How much is enough and progressive income taxes

All other Political discussion that does not affect our ability to enjoy the outdoors.
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#1

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:48 am

So how much annual income (take home pay) do you really need these days to live a comfortable, secure life? $50K? $100K? $200K? $400K? $800K? More than a million?

Without getting into specifics, I've had the good fortune to have enough. Our house was paid off in our 40s, our 3 kids have completed college and will complete advanced degrees (PhDs and an MD) with no student debt, and we just bought our retirement home with cash. I did give up flying airplanes as a hobby in part because of the cost, but for the most part I buy whatever I want. Actually, I'm convinced I'd be happier if I had less stuff. My wife is retiring soon because all the retirement calculations show that we're never going to spend all the money we already have even if we live to be 100. No, I can't afford to buy my own 420 acre wilderness park, but then I'm not sure having that all to myself is really going to improve my quality of life. (I wouldn't mind going in on it with maybe a group of 10 or so; anyone interested?).

Life is good.

My point is that I sincerely cannot understand those at my income level or higher that complain that they pay too much income tax. How much money does a family NEED to take care of themselves? At some point it seems to me that more money is nothing but pure greed; the accumulation of wealth for excesses and ego.

I certainly cannot understand "trickle down economics" proponents that claim that lowering the marginal income tax rate for people at my income level or higher will stimulate the economy. The G.W. Bush tax cuts didn't do that in my case; at most they moved up my retirement date and probably only increased the size of my kids' inheritance. That was what, 10 years ago? Even before those tax cuts we were doing just fine.

So is it "fair" that when we get a bonus the fraction of that bonus that goes to the government as income taxes is probably twice or more what it would be if we were both public school teachers? Fair or not, I think its pretty clear that our society is better off if the school teachers can keep more of their money than if we can keep more of ours.

I agree with Bernie Sanders on this one point: the system needs to work for everybody. It has worked very well for me, thank you very much, and by extension people at and above my income. How is it working for you? When you hear someone complain that taxes are too high, isn't it important to understand WHOSE taxes are too high before you decide to agree with them?

(BTW, complaints that the government spends too much money are off topic here; start a new thread)



User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#2

Post by johnspenn » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:04 am

GregD wrote:So how much annual income (take home pay) do you really need these days to live a comfortable, secure life?

... and we just bought our retirement home with cash...

...Actually, I'm convinced I'd be happier if I had less stuff...

...My wife is retiring soon because all the retirement calculations show that we're never going to spend all the money we already have even if we live to be 100...

How much money does a family NEED to take care of themselves? At some point it seems to me that more money is nothing but pure greed; the accumulation of wealth for excesses and ego.

You obviously have much more than you need. You admit you'd be happier with less. You don't NEED a retirement home. You don't NEED more money than you can spend if you live to be a hundred. Sounds like pure greed and the accumulation of wealth for excesses and ego to me.

You should call your friend Bernie in to take away from you what he thinks is appropriate so he can give it to someone else who didn't work to earn it. I bet I can find his number for you if you need me to.

Of course that is all tongue in cheek. Who is the final arbiter of how much an individual or a family NEEDS? You? The Bern? Our marvelous government? The TRUMPSTER?

Bring on the fair tax where everyone pays the same percentage based on what they spend. That's as fair as it gets.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#3

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:03 am

johnspenn wrote:someone else who didn't work to earn it.
"The System" also includes the relationship between work and earnings. Some people work very hard and earn very little. I earn an awful lot more than a school teacher but I don't really work any harder than a school teacher. Some people aren't able to work. Capitalism is one way to come up with a relationship between earnings and work, but there is no reason to conclude that it is a particularly "fair" way of doing things. And in fact, we know it isn't; consequently there are a lot of fair trade laws to keep capitalism from destroying our society. To a first approximation it works fine, but taken very far it becomes unsustainable.

It comes down to consequences and to some extent values. If "the system" does not allow someone a reasonable opportunity to take care of themselves and their family it is likely they are going to defy the system and break its rules. If that happens to enough people the society will fail. So if "the system" fails to work for everyone, it will, inevitably, fail to work for anyone. For me rules, while important, are merely a means to an end; when push comes to shove I value people over rules. Do you feel differently?

