- This topic has 261 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM #736235January 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM #736236
CA renter
Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Don’t forget “the richest,” who pay 15% or less.
Yes, tax rates are near historic lows. That’s why some of us get so angry when hearing the weathiest Americans complain about paying taxes. They are wealthier today, and pay lower tax rates today, than they have in many, many, many decades.
As a matter of fact, the last time we saw such low tax rates and such a high wealth/income disparity was right before the Great Depression. Coincidence? I don’t think so.[/quote]
Did you even look at the link I posted? EVERYONE have been paying less effective tax rate except for the to 10%. The data doesn’t support your assertion that the top 10% pay lower tax rates today than they have in many decades. I provided my data, where’s your data to support your assertions?[/quote]“So what’s the full story? In brief, tax rates for the wealthy have fallen more than for other income groups. Tax rates for the very wealthy have fallen more than they have for the merely wealthy. Incomes at the top have also increased much more quickly than incomes have for other groups.
Add it all up, and you can see why the wealthy are paying a greater share of federal taxes even though they are paying less tax on each dollar they earn. They’re simply making many more dollars than they used to.”
————The following one apparently doesn’t take into account the 15% rate on LT cap gains/dividends, but you can still see what’s been happening.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
————–“But another one of the contentions of today’s Republican party is that high income tax rates are always bad for the economy, because they deprive people of an incentive to work hard, thus making us a nation of lazy good-for-nothings.
This argument has been repeated so often and for so long that it is now basically regarded as fact.
But, interestingly, the history of income tax rates in the US actually suggests that it may be b.s.
Some of the most prosperous periods in US history (1950s and 1960s) have come during periods of super-high marginal income tax rates. And some of the most disastrous periods in US history (1930s, 2010s) have come after periods of super-low income tax rates.”
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-14/news/30093395_1_tax-rates-tax-shelters-income#ixzz1jpwvZ6Pq
————-While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.
“The way you get rich in this world is not by working hard,” said Marty Sullivan, an economist and a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. “It’s by owning large amounts of assets and having those things appreciate in value.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/12-2
——————-“In the debate over tax cuts, it helps to look at the history of U.S. federal income taxes on high-income people. For the last 18 years individuals in the top income tax bracket (those making more than $250,000 to $379,150, depending on the year) have been paying 30-40% of their income in federal taxes. By itself, this figure might seem high. But unbeknownst to most Americans, today’s tax rates on wealthy Americans are LOWER than they’ve been in almost 80 years. They are the lowest since the “roaring ’20’s” that led to the Great Depression, when the top rate was 25%.
Think about this: FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES — from 1945-1963 — the richest people — those in the highest tax bracket, making over $200,000 — paid 91-94% of their income in taxes! After that the top rate dropped to around 70% (if over $100,000) for the rest of the 60s and all of the 70s. Even under Reagan, the tax rate was around 50%. The idea that today’s wealthy are being newly and unduly oppressed by federal tax rates seems contradicted by the facts.”
[There are some useful tables and links in this article.]
http://tom-atlee.posterous.com/the-surprising-history-of-federal-taxes-on-we
January 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM #736247blahblahblah
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Check your numbers. If they are correct, then fire your accountant and redo your past years’ taxes.
It’s damn-near impossible for a married couple to pay more than 15% (in federal taxes) without earning over $100K from W2 wages.[/quote]
From the 2009 1040 table, a married couple with line 43 taxable income of $90K paid $14881 for a rate of 16.5%.
January 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM #736248an
Participant[quote=CA renter]
“The way you get rich in this world is not by working hard,” said Marty Sullivan, an economist and a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. “It’s by owning large amounts of assets and having those things appreciate in value.”[/quote]
Funny you quoted this. I would say this is common knowledge. My grandma, who can’t read and write would tell you the same thing. It has been this way for a very very long time in every nook and cranny of the world.Some of the other arguments, I question whether it’s correlation vs causation. You can easily draw similar conclusion and say that the bottom 2 quantile tax rate have never paid less taxes than now and they never actually got money back until recent past.
Here’s the historical data for capital gain:
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdfAs you stated, the truly weathly, get their income from cap gain. Very few times in the last 90s years where cap gain was equal or more than top marginal tax.
We should go back to the tax rate of the 1913 🙂
January 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM #736249Anonymous
Guest[quote]From the 2009 1040 table, a married couple with line 43 taxable income of $90K paid $14881 for a rate of 16.5%.[/quote]
Understood. But taxable income is always less than total income.
If you factor in exemptions, it will go below 15% of total income.
It is possible that there are situations that go a little over 15%, but they are rare. One would have to have no dependents, no deductions, etc.
The main point is that you aren’t going to go much over 15% unless you have much higher than average wages.
January 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM #736255sdrealtor
ParticipantFWIW I just checked the total tax rate for the subject of this thread. With an income of 254K they are paying 13.2% federal taxes on that gross income and it was all earned income not speculative profits on investments.
