Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Arrogant Rich People: Taxation, Income Disparity, and the Shrinking Middle Class

13536373840

Posts

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I 'came out, guns blazing' in order to provoke the thread into moving in a more rigorous direction than suggesting the implausible scenario of government collapse over and over again. Or carelessly invoking naive utilitarianism.

    I cited Yglesias because criticism of any half-baked argument offered here risks being confused with stealth right-wing attacks on progressive taxation in general, so I offered a quote from a well-known liberal blogger. You with the academic background may have more subtlety, but you're not the only one here, and we do have right-wing concern trolls occasionally wandering into D&D. I think there was one earlier in this thread.

    And since I've gotten someone to mention Rawls for the first time in 63 pages, my work is done. :P

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    How much did the ultra rich pay in taxes last year? How many Blackwater personal security detachments could they have had for that price?

    I actually agree with tinwhiskers on this point--money is power, and it's doubtful that the utlrarich would suffer the most were the government to provide fewer, or worse services. We can look at countries like the Philippines to see this, where wealth is fantastically concentrated into the hands of a few families that own the country, while the rest live in abject poverty. Those families get by just fine.

    But, of course, I don't think that we need to justify wealth redistribution on a fee-for-services model.

    A complete dissolution of government probably wouldn't affect the ultra-rich too adversely. But it would likely affect the people who become ultra-rich in the future. If we had gone post-apocalyptic 100 years ago, Bill Gates wouldn't be one of the wealthiest Americans right now.

    How would the ultra-rich remain ultra-rich when the most dominant economic stabilizing force and most dominant security stabilizing force in the world goes away?

    How much money is $1 worth if there's no such thing as a dollar?

    A total dissolution of government would have the potential to seriously fuck everyone, regardless of wealth. Its a very unlikely scenario so the entire conversation starts to get kind of silly when you have to base long arguments on it.

    Yeah, everyone would be screwed. But those who have the most material assets would be in the best position to be in power. On a micro-level, you'd have the people who can physically beat the fuck out of you in charge. On a larger scale, though, the guys who have huge mansions and a fleet of cars would be in a better situation than most. Crazy libertarians who have arsenals stashed in their cellars would be in pretty good shape, too.

    People who were extremely wealthy but had few material assets would be boned, though.

    I tend to disagree there.

    People in mansions are going to do great.... for about 5 minutes or until their servants realise they can take over, wichever comes first. In a dog eat dog world the rich have nothing special to offer, they have no skill that others can't replicate just as well. There is no reason they should be able to hold on to their position.

    Libertarian would do well up until, people start getting organised again. Then they would either have to change their tune or become surplus to requirements.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • The ScribeThe Scribe Registered User
    edited November 2009
    jack eddy wrote: »
    This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.

    Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans.

    The Scribe on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The Scribe wrote: »
    jack eddy wrote: »
    This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.

    Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans.

    Luxury car taxes are one of the nicer types of taxation in the world. I'm against sales taxes because they indiscriminately temper everything. I mean, I have to pay motherfucking GST on buying chemicals for academic research. Why? Why at all? It's like a mini-cycle of government money.

    electricitylikesme on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The Scribe wrote: »
    jack eddy wrote: »
    This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.

    Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans.

    It's not easy to identify unambiguously luxury goods, though. There is the persistent issue that most luxury goods have close non-luxury substitutes (in other words, that there are often fairly similar cheap knockoffs of stuff). So when these are heavily taxed, people shift towards the substitutes and tax revenue becomes hard to get.

    Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    ronya wrote: »
    The Scribe wrote: »
    jack eddy wrote: »
    This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.

    Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans.

    It's not easy to identify unambiguously luxury goods, though. There is the persistent issue that most luxury goods have close non-luxury substitutes (in other words, that there are often fairly similar cheap knockoffs of stuff). So when these are heavily taxed, people shift towards the substitutes and tax revenue becomes hard to get.

    Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity.

    What with everyone claiming they are middle-class, come hell or high water.

    Person A: I'm still working on paying off my third helicopter, but I have enough for a family vacation in Caracas! I'm middle-class!

    Person B: I lost my home and am living off food-stamps. Middle class here too!

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Synthesis wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    The Scribe wrote: »
    jack eddy wrote: »
    This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.

    Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans.

    It's not easy to identify unambiguously luxury goods, though. There is the persistent issue that most luxury goods have close non-luxury substitutes (in other words, that there are often fairly similar cheap knockoffs of stuff). So when these are heavily taxed, people shift towards the substitutes and tax revenue becomes hard to get.

    Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity.

    What with everyone claiming they are middle-class, come hell or high water.

    Person A: I'm still working on paying off my third helicopter, but I have enough for a family vacation in Caracas! I'm middle-class!

    Person B: I lost my home and am living off food-stamps. Middle class here too!

    Yeah, basically unless you're homeless begging for change at an off-ramp or Bill Gates, you're middle class.

    Bill, on the other hand, is upper middle class.

    mcdermott on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    The Scribe wrote: »
    jack eddy wrote: »
    This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.

    Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans.

    It's not easy to identify unambiguously luxury goods, though. There is the persistent issue that most luxury goods have close non-luxury substitutes (in other words, that there are often fairly similar cheap knockoffs of stuff). So when these are heavily taxed, people shift towards the substitutes and tax revenue becomes hard to get.

    Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity.

    What with everyone claiming they are middle-class, come hell or high water.

    Person A: I'm still working on paying off my third helicopter, but I have enough for a family vacation in Caracas! I'm middle-class!

    Person B: I lost my home and am living off food-stamps. Middle class here too!

    Yeah, basically unless you're homeless begging for change at an off-ramp or Bill Gates, you're middle class.

    Bill, on the other hand, is upper middle class.

    Anyone who wants something they cannot have, claims they're not upper class.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Cantido wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity.

    What with everyone claiming they are middle-class, come hell or high water.

    Person A: I'm still working on paying off my third helicopter, but I have enough for a family vacation in Caracas! I'm middle-class!

    Person B: I lost my home and am living off food-stamps. Middle class here too!

    Yeah, basically unless you're homeless begging for change at an off-ramp or Bill Gates, you're middle class.

    Bill, on the other hand, is upper middle class.

    Anyone who wants something they cannot have, claims they're not upper class.

    The orthodox account I was taught was that American historical factors have made cultural institutions much stronger and cross-class than class divisions, but reading this I'm wondering whether it's just an utter absence of class consciousness.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    ronya wrote: »
    The orthodox account I was taught was that American historical factors have made cultural institutions much stronger and cross-class than class divisions, but reading this I'm wondering whether it's just an utter absence of class consciousness.

    Lack of class consciousness, along with a severely distorted perception of class mobility, certainly plays a significant role.

    EDIT: Basically 90% of the country thinks they are middle class, and 90% of those think they might one day be upper class.

    mcdermott on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    EDIT: Basically 90% of the country thinks they are middle class, and 90% of those think they might one day be upper class.
    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/793/inside-the-middle-class
    Some 53% of adults in America say they are middle class. On key measures of well-being -- income, wealth, health, optimism about the future -- they tend to fall between those who identify with classes above and below them. But within this self-defined middle class, there are notable economic and demographic differences. For example, four-in-ten Americans with incomes below $20,000 say they are middle class, as do a third of those with incomes above $150,000. And about the same percentages of blacks (50%), Hispanics (54%) and whites (53%) self-identify as middle class, even though members of minority groups who say they are middle class have far less income and wealth than do whites who say they are middle class.

    Couscous on
  • BuddiesBuddies Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    How much did the ultra rich pay in taxes last year? How many Blackwater personal security detachments could they have had for that price?

    I actually agree with tinwhiskers on this point--money is power, and it's doubtful that the utlrarich would suffer the most were the government to provide fewer, or worse services. We can look at countries like the Philippines to see this, where wealth is fantastically concentrated into the hands of a few families that own the country, while the rest live in abject poverty. Those families get by just fine.

    But, of course, I don't think that we need to justify wealth redistribution on a fee-for-services model.

    A complete dissolution of government probably wouldn't affect the ultra-rich too adversely. But it would likely affect the people who become ultra-rich in the future. If we had gone post-apocalyptic 100 years ago, Bill Gates wouldn't be one of the wealthiest Americans right now.

    How would the ultra-rich remain ultra-rich when the most dominant economic stabilizing force and most dominant security stabilizing force in the world goes away?

    How much money is $1 worth if there's no such thing as a dollar?

    A total dissolution of government would have the potential to seriously fuck everyone, regardless of wealth. Its a very unlikely scenario so the entire conversation starts to get kind of silly when you have to base long arguments on it.

    Yeah, everyone would be screwed. But those who have the most material assets would be in the best position to be in power. On a micro-level, you'd have the people who can physically beat the fuck out of you in charge. On a larger scale, though, the guys who have huge mansions and a fleet of cars would be in a better situation than most. Crazy libertarians who have arsenals stashed in their cellars would be in pretty good shape, too.

