CSNbbs

(10-25-2017 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 01:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The guy who owns Fred's Tire Center may be a true blue liberal, but when the big guys in Austin and Washington want to tax the "rich" and stop "tax breaks for the rich", it is the guys in the middle, red and blue, who get hurt. The guys in the middle include a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Then they use the excuse that didn't build that. Just adding insult to injury.

The left loves the rich, if they contribute to Democrat candidates. The really rich can avoid the taxes to a large extent, the middle cannot. But who cares?

What about you, JAAO? Do you own your business? If you do, how would you use the tax savings from tax reform?

If you're in the top income tax bracket, you are not in the middle. That's $444,550+ per year (approximately 1% of all couples and 0.1% of singles [https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/07/20/what-tax-brackets-are-americans-in/]. So if the owner of Fred's Tires is making almost $500,000 per year, he is doing quite well and is distinctly in the "rich" category and not the middle class category. Good for him, he has earned that income, likely through hard work, but let's not suggest he is middle class when that is closer to a $50,000 combined income per year.

Or maybe I'm confused by your definition of the middle?

If you're talking about corporate tax rates, I'm not 100% sure where the democratic party stands on changes to those rates and small businesses, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to explicitly avoid raising taxes on small businesses.

Where did I say Fred was in the top .1%? Why that assumption?
Plus, where did I say fred was in texas? If Fred is making $500,000 in San Francisco, he might be able to afford a 1500 sq. ft. house. or he might not. Middle class is not the same everywhere.The oldest example of going after rich people and hitting the middle class is the IRA decuction. Originally, this was $2000 that, if put in an IRA account, was deductible from taxable income for everybody. Then the democrats started complaining that it just was not right that millionaires could deduct this pittance. So they decided to phase out the deduction, starting at
$25k income for singles, $40K for couples. Millionaires my ass. How about the Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted to catch about 10 millionaires. How many people paying that now? All millionaires?
Nearly every cap or phaseout designed to hit millionaires sooner or later hits the little guys. Usually sooner.

Just to start --- pretty much anyone who lives in Coastal California, and owns a home. It hits Cali hard since home interest deduction and state piggy bank collection trigger anyone in this category almost as a general rule.

I didnt know a *single* person in California that didnt get AMTed when I was there.

Ironically, the Obama administration indexed the AMT to inflation to help avoid the AMT creep that started gobbling up those types of homeowners and people with lots of kids.

Also, and I didn’t know this as well, the AMT was signed into law by Nixon, and was continually updated to keep up with inflation on a fairly regular basis, until the 2013 indexing by the Obama admin.

After they were already gobbled up, mind you. Damage was already done. Btw, the manual indexing in no way, shape, or form kept up with wages.

But, has happened is that already tens of millions have fallen into it, when it was written specifically to capture 155 people. But that is the story of every aspect of taxation and the unsated appetite for it.

(10-25-2017 08:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 01:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]If you're in the top income tax bracket, you are not in the middle. That's $444,550+ per year (approximately 1% of all couples and 0.1% of singles [https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/07/20/what-tax-brackets-are-americans-in/]. So if the owner of Fred's Tires is making almost $500,000 per year, he is doing quite well and is distinctly in the "rich" category and not the middle class category. Good for him, he has earned that income, likely through hard work, but let's not suggest he is middle class when that is closer to a $50,000 combined income per year.

Or maybe I'm confused by your definition of the middle?

If you're talking about corporate tax rates, I'm not 100% sure where the democratic party stands on changes to those rates and small businesses, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to explicitly avoid raising taxes on small businesses.

Where did I say Fred was in the top .1%? Why that assumption?
Plus, where did I say fred was in texas? If Fred is making $500,000 in San Francisco, he might be able to afford a 1500 sq. ft. house. or he might not. Middle class is not the same everywhere.The oldest example of going after rich people and hitting the middle class is the IRA decuction. Originally, this was $2000 that, if put in an IRA account, was deductible from taxable income for everybody. Then the democrats started complaining that it just was not right that millionaires could deduct this pittance. So they decided to phase out the deduction, starting at
$25k income for singles, $40K for couples. Millionaires my ass. How about the Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted to catch about 10 millionaires. How many people paying that now? All millionaires?
Nearly every cap or phaseout designed to hit millionaires sooner or later hits the little guys. Usually sooner.

Just to start --- pretty much anyone who lives in Coastal California, and owns a home. It hits Cali hard since home interest deduction and state piggy bank collection trigger anyone in this category almost as a general rule.

I didnt know a *single* person in California that didnt get AMTed when I was there.

Ironically, the Obama administration indexed the AMT to inflation to help avoid the AMT creep that started gobbling up those types of homeowners and people with lots of kids.

Also, and I didn’t know this as well, the AMT was signed into law by Nixon, and was continually updated to keep up with inflation on a fairly regular basis, until the 2013 indexing by the Obama admin.

