On the same token, the more employee there are the less leverage they have over what wages they can demand.
True, but cities in America tend to have higher employment rates than rural areas (excluding rust belt cities like Detroit and Cleveland).DrunkFace wrote:
On the same token, the more employee there are the less leverage they have over what wages they can demand.
Also, New York is a union state whereas Florida and North Carolina are Right To Work. Our public service unions are continuously driving up the cost of living here while their own public servants are powerless.
Last edited by Jay (2011-08-23 10:26:40)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Sauce it, please.Ty wrote:
I disagree. When you look at the percentage of income paid in tax by the rich - not income tax, percentage of total income that gets paid as tax - there is not much there. People love dressing it up by looking at the pool of federal taxation income and highlighting the proportion contributed by the richest 1-10% but it paints a false picture. The reality is that the rich have it very easy. They earn more and pay less.I'm with you on that.FEOS wrote:
Still doesn't make up for the antiquated cap on SS/Medicare payroll, though.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
A report from the IRS looking at the taxes paid by the top 400 earners (1990 -2007):FEOS wrote:
Sauce it, please.Ty wrote:
I disagree. When you look at the percentage of income paid in tax by the rich - not income tax, percentage of total income that gets paid as tax - there is not much there. People love dressing it up by looking at the pool of federal taxation income and highlighting the proportion contributed by the richest 1-10% but it paints a false picture. The reality is that the rich have it very easy. They earn more and pay less.I'm with you on that.FEOS wrote:
Still doesn't make up for the antiquated cap on SS/Medicare payroll, though.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
I'm not going to pretend I understand even half of this and the stuff I do understand I'm probably misinterpreting.
Thankfully David Wessel from the Wall Street Journal presumably knows what he's talking about.
(Sorry, don't know what happened to the rest of this post, fixing it now.)In its annual update of the taxes paid by the 400 best-off taxpayers, who aren
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
It's an interesting set of tables. What I gleaned from it is that over time, the super wealthy have learned to live off of investments rather than salary. Long term capital gains tax rates are set at 15% which is why you see so many people paying so little as a percentage of their income in taxes. It's why Warren Buffett says he only pays 17% per year in taxes. He pays himself a salary of $100,000 and the rest of his income is from cashing in long term securities and equities.Ty wrote:
A report from the IRS looking at the taxes paid by the top 400 earners (1990 -2007):FEOS wrote:
Sauce it, please.Ty wrote:
I disagree. When you look at the percentage of income paid in tax by the rich - not income tax, percentage of total income that gets paid as tax - there is not much there. People love dressing it up by looking at the pool of federal taxation income and highlighting the proportion contributed by the richest 1-10% but it paints a false picture. The reality is that the rich have it very easy. They earn more and pay less.
I'm with you on that.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
I'm not going to pretend I understand even half of this and the stuff I do understand I'm probably misinterpreting.
Thankfully David Wessel from the Wall Street Journal presumably knows what he's talking about.In its annual update of the taxes paid by the 400 best-off taxpayers, who aren
Flaming_Maniac argued with me one time when I said that capital gains should be taxed at the regular income rate. He said it would inhibit investment due to the extra risk involved. But, that's like saying earnings from gambling should be taxed at a lower rate because there is risk...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
For some reason I'm getting an eror every time I try to edit my above post to re-write what strangely vanished. No idea what's happening. Anyway this is the gist of it.
Okay it fucked up again but I think I've got it now. No idea what went wrong.Ty wrote:
A report from the IRS looking at the taxes paid by the top 400 earners (1990 -2007):
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
I'm not going to pretend I understand even half of this and the stuff I do understand I'm probably misinterpreting.
Thankfully David Wessel from the Wall Street Journal presumably knows what he's talking about.In its annual update of the taxes paid by the 400 best-off taxpayers, who aren't identified, the IRS also said that only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket. The 400 best-off taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 16.6%, lower than in any year since the IRS began making the reports in 1992...
...About 81.3% of the income of the top 400 households came in the form of capital gains, dividends or interest, the IRS data show. Only 6.5% came in the form of salaries and wages.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
It also appeared they had quite a few deductions for business and investment losses, as well, which could easily drop them into a lower tax bracket, depending on the source of income.Jay wrote:
It's an interesting set of tables. What I gleaned from it is that over time, the super wealthy have learned to live off of investments rather than salary. Long term capital gains tax rates are set at 15% which is why you see so many people paying so little as a percentage of their income in taxes. It's why Warren Buffett says he only pays 17% per year in taxes. He pays himself a salary of $100,000 and the rest of his income is from cashing in long term securities and equities.Ty wrote:
A report from the IRS looking at the taxes paid by the top 400 earners (1990 -2007):FEOS wrote:
Sauce it, please.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
I'm not going to pretend I understand even half of this and the stuff I do understand I'm probably misinterpreting.
Thankfully David Wessel from the Wall Street Journal presumably knows what he's talking about.In its annual update of the taxes paid by the 400 best-off taxpayers, who aren
Flaming_Maniac argued with me one time when I said that capital gains should be taxed at the regular income rate. He said it would inhibit investment due to the extra risk involved. But, that's like saying earnings from gambling should be taxed at a lower rate because there is risk...
Hence (again) the need for overall tax reform. Even at that, they are still paying the lion's share of income taxes. And if you run the numbers, you could take every penny from every millionaire+ (tax at 100%) and it still wouldn't be enough to close the deficit gap, much less put a dent in the debt.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
True, but it does make calls for a flat tax look even more absurd...FEOS wrote:
It also appeared they had quite a few deductions for business and investment losses, as well, which could easily drop them into a lower tax bracket, depending on the source of income.Jay wrote:
It's an interesting set of tables. What I gleaned from it is that over time, the super wealthy have learned to live off of investments rather than salary. Long term capital gains tax rates are set at 15% which is why you see so many people paying so little as a percentage of their income in taxes. It's why Warren Buffett says he only pays 17% per year in taxes. He pays himself a salary of $100,000 and the rest of his income is from cashing in long term securities and equities.Ty wrote:
A report from the IRS looking at the taxes paid by the top 400 earners (1990 -2007):FEOS wrote:
Sauce it, please.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
I'm not going to pretend I understand even half of this and the stuff I do understand I'm probably misinterpreting.
Thankfully David Wessel from the Wall Street Journal presumably knows what he's talking about.
Flaming_Maniac argued with me one time when I said that capital gains should be taxed at the regular income rate. He said it would inhibit investment due to the extra risk involved. But, that's like saying earnings from gambling should be taxed at a lower rate because there is risk...
Hence (again) the need for overall tax reform. Even at that, they are still paying the lion's share of income taxes. And if you run the numbers, you could take every penny from every millionaire+ (tax at 100%) and it still wouldn't be enough to close the deficit gap, much less put a dent in the debt.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
When you say that the rich are still paying the lions share of income taxes that doesn't speak to any particular inequity it speaks to the incredible income disparity in America that the US tax system is simply not designed for. If I earn $100m and pay just 1% tax I still pay ten times more than ten people who earn $100k and pay 10% tax each. That doesn't mean that I'm unduly burdened.
But that's income disparity and a whole different mess of an affair. We're in agreement though that overall tax reform is required, the current system is antiquated and it has far too many holes.
But that's income disparity and a whole different mess of an affair. We're in agreement though that overall tax reform is required, the current system is antiquated and it has far too many holes.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
The calls for a flat tax are all about equity. Everyone pays the same as a percentage of income, but the rich end up paying more overall. A sense of fairness that the progressive system doesn't have. Of course, that's fraught with issues, as well, since you'd have to have a ridiculously high flat rate to achieve the same level of revenue that you do under the current system.Jay wrote:
True, but it does make calls for a flat tax look even more absurd...FEOS wrote:
It also appeared they had quite a few deductions for business and investment losses, as well, which could easily drop them into a lower tax bracket, depending on the source of income.Jay wrote:
It's an interesting set of tables. What I gleaned from it is that over time, the super wealthy have learned to live off of investments rather than salary. Long term capital gains tax rates are set at 15% which is why you see so many people paying so little as a percentage of their income in taxes. It's why Warren Buffett says he only pays 17% per year in taxes. He pays himself a salary of $100,000 and the rest of his income is from cashing in long term securities and equities.
Flaming_Maniac argued with me one time when I said that capital gains should be taxed at the regular income rate. He said it would inhibit investment due to the extra risk involved. But, that's like saying earnings from gambling should be taxed at a lower rate because there is risk...
Hence (again) the need for overall tax reform. Even at that, they are still paying the lion's share of income taxes. And if you run the numbers, you could take every penny from every millionaire+ (tax at 100%) and it still wouldn't be enough to close the deficit gap, much less put a dent in the debt.
That, and you'd still have to exclude the lower income brackets, as it would be too burdensome for them. So you've just negated the whole equity argument from the start.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well FM was/is pretty spot on. You can't compare it to the gambling income taxes..Jay wrote:
Flaming_Maniac argued with me one time when I said that capital gains should be taxed at the regular income rate. He said it would inhibit investment due to the extra risk involved. But, that's like saying earnings from gambling should be taxed at a lower rate because there is risk...
Allow me to explain. Any bit of investment produces economic activity. Even a failed investment still adds money to the system and produces wealth even if the initial investor isn't the one acquiring said wealth. From a purely technical standpoint the arguments that capital gains taxes prevent investment is very much the same argument against high income taxes. From a technical perspective both provide an incentive for the wealthy to part with more of their money and add it into the overall economy.
Now, most of the arguments coming from the right in favor of low taxes are from the ethical standpoint of "why is success being punished?". It's a damn good ethical argument really. There is no ethical argument in favor of law capital gains taxes. The gambling analogy wins in that case.
But from the technical standpoint the gambling analogy completely falls apart. Gambling is a vice and is more a economic harm than good. Investment on the other hand, like low taxes, are a gain for the overall economy. So yeah FM was right.
There is also a good argument that capital gains taxes prohibit investment in new markets, and new industries and other places...
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-08-23 20:06:57)
financial investments are not economic investments. they are two completely different things.
Still adds fluid into the system that's the point.
So would dumping the money into a savings account. The money is not going to sit locked away in a vault. People will still invest no matter what the tax rate is. Inflation is the single greatest contributing factor when it comes to prodding people into investments. The tax rate is largely irrelevant.Macbeth wrote:
Still adds fluid into the system that's the point.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat