America has been doing income taxes wrong for more than 50 years.

All Americans, including the rich, would be better off if top tax rates went back to Eisenhower-era levels when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent, according to a new working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22...24430.html

Let's say we do what they propose and impose a 90% tax on all incomes above $406,000. Guess what, all of a sudden, nobody makes more than $405,999. Nobody really needs more than that to live, so they can leave the rest untouched to accumulate in entities that are taxed at lower rates or not taxed at all or taxed in foreign jurisdictions where the rates are lower.

The interesting thing in this regard is that the world economic community is starting to crack down, in about the only way they can. They're starting to shut down things like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich by requiring that profits be recognized and taxed in the jurisdiction where the value added work is done. Companies currently using tax dodges to do the work one place and recognize the profits somewhere else with lower taxes will have decisions to make, do they move the work (and jobs) to the place where the taxes are lower, or will they move the revenue recognition to the place where the taxes are higher? That's way over in slam dunk land.

How can I predict that result? Simple, because that's what's happening now. And if it's happening at today's lower rates, what reason is there to believe that it won't happen even more at higher rates?

This is what I can't understand about the left. On the one hand, they rail against businesses for moving jobs overseas where taxes are lower, costs are lower, and regulation is less intense. On the other hand, they act as if higher taxes, higher costs, and more intense regulation won't make the matter worse? Lefties, how does that work.

Stop giving away everyone's money to undeserving countries and spending on really stupid research grants and inflating green technology contracts. We lose Trillions to wasteful political cronyism fraud. Put tax money to use that works for every Americans benefit. Not just a certain group that never try to contribute anything except wasting money and peoples time.

Then why don't you pay 90% of what you make Fit?

Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania, we will start the 90% tax right at what your income level is.

How about they just tax the democrats 90%.

(10-22-2014 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's say we do what they propose and impose a 90% tax on all incomes above $406,000. Guess what, all of a sudden, nobody makes more than $405,999. Nobody really needs more than that to live, so they can leave the rest untouched to accumulate in entities that are taxed at lower rates or not taxed at all or taxed in foreign jurisdictions where the rates are lower.

They'll find it, and they come for that money as well. At the point of a gun, if necessary.

If you do the math, a person who makes $500k per year, who is in the top tax bracket, would suddenly only make $50,000 per year. Please, tell us that is just and a good thing.

All of these plans just gut the upper middle class and the "rich" they think they are socking it to will never end up paying.

(10-22-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you do the math, a person who makes $500k per year, who is in the top tax bracket, would suddenly only make $50,000 per year. Please, tell us that is just and a good thing.

All of these plans just gut the upper middle class and the "rich" they think they are socking it to will never end up paying.

I am against this as anybody but you statement is a bit exaggerated. its a Marginal tax rate meaning they would only be taxed the 90% on $40,000 they make over 460,000.

(10-22-2014 12:36 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you do the math, a person who makes $500k per year, who is in the top tax bracket, would suddenly only make $50,000 per year. Please, tell us that is just and a good thing.

All of these plans just gut the upper middle class and the "rich" they think they are socking it to will never end up paying.

I am against this as anybody but you statement is a bit exaggerated. its a Marginal tax rate meaning they would only be taxed the 90% on $40,000 they make over 460,000.

Yeah well, who made that money? Who earned it? Who worked for it?

Could be the dumbest thread I've ever seen.

(10-22-2014 12:47 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:36 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you do the math, a person who makes $500k per year, who is in the top tax bracket, would suddenly only make $50,000 per year. Please, tell us that is just and a good thing.

All of these plans just gut the upper middle class and the "rich" they think they are socking it to will never end up paying.

I am against this as anybody but you statement is a bit exaggerated. its a Marginal tax rate meaning they would only be taxed the 90% on $40,000 they make over 460,000.

Yeah well, who made that money? Who earned it? Who worked for it?

As i said before i am NOT for the increase i was pointing out an error in his argument.

(10-22-2014 12:49 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Could be the dumbest thread I've ever seen.

Is that a challenge?

(10-22-2014 12:47 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:36 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you do the math, a person who makes $500k per year, who is in the top tax bracket, would suddenly only make $50,000 per year. Please, tell us that is just and a good thing.

All of these plans just gut the upper middle class and the "rich" they think they are socking it to will never end up paying.

I am against this as anybody but you statement is a bit exaggerated. its a Marginal tax rate meaning they would only be taxed the 90% on $40,000 they make over 460,000.

Yeah well, who made that money? Who earned it? Who worked for it?

Not you.................................according to Obama

Yea, I can't believe that heartless right wing wacko bird John F. Kennedy slashed the tax rates from the 80's and 90's. I bet he hated minorities.

/sarcasm

(10-22-2014 01:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Yea, I can't believe that heartless right wing wacko bird John F. Kennedy slashed the tax rates from the 80's and 90's. I bet he hated minorities

Probably not an unfair assumption.

(10-22-2014 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's say we do what they propose and impose a 90% tax on all incomes above $406,000. Guess what, all of a sudden, nobody makes more than $405,999. Nobody really needs more than that to live, so they can leave the rest untouched to accumulate in entities that are taxed at lower rates or not taxed at all or taxed in foreign jurisdictions where the rates are lower.

