|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In my first post, I said that if your tax rate decreases from 15 percent to 10 percent, that's a 33% decrease in your tax obligation. You disagreed. I was right. You were wrong. You see, "10" is a number that is exactly 33.33 percent less than "15". I'm glad you are not my accountant. You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds... |
:fence::lurk:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now certainly when earnings are up it's possible to see an uptick in net revenues with lower rates, but there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated. You could also argue that tax incentives for lower brackets are much more likely to be pushed back into the economy than those at the top who will just park it long-term. It's not like we're talking about a massive restructuring of the tax code that could cause a shift in how people invest, this is just an increase back to about where things were 10 years ago when I seem to remember the economy doing quite well. Besides, businesses (bigger) have tons of cash right now...a lack of money at the top isn't the problem with the economy. Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. Any potential gain from stimulative effects has to be balanced against the increasing costs of servicing that debt. I think the fair question for Obama would be, if you're going to argue the rich need to pay more because we can't afford it, why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses? Quote:
It's going to be fun watching the incoming Republicans play with the old guard. -spence |
Spence -
"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues " So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that... "there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated." You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress. "those at the top who will just park it long-term." Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump. "why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?" Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend... " I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs." When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns. Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him. Good, fair, probing questions. |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;808490]Spence -
"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues " this is because they already have the money spent that they were planning on getting when the tax cuts expire, so in their minds they are "losing money" the same way that they raced to spend the supposed budget surplus projections at the end of the Clinton admin. before the surplus ever even materialized..... they need to be cut off like addicts |
Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.
The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease. The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent. The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6". The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease. |
Sorry, meant to say that the tax cuts "if maintained in full" will cause a lack in revenues that's currently not planned for.
-spence |
Quote:
Fact is you make it seem like the US Gov't is doing big favors to those in the low bracket. We all know the tax code favors those with wealth. I was at a tax seminar in Sept where this tax attorney from Chicago coud not believe George Steinbrenner and this oil baron from TX died in 2010 and their estates paid ZERO TAX! BTW estate tax in '11 reaches 55% on top end. I lost 2 blue collar uncles this year and they also paid ZERO ESTATE TAX(and would have paid zero in '09 and '11) I guess that is the same benefit huh? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously people can't spend if they don't have any money, but what they do with it and the time of the benefits isn't an easy equation. Quote:
Quote:
Don't see a lot of difference between the two in practice. Quote:
Ultimately, it's probably more a matter of good management over ideology. Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It must suck to have so much hate"QUOTE great strategy :uhuh: |
Quote:
I believe in a progressive tax system, I believe the wealthiest SHOULD of course pay more, and in our current system, they do. If our system gets any more progressive, we become an awful lot like socialist europe, and all of those countries are facing collapse. I guess we just disagree, and I apologize for throwing my career choice in yoru face, that was uncalled for. |
[QUOTE=scottw;808555]
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are we also still WELL below the % (I think, I'm not a CPA or Actuary) of tax from pre-Clinton? (including the Regan years that had a higher tax % even without the Bush tax 'cuts'?) I thought I remember hearing in the same piece that in the 50's the tax % was over 50% for upper income, so it seems we've come a long way to benefit everyone, including the upper 1% of the population, no? |
Quote:
Hunted trout all weekend... gotta catch up on the nonsense in here. |
Quote:
Seems to me that he's pointing out what he does for a living to explain his point. I'd consider an actuary a subject matter expert when it comes to tax discussions. Do you think RIRockhound is being pretentious when he's explaining things having to do with science? To me, he's an SME because of what he does for a living. |
Quote:
"Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media....." As soon as I hear "every single" anything and I know its not true, I tend to tune that person out. Sorry, but I hate "SME". |
Quote:
No, he didn't lose credibility with me. I understand when someone uses a statement like that which although is hyperbole, it's not expected to be taken literally. I don't blame you for hating SME's. Experts can be annoying when they know more about a topic than you.:grins: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Jim if you are such a tax expert why do you need an accountant? Obviously you are an internet tax expert. I I want an opinion on a DB plan's unfunded obligation or whatever you call it - then you'll get a call. |
Quote:
hope it fares better than "man caused disasters"...a term that most aptly describes Obama Jim, don't worry about these clowns, when they start insulting you at the end of an argument it means they lost miserably on substance and they hope you'll go away so you won't be around to continue to prove them wrong...note that the quality of the insults were pretty pathetic and unintelligible in JD's case...which isn't unusual it's a little sad that you even have to explain some of these things |
Quote:
I can be smug too, and I need to work on it, because it takes away from the dialogue. I just got pretty frustrated when a CPA tried to pull, WHAT I THOUGHT WAS, some numeric "slight-of-hand" on me. Posting my profession wasn't bragging (being a number cruncher isn't exactly a line I use at singles bars), I said that to establish that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to math, finance, and statistics. I concede that not "every single democrat" said the cuts only benefitted the rich. I was using hyperbole to illustrate the point, and only one or two of you took that literally. |
they only took it literally because there was no other argument they could make.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The stone age has been over for 5000+ years! |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com