|
|
On September 01 2012 00:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 16:46 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 11:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:24 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:16 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:08 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You realize that the only two specific policies that appear on that graph are the Bush tax cuts and the wars, right? You realize that's irrelevant, right? You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit? So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit? Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did. Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty. $1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you. Their evaluation was not faulty. Nobody is saying that $1 in Bush tax cuts = $1 in deficits. The point the article makes is that the scope of their impact is sufficient to greatly reduce the deficit if they were to disappear (all other things being equal). The point of the article is to make the Bush tax cuts and wars look more responsible for the deficits than they really are. If the point of the article was to argue for the removal of the Bush tax cuts because they are bad, then the article would have bothered to explain why the tax cuts are bad. No, it is to show exactly how responsible for the deficit they really are, in response to people saying Obama's policies are responsible for the deficit. And it does just that. The numbers don't add up. You can't ignore 2/3 of the cause of the deficit under Bush's term and still have a graph that adds up to 100% of the deficit. Something is wrong!! The numbers are clearly being manipulated.
The numbers are being manipulated? How have they been manipulated? You can see the numbers for yourself in Table 1 of the report. What a completely outrageous, absurd, and unsubstantiated claim.
The article was to debunk the claim that Obama, not Bush caused the deficit. What about the other 2/3? Where is it? It's mostly covered by revenues and existed before Bush and Obama. Bush added tax cuts and the war on top of that 2/3 which was covered by revenues, blowing up the deficit, then the GFC hit which blew it up more.
You completely ignored my previous post, where I explained why we should look at the Bush tax cuts and wars and the GFC effects, instead of the rest.
The article shows that the deficit blew up under Bush.
|
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue.
|
On September 01 2012 00:57 Zaqwert wrote:
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue.
Did you fail math or what?
Deficit = Spending - Revenue.
Therefore, when revenues goes down, deficits go up.
|
I think he means the government does not deserve "my" money so they should only spend what they get and not more.
maybe he would advocate something like Spending=0.75Revenue so that the government can only spend 3/4 what it brings in and must save a quarter for bad times when it needs to spend more then it brings in. That way the government is spending more of its money rather then having to raise taxes. I dont think that would work out so well in RL though.
|
Under Jonny's logic, if Obama spent $~1 trillion on making bricks to be dumped into the Pacific ocean, we shouldn't blame him for blowing up the deficit. That would only be 40% of a $~2.5 trillion deficit. What about the other 60%?
|
It spends money in military for instance and those are not for the people but for the big guys that don't want to spend more money in taxes, make more money buy selling stuff for the wars!
Or to save the banks that made this fucking "crisis" and make a few more millions for the guys in charge that fucked the world!
yes i'm bitter.. your rich guys don't pay enought taxes to help the low income americans? are they any less because they don't have money?
Is it only their fault? Or the big rich guys that sent american factorys to chine are also to blame? Guess what those are the same that don't want to pay more taxes?
Is it the fault of low income americans that lost their homes because of the suprime crisis? Or is it also the fault of banks and mortgage companys? US saved the banks and the CEOS still got their bonuses but thousands of americans lost their homes.. why didn't the US saved those, instead of the fucking CEOS that had millions in the bank and still refuse to pay taxes when their people and country lose jobs, homes and live off on food stipends?
God bless america... NOT!
|
On September 01 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
Under Jonny's logic, if Obama spent $~1 trillion on making bricks to be dumped into the Pacific ocean, we shouldn't blame him for blowing up the deficit. That would only be 40% of a $~2.5 trillion deficit. What about the other 60%?
If he actually hired a significant number of people to manufacture and dump these bricks over a long period of time that would make him a better president than he has been.
|
On September 01 2012 01:11 shell wrote:
It spends money in military for instance and those are not for the people but for the big guys that don't want to spend more money in taxes, make more money buy selling stuff for the wars!
Or to save the banks that made this fucking "crisis" and make a few more millions for the guys in charge that fucked the world!
yes i'm bitter.. your rich guys don't pay enought taxes to help the low income americans? are they any less because they don't have money?
Is it only their fault? Or the big rich guys that sent american factorys to chine are also to blame? Guess what those are the same that don't want to pay more taxes?
Is it the fault of low income americans that lost their homes because of the suprime crisis? Or is it also the fault of banks and mortgage companys? US saved the banks and the CEOS still got their bonuses but thousands of americans lost their homes.. why didn't the US saved those, instead of the fucking CEOS that had millions in the bank and still refuse to pay taxes when their people and country lose jobs, homes and live off on food stipends?
God bless america... NOT!
Well to be fair if they didn't have the bailouts we would have been looking at likely a decade of depression if not a quarter century. So sometimes a few people getting treated a little unfairly is better in the end if it saves the entire economy.
|
On September 01 2012 01:11 shell wrote:
It spends money in military for instance and those are not for the people but for the big guys that don't want to spend more money in taxes, make more money buy selling stuff for the wars!
Or to save the banks that made this fucking "crisis" and make a few more millions for the guys in charge that fucked the world!
yes i'm bitter.. your rich guys don't pay enought taxes to help the low income americans? are they any less because they don't have money?
Is it only their fault? Or the big rich guys that sent american factorys to chine are also to blame? Guess what those are the same that don't want to pay more taxes?
Is it the fault of low income americans that lost their homes because of the suprime crisis? Or is it also the fault of banks and mortgage companys? US saved the banks and the CEOS still got their bonuses but thousands of americans lost their homes.. why didn't the US saved those, instead of the fucking CEOS that had millions in the bank and still refuse to pay taxes when their people and country lose jobs, homes and live off on food stipends?
God bless america... NOT!
This is the problem with Occupy Wall Street, you're mixing two separate issues so much that you lose sight of what we should do about it and end up with unacceptable solutions.
Americans (not just low income) who fell into debt they can't afford have only themselves to blame. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to buy houses or acquire debts they can't pay back. They're guilty of greed and all the evils of consumerism. And it's stupid and unfair for them to demand that everyone else pay their debts for them. As the old quote goes, protecting people from the consequences of folly is to populate the world with fools.
Now, that's not to say at all that banks bear no blame. They've been stupid and greedy and abusive as well, and yes, CEOs of large institutions have paid themselves handsome rewards for avoiding the penalties they richly deserve. I don't really see outsourcing as a cause so much as a consequence of America's long-term problems and it should reverse if America ever fixes them. But with the fall-out, everyone has fled to the people who have cash, which right now are the rich.
Interestingly, you're not blaming the government. It is a disgrace that Obama has refused to prosecute any frauds perpetrated by large banks or the mortgage industry, in the name of status quo and stability. He had his once in a generation chance to change our society and he blew it. Using taxes as slow motion torture on the rich is too little, too late. When he spends money to liquidate financial institutions, he seems to show very little concern about where the money is going or how it's being used. This has led to a lot of bait and switches and confusion about his policies, as you sort of note with using money to help homeowners.
|
On September 01 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
Under Jonny's logic, if Obama spent $~1 trillion on making bricks to be dumped into the Pacific ocean, we shouldn't blame him for blowing up the deficit. That would only be 40% of a $~2.5 trillion deficit. What about the other 60%?
The other 60% is the marginal spending increases or tax cuts beyond the CBO baseline. You should include it along with the $1T in brick chucking. Otherwise you are just being dishonest.
|
On September 01 2012 01:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 00:57 Zaqwert wrote:
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue. Did you fail math or what? Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Therefore, when revenues goes down, deficits go up.
If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue.
On the flip side, if you decrease those income taxes, you incentivize people to invest and go to work and earn money. More people gain an income, and the government receives more revenue, albeit less per person, but overall it's a net gain. I agree that "Deficit = Spending - Revenue," but raising taxes does not automatically raise revenue; it's more complicated than that.
Plus, you have to fill out a US tax form every year that you have an income. That alone is almost enough to make me stop earning money, lol. (okay, I'm being more than a little fascetious there.... X-D but it IS incredibly frustrating to complete)
Yes, it gets to the point where lowering taxes DOES eventually decrease tax revenue, and vice versa, but we've not hit that yet. I predict we won't hit that for a long, long while, too.
|
On September 01 2012 01:31 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:11 shell wrote:
It spends money in military for instance and those are not for the people but for the big guys that don't want to spend more money in taxes, make more money buy selling stuff for the wars!
Or to save the banks that made this fucking "crisis" and make a few more millions for the guys in charge that fucked the world!
yes i'm bitter.. your rich guys don't pay enought taxes to help the low income americans? are they any less because they don't have money?
Is it only their fault? Or the big rich guys that sent american factorys to chine are also to blame? Guess what those are the same that don't want to pay more taxes?
Is it the fault of low income americans that lost their homes because of the suprime crisis? Or is it also the fault of banks and mortgage companys? US saved the banks and the CEOS still got their bonuses but thousands of americans lost their homes.. why didn't the US saved those, instead of the fucking CEOS that had millions in the bank and still refuse to pay taxes when their people and country lose jobs, homes and live off on food stipends?
God bless america... NOT! This is the problem with Occupy Wall Street, you're mixing two separate issues so much that you lose sight of what we should do about it and end up with unacceptable solutions. Americans (not just low income) who fell into debt they can't afford have only themselves to blame. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to buy houses or acquire debts they can't pay back. They're guilty of greed and all the evils of consumerism. And it's stupid and unfair for them to demand that everyone else pay their debts for them. As the old quote goes, protecting people from the consequences of folly is to populate the world with fools. Now, that's not to say at all that banks bear no blame. They've been stupid and greedy and abusive as well, and yes, CEOs of large institutions have paid themselves handsome rewards for avoiding the penalties they richly deserve. I don't really see outsourcing as a cause so much as a consequence of America's long-term problems and it should reverse if America ever fixes them. But with the fall-out, everyone has fled to the people who have cash, which right now are the rich. Interestingly, you're not blaming the government. It is a disgrace that Obama has refused to prosecute any frauds perpetrated by large banks or the mortgage industry, in the name of status quo and stability. He had his once in a generation chance to change our society and he blew it. Using taxes as slow motion torture on the rich is too little, too late. When he spends money to liquidate financial institutions, he seems to show very little concern about where the money is going or how it's being used. This has led to a lot of bait and switches and confusion about his policies, as you sort of note with using money to help homeowners.
What a total crock of bullshit. Tell that to my friend who graduated with 20k in student loans (which is minute compared to many), a mechanical engineering degree, and no job prospects. His story is not unique.You also have a poor understanding of predatory lending and how the sub-prime mortgage crisis came about, as though we are to blame the hundreds of thousands of people who were literally tricked into terrible loans. Yes, blame the poor, for they deserve their misery.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 01 2012 01:31 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:11 shell wrote:
It spends money in military for instance and those are not for the people but for the big guys that don't want to spend more money in taxes, make more money buy selling stuff for the wars!
Or to save the banks that made this fucking "crisis" and make a few more millions for the guys in charge that fucked the world!
yes i'm bitter.. your rich guys don't pay enought taxes to help the low income americans? are they any less because they don't have money?
Is it only their fault? Or the big rich guys that sent american factorys to chine are also to blame? Guess what those are the same that don't want to pay more taxes?
Is it the fault of low income americans that lost their homes because of the suprime crisis? Or is it also the fault of banks and mortgage companys? US saved the banks and the CEOS still got their bonuses but thousands of americans lost their homes.. why didn't the US saved those, instead of the fucking CEOS that had millions in the bank and still refuse to pay taxes when their people and country lose jobs, homes and live off on food stipends?
God bless america... NOT! This is the problem with Occupy Wall Street, you're mixing two separate issues so much that you lose sight of what we should do about it and end up with unacceptable solutions. Americans (not just low income) who fell into debt they can't afford have only themselves to blame. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to buy houses or acquire debts they can't pay back. They're guilty of greed and all the evils of consumerism. And it's stupid and unfair for them to demand that everyone else pay their debts for them. As the old quote goes, protecting people from the consequences of folly is to populate the world with fools. Now, that's not to say at all that banks bear no blame. They've been stupid and greedy and abusive as well, and yes, CEOs of large institutions have paid themselves handsome rewards for avoiding the penalties they richly deserve. I don't really see outsourcing as a cause so much as a consequence of America's long-term problems and it should reverse if America ever fixes them. But with the fall-out, everyone has fled to the people who have cash, which right now are the rich. Interestingly, you're not blaming the government. It is a disgrace that Obama has refused to prosecute any frauds perpetrated by large banks or the mortgage industry, in the name of status quo and stability. He had his once in a generation chance to change our society and he blew it. Using taxes as slow motion torture on the rich is too little, too late. When he spends money to liquidate financial institutions, he seems to show very little concern about where the money is going or how it's being used. This has led to a lot of bait and switches and confusion about his policies, as you sort of note with using money to help homeowners.
Of course it's their fault.. lol
And Obama didn't went after them? well that's true but how could he? When you have a public opinion that even after all of this, suprime crisis, maddofs etc.. still prefer to protect the rich!
Can you see that USA has the richest people in the world but it's actual quality of life is subpar? Don't you find it strange that the most advanced and strongest country in the world can't actually protect and help their most fragile citizens? Do you actually believe something like Katrina would happen in a euro country?
I know i'm talking about lots of things at the same time.. but that is the biggest problem with the USA imo! You people must decide if you want to be a country or a company! Is it natural selection within USA or you are actually a country that tries to grow from the inside? Do you all just want "freedom", money and party? Or do you guys want to be better has a country and civilization?
I know i'm just venting but from a outside prespective and after you fucked the world with the suprime crisis it's pretty easy to see USA fault..
After Romney went to Israel and talked a bunch of crap, it's so easy to me to see he is nothing but a front man.. much like Obama was.. But Obama actually cared about USA's reputation in the world even if he was not able to do everything he wanted.. you know why? Because of USA's mentality of power over society, money over values and "freedom" over responsability!
Romney is a plain man, stupid and vain.. we will not solve USA's problem and will make Israel/USA problems bigger because he will stand for the rich guy, for the companys and for more wars.. more hate.. more problems!
You got to be the world's leader and light.. and it shouldn't be because of how many nukes you have or air craft carriers!
It should be about responsability! You guys don't have much nowadays..That's what i expect from USA, from the movies etc.. the truth is you are a country moved by company interest and very powerfull people in the shadows, by lobbies..
You people talk about freedom but you don't have that much..
PS: this is not hate.. this is worry and hope for a better future! I don't see it for you guys and that will drags us down with you..
|
On September 01 2012 01:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
I think he means the government does not deserve "my" money so they should only spend what they get and not more.
maybe he would advocate something like Spending=0.75Revenue so that the government can only spend 3/4 what it brings in and must save a quarter for bad times when it needs to spend more then it brings in. That way the government is spending more of its money rather then having to raise taxes. I dont think that would work out so well in RL though.
If someone wants to argue that they are not morally obligated to pay any taxes whatsoever, I'd be quite amused to see that argument.
You can argue how much you should pay in taxes, but it's a pretty basic fact that taxes are necessary for government to function and they are the dues that you owe to the government for everything that they give you.
If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue.
On the flip side, if you decrease those income taxes, you incentivize people to invest and go to work and earn money. More people gain an income, and the government receives more revenue, albeit less per person, but overall it's a net gain. I agree that "Deficit = Spending - Revenue," but raising taxes does not automatically raise revenue; it's more complicated than that.
Plus, you have to fill out a US tax form every year that you have an income. That alone is almost enough to make me stop earning money, lol. (okay, I'm being more than a little fascetious there.... X-D but it IS incredibly frustrating to complete)
Yes, it gets to the point where lowering taxes DOES eventually decrease tax revenue, and vice versa, but we've not hit that yet. I predict we won't hit that for a long, long while, too.
Obviously if you tax a ridiculous amount of money out of the highest classes then it will cause problems, but pretty much every other developed country in the world taxes significantly more than we do at every level (and usually taxes the upper classes more than the middle/lower classes) and their economies are far better off than hours. Explain that before you continue the abstract theorycrafting. If higher taxes were inherently bad, we'd see the effects across ever European nation, but we aren't.
|
On September 01 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
Under Jonny's logic, if Obama spent $~1 trillion on making bricks to be dumped into the Pacific ocean, we shouldn't blame him for blowing up the deficit. That would only be 40% of a $~2.5 trillion deficit. What about the other 60%? The other 60% is the marginal spending increases or tax cuts beyond the CBO baseline. You should include it along with the $1T in brick chucking. Otherwise you are just being dishonest.
What? The other 60% IS the baseline. Under this example, the baseline is $1.5 trillion in deficit, then brick chucking causes the deficit to blow up another $1 trillion beyond the baseline.
Just like how the baseline when Bush was first put in office was to have indefinite surpluses, but his policies blew up the budget, causing trillions more dollars spent relative to the baseline.
If you increase the deficit more than the baseline, then you've made the deficit worse, if you reduce the deficit relative to the baseline, than you've made it better. Bush did the former.
|
On September 01 2012 01:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 01 2012 00:57 Zaqwert wrote:
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue. Did you fail math or what? Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Therefore, when revenues goes down, deficits go up. If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue. On the flip side, if you decrease those income taxes, you incentivize people to invest and go to work and earn money. More people gain an income, and the government receives more revenue, albeit less per person, but overall it's a net gain. I agree that "Deficit = Spending - Revenue," but raising taxes does not automatically raise revenue; it's more complicated than that. Plus, you have to fill out a US tax form every year that you have an income. That alone is almost enough to make me stop earning money, lol. (okay, I'm being more than a little fascetious there.... X-D but it IS incredibly frustrating to complete) Yes, it gets to the point where lowering taxes DOES eventually decrease tax revenue, and vice versa, but we've not hit that yet. I predict we won't hit that for a long, long while, too.
So true..
people that don't cave in to the rich guy mentality are hippies and communists.. What's wrong about caring about the society you live in? Do you like to see poor people begging for food? do you like to see robberys and murders? do you like to see parents that can't afford it's childs education? people with student loans and no jobs? Etc..
My country is poor but you can study for free in the best public university for 1000$ year(publics are the best), i have free medical care (a broken leg should cost around 10$), if you cut a finger you will pay 10$ more or less.. yes because we pay 40% tax... i say we shoud even pay more if that means we have a society like Canada, Denmark, Sweden or Norway..
A society where status and money and power is not everything.. but also contribute to a better country, free of disease, crime and poverty!
|
On September 01 2012 01:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 01 2012 00:57 Zaqwert wrote:
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue. Did you fail math or what? Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Therefore, when revenues goes down, deficits go up. If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue. On the flip side, if you decrease those income taxes, you incentivize people to invest and go to work and earn money. More people gain an income, and the government receives more revenue, albeit less per person, but overall it's a net gain. I agree that "Deficit = Spending - Revenue," but raising taxes does not automatically raise revenue; it's more complicated than that. Plus, you have to fill out a US tax form every year that you have an income. That alone is almost enough to make me stop earning money, lol. (okay, I'm being more than a little fascetious there.... X-D but it IS incredibly frustrating to complete) Yes, it gets to the point where lowering taxes DOES eventually decrease tax revenue, and vice versa, but we've not hit that yet. I predict we won't hit that for a long, long while, too.
Peak of the Laffer curve is 70%.
|
Canada11450 Posts
On September 01 2012 01:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 01 2012 00:57 Zaqwert wrote:
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue. Did you fail math or what? Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Therefore, when revenues goes down, deficits go up. If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue.
I really doubt that's true. Not with a graduated income tax rate. What it does encourage is people that are on the border between one tax rate and another, to do something to drop their taxable income by donating to charities or tying it up in RRSP's. That way they can drop down a tax bracket and get more back on their tax return.
But once you're firmly in the higher tax bracket, you might as well make more money. Because an income of $2million is still more than $1million even if you are paying more taxes than you would at $1million. Not that there's a different tax bracket between the two. The largest tax bracket is + $132K at 29%. There's no difference between making 200K and 1M so you might as well make the 1M if you can.
Only in a tax system where there is an income cap, (You can make $500K and no more) are people going to try stopping making more money. Or if the graduated tax is dumb by pehaps tax 80% of your income at the highest bracket. There I could seem people giving up. But not at near 30%.
|
What it does encourage is people that are on the border between one tax rate and another, to do something to drop their taxable income by donating to charities or tying it up in RRSP's
Not even this.
You pay 25% on your first 50k
Then you pay 50% on the next 200k
And then you pay 60% on everything above that.
If you make 60k you will pay 25% on 50k and 50% on 10k
You will never ever be better off by voluntarely lowering your income (off course i would like to add)
(numbers used are just an example)
|
132k is the highest Canadian bracket, in America I think the highest is like 380k and above. Someone can correct me if I am wrong though. I also think that Canada has lower federal income taxes on our highest earners so maybe republicans should come here. If they can get over the fact we allow gay marriage and have cold winters that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
