Via Michelle Malkin is the ABC News story on how well Obama’s plan to treat people who earn over $200,000 as sacrificial animals is faring
President Barack Obama’s tax proposal – which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more — has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it’s just by a dollar.
[...]Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama’s plan.
“I’ve put thought into how to get under $250,000,” said Poczatek. “It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off.”
“Generally it means being less productive,” she said.
I don’t know why this should surprise anyone. Certainly, there’s a couple of whiners in the article sniffing that the “rich” who are contemplating working less don’t “get it.” And that attitude towards producers is reflected in an amazing mid-article link screen-captured here:
The blatant implication is that once a person works hard enough to reach a certain threshold of income, that person is no longer allowed any choice over his or her own work. Choosing to quit or work less is “cheating” and NOT FAIR!!!
Say, Obama, how’s that gonna work with nationalized medicine? Gonna chain those nationalized doctors and nurses to their desks?
Comment by cranky-d on 3/3 @ 9:35 am #
Are you implying that people have a limit to how much of their money they will allow to be taken away before they will just stop earning the money in the first place? I had no idea.
Comment by Joe on 3/3 @ 9:38 am #
It is entirely rational and entirely predictable. Why do you think socialist heaven Sweden moved away from opressive tax schemes? Why is Eastern Europe adopting low and flat tax systems, as opposed to the French model of economic growth?
Comment by Techie on 3/3 @ 9:40 am #
There is a shortage of doctors already looming. I was flat out told by two family friends NOT to consider medical school, and that if I did, to go into charity work afterwards, as all the insurance/red tape/forms/attitudes were making harder and harder to want to be a doctor these days.
I’m sure that making them basically Federal employees will cause morale to skyrocket.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 9:44 am #
Well, it is kind of elementary. Given the choice between working extra to support a family of four in Detroit whom I do not know, or taking days off to go fishing or spend time with my own family, well, fuck ‘em, I’m going to do something with my own family.
Most people at or around that magic 250K evil income number have the flexibility to make that happen. For instance, if you’re a solo or small firm lawyer, you could just cut your billable hours target for the year and take Friday afternoons off, or go home at a reasonable time to have dinner with your family. Problem solved.
Comment by Pablo on 3/3 @ 9:45 am #
The guts of that poll are interesting in a stomach turning sort of way:
No. The rich have had too many tax breaks. They should be ashamed for finagling the system.
No. I have to pay high taxes and so should that high-income bracket. They can afford it.
Yes. I also would find ways to decrease my salary to avoid taxes.
Yes. Why should ordinary folks, even those making $250K, pay when big corporations get bailed out.
Whatever happened to yes vs. no?
Comment by Wm T Sherman on 3/3 @ 9:49 am #
On the horizon: An end to tax-deferred savings such as IRA contributions.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/3 @ 9:50 am #
They will eventually have to lower the threshold pretty far to “get all the rich people.” It’ll be at $100K before you know it.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/3 @ 9:51 am #
Why would you need an IRA anyway, General? There is social security, and our new masters will make sure that it never runs out of money. Somehow.
Comment by Gordon on 3/3 @ 9:52 am #
I don’t see the Apocolypse in this. But it is a good time to remember what happens when state-imposed niceness meets with resistance from ordinary people.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 3/3 @ 10:03 am #
The word you are looking for is ‘quota’, Darleen.
And I am looking forward to the news articles on tax shelters. We used to have those articles back in the 1970’s, but they sort of disapeared in the 1980’s.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/3 @ 10:05 am #
With the cap and trade scheme cranky-d, they already have reached down to tax people below 250K, while intending to cripple the economy generally to boot. Growth murder, you might call it.
Comment by VAHighlander on 3/3 @ 10:08 am #
It would be a real shame for us to run out of other people’s money. I don’t see why they aren’t happy to work hard for the “change we can all believe in.”
/Dirty unbelievers
//Wondering how many of these professionals voted for Obama?
///Socialism sucks balls
Comment by mojo on 3/3 @ 10:09 am #
Because, you see, those nasty rich and productive folks owe it to the nation to keep slaving away and providing the plebs with bread and circuses!
Take a break? You traitors!,/i>
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:13 am #
“And I am looking forward to the news articles on tax shelters. We used to have those articles back in the 1970’s, but they sort of disapeared in the 1980’s.”
That’s because they’re more or less gone since 1986. The so-called “Passive loss limitations” took the heart out of tax shelters, because passive losses can now only be used to offset passive (i.e. investment) income.
The best tax shelter/racket used to be the purchase of art, which you would depreciate though it increased in value, sheltering ordinary/wage income. Then you could later sell the art for a profit when you couldn’t appreciate it any longer, though your basis would be low – in essence, you would convert tax upon income at the high marginal rate to a deferred payment of capital gains at a much lower rate.
Comment by urthshu on 3/3 @ 10:41 am #
Are those doctors going to get nifty federale badges?
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:46 am #
I might add that Suze Orman gives financial and tax advice apparently without understanding the passive loss limitations. When the market first took a dump, she advised people to cash out of the market and harvest losses – losses which, if there is no corresponding passive income, are wholly useless to these people. But she gets to be on the teevees.
Comment by MarkD on 3/3 @ 11:02 am #
The only problem with utopian schemes is reality.
I guess being a community activist isn’t training for that.
Comment by HeatherRadish on 3/3 @ 11:09 am #
Gonna chain those nationalized doctors and nurses to their desks?
In the 90s you could be jailed for not performing Medicaid procedures at a loss to your practice. Don’t know what the law is now–my father closed his practice and went to work for a salary.
Anyway. What will happen will be what happened in Britain with NHS: more special visas for doctors born and trained abroad (Pakistan, South Africa, India, China) who want to emigrate and work for the low wages offered. More nurses and assistants from the Phillipines, Malaysia, etc.
Comment by Adjoran on 3/3 @ 11:14 am #
Of course people will be allowed to exercise freedom, but you must understand they cannot be allowed to make bad choices which affect the entire Community. So it is possible that some limited loss of decision-making authority will be enforced upon those engaging in Badthink, but only as a stop-gap measure until they can be reeducated.
President Gerald R. Ford said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Upon hearing this, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama began salivating, rubbing their hands in glee, and thinking, “Yeah, it would be, wouldn’t it?!”