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#4

Post by johnspenn » Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:40 pm

GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote:someone else who didn't work to earn it.
"The System" also includes the relationship between work and earnings. Some people work very hard and earn very little. I earn an awful lot more than a school teacher but I don't really work any harder than a school teacher. Some people aren't able to work. Capitalism is one way to come up with a relationship between earnings and work, but there is no reason to conclude that it is a particularly "fair" way of doing things. And in fact, we know it isn't; consequently there are a lot of fair trade laws to keep capitalism from destroying our society. To a first approximation it works fine, but taken very far it becomes unsustainable.

It comes down to consequences and to some extent values. If "the system" does not allow someone a reasonable opportunity to take care of themselves and their family it is likely they are going to defy the system and break its rules. If that happens to enough people the society will fail. So if "the system" fails to work for everyone, it will, inevitably, fail to work for anyone. For me rules, while important, are merely a means to an end; when push comes to shove I value people over rules. Do you feel differently?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the system". Are you referring to our economy? Our government? The two combined?

Also, I'm not sure what rules you're referring to. The laws of our national and local governments?

I value the rule of law. I value people. Some "rules" are necessary to protect people from other people. Rules govern the way people interact. I don't think you can make a clean separation in a society. Or I can't anyway.

wrightdu
Reactions:
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:36 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#5

Post by wrightdu » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:15 pm

I make slightly above the poverty level based on today's standards, but find the answer not to be federally governing me more to be a solution. I feel a better solution may be to reduce the federal government while allowing state and local governments to govern those more local to them. It allows a system that benefits the locals more than a governmental body that is so separate from most individuals. People can have a voice that echoes closer to their own lives, which allows "We the People" to feel more connected to what "We the People" value and expect from our governing bodies. While I make little money, I do not blame that on society or my government, or Corporations, but hold myself accountable for what I make. Nothing is stopping me from educating myself in other areas of study, or just finding a trade that could provide a larger salary. I don't think the system is perfect, but I occasionally look to other countries and see what opportunities and liberties I have versus what they do not. I am afforded the right to move to most other countries in the world if I prefer an alternate method of government, but do not wish to do so. Just my .02.
“We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.”
― Maya Angelou

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#6

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:52 pm

johnspenn wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the system". Are you referring to our economy? Our government? The two combined?

Also, I'm not sure what rules you're referring to. The laws of our national and local governments?

I value the rule of law. I value people. Some "rules" are necessary to protect people from other people. Rules govern the way people interact. I don't think you can make a clean separation in a society. Or I can't anyway.
The two combined.

Laws.

I agree that rules are good. Except when they aren't.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#7

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:05 pm

wrightdu wrote:I make slightly above the poverty level based on today's standards, but find the answer not to be federally governing me more to be a solution. I feel a better solution may be to reduce the federal government while allowing state and local governments to govern those more local to them. It allows a system that benefits the locals more than a governmental body that is so separate from most individuals. People can have a voice that echoes closer to their own lives, which allows "We the People" to feel more connected to what "We the People" value and expect from our governing bodies. While I make little money, I do not blame that on society or my government, or Corporations, but hold myself accountable for what I make. Nothing is stopping me from educating myself in other areas of study, or just finding a trade that could provide a larger salary. I don't think the system is perfect, but I occasionally look to other countries and see what opportunities and liberties I have versus what they do not. I am afforded the right to move to most other countries in the world if I prefer an alternate method of government, but do not wish to do so. Just my .02.
I don't know how you do it. I would have guessed that one serious accident or illness would be financially devastating. It is good to hear that things are working for you.

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#8

Post by Scott » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:06 pm

I find everything is relative. What we need is food and protection, everything else is to make us more comfy, and possibly more healthy... While most people will deny they are comparing themselves to anyone else, whether they are looking up the wealth ladder, or down, my experience says they are. Trendy clothes? cool car? whatever it is. how much a person needs. or where they will be happy on that ladder is a very personal choice. 100+ years ago having a car and electricity was for the rich, now it is more about WHICH car a person has. Status is a big part of who we are.