January 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM #736262Participant[quote=sdrealtor]FWIW I just checked the total tax rate for the subject of this thread. With an income of 254K they are paying 13.2% federal taxes on that gross income and it was all earned income not speculative profits on investments.[/quote]
Game, set, match 😀January 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM #736266ParticipantIn case anyone is interested. Return was done by a CPA. There is only 1 dependent and a boatload of itemized deductions that are almost all state income taxes, RE taxes and mortgage interest. Nothing funny going or unusual going on ther. I looked at another return for them and it was 15% (probably before baby was born).
January 18, 2012 at 3:51 PM #736277jstoesz
ParticipantMan, you guys are fired up! Keep it up. Its good entertainment.
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jstoesz] . . . . I just met up with an old friend who graduated with the civil engineering degree. He lost his job recently in the private sector, and just got a job in the public sector. Guess what he’s making more then he did in the private sector, a lot more. He rides around a few days a week in a large 40k 4 x 4 Ford that’s brand-new, thanks Katrina for your levee caused freak out And that’s just salary I’m not talking pension here! Wake up CAR we’re getting fleeced, at least my buddy knows that he is riding the gravy train. That’s all I ask of public sector employees, a little gratitude![/quote]
jstoesz, if your “buddy” just obtained a public position (in the state of LA?) he has yet to be “vested” and there is a chasm between his potential for a “fat pension” and his actually being in a position to begin collecting it.
jstoesz, aren’t YOU a “civil engineer?” The State of LA beckons and undoubtedly needs your help. Why haven’t YOU applied to any of those jobs? Perhaps the living conditions there may not be to you or your spouse’s liking or taste??
I’ll leave it at that …. ;=]
LA is the most political state in the country, IMO, especially NOW.[/quote]
No, he works in Sac.
Fun Fact: Sacramento’s risk of flooding is the greatest of any major city in the country.
I graduated with a Mechanical Degree, but I could probably go into some sort of civil field. I am just not real interested in the work, nor do I plan on staying in the state much longer. My next job is more likely to be in MN.
January 18, 2012 at 3:56 PM #736279bearishgurl
Participant[quote=jstoesz]… My next job is more likely to be in MN.[/quote]
Congrats on getting your OC-raised spouse to agree to move to MN, jstoesz!!
January 18, 2012 at 4:00 PM #736280Participant[quote=jstoesz] . . . Fun Fact: Sacramento’s risk of flooding is the greatest of any major city in the country.[/quote]
Yes, ’tis a fact but it is not “fun.” The Sac River Delta is well-known for most of it representing the largest “Type-A” flood plain in CA.
Hence, its lower property values (even though it’s the State Capitol).
January 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM #736283ParticipantOne recurring theme I keep hearing from CAR is lets go back to the good days!
Here is what I remember of the good old days. Teachers got Summer jobs, didnt live in my upper middle class neighborhood, they commuted from more affordable neighborhoods 20 to 30 minutes away and they drove late model cars.
My Sunday school teacher was also a principal and his twin brother a teacher. They both taught religious school to supplement their income. They also had a roofing business on weekends and full time in the Summer (I worked a Summer job with them). They drove older cars.
Now roll forward to today. My daughters 3rd grade teacher recently bought a nicer house than most of the students live in. She’s married to another teacher in the district. The teachers lot is full of BMW’s, Range Rover, Lexus and Benz’s. Most teachers dont work over the Summer. I know a few that spend it in Maui and some of the younger ones who went trekking in Nepal last Summer. Oh how they must long for the good old days!
January 18, 2012 at 4:41 PM #736286Participant[quote=sdrealtor]One recurring theme I keep hearing from CAR is lets go back to the good days!
Here is what I remember of the good old days. Teachers got Summer jobs, didnt live in my upper middle class neighborhood, they commuted from more affordable neighborhoods 20 to 30 minutes away and they drove late model cars.
My Sunday school teacher was also a principal and his twin brother a teacher. They both taught religious school to supplement their income. They also had a roofing business on weekends and full time in the Summer (I worked a Summer job with them). They drove older cars.
Now roll forward to today. My daughters 3rd grade teacher recently bought a nicer house than most of the students live in. She’s married to another teacher in the district. The teachers lot is full of BMW’s, Range Rover, Lexus and Benz’s. Most teachers dont work over the Summer. I know a few that spend it in Maui and some of the younger ones who went trekking in Nepal last Summer. Oh how they must long for the good old days![/quote]
FWIW, I come from a teaching family. My dad was a teacher (professor at a JC), my grandfather was a teacher, and many other relatives were or are teachers. We also have a lot of friends who were/are teachers.
Perhaps what you’ve talked about was how things worked on the east coast, sdr, but out here, nobody that I know of worked extra jobs to “make ends meet.” If they wanted to supplement their incomes, they might work summer school or do real estate on the side (quite a few had RE licenses). Some of our teacher friends growing up — married, “teacher” couples — have done exceptionally well for themselves, mostly because they were frugal and made some excellent investment decisions. None were poor, and all of them lived close to work unless they choose to live in a different area.
edit: This was in L.A., too, which tends to have a higher cost of living than most areas.
January 18, 2012 at 5:11 PM #736289Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]I have asked this before and I will ask it again, because so far I have gotten no answer from you. What is your affiliation with public-sector workers? Your answers are shallow and tiresome and they reek of self interest!