After they were already gobbled up, mind you. Damage was already done. Btw, the manual indexing in no way, shape, or form kept up with wages.

But, has happened is that already tens of millions have fallen into it, when it was written specifically to capture 155 people. But that is the story of every aspect of taxation and the unsated appetite for it.

Yeah - I found it a bit ironic that it took until 2013 (under a Democratic president) for the MAT to be indexed to inflation. That's a lot of Republican governments that would have had the ability to do that, instead of patching patch work bills that didn't keep up.

You're right that often times all legislation has unintended consequences, and we should try and be more cognizant of it and try and be pragmatic when addressing those. But I understand the general concern you have with even passing laws like the MAT because of the general inability of the federal government to be pragmatic about anything.

(10-25-2017 07:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:06 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2017 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]While not everybody is a right winger and not everybody, right or left, likes Trump, I cannot think of a single person as far left as you seem think is the norm. Maybe they are there and they just keep their opinions to themselves, exactly as I would do if I lived in Austin.

My point wasn't that it was the norm for small business people and entrepreneurs to be on the left, but to refute your assertion that "the left" has contempt for small business people and entrepreneurs. I simply don't think that's the case.

The guy who owns Fred's Tire Center may be a true blue liberal, but when the big guys in Austin and Washington want to tax the "rich" and stop "tax breaks for the rich", it is the guys in the middle, red and blue, who get hurt. The guys in the middle include a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Then they use the excuse that didn't build that. Just adding insult to injury.

The left loves the rich, if they contribute to Democrat candidates. The really rich can avoid the taxes to a large extent, the middle cannot. But who cares?

What about you, JAAO? Do you own your business? If you do, how would you use the tax savings from tax reform?

So what you're saying is that left-leaning small business owners and entrepreneurs are voting against their own economic self-interests and need to be educated by middle-American elites?

Saying you think Dem policies are bad for small business and entrepreneurs is your opinion and you are free to have it. What I objected to was the idea that Dems and the left are anti-entrepreneur in some visceral sense. Many of them *are* entrepreneurs.

(I'm surprised the Morlocks like entrepreneurs - it is a very French sounding term and the Morlocks don't like the French. Shouldn't we rename them freedomeurs or something like that?)

You can continue to be convinced that Lad and I and Obama think you didn't build your business, and didn't work very hard to do it. Speaking for myself, I can say that's not true at all. Most self-employed and entrepreneurs I've known over the years work their butts off. No one is disputing that.

You ignore his point overall with your last paragraph. His point isnt that he built his business. The point is that really no one helped build that business, and yet he (and other builders/owners) are castigated for more piggy bank action by the very people who really had no input into building that business. Kind of like the story of drunk/stoner nephew that only shows up when there is money around to be had.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the payroll check writers who float pretty much every frigging thing in the budget and the payroll check cashers. Yet the payroll check writers are constantly not only on the hook for more and more of the proceeds of 'what *they* built', but are castigated for *not* opening the piggy bank further and further and further.

People who have gone down that road are constantly aware of that little fact. People who haven't really don't give a ****.

(10-25-2017 08:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 01:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Where did I say Fred was in the top .1%? Why that assumption?
Plus, where did I say fred was in texas? If Fred is making $500,000 in San Francisco, he might be able to afford a 1500 sq. ft. house. or he might not. Middle class is not the same everywhere.The oldest example of going after rich people and hitting the middle class is the IRA decuction. Originally, this was $2000 that, if put in an IRA account, was deductible from taxable income for everybody. Then the democrats started complaining that it just was not right that millionaires could deduct this pittance. So they decided to phase out the deduction, starting at
$25k income for singles, $40K for couples. Millionaires my ass. How about the Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted to catch about 10 millionaires. How many people paying that now? All millionaires?
Nearly every cap or phaseout designed to hit millionaires sooner or later hits the little guys. Usually sooner.

Just to start --- pretty much anyone who lives in Coastal California, and owns a home. It hits Cali hard since home interest deduction and state piggy bank collection trigger anyone in this category almost as a general rule.

I didnt know a *single* person in California that didnt get AMTed when I was there.

Ironically, the Obama administration indexed the AMT to inflation to help avoid the AMT creep that started gobbling up those types of homeowners and people with lots of kids.

Also, and I didn’t know this as well, the AMT was signed into law by Nixon, and was continually updated to keep up with inflation on a fairly regular basis, until the 2013 indexing by the Obama admin.

After they were already gobbled up, mind you. Damage was already done. Btw, the manual indexing in no way, shape, or form kept up with wages.

But, has happened is that already tens of millions have fallen into it, when it was written specifically to capture 155 people. But that is the story of every aspect of taxation and the unsated appetite for it.

Yeah - I found it a bit ironic that it took until 2013 (under a Democratic president) for the MAT to be indexed to inflation. That's a lot of Republican governments that would have had the ability to do that, instead of patching patch work bills that didn't keep up.

