Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why cut taxes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    I quoted the wrong post. sorry! meant to quote this one:

    http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1340383
    Oh, ok.

    I am condescending because I am a jerk.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
      Oh, ok.

      I am condescending because I am a jerk.
      I'm like LeBron James.
      -mpfunk

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Crockett View Post
        Why the condescending attitude?

        You appear to prefer a robust social welfare state. I prefer one that is more limited and stays within its means. I'm concerned about where we are at and the direction we are headed. Current, discretionary spending including defense spending total roughly 1/3 of our annual federal expenditures. The rest is entitlement spending. We keep kicking the can down the road, but something that can't last won't. We are heading for a grave financial crisis, sooner or later. When I add up my federal, state, and property taxes, it's more than a third of my income. I think that's too much. Excuse moi if I voice my concerns in this forum.
        I don't prefer a welfare state. I am fiscally conservative. I consider myself an independent, but I vote republican more than democrat.

        But your earlier post I quoted was uber-partisan hyperbole. It is the equivalent of stating that all republicans hate minorities and poor people.
        "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
        "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
        "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
          Makes perfect sense.

          "Hey, let's try to suck as a rock band so that we aren't so rich and famous."

          Most Rush fans I know are total nerds.
          I guess if one just makes it big they can just put up barriers to keep oneself intact!
          Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
          -General George S. Patton

          I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
          -DOCTOR Wuap

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Crockett View Post
            Why the condescending attitude?

            You appear to prefer a robust social welfare state. I prefer one that is more limited and stays within its means. I'm concerned about where we are at and the direction we are headed. Current, discretionary spending including defense spending total roughly 1/3 of our annual federal expenditures. The rest is entitlement spending. We keep kicking the can down the road, but something that can't last won't. We are heading for a grave financial crisis, sooner or later. When I add up my federal, state, and property taxes, it's more than a third of my income. I think that's too much. Excuse moi if I voice my concerns in this forum.
            State taxes? But what about that damn sales tax that keeps me buying things on-line and out of my state? Oh wait, you are from Orygun. It must be nice just shopping at the local walmart all the time.
            "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
            "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
            "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
            GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

            Comment


            • #51
              PAC is right, there were tons of loopholes. It was a great time for tax attorneys and tax accountants. The 1986 tax revision actually took away a lot of benefits for real estate as I remember. Maybe oil and gas shelters also took a hit.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by happyone View Post
                good stuff cowboy, about the only differences I have is with capital gains and SS taxes. Philosophically I would treat all income as income. Make the decision to sell an asset an economic rather than a tax reasons. Also I would completely remove the cap on SS taxes.
                I understand your opinion on capital gains, and I think a lot of people agree. The primary reason for my position is that Cap X funds are usually reinvested, and taxing them at a low rate decreases the transaction cost of moving investment capital from one investment to another. Lower barriers for people to transferring capital to more productive investments increases the productivity of the economy's aggregate capital investment, and thereby grows the economy faster through more flexible and efficient capital allocation.

                From the perspective of fairness, capital gains represent returns over a number of years, and it doesn't seem fair to lump them all together and tax them at once if it will be taxed at the highest personal rate. This is equivalent to taxing the entire appreciation of your retirement portfolio at once. Unlike retirement portfolio's, capital investments like real estate can't all be liquidated gradually. This is why capital gains are taxed at a different rate.

                Regarding Social Security, it's all just math. At a 3% return and retirement at age 70 with a 20-year payout, a person needs to invest just over 9% of their income for 45 years (age 25 to 70) to receive a benefit equal to 40% of their working income. Currently, the benefit is capped at around $2,700, equivalent to 40% of an $84k salary, so it seems reasonable to cut the withholding in half at some point beyond that. Some withholding needs to be taken out at upper levels to make up for the disproportionate share of workers to retirees at present.

                This is all just opinion on my part. I've certainly put a lot of thought into it over the years, but I'm by no means an expert. I'd be interested to read Pelagius' take on things.
                sigpic
                "Outlined against a blue, gray
                October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
                Grantland Rice, 1924

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by cowboy View Post
                  I understand your opinion on capital gains, and I think a lot of people agree. The primary reason for my position is that Cap X funds are usually reinvested, and taxing them at a low rate decreases the transaction cost of moving investment capital from one investment to another. Lower barriers for people to transferring capital to more productive investments increases the productivity of the economy's aggregate capital investment, and thereby grows the economy faster through more flexible and efficient capital allocation.

                  From the perspective of fairness, capital gains represent returns over a number of years, and it doesn't seem fair to lump them all together and tax them at once if it will be taxed at the highest personal rate. This is equivalent to taxing the entire appreciation of your retirement portfolio at once. Unlike retirement portfolio's, capital investments like real estate can't all be liquidated gradually. This is why capital gains are taxed at a different rate.

                  Regarding Social Security, it's all just math. At a 3% return and retirement at age 70 with a 20-year payout, a person needs to invest just over 9% of their income for 45 years (age 25 to 70) to receive a benefit equal to 40% of their working income. Currently, the benefit is capped at around $2,700, equivalent to 40% of an $84k salary, so it seems reasonable to cut the withholding in half at some point beyond that. Some withholding needs to be taken out at upper levels to make up for the disproportionate share of workers to retirees at present.

                  This is all just opinion on my part. I've certainly put a lot of thought into it over the years, but I'm by no means an expert. I'd be interested to read Pelagius' take on things.
                  Yeah, please let's not change capital gains to regular income. That would be awful.
                  "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                  "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                  "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                    Yeah, please let's not change capital gains to regular income. That would be awful.
                    This thing is supposed to be revealed tomorrow. I'll laugh if it's a tax cut for the super wealthy paid for by tax raises on the middle class.
                    Last edited by BlueK; 10-31-2017, 01:33 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                      Yeah, please let's not change capital gains to regular income. That would be awful.
                      I don't think anyone is thinking that way. The increase that came with the ACA was bad enough. In my opinion, if any tax should be low, it should be the capital gains tax.

                      Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                      This thing is supposed to be revealed tomorrow. I'll laugh it's a tax cut for the super wealthy paid for by tax raises on the middle class.
                      The bolded portion highlights the problem with the tax discussion. First, tax cuts aren't "paid for". They aren't an expenditure, but the tax-everyone-else crowd describes them as such in an effort to frame the discussion around revenue rather than spending. Second, most of the middle class pays nothing or very, very little in income taxes, yet politicians scream for middle class tax relief because it is politically popular. The cold, hard fact is that we don't need a tax break if we are pulling down less than $120k and have kids at home because our federal income tax expenditures probably total less than we spend on entertainment. Our income tax burden is born nearly entirely by the top 20% of earners, and more than have of that is shouldered by the top 5%, which is substantially disproportional based on total earnings in the US. How much more should we expect them to pay?

                      Again, I feel strongly that the secret to increased revenue and debt repayment is economic growth. I'm actually a proponent of a graduated tax because it makes it easier for people to become wealthy and achieve the American dream. I am not, however, in favor of soaking the rich at extraordinary high levels 'because they can afford it'. Sure, they may be able to afford it, but the money they save in taxes is not going to leave the economy. It will be spent, and I believe they will do more for the economy by spending it themselves than giving it to the government to spend for them.

                      Oh, and one more thing. We should restructure the repatriation tax to give a temporary holiday to all repatriated earnings, and then tax the rest as capital gains, with an exemption similar to the 1099 for repatriated funds that are invested in long-term assets.
                      sigpic
                      "Outlined against a blue, gray
                      October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
                      Grantland Rice, 1924

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                        Yeah, please let's not change capital gains to regular income. That would be awful.
                        Wat? That would just make me convert more money to Bitcoin and transfer it out of the country using this thing called the internet.

                        "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
                        "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
                        "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                        GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Pelado View Post
                          Pandering to your donors?

                          Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
                          Yes, however, when 45% of American households pay no federal income taxes and the richest 20% pay almost 90% of all federal income taxes, at what point will there ever be tax cuts? Who's taxes do you cut? Pretty much any tax cut will benefit the wealthy more than any others given that the wealthy are the ones paying pretty much all the FIT.

                          I guess the real question is how big of a percentage of American households shoulnd't be required to pay FIT?
                          "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                            I don't prefer a welfare state. I am fiscally conservative. I consider myself an independent, but I vote republican more than democrat.

                            But your earlier post I quoted was uber-partisan hyperbole. It is the equivalent of stating that all republicans hate minorities and poor people.
                            What do you call it when Bernie Sanders or another politician promise free health care, free college, free child care? Is that not vote buying? Is it really hyperbole to call it that?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Crockett View Post
                              What do you call it when Bernie Sanders or another politician promise free health care, free college, free child care? Is that not vote buying? Is it really hyperbole to call it that?
                              And Trump wants to keep out muslims and build a wall. So is it real hyperbole to claim that republicans hate minorities? Is that not vote buying?

                              We can do this all day.
                              "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                              "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                              "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                A belated thanks to cowboy and others for some interesting thoughts. I especially like the changes to Social Security (pushing out the retirement age and lifting the cap). I’d also keep in place the relatively high tax rates for income above $1 Million. I’d kill the “carried interest” feature once and for all, and I’d put a temporary (six months?) tax of only 15% (maybe more, but below 20) on offshore funds being brought back into the U.S. I’d lower the corporate tax rate as well, but with an understanding that if these changes resulted in rising deficits, the higher rates are coming back.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X