The interesting thing in this regard is that the world economic community is starting to crack down, in about the only way they can. They're starting to shut down things like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich by requiring that profits be recognized and taxed in the jurisdiction where the value added work is done. Companies currently using tax dodges to do the work one place and recognize the profits somewhere else with lower taxes will have decisions to make, do they move the work (and jobs) to the place where the taxes are lower, or will they move the revenue recognition to the place where the taxes are higher? That's way over in slam dunk land.

How can I predict that result? Simple, because that's what's happening now. And if it's happening at today's lower rates, what reason is there to believe that it won't happen even more at higher rates?

This is what I can't understand about the left. On the one hand, they rail against businesses for moving jobs overseas where taxes are lower, costs are lower, and regulation is less intense. On the other hand, they act as if higher taxes, higher costs, and more intense regulation won't make the matter worse? Lefties, how does that work.

This

I'd also argue that 'the world' in 1913 or even 1993 was a far different place. It is far easier to move money, people, words, companies, production etc etc in 2014 than in 1993, much less 1913.

One thing I'd add is that the person who makes $450,000 and now has to 'give up' 90% of his earnings over $406,000 probably can't really do much to protect his income, but the person who makes $5mm easily can. While I certainly wouldn't classify someone who makes $450,000 as middle class, he is certainly not one of the wealthiest people in the world... so the wealth gap widens because the ALMOST wealthy are capped out, despite this massive 'tax on the rich'.

This is just another example of how the 'tax the rich' argument of the left doesn't really work... because they don't think like rich people.

If I were that guy making $450,000... I'd find one of those very wealthy people (or just a lawyer) and figure out how to transfer my $450,000 or more in earnings to him... and have him pay me a US salary of $405,999 and a small ownership in the offshore account where he holds my $450,000 in actual worth. If he were willing to take less than the 90% the government wanted (and he would) then I would be ahead, right? And the government would get nothing

(10-22-2014 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If I were that guy making $450,000... I'd find one of those very wealthy people (or just a lawyer) and figure out how to transfer my $450,000 or more in earnings to him... and have him pay me a US salary of $405,999 and a small ownership in the offshore account where he holds my $450,000 in actual worth. If he were willing to take less than the 90% the government wanted (and he would) then I would be ahead, right? And the government would get nothing

But I've been told by Democrats and specifically the current Administration that paying taxes is Patriotic!

Why do you hate America, Hambone?

(10-22-2014 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's say we do what they propose and impose a 90% tax on all incomes above $406,000. Guess what, all of a sudden, nobody makes more than $405,999. Nobody really needs more than that to live, so they can leave the rest untouched to accumulate in entities that are taxed at lower rates or not taxed at all or taxed in foreign jurisdictions where the rates are lower.

The interesting thing in this regard is that the world economic community is starting to crack down, in about the only way they can. They're starting to shut down things like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich by requiring that profits be recognized and taxed in the jurisdiction where the value added work is done. Companies currently using tax dodges to do the work one place and recognize the profits somewhere else with lower taxes will have decisions to make, do they move the work (and jobs) to the place where the taxes are lower, or will they move the revenue recognition to the place where the taxes are higher? That's way over in slam dunk land.

How can I predict that result? Simple, because that's what's happening now. And if it's happening at today's lower rates, what reason is there to believe that it won't happen even more at higher rates?

This is what I can't understand about the left. On the one hand, they rail against businesses for moving jobs overseas where taxes are lower, costs are lower, and regulation is less intense. On the other hand, they act as if higher taxes, higher costs, and more intense regulation won't make the matter worse? Lefties, how does that work.

This

I'd also argue that 'the world' in 1913 or even 1993 was a far different place. It is far easier to move money, people, words, companies, production etc etc in 2014 than in 1993, much less 1913.

One thing I'd add is that the person who makes $450,000 and now has to 'give up' 90% of his earnings over $406,000 probably can't really do much to protect his income, but the person who makes $5mm easily can. While I certainly wouldn't classify someone who makes $450,000 as middle class, he is certainly not one of the wealthiest people in the world... so the wealth gap widens because the ALMOST wealthy are capped out, despite this massive 'tax on the rich'.

This is just another example of how the 'tax the rich' argument of the left doesn't really work... because they don't think like rich people.

If I were that guy making $450,000... I'd find one of those very wealthy people (or just a lawyer) and figure out how to transfer my $450,000 or more in earnings to him... and have him pay me a US salary of $405,999 and a small ownership in the offshore account where he holds my $450,000 in actual worth. If he were willing to take less than the 90% the government wanted (and he would) then I would be ahead, right? And the government would get nothing

Or, you just create a corporation and have it pay taxes and buy you everything you want from your house to your car and then turn around and have it pay you a tiny salary.

(10-22-2014 02:53 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Why do you hate America, Hambone?

Well Played

Because I love my children more?

(10-22-2014 02:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Or, you just create a corporation and have it pay taxes and buy you everything you want from your house to your car and then turn around and have it pay you a tiny salary.

That's essentially what I meant by hire the lawyer.... My point was that there are certain thresholds for sheltering income than only the TRULY wealthy can access. Warren Buffet made much of his fortune by buying up family owned businesses from people that our tax code would consider 'rich' and rolling them into his various subsidiary companies. He didn't really change much about what they did, but he took advantage of the tax code to 'steal' from the government and put that difference in his pocket... because HE could, but those 'wealthy' people couldn't. MOST tax plans to 'tax the rich' don't hit the people the left so often wants to trot out as those 'abusing' the system.... but those right at the thresholds they set. They tax the ALMOST rich, to the advantage of the truly wealthy.