(10-08-2012 02:50 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 11:48 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 11:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And I must have missed this, but who exactly in the US is suggesting a 75% top rate and a 62.21% marginal rate?

Oh FFS. Fine, what's the number? If 75% is too high, what isn't, in your mind? Tell me what income and cap gains tax increases you have in mind that WON'T disincentivize growth and expansion.

If you want any government you have to pay for it somehow. What number do you believe we should have.. zero? Where's your maximum? What magic number do you have in mind? Are you suggesting we completely get rid of government all together? There's a huge difference between what American's have suggested, what they're actually paying and what they're talking about in France. What tax number do you have in mind that will help growth? Now show me anywhere that isn't funded by the Koch brothers that agrees with you.

Frankly, it's pretty hard to take you seriously with such absolute talk. You sound like a child having a temper tamptrum, unable to have a serious discussion.

Lowering the taxes past a certain point clearly has diminishing returns. It seems pretty obvious we've reached that point with the Bush tax cuts. We no longer benefit from huge tax cuts for the wealthy in a service based industry, this money doesn't find it's way back into the economy, that much is clear to anyone in finance. Particularly when we aren't funding infastructure like we used to.

It's fine to suggest the wealthy should keep their money if you feel that way, and don't support having a military or government services, but it's comical to suggest it's helping the country as a whole. It's simply not true in any way.

Huh? Did you mean to reply to my post? I'm having trouble understanding why you're getting so exercised about it. Nowhere in my post do I come close to suggesting zero taxation is possible or desirable. Did you miss the word "increases"? In fact, I didn't even argue for reducing them (although I might). In what way was my post "absolute"? Temper tantrum? Seriously, WTF? I was pointing out that RWT deflected the discussion of punitive taxation by stating that the admin hasn't proposed something at the new French President's unsustainably high rates. And, to RWT's credit (unless he was being sarcastic), he gave an answer. I don't necessarily agree but it wasn't something that needed an argument.

But now that you're asking, I'm much more in favor of tax reform that puts the burden on spending rather than income. I have no independently derived number but I've seen lots that make sense. See Owl 69/70/75's posting history for more - I'm pretty sure he's not funded by the Koch brothers.

(10-08-2012 12:05 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 09:42 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 08:17 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The libs will say:

1) The people leaving France are greedy & selfish.

2) More laws need to be passed to keep those fleeing in France, or have the French tax follow them to their new residence.

Sounds like a good start.

The fact that the irony was completely lost on you, while not surprising, is disturbing.

W studied schizophrenia today in class, it made me think of Robert.

(10-08-2012 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 08:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I still can't fathom how we tax capital gains different from income, but that seems to fall on deaf ears amongst the GOP crowd.

A big part of the reason is that the rest of the world does, too. In fact, much of the rest of the world provides even bigger breaks. Germany had zero CG tax until a couple of years ago; their economy did quite well when they did not tax CGs, and has not done quite so well since. I think it's too pat an answer to say that's the reason, but I also think it's unrealistic to deny any impact either.

The reason CG's are taxed differently is because you have to take capital risks to generate them, risks that you don't have to take to go to your job. You go to school, teach, and get paid. You don't have to write a check to invest in the school before you can start working there. Those on the left typically do not understand the importance of risk capital to econmic growth and prosperity, but those who are growing and prospering do.

You want CG rates lower than income rates because you want capital to MOVE. You want the capital out of the old and into the new. You don't want capital sitting in steel you want it cure for aids or a technology that could reduce our energy costs by 50%.

The faster you can move the capital the faster the standard of living improves.

(10-08-2012 08:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  How much wealth is there in the US? Could we do a one-time wealth tax? If the debt and deficit threaten our very existence. Then that at least should be on the table.

Yeah...Lets go straight to stealing more money from productive citizens. Never mind cutting spending.

We're the lowest taxed, by far, of any legitimate Western Nation. Where are you gonna go?

(10-08-2012 10:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We're the lowest taxed, by far, of any legitimate Western Nation. Where are you gonna go?

In terms of total taxes, yes. But that's a very misleading factoid, because it suggests things that are not true. It ignores the importance of how you structure your tax rates. And our taxes are poorly structured.

Our top corporate tax rate is highest in the world and our top personal tax rate is higher than the OECD average, and those things do drive investment overseas. Have you not noticed all the people moving money offshore to avoid US taxes?

For a country that takes a relatively small tax bite, we manage to take it in ways that discourage investment and growth.

