of the family they were born into. Let's just stick to the truly self-made millionaires. More power to them. Honestly, I thought I've made that pretty bloody clear. I couldn't be happier for him.

 

I'm actually looking out for them. I'd like to make it so they can leave the confines of their gated communities without stepping into a war zone. Perhaps some never want to see anything but golf courses, but others may have a taste for Vietnamese food or something and would like to head downtown and grab a bowl of noodles every now and than. How nice it would be, then that they could do so without entering the set of Escape from NY.

[Apathy]

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"

 

Adam Smith

 

 

Sooo a quote by Adam Smith (largely acknowledged as the founder of free market economics) . . in his book that was published in 1776 . . in Scotland . .. is only valid when "in the boundaries of the constitution". . . .. that was written in 1787.

 

 

Who cares when it was quoted, I stand by what I said, only a far left whacko wouldn't understand the truth to it.

 

 

If you honestly cannot distinguish between an OPINION EDITORIAL versus a published article in the Wall Street Journal (pretty sure that ISNT a liberal leaning newspaper . . .) then you are truly a lost cause.

Considering bp tried to cite an Ezra Kelin article from The Washington Post as being from The Wall Street Journal indicates his citations are not exactly trustworthy.

 

The timing and context of quotations is critical (ask Shirley Sherrod). So before we go citing Adam Smith as the end-all, be-all on "progressive" taxation, you may want to give some of the credit to King George III and the toll tax system in place at the time.

 

Here's a random quote a little more contemporaneous: "I find it hard, as a liberal, to see any justification for graduated taxation solely to redistribute income. This seems a clear case of using coercion to take from some in order to give to others and thus to conflict head-on with individual freedom." - Milton Friedman

[gbpfan1231]

I assume that you're trying to get at the fact that he must have done something cooler than I or better than I in order to be making so much more, so I'll just save you the trouble of connecting that dot. I'll also just ignore the number of people who simply make more than I do because of the family they were born into. Let's just stick to the truly self-made millionaires. More power to them. Honestly, I thought I've made that pretty bloody clear. I couldn't be happier for him.

 

I'm actually looking out for them. I'd like to make it so they can leave the confines of their gated communities without stepping into a war zone. Perhaps some never want to see anything but golf courses, but others may have a taste for Vietnamese food or something and would like to head downtown and grab a bowl of noodles every now and than. How nice it would be, then that they could do so without entering the set of Escape from NY.

So the only way we can make sure the world does not turn into a war zone is to give the rich's money to the less fortunate? I am guessing that is not what you may have meant but isn't that what you wrote???

 

I am no where near rich and way under what Detlef says would be the point at where the extra tax goes in (I think he mentioned 250,000) - I just think the people that work there butts off and travel a ton and work more than 40 hours and are away from family can choose what they want to do with the money they earn.

 

I am thinking that if most of the people that think the rich should give more would not be willing to give more than the dude next door if they made the same. If you think it helps to put money into the economy for the less fortunate then pony up more of your own.

[Ursa Majoris]

I am thinking that if most of the people that think the rich should give more would not be willing to give more than the dude next door if they made the same.

What now? If I make the same as the dude next door, I'd expect to pay the same. What am I missing here?

[Apathy]

I assume that you're trying to get at the fact that he must have done something cooler than I or better than I in order to be making so much more, so I'll just save you the trouble of connecting that dot. I'll also just ignore the number of people who simply make more than I do because of the family they were born into. Let's just stick to the truly self-made millionaires. More power to them. Honestly, I thought I've made that pretty bloody clear. I couldn't be happier for him.

 

I'm actually looking out for them. I'd like to make it so they can leave the confines of their gated communities without stepping into a war zone. Perhaps some never want to see anything but golf courses, but others may have a taste for Vietnamese food or something and would like to head downtown and grab a bowl of noodles every now and than. How nice it would be, then that they could do so without entering the set of Escape from NY.

Um, I think it's a stretch (putting it kindly) to draw a correlation between you administering our tax system, and by extension acting as savior of the free world, and a bad (fictional) Kurt Russell movie.

 

So how do we quantify what is excess spending capacity on an individual/family level? If I make more money than my employees but I'm the last to get paid when times are bad (and often have to take pay cuts and hope for claw-backs), how should we factor that into the equation? If I am personally on the line of credit and lease and subject to losing my savings, my home, etc. if something horrific happens, how does that play in? I just want to make sure that after you have me pay in more than most everyone else as a percentage of income in a given year, I'm covered if it all falls apart...I can apply for some sort of "attaboy" refund.