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 11:27 am #
I’m not sure I’d put all that much work into keeping my income under $250k. I mean, you’re talking about four cents on a dollar increase, here. If it costs me $5k to avoid paying $200 more in taxes, I’d have to think really hard on just what I’m seeking to accomplish.
Comment by mojo on 3/3 @ 11:30 am #
Jerry Ford?
Try Thomas Jefferson, Adjoran.
Comment by Roland THTG on 3/3 @ 11:31 am #
It’s already working at my house.
The wife quit her job, because we would be making too much money.
Anything we do on the side will be on a cash only basis.
FETE
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 11:43 am #
Depends on what you’re seeking to accomplish, I suppose. If you’re trying not to lose money by having her quit, you’ve lost money by having her quit. If you’re looking to make sure Obama’s tax policies don’t net him one penny of extra tax revenue from your family, then you’re probably doing the right thing. Only…it’s costing you.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 12:42 pm #
“Only…it’s costing you.”
Not really – time is money, so if you trade free time for money that could be earned, up goes your quality of life. Now, ponder the fact that the taxeaters tend to have a great deal of free time on their hands, and you’ll see the irony in electing to live a little more like them in order to cease supporting them as much as you possibly can.
Comment by Vancomycin on 3/3 @ 12:43 pm #
Slartibartfast:
I think the point isn’t that it might cost these people to reduce their incomes. They know that’s what it’s going to cost them. I think the point is that it’s a protest against paying for lazy bums.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 12:59 pm #
I think the point isn’t that it might cost these people to reduce their incomes. They know that’s what it’s going to cost them. I think the point is that it’s a protest against paying for lazy bums.
Yes, but I think it’s going to backfire:
It only works if the people you’re talking to are complete idiots. Think what you will of liberals, but they’re not collectively dumb enough to fall for this.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 1:01 pm #
I mean, everyone is free to do as they please. My household isn’t pushing the limit, so we don’t even have to think about making a decision. If we were close, I’d do things to reduce my taxable income before considering a pay cut. But again, this doesn’t mean I expect everyone else to act as I would.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 1:03 pm #
“Think what you will of liberals, but they’re not collectively dumb enough to fall for this.”
They don’t have to “fall for” anything. People will simply adjust their priorities given the incentives laid out in Omaba’s new tax regime. Are you insinuating that goon squads will show up at your house and make one practice law or medicine to generate income dedicated to Omaba’s spending?
I’m not certain where you are going with this, Slart.
Comment by nikkolai on 3/3 @ 1:03 pm #
Market’s down again today (so far). Wonder how much jagoff thor made today.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 1:08 pm #
I just think that most of these assertions to the effect that folks will simply scale back their income are idle threats, just as the threats of various and sundry celebrities that they’d leave the country if Bush were sworn in were idle.
I think that for the most part, given the choice to earn an in place of that extra dollar either nothing at all or an extra 96 cents, most people will go for the 96 cents.
All of this is completely insignificant compared with taking the SS cap off, though. If that happens, the slight hike in upper bracket rate is going to completely go away as an attention-getter.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 1:08 pm #
“If we were close, I’d do things to reduce my taxable income before considering a pay cut.”
People near the threshold are generally able to calibrate work and income within limits. Let’s say that you’re a solo or small firm lawyer – you’d just turn down work or refer it out to someone else, knowing that “X” hours billed and collected, less overhead and expenses equals “Y” gross income. It’s not exact, but you can get pretty close – especially given the fact that December (holidays) is the end of the natural tax year. If you’re on pace to go over, you take time and spend it with your family.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 1:10 pm #
…and I know that the math is all wrong; it’s more like an extra 65 cents vs an extra 60.5 cents.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 1:10 pm #
I’m talking about ways to reduce taxable income, Alex, without reducing income. Max out your 401k, for one.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 1:13 pm #
“I think that for the most part, given the choice to earn an in place of that extra dollar either nothing at all or an extra 96 cents, most people will go for the 96 cents.”
Well, that’s the thing – it’s not exactly always worth the “extra effort.” 2000 to 2200 Billable hours is very hard – knock it back to 1600 or 1800, take the best work from the more reliably paying clients, cut some staff and expenses, and you’ll have a better quality of life and enjoy the practice of law a good deal more. I’m not saying that people who earn 400K or 600K will scale back, but plenty at or around the 250K threshold can dicker with things to make it just so.
Comment by Vancomycin on 3/3 @ 1:13 pm #
Maxing out your 401k will work great until the government decides that they don’t like the pretax nature of those…
Then they’ll STILL be grabbing that income. Just watch.
Comment by ushie on 3/3 @ 1:15 pm #
Jesus H. Christ! I am an idiot, yet even I know that the people who make +$250k are the ones who buy the big friggin’ houses and cars and all the other shit we need to keep GM and the house-flipping shows going.
A Nation of Dumbass. That is just fucking wonderful.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 1:22 pm #
Oh, I think the 250k threshold isn’t as solid a demarcation as you’d think. If you make 251k, you’re going to pay an extra $40 in taxes, approximately. People who make that kind of money, and I’m fairly close so I can say that even lots of people making less than that, wouldn’t really give that little chunk of change much worry.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 1:26 pm #
…at that level, you’re probably going to be affected more by minor changes in tax law, such as whether or not you qualify for child tax credit, or how much your childcare deduction gets prorated, than by the actual bump in tax rate. The potential for lifting the SS cap, though, is very big at that level of income. It’s about $10k in additional tax for individuals; maybe more like $3k for couples making the same income.
I’d be worried about that more than anything else, really.
Comment by Roland THTG on 3/3 @ 1:58 pm #
Yeah, it’s going to cost me, cost you, cost everybody, because I am not going to buy a new car, not going to scoop up a distressed property, not going to buy a big screen plasma, not going to buy anything outside of groceries, and the three Bs.
My remodel job will not get contracted out, I’ll bang my own nails, fix my own car.
Started paying off all my shit last year. All I got is my house payment and maybe a grand in credit cards. O! ain’t going to hep me out none. I will return the favor.
They want to crash the economy. I mean to help, in my own small way.
It’s my inner anarchist.
Comment by brian on 3/3 @ 3:05 pm #
The larger part of this is that O!’s plans call for eliminating all kinds of deductions at the 250 mark. Which means that dollar number 250,001 is going to cost you tens of thousands as you no longer get the mortgage interest deduction, the child tax credits, etc.
