We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

married up wrote:

Sure, they invested. But the 1990s economy would have been even stronger with lower tax rates. More money for them to invest. The ultra-wealthy don't keep their money under the bed. 95% of it is invested in the very things we depend upon...even the famed roads, bridges, etc. I am speaking from looking at actual financial portfolios.

Then why are we growing so slowly right now? There's plenty of capital out there. Most companies are sitting on it because they aren't going to get any return on it.

Take out the heart of the middle class and a lot of businesses that depend on their spending will go bankrupt. Yes, the economy depends on investment - but it depends a heck of a lot more on spending from the middle class.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

married up wrote:

But the 1990s economy would have been even stronger with lower tax rates.

Where is the evidence for that? And how does that compare when the marginal rates were higher (even with additional deductions) and there was a small disparity between rich and poor?

Is Warren Buffett wrong when he says, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.”

Sure, any smart investor will not allow tax rates to affect their investment decisions. But let's say one makes 1 million in dividends off your stock portfolio each year....and it's taxed at 39.6% instead of 15%. That is $246,000 less you have to invest into other stocks in the future. Hmmm....I bet you some company would benefit from that investment.

Neb wrote:

married up wrote:

Sure, they invested. But the 1990s economy would have been even stronger with lower tax rates. More money for them to invest. The ultra-wealthy don't keep their money under the bed. 95% of it is invested in the very things we depend upon...even the famed roads, bridges, etc. I am speaking from looking at actual financial portfolios.

Then why are we growing so slowly right now? There's plenty of capital out there. Most companies are sitting on it because they aren't going to get any return on it.

Take out the heart of the middle class and a lot of businesses that depend on their spending will go bankrupt. Yes, the economy depends on investment - but it depends a heck of a lot more on spending from the middle class.

And why are they sitting on this additional $246,000 they just obtained? Because of the uncertainty surrounding everything. Obamacare, tax rates, etc. Our government needs to make some decisions instead of kicking the can down the road....and they need to be some good ones that encourage economic growth all around.

sub3over40 wrote:

Subfive wrote:

You seem like a person who was not aware that top marginal tax rate was above 70% or even 90% in past? Is that true?

It was true but there were so many deductions that no one paid it. The top rate was 90% for a short time in the 50's. In one year ( 1957 I think ) only ONE taxpayer that paid that top rate. When you have rates that high, no one will pay them.

Oh, so it's about deductions rather than tax rates? Alright then, let's talk about effective tax rates. When the marginal tax rate was 70 - 90% what was the effective tax rate for the average tax payer at the 98 percentile in income?

Ok - we disagree on why companies are sitting on large sums of money (not sure what you mean by $246,000? - I'm talking about billions of dollars sitting on the sidelines right now doing nothing). I'll admit that investments are important to the economy. Can you at least admit that middle class spending is important to the economy?

m runner wrote:

You make it sound as if going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era will double your taxes. The amount you make between $223k and $398k will be taxed at 36% not 33%. So if you make $250k (assuming they do not make adjustments to the $250k for inflation), you will pay an additional $800 in taxes.

$223k-$398k will move back to 36% from 33%

$398k+ will move back to 39.6% from 35%

Your forgot to add the taxes that got added to them in the "obamacare" Affordable Healthcare Act as well, those tax increases begin in 2013 whether or not the other tax rates remain changed. So income earners over 200K will be taxed at a higher level than during the Clinton years, if Obama got his wish. (an additional 0.9% of income goes to medicare payroll taxes, and a 3.8% tax increase on income from investment.)

Sir, I am not sure what you mean by saying that just because a person makes more money, they should not have to pay more taxes. This could mean one of two things: (1) If I make $250,000 and you make $25,000, we should each pay the same amount of income tax, or (2) Same income levels, and we should each pay the same percentage, let's say ten percent. I disagree with both, and I disagree particularly strongly with the first. There is a concept known as progressive taxation embedded in our tax code, and I agree with it. Simply put, it means that if one man earns $25,000 and another earns $250,000, maybe the lower wage earner should pay ten percent and the higher wage earner, who is more wealthy, should pay twenty percent. The idea embedded in this concept is that the wealthy can afford to pay a higher percentage.

Having read more of the posts, I have three additional thoughts. First, to the gentleman who thinks the rest of us are jealous of the gentleman who started this thread, let me assure you that as one who has an income well under 1/3 of the poster, I feel no jelousy at all. In fact, I feel sorry for the gentleman. He has a nice wife and three kids. I have no wife or children and I am in late middle age and have far less income than the gentleman. And despite this, he is posting to the world that he is extremely displeased about his taxes. With all he has to be thankful for, this is what consumes him. It's rather sad.

Second, at least one has posted the familiar trope, "Government doesn't create jobs; only the private sector creates jobs." Of all the nonsense floating around out there, this one tops them all. Go into any fire hall, police station, or public school, and tell the first employee you run into that the government doesn't create jobs. It's nonsense; the Government creates many jobs, including every one in the military we so admire. The facts are simple: the government creates some jobs, and the private sector creates more jobs.

Finally, this notion that lower personal income taxes would create more jobs is utter nonsense. Before I retired, I was a wage earner; I never created a job in my life. If my taxes were doubled, it might well reduce the amount of money I donate to charity or the amount I invest in stocks. On a macro scale, that might lower the amount donated to charities and might drive down stock prices, but the connection between either outcome and the employment level is quite attenuated. Here is what created jobs, or saved them, which is two sides of the same coin: the auto industry bailout, with the Big Three auto makers are paying back.

married up wrote:

Sure, any smart investor will not allow tax rates to affect their investment decisions. But let's say one makes 1 million in dividends off your stock portfolio each year....and it's taxed at 39.6% instead of 15%. That is $246,000 less you have to invest into other stocks in the future. Hmmm....I bet you some company would benefit from that investment.