You're right that often times all legislation has unintended consequences, and we should try and be more cognizant of it and try and be pragmatic when addressing those. But I understand the general concern you have with even passing laws like the MAT because of the general inability of the federal government to be pragmatic about anything.

Most governments are extremely pragmatic not to shut down sources of income for them. That was my underlying point.

(10-25-2017 07:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]You can continue to be convinced that Lad and I and Obama think you didn't build your business, and didn't work very hard to do it. Speaking for myself, I can say that's not true at all. Most self-employed and entrepreneurs I've known over the years work their butts off. No one is disputing that.

You keep trotting out this straw man that the "you didn't build that" comment is some sort of personal attack on successful entrepreneurs. I don't think anyone disagrees with your assertion that it's not.

The problem driving the opposition is that "you didn't build that" transitions very easily to "you don't deserve that" and on to some notion that therefore you need to be paying some "fair share" to society that is a whole lot bigger than you currently pay. And nothing that you have posted suggests that it won't go there.

It's not a personal attack, it's an economic attack. Your success is not your success, it's society's success, and therefore your rewards should be society's rewards. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

(10-25-2017 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]If you're in the top income tax bracket, you are not in the middle. That's $444,550+ per year (approximately 1% of all couples and 0.1% of singles [https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/07/20/what-tax-brackets-are-americans-in/]. So if the owner of Fred's Tires is making almost $500,000 per year, he is doing quite well and is distinctly in the "rich" category and not the middle class category. Good for him, he has earned that income, likely through hard work, but let's not suggest he is middle class when that is closer to a $50,000 combined income per year.
Or maybe I'm confused by your definition of the middle?
If you're talking about corporate tax rates, I'm not 100% sure where the democratic party stands on changes to those rates and small businesses, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to explicitly avoid raising taxes on small businesses.

Where did I say Fred was in the top .1%? Why that assumption?
Plus, where did I say fred was in texas? If Fred is making $500,000 in San Francisco, he might be able to afford a 1500 sq. ft. house. or he might not. Middle class is not the same everywhere.The oldest example of going after rich people and hitting the middle class is the IRA decuction. Originally, this was $2000 that, if put in an IRA account, was deductible from taxable income for everybody. Then the democrats started complaining that it just was not right that millionaires could deduct this pittance. So they decided to phase out the deduction, starting at
$25k income for singles, $40K for couples. Millionaires my ass. How about the Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted to catch about 10 millionaires. How many people paying that now? All millionaires?
Nearly every cap or phaseout designed to hit millionaires sooner or later hits the little guys. Usually sooner.

I highlighted the portion of your response I was referencing. The current Democratic conversation generally focuses on the rich being the top 1% of wealthy Americans, so I figured that was a decent starting place.
And I never suggested the owner was in Texas - just that they had an income that would put them into the “rich” designation that Democrats point to.
Also, where did you get your IRA numbers from? It currently sits at $60k for individuals and $181k for couples if you don’t have a work-sponsored retirement plan. Those incomes seem fairly reasonable, but I do think the total phase out of tax deduction for single income earners at $70k seems rather low. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/...return.asp

But your post illustrates the problem. The announced target is the 1%, but the ways to get there kick in a lot lower, like the IRA phase-out starts at $60K and ends at $70K. Lots of things that are passed based on rhetoric aimed at punishing the "wealthy" end up hitting way below that level. By the time you hit $100,000, you are getting penalized in several places for taxes. The person making $400,000 doesn't care a lot, because s/he starts being able to take advantage of shelter opportunities, but the person trying to get to that level gets hammered along the way.

Again, OK. Your premise is correct for the MAT, as it was started originally to target around 200 super wealthy individuals that paid no income taxes because of their deductions when Nixon was in office. So through the years, it did start to gobble up more and more people, and POTUSes from both sides tried to raise the floor. It wasn't until a Democrat was in office that it was coupled with the inflation rate. But that shows how both the right and left can recognize potential problems and enact legislation to protect those who are not supposed to be affected by tax laws.
Bring up the IRA deductions with respect to enacting a law meant to target top earners but affecting low earners is nonsensical. IRAs contributions were not originally tax deductible. It wasn't until '74 that any contributions to IRAs were tax deductible (and that amount was $1,500). So the amount that was deductible only grew. I'm unaware of legislation that was passed that reduced the ceiling of deductibility on IRA contributions. So instead of that issue being a target on the rich, it was targeting the poor and middle income individuals to help them save for retirement.

I'm not following your argument here, except enough to see that you missed mine. The problem is that the realities of designing a tax system are such that when you try to hammer the "wealthy," 1) you invariably hammer a bunch of folks who aren't wealthy, and 2) the truly "wealthy" can always find workarounds as long as they have options available, and their wealth always avails those options.