I agree that hard work and income are not necessarily connected. I also agree that sharing the wealth is a very humane thing to do. I don't agree that the government is honest enough or efficient enough to redistribute wealth very well. I suggest that those that have more than they need, and are OK with the idea of redistributing it, find worthy causes, families, whatever, and help on a local and personal level.

You are very fortunate to have worked and gotten to the position in life that you have. It is a very small minority that achieve the point where what to get, or what to do, or most day to day decisions are not dictated and prioritized by what is in their bank account. I strongly believe it is not the government's place to take away what you have earned.

I don't think there has ever been, and I doubt there will ever be, a system that works for all. Communism is a nice concept, but there are always greedy people, lazy people, dishonest people, power hungry people, all systems are burdened by those that it covers.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#9

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:40 pm

Scott wrote:I strongly believe it is not the government's place to take away what you have earned.
If you are talking civil forfeiture I'm with you 110%.

Roads, low crime, safe food, water and air, scientifically validated medical practices, public education, and a whole bunch of other benefits of good government are valuable and are not cost-free. Taxes are payment for services rendered.

wrightdu
Reactions:
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:36 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#10

Post by wrightdu » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:05 pm

GregD wrote:
wrightdu wrote:I make slightly above the poverty level based on today's standards, but find the answer not to be federally governing me more to be a solution. I feel a better solution may be to reduce the federal government while allowing state and local governments to govern those more local to them. It allows a system that benefits the locals more than a governmental body that is so separate from most individuals. People can have a voice that echoes closer to their own lives, which allows "We the People" to feel more connected to what "We the People" value and expect from our governing bodies. While I make little money, I do not blame that on society or my government, or Corporations, but hold myself accountable for what I make. Nothing is stopping me from educating myself in other areas of study, or just finding a trade that could provide a larger salary. I don't think the system is perfect, but I occasionally look to other countries and see what opportunities and liberties I have versus what they do not. I am afforded the right to move to most other countries in the world if I prefer an alternate method of government, but do not wish to do so. Just my .02.
I don't know how you do it. I would have guessed that one serious accident or illness would be financially devastating. It is good to hear that things are working for you.
I pay for insurance, and have a small savings. If something were catastrophic it would put us in a bind, but I would do what I could to get through it. One thing I would not do is look to the government with the "expectation" to help. If the help is there it may work. My wife and I had to be on welfare, but that only offered assistance while we got on our feet, then we got off. Not something I'm proud of, but fortunately I pay taxes for and live in a country that can provide that. I also make a choice not to have more than two children, because I know we cannot afford it. Just part of being a responsible adult as far as I'm concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.”
― Maya Angelou

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#11

Post by Scott » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:33 pm

GregD wrote:
Scott wrote:I strongly believe it is not the government's place to take away what you have earned.
If you are talking civil forfeiture I'm with you 110%.

Roads, low crime, safe food, water and air, scientifically validated medical practices, public education, and a whole bunch of other benefits of good government are valuable and are not cost-free. Taxes are payment for services rendered.

agreed, not free to live in society. which services, and how valuable seem to be the details that get debated.

To answer your original question of how much is enough, thinking about it for me, it would be to not have to consider money in any decision my family makes. Not that money would not be considered, but it would not HAVE to be considered. By necessity as well as mindset, we are not extravagant, so no private islands and jets. But enough would be to just do, not have to worry about if we can do. That would be enough. I don't know what number that is.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#12

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:53 pm

johnspenn wrote:
GregD wrote:So how much annual income (take home pay) do you really need these days to live a comfortable, secure life?

... and we just bought our retirement home with cash...

...Actually, I'm convinced I'd be happier if I had less stuff...

...My wife is retiring soon because all the retirement calculations show that we're never going to spend all the money we already have even if we live to be 100...

How much money does a family NEED to take care of themselves? At some point it seems to me that more money is nothing but pure greed; the accumulation of wealth for excesses and ego.

You obviously have much more than you need. You admit you'd be happier with less. You don't NEED a retirement home. You don't NEED more money than you can spend if you live to be a hundred. Sounds like pure greed and the accumulation of wealth for excesses and ego to me.