Which means we get to the point where someone at $240,000 makes more after taxes than someone at 260,000.
And we all know that the floor they’re talking about at 250,000 now will end up at 100,000 for any legislation that passes. Which hoses pretty much all of us.
Comment by Matt on 3/3 @ 3:34 pm #
Suddenly, my 3 month unemployment and subsequent reduction in pay doesn’t seem so awful after all.
That’s Hope the Obama way !
Comment by Seth on 3/3 @ 8:01 pm #
Darleen: much like the courts can impute the income of a man in child support orders to extract a higher award when the man has suffered a demonstrable change in fortune, the all-knowning government can’t be far behind in imputing the incomes of the “upper class”. It’s all part of the same progressive mindset.
Anyone who doesn’t believe me….just wait and see.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 8:01 pm #
That would be some tax code, wouldn’t it? I don’t think it can be done, really, either politically or on return. It’s not going to happen, this ass-backward tax schedule. Tax brackets are piecewise-continuous, not discontinuous.
Comment by Seth on 3/3 @ 8:11 pm #
Slart: not sure what all you meant about piecewise-continuous, but I don’t know as that it’s not doable…via the magic of marginal tax rates, all sorts of weird stuff can happen. It’s quite possible to keep less by making more.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 8:15 pm #
Just this: tax payments on income are not discontinuous; in other words, there are no jumps in tax payments at any point in the curve. If your taxable income is $249,999, you pay just a teeny bit less taxes than you do if your taxable income is $250,001. Sure, deductions sometimes do get phased out at higher income levels, but those phasings-out are always pro-rated so as to preserve the continuity of tax vs taxable income.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 8:17 pm #
Show me, please.
Let’s not get this discussion wrong, ok? I’m not wild about taxes going up, but I do think that if you’re going to argue counter to tax increases, you shouldn’t simply be making things up.
As much as I disagree with Roland on his new policy, he’s doing it for personal reasons, and those are not the same as logical arguments.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 8:22 pm #
Slart,
I am by no means a tax expert, but I can use TurboTax, which of course eliminates my contention for a cabinet post. Anyway, I am in a higher tax bracket this year. Consequently ,y per child tax credit was halved. Makes a big difference. They are talking about phasing out or reducing deductions in the higher brackets. Not sure how all of that will work, but I’m quite sure it will not be in my favor.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 8:23 pm #
,y = my
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 8:50 pm #
“They are talking about phasing out or reducing deductions in the higher brackets.”
What most people erroneously call “deductions” or “write-offs” come in many flavors, and lots are phased out as gross income goes up – e.g., the Student Loan interest deduction. They’ll just sneak phase-outs into the regular deductions, like the Home interest Mortgage deduction, which is already capped by way of the $1,000,000 Mortgage principal limit.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 8:51 pm #
““I’ve put thought into how to get under $250,000,†said Poczatek. “It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off.†”
She could also pay her employees more, hire more, buy more supplies, or charge less. But that would totally ruin the propaganda point this article is attempting to score. The dentist probably never thought of this, since she’s not sharp enough to get how marginal tax rates work.
Pingback by Some observations about our country’s economic situation. - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState on 3/3 @ 8:52 pm #
[...] they were on the hook… and some of the ones who aren’t going to be startled are already starting to minimize their income. Good luck trying to get them to perform on [...]
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 8:58 pm #
Now, it would be quite hilarious if ABC had included a poll asking “is it fair to pay your employees more to sidestep Obama’s tax proposal.” That would be some serious fucking class warfare right there.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 8:59 pm #
Yeah, you’re right, meya. Damn evil dentists.
Comment by router on 3/3 @ 8:59 pm #
yea because we’re all supposed to be tax law phds on 50,000 pages of tax law. blow me
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 9:01 pm #
I think you’re missing the point, meya. Why would anyone work harder to make less or even the same amount? Even if said dentist paid her employees more or charged less or any of your fixes, she is still working the same for less. Do you honestly see this happening?
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:04 pm #
She could also pay her employees more
Or Atlas could shrug.
You wanted the politics of destruction, Stupid Fascist Girl. You got it.
I wouldn’t count on Barky paying off those student loans any time soon, honey.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 9:07 pm #
“I think you’re missing the point, meya. Why would anyone work harder to make less or even the same amount?”
They wont make less. Its a simple concept called marginal tax rate, which router describes as “yea because we’re all supposed to be tax law phds on 50,000 pages of tax law. blow me”
Makes you really question whether its a meritocracy for people earning 250k if they’re not getting it.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 9:08 pm #
Is meya ever anything short of mendoucheous ?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:08 pm #
If you’re talking about dependent care deductions, those do roll off (gently!) as a function of income.
So, here’s what can happen: you can lose deductions due to some of your expenses being disqualified (meaning: you didn’t give TT enough information, or you’re using a childcare org with no tax number) or something else catastrophic has happened. Or your childcare deductions were already so low that they went from $20 to $10, or something like that.
I’d give it another look.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:09 pm #
Its a simple concept called marginal tax rate
You should look into the “simple concept” that people don’t like handing their money over to thieves, Stupid Fascist Girl.
In fact, some of them would rather throw their wallet down the storm sewer rather than hand it over to some freelance “community organizer”, then beg him for busfare home.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:09 pm #
meya’s actually right on the marginal tax rate thing. It’s never a good idea to argue counter to fact.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 9:10 pm #
“She could also pay her employees more, hire more, buy more supplies, or charge less.”
“They wont make less.”
You’re not even trying anymore, are you?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:10 pm #
Even thor has been right once or twice.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 9:12 pm #
“If you’re talking about dependent care deductions, those do roll off (gently!) as a function of income.”
Its called phasing out. If your taxrate is 1/x, then the phaseout can occur at anything below the reciprocal and you’ll still be making more take home for each dollar of income.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:12 pm #
meya’s actually right on the marginal tax rate thing
And I’m right that some people would rather throw away the wallet than hand it over to the thief.
Homo economicus doesn’t exist outside of the pages of economics textbooks.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 9:13 pm #
Not arguing marginal tax rates, Slart. Things get phased out in the higher brackets, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, etc. That can have a significant effect on total tax liability.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:13 pm #
They don’t phase all the way out, meya. I think you get to deduct 20% of them, even at upper levels of income.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:15 pm #
Ok, fine. Do you want to argue that all taxes are illegitimate, or just the ones that you, personally, don’t approve of? I’m actually interested in the answer, here. Were taxes just fine at 35%, but theft at 39%?
