OT: "fair" taxes

From an investment newsletter:

"Over the years as I have become more successful (as measured by my annual taxable income) it does seem to me that the higher my income gets, the less of the extra money I actually see. That is the marginalized taxes kicking in plus all the limits on deductions due to making over a certain amount. In addition to all the inflationary woes you have been writing about, I wonder if people realize the less visible impact it will have on their taxes. Salaries are bound to go up, which will raise the average income overall, and push a good majority of earners into higher tax brackets (since I doubt the Feds will change tax income ranges to take into account the percentage of inflation). When this happens, a large number will probably hit that magical number ($100K AGI, I believe ? for married filed jointly) where deductions start becoming limited and then are phased out completely ($150K AGI, I b elieve - for married filed jointly). The biggest hit is for families with children. The nice, fat $1K tax credit you get per child when your AGI is under $100K is reduced more greatly the closer you get to $150K, at which point the tax credit goes away completely... Having been in the $100K to $150K range for a few years, and having broken the $150K mark in the last year or so, I must say taxes have become a greater burden on me than they have been in the past. I understand equality and all that but WTF should someone else benefit from my hard work?! I had to bust my ass to get to where I am... The equality of gain should be directly proportional to the equality of effort. A flat tax would seem to better facilitate that than the current system of tax. X% always remains X% of any income amount and scales a hell of a lot more equally across the board than the current system of tax." ? Paid-up subscriber Jerry Young

Porter comment: There's no room in Amerika for anyone as greedy as you are, Jerry. You don't need $150,000 to live well here ? not when the average income is $40,000. Yes, you've been lucky to do so well in your life... and that's why you should be happy to give back to your community. After all, wasn't it Amerika that provided you with all of the opportunity you've taken advantage of? It's the country that's really responsible for your success, Jerry. Hard work wouldn't have gotten you very far in Russia.

I'm tired of hearing all of you "rich" people moaning about taxes... OBAMA!'s new top 39.5% rate ? even if it applied to your entire $150,000 wage ? would still only be $58,500 in taxes. That leaves you with $91,500 ? that's A LOT OF MONEY! Of course, there's state income tax in most places. Even after you've paid those (5%), you've got $86,925 left ? more than twice the average wage. Of course, you also have to pay 12% of your gross compensation for Medicare and Social Security. Yes, it's a lot of money ($18,000) ? but surely you wouldn't want to see anyone go without medical care in a society that's as rich as ours. Besides, that leaves you with $68,925 ? which is more than enough to live on...

With a gross income over six figures, you've probably got a $1 million house. States usually charge about 2% of the current value for real estate taxes. (Someone has to pay for the roads and the schools you know.) Now you've got $48,925 after tax. Assuming your wife doesn't work ? 'cause you're so rich ? that leaves each of you with about $25,000 per year. Assuming you both have medical insurance, you're probably spending about $800 per month in premiums... so you've still got more than $15,000 each ? just to spend on yourselves. That's $296 per week... Before sales taxes, gas taxes, your grocery bill, your mortgage bill, your car payments, your electricity bill, phone, water, cable... and investment newsletter subscriptions. I'm sure you have plenty left over for charity and retirement savings. You're doing great Jerry. You lucky bastard. You've got no right to complain about taxes...

Reply to
Robert Baer
Loading thread data ...

LOL

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

The only "fair taxes" are the ones I don't have to pay ;-)

...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

formatting link
| 1962 | First they came for the people making over $250,000 a year, but I didn't say anything.

Next they came for the people making over $150,000 a year, but I didn't say anything.

Then they came for me, but there was no one left to say anything.

Reply to
Jim Thompson

Its either pay taxes or lock yourself into a prison to keep the poor people out. People figured that out long ago. Several hundreds of years ago the church would -more or less- tax the richer people to keep the poor people of the street and make the city safer to live in.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
                     "If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to
Nico Coesel

A 10% tithe may help the poor. A 60% tax may well not. At some point, higher tax rates produce lower revenues, for a number of reasons. Lower in the short term, much lower in the longer term.