 

I guess another option is to stop trying so dang hard to make a decent living for family and kids and pay what everyobody else pays. On the off chance college tution increases from the $25k per year I paid 20 years ago to the $50k per year it is now to who knows what crazy number it will be around 2030 when my kids are enrolled and I cannot afford it, I'll just tell them, "Shucks guys, I thought I would have enough to cover this but I guess you all will have to work at the local "We Buy Gold" shop for the rest of your lives!"

 

Or if my house is flooded as badly as my friend's was last year, and I end up having to sink (no pun intended) $100,000 into raising the foundation, I assume you'll leave me enough after my progressively higher taxes to handle that?

 

I just want to know what the magic formula is that will compensate me for: (1) the deemed appropriate standard of living for me and my family, (2) the risks I take to better my situation and that of others, (3) charitable endeavors I contribute to, and (4) unsystematic future contingencies.

[detlef]

So the only way we can make sure the world does not turn into a war zone is to give the rich's money to the less fortunate? I am guessing that is not what you may have meant but isn't that what you wrote???

 

I am no where near rich and way under what Detlef says would be the point at where the extra tax goes in (I think he mentioned 250,000) - I just think the people that work there butts off and travel a ton and work more than 40 hours and are away from family can choose what they want to do with the money they earn.

 

I am thinking that if most of the people that think the rich should give more would not be willing to give more than the dude next door if they made the same. If you think it helps to put money into the economy for the less fortunate then pony up more of your own.

Now, I do understand it's far easier to refute the opposition if you pretend they're saying things that they're not. Unfortunately, I can't let you get away with it.

 

There's a difference between advocating hand-outs to the lowest rungs of society and not believing that the rich will just decide to make more jobs if they have more money laying around.

So, no. The only way to prevent chaos is not for the rich to give hand-outs to the poor. Though it would be far more effective than people would like to admit.

 

Now, perhaps $250K is too low a line to draw, but that's not what I'm arguing. At that level,

And no, I did not say the line should start at $250. In fact, I posed that it could be too low a line. I chose that number because that's the number that is being used.

[detlef]

Um, I think it's a stretch (putting it kindly) to draw a correlation between you administering our tax system, and by extension acting as savior of the free world, and a bad (fictional) Kurt Russell movie.

 

So how do we quantify what is excess spending capacity on an individual/family level? If I make more money than my employees but I'm the last to get paid when times are bad (and often have to take pay cuts and hope for claw-backs), how should we factor that into the equation? If I am personally on the line of credit and lease and subject to losing my savings, my home, etc. if something horrific happens, how does that play in? I just want to make sure that after you have me pay in more than most everyone else as a percentage of income in a given year, I'm covered if it all falls apart...I can apply for some sort of "attaboy" refund.

 

I guess another option is to stop trying so dang hard to make a decent living for family and kids and pay what everyobody else pays. On the off chance college tution increases from the $25k per year I paid 20 years ago to the $50k per year it is now to who knows what crazy number it will be around 2030 when my kids are enrolled and I cannot afford it, I'll just tell them, "Shucks guys, I thought I would have enough to cover this but I guess you all will have to work at the local "We Buy Gold" shop for the rest of your lives!"

 

Or if my house is flooded as badly as my friend's was last year, and I end up having to sink (no pun intended) $100,000 into raising the foundation, I assume you'll leave me enough after my progressively higher taxes to handle that?

 

I just want to know what the magic formula is that will compensate me for: (1) the deemed appropriate standard of living for me and my family, (2) the risks I take to better my situation and that of others, (3) charitable endeavors I contribute to, and (4) unsystematic future contingencies.

First off, I run a freaking business as well, so save me the drama.

 

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The tax rates do increase as a percentage. But there is still not a point where it does not make sense to earn more money. If you "stop trying to work so dang hard to make a living" so you can pay "what everybody else pays", you'll end up with less money than you have now. So, I would advise against it.

 

At least my stretch was basically made in jest. Yours is, well, pretty much a joke.

Edited July 31, 2010 by detlef

[Apathy]

First off, I run a freaking business as well, so save me the drama.

 

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The tax rates do increase as a percentage. But there is still not a point where it does not make sense to earn more money. If you "stop trying to work so dang hard to make a living" so you can pay "what everybody else pays", you'll end up with less money than you have now. So, I would advise against it.

 

At least my stretch was basically made in jest. Yours is, well, pretty much a joke.

What drama are you talking about?

 

How does you running a "freaking" business take away from my question (which you failed to answer)?

 

Unless you have a masters in taxation or the letters, "C.P.A." after your name, please don't attempt to lecture me on how our tax system functions (and I wouldn't try it then either).

 

I may end up with less money but according to your undefined premise, it will still be enough. Unfortunately, I may employ fewer folks. Bummer for them I guess.

 

What was my stretch? I'm still waiting for you to tell me how much I need to make before I exhaust my need to buy anything or plan for any contingencies.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

First off, I run a freaking business as well, so save me the drama.

 

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The tax rates do increase as a percentage. But there is still not a point where it does not make sense to earn more money. If you "stop trying to work so dang hard to make a living" so you can pay "what everybody else pays", you'll end up with less money than you have now. So, I would advise against it.

 

At least my stretch was basically made in jest. Yours is, well, pretty much a joke.

The argument about it being unfair that people with their ass hanging out their pants are better off because they pay less in absolute tax dollars is ridiculous. Similar to the silly argument about social security - it wouldn't be fair if poor people were paid out of it while rich people weren't. Guess what? I'd take being rich enough to never need SS over exercising my right to it every time, same as I would be more than happy to have so much income that nearly all of it was taxed at the top rate. This kind of reverse jealousy is demeaning and foolish.

[detlef]

What drama are you talking about?

 

How does you running a "freaking" business take away from my question (which you failed to answer)?

 

Unless you have a masters in taxation or the letters, "C.P.A." after your name, please don't attempt to lecture me on how our tax system functions (and I wouldn't try it then either).

 

I may end up with less money but according to your undefined premise, it will still be enough. Unfortunately, I may employ fewer folks. Bummer for them I guess.

 

What was my stretch? I'm still waiting for you to tell me how much I need to make before I exhaust my need to buy anything or plan for any contingencies.

 

I answered your question before you even asked it. And, had you read it, you would have realized how silly your "gee, I guess I may employ less kids" shtick is.

 

See, you will employ exactly as many kids as you need to do whatever jobs come through your door. If you're sitting there at the end of the year with little extra dough, are you just going to hire someone for the hell of it? I know I sure as a hell am not. But that's what you're saying. That if only we'd let the money stay at the top, they'd have more money to pay people with. And that logic is just plain silly.

 

So, we can either give tax breaks to the rich and hope they decide to hire people for the hell of it, or we can try to drive spending so that more and more people go into business owned by these same rich and assume they'll do the logical thing and hire enough people to meet the demand.

 

Which do you think makes the most sense?

[detlef]

The argument about it being unfair that people with their ass hanging out their pants are better off because they pay less in absolute tax dollars is ridiculous. Similar to the silly argument about social security - it wouldn't be fair if poor people were paid out of it while rich people weren't. Guess what? I'd take being rich enough to never need SS over exercising my right to it every time, same as I would be more than happy to have so much income that nearly all of it was taxed at the top rate. This kind of reverse jealousy is demeaning and foolish.

Yup

[gbpfan1231]

What now? If I make the same as the dude next door, I'd expect to pay the same. What am I missing here?

I am saying voluntarily. I am guessing most people that say tax the rich would not give an extra $100 of there own money when they fill out the tax forms. Easy to say tax the rich when it is not your own money.

 

You said before you were comfortable and putting some money away - then add $100 to your taxes for the less fortunate - I assume Detlef can afford an $100.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I'd take being rich enough to never need SS over exercising my right to it every time, same as I would be more than happy to have so much income that nearly all of it was taxed at the top rate. This kind of reverse jealousy is demeaning and foolish.

yup

[detlef]

I am saying voluntarily. I am guessing most people that say tax the rich would not give an extra $100 of there own money when they fill out the tax forms. Easy to say tax the rich when it is not your own money.

 

You said before you were comfortable and putting some money away - then add $100 to your taxes for the less fortunate - I assume Detlef can afford an $100.

You're doing exactly what Waterman was trying to do and turn this into some class warfare debate. Ursa and I are simply pointing out the folly in saying that tax breaks for the rich will stimulate the economy because they can hire more people. Nobody bothers to explain why this would work out, but as recently as a few posts ago, it was again implied to be the case. You guys just assume that it's obviously true (despite the fact that it makes no sense at all) and keep bringing it up whenever someone talks about rolling back tax cuts to the wealthy. That's really it.