(10-25-2017 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='14710912' dateline='1508904099']
[quote='RiceLad15' pid='14710232' dateline='1508885732']


Also, where did you get your IRA numbers from? It currently sits at $60k for individuals and $181k for couples if you don’t have a work-sponsored retirement plan. Those incomes seem fairly reasonable, but I do think the total phase out of tax deduction for single income earners at $70k seems rather low. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/...return.asp

From the original response to the furor over millionaires deducting the IRA contribution from their taxes. These days, for some insane reason, I am not allowed to even make a contribution since it must come from "earned" income and I live off my IRAs and other investment income. Last year I would have been in the 47% that paid no FIT if the Federals had not forced me to take a distribution I didn't want or need just so they could tax it(how insane is that?). The year before, I would have been in that top .1% you guys hate, because I sold some land I had been holding on to for decades. This year, probably same as last year - near zip. I felt middle class all three years. Lived in the same house, drove the same car, did the same activities. I don't even own a tux. I look nothing like the Monopoly guy.

(10-25-2017 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]If you're in the top income tax bracket, you are not in the middle. That's $444,550+ per year (approximately 1% of all couples and 0.1% of singles [https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/07/20/what-tax-brackets-are-americans-in/]. So if the owner of Fred's Tires is making almost $500,000 per year, he is doing quite well and is distinctly in the "rich" category and not the middle class category. Good for him, he has earned that income, likely through hard work, but let's not suggest he is middle class when that is closer to a $50,000 combined income per year.
Or maybe I'm confused by your definition of the middle?
If you're talking about corporate tax rates, I'm not 100% sure where the democratic party stands on changes to those rates and small businesses, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to explicitly avoid raising taxes on small businesses.

Where did I say Fred was in the top .1%? Why that assumption?
Plus, where did I say fred was in texas? If Fred is making $500,000 in San Francisco, he might be able to afford a 1500 sq. ft. house. or he might not. Middle class is not the same everywhere.The oldest example of going after rich people and hitting the middle class is the IRA decuction. Originally, this was $2000 that, if put in an IRA account, was deductible from taxable income for everybody. Then the democrats started complaining that it just was not right that millionaires could deduct this pittance. So they decided to phase out the deduction, starting at
$25k income for singles, $40K for couples. Millionaires my ass. How about the Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted to catch about 10 millionaires. How many people paying that now? All millionaires?
Nearly every cap or phaseout designed to hit millionaires sooner or later hits the little guys. Usually sooner.

I highlighted the portion of your response I was referencing. The current Democratic conversation generally focuses on the rich being the top 1% of wealthy Americans, so I figured that was a decent starting place.
And I never suggested the owner was in Texas - just that they had an income that would put them into the “rich” designation that Democrats point to.
Also, where did you get your IRA numbers from? It currently sits at $60k for individuals and $181k for couples if you don’t have a work-sponsored retirement plan. Those incomes seem fairly reasonable, but I do think the total phase out of tax deduction for single income earners at $70k seems rather low. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/...return.asp

But your post illustrates the problem. The announced target is the 1%, but the ways to get there kick in a lot lower, like the IRA phase-out starts at $60K and ends at $70K. Lots of things that are passed based on rhetoric aimed at punishing the "wealthy" end up hitting way below that level. By the time you hit $100,000, you are getting penalized in several places for taxes. The person making $400,000 doesn't care a lot, because s/he starts being able to take advantage of shelter opportunities, but the person trying to get to that level gets hammered along the way.

Again, OK. Your premise is correct for the MAT, as it was started originally to target around 200 super wealthy individuals that paid no income taxes because of their deductions when Nixon was in office. So through the years, it did start to gobble up more and more people, and POTUSes from both sides tried to raise the floor. It wasn't until a Democrat was in office that it was coupled with the inflation rate. But that shows how both the right and left can recognize potential problems and enact legislation to protect those who are not supposed to be affected by tax laws.

Bring up the IRA deductions with respect to enacting a law meant to target top earners but affecting low earners is nonsensical. IRAs contributions were not originally tax deductible. It wasn't until '74 that any contributions to IRAs were tax deductible (and that amount was $1,500). So the amount that was deductible only grew. I'm unaware of legislation that was passed that reduced the ceiling of deductibility on IRA contributions. So instead of that issue being a target on the rich, it was targeting the poor and middle income individuals to help them save for retirement.

Nixon's Congress was Democratic, both houses. They initiated the law, they passed it in both Houses. All Tricky Dicky did was sign what the Democrats put in front of him. Trying to make it sound like it was the Republicans is just ...inaccurate. Democrats controlled Congress 1958-1994.

My personal thought then was, why is there even a limit? don't we want to encourage people to save for their own retirement instead of relying on SS as so many did (and do)? Best way to do that is to leave it deductible. When they made it nondeductible, my wife fought making the contribution. Couldn't afford it, she said. We divorced long ago, now she lives off SS, I live off my IRAs.

"you didn't build that" = "You didn't earn that degree" = "you didn't raise those kids that turned out so well"(It takes a village). Nothing wrong with giving credit where credit is due. I earned my degree, I raised my kids (more than most: I was a single Dad), and I built my businesses.