Comment by LTC John on 3/3 @ 9:17 pm #
Meya, so you are saying that the dentist should simply continue to work as hard, but instead of having it taken away in taxes, she should give it to other people in some form or another – not reduce her workload and enjoy a little time off in trade for less income?
I hope your next boss tries that one on you.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:20 pm #
Do you want to argue that all taxes are illegitimate, or just the ones that you, personally, don’t approve of?
Every bridge has its breaking point, Slart, and seeing their money handed over to Obama’s buddies is going to cause a lot of human spans to exceed their maximum load.
Sure, I view the taxes I don’t personally approve of as being illegitimate. Why shouldn’t I? Why would I want to pay taxes that I don’t see offering me a net return? What would Homo economicus do?
I pay the taxes that I can’t avoid (note: not evade, avoid), and not a penny more. That doesn’t mean I’m happy to pay them, or that I feel that paying them is beneficial to me or my country.
So?
Pingback by Some observations about our country’s economic situation. — But As For Me on 3/3 @ 9:20 pm #
[...] they were on the hook… and some of the ones who aren’t going to be startled are already starting to minimize their income. Good luck trying to get them to perform on [...]
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 9:29 pm #
I am not going to jump in between Slarti and Spies, as both can speak for themselves. I will note that confiscatory taxation is more tolerable when the government is working at its normal levels of douchebaggery. When that rate gets increased, coupled with an aggressive push towards ideals incompatible with the American experience, they slight increase is viewed through a prism that magnifies the marginal increase.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:31 pm #
I’m not asking you whether you’re happy paying taxes, SB&P. But thanks for the answer.
I think what I’m looking for is whether the tolerable/intolerable boundary is objective or subjective. As in: can you point to it and it’s always in the same place, or does it change depending on who’s in the WH and Congress.
I’ve got no particular agenda, asking this, and I’m not trying to convince you of anything.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:32 pm #
Ah: one vote for subjective.
FWIW, I find it less palatable paying higher taxes when I suspect my taxes are going to bail out hopeless causes, like possibly AIG. So I’m not exactly brimming over with joy at the prospect of upper bracket rates going up, even if they don’t affect me just yet.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:35 pm #
As in: can you point to it and it’s always in the same place, or does it change depending on who’s in the WH and Congress.
Well, obviously what the tax money is being spent on plays a major role. How could it be otherwise?
Scenario #1: You’re being taxed at (very high) %, and the money is being spent to fight Hitler.
Scenario #2: You’re being taxed at (very high)%, and the money is being spent to provide free cocaine and hookers for everyone in Outer Jackoffistan.
Now, Homo economicus wouldn’t care either way. But Homo sapiens would.
Wouldn’t you?
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:35 pm #
These guys may be able to help you:
The problem with that, meya, is that broke-ass hippies don’t pay taxes anyway.
I doubt you’ve ever paid net taxes in your life.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 9:37 pm #
“I think what I’m looking for is whether the tolerable/intolerable boundary is objective or subjective. As in: can you point to it and it’s always in the same place, or does it change depending on who’s in the WH and Congress”
Of course it’s subjective. However, even if it were my party’s president proposing this I would object. Washington is out of control and I fear that this tax increase is but the first.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:37 pm #
BTW, meya: you apparently didn’t get the message, but Barky’s running the wars now.
God save our troops.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 9:37 pm #
Good Allah, meya. Do you have to write “breathe in” on the back of your Left hand, and “breathe out” on the back of your right hand?
Aye, on the subjective, Slarti, though my natural inclination is that raising taxes is generally wrong. I guess it is more a matter of degree going forward, entirely subjective, on how fucking wasteful and confiscatory, and in the Baracky world, nearly punitive nature of the increases. I am rambling. I am sorry.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:40 pm #
All that expensive education, JD, and she’s utterly incapable of thinking.
Tragic.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:40 pm #
So, AIG gets no benefit? Aren’t we reducing AIG’s risk they’ve already taken by engaging in risky default credit swaps?
The government could have bought AIG many times over, at current market price, as much money as they’ve dumped into it. Why don’t they just take it?
I’m not in favor of nationalization, but you should only have to buy something once.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 9:42 pm #
“BTW, meya: you apparently didn’t get the message, but Barky’s running the wars now. ”
How could anyone not get that message?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:42 pm #
So, the tax hikes alone might not be the whole problem? Given that all of this money is being spent on “stimulus” that’s probably not going to be all that stimulating?
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:42 pm #
See, the problem when you get silly and personal like this is that its often wrong.
Not in this case, I’ll bet.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 9:43 pm #
It is a babbling idiot. It is alphie/parsnip/turnip/sniffles with a vi-jay-jay. Mendoucheous, to the bone.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 9:44 pm #
“So, the tax hikes alone might not be the whole problem? Given that all of this money is being spent on “stimulus†that’s probably not going to be all that stimulating?”
Part of it. The other part is the “fairness” argument being bandied about on the hill today.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 9:44 pm #
“So, AIG gets no benefit? Aren’t we reducing AIG’s risk they’ve already taken by engaging in risky default credit swaps?”
Who knows what the internals look like. We’re deciding how much profit or loss AIG gets by how much we give them. But if we are bailing out the counterparties, what we’re in effect doing is paying people who would otherwise be losing on these shitty mortgage assets. To be fair, its people who thought they were insured by AIG, so who knows how much risk htey were running.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 9:47 pm #
“Not in this case, I’ll bet.”
How much do you think I make then? Seriously you’d ‘bet’ on this? How old are you?
Comment by router on 3/3 @ 9:47 pm #
No these people have time on the planet and you BIGGOV’T types take bothe time AND money from us
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 9:48 pm #
Slarti – I just wanted to revise and extend my prior remarks. These tax increases will cost our household. And like others have mentioned, this is not likely to be the last, but the first of many. Not only is the marginal rate going up, but the charitable contributions deductions, and all of the other things contained in the “stimulus” bill that we have yet to learn about. You wrap all of that up, and couple that with the historic effect of jacking up taxes during a recession, and it is not the least bit surprising that relatively modest increases in marginal tax rates can yield responses that appear to be disproportionate to the actual dollars. Additionally, I continue to find it highly objectionable that we continue to decrease the number of actual taxpayers, to the point where we are rapidly approaching the point where there are more actual taxpayers in our system.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 9:49 pm #
When the Leftists start talking about “fairness” in taxation, you can be damn sure that they are about to go all punitive on some taxpayers ass.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 9:53 pm #
How much do you think I make then?