And if the taxes serve to *create* more poor people, things can really get bad.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

But the church did it for 10%, right?

It's not a question of tax or no tax, but how much, and for what.

We're buying people houses and cars, and paying bank-bonuses. Oh yes--and we're buying them car companies, guaranteeing their engines, and so forth.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
James Arthur

Barriers to business block one of the best escapes from poverty, which is to start or work for a small business.

James

Reply to
James Arthur

Look at the Vatican in Rome... 10%... I doubt it! The pope used to be a genuine war lord in the old days. Not some old dude with one foot in the grave already.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
                     "If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to
Nico Coesel

Well, that's what the state (or the church in times past) would like you to believe. Only they, with an adequate supply of your money, can keep the hungry mob at bay. Fear them and pay us.

As I recall, the Mafia used a similar strategy to collect protection payments. "That's a nice little business ya got there, buddy. It'd be a shame if it burned down."

--
Paul Hovnanian  paul@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Who needs government anyway?

formatting link

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Richard the Dreaded Libertaria

WOW!

Reply to
Robert Baer

There are some valid points there. But there are still some good reasons to have some government. The latest financial crisis being a good example.

Government regulation (should) provide something akin to a brand name. If I want some reassurance that I'm buying quality goods, I stick to a brand I can trust. Likewise, if I want to buy a stock, bond, or some other financial instrument, regulation and its accompanying stamp of approval should provide me with the knowledge that it meets some quality standards. I say 'should', because the current system is severely broken.

Now, none of this should stop me from investing in 'unregulated' paper (wealthy folks are allowed to do so now). But then its me against the likes of AIG when they go under and I realize that their CDSs were not worth the paper they were printed on. But that's my choice.

I should also be able to buy a car with a gov't stamp of safety, ensuring me that it has the requisite seatbelts, airbags and other crap installed to protect me. But I should also be able to buy a Tata Nano, which doesn't meet gov't safety standards. The nanny state proponents will claim that I must be protected from myself. But I can always go out and buy a motorcycle and put myself at even greater risk.

--
Paul Hovnanian  paul@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

There's another side to that which nobody likes to discuss: Generate as much loan paper as possible. You've got all the creditworthy people borrowing up to their eyeballs? Fine, now get the marginal deals on the table.

The problem with the industry is that the people applying the pressure have an out. The CDO market was designed to split the risk off of the income, allowing them to buy the income and let the banks and other suckers try to unload the risk. Bond rating agencies and AIG were recruited to create methods for making this crap look good, just to keep the machine running.

If bankruptcy judges were allowed to call back and renegotiate mortgage paper (They can't. Mortgages have a special exemption under bankruptcy law.), we could spread the pain across all parties involved. But nobody dares ask who walked away with the low risk slices of all these deals.

--
Paul Hovnanian  paul@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

On May 19, 9:07=A0am, Charlie E. wrote: [... how the economy got into a mess ...]

Yes I agree but this hasn't stopped those who made the bigger part of the mess from pointing at one small part and calling it the whole thing.

Those unable to pay were often (I certainly don't claim always) deceived into believing that they could. Those writing the mortgages were payed on the basis of quantity not quality. The results were that the quality of the loans were generally worse from year to year. The rating agencies didn't include this fact in their ratings.

I read both of my current mortgages from cover to cover. It took me nearly an hour to do it. I don't read super fast at the best of times but some of the wording needed several rereadings.

Yes and she was certainly at least largely to blame for her personal plight. She, however, is not to blame for the loan company getting into trouble by writing a lot of bad loans. She maybe cost the economy a few 100K. The guy who was on the other side of that table likely cost the economy millions.

The "no recourse" loans would never have been made in earlier times. That companies were willing to take that huge risk says something about the management of those companies.

Reply to
MooseFET

Eh, it's a pretty standard Anarchist polemic. Those arguments made sense to me when I was a teenager, but they seem quite naive to me now.

--
    W
  . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because
   \\|/  \\|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to
Bob Larter

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.