You should call your friend Bernie in to take away from you what he thinks is appropriate so he can give it to someone else who didn't work to earn it. I bet I can find his number for you if you need me to.

Of course that is all tongue in cheek. Who is the final arbiter of how much an individual or a family NEEDS? You? The Bern? Our marvelous government? The TRUMPSTER?

Bring on the fair tax where everyone pays the same percentage based on what they spend. That's as fair as it gets.
I agree that might be a more fair tax system. But as far as your tongue in cheek approach for Greg, I think I might have something even better for Greg than calling up Bernie. How about this: Greg starts giving some of that excess cash away? To whatever group or individual he might think deserves it. An approach that is taught and used- in very small part or rather huge according to their abilities and their conscience - by Christians. But it can also be used just as easily by atheists. If you don't "need" it, give it away.

That way, instead of a Bernie Sanders type deciding who needs and best deserves the money I/we have worked to earn, I/we decide. For instance, I like the Salvation Army who use that money to directly feed and clothe people, and whose empoyees and executives earn very little themselves. Or, for example, when people(most often Christians I think, but could be anyone I suppose) decide to go on a medical/dental/building mission trip to Ecuador, Honduras or to a USA Indian reservation, they not only provide their services and labors for free, and pay for all of the medicines or building materials that go with them, but they also must pay for their food, lodging etc while they are providing this service.

An alternative to this is to tax Greg(or me or us), and then maybe tax him some more, and give the money to the government. And the government, which is never corrupt of course, can then decide who deserves to get that money Greg earned and how much. But first, a huge hunk of it can be sliced off the top to pay for thousands of Gov employees, who earn good salaries and spectacular benefits and retirements, and for the buildings they work in.

So just leaving it to Greg and the rest of us to decide who should get the money that we worked for and earned, is one alternative. Greg clearly feels like he has managed to accrue more than he needs, so he can very easily just start giving it away. No need for that middle man who might(and actually does) spend my tax dollars on sex change operations for prisoners, or for abortions, or really for all kinds of stuff that I hate. While not only by taxing us enormously ( I think this year set a new record for tax dollars collected), but as there is never, and has never, been "enough", rolling up 19 trillion of debt ( an added 9 or 10 trillion in just the last 8 years) by borrowing money to give to all the people- both welfare recipients and employees and politically favored groups or individuals- who they think need it and deserve it. They have never had enough for all of this, not even when the top tax rate was 90%, and they never will. Because they can always find one more project or approved group to "invest" in. And they can by votes by playing Santa Clause.

Whenever I hear an argument for higher tax rates, I think of a roofer on a rooftop in summer time in MS. I see that guy slaving away, and think how if that guy gets the opportunity to work 60 hours in 1 week rather than 40, and maybe get time and one half to work those OT hours, how they will probably jump on it to feed and clothe their family, but there will probably be a significant extra higher PERCENTAGE of taxes withdrawn from his wages for that miserable, back braking, heat stroke inducing work. (any one here ever had that happen? Anticipate a much bigger paycheck only to find that not only say twice as much tax was taken if you earned twice as much, but a lot more than twice as much was taken because of the dreaded higher tax bracket? I have. ) He just pushed himself into a higher tax bracket. And inevitably some of that extra tax money will go to- well, who knows who? Whoever the government thinks deserves the fruit of his labor more than he does. It could be to a government employee, even a tax collector working in an air conditioned office, who has never done the kind of brute work he is doing, and who has benefits he could only dream of. Or it could go to someone who just stays home raising the children she just keeps on producing, with no baby daddy to be found as far as the government goes. And no one to tell her "no more" because no judgement is allowed.

I guess one roofer might prefer one way to getting rid of their extra cash, another might prefer the other way.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#13

Post by GregD » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:36 am

wrightdu wrote:My wife and I had to be on welfare, but that only offered assistance while we got on our feet, then we got off.
That is how its supposed to work. When a former peer of mine was young and living with his mother she also went on welfare for a time to get education and then a job. As I recall House Speaker Paul Ryan's family was on welfare for a time while he was growing up. Everybody looses when someone falls on hard times and then becomes destitute.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#14

Post by GregD » Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:14 am

BillyBob66 wrote:Whenever I hear an argument for higher tax rates, I think of a roofer on a rooftop in summer time in MS.
Because everyone in the US is a roofer in Mississippi?

