Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 02, 2010 09:24AM
Another great article by Arthur Laffer. I'm certain that JFK would not be welcome in his own party if he were alive today.
____________________________________________________________________________________
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
By ARTHUR LAFFER
Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.
—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,
January 1963
If only more of today's leaders thought like JFK. Sadly, in the debate over whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and if so whether the cuts should be extended to those people who are in the highest tax bracket, there is a false presumption that higher tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will raise tax revenues.
Anyone who is familiar with the historical data available from the IRS knows full well that raising income tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will most likely reduce the direct tax receipts from the now higher taxed income—even without considering the secondary tax revenue effects, all of which will be negative. And who on Earth wants higher tax rates on anyone if it means larger deficits?
Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We've also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.
During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period. (See the nearby chart).
![[laffer]](http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AL963_laffer_NS_20100801181202.gif)
These results shouldn't be surprising. The highest tax bracket income earners, when compared with those people in lower tax brackets, are far more capable of changing their taxable income by hiring lawyers, accountants, deferred income specialists and the like. They can change the location, timing, composition and volume of income to avoid taxation.
Just look at Sen. John Kerry's recent yacht brouhaha if you don't believe me. He bought and housed his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, where he is the senior senator and champion of higher taxes on the rich, avoiding some $437,500 in state sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.
Howard Metzenbaum, the former Ohio senator and liberal supporter of the death tax, chose to change his official residence to Florida just before he died because Florida does not have an estate tax while Ohio does. Goodness knows what creative devices former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has used to avoid paying taxes.![[lafferkerry]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-JK987_laffer_D_20100801175911.jpg)
In short, the highest bracket income earners—even left-wing liberals—are far more sensitive to tax rates than are other income earners.
When President Kennedy cut the highest income tax rate to 70% from 91%, revenues also rose. Income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.9% of GDP in 1968 from 1.3% in 1960. Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.
Or perhaps you'd like to see how the rich paid less in taxes under the bipartisan tax rate increases of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter? Between 1968 and 1981 the top 1% of income earners reduced their total income tax payments to 1.5% of GDP from 1.9% of GDP.
And then there's the Hoover/Roosevelt Great Depression. The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. President Hoover then thought it would be clever to try to tax America into prosperity. Using many of the same arguments that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are using today, President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. He raised many other taxes as well.
President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well. The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.
Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?
We all know that there are lots of factors influencing tax revenues from the rich, but the number one factor has to be the statutory tax rates government tells the rich they have to pay. Not only do the direct income tax consequences of higher tax rates on those in the highest brackets lead to higher deficits, the indirect effects magnify the tax revenue losses many fold.
As a result of higher tax rates on those people in the highest tax brackets, there will be less employment, output, sales, profits and capital gains—all leading to lower payrolls and lower total tax receipts. There will also be higher unemployment, poverty and lower incomes, all of which require more government spending. It's a Catch-22.
Higher tax rates on the rich create the very poverty and unemployment that is used to justify their presence. It is a vicious cycle that well-trained economists should know to avoid.
Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010)
____________________________________________________________________________________
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
By ARTHUR LAFFER
Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.
—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,
January 1963
If only more of today's leaders thought like JFK. Sadly, in the debate over whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and if so whether the cuts should be extended to those people who are in the highest tax bracket, there is a false presumption that higher tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will raise tax revenues.
Anyone who is familiar with the historical data available from the IRS knows full well that raising income tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will most likely reduce the direct tax receipts from the now higher taxed income—even without considering the secondary tax revenue effects, all of which will be negative. And who on Earth wants higher tax rates on anyone if it means larger deficits?
Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We've also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.
During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period. (See the nearby chart).
These results shouldn't be surprising. The highest tax bracket income earners, when compared with those people in lower tax brackets, are far more capable of changing their taxable income by hiring lawyers, accountants, deferred income specialists and the like. They can change the location, timing, composition and volume of income to avoid taxation.
Just look at Sen. John Kerry's recent yacht brouhaha if you don't believe me. He bought and housed his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, where he is the senior senator and champion of higher taxes on the rich, avoiding some $437,500 in state sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.
Howard Metzenbaum, the former Ohio senator and liberal supporter of the death tax, chose to change his official residence to Florida just before he died because Florida does not have an estate tax while Ohio does. Goodness knows what creative devices former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has used to avoid paying taxes.
In short, the highest bracket income earners—even left-wing liberals—are far more sensitive to tax rates than are other income earners.
When President Kennedy cut the highest income tax rate to 70% from 91%, revenues also rose. Income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.9% of GDP in 1968 from 1.3% in 1960. Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.
Or perhaps you'd like to see how the rich paid less in taxes under the bipartisan tax rate increases of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter? Between 1968 and 1981 the top 1% of income earners reduced their total income tax payments to 1.5% of GDP from 1.9% of GDP.
And then there's the Hoover/Roosevelt Great Depression. The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. President Hoover then thought it would be clever to try to tax America into prosperity. Using many of the same arguments that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are using today, President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. He raised many other taxes as well.
President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well. The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.
Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?
We all know that there are lots of factors influencing tax revenues from the rich, but the number one factor has to be the statutory tax rates government tells the rich they have to pay. Not only do the direct income tax consequences of higher tax rates on those in the highest brackets lead to higher deficits, the indirect effects magnify the tax revenue losses many fold.
As a result of higher tax rates on those people in the highest tax brackets, there will be less employment, output, sales, profits and capital gains—all leading to lower payrolls and lower total tax receipts. There will also be higher unemployment, poverty and lower incomes, all of which require more government spending. It's a Catch-22.
Higher tax rates on the rich create the very poverty and unemployment that is used to justify their presence. It is a vicious cycle that well-trained economists should know to avoid.
Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010)
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 02, 2010 09:35AM
We are now to the point that we are borrowing money to give rich people tax cuts. That is unsustainable.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 02, 2010 09:45AM
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.
"They do not," said Greenspan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html
"They do not," said Greenspan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 02, 2010 09:49AM
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
"As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves," Paulson said, echoing the opinion of most economists. Paulson said the 2001 tax cuts, however, were crucial to boosting the confidence of consumers, investors and top executives.
Bush OMB Director: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."
Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim that broad-based income tax cuts increase revenue is not "credible." Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush CEA wrote on July 2, 2007:
I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.
"As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves," Paulson said, echoing the opinion of most economists. Paulson said the 2001 tax cuts, however, were crucial to boosting the confidence of consumers, investors and top executives.
Bush OMB Director: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."
Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim that broad-based income tax cuts increase revenue is not "credible." Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush CEA wrote on July 2, 2007:
I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 02, 2010 09:57AM
A serious effort to reduce the deficit will require spending cuts..spending relaignments...will require some taxes to be eliminated and others to be expanded. It appears clear that the U.S. public has no love for income taxes...so consumption taxes are in order. Prior to prohibition taxes on alcohol products were the main source of revenue...I suggest we legalize most recreational drugs and tax them as one new source of revenue.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Opa
()
Date: August 02, 2010 09:59AM
The only problem is that every time Republicans have screamed cut taxes it has failed terribly. But, of course don't expect Republicans to be able to remember failed policies. Republicans love to repeat failed policies.
Unfortunately, in practice, the theory had mixed results. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, a combination of laws cut taxes tremendously for those in the highest tax brackets. The intention behind this was to encourage more investing by those who could afford it, but the benefits for lower-income brackets were marginal. Proponents argued that despite tax cuts, tax revenue would actually go up, since employment would increase significantly due to new businesses. This effect never really occurred, and savings rates actually declined during the Reagan presidency.
The main purpose of voodoo economics was to reduce inflation and make a dent in the towering national debt. Using the principles of supply-side economics, Reagan insisted that reducing taxes would not only spur supply but create so much revenue due to increased employment and production that the country would be making money instead of losing it. With the triple promise of lower taxes, higher employment, and cheaper products, it is easy to see why voodoo economics was an attractive proposal in theory.
Some still argue that supply-side economics works in properly controlled situations, and point to the increase of economy growth during Reagan’s presidency. Critics point out that the growth was not a result of tax cuts but rather a natural recovery from the tremendous recession of the previous decade. Probably the biggest factor in the problems with voodoo economics is the over-estimation of increased worker productivity. While cutting taxes may create new jobs, it cannot make people work more hours or longer weeks.
Unfortunately, in practice, the theory had mixed results. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, a combination of laws cut taxes tremendously for those in the highest tax brackets. The intention behind this was to encourage more investing by those who could afford it, but the benefits for lower-income brackets were marginal. Proponents argued that despite tax cuts, tax revenue would actually go up, since employment would increase significantly due to new businesses. This effect never really occurred, and savings rates actually declined during the Reagan presidency.
The main purpose of voodoo economics was to reduce inflation and make a dent in the towering national debt. Using the principles of supply-side economics, Reagan insisted that reducing taxes would not only spur supply but create so much revenue due to increased employment and production that the country would be making money instead of losing it. With the triple promise of lower taxes, higher employment, and cheaper products, it is easy to see why voodoo economics was an attractive proposal in theory.
Some still argue that supply-side economics works in properly controlled situations, and point to the increase of economy growth during Reagan’s presidency. Critics point out that the growth was not a result of tax cuts but rather a natural recovery from the tremendous recession of the previous decade. Probably the biggest factor in the problems with voodoo economics is the over-estimation of increased worker productivity. While cutting taxes may create new jobs, it cannot make people work more hours or longer weeks.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 02, 2010 10:29AM
Source:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-voodoo-economics.htm
Opa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only problem is that every time Republicans
> have screamed cut taxes it has failed terribly.
> But, of course don't expect Republicans to be
> able to remember failed policies. Republicans
> love to repeat failed policies.
>
>
> Unfortunately, in practice, the theory had mixed
> results. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, a
> combination of laws cut taxes tremendously for
> those in the highest tax brackets. The intention
> behind this was to encourage more investing by
> those who could afford it, but the benefits for
> lower-income brackets were marginal. Proponents
> argued that despite tax cuts, tax revenue would
> actually go up, since employment would increase
> significantly due to new businesses. This effect
> never really occurred, and savings rates actually
> declined during the Reagan presidency.
>
> The main purpose of voodoo economics was to reduce
> inflation and make a dent in the towering national
> debt. Using the principles of supply-side
> economics, Reagan insisted that reducing taxes
> would not only spur supply but create so much
> revenue due to increased employment and production
> that the country would be making money instead of
> losing it. With the triple promise of lower taxes,
> higher employment, and cheaper products, it is
> easy to see why voodoo economics was an attractive
> proposal in theory.
>
> Some still argue that supply-side economics works
> in properly controlled situations, and point to
> the increase of economy growth during Reagan’s
> presidency. Critics point out that the growth was
> not a result of tax cuts but rather a natural
> recovery from the tremendous recession of the
> previous decade. Probably the biggest factor in
> the problems with voodoo economics is the
> over-estimation of increased worker productivity.
> While cutting taxes may create new jobs, it cannot
> make people work more hours or longer weeks.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-voodoo-economics.htm
Opa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only problem is that every time Republicans
> have screamed cut taxes it has failed terribly.
> But, of course don't expect Republicans to be
> able to remember failed policies. Republicans
> love to repeat failed policies.
>
>
> Unfortunately, in practice, the theory had mixed
> results. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, a
> combination of laws cut taxes tremendously for
> those in the highest tax brackets. The intention
> behind this was to encourage more investing by
> those who could afford it, but the benefits for
> lower-income brackets were marginal. Proponents
> argued that despite tax cuts, tax revenue would
> actually go up, since employment would increase
> significantly due to new businesses. This effect
> never really occurred, and savings rates actually
> declined during the Reagan presidency.
>
> The main purpose of voodoo economics was to reduce
> inflation and make a dent in the towering national
> debt. Using the principles of supply-side
> economics, Reagan insisted that reducing taxes
> would not only spur supply but create so much
> revenue due to increased employment and production
> that the country would be making money instead of
> losing it. With the triple promise of lower taxes,
> higher employment, and cheaper products, it is
> easy to see why voodoo economics was an attractive
> proposal in theory.
>
> Some still argue that supply-side economics works
> in properly controlled situations, and point to
> the increase of economy growth during Reagan’s
> presidency. Critics point out that the growth was
> not a result of tax cuts but rather a natural
> recovery from the tremendous recession of the
> previous decade. Probably the biggest factor in
> the problems with voodoo economics is the
> over-estimation of increased worker productivity.
> While cutting taxes may create new jobs, it cannot
> make people work more hours or longer weeks.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Johnny Walker
()
Date: August 02, 2010 10:52AM
"It's such a beautiful day, let's put the top down!"
—President John F. Kennedy
—President John F. Kennedy
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Opa
()
Date: August 02, 2010 03:32PM
Re-distributing wealth to the rich sounds like a good idea to me.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 12:10PM
Opa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re-distributing wealth to the rich sounds like a
> good idea to me.