    People who were extremely wealthy but had few material assets would be boned, though.

    I tend to disagree there.

    People in mansions are going to do great.... for about 5 minutes or until their servants realise they can take over, wichever comes first. In a dog eat dog world the rich have nothing special to offer, they have no skill that others can't replicate just as well. There is no reason they should be able to hold on to their position.

    Libertarian would do well up until, people start getting organised again. Then they would either have to change their tune or become surplus to requirements.

    You underestimate the power of fear and loyalty. They surely would have attempts on their life, but their "Servents" would not rise up against them. Drug Lords are not overthrown every week, neither would these hypothetical people.

    And the attitude that if Rich people don't like it, then they can get the hell out needs to be squashed. Wouldn't that be great if all Rich people got tired of the high rate of taxes and just all moved out of the country? No, that would suck cause then all social programs would cease to exist and the country would fall into ruin.

    That isn't to say that we should pander to the rich and keep them happy, but to tax as much as we can without pissing them off long enough to make them leave.

    And im skeptical that there is a line where sales tax will both create enough tax revenue to support the government and not make those items so expensive that it's not seen as worth buying.

    Buddies on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2009
    We'll never tax the rich to the point that they start to leave en masse, because we'd still have taxes well below almost any other developed nation.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited November 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    We'll never tax the rich to the point that they start to leave en masse, because we'd still have taxes well below almost any other developed nation.

    Also: opening a bank account in the Caymans is not the same thing as "being forced out of the country due to authoritarian redistibution". It's not retreating to Galt's Gulch in order to spite the parasites.

    It's just tax evasion.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Buddies wrote: »
    And im skeptical that there is a line where sales tax will both create enough tax revenue to support the government and not make those items so expensive that it's not seen as worth buying.

    Oh hey, a chart:

    707pxuktaxessvg1.png

    This is for the UK, which does have both a value-added sales tax and an income tax.

    So yes it's possible to have a reasonable sales tax that contributes a large chunk of government revenue.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Buddies wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »

    I tend to disagree there.

    People in mansions are going to do great.... for about 5 minutes or until their servants realise they can take over, wichever comes first. In a dog eat dog world the rich have nothing special to offer, they have no skill that others can't replicate just as well. There is no reason they should be able to hold on to their position.

    Libertarian would do well up until, people start getting organised again. Then they would either have to change their tune or become surplus to requirements.

    You underestimate the power of fear and loyalty. They surely would have attempts on their life, but their "Servents" would not rise up against them. Drug Lords are not overthrown every week, neither would these hypothetical people.

    And the attitude that if Rich people don't like it, then they can get the hell out needs to be squashed. Wouldn't that be great if all Rich people got tired of the high rate of taxes and just all moved out of the country? No, that would suck cause then all social programs would cease to exist and the country would fall into ruin.

    That isn't to say that we should pander to the rich and keep them happy, but to tax as much as we can without pissing them off long enough to make them leave.

    And im skeptical that there is a line where sales tax will both create enough tax revenue to support the government and not make those items so expensive that it's not seen as worth buying.

    Drug lords are a perfect example of the kind of people that would rise up in a dog eat dog world. Criminals organise according to ethnic, geographical and familiy loyalty, punctuated with grusom violence towards outsiders and transgressors. This is the perfect survival system in a post-appocalyptic world.

    Regular rich people are not part of such a network. Paris Hilton? 5 seconds.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Buddies wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »

    I tend to disagree there.

    People in mansions are going to do great.... for about 5 minutes or until their servants realise they can take over, wichever comes first. In a dog eat dog world the rich have nothing special to offer, they have no skill that others can't replicate just as well. There is no reason they should be able to hold on to their position.

    Libertarian would do well up until, people start getting organised again. Then they would either have to change their tune or become surplus to requirements.

    You underestimate the power of fear and loyalty. They surely would have attempts on their life, but their "Servents" would not rise up against them. Drug Lords are not overthrown every week, neither would these hypothetical people.

    And the attitude that if Rich people don't like it, then they can get the hell out needs to be squashed. Wouldn't that be great if all Rich people got tired of the high rate of taxes and just all moved out of the country? No, that would suck cause then all social programs would cease to exist and the country would fall into ruin.

    That isn't to say that we should pander to the rich and keep them happy, but to tax as much as we can without pissing them off long enough to make them leave.

    And im skeptical that there is a line where sales tax will both create enough tax revenue to support the government and not make those items so expensive that it's not seen as worth buying.

