Sponsored

Why do the tax brackets end at ~600k?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HoosierDaddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Threads
232
Messages
3,373
Reaction score
7,131
Location
Winchestertonfieldville (ok, Scottsdale), AZ
First Name
Randy
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT Premium PP
I'm not proposing confiscation of wealth. I'm proposing creating a new bracket for income above $500k annually of around 45%.
Wait, I'm confused. You are saying taxes aren't confiscation? Was always under the impression if I didn't pay my taxes the govt would come and get it.
Sponsored

 

Weather Man

Persistance is a Bitch
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Threads
7
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
1,032
Location
MN
Vehicle(s)
2015 I4 T Prem Auto
You're proposing trickle down economics, that when taxes rise the 1% won't invest.

We aren't anywhere near the effective points of trickle down tax cuts. The original theory based on the Laffer curve said that this theory only works if the tax brackets are between 60 (debatable between 50-70) -100%. Trickle down economics was proposed at a time with the highest bracket was 70% cutting to 50%, then to 38.5%. The highest bracket today is 37%. There's room to go up and not infringe upon trickle down economics.

It was also simultaneously introduced with a massive tax-payer funded spending spree by the government jump starting the economy..
No, what I am saying is that if you earn it, you deserve to keep it. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

Who gives a crap if you think what anybody earns is fair or not. The only measuring stick for that is how successful the company is. If a company is failing and the top guy makes big money, the stockholders should rightfully hold the board responsible.

The only rule that matters is that the more you tax anything the less you get. FACT. It is far far better to have reasonable tax rates that people will pay versus what is currently going on in the E.U.

But, a guy who supports wealth confiscation is a true socialist/communist, so pretty hopeless to apply any sort of logic to that kind of person. Socialists and communists have stacked corpses to the moon and back and people still seduced by the siren song of "income equality"
 

rick81721

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Threads
7
Messages
1,114
Reaction score
640
Location
Venice, FL and Flemington, NJ
First Name
Rick
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350 LB H6153
My website and discussion included both. The numbers are off between your source and mine. It appears they both scale them per different metrics.

I'm not proposing confiscation of wealth. I'm proposing closing loopholes, taking down tax shelters, and creating a new bracket for income above $500k annually of around 45%.
Good luck with your proposal. Will do nothing for wealth inequality and generate little additional tax revenue.
 
OP
OP
LMS5400

LMS5400

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
67
Reaction score
10
Location
Berkeley
First Name
Jon
Vehicle(s)
Soon to be Mustang owner!
Its really a function of demand and salary. SF Bay area pays the most and so you have a huge group of people driving the cost of up. Increasing the minimum wage is just an attempt to keep up with that for the working class. Its a side effect, not a cause.

Also, $15 in the minimum wage here, not 12.
 
OP
OP
LMS5400

LMS5400

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
67
Reaction score
10
Location
Berkeley
First Name
Jon
Vehicle(s)
Soon to be Mustang owner!
That's cute but also shows your lack of real world knowledge. Might be your age, dunno.

Small businesses by in LARGE borrow which means capital has to be available.
Now I'm you young to understand trickle down economics? -- you're right, about that! I don't understand it :)
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
LMS5400

LMS5400

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
67
Reaction score
10
Location
Berkeley
First Name
Jon
Vehicle(s)
Soon to be Mustang owner!
Just keep spitting out the lefty talking points, you'll feel all warm and fuzzy. Your grasp of real world business economics is a funhouse mirror look at what actually happens. It is really simple actually, as long as their are more of people like me than you, America does fine. When there are more people like you than me, we get to see how long the zoo's can keep their animals off the menu. Took ten years in Venezuela to go from prosperous to no toilet paper.
I like you man.

When the zoo's let animals go, I'll give you some Xanax so you don't worry about the billionaires losing too many extra millions and only being able to buy 20 Paganis insead of 25. That would keep me up at night too man, not gonna lie. If they don't own ever color that the Pagani comes in, I don't know what I would do with myself. Maybe they will get their way and a vote can be bought one day and we'll masquerade it as "freedom of speech," then we don't have to worry at all! The rich will save us from our own dumb selves.
 

Jetnoise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Threads
21
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
339
Location
Raleigh NC
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT Premium PP1, 70 Shaker Mach 1 stroker, 1967 F/B 357W, 1968 302 Vert, 4I 85 5.0 B&M Blower
Here's a 1% 'r and his take on the subject



And another 1%'r
 

Weather Man

Persistance is a Bitch
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Threads
7
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
1,032
Location
MN
Vehicle(s)
2015 I4 T Prem Auto
I like you man.

When the zoo's let animals go, I'll give you some Xanax so you don't worry about the billionaires losing too many extra millions and only being able to buy 20 Paganis insead of 25. That would keep me up at night too man, not gonna lie. If they don't own ever color that the Pagani comes in, I don't know what I would do with myself. Maybe they will get their way and a vote can be bought one day and we'll masquerade it as "freedom of speech," then we don't have to worry at all! The rich will save us from our own dumb selves.
What you fail to see is that you don't get just a little income redistribution with socialists/communists in charge. No, you get the whole kit and caboodle and pretty soon you don't have to worry about have's and have not's because nobody will have a pot to piss in.
 

Docscurlock

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Threads
17
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
780
Location
Florida
First Name
Doc
Vehicle(s)
2020 GT500, 2019 Roushcharged F150, 2016 GT350R, 2013 Boss 302LS, 2009 GT/CS, 2000 Cobra R, 1995 Cobra R
Vehicle Showcase
2
Now I'm you young to understand trickle down economics? -- you're right, about that! I don't understand it :)
How about hypocrisy? Driving that fancy car while there are homeless people in your very own city with only the clothes on their back. You've failed to counter my point when you poke fun at trickle down economics and rail against the 1% because your lunch costs $15. What I see now is disgusting, the democratic nominees are on stage frothing at the mouth promising to redistribute wealth that does not belong to them and the young (and some old) people are digging right in like a pack of dogs at a gutpile. Would be humorous if it wasn't so sad. Do you want to be a man and stand on your own two feet and try and accomplish something for yourself or a dog with your muzzle in the gutpile of hardworking Americans?
 

BlackandBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Threads
17
Messages
886
Reaction score
849
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
Now I'm you young to understand trickle down economics? -- you're right, about that! I don't understand it :)
I will never understand your ignorance. It might even be stupidity.

California has the highest poverty rate in the nation.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/406595-california-has-highest-poverty-rate-in-us-feds

So the most liberal state has the highest rate of being unable to take care of its most vulnerable. Ok got it.

Oh and California also has the most billionaires.

So let’s recap. Most liberal state with extremely high taxes with highest poverty rate with the most billionaires wants to make sure it’s failed system is the template for the whole nation.

Say this out loud. No politician will ever make me wealthy.
 

Sponsored

Docscurlock

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Threads
17
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
780
Location
Florida
First Name
Doc
Vehicle(s)
2020 GT500, 2019 Roushcharged F150, 2016 GT350R, 2013 Boss 302LS, 2009 GT/CS, 2000 Cobra R, 1995 Cobra R
Vehicle Showcase
2
I will never understand your ignorance. It might even be stupidity.

California has the highest poverty rate in the nation.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/406595-california-has-highest-poverty-rate-in-us-feds

So the most liberal state has the highest rate of being unable to take care of its most vulnerable. Ok got it.

Oh and California also has the most billionaires.

So let’s recap. Most liberal state with extremely high taxes with highest poverty rate with the most billionaires wants to make sure it’s failed system is the template for the whole nation.

Say this out loud. No politician will ever make me wealthy.
The ideas that come out of California are so stupid, it is hard to take anyone's opinion seriously. The OP's idea of wealth distribution make so little sense, I can only believe he is trolling.
 

BlackandBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Threads
17
Messages
886
Reaction score
849
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
The ideas that come out of California are so stupid, it is hard to take anyone's opinion seriously. The OP's idea of wealth distribution make so little sense, I can only believe he is trolling.
Sadly I don’t believe he understands what he believes in. He knows he is poor. He knows he has little chance of ever accumulating wealth. He doesn’t believe in hard work or sacrifice. This inevitably leads him to believe taking from other to make up for his short comings is the only way.

I don’t necessary blame him for believing this. To truly understand what the problems with income inequality require a much high IQ than is available to him. He has been indoctrinated to believe these policies will make his life better. Just read the Washington post. A newspaper owned by a man that has the most to gain from redistribution policies.
 

kluke15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Threads
45
Messages
808
Reaction score
372
Location
Reno, NV
First Name
Kenny
Vehicle(s)
2017 Mustang GTPP
this is how i view taxes and cuts...

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
 

BlackandBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Threads
17
Messages
886
Reaction score
849
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
this is how i view taxes and cuts...

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
Absolutely excellent analogy. Some refer to this as the golden goose. Others refer to this as the state of Illinois.
 
OP
OP
LMS5400

LMS5400

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
67
Reaction score
10
Location
Berkeley
First Name
Jon
Vehicle(s)
Soon to be Mustang owner!
I don't get it.

f(x, y) = amount you pay.

x = income
y = cost of the total bill

So changed between 1. f(x, 100) and 2. f(x, 80) ?

Its same damn function!

Sounds like the only thing proven here are the 10 men are idiots. Also the greater flaw is this is the cost of goods rather than a tax on them. If we normalized the cost of goods per income it would eliminated weath entirely. I think we can all reject that idea.


:\
Sponsored

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 




Top