Yes, JAAO, lots of times people vote against their economic interests if they think it is best for the country or best for the overall population. Micro-example: voting for school bonds. Sometimes, their vote changes nothing. Your entrepreneur friends in Austin bear the same state and Federal tax burden as their counterparts in Kilgore and Amarillo. Easy to say you support more taxes if you don't have to pay them.

At first glance, Trump's tax reform is going to hurt me in my particular situation. We shall see how it evolves. But I think tax reform is needed and it is right, so I will support it. Even though it "might' go against my economic interests.

(10-25-2017 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The guy who owns Fred's Tire Center may be a true blue liberal, but when the big guys in Austin and Washington want to tax the "rich" and stop "tax breaks for the rich", it is the guys in the middle, red and blue, who get hurt. The guys in the middle include a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Then they use the excuse that didn't build that. Just adding insult to injury.
The left loves the rich, if they contribute to Democrat candidates. The really rich can avoid the taxes to a large extent, the middle cannot. But who cares?
What about you, JAAO? Do you own your business? If you do, how would you use the tax savings from tax reform?

If you're in the top income tax bracket, you are not in the middle. That's $444,550+ per year (approximately 1% of all couples and 0.1% of singles [https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/07/20/what-tax-brackets-are-americans-in/]. So if the owner of Fred's Tires is making almost $500,000 per year, he is doing quite well and is distinctly in the "rich" category and not the middle class category. Good for him, he has earned that income, likely through hard work, but let's not suggest he is middle class when that is closer to a $50,000 combined income per year.
Or maybe I'm confused by your definition of the middle?
If you're talking about corporate tax rates, I'm not 100% sure where the democratic party stands on changes to those rates and small businesses, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to explicitly avoid raising taxes on small businesses.

Where did I say Fred was in the top .1%? Why that assumption?
Plus, where did I say fred was in texas? If Fred is making $500,000 in San Francisco, he might be able to afford a 1500 sq. ft. house. or he might not. Middle class is not the same everywhere.The oldest example of going after rich people and hitting the middle class is the IRA decuction. Originally, this was $2000 that, if put in an IRA account, was deductible from taxable income for everybody. Then the democrats started complaining that it just was not right that millionaires could deduct this pittance. So they decided to phase out the deduction, starting at
$25k income for singles, $40K for couples. Millionaires my ass. How about the Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted to catch about 10 millionaires. How many people paying that now? All millionaires?
Nearly every cap or phaseout designed to hit millionaires sooner or later hits the little guys. Usually sooner.

I highlighted the portion of your response I was referencing. The current Democratic conversation generally focuses on the rich being the top 1% of wealthy Americans, so I figured that was a decent starting place.
And I never suggested the owner was in Texas - just that they had an income that would put them into the “rich” designation that Democrats point to.
Also, where did you get your IRA numbers from? It currently sits at $60k for individuals and $181k for couples if you don’t have a work-sponsored retirement plan. Those incomes seem fairly reasonable, but I do think the total phase out of tax deduction for single income earners at $70k seems rather low. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/...return.asp

But your post illustrates the problem. The announced target is the 1%, but the ways to get there kick in a lot lower, like the IRA phase-out starts at $60K and ends at $70K. Lots of things that are passed based on rhetoric aimed at punishing the "wealthy" end up hitting way below that level. By the time you hit $100,000, you are getting penalized in several places for taxes. The person making $400,000 doesn't care a lot, because s/he starts being able to take advantage of shelter opportunities, but the person trying to get to that level gets hammered along the way.

Precisely. The middle class is just in the line of fire.

(10-25-2017 08:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 07:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]You can continue to be convinced that Lad and I and Obama think you didn't build your business, and didn't work very hard to do it. Speaking for myself, I can say that's not true at all. Most self-employed and entrepreneurs I've known over the years work their butts off. No one is disputing that.

You keep trotting out this straw man that the "you didn't build that" comment is some sort of personal attack on successful entrepreneurs. I don't think anyone disagrees with your assertion that it's not.

The problem driving the opposition is that "you didn't build that" transitions very easily to "you don't deserve that" and on to some notion that therefore you need to be paying some "fair share" to society that is a whole lot bigger than you currently pay. And nothing that you have posted suggests that it won't go there.

It's not a personal attack, it's an economic attack. Your success is not your success, it's society's success, and therefore your rewards should be society's rewards. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

I guess we are back to square one. The whole point of the Romney campaign's spin on that was to claim that it was a personal attack on entrepreneurs. It's not a straw man, it's what happened.

I think the leap from "maintaining infrastructure is important" or "R&D pays rewards later" to quoting Marx is the straw man.

Edit: Romney *literally* saying exactly what you said nobody is saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z83oQ3d-BgQ

(10-25-2017 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]"you didn't build that" = "You didn't earn that degree" = "you didn't raise those kids that turned out so well"(It takes a village). Nothing wrong with giving credit where credit is due. I earned my degree, I raised my kids (more than most: I was a single Dad), and I built my businesses.