    Drug lords are a perfect example of the kind of people that would rise up in a dog eat dog world. Criminals organise according to ethnic, geographical and familiy loyalty, punctuated with grusom violence towards outsiders and transgressors. This is the perfect survival system in a post-appocalyptic world.

    Regular rich people are not part of such a network. Paris Hilton? 5 seconds.

    However, their turnover rate is higher...

    Slider on
  • rockmonkeyrockmonkey Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    So we all agree a progressive tax system is what is needed in part (as far as income tax goes) for our current society.

    The argument is now what to change. We all agree that we obviously need MORE tax revenue, and we all seem to agree that (depsite why we agree) the rich are the best capable of baring this burden.

    So do we leave the current tax brackets where they are at and add new tax brackets to the upper end? Meaning, we create an upper bound on the 35% bracket instead of "and up" and create new brackets above 35%.
    How many new bracket(s)? At what %?

    Is income the only place to hit? should we take a look at the cap gains rate? just raise it? restructure the way cap gains are taxed?

    Lets leave inheritence tax alone for awhile.

    rockmonkey on
    NEWrockzomb80.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    We mostly need to make the capital gains tax more on par with income tax, at the moment, and to work on closing as many loopholes as possible.

    Incenjucar on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Drug lords are a perfect example of the kind of people that would rise up in a dog eat dog world. Criminals organise according to ethnic, geographical and familiy loyalty, punctuated with grusom violence towards outsiders and transgressors. This is the perfect survival system in a post-appocalyptic world.

    Regular rich people are not part of such a network. Paris Hilton? 5 seconds.

    A post-Federal-Government-collapse USA would look a lot more like modern Mexico than a hypothetical drug-lord-dominated wasteland, I venture.

    There is a wide range of affairs between a modern liberal state and a failed state - crony capitalism, for instance. And yes there are vapid rich heiresses in such a world, just as there were vapid rich aristocrats in a very much more violent medieval era, and vapid rich heiresses in existing kleptocratic or unstable states.

    But I reiterate that detailing such scenarios has little to do with taxation.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • rockmonkeyrockmonkey Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    ronya wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Drug lords are a perfect example of the kind of people that would rise up in a dog eat dog world. Criminals organise according to ethnic, geographical and familiy loyalty, punctuated with grusom violence towards outsiders and transgressors. This is the perfect survival system in a post-appocalyptic world.

    Regular rich people are not part of such a network. Paris Hilton? 5 seconds.

    A post-Federal-Government-collapse USA would look a lot more like modern Mexico than a hypothetical drug-lord-dominated wasteland, I venture.

    There is a wide range of affairs between a modern liberal state and a failed state - crony capitalism, for instance. And yes there are vapid rich heiresses in such a world, just as there were vapid rich aristocrats in a very much more violent medieval era, and vapid rich heiresses in existing kleptocratic or unstable states.

    But I reiterate that detailing such scenarios has little to do with taxation.

    and the whole thing just makes me think of Snow Crash and how it's society is structured.

    rockmonkey on
    NEWrockzomb80.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    We mostly need to make the capital gains tax more on par with income tax, at the moment, and to work on closing as many loopholes as possible.

    Yeah arguing about marginal tax rates is stupid

    most wealthy people are making cash off of capital gains not income

    with the bush tax cuts long-term capitals gain are only taxed 15% as opposed to the 35% highest marginal rate. that's how the "boss get taxed like % than his secretary" meme got started

    nexuscrawler on
  • rockmonkeyrockmonkey Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Slightly off-center from the topic, but just for clarity in our tax argument... What is considered middle class? Where are the boundries that drop into lower class or rise into upper class? I mean I have my opinions but is there a generally accepted income level? (its more complicated then just income, but that's the easiest way to divide the classes).

    rockmonkey on
    NEWrockzomb80.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I'd say 34k - 82k which is the 25% bracket

    varies way too much by area to really tell though

    nexuscrawler on
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    We mostly need to make the capital gains tax more on par with income tax, at the moment, and to work on closing as many loopholes as possible.

    Yeah arguing about marginal tax rates is stupid

    most wealthy people are making cash off of capital gains not income

    with the bush tax cuts long-term capitals gain are only taxed 15% as opposed to the 35% highest marginal rate. that's how the "boss get taxed like % than his secretary" meme got started

    Capital gains should just be counted as income, or automatically be taxed at the highest marginal rate.