(10-08-2012 03:51 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 02:50 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 11:48 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 11:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And I must have missed this, but who exactly in the US is suggesting a 75% top rate and a 62.21% marginal rate?

Oh FFS. Fine, what's the number? If 75% is too high, what isn't, in your mind? Tell me what income and cap gains tax increases you have in mind that WON'T disincentivize growth and expansion.

If you want any government you have to pay for it somehow. What number do you believe we should have.. zero? Where's your maximum? What magic number do you have in mind? Are you suggesting we completely get rid of government all together? There's a huge difference between what American's have suggested, what they're actually paying and what they're talking about in France. What tax number do you have in mind that will help growth? Now show me anywhere that isn't funded by the Koch brothers that agrees with you.

Frankly, it's pretty hard to take you seriously with such absolute talk. You sound like a child having a temper tamptrum, unable to have a serious discussion.

Lowering the taxes past a certain point clearly has diminishing returns. It seems pretty obvious we've reached that point with the Bush tax cuts. We no longer benefit from huge tax cuts for the wealthy in a service based industry, this money doesn't find it's way back into the economy, that much is clear to anyone in finance. Particularly when we aren't funding infastructure like we used to.

It's fine to suggest the wealthy should keep their money if you feel that way, and don't support having a military or government services, but it's comical to suggest it's helping the country as a whole. It's simply not true in any way.

Huh? Did you mean to reply to my post? I'm having trouble understanding why you're getting so exercised about it. Nowhere in my post do I come close to suggesting zero taxation is possible or desirable. Did you miss the word "increases"? In fact, I didn't even argue for reducing them (although I might). In what way was my post "absolute"? Temper tantrum? Seriously, WTF? I was pointing out that RWT deflected the discussion of punitive taxation by stating that the admin hasn't proposed something at the new French President's unsustainably high rates. And, to RWT's credit (unless he was being sarcastic), he gave an answer. I don't necessarily agree but it wasn't something that needed an argument.

But now that you're asking, I'm much more in favor of tax reform that puts the burden on spending rather than income. I have no independently derived number but I've seen lots that make sense. See Owl 69/70/75's posting history for more - I'm pretty sure he's not funded by the Koch brothers.

Yes, my point was that if the US rose their tax rates to that level there is no doubt there would be a significant exodus.

But clearly that isn't anything to be worried about here because no one is proposing anything like that.

A few percentage points isn't going to change things a whole lot.

Exactly, it's not going to change much. The amount it brings in wont do a damn thing. So the question then becomes, why do you think the government can take that meaningless % and spend it better than the rightful owners?

Reeling in spending might have to be considered eventually.

Crazy, I know.

(10-09-2012 08:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yes, my point was that if the US rose their tax rates to that level there is no doubt there would be a significant exodus.
But clearly that isn't anything to be worried about here because no one is proposing anything like that.
A few percentage points isn't going to change things a whole lot.

Umm, dude, the exodus is already happening at existing rates. Or haven't you noticed Romney, Mitt, or Electric, General?

I agree that a few percentage points won't affect many behaviours. That's because, with or without the "Bush tax cuts," our top marginal rates are already high enough to discourage investment.

It also won't do much to narrow the deficit or reduce the debt. That's because the true deficit and debt drivers are elsewhere--you know, where there's more money involved.

There's plenty to be worried about, even though nobody is proposing anything like France--yet.

For a country that takes a relatively small tax bite, we manage to take it in ways that discourage investment and growth.


I generally agree with this along the lines of being smart and creative. Our tax code makes as much sense as the Winchester House. If we could get a bi partisan electorate to understand that the tax code is power to politicians we stand a chance. Too many special interest lose if we simplify the tax code. Just look at the boondoggle the home mortgage deduction is. That has such far reaching consequences. I don't see how you refrain that in.

(10-09-2012 09:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  For a country that takes a relatively small tax bite, we manage to take it in ways that discourage investment and growth.
I generally agree with this along the lines of being smart and creative. Our tax code makes as much sense as the Winchester House. If we could get a bi partisan electorate to understand that the tax code is power to politicians we stand a chance. Too many special interest lose if we simplify the tax code. Just look at the boondoggle the home mortgage deduction is. That has such far reaching consequences. I don't see how you refrain that in.

Exactly. Now you work on getting your friends on the left to comprehend this and I'll work on getting my buddies on the right to understand this.

You and I are not alone in this understanding. Bowles and Simpson get it. So do Domenici and Rivlin. But most don't.