In the speech Obama also mentioned the GI Bill. It undoubtedly helped people get degrees that might not have been able to otherwise. Was he saying those people didn't earn their degrees? Of course not.

I'm not even sure how you get from "It takes a village" to "you didn't raise those kids"...

(10-25-2017 11:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 07:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]You can continue to be convinced that Lad and I and Obama think you didn't build your business, and didn't work very hard to do it. Speaking for myself, I can say that's not true at all. Most self-employed and entrepreneurs I've known over the years work their butts off. No one is disputing that.

You keep trotting out this straw man that the "you didn't build that" comment is some sort of personal attack on successful entrepreneurs. I don't think anyone disagrees with your assertion that it's not.

The problem driving the opposition is that "you didn't build that" transitions very easily to "you don't deserve that" and on to some notion that therefore you need to be paying some "fair share" to society that is a whole lot bigger than you currently pay. And nothing that you have posted suggests that it won't go there.

It's not a personal attack, it's an economic attack. Your success is not your success, it's society's success, and therefore your rewards should be society's rewards. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

I guess we are back to square one. The whole point of the Romney campaign's spin on that was to claim that it was a personal attack on entrepreneurs. It's not a straw man, it's what happened.

I think the leap from "maintaining infrastructure is important" or "R&D pays rewards later" to quoting Marx is the straw man.

Edit: Romney *literally* saying exactly what you said nobody is saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z83oQ3d-BgQ

I would agree with your strawman except for the fact that Obama quoted 'pay their fair share' like a myna-bird with ADHD issues.

And again, how do you square Obama's chastisement for 'you didnt build that' by making the evil greedy ******** (who already paid for that) the subject of his scorn? Pure ***** and giggles, I guess?

I guess it is okay to read reams and reams and libraries of context into Bannon being a racist, but contextual issues really dont matter flowing against that political wind.

So JAAO, why did Obama state 'you didnt build that' *to* the people that by every context imaginable already paid for those items? Since he isnt playing a class card to his base (of course no professional community organizer would *ever* do that, heavens to betsy), nor is trying to slut shame the evil greedy bastards into paying more, *why* make that statement at all regarding businessmen?

The readily apparent answer is that the collectivist / distributive types just want more from the people that built something. Pure and simple. And yes, the collectivist / distributionist message is *far* closer to a Marx/Engels school of thought than Milton Freidman, Hayek, or Mises. When the shoe fits.....

(10-25-2017 12:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 11:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 07:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]You can continue to be convinced that Lad and I and Obama think you didn't build your business, and didn't work very hard to do it. Speaking for myself, I can say that's not true at all. Most self-employed and entrepreneurs I've known over the years work their butts off. No one is disputing that.

You keep trotting out this straw man that the "you didn't build that" comment is some sort of personal attack on successful entrepreneurs. I don't think anyone disagrees with your assertion that it's not.

The problem driving the opposition is that "you didn't build that" transitions very easily to "you don't deserve that" and on to some notion that therefore you need to be paying some "fair share" to society that is a whole lot bigger than you currently pay. And nothing that you have posted suggests that it won't go there.

It's not a personal attack, it's an economic attack. Your success is not your success, it's society's success, and therefore your rewards should be society's rewards. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

I guess we are back to square one. The whole point of the Romney campaign's spin on that was to claim that it was a personal attack on entrepreneurs. It's not a straw man, it's what happened.

I think the leap from "maintaining infrastructure is important" or "R&D pays rewards later" to quoting Marx is the straw man.

Edit: Romney *literally* saying exactly what you said nobody is saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z83oQ3d-BgQ

I would agree with your strawman except for the fact that Obama quoted 'pay their fair share' like a myna-bird with ADHD issues.

And again, how do you square Obama's chastisement for 'you didnt build that' by making the evil greedy ******** (who already paid for that) the subject of his scorn? Pure ***** and giggles, I guess?

I guess it is okay to read reams and reams and libraries of context into Bannon being a racist, but contextual issues really dont matter flowing against that political wind.

So JAAO, why did Obama state 'you didnt build that' *to* the people that by every context imaginable already paid for those items? Since he isnt playing a class card to his base (of course no professional community organizer would *ever* do that, heavens to betsy), nor is trying to slut shame the evil greedy bastards into paying more, *why* make that statement at all regarding businessmen?

The readily apparent answer is that the collectivist / distributive types just want more from the people that built something. Pure and simple. And yes, the collectivist / distributionist message is *far* closer to a Marx/Engels school of thought than Milton Freidman, Hayek, or Mises. When the shoe fits.....

Look, if your argument is that anyone who believes in progressive taxation is a Marxist, then OK, just say it and we can agree to disagree.