Oh, about 20 billion trillion jillion dolllars.
You’ve proven yourself to be a liar so many times that you have zero credibility, SFG.
If you were making the big bucks you wouldn’t have been whining about paying back your friggin’ student loans, so you needn’t bother making up a number.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 9:54 pm #
I’m probably not in the best state of mind to be discussing this as I spent part of my evening getting all patriotic on TurboTax, but there is one issue not mentioned in any of this. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire next year. All brackets are going up.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:54 pm #
Fair enough, JD. I’m not too fond of the income-inequality arguments, but don’t there have to be objectively equitable (with lots of supporting argument, natch) levels of taxation, as well as objectively inequitable?
Me, I think we just might be over on the inequitable side, but maybe more because we don’t tax interest as regular income. Folks who make money solely from investment can make a LOT more than you or I, yet pay a lot less effective tax rate because capital gains gets taxed at (IIRC) 15%.
It’s been quite a few years since I’ve payed as little as 15%, even with a lot of deductions.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 9:58 pm #
Good point. It’s not so much that Congress is going to raise taxes, as it is they’re going to decline to extend the Bush tax cuts. The one thing that I REALLY disliked about those was they were temporary, and more complicated is one thing we don’t need the tax code to be.
If anything needs to be sunsetted, it’s Congressional pay and ag subsidies. Probably a few other things, but make Congress vote on their own pay raises and maybe some sanity could ensue.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 10:01 pm #
“If you were making the big bucks you wouldn’t have been whining about paying back your friggin’ student loans, so you needn’t bother making up a number.”
Well there’s lots between not paying taxes and thikning that student loans are nothing to shake a stick at. Then again, any expenditure you can get rid of is better no? I mean here we are discussing an article about people whining about paying a few more points on the margin!
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:02 pm #
“Me, I think we just might be over on the inequitable side, but maybe more because we don’t tax interest as regular income. Folks who make money solely from investment can make a LOT more than you or I, yet pay a lot less effective tax rate because capital gains gets taxed at (IIRC) 15%.”
Interest income is ordinary income taxed at the marginal rates. I think you’re referring to capital gains.
Well, the tax policy there is that we don’t double-tax. We figure you earned the corpus once as ordinary income.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 10:04 pm #
Well there’s lots between not paying taxes and thikning that student loans are nothing to shake a stick at.
Translation: you got busted.
I mean here we are discussing an article about people whining about paying a few more points
Translation: you’re going to pretend like the last hundred posts never happened.
Bye, meya.
Comment by Seth on 3/3 @ 10:05 pm #
Slart: not making anything up, although perhaps speaking inartfully on the topic.
I meant to say something about keeping relatively less for more effort. One’s time has value and when the financial return on that time diminishes with effort, one is lead to reevaluate the worth of the added effort. Also alluding to the fact that under the present tax regime many deductions go away with a rise in income. If you begin to talk about reducing those deductions and rasing rates on higher incomes, you force people to seriously consider if the diminsihing financial gain outweighs the increasing temporal cost.
Basic human nature, and you can’t effectively legislate that away…although it’s often been tried.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 10:05 pm #
Very true, slart. I would love to see much of what Washington does sunsetted. Congress and Obama will be able to raise taxes on everyone next year and make the claim that they’re not raising taxes. They’re just allowing the evil Bush’s cuts to expire and get back to Clinton levels when everything was oh so grand. Sad part is that they will probably get away with it.
Comment by router on 3/3 @ 10:07 pm #
ah yes quibbling about how much to steal. may i take your car?
Comment by Seth on 3/3 @ 10:08 pm #
Of course they’ll get away with it. Because the people who voted for him voted on faith, not so much on information.
Blind faith dies hard.
Pingback by Moe Lane » Some observations about our country’s economic situation. on 3/3 @ 10:08 pm #
[...] they were on the hook… and some of the ones who aren’t going to be startled are already starting to minimize their income. Good luck trying to get them to perform on [...]
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 10:09 pm #
For real how old are you?
Old enough to give dissembling douchebaggettes like you poor grades every semester.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 10:10 pm #
Now, come back with a highly original crack about my mama, meya.
Prove to everyone what a mature intellectual you are.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 10:11 pm #
“Well there’s lots between not paying taxes and thikning that student loans are nothing to shake a stick at”
They are both liabilities that you have to take into account when planning your financial future. Your loan repayment is a drag on your finances just as a higher tax liability is on mine.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:11 pm #
Yes, I did say “capital gains”. “Interest income” was a misstatement.
But not always. You can just invest wisely, and pass it on to your heirs, and have them invest wisely, and pretty soon you’ve got a self-perpetuating nest egg that hasn’t seen regular income tax in decades.
Just a scenario.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:12 pm #
Besides, aren’t gains just income? What makes gains income different from other sorts?
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 10:15 pm #
“But not always. You can just invest wisely, and pass it on to your heirs, and have them invest wisely, and pretty soon you’ve got a self-perpetuating nest egg that hasn’t seen regular income tax in decades”
Estate tax takes a large chunk of that scenario.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:16 pm #
Of course they’ll get away with it. Because the people who voted for him voted on faith, not so much on information.
This is only partly true. They will get away with it, primarily, because the people that voted for Barcky agree with this uber-progressive tax policy, and think that raising taxes is a feature, not a bug.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 10:16 pm #
Go to bed, little girl.
Comment by router on 3/3 @ 10:17 pm #
for what? to make sure teacher’s union can retain their monopoly?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:18 pm #
You can pass $2M to your heirs with no tax penalty at all. $2M makes a nice nest-egg, as far as I’m concerned.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:18 pm #
One of the big reasons that eating the rich doesn’t work is that the victims of punitive taxation don’t share the view that they deserve punishment.
What you will see is that some people will strive less as above, while others will put more effort into creative ways to shelter income, and yet others will weigh the cost of getting caught and gamble that they won’t and fail to report income.