The lack of understanding concerning basic principles of economics and the way private capital flows in a free market private enterprise has always been on full display and not only by people like you on this thread. Keynesian economics, various hybrids thereof and outright socialism permeate every level of our public education system from the High School level up. The elitist media culture has taken full advantage of their position to promote wealth re-distribution in large part for several generations.They deploy their not so casual voluntary and outright blatant propaganda to to a largely economically ignorant audience who all to willingly lap it up because it makes you feel like you're getting even.
Currently this year my company and several of my associates have put on hold app. 23 million dollars in construction projects alone. A large part of this is our own private capital we pool together for such projects.The rest is leveraged at an app. 50/50 split through private banks.
One of my associates has been forced to lay off app. 20% of his workforce this spring and summer do to the fact we are on hold until our future tax liability gets sorted out. Uncertainty related to the US tax code and where it is going has created all sorts of problems for me and I'm just a small company with less than 50 employee's. Fortunately we are diversified into areas of service that have actually seen some growth this year so layoffs on my part have been limited.
I'd much rather be working on projects, hitting on all cylinders and hiring more people and paying them a good salary but that day currently isn't even on the horizon.
I know exactly what you are thinking too! You say " Oh poor rich guy! I feel sorry for you. You can't make all the money you want and keep it this year."
Let me tell you how my summers going. Since I haven't had to fly around the country fighting my way in and out of airports and living in hotels so much this year I've enjoyed a lot more leisure time.As a matter of fact this is the first year in my life when I've done more leisure rather than work related flying. Been going on vacation a lot!
More time with my family and friends basically on a forced vacation due to the economic outlook. My son and I will actually clear almost twice what we did last year because we have the means to transfer income into this year to avoid the confiscatory rates beginning Jan 1 2011. Then next year our Fed Income Tax liability will be effectively 0 compared to what it would be if we weren't able to make this strategic maneuver.
It's really been one of the best times of my life so far. We got to go all over The Keys and down through the Caribbeans this summer so far just soaking it all up. Wine Country this fall, who knows?
I'm loving my life but feel a duty to make things happen too. One of my partners is 67 years old and he is the same way. There is nothing more satisfying than creating wealth and sharing it with everyone involved. One of my employees just recently bought a new boat for his family this summer. He was so proud of it he actually brought it to the office to show me. I almost cried he was so humble. He thanks me all the time for the opportunity that he has here and I always tell him "Man it's you and all your hard work". He deserves a great lifestyle because he's worked his ass off for every penny of it. I love paying "my people".I really, really do.
This is why you don't see many posts from me from around Wednesday afternoons until Monday mornings. Nothing much going on, I love the ocean and could go on sailing the rest of my life for that matter. If things don't change I just might.
Do you remember when Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that he was going to "spread the wealth around a little" ? Were you surprised and happy when that is exactly what he did after you voted for him and he was elected?
There currently is a 2 in 10 chance you are unemployed. If so I hope your're enjoying your time off. I sure am.
Thanks Obama, McSmack
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re-distributing wealth to the rich sounds like a
> good idea to me.
The lack of understanding concerning basic principles of economics and the way private capital flows in a free market private enterprise has always been on full display and not only by people like you on this thread. Keynesian economics, various hybrids thereof and outright socialism permeate every level of our public education system from the High School level up. The elitist media culture has taken full advantage of their position to promote wealth re-distribution in large part for several generations.They deploy their not so casual voluntary and outright blatant propaganda to to a largely economically ignorant audience who all to willingly lap it up because it makes you feel like you're getting even.
Currently this year my company and several of my associates have put on hold app. 23 million dollars in construction projects alone. A large part of this is our own private capital we pool together for such projects.The rest is leveraged at an app. 50/50 split through private banks.
One of my associates has been forced to lay off app. 20% of his workforce this spring and summer do to the fact we are on hold until our future tax liability gets sorted out. Uncertainty related to the US tax code and where it is going has created all sorts of problems for me and I'm just a small company with less than 50 employee's. Fortunately we are diversified into areas of service that have actually seen some growth this year so layoffs on my part have been limited.
I'd much rather be working on projects, hitting on all cylinders and hiring more people and paying them a good salary but that day currently isn't even on the horizon.
I know exactly what you are thinking too! You say " Oh poor rich guy! I feel sorry for you. You can't make all the money you want and keep it this year."
Let me tell you how my summers going. Since I haven't had to fly around the country fighting my way in and out of airports and living in hotels so much this year I've enjoyed a lot more leisure time.As a matter of fact this is the first year in my life when I've done more leisure rather than work related flying. Been going on vacation a lot!