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I can't see a way to easily produce a table, so I just grabbed a screenshot off what looks like a good summary on Wikipedia:

    middleclass.png

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited November 2009
    Capital gains should just be counted as income, or automatically be taxed at the highest marginal rate.
    It's not that simple.

    Say you buy stock worth $1,000 in 1999 and sell it in 2009 for $2,000. You've gained $1,000 from your original investment, but considering inflation, etc. how much of that is really profit? It might even be a loss, despite the larger number attached to the sale value.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I say we just copy and paste the capital gains tax under Clinton then, stocks seemed to fine under him

    override367 on
  • rockmonkeyrockmonkey Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I say we just copy and paste the capital gains tax under Clinton then, stocks seemed to fine under him

    I think that would be the right direction. start with that, adjust for inflation or what have you and then revisit it in 2 years and argue over what changes need to be made.

    rockmonkey on
    NEWrockzomb80.jpg
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    long term capital gains tax rate previous to 2003 was 20%. Now it's 15%.

    It really is just fine at 20%

    geckahn on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I say we just copy and paste the capital gains tax under Clinton then, stocks seemed to fine under him

    :lol: As if the stock market is an end and not a means.

    mrt144 on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Actually we should copy a hell of alot of what Clinton did, you know, back when parts of the US weren't rapidly becoming a third world country
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I say we just copy and paste the capital gains tax under Clinton then, stocks seemed to fine under him

    :lol: As if the stock market is an end and not a means.


    What was the deficit like under clinton? That's right.

    override367 on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Actually we shoudl copy a hell of alot of what Clinton did, you know, back when parts of the US weren't rapidly becoming a third world country
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I say we just copy and paste the capital gains tax under Clinton then, stocks seemed to fine under him

    :lol: As if the stock market is an end and not a means.


    What was the deficit like under clinton? That's right.

    So stock market bubbles are good because they reduce the deficit? Are you for real?

    If you go through the data, you'll see that the outlays and the delta yoy is much more important to deficits than revenue. During Clinton the outlays didn't change that much.

    And you should look into the Federal Budget process.

    mrt144 on
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited November 2009
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Capital gains should just be counted as income, or automatically be taxed at the highest marginal rate.
    It's not that simple.

    Say you buy stock worth $1,000 in 1999 and sell it in 2009 for $2,000. You've gained $1,000 from your original investment, but considering inflation, etc. how much of that is really profit? It might even be a loss, despite the larger number attached to the sale value.

    Can index it for inflation too. As it currently stands it just means that a rich investment banker pays a lower % than I do, which is fucked up.

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • jhunter46jhunter46 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The current income tax system is far to broken to salvage. If you want to tax someone's income, don't tax what they make, tax what they spend.

    A federal sales tax of lets say, 10% on everything but groceries and medicine should cover it.

    jhunter46 on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    The current income tax system is far to broken to salvage. If you want to tax someone's income, don't tax what they make, tax what they spend.

    A federal sales tax of lets say, 10% on everything but groceries and medicine should cover it.

    Do people with higher incomes spend a larger proportion of their income on taxable goods or do they reinvest a significant portion of that?

    mrt144 on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Wich will fuck over the poor since they spend a larger part of their income on such nessecities as Gasoline, clothes and other stuff.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • jhunter46jhunter46 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    mrt144 wrote: »
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    The current income tax system is far to broken to salvage. If you want to tax someone's income, don't tax what they make, tax what they spend.

    A federal sales tax of lets say, 10% on everything but groceries and medicine should cover it.

    Do people with higher incomes spend a larger proportion of their income on taxable goods or do they reinvest a significant portion of that?

    They're going to either buy more goods or buy more expensive goods, either way you're making it up in volume or over all costs.

    jhunter46 on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    The current income tax system is far to broken to salvage. If you want to tax someone's income, don't tax what they make, tax what they spend.

    A federal sales tax of lets say, 10% on everything but groceries and medicine should cover it.

    Do people with higher incomes spend a larger proportion of their income on taxable goods or do they reinvest a significant portion of that?

    They're going to either buy more goods or buy more expensive goods, either way you're making it up in volume or over all costs.

    Except price/volume doesn't scale in a linear fashion.

    mrt144 on
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    We mostly need to make the capital gains tax more on par with income tax, at the moment, and to work on closing as many loopholes as possible.

    Specifically corporate tax loopholes. I glanced at an article a week or so ago saying Obama's plan to investigate some tax havens for corporations is being held up and may not happen due to some lobbying. weeeeee

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Sign In or Register to comment.