When effective rates are relatively low, the risk and cost of creative shelters or non-reported income is rather foolish – so the minimal cost of compliance is worth scrupulously reporting every penny. When people think they’re being taken, the game becomes “catch me if you can.” The Service’s enforcement arm has not been well staffed of late, so there you have it.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:18 pm #
Douchebaguette is such a beautiful word. Right up there with mendoucheous.
Comment by router on 3/3 @ 10:19 pm #
ain’t that being a douchebag. explain to the little people
Comment by Seth on 3/3 @ 10:20 pm #
JD: they only think they agree with those policies, because they lack the experience and imagination to see how it can hurt them personally. But it will, failure of imagination nonwithstanding.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:20 pm #
Actually, meya, “reciprocal” is where you lost me, and I’ve got a good chunk of an MS in math.
Not that I don’t understand what “reciprocal” means, just that I have no idea what you meant by it, in that context.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 10:21 pm #
“But not always. You can just invest wisely, and pass it on to your heirs, and have them invest wisely, and pretty soon you’ve got a self-perpetuating nest egg that hasn’t seen regular income tax in decades”
Unless you are a small business owner who has built a business worth 10 million. Gov’t gets to take most of that remaining 8. Don’t get me wrong, I think 2 million is a large sum as well, but it’s all relative.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 10:21 pm #
You can pass $2M to your heirs with no tax penalty at all.
That’s not even enough for a 500 acre farm in Iowa, bare land. Less than the gross of an average single-location McDonalds.
That’s hardly Warren Buffett territory.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:22 pm #
My family ran into the estate tax a few years back, while trying to divvy up a family farming operation that had been in the family for years. It was not fun. 1800 acres of good farm dirt along with all of the equipment and 2 homes … $2,000,000 got passed by pretty quickly. Hopefully, the estate planners are doing a better job with everything now, in case, Allah forbid, we should ever have to pass it along again in the near future.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 10:22 pm #
“One of the big reasons that eating the rich doesn’t work is that the victims of punitive taxation don’t share the view that they deserve punishment. ”
How did anything get done in this country back when we had a 90% top rate?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:23 pm #
Yah, that’s one aspect of the estate tax that bothers me, and most proponents simply don’t get that it’s a harm to everyone who works for a small corporation to have to dismantle it to pay estate tax.
I think there may be workarounds, but that part of the tax code I’m not familiar with, at all.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/3 @ 10:23 pm #
BTW, meya, if your kind actually bothered to read and understand the Geneva Conventions, rather than just screeching about them, you’d understand where my name comes from.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:24 pm #
“Besides, aren’t gains just income? What makes gains income different from other sorts?”
Because the government has already taxed it when it was earned. A sane tax system would encourage you to make some of your earnings available as capital.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 10:25 pm #
“How did anything get done in this country back when we had a 90% top rate?”
Go back and look at federal expenditures in those years. Much smaller government. That was back when a billion was a lot of money. Now it is a rounding error.
Comment by Seth on 3/3 @ 10:25 pm #
@128: not all that well. That was ‘79.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:26 pm #
“How did anything get done in this country back when we had a 90% top rate?”
Effective tax shelters – losses of any character generally sheltered income. Also, they cheated.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:27 pm #
Personally, I think the estate tax should resemble income. If you’re going to make capital gains be regular income, why not estates?
And of course I’d prefer for there to be some vehicle to receive the corporation, if there is one, to keep it whole until such time as the taxes can get paid. Dunno how that’d work, though.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:28 pm #
JFK was smart enough to recognize the confiscatory nature of those taxes, meya. He would spit at what you and yours propose.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:28 pm #
“Also, they cheated.”
I think this is it, almost entirely. Consider how much you could easily get away with, when cash transactions were completely untraceable.
And, you know, before there were computers.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:28 pm #
“You can pass $2M to your heirs with no tax penalty at all. $2M makes a nice nest-egg, as far as I’m concerned.”
But you’ve already earned it and been taxed. I think you’re taking the Devil’s Advocate thing a little far here.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:31 pm #
Actually, despite the number of times that the Left carries the banner of JFK, he would likely be spinning in his grave at what his party has become. Though, he would appreciate the sleazy Chicago tactics of the dirty little socialist what occupies the White House. I denounce myself.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:31 pm #
Because the government has already taxed it when it was earned.
Yeah, yeah. Sure, this rationale could be used to eliminate corporate taxes completely, because aren’t goods and services purchased with already-taxed dollars? Oh, and if you pay someone to perform services, they shouldn’t have to pay taxes on that income, because you already did.
I’d guess that every single dollar in circulation has been taxed many times over. How could it be otherwise?
If you can come up with a taxation scheme that taxes each dollar exactly once, please let me know.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:32 pm #
Ah, but your heirs haven’t.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 3/3 @ 10:32 pm #
Let it burn.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:33 pm #
…or are you also advocating an end to the gift tax?
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:33 pm #
Alec – That is what bothers me most about the estate taxation. Someone has been taxed on those dollars, repeatedly, for years, and then for no other reason than another taxpayer passes away, government gets to come in and be all punitive again. I know, I know. It is about the fairness, the equity.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:34 pm #
I actually don’t have any ready answers for most of these questions, FWIW. I think you should all look at me askance if I claimed to.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:34 pm #
Doesn’t the fair tax proposal do that, or at least come damn close to doing so, Slarti?
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 10:38 pm #
“Actually, meya, “reciprocal†is where you lost me, and I’ve got a good chunk of an MS in math.”
If the marginal tax rate is 1/x, then you can phase out deductions at the reciprocal: x dollar phase out to each new dollar in earned income. At that level you owe no more taxes (and take home no more pay). So for every dollar earned your AGI goes up by x, but your tax is 1/x of AGI, so you break even on that dollar. Of course you want your phase out to be lower than x, because you don’t want zero incentive for new earnings.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:39 pm #
“Yeah, yeah. Sure, this rationale could be used to eliminate corporate taxes completely, because aren’t goods and services purchased with already-taxed dollars? Oh, and if you pay someone to perform services, they shouldn’t have to pay taxes on that income, because you already did.”
Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse and not acting in good faith. Also, you could use some education in tax.