I just met up with an old friend who graduated with the civil engineering degree. He lost his job recently in the private sector, and just got a job in the public sector. Guess what he’s making more then he did in the private sector, a lot more. He rides around a few days a week in a large 40k 4 x 4 Ford that’s brand-new, thanks Katrina for your levee caused freak out And that’s just salary I’m not talking pension here! Wake up CAR we’re getting fleeced, at least my buddy knows that he is riding the gravy train. That’s all I ask of public sector employees, a little gratitude![/quote]
Quite frankly, it’s none of your business (and I don’t mean that in an unkind way). I always make a point of addressing the topic rather than making personal attacks. You can review my posts over many years and see that I never make a personal attack unless someone else initiates it. Even then, I try to refrain from doing so until the other person has so hopelessly gone off-topic and begun to rant emotionally that I sometimes end up in the gutter with him (so far, it’s never been a female poster).
Perhaps it would be more productive if you could explain why you think my points are “shallow” or “tiresome.” At least then we could have a more productive discussion instead of engaging in childish emotional rants and personal attacks.
The reason I’m defending (public AND private) unions is because I believe that unions protect workers from corporate/financial interests who constantly strive to take an ever-growing share of the value created by workers. If you don’t believe me, check out what happened in the private sector after the demise of the unions:
“A huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.”
I’ll say it again (and again, and again…because once we cross the line, there is no going back), the people who are behind the attacks on public unions are the very same ones who are behind this growing wealth disparity. They are NOT looking out for Joe Sixpack’s best interests, and they are NOT taxpayer advocates.
Do your research![/quote]
Although asking about a conflict of interest is considered argumentum ad hominem, it is a grey area in terms of whether is a fallacy depending on whether it is relevant. If I weren’t more lazy I would make a Venn diagram to show this. Granted I could have worded me statement much, much more cordially. For that I apologize. I try to keep my comments mostly civil, although it is fun to lob a bomb every once and a while. BTW,you know my conflict of interest (hint, my state tax bill is way too high).
Why are your posts are shallow and tiresome (I should have used kinder words)? It seems to me that your solutions deny gravity, shallow. You tend to label a problem and strong arm a solution with complete disregard for the unintended consequences, leaving the details for the central planners. I think an interaction between you, flu and pri was emblematic. They was asking you to name names of who should have their wealth taken from them directly. What gains were ill gotten and what weren’t. I think I read something to this point on another thread too about whether steve jobs came by his money honestly or through grift. To date I have not seen an answer… probably because it is unanswerable in the specifics, only in the aggregate witch hunt. I especially liked this post from pri…
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I’d put Alan Greenspan at the very top of the list. [/quote]
You do know that Alan Greenspan was a public employee?
He almost certainly is drawing a pension.
And what is the Federal Reserve anyway? It’s primary function is to determine interest rates – the price of money.
A group of knowledgeable people deciding what things are worth to society. Where have we heard that idea before?
Lets take a look up-thread:
[quote=CA renter]I am not at all an adherent of the “Efficient Market Hypothesis” […]
Sometimes, we need rational people to monitor and regulate markets — people with the requisite knowledge and understanding of how things work and who fully understand what the consequences of certain actions will be. Call it what you will… [/quote]
So we should have “rational people monitoring and regulating markets,” but if anything goes wrong, we hold them accountable and make them personally compensate for the market losses?
Are you actually suggesting that we hold public employees accountable, and have them bear the cost of financial downturns, just like everyone else?
I think we may be starting to agree after all…[/quote]
Do you think the likes of Greenspan are gone. That government has wised up, or even can wise up? Do you actually think he was trying to actively harm the country (I think that is called treason)? Is Frank Dodd going to fix it for us? There were many bankers who did what they felt would maximize their returns, but do you think they were trying to bring down the banking system? They were just dancing while the music played. If you were a trader, would you ride the sinking ship down once the holes appeared for the good of the country? Or would you short that sucker and bid it adieu?
Assuming anything other than people will always act in their own interest (or the interest of their family/friends), and that we as people are really bad at telling the future (bureaucrats chief among us), will yield to some pretty suboptimum outcomes.
Nobody likes income inequality, but income equality is even more base. A world where everyone gets paid the same is not only an impossible utopian dream, it is evil. People are not born equally capable, efficient, hardworking, or crafty, to equate the outcomes of unequal abilities is a recipe for starvation (not talking metaphorically here).
Oh one more passing thought. Quoting Mother Jones and then imploring me to do my research strikes me a a bit…hmm (I guess I need to leave that alone before I really get into the ad hominem territory)
January 18, 2012 at 6:34 PM #736295ParticipantYes that is how it was on the east coast. Nearly all had Summer jobs. I remember seeing teachers driving buses for Summer camps, working as lifeguards, camp counselors and waiting tables etc. I would love to see some data on public sector compensation for various categories of workers 1970 (In the good old days) and 2010 (dreaded current situation). My guess is they have very significantly better today than in the good old days. I would also guess their gains have exceeeded those of typical private sector employees. Anyone have data on this?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.