I see it more like this: we built the interstate highway with tax money. An entrepenuer comes along and creates a business that makes use of that system. S/he literally did not build those highways and may not even have been born when they were built, so certainly didn't pay for them. But will we continue to need other infrastructure projects and public works, so we'll continue to need taxes. Maybe this entrepreneur's taxes go to some of the original government work that led to the internet. Then come along countless entrepreneurs who become dotcom millionaires. The internet was key to that. Guess what? They didn't build that (intranet). And I don't think they'd be insulted for someone to point that out.

At the time of this campaign, it seemed like the Tea Party was at the point of attacking the basic legitimacy of ANY government spending on anything. (Well, other than farm subsidies.) That's why Obama was making a defense of the government's role.

I am saying that progressive taxation is closer to Marx/Engels redistributionist/collectivist than something like the Chicago School, Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Mises.

Please dont put words into my mouth for a strawman, if you dont mind. I typed that sentence above re: Marx specifically. I suggest you read it that way instead of grandflating into your "progressive taxation *is* Marxism." It *isnt* Marxist, but is *far* closer to that school of thought than the latter group.

Quote:Guess what? They didn't build that (intranet). And I don't think they'd be insulted for someone to point that out.

They sure as fk footed most of the bill for it originally. But let us chastise them for it and for more money.

And, btw, you do know that the vast majority of network infrastructure and usage is through private means, right? It's not like the main haul carriers have vast subsidies to run it at this point.

And, on top of it, you do know that there is a good network of Federal tariffs in place for the mere use of network services, right? So not only did that particular class originally foot the bill for the original 'research' (tax dollars are fungible, my friend), but continue to pay through the nose on other federal tariffs for the use, along with normal FIT.

And agaion, lets just chastise them for ***** and giggles for more of what they make, since it has *nothing* to do with extracting more through the equivalent of a slut-shame talk from the President.

Quote:we built the interstate highway with tax money. An entrepenuer comes along and creates a business that makes use of that system. S/he literally did not build those highways and may not even have been born when they were built, so certainly didn't pay for them.

Again, the original cost was mostly (vastly) paid for by them as well. And, with gasoline taxes and road usage taxes on big rigs, that group *still* pays a fkload more than others for them.

And agin, lets chastise the class of people who paid the gorilla's share of cost on that. And, the gorilla's share ongoing through Federal big rig taxes and Federal gasoline tax (btw a little under 10 per cent of the cost of gasoline at this point -- for these evil greedy bastards who rob the use of the roads -- they probably pay about 100x the federal gasoline tax that you and I pay on a per capita basis that *for* precise use and privilege. But hell, let's chastise them for more money....)

Quote: But will we continue to need other infrastructure projects and public works, so we'll continue to need taxes.

And guess what, that class *still* carries the bill for the vast majority of those unspecified projects based on the taxation system. The vast majority. Sounds like a good reason to chastise them for more taxes....

(10-25-2017 08:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 01:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Just to start --- pretty much anyone who lives in Coastal California, and owns a home. It hits Cali hard since home interest deduction and state piggy bank collection trigger anyone in this category almost as a general rule.

I didnt know a *single* person in California that didnt get AMTed when I was there.

Ironically, the Obama administration indexed the AMT to inflation to help avoid the AMT creep that started gobbling up those types of homeowners and people with lots of kids.

Also, and I didn’t know this as well, the AMT was signed into law by Nixon, and was continually updated to keep up with inflation on a fairly regular basis, until the 2013 indexing by the Obama admin.

After they were already gobbled up, mind you. Damage was already done. Btw, the manual indexing in no way, shape, or form kept up with wages.

But, has happened is that already tens of millions have fallen into it, when it was written specifically to capture 155 people. But that is the story of every aspect of taxation and the unsated appetite for it.

Yeah - I found it a bit ironic that it took until 2013 (under a Democratic president) for the MAT to be indexed to inflation. That's a lot of Republican governments that would have had the ability to do that, instead of patching patch work bills that didn't keep up.

You're right that often times all legislation has unintended consequences, and we should try and be more cognizant of it and try and be pragmatic when addressing those. But I understand the general concern you have with even passing laws like the MAT because of the general inability of the federal government to be pragmatic about anything.

Most governments are extremely pragmatic not to shut down sources of income for them. That was my underlying point.

Yep - that’s why I stated that, so you would understand that I understood your point.

It seems that the left here is making a point that people who take advantage of what is there owe the people who did not take advantage of it a debt.

(10-25-2017 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2017 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2017 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Where did I say Fred was in the top .1%? Why that assumption?
Plus, where did I say fred was in texas? If Fred is making $500,000 in San Francisco, he might be able to afford a 1500 sq. ft. house. or he might not. Middle class is not the same everywhere.The oldest example of going after rich people and hitting the middle class is the IRA decuction. Originally, this was $2000 that, if put in an IRA account, was deductible from taxable income for everybody. Then the democrats started complaining that it just was not right that millionaires could deduct this pittance. So they decided to phase out the deduction, starting at
$25k income for singles, $40K for couples. Millionaires my ass. How about the Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted to catch about 10 millionaires. How many people paying that now? All millionaires?
Nearly every cap or phaseout designed to hit millionaires sooner or later hits the little guys. Usually sooner.

I highlighted the portion of your response I was referencing. The current Democratic conversation generally focuses on the rich being the top 1% of wealthy Americans, so I figured that was a decent starting place.
And I never suggested the owner was in Texas - just that they had an income that would put them into the “rich” designation that Democrats point to.
Also, where did you get your IRA numbers from? It currently sits at $60k for individuals and $181k for couples if you don’t have a work-sponsored retirement plan. Those incomes seem fairly reasonable, but I do think the total phase out of tax deduction for single income earners at $70k seems rather low. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/...return.asp

But your post illustrates the problem. The announced target is the 1%, but the ways to get there kick in a lot lower, like the IRA phase-out starts at $60K and ends at $70K. Lots of things that are passed based on rhetoric aimed at punishing the "wealthy" end up hitting way below that level. By the time you hit $100,000, you are getting penalized in several places for taxes. The person making $400,000 doesn't care a lot, because s/he starts being able to take advantage of shelter opportunities, but the person trying to get to that level gets hammered along the way.

Again, OK. Your premise is correct for the MAT, as it was started originally to target around 200 super wealthy individuals that paid no income taxes because of their deductions when Nixon was in office. So through the years, it did start to gobble up more and more people, and POTUSes from both sides tried to raise the floor. It wasn't until a Democrat was in office that it was coupled with the inflation rate. But that shows how both the right and left can recognize potential problems and enact legislation to protect those who are not supposed to be affected by tax laws.
Bring up the IRA deductions with respect to enacting a law meant to target top earners but affecting low earners is nonsensical. IRAs contributions were not originally tax deductible. It wasn't until '74 that any contributions to IRAs were tax deductible (and that amount was $1,500). So the amount that was deductible only grew. I'm unaware of legislation that was passed that reduced the ceiling of deductibility on IRA contributions. So instead of that issue being a target on the rich, it was targeting the poor and middle income individuals to help them save for retirement.

I'm not following your argument here, except enough to see that you missed mine. The problem is that the realities of designing a tax system are such that when you try to hammer the "wealthy," 1) you invariably hammer a bunch of folks who aren't wealthy, and 2) the truly "wealthy" can always find workarounds as long as they have options available, and their wealth always avails those options.

My point was that the Roth tax deduction threshold is not an example of trying to target the wealthy, yet it appeared as if you tried to suggest it was by lumping it in with the AMT. I wanted to make it clear those were different beasts with different goals.

(10-25-2017 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying that progressive taxation is closer to Marx/Engels redistributionist/collectivist than something like the Chicago School, Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Mises.

Please dont put words into my mouth for a strawman, if you dont mind. I typed that sentence above re: Marx specifically. I suggest you read it that way instead of grandflating into your "progressive taxation *is* Marxism." It *isnt* Marxist, but is *far* closer to that school of thought than the latter group.

Quote:Guess what? They didn't build that (intranet). And I don't think they'd be insulted for someone to point that out.

They sure as fk footed most of the bill for it originally. But let us chastise them for it and for more money.

And, btw, you do know that the vast majority of network infrastructure and usage is through private means, right? It's not like the main haul carriers have vast subsidies to run it at this point.

And, on top of it, you do know that there is a good network of Federal tariffs in place for the mere use of network services, right? So not only did that particular class originally foot the bill for the original 'research' (tax dollars are fungible, my friend), but continue to pay through the nose on other federal tariffs for the use, along with normal FIT.

And agaion, lets just chastise them for ***** and giggles for more of what they make, since it has *nothing* to do with extracting more through the equivalent of a slut-shame talk from the President.

Quote:we built the interstate highway with tax money. An entrepenuer comes along and creates a business that makes use of that system. S/he literally did not build those highways and may not even have been born when they were built, so certainly didn't pay for them.

Again, the original cost was mostly (vastly) paid for by them as well. And, with gasoline taxes and road usage taxes on big rigs, that group *still* pays a fkload more than others for them.

And agin, lets chastise the class of people who paid the gorilla's share of cost on that. And, the gorilla's share ongoing through Federal big rig taxes and Federal gasoline tax (btw a little under 10 per cent of the cost of gasoline at this point -- for these evil greedy bastards who rob the use of the roads -- they probably pay about 100x the federal gasoline tax that you and I pay on a per capita basis that *for* precise use and privilege. But hell, let's chastise them for more money....)

Quote: But will we continue to need other infrastructure projects and public works, so we'll continue to need taxes.

And guess what, that class *still* carries the bill for the vast majority of those unspecified projects based on the taxation system. The vast majority. Sounds like a good reason to chastise them for more taxes....

Honestly, I'm not even sure what we are arguing about any more.

(10-25-2017 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that the left here is making a point that people who take advantage of what is there owe the people who did not take advantage of it a debt.

Is your point that financially successful people should be exempt from taxes?