Tax is imposed upon the occurence of a realization event – usually a transaction. A testamentary gift is just that – a gift. You’re presuming that someone doesn’t have the right to give a gift, or rather doesn’t have the right to give a gift without the permission and approval of the Federal Government.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 10:41 pm #
“BTW, meya, if your kind actually bothered to read and understand the Geneva Conventions, rather than just screeching about them, you’d understand where my name comes from.”
Have I ever screeched about Geneva? Are you old enough to read? Do you really give people grades for a living?
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:43 pm #
“Alec – That is what bothers me most about the estate taxation. Someone has been taxed on those dollars, repeatedly, for years, and then for no other reason than another taxpayer passes away, government gets to come in and be all punitive again. I know, I know. It is about the fairness, the equity”
Estate taxation, and the charitable deductions/nonprofit entity classification are two of the most important areas of tax policy – a Goverment that does not allow the acquisition and transfer of wealth or robust non-governmental institutions is one that is an enemy of freedom.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 10:43 pm #
“. You’re presuming that someone doesn’t have the right to give a gift, or rather doesn’t have the right to give a gift without the permission and approval of the Federal Government.”
Never ran into the gift tax, but calling it ‘permission and approval’ is being obtuse too. The government doesn’t stop the gift can they?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:46 pm #
Thanks for the assumption of bad faith, Alec. Yes, I’m just having this conversation with you to mislead you, so you’re free to not have it with me.
Oh, and also thanks for the obtuseness. It’s been maybe 24 hours since someone called me a dumbass.
A transaction occurs whenever money changes hands.
We’re talking about a will, yes? This happens after death. How do you give a gift when you’re dead?
Uh: no. Anyone can give a gift, with or without the approval of the Federal Government. Receiving gifts, though, comes with a price. Even if it’s not inheritance.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 3/3 @ 10:52 pm #
“The government doesn’t stop the gift can they?”
No, they take half, after taking nearly half during your lifetime. It looks more like a tip when they’re done.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:58 pm #
Slarti – If one cannot freely give their own property aware, without punitive taxation to either the giver or the recipient, what is the purpose?
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 10:59 pm #
aware = away …
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 11:02 pm #
“Uh: no. Anyone can give a gift, with or without the approval of the Federal Government. Receiving gifts, though, comes with a price.”
Why is that, slart?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 11:02 pm #
You can’t make an untaxable gift (with some small exceptions) when you’re alive. Why should you be able to make an untaxable gift when you’re dead?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 11:03 pm #
US tax law.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 11:03 pm #
Alive or dead does not make it any less noxious to me, Slarti.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 11:07 pm #
I know it’s in the law. My question to you is why should a gift come with a price? If I want to give a gift to my son, the gov’t will whack him for 50% above $10k. Purely confiscatory.
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 11:09 pm #
It is punitive, pure and simple.
Comment by Big D on 3/3 @ 11:12 pm #
It’s punitive, but it’s also a way for the gov’t to prevent estate reduction. I view both taxes as legalized theft.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 11:14 pm #
See, I think all of those taxes, gift and estate, ought to be taxed as ordinary income, not at 50% or whatever the applicable rate is.
It’s almost a given that our taxation system is based on cash movement. It’s a constant wonder to me that corporate and sales taxes aren’t a lot higher.
Comment by Darleen on 3/3 @ 11:33 pm #
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/3 @ 10:32 pm # |Edit This
But you’ve already earned it and been taxed.
Ah, but your heirs haven’t.
The Death tax is the most dishonest of all … a direct assault on property rights. If I have control over my property and I have paid all taxes on it, then how it is to be distributed after my death is no business of the government – that I leave it to my cats or my kids, be it my wedding ring or my bank account, all taxes have been paid and refusal to allow me to dispose of my property is immoral and should be illegal.
I do NOT care that “$2 mill is a nice nest egg”. A droit de seigneur is still rape.
Comment by meya on 3/3 @ 11:40 pm #
“If I have control over my property and I have paid all taxes on it, then how it is to be distributed after my death is no business of the government – that I leave it to my cats or my kids, be it my wedding ring or my bank account, all taxes have been paid and refusal to allow me to dispose of my property is immoral and should be illegal.”
If you used your property to employ your kids they’d be taxed on it, why not if you just give it to them too?
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 11:43 pm #
The douchebaguette returns …
Comment by Darleen on 3/3 @ 11:44 pm #
meya
my kids would be employees and they’d be taxed on the salary/wages they receive from the business … they’d be no different working in such a corporation then any other employee. They are being paid as part of the basic expenses of the corporation
at the same time, if I have a small family business, I don’t have to pay them for working in it and labor laws wouldn’t come after me.
Why does the government claim a share of my family silver flatware save for a basic contempt of property rights?
Comment by JD on 3/3 @ 11:49 pm #
What is always the most breath-taking about the mendoucheity of things like meya is that it would never even occur to them to allow someone to keep what they have earned.
Comment by meya on 3/4 @ 12:00 am #
“my kids would be employees and they’d be taxed on the salary/wages they receive from the business”
Right. But if they didn’t work, and you just gave them the money in an estate then no taxes? That doesn’t make sense.
“Why does the government claim a share of my family silver flatware save for a basic contempt of property rights?”
I think its just a basic philosophy of taxing incomes, whether these are from work, from owning (capital gains) or from gifts. If you get a scholarship that may be taxable income.
“What is always the most breath-taking about the mendoucheity of things like meya is that it would never even occur to them to allow someone to keep what they have earned.”
It doesn’t appeal to me in the least to have zero tax rates. And so long as we’re taxing incomes, I don’t see why we should exempt gifts. And that’s generously describing these as what someone has ‘earned.’
Comment by JD on 3/4 @ 12:05 am #
Nobody is fucking advocating zero tax rates, you mendoucheous twatwaffle.
Comment by JD on 3/4 @ 12:07 am #
Every time things like meya or parsnip or thor says something that is that dishonest, or that brain-jarringly stupid, they should have to get an ice cream headache, the kind that does not go away.
Comment by Darleen on 3/4 @ 12:14 am #
meya
do you understand the difference between working eight hours a day for a wage and a Christmas gift from your mother? (assuming you have a mother)
Should people be required to keep track of all purchases during the year and account for their disposal, paying an additional tax if they are not consumed by the original purchaser?
The power to tax is the power to destroy, which is why the Founding Fathers tried to balance that power with restricting it. As any Californian knows, the fucking fascists here will not cut ONE DOLLAR from a budget that has grown by half over the last five years but figure that taxpayers must foot the bill from unprecented, confiscatory taxes.
there comes a tipping point when taxpayers realize their government is treating them with contempt and no respect for earned property AND THEY WILL REFUSE TO COOPERATE.
I understand, you don’t believe in nor respect property rights … you harbor the fantasy of being either a [ruling] lord or [irresponsible] slave. American values reject either station.
Comment by JD on 3/4 @ 12:21 am #
It is a silly little fascist, Darleen.
Comment by Daryl Herbert on 3/4 @ 1:07 am #
When the market first took a dump, she advised people to cash out of the market and harvest losses
1 – The passive activity rule does not apply to investment in stocks.
2 – Depending on what price they bought the stocks at, some stocks might have shown gains, which could offset some losses.
3 – It’s better to sell early and get useless “loss” that you can’t count against your tax burden, then to sit on those stocks while they race towards zero value faster and faster.
If you still own stocks, you should probably dump them. Divest from Amerikkka until our Chavez-in-Chief is out of office.
Pingback by Some observations about our country’s economic situation. | Social Debate: Barack and American Politics on 3/4 @ 2:01 am #
[...] they were on the hook… and some of the ones who aren’t going to be startled are already starting to minimize their income. Good luck trying to get them to perform on [...]
Comment by meya on 3/4 @ 6:19 am #
“Nobody is fucking advocating zero tax rates, you mendoucheous twatwaffle.”
That’s what happens if you follow this:
“What is always the most breath-taking about the mendoucheity of things like meya is that it would never even occur to them to allow someone to keep what they have earned.â€
If people are keeping what they earned, then they’re not paying taxes. Zero.
“do you understand the difference between working eight hours a day for a wage and a Christmas gift from your mother? (assuming you have a mother) ”
Yes I do. They’re both incomes. If I work for my mother, I’ll pay taxes on it. No reason why I shouldn’t when I inherit the same amount.
“I understand, you don’t believe in nor respect property rights … you harbor the fantasy of being either a [ruling] lord or [irresponsible] slave. American values reject either station.”
I simply think we’re going to have taxes, and we’re going to have taxes on incomes. After that its a discussion about what relative rates to put on what incomes. After all, Darleen you wouldn’t want to be “fucking advocating zero tax rates, you mendoucheous twatwaffle.”
Comment by happyfeet on 3/4 @ 6:30 am #
I will make more money and pay less taxes this year. This is my gift to Baracky.
Comment by JD on 3/4 @ 6:54 am #
It appears to enjoy being a mendoucheous fucking twatwaffle.
Comment by alppuccino on 3/4 @ 6:57 am #
If I work for my mother, I’ll pay taxes on it.
But if you mooch off of your Mother – what’s your Mother’s first name again? Oh yeah, America. If you mooch off of your Mother, your Mother should give you more money tax free. Oh yeah, and Mama America, steals that money from Pops Capitalism after she gives him and unenthusiastic and job with a rubber glove on. Soon Pops will leave you and mom and you will be forced to subsist on bugs.
Comment by alppuccino on 3/4 @ 6:58 am #
I pronounced “hand job” in the cockney. But you caught that.
Comment by thor on 3/4 @ 7:19 am #
No, you drooling imp, there’s no such implication, much less a blatant one. Poczatek is obviously a lying socialist twat. A capitalist would utilize capacity to it’s fullest to maximize profits.
Comment by Carin's not a socialist on 3/4 @ 7:34 am #
I think its just a basic philosophy of taxing incomes, whether these are from work, from owning (capital gains) or from gifts. If you get a scholarship that may be taxable income.
The basic philosophy of taxing incomes? Honestly, all that went out the window when they added the basic philosophy of taxing purchases, and driving, and owning property and just about every other fucking thing we do.
It doesn’t appeal to me in the least to have zero tax rates. And so long as we’re taxing incomes, I don’t see why we should exempt gifts. And that’s generously describing these as what someone has ‘earned.’
Zero tax rates – Ha! What about that 50% rate we’re approaching? You’re perfectly fine with that, right? Add up all the taxes we pay (Fed, state, local, sales, income and all those other hidden taxes that have worked themselves into our lives) – it fucking FRIGHTENS me. I told my husband I was going to add up every tax I paid in 09, but he told me it would be too depressing and advised against it.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/4 @ 8:07 am #
Sure, we tax more than incomes. We’ve got taxes on most kinds of transactions, whether quid pro quo or otherwise, and we’ve got taxes on value. Some people want to impose an asset tax, and with Congress being loaded up the way it is, they just might get their way. Fortunately, Congress is also loaded with millionaires who probably aren’t going to act counter to their self-interest.
If you’ve got a problem with estate tax, you should also have a problem with gift tax. For consistency. Because they’re really about the same thing: taxing money or other things of value passed on to another person as a gift.
See above. You’re completely free to give away what you please, but the government is free to tax the recipient of said property. Because that’s income. How is it not income? Why is it a different class of transaction to give away chunks of money to your heirs than it is to pay someone for service? It’s still your property, to dispose of as you please, isn’t it?
It should be noted that the gift tax is a bit different in that the giver pays the tax on the gift. So, even more egregious: the giver has to pay taxes on that money twice.
Capital gains is different. Sure, you’ve paid tax on the basis of your investment; capital gains tax doesn’t re-tax the basis; it just taxes the gain. The gain is net income, so doesn’t it make sense that it should be taxed as such?
And why is income tax more acceptable than a tax on general transactions, or on gifts? Income tax is a tax on an (notionally) even swap: pay for service. You haven’t actually gained anything; you’ve swapped some of your valuable time and ability for cash. With gift and inheritance taxes, there’s no such swap. With sales tax, there is such a swap.
Once again: I’m really just feeling this out. I’m not looking to increase my tax burden or anyone else’s; I’m more interested in making sense of the mishmash of tax law, and coming out with some kind of coherent, consistent set of ideas regarding what’s legitimately taxable and what isn’t.
Comment by No More Class Warfare Please on 3/15 @ 9:57 am #
Please read this article on the Individual Income Tax system and Class Warfare for an interesting fact based analysis of the fairness in the U.S. Individual Income tax system:
NoMoreClassWarfare.com