But where has that money gone? Has it gone to educate future members of the workforce, to give them the skills and background so they can be better employees for those companies or earn more money to buy those companies' products and services? Is that education also going to make those young people less likely to become criminals, since the cost to give a young person a top class education is far, far less than the cost of incarcerating them?

Read my post above the response to your's. It was just an example on a small scale from one individual investor. But that type of money adds up. And the billionaires that have tons of money invested....it can be quite a bit.

I absolutely agree that middle class spending is important to the economy....which is why we should not pound them with higher taxes either. The middle-class spends, and the wealthy spend (on a smaller scale as percentage of income) and invest. The wealthy hold most of the investments in this country.

married up wrote:

I absolutely agree that middle class spending is important to the economy....which is why we should not pound them with higher taxes either. The middle-class spends, and the wealthy spend (on a smaller scale as percentage of income) and invest. The wealthy hold most of the investments in this country.

How much of that middle class do you think exists because of government spending? That would include fire fighters, police, teachers, any job related to the military, beaureaucrats, librarians etc. . .

If we took away a significant portion of those jobs - how do you think the economy would react?

baloney. You're saying the reason it's good to tax higher income earners is because that's the way it is. You can't just say the reason for a "progressive" tax system is because we have a progressive tax system. That explains or justifies nothing.

We should all pay the same flat %. That's as fair as it gets. And excluding 47% of the population from paying income taxes, while allowing them to vote for the very politicians rigging this scheme will be the end of this Republic....as was predicted sometime around 1835 by a wise French philsopher.

If you think X is too much to pay in income taxes, you have a great incentive to bust as$ & earn more. OTOH, if we have a "progressive" tax rate, and you're punished for earning more income, then we're actually setting up obstacles for income growth, which just stunts tax revenue growth, which has been shown a hundred times over..

Right now, it's not doing much due to the uncertainty. Take away the uncertainty facing businesses (looming Obamacare, tax rates, etc.), and at the very least, those businesses will use that money to hire more workers. More employees with good corporate direction = greater profits. The good ones will take a Henry Ford approach and pay their employees higher wages so that they can buy more products...perhaps the company's own. A happy employee works harder for the company.

fair≠better

You're not punished for earning more money. Earn more money, and you still take home more money. Where's the disincentive? If you're making $250,000 per year, and your employer offers you a 10% raise, are you going to turn it down because that additional $25,000 will be taxed at a higher rate than the other $250,000?

How much of our federal taxes goes towards those jobs though? Some of those jobs are supported by local and state taxes. One thing for sure....take away the ridiculous pensions for teachers and elected officials. What a waste. Save those for the brave men and women who risk their lives everyday for us (fire fighters, police, military). Also, reform the entitlements at the federal level. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

married up wrote:

Right now, it's not doing much due to the uncertainty. Take away the uncertainty facing businesses (looming Obamacare, tax rates, etc.), and at the very least, those businesses will use that money to hire more workers.

I agree, that a long term policy is ideal, and not these temporary measures. I hope that can be achieved now. But, at the same time, I think the goal for most companies in the US (certainly of any size) is to maximize their profit, which is their right. If they need to hire people to profit, they will. But if reducing the payroll will result to greater profits, they'll take that route.

married up wrote:

The good ones will take a Henry Ford approach and pay their employees higher wages so that they can buy more products...perhaps the company's own. A happy employee works harder for the company.

Again, I think the central problem is the pressure to continually meet (or beat) shareholder expectations, in which the paramount concern is profit, even if that means the quality of a company or its products may suffer.

I could do without Henry Ford's side ventures, including, but not limited to, hiring Pinkertons to run Jewish-owened businesses out of town.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Jeff, some very good and valid points. Sometimes that means hiring more employees, sometimes it doesn't. But a company in which more investment is made in a less uncertain world will at least have that possibility. The question is whether the federal government or businesses can do a better job in striving towards this goal (creating more jobs). I believe it to be the latter.

SBCC wrote:

How can you say that? The doctor or the businessman that makes 250k a year does work harder and is going to be smarter than the McDonald's worker. You're a stupid piece of sh!t for saying otherwise. These people busted their a$$es in high school and college to get where they are. They came out with huge student loans to back back and you have the nerve to say that their intelligence and work ethic has nothing to do with it! Success is out there for any American who wants it.

I happen to know a few businessmen that dropped out of college, and certainly never worked hard in high school or college (I know because they were my best friends in high school and college) that make more than $250k per year.

My point was, hard work doesn't guarantee success, nor does success only come through hard work. Same for intelligence.

Do doctors work hard and generally need an above average intelligence? Sure.

BTW, you don't get to choose how intelligent you are. Success isn't out there for any American who wants it. If it were, then success would purely be a question of hard work. And I think even you would admit it's at least a combination of hard work and intelligence. But in reality, it's actually a lot more complicated than even that.

Again, I think the central problem is the pressure to continually meet (or beat) shareholder expectations, in which the paramount concern is profit, even if that means the quality of a company or its products may suffer.

I could do without Henry Ford's side ventures, including, but not limited to, hiring Pinkertons to run Jewish-owened businesses out of town.[/quote]

Also, a company that continually focuses more on pleasing shareholders instead of enhancing its product or maintaining quality will eventually suffer. Consumers will flock to another company that meets their needs more effectively. That pattern is unsustainable in the long-term.