Think instead of hedge fund executives like Mitt Romney that make a lot more than me and pay only 15% federal income tax rate because of the carried interest deduction. Think instead of Warren Buffett, who makes a lot more than Mitt and pays only a bit more than 15% federal income tax rate because most of his income is capital gains.

I find it particularly unfair that capital gains income is not taxed as ordinary income. What this means is that the income you earn by spending your time and working will be taxed up to 39.6% (if you are doing quite well, by the way). However, rich people don't have to spend their time working; they can live off the income that their money earns. And much of this income is capital gains and is only taxed at 15%. So because they already have a lot of money they spend no time working, make as much or more than you do, and pay a lower tax rate. And by the end of the year they may well have gotten even wealthier.

Income is income. Taxing capital gains income at a rate substantially lower than normal income means that people with a lot of money that don't work pay a significantly lower tax rate than people that work for a living. How is that fair?

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#15

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:10 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:Whenever I hear an argument for higher tax rates, I think of a roofer on a rooftop in summer time in MS.
Because everyone in the US is a roofer in Mississippi?
I'm sure you did not get that from what I said. The roofer in 100 degree summertime MS is just one example of, and symbol for, able bodied, very hard working people throughout the USA, who do whatever is necessary to take care of their families, quite obviously. But no need to use a man bent over asphalt shingles in 100F all day long, or a highway worker, how about an RN? I knew more than one in my career that, due to some hardship or just because they wanted a better life for their family, worked full time with me and then worked another full or 1/2 time job at another hospital. (and actually, my daughter has a full time job with benefits at the police department, but works a 2nd part time job at minimum wage trying to make ends meet). So these folks working 2nd jobs don't even get the time and 1/2 OT, since the work is with a different employer. But what the nurse who leaves one shift exhausted to go across town and work another shift, or work on her day off, is a higher % tax bracket. So of she managed to make $200 on a given day at her main job(which she spent money, time and effort to get a license to allow her to work at that), and paid $40 taxes( or whatever), and she now kills herself working another shift to earn another $200, her taxes are not going to be double at $80, but some higher amount depending on what new tax bracket she moves into. Millions of hard working citizens find themselves in such a situation every year. Then that will give more money to the government to give to other able bodied people who do not work for a variety of reason. Which will include people who can not earn enough working to make up for welfare and benefits, so it makes no financial sense for them to work. It will include some who will not work just because they refuse to do any work if the government will feed and house them. Some others will be deserving disabled folks who can not work. And of course, as said previously, the government will use some of that money to provide sex change treatments for prisoners like Chelsea Manning. The government will forcefully take ever more and more money from these hard workers to spend it on what the workers oft times find obscene. And then still borrow more money to do more of the same. Is the above scenario fair to the nurse who works two shifts?
GregD wrote:Think instead of hedge fund executives like Mitt Romney that make a lot more than me and pay only 15% federal income tax rate because of the carried interest deduction. Think instead of Warren Buffett, who makes a lot more than Mitt and pays only a bit more than 15% federal income tax rate because most of his income is capital gains.
So are you arguing for the fairness of taxing the filthy rich even more? Because that might make you feel better(as would giving away some of your excess cash), but as I'm sure you know, that won't do it. There just are so few of these super rich people, so that even taking 100% of their income will not put a dent in how much the government is capable of spending, and how much they desire to spend. To really make any difference, you must increase the tax rates on that nurse mentioned above, and the roofer and road workers, all of the masses making 30K-200K a year. Where the numbers being taxed are millions and millions of folks. I'm sure you know that those making < 30K pay only 1.4% of income taxes collected and those below 15K pay essentially none, while those above 100K already pay 80% of the taxes collected and those making >50K pay 94% of all income taxes collected. But do you think they should pay 98%? 100%?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... o-be-fair/

GregD wrote:I find it particularly unfair that capital gains income is not taxed as ordinary income. What this means is that the income you earn by spending your time and working will be taxed up to 39.6% (if you are doing quite well, by the way). However, rich people don't have to spend their time working; they can live off the income that their money earns. And much of this income is capital gains and is only taxed at 15%. So because they already have a lot of money they spend no time working, make as much or more than you do, and pay a lower tax rate. And by the end of the year they may well have gotten even wealthier.