 

I understand that it seems rather unseemly to discuss how much other people should pay in taxes and does make for fine bumpersticker (and perch sig-line) sayings. But until someone refutes the logic of how stimulative it would be and that it ultimately ends up in the same place (at the top), then I'm going to have a hard time backing off my stance of thinking it's a good idea.

 

Oh, and I give far more than $100 a year to charity, thank you very much.

[gbpfan1231]

Maybe a better way to solve this problem is that when someone goes to the grocery store there are no prices on the items that people buy - just pick out whatever steak you want.

 

When I grab my steak and go to the register they swipe my ID and then the steak is priced accordingly. Some thing like below:

 

Me: I make 50,000 steak price = $7.50

Ursa: Makes 75,000 steak price = $9.50

Detlef: makes 250,000 steak price = $22.00

 

Seems like that would then take money from the richer people and "give" more money to spend for the poorer and now we can finally get out of this economy we are in.

 

Now this would only apply to steak and seafood because rich people buy more of that stuff than the less fortunate.

 

Brilliant!!!!!

[Yukon Cornelius]

Maybe a better way to solve this problem is that when someone goes to the grocery store there are no prices on the items that people buy - just pick out whatever steak you want.

 

When I grab my steak and go to the register they swipe my ID and then the steak is priced accordingly. Some thing like below:

 

Me: I make 50,000 steak price = $7.50

Ursa: Makes 75,000 steak price = $9.50

Detlef: makes 250,000 steak price = $22.00

 

Seems like that would then take money from the richer people and "give" more money to spend for the poorer and now we can finally get out of this economy we are in.

 

Now this would only apply to steak and seafood because rich people buy more of that stuff than the less fortunate.

 

Brilliant!!!!!

Did you hold your breath a lot when you were a kid?

[gbpfan1231]

You're doing exactly what Waterman was trying to do and turn this into some class warfare debate. Ursa and I are simply pointing out the folly in saying that tax breaks for the rich will stimulate the economy because they can hire more people. Nobody bothers to explain why this would work out, but as recently as a few posts ago, it was again implied to be the case. You guys just assume that it's obviously true (despite the fact that it makes no sense at all) and keep bringing it up whenever someone talks about rolling back tax cuts to the wealthy. That's really it.

 

I understand that it seems rather unseemly to discuss how much other people should pay in taxes and does make for fine bumpersticker (and perch sig-line) sayings. But until someone refutes the logic of how stimulative it would be and that it ultimately ends up in the same place (at the top), then I'm going to have a hard time backing off my stance of thinking it's a good idea.

 

Oh, and I give far more than $100 a year to charity, thank you very much.

I am not arguing that it would stimulate the economy - I am just saying that I disagree with using that method.

 

Charity it not the same as taxes - you can still give to charity but I am guessing you won't give $100 more to taxes - charity - you pick who it goes to taxes - taxes you don't and we are already taxed enough.

[gbpfan1231]

Did you hold your breath a lot when you were a kid?

Can't remember - blacked out for most of it so I am thinking you may be onto something.

 

What was wrong with my example?? Would it not end up stimulating the economy the same way?

Edited July 31, 2010 by gbpfan1231

[detlef]

Maybe a better way to solve this problem is that when someone goes to the grocery store there are no prices on the items that people buy - just pick out whatever steak you want.

 

When I grab my steak and go to the register they swipe my ID and then the steak is priced accordingly. Some thing like below:

 

Me: I make 50,000 steak price = $7.50

Ursa: Makes 75,000 steak price = $9.50

Detlef: makes 250,000 steak price = $22.00

 

Seems like that would then take money from the richer people and "give" more money to spend for the poorer and now we can finally get out of this economy we are in.

 

Now this would only apply to steak and seafood because rich people buy more of that stuff than the less fortunate.

 

Brilliant!!!!!

But wouldn't it just be easier to have a graduated tax rate?

[detlef]

I am not arguing that it would stimulate the economy - I am just saying that I disagree with using that method.

Do you have a better idea? Because that would be cool.

[Apathy]

I answered your question before you even asked it. And, had you read it, you would have realized how silly your "gee, I guess I may employ less kids" shtick is.

 

See, you will employ exactly as many kids as you need to do whatever jobs come through your door. If you're sitting there at the end of the year with little extra dough, are you just going to hire someone for the hell of it? I know I sure as a hell am not. But that's what you're saying. That if only we'd let the money stay at the top, they'd have more money to pay people with. And that logic is just plain silly.

 

So, we can either give tax breaks to the rich and hope they decide to hire people for the hell of it, or we can try to drive spending so that more and more people go into business owned by these same rich and assume they'll do the logical thing and hire enough people to meet the demand.

 

Which do you think makes the most sense?

You have not answered my question!

 

I want to know how much money I need to take care of my family and handle all the potential money pits I will need to address in the future, noit to mention uncertainty about lifespan, inflation, etc.

 

You have said multiple times that there is a dollar amount where people just can't spend anymore. I want know what that number is and how I should account for each and every future issue I will encounter.

 

So pretend you are my accountant and/or my financial advisor and figure it out. I'll answer any questions you need me to so you can make a logical decision.

 

And whose kids are you talking about employing?

 

If I have some "extra dough," I will consider what my various returns on that "dough" will be, like any other intelligent person would. I can manage my money and better employ it than anybody else (except you because you're now my accountant / financial advisor).

[Ursa Majoris]

I am not arguing that it would stimulate the economy - I am just saying that I disagree with using that method.

 

Charity it not the same as taxes - you can still give to charity but I am guessing you won't give $100 more to taxes - charity - you pick who it goes to taxes - taxes you don't and we are already taxed enough.

Exactly right about the ability of charitable donations to target what you want to support and the inability of taxes to do the same. I don't get the "we are already taxed enough" thing though, since our overall tax burden is lower than most European countries. We manage to support via taxes a gigantic military far greater than that of all Euro countries put together too. The argument that we are already taxed enough doesn't hold water when comparisons are made with other advanced economies.

 

Why do you disagree with a surefire way to kickstart consumption when the money will wind up back where it started anyway?

[The Mucca]

Exactly right about the ability of charitable donations to target what you want to support and the inability of taxes to do the same. I don't get the "we are already taxed enough" thing though, since our overall tax burden is lower than most European countries. We manage to support via taxes a gigantic military far greater than that of all Euro countries put together too. The argument that we are already taxed enough doesn't hold water when comparisons are made with other advanced economies.

 

Why do you disagree with a surefire way to kickstart consumption when the money will wind up back where it started anyway?

 

Well, we are not a European Country (yet), and hopefully after the 2012 election, we will be less like one then the path we are heading.

If the taxes we pay now were not wasted by Fed Gov, their would be ample cash to do what they are supposed to under the Constitution.

 

Want to raise taxes, then Fed Gov should be mandated to cut expenses in the exact amount that the tax increase would generate.

[Perchoutofwater]

You're doing exactly what Waterman was trying to do and turn this into some class warfare debate. Ursa and I are simply pointing out the folly in saying that tax breaks for the rich will stimulate the economy because they can hire more people. Nobody bothers to explain why this would work out, but as recently as a few posts ago, it was again implied to be the case. You guys just assume that it's obviously true (despite the fact that it makes no sense at all) and keep bringing it up whenever someone talks about rolling back tax cuts to the wealthy. That's really it.

 

I understand that it seems rather unseemly to discuss how much other people should pay in taxes and does make for fine bumpersticker (and perch sig-line) sayings. But until someone refutes the logic of how stimulative it would be and that it ultimately ends up in the same place (at the top), then I'm going to have a hard time backing off my stance of thinking it's a good idea.

 

Oh, and I give far more than $100 a year to charity, thank you very much.

 

Lowering my taxes will not necessarily make me expand my business, that is true. It is also true that higher taxes will definitely limit how much if any I can expand my business. Most construction projects require a contractor to bond a project. Both my bonding capacity and my bonding rate are affected by my net worth and particularly my liquidity. If the government is taking more of my money it is decreasing my net worth or reducing it's growth, thus limiting my bonding capacity and increasing my bonding rates. So yes, increases in taxes make it much harder for me to expand my business when there is demand, and decreasing taxes would make it much easier to expand my business. Now, due to the size of my business, I offer my employees more in the way of benefits than smaller companies, so while smaller companies may be able to come in and pick up the demand that I am no longer able to pick up thanks to the additional tax, the people employed will more than likely be making less and receiving fewer benefits.

 

Why not just have a flat tax, do away with all deductions with the exception of charitable donations, and make it to where nobody pays any taxes on the first $20,000 made. It would make things a whole lot better, you wouldn't have all this class warfare.