(10-23-2017 01:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The level of conformism in the two cities is not even close to comparable. Austin is one of the most conformist places in the country. It obviously has many positive qualities, but that is not one of them.

The statement in bold is pretty definitive given that I don't even know how we'd measure it.

But I don't disagree that Austin can be pretty conformist. I used to complain about the "Cult of Austin" quite a bit. People would have these conversations about how great Austin is and you ran the risk of being stoned to death as a heretic if you were not sufficiently effusive in your praise of Austin.

I think that's watered down quite a bit over the last 10 years as more people from more cities have moved here. Anyway, way off topic. :-)

(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.

(10-24-2017 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 04:27 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I wouldn't argue with George's point about Austin being conformist, as are many cities with a dominant culture. I found Houston that way when I first moved back there after Austin. But maybe I just fit better in Austin than Houston so I was "pre-conforming" more to the former.

The level of conformism in the two cities is not even close to comparable. Austin is one of the most conformist places in the country. It obviously has many positive qualities, but that is not one of them.

(10-23-2017 01:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  (Also, I was referring to people I know pretty well and with whom I have had quad like discussions - it's not conformism, they simply have a different outlook on these issues.)

I understand that. But I suspect that one reason your sample turned up nothing but declared Democrats is, in addition to the natural tendency of people to select friends who are similar to themselves, the extreme social pressure in Austin to publicly identify as a Democrat.

Fan of Austin, but miss the melting pot of Houston.

In my experience, Austin conformity tends to follow the city's economically segregated housing patterns. Once you get into west or northwest Austin, you have more diversity of political opinion.

If you visit Northwest Little League on any given spring night (between 2222 and Anderson Lane, just east of MoPac, so central Austin these days) you'll even find a few Abbott bumper stickers for all the world to see.

If by *more* diversity you go from 98 per cent blue to 60 per cent blue you would be correct.

The only places that vote red in Austin are the far western edges of SW Parkway towards Dripping Springs (consistently) and portions of Westlake (inconsistently) (Westlake isnt part of Austin, mind you.)

One ares that flips from time time is portions of Tarrytown around Camp Mabry.

Here is a great map of the 2008, 2012, and 2016 Presidential elections by precinct (highly granular, far more than congressional districts). I can find nothing but solid "big win" blue precincts in almost every area of the city. Even the ones that go blue by no more than a percentage point is hard to find.

https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/cr...cinct-map/

Sorry, Austin is a monolith of blue in every way, shape, and form overall. In terms of voting, Austin is as lockstep as Berkeley.

Hey, I have a Republican city council member. I think she won by less than fifty votes.

(10-24-2017 02:15 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  First Bob Corker from Tennessee and now Jeff Flake from Arizona have said they will not seek reelection next year.

Their comments on Trump have been pretty stunning. Not that I disagree with them, but not the thing you normally hear on the floor of the Senate about a president of the same party.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-jeff-...d=50688854

"We must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal. Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as telling it like it is, when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified. And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength because our strength comes from our values. "

"The notion that one should stay silent, the notion that one should stay silent and as the norms and values are underlined and as the alliances and the agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters, the notion that we should say or do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided."

"I have children and grandchildren to answer to. And so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit or silent."

It's a pretty stunning speech.

More pithy but gave me a chuckle, Corker tweeted:

"Same untruths from an utterly untruthful president. #AlertTheDaycareStaff"

https://twitter.com/SenBobCorker/status/...3526914049

(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?

(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?

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.

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 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?

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.

You'd probably be surprised. The problem with the idea of keeping taxes down for small businesses but raising them for others is that most small businesses didn't start with the objective of being small forever.

(10-24-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 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?

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.

You'd probably be surprised. The problem with the idea of keeping taxes down for small businesses but raising them for others is that most small businesses didn't start with the objective of being small forever.

Ok. And when they reach a point of expansion where they are utilizing more public resources and can more easily assist in providing support for our societal functions, then their tax burdens increase.

I don't know how future plans of a business matter when discussing how small businesses are taxed when they are identified as a small business.

Now, I agree that corporate taxes across the board are too high, but I fail to see how taxing large corporations at a higher rate than small corporations is an issue.

(10-24-2017 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

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

(10-24-2017 05:06 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  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?

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.

You'd probably be surprised. The problem with the idea of keeping taxes down for small businesses but raising them for others is that most small businesses didn't start with the objective of being small forever.

Ok. And when they reach a point of expansion where they are utilizing more public resources and can more easily assist in providing support for our societal functions, then their tax burdens increase.
I don't know how future plans of a business matter when discussing how small businesses are taxed when they are identified as a small business.
Now, I agree that corporate taxes across the board are too high, but I fail to see how taxing large corporations at a higher rate than small corporations is an issue.

Well, for one thing, larger corporations find it easier to move operations overseas to countries with lower corporate tax rates.

(10-24-2017 08:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 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.

You'd probably be surprised. The problem with the idea of keeping taxes down for small businesses but raising them for others is that most small businesses didn't start with the objective of being small forever.

Ok. And when they reach a point of expansion where they are utilizing more public resources and can more easily assist in providing support for our societal functions, then their tax burdens increase.
I don't know how future plans of a business matter when discussing how small businesses are taxed when they are identified as a small business.
Now, I agree that corporate taxes across the board are too high, but I fail to see how taxing large corporations at a higher rate than small corporations is an issue.

Well, for one thing, larger corporations find it easier to move operations overseas to countries with lower corporate tax rates.

As I said, I agree that corporate tax rates are too high.

Your comment has nothing to do with different tax rates for different types of businesses, and how that affects future plans. Your comment really only addresses the top tax rate a company can expect to pay, which can be addressed by dropping rates across the board. But you could still keep a tiered rate to encourage people to start small businesses.

(10-24-2017 09:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 08:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 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.

You'd probably be surprised. The problem with the idea of keeping taxes down for small businesses but raising them for others is that most small businesses didn't start with the objective of being small forever.

Ok. And when they reach a point of expansion where they are utilizing more public resources and can more easily assist in providing support for our societal functions, then their tax burdens increase.
I don't know how future plans of a business matter when discussing how small businesses are taxed when they are identified as a small business.
Now, I agree that corporate taxes across the board are too high, but I fail to see how taxing large corporations at a higher rate than small corporations is an issue.

Well, for one thing, larger corporations find it easier to move operations overseas to countries with lower corporate tax rates.

As I said, I agree that corporate tax rates are too high.
Your comment has nothing to do with different tax rates for different types of businesses, and how that affects future plans. Your comment really only addresses the top tax rate a company can expect to pay, which can be addressed by dropping rates across the board. But you could still keep a tiered rate to encourage people to start small businesses.

Well, it's tiered for the first $100,000 now, which covers truly small businesses and startups. If we go to a world-class rate then the tiers wouldn't really be that big a deal.

The question is whether we want our tax code to drive investment and jobs overseas. I think not. And I'm not saying taxes are the only consideration. But they are one consideration, and often the others don't produce much net separation, so taxes are often the decider.

(10-24-2017 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

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

(10-24-2017 05:06 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  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?

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.

You'd probably be surprised. The problem with the idea of keeping taxes down for small businesses but raising them for others is that most small businesses didn't start with the objective of being small forever.

Ok. And when they reach a point of expansion where they are utilizing more public resources and can more easily assist in providing support for our societal functions, then their tax burdens increase.

I don't know how future plans of a business matter when discussing how small businesses are taxed when they are identified as a small business.

Now, I agree that corporate taxes across the board are too high, but I fail to see how taxing large corporations at a higher rate than small corporations is an issue.

What public resources? And if I'm not mistaken, you just paraphrased the Obama message of "you didnt build that".

Im all for *if* a company uses more public resources then they should pay more. But please do tell which public resources, say, Baker Botts in Austin consumes more than Joe fing blow sole practitioner attorney?

Otherwise your statement defaults to "the evil greedy mfers make more, so they must pay a larger percentage", doesnt it? And I hate to tell you, even if and when you keep the percentages the same, Baker Botts in Austin will still pay scads more than Joe Blow sole practitioner.

Your sentence seems to hold together in your belief that "[If one] can more easily assist in providing support for our societal functions, then their tax burdens [as a percentage must] increase."

I'd love for you to identify the social resources that Baker Botts Austin uses far more than Joe Blow sole practitioner as your first portion justification, as it seems to run counter to the second justification (in the same sentence) that the predicate *really* is solely and simply the progressive 'money bet go-to' that the evil greedy mfers make more, so they should pay a higher percentage (i.e. that is the sole predicate of that one "can more easily assist in providing support for our societal functions [period]" is the overriding concern).

No offense but 'public resources' for a huge number of economic activities is nothing more than window dressing for the second 'get your fingers in the piggy bank' result. But my example query stands -- name how Baker Botts Austin uses more 'public resources' than a single solo practitioner that fits your comment on how to increase the hole size in the tax pocket justified by 'the use of more public resources'.

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 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?

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.

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

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 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?

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.

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

(10-24-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 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?

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

(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:  

(10-24-2017 05:06 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  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?

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.

(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.

Anyway, to get back to the Trump administration, he's attacking a recently widowed gold star widow, two sitting Senators of his own party have called him "utterly untruthful," accused him of "debasing" the country, and being a "danger to democracy". Those are strong words for someone running against him. This is his own party. This situation is not normal. Regardless of ideology or policy, we have a POTUS who is simply not capable of doing the job. Foreign officials in Europe have been quoted as saying they are proceeding as if the U.S. does not currently have a president and assuming that leadership vacuum will remain so long as Trump holds the office.

If Rubio or Jeb! were president, we'd probably still be arguing about health care and tax policy. But not this other insane crap.

(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:  

(10-24-2017 05:06 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  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?

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.

(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.

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.