Income is income. Taxing capital gains income at a rate substantially lower than normal income means that people with a lot of money that don't work pay a significantly lower tax rate than people that work for a living. How is that fair?
It is exceedingly fair, at least often times, in this way: Though I can not speak for "hedge fund executives like Mitt Romney", I can speak for the millions of hard working Americans who have paid taxes their entire lives on the money they have earned, often times earned by the literal sweat of their brow, in order to have it redistributed by government to wherever and whoever the government thinks deserves it. Say you earn 30K or 100K, or one year you manage to find double the amount of work and you sacrifice and work 60-80 hours a week to earn double that year. You pay your taxes, even a much higher tax bracket since you worked twice as much. Likely it is even with held from your check after Fed/state income taxes, MC tax, SS tax, etc etc. have been removed. After all that there are X $ left over, which has ALREADY been abundantly taxed. Now you take this abundantly taxed left over money and you try and live on it, with government making you zero offers to help pay your health insurance premiums, etc. But you are not a life time on welfare type, you approach life in a disciplined manner and work hard to make sure your family lives under their means. Thus, after taxes and living expenses, this year you have X thousands of dollars to invest for the future, or maybe for your retirement. Because you have realized you can not live very well on the 13% of your income the government is forcing you to pay into for a lifetime. You probably could if they forced you to put it into an interest bearing account which would make you a millionaire at retirement, but you will never see interest on that money, and the monthly payment from the Gov will not hack it. So you take any of your already heavily taxed money that might be left over, and you decide to invest it. If you invest it, unlike earnings at a job, a return is not guaranteed. In fact, you can lose part or all of it. YOU take the risk on the money left over after paying taxes, not the government or the person receiving unearned federal payments. YOU take the risk, on money which YOU have already paid taxes on. And lo and behold, if you get lucky and make some nice capital gains rather than losing money, you find the government is right there with their hand out now wanting to tax this money which was earned on the left over after tax money.

So you see, income is not really income. If you work at a job at an agreed upon wage, you are pretty much guaranteed to get the money you earn. If they won't pay you for some reason, either the government or you yourself(by suing) will likely be able to force them to pay up, maybe even with penalties. About your only risk is for maybe 1 or 2 checks if your employer suddenly goes bust, and there is no one with any money left to sue(sp?). And you must admit that is an exceeding rare situation, and can only cause the loss of one or 2 weeks pay, not a life savings. I have had my share of good investments, but I have had a few bad ones also. I even once lost my entire investment in one bank, several thousands of dollars. But far worse than that, I watched in horror as a large number of the local population had their life savings wiped out in the crash of 2000-2001, because so many of them had invested in WorldCom(ever heard of it?). It had made a lot of people rich, and they had paid their extra 15% tax on any earnings they had made on this left over after tax invested money. THEY took the risk, not uncle Sam. Then one day it went to zero, along with Enron and many others. I have another friend, mid 60s, who lost his entire life savings- not in Worldcom, but some other company which managed his $400,000 of savings and maybe inheritance in various bonds. He started over from scratch in his 60s. He took the risk. But you feel they should have paid more than 15% taxes for the privilege of taking that risk? One thing I see is a constant: Government is never satisfied with the % of other peoples income they live off of.

There is yet one more reason the tax rates have been low on non-interest investment income like dividends and capital gains. It is to encourage people to risk their hard earned money on stocks and bonds. This money, at least some times, fuels companies that grow and hire people, who will then pay taxes. Apparently the government has always wanted to encourage investment by the public. But you feel 15% is not enough? What then is? 30%? 50%? That sounds about right I guess: I take all of the risk, Washington bureaucrats get half of my earnings(on already taxed money) to spend if I get lucky.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “All the other Political Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest