|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43973 Posts
Cap gains taxed at a lower rate than earned income never made a whole bunch of sense to me. If you work then you pay 14.9% (inc. employer part) FICA and medicare, then Federal and State income taxes at high rates. But if someone else works but you get the money because you own part of their business then you're treated much more favourably. From a conceptual point of view the only way that I can rationalize that is that the guys who wrote the laws never worked real jobs.
There aren't really loopholes beyond donating appreciated stuff to charity at the appreciated value without recognizing gain. The Amazon thing is that Amazon has a lot of net operating loss carryforwards because Amazon deliberately didn't make money for a long time. There's some transfer pricing bullshit but the IRS is allowed to challenge it, it's just not funded to win those fights.
If I could rewrite the tax code I'd up the rate on cap gains, lower rates on income taxes, increase death duties, and bring back exemptions based on family size. It'd be written around protecting and helping people with jobs. The amount of work you do for your money should be inversely related to the amount of tax you pay on it. Getting money because dad died = tax. Getting money because you work 2 jobs = less tax. I'd also get rid of FICA and medicare and fund from general taxation and give every taxpayer an annual statement showing what they paid and how much went towards what for transparency purposes.
Oh, and I'd compete directly with Turbotax with an IRS funded free service that worked. Tax filing as an industry doesn't make sense. As a CPA I'll happily agree that there is a need for tax prep services but tax filing services? That's dumb.
|
On October 31 2020 00:19 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 23:58 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 23:47 BisuDagger wrote:On October 30 2020 23:14 IgnE wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. What's economic stability? 0% growth rate? No volatility? Economic Stability in regards to the slowing the dramatic rate at which places are going out of business, shrinking joblessness, etc. Basically, all the signals that we have a healthy economy like in a pre-covid world. On October 30 2020 23:18 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. Much of the wish list for dems is not economic. There are only three items that are. Here's one that might satisfy fiscal conservatives : 1. Repeal of the tax cuts for those earning over 500k that Trump pushed through with no plan to pay for them. I'd rather they remove loopholes from the tax system so you pay the percentage mandated. Wouldn't that make more money then raising the taxes on the wealthy (unless it's brought to an absurd amount)? No tax breaks unless it went to legitimate charities. Well, they will probably try to do both, but no, not really. I think Kwark or someone in finances can verify this for sure. There's the "minimum" rate that is the absolute lowest amount you can pay already, isn't there? A lot of 'loopholes' abused by the ultra rich and rich aren't really loopholes so much as just "not enforced by the IRS right now". That's what happened with Trump, for instance. Capital gains taxes are another area where they're just really low, nothing to do with loopholes, and those are disproportionately used by the super rich. Corporate taxes are an area where loopholes are an issue (vis a viz Amazon), but the individual tax rate I don't think is one. (PS: What's your definition of ridiculous? If we went back to 1950s rules then there would be 90% income tax rates on millionaires) I'd like to just post "Tax is theft" and not say more lol. More personally, I have hard feelings about income tax and death taxes. I think money earned should go to your pocket. I'm not so extreme as to say 0% tax for everyone, I understand why it exists. I am just willing to entertain other solutions besides a 90% tax on the top percent. I know this comes with more government control, but I'm more interested in discussions that help regulate the percentage of money earned going to a CEO versus their employees. We could come up with solutions that aren't "you cannot make x amount as a CEO". Instead maybe an internal tax that forces the CEO to pay a percentage of his earned income back into his own company. So even if he doesn't get to retain the wealth for himself, he gets to choose how to reinvest it back into the company. Also, to be clear, I am not arguing against corporate taxes, just taxes on income.With my theoretical suggestion, wouldn't that put more money in the corporate tax area for the government to collect anyway?
Your heart is in the right place. You go a little astray at the intrusive solution to CEOs earning money. It’s just as bad as what you’re trying to fix, so you might as well have a progressive income tax rate with a lower ceiling rather than force the “money earned going into your pocket” to be spent in ways your hand wouldn’t choose for it.
|
On October 31 2020 00:19 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 23:58 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 23:47 BisuDagger wrote:On October 30 2020 23:14 IgnE wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. What's economic stability? 0% growth rate? No volatility? Economic Stability in regards to the slowing the dramatic rate at which places are going out of business, shrinking joblessness, etc. Basically, all the signals that we have a healthy economy like in a pre-covid world. On October 30 2020 23:18 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. Much of the wish list for dems is not economic. There are only three items that are. Here's one that might satisfy fiscal conservatives : 1. Repeal of the tax cuts for those earning over 500k that Trump pushed through with no plan to pay for them. I'd rather they remove loopholes from the tax system so you pay the percentage mandated. Wouldn't that make more money then raising the taxes on the wealthy (unless it's brought to an absurd amount)? No tax breaks unless it went to legitimate charities. Well, they will probably try to do both, but no, not really. I think Kwark or someone in finances can verify this for sure. There's the "minimum" rate that is the absolute lowest amount you can pay already, isn't there? A lot of 'loopholes' abused by the ultra rich and rich aren't really loopholes so much as just "not enforced by the IRS right now". That's what happened with Trump, for instance. Capital gains taxes are another area where they're just really low, nothing to do with loopholes, and those are disproportionately used by the super rich. Corporate taxes are an area where loopholes are an issue (vis a viz Amazon), but the individual tax rate I don't think is one. (PS: What's your definition of ridiculous? If we went back to 1950s rules then there would be 90% income tax rates on millionaires) I'd like to just post "Tax is theft" and not say more lol. More personally, I have hard feelings about income tax and death taxes. I think money earned should go to your pocket. I'm not so extreme as to say 0% tax for everyone, I understand why it exists. I am just willing to entertain other solutions besides a 90% tax on the top percent. I know this comes with more government control, but I'm more interested in discussions that help regulate the percentage of money earned going to a CEO versus their employees. We could come up with solutions that aren't "you cannot make x amount as a CEO". Instead maybe an internal tax that forces the CEO to pay a percentage of his earned income back into his own company. So even if he doesn't get to retain the wealth for himself, he gets to choose how to reinvest it back into the company. Also, to be clear, I am not arguing against corporate taxes, just taxes on income.With my theoretical suggestion, wouldn't that put more money in the corporate tax area for the government to collect anyway?
In your eyes, why should someone be allowed to accumulate $10B of wealth? How does the cost:benefit of letting that happen play out in your ethics? I'd like to outline why I think it is morally wrong and I welcome your input:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/
This is the legal'ish basis I think we should be judging billionaires. Being a billionaire is essentially an extreme version of depraved indifference where they are seeking to hoard rather than save lives. Billionaires are an entirely different situation from "well then why don't you live in a 1 bedroom apartment and donate the remainder to UNICEF?" Because not only can they save thousands of lives but they can do it without or having a material impact on their own lives. It just impacts their obsessive pursuit of wealth, making their numbers, influence and power bigger. They can still live on a yacht and build free health clinics in love income areas, provide after school programs to prevent gang violence and other big bang for buck social programs. And that's why I see it as an extreme case or depraved indifference deserving of extreme punishment and at the very least seizure of assets
|
Bisutopia19345 Posts
On October 31 2020 01:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 00:19 BisuDagger wrote:On October 30 2020 23:58 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 23:47 BisuDagger wrote:On October 30 2020 23:14 IgnE wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. What's economic stability? 0% growth rate? No volatility? Economic Stability in regards to the slowing the dramatic rate at which places are going out of business, shrinking joblessness, etc. Basically, all the signals that we have a healthy economy like in a pre-covid world. On October 30 2020 23:18 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. Much of the wish list for dems is not economic. There are only three items that are. Here's one that might satisfy fiscal conservatives : 1. Repeal of the tax cuts for those earning over 500k that Trump pushed through with no plan to pay for them. I'd rather they remove loopholes from the tax system so you pay the percentage mandated. Wouldn't that make more money then raising the taxes on the wealthy (unless it's brought to an absurd amount)? No tax breaks unless it went to legitimate charities. Well, they will probably try to do both, but no, not really. I think Kwark or someone in finances can verify this for sure. There's the "minimum" rate that is the absolute lowest amount you can pay already, isn't there? A lot of 'loopholes' abused by the ultra rich and rich aren't really loopholes so much as just "not enforced by the IRS right now". That's what happened with Trump, for instance. Capital gains taxes are another area where they're just really low, nothing to do with loopholes, and those are disproportionately used by the super rich. Corporate taxes are an area where loopholes are an issue (vis a viz Amazon), but the individual tax rate I don't think is one. (PS: What's your definition of ridiculous? If we went back to 1950s rules then there would be 90% income tax rates on millionaires) I'd like to just post "Tax is theft" and not say more lol. More personally, I have hard feelings about income tax and death taxes. I think money earned should go to your pocket. I'm not so extreme as to say 0% tax for everyone, I understand why it exists. I am just willing to entertain other solutions besides a 90% tax on the top percent. I know this comes with more government control, but I'm more interested in discussions that help regulate the percentage of money earned going to a CEO versus their employees. We could come up with solutions that aren't "you cannot make x amount as a CEO". Instead maybe an internal tax that forces the CEO to pay a percentage of his earned income back into his own company. So even if he doesn't get to retain the wealth for himself, he gets to choose how to reinvest it back into the company. Also, to be clear, I am not arguing against corporate taxes, just taxes on income.With my theoretical suggestion, wouldn't that put more money in the corporate tax area for the government to collect anyway? Your heart is in the right place. You go a little astray at the intrusive solution to CEOs earning money. It’s just as bad as what you’re trying to fix, so you might as well have a progressive income tax rate with a lower ceiling rather than force the “money earned going into your pocket” to be spent in ways your hand wouldn’t choose for it.
I agree. I feel icky proposing a solution that gets intrusive. It's like rent prices. I rented places for a decade, and only stayed in one apartment for two years in a row. The price of rent would go up several hundred dollars a month if I stayed, so I would move and find lower rents in crappier areas. So part of me truly understands rent prices are absurd and somehow need to be regulated, but I can't come up with a government enforced idea that I don't oppose due to taking to much control away from the owners and their rights to run their businesses.
On October 31 2020 00:40 Nevuk wrote:CEO pay rates going through the roof are a combination of a few strange forces. CEO pay going public resulted in all CEO pay skyrocketing. This was because they could each see what others were making and negotiate from there. The other factor is that they aren't being paid in money (or at least, the majority of their earnings aren't coming from cash). The absolutely nutty parts of their salaries and golden parachutes are being paid via company stock and stock benefits. That was considered "free" money by the EMB of companies, because it doesn't cost the company anything : it just costs their investors. Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 00:19 BisuDagger wrote:On October 30 2020 23:58 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 23:47 BisuDagger wrote:On October 30 2020 23:14 IgnE wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. What's economic stability? 0% growth rate? No volatility? Economic Stability in regards to the slowing the dramatic rate at which places are going out of business, shrinking joblessness, etc. Basically, all the signals that we have a healthy economy like in a pre-covid world. On October 30 2020 23:18 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. Much of the wish list for dems is not economic. There are only three items that are. Here's one that might satisfy fiscal conservatives : 1. Repeal of the tax cuts for those earning over 500k that Trump pushed through with no plan to pay for them. I'd rather they remove loopholes from the tax system so you pay the percentage mandated. Wouldn't that make more money then raising the taxes on the wealthy (unless it's brought to an absurd amount)? No tax breaks unless it went to legitimate charities. Well, they will probably try to do both, but no, not really. I think Kwark or someone in finances can verify this for sure. There's the "minimum" rate that is the absolute lowest amount you can pay already, isn't there? A lot of 'loopholes' abused by the ultra rich and rich aren't really loopholes so much as just "not enforced by the IRS right now". That's what happened with Trump, for instance. Capital gains taxes are another area where they're just really low, nothing to do with loopholes, and those are disproportionately used by the super rich. Corporate taxes are an area where loopholes are an issue (vis a viz Amazon), but the individual tax rate I don't think is one. (PS: What's your definition of ridiculous? If we went back to 1950s rules then there would be 90% income tax rates on millionaires) I'd like to just post "Tax is theft" and not say more lol. More personally, I have hard feelings about income tax and death taxes. I think money earned should go to your pocket. I'm not so extreme as to say 0% tax for everyone, I understand why it exists. I am just willing to entertain other solutions besides a 90% tax on the top percent. I know this comes with more government control, but I'm more interested in discussions that help regulate the percentage of money earned going to a CEO versus their employees. We could come up with solutions that aren't "you cannot make x amount as a CEO". Instead maybe an internal tax that forces the CEO to pay a percentage of his earned income back into his own company. So even if he doesn't get to retain the wealth for himself, he gets to choose how to reinvest it back into the company. Also, to be clear, I am not arguing against corporate taxes, just taxes on income.With my theoretical suggestion, wouldn't that put more money in the corporate tax area for the government to collect anyway? I think <500 people per year in the US even pay estate taxes. I'm not sure why anyone at all cares about the issue, given that it only applies to 10$ million or more estates. What's your position on capital gains taxes? Those are the taxes on passive income - ie, invest in this stock, it goes up 500%, you sell that stock. Do you think that should be taxed?
This is an off the cuff remark that deserves a lot of discussion, but I am totally fine with capital gains taxes and I could care less about the rates either. I think we bundle that with gambling taxes and tax it as high as possible. I view that as spending the money you earned, like a sales tax. And if you have a profession in stock trading, you're just a professional gambler anyway right? (just taking a lighthearted jab on the last statement, not meaning to degrade the profession)
|
|
|
I never really understood why issuing stock as compensation isn't taxed at issue time in addition to capital gains later.
If you issue 1 mil worth of stock, tax it the same as 1 million of salary at issuance time, deducted by the company as payroll tax. If Bezos gets 1 billion in stock, well Amazon had better pony up 500 million or whatever the highest marginal tax rate is. It's cheaper for the company than giving out straight cash, but it's not "free" for the company to issue.
|
Taxing at issue time raises significant valuation timing issues
|
|
|
|
|
United States43973 Posts
On October 31 2020 01:32 Lmui wrote:
I never really understood why issuing stock as compensation isn't taxed at issue time in addition to capital gains later.
If you issue 1 mil worth of stock, tax it the same as 1 million of salary at issuance time, deducted by the company as payroll tax. If Bezos gets 1 billion in stock, well Amazon had better pony up 500 million or whatever the highest marginal tax rate is. It's cheaper for the company than giving out straight cash, but it's not "free" for the company to issue.
It is taxed as income in many situations. Who pays the tax and when they pay it is the question.
Remember employee taxable income and employer payroll expense are inversely correlated. If the employer pays the employer in undervalued stock the the employee gets a portion of their compensation tax deferred (because the difference between basis and FMV is deferred until sale of the stock) but the employer is only deducting the undervalued amount as payroll expense.
|
On October 31 2020 02:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 01:32 Lmui wrote:
I never really understood why issuing stock as compensation isn't taxed at issue time in addition to capital gains later.
If you issue 1 mil worth of stock, tax it the same as 1 million of salary at issuance time, deducted by the company as payroll tax. If Bezos gets 1 billion in stock, well Amazon had better pony up 500 million or whatever the highest marginal tax rate is. It's cheaper for the company than giving out straight cash, but it's not "free" for the company to issue. It is taxed as income in many situations. Who pays the tax and when they pay it is the question. Remember employee taxable income and employer payroll expense are inversely correlated. If the employer pays the employer in undervalued stock the the employee gets a portion of their compensation tax deferred (because the difference between basis and FMV is deferred until sale of the stock) but the employer is only deducting the undervalued amount as payroll expense.
I understood none of that. Could you say the same thing without the jargon?
|
On October 31 2020 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 00:19 BisuDagger wrote:On October 30 2020 23:58 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 23:47 BisuDagger wrote:On October 30 2020 23:14 IgnE wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. What's economic stability? 0% growth rate? No volatility? Economic Stability in regards to the slowing the dramatic rate at which places are going out of business, shrinking joblessness, etc. Basically, all the signals that we have a healthy economy like in a pre-covid world. On October 30 2020 23:18 Nevuk wrote:On October 30 2020 22:50 BisuDagger wrote:
For those of you democrats hoping for a massive blue wave election and 4 years of have your cake and eat it too, what are you hoping to get out of the next term? What would make you say "Solid 4 years Biden. Well done!"? It's the answer to this question that honestly scares me the most as a fiscal conservative.
For me:
All I care about is economic stability, covid recovery, and staying out of international conflicts for the next four years. I'm worried that a blue wave will just like "hey we got this opportunity, let's push as many left agendas as possible." I get that it's an opportunity to accomplish an agenda, but I think regardless of party, it's a spit in the face to pass a bunch of things that don't have partisan support. I have huge problems with republicans trying to push agendas that sub 50% of America might support too. Much of the wish list for dems is not economic. There are only three items that are. Here's one that might satisfy fiscal conservatives : 1. Repeal of the tax cuts for those earning over 500k that Trump pushed through with no plan to pay for them. I'd rather they remove loopholes from the tax system so you pay the percentage mandated. Wouldn't that make more money then raising the taxes on the wealthy (unless it's brought to an absurd amount)? No tax breaks unless it went to legitimate charities. Well, they will probably try to do both, but no, not really. I think Kwark or someone in finances can verify this for sure. There's the "minimum" rate that is the absolute lowest amount you can pay already, isn't there? A lot of 'loopholes' abused by the ultra rich and rich aren't really loopholes so much as just "not enforced by the IRS right now". That's what happened with Trump, for instance. Capital gains taxes are another area where they're just really low, nothing to do with loopholes, and those are disproportionately used by the super rich. Corporate taxes are an area where loopholes are an issue (vis a viz Amazon), but the individual tax rate I don't think is one. (PS: What's your definition of ridiculous? If we went back to 1950s rules then there would be 90% income tax rates on millionaires) I'd like to just post "Tax is theft" and not say more lol. More personally, I have hard feelings about income tax and death taxes. I think money earned should go to your pocket. I'm not so extreme as to say 0% tax for everyone, I understand why it exists. I am just willing to entertain other solutions besides a 90% tax on the top percent. I know this comes with more government control, but I'm more interested in discussions that help regulate the percentage of money earned going to a CEO versus their employees. We could come up with solutions that aren't "you cannot make x amount as a CEO". Instead maybe an internal tax that forces the CEO to pay a percentage of his earned income back into his own company. So even if he doesn't get to retain the wealth for himself, he gets to choose how to reinvest it back into the company. Also, to be clear, I am not arguing against corporate taxes, just taxes on income.With my theoretical suggestion, wouldn't that put more money in the corporate tax area for the government to collect anyway? In your eyes, why should someone be allowed to accumulate $10B of wealth? How does the cost:benefit of letting that happen play out in your ethics? I'd like to outline why I think it is morally wrong and I welcome your input: https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/This is the legal'ish basis I think we should be judging billionaires. Being a billionaire is essentially an extreme version of depraved indifference where they are seeking to hoard rather than save lives. Billionaires are an entirely different situation from "well then why don't you live in a 1 bedroom apartment and donate the remainder to UNICEF?" Because not only can they save thousands of lives but they can do it without or having a material impact on their own lives. It just impacts their obsessive pursuit of wealth, making their numbers, influence and power bigger. They can still live on a yacht and build free health clinics in love income areas, provide after school programs to prevent gang violence and other big bang for buck social programs. And that's why I see it as an extreme case or depraved indifference deserving of extreme punishment and at the very least seizure of assets
10b i think isnt the issue but it should be rare. Some people add huge amounts to the economic pie,they can be rewarded for that. People like steve jobs or besos have added way more then 10b to the economic pie.
The problem is mostly when people get huge rewards while adding nothing to the economic pie,which unfortunatly also does happen.
Say you made 10b and you then buy existing houses for that 10b to rent out. That doesnt add anything to the economic pie,the house was already there before you bought it. Yet you get huge rewards from it year after year.
Same for gaining interest on treasuries and such,it doesnt add anything to that what is beeing produced. Gaining a little interest is fine imo but it becomes problematic when it becomes an enormous amount. (though in the end even making a considerable sum on interest is not problematic for the system as long as it does not go above the percentage of the real inflation).
The whole system is based on people beeing proportionally rewarded for their contribution to the economic pie,thats one of the core priniples of capitalism and the free market.
Rewarding people huge sums for contributing no production takes away from that because the pie can be divided only once. Giving people a little bit with wellfare doesnt contradict this btw,it only becomes problematic when the accumulation of capital becomes very large and as a result takes a larger and larger share from the shared pie as a reward.
This accumulation of capital is natural in the system btw,its not a weird phenomenon.
Piketty said that capital gains are larger then the growth of the economy. It sounds brilliant but what he basicly says with this is that the rich get richter.
Gains on capital will on average always be larger then the growth of the economy,its natural due to natural selection and i am not sure if piketty realizes this.
If a large amount of capital would make smaller gains then the economic growth it would slowly deminish in value and a different pile of capital who was more succesfull would take its place.
Its a natural phenomenon but it could be corrected or limited by government policy. If it should is hard to say,you would not want to limit people like steve jobs or jeff besos but some limits eventually are needed.
The more the capital is accumulated,the less room there is for other people to make money. In the end this makes the system stagnant. You want to make sure there is always many good opportunities for people to rise above themselves which in the end means there has to be a limit to how much wealth one can aquire,if only to make sure there is enough room for newcomers. If inequality is already at this point is difficult to say but inequality ultimately has its limits before it becomes a factor that limits the innovation and competitiveness of an economy.
|
United States43973 Posts
On October 31 2020 02:32 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 02:18 KwarK wrote:On October 31 2020 01:32 Lmui wrote:
I never really understood why issuing stock as compensation isn't taxed at issue time in addition to capital gains later.
If you issue 1 mil worth of stock, tax it the same as 1 million of salary at issuance time, deducted by the company as payroll tax. If Bezos gets 1 billion in stock, well Amazon had better pony up 500 million or whatever the highest marginal tax rate is. It's cheaper for the company than giving out straight cash, but it's not "free" for the company to issue. It is taxed as income in many situations. Who pays the tax and when they pay it is the question. Remember employee taxable income and employer payroll expense are inversely correlated. If the employer pays the employer in undervalued stock the the employee gets a portion of their compensation tax deferred (because the difference between basis and FMV is deferred until sale of the stock) but the employer is only deducting the undervalued amount as payroll expense. I understood none of that. Could you say the same thing without the jargon?
Let's say my business makes $50 and I employ you.
If I give you $10 then I can record that I paid you $10 as a business expense. That means that my profits go down by $10 and so I pay less tax. Your taxable income is +$10, my taxable income is -$10.
I pay tax on $40 profits, you pay tax on $10 wages. $50 taxable between us.
If I give you $10 but say that it's only $1 then you get $9 tax free because you got $10 but only have to pay tax on $1. However my taxable income is only -$1 because we're saying that it was only worth $1. So I don't get the tax benefit on the full $10 I paid you.
I pay tax on $49 profits, you pay tax on $1 wages. $50 taxable between us.
|
On October 30 2020 23:41 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what will be more bewildering for me, the disappointment from people who genuinely think Biden will get things done or the self-abasing rationalization for why whatever he does accomplish (likely things like austerity) is the best we could have hoped for. One of the best things he could accomplish is to bring unity to a dividend nation. He is so squarely in the political centre he could possibly have ran as a moderate Republican, at least pre 2000. America is fractured well beyond the ability of 1 politician to heal. It would be a process that could easily take a generation, but worst of all its a process that can't even really begin because the damage is still being done every single day by places like Fox, Breitbart ect. (and yes there are probably far left places that feed into it aswell but lets be real, they are likely not nearly as bad as the right has been in recent times).
|
|
|
On October 31 2020 02:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 23:41 Slydie wrote:On October 30 2020 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what will be more bewildering for me, the disappointment from people who genuinely think Biden will get things done or the self-abasing rationalization for why whatever he does accomplish (likely things like austerity) is the best we could have hoped for. One of the best things he could accomplish is to bring unity to a dividend nation. He is so squarely in the political centre he could possibly have ran as a moderate Republican, at least pre 2000. America is fractured well beyond the ability of 1 politician to heal. It would be a process that could easily take a generation, but worst of all its a process that can't even really begin because the damage is still being done every single day by places like Fox, Breitbart ect. (and yes there are probably far left places that feed into it aswell but lets be real, they are likely not nearly as bad as the right has been in recent times).
I dont think it will take a generation (a generation is 20 years i guess?). It will be faster then that i think but its problematic.
Polarization to this extend is not natural for a population. The problem is that polarization has become an instrument,an instrument to reach certain political objectives or certain goals. It is beeing stimulated by some parts of the media,both on the left as well as on the right because they see it as an opportunity. And many people are easily influenced while the options to influence people have risen dramatically with the rise of social media.
That i think is the main reason why polarization has gone so far and has become a persistent phenomenon in recent years.
I do hope (and think) that in the end both the part of the left as well as the part on the right who sees polarization as an opportunity will realize that they would all be better off without polarization because i dont think either side of the extremes will ever win. That moment will no doubt come but it maybe has to get a bit worse before it becomes better. (this is a tough call,somewhere i feel this is the peak of polarization or very close to it. i could be wrong with that though as the elections are a very uncertain factor which at first glance look like an event that will increase polarization even more).
Current polarization is not healthy for either side let alone for society as a whole and i dont think it will last for more then 5 years even in the worst case.
At one point people will get tired of it and the only thing they then want is a return to a more peacefull and less polarizing society,the support for the extremes will eventually deminish. (5 years would still be quiet a long time btw and not something to look forward to)
|
On October 30 2020 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what will be more bewildering for me, the disappointment from people who genuinely think Biden will get things done or the self-abasing rationalization for why whatever he does accomplish (likely things like austerity) is the best we could have hoped for.
My hope is that (assuming the Dems take the Senate) they quickly push a big Covid-19 stimulus package. Republicans would filibuster, giving the Dems the leverage they need to abolish it.
Republican's kneecapped the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis under Obama and I don't think Biden / the Dems will let them do it again.
With the filibuster out of the way and a Senate majority the Dems would be free to pass their agenda. My hope is that they would start with the For the People Act, which the House passed in 2019. Passing this bill would make our system more democratic (limit partisan Gerrymandering, expand voting rights, campaign finance reform, etc.) which would pave the way for more progressive legislation like a healthcare overhaul or green new deal.
I'm prepared to be disappointed though. I don't have much faith in the people of this country.
|
|
|
United States24771 Posts
On October 31 2020 03:32 JimmiC wrote:
Where do the votes count for Americans abroad? Like for example a soldier, is it the base they come from state? Where they mark their address and so on? Can and do foreign Americans pick which state they cast their vote in or is it regulated in some way?
They would vote absentee for whichever state contains their home of record.
|
On October 31 2020 03:20 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what will be more bewildering for me, the disappointment from people who genuinely think Biden will get things done or the self-abasing rationalization for why whatever he does accomplish (likely things like austerity) is the best we could have hoped for. My hope is that (assuming the Dems take the Senate) they quickly push a big Covid-19 stimulus package. Republicans would filibuster, giving the Dems the leverage they need to abolish it. Republican's kneecapped the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis under Obama and I don't think Biden / the Dems will let them do it again. With the filibuster out of the way and a Senate majority the Dems would be free to pass their agenda. My hope is that they would start with the For the People Act, which the House passed in 2019. Passing this bill would make our system more democratic (limit partisan Gerrymandering, expand voting rights, campaign finance reform, etc.) which would pave the way for more progressive legislation like a healthcare overhaul or green new deal. I'm prepared to be disappointed though. I don't have much faith in the people of this country.
Why do you need support for the filibuster. Just nuke it without even a reason. Its current format makes no sense. If democrats have a majority in the senate they can either revert it to its pre-1970 format or nuke it. Right now it's just a lazy method for the minority to mess with legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