More time with my family and friends basically on a forced vacation due to the economic outlook. My son and I will actually clear almost twice what we did last year because we have the means to transfer income into this year to avoid the confiscatory rates beginning Jan 1 2011. Then next year our Fed Income Tax liability will be effectively 0 compared to what it would be if we weren't able to make this strategic maneuver.
It's really been one of the best times of my life so far. We got to go all over The Keys and down through the Caribbeans this summer so far just soaking it all up. Wine Country this fall, who knows?
I'm loving my life but feel a duty to make things happen too. One of my partners is 67 years old and he is the same way. There is nothing more satisfying than creating wealth and sharing it with everyone involved. One of my employees just recently bought a new boat for his family this summer. He was so proud of it he actually brought it to the office to show me. I almost cried he was so humble. He thanks me all the time for the opportunity that he has here and I always tell him "Man it's you and all your hard work". He deserves a great lifestyle because he's worked his ass off for every penny of it. I love paying "my people".I really, really do.
This is why you don't see many posts from me from around Wednesday afternoons until Monday mornings. Nothing much going on, I love the ocean and could go on sailing the rest of my life for that matter. If things don't change I just might.
Do you remember when Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that he was going to "spread the wealth around a little" ? Were you surprised and happy when that is exactly what he did after you voted for him and he was elected?
There currently is a 2 in 10 chance you are unemployed. If so I hope your're enjoying your time off. I sure am.
Thanks Obama, McSmack
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 03, 2010 12:34PM
McSmack..if you are unemployed within the DC metropolitan area...you have only yourslef to blame. Your formula of "uncertainty" being the cause of all your woes is pure republikan talking points. In other words...bullshit..lies...you are laying people off because the previous administration drove the economy into a ditch. Now start thinking for yourself and stop blaiming Obama for republican bad policies.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2010 12:37PM by Vince(1).
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2010 12:37PM by Vince(1).
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 12:56PM
Almost none of that makes any sense, whatsoever.
mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Opa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Re-distributing wealth to the rich sounds like
> a
> > good idea to me.
>
>
> The lack of understanding concerning basic
> principles of economics and the way private
> capital flows in a free market private enterprise
> has always been on full display and not only by
> people like you on this thread. Keynesian
> economics, various hybrids thereof and outright
> socialism permeate every level of our public
> education system from the High School level up.
> The elitist media culture has taken full advantage
> of their position to promote wealth
> re-distribution in large part for several
> generations.They deploy their not so casual
> voluntary and outright blatant propaganda to to a
> largely economically ignorant audience who all to
> willingly lap it up because it makes you feel like
> you're getting even.
>
>
> Currently this year my company and several of my
> associates have put on hold app. 23 million
> dollars in construction projects alone. A large
> part of this is our own private capital we pool
> together for such projects.The rest is leveraged
> at an app. 50/50 split through private banks.
>
> One of my associates has been forced to lay off
> app. 20% of his workforce this spring and summer
> do to the fact we are on hold until our future tax
> liability gets sorted out. Uncertainty related to
> the US tax code and where it is going has created
> all sorts of problems for me and I'm just a small
> company with less than 50 employee's. Fortunately
> we are diversified into areas of service that have
> actually seen some growth this year so layoffs on
> my part have been limited.
>
> I'd much rather be working on projects, hitting on
> all cylinders and hiring more people and paying
> them a good salary but that day currently isn't
> even on the horizon.
>
> I know exactly what you are thinking too! You say
> " Oh poor rich guy! I feel sorry for you. You
> can't make all the money you want and keep it this
> year."
>
> Let me tell you how my summers going. Since I
> haven't had to fly around the country fighting my
> way in and out of airports and living in hotels so
> much this year I've enjoyed a lot more leisure
> time.As a matter of fact this is the first year in
> my life when I've done more leisure rather than
> work related flying. Been going on vacation a
> lot!
>
> More time with my family and friends basically on
> a forced vacation due to the economic outlook. My
> son and I will actually clear almost twice what we
> did last year because we have the means to
> transfer income into this year to avoid the
> confiscatory rates beginning Jan 1 2011. Then next
> year our Fed Income Tax liability will be
> effectively 0 compared to what it would be if we
> weren't able to make this strategic maneuver.
>
> It's really been one of the best times of my life
> so far. We got to go all over The Keys and down
> through the Caribbeans this summer so far just
> soaking it all up. Wine Country this fall, who
> knows?
>
> I'm loving my life but feel a duty to make things
> happen too. One of my partners is 67 years old and
> he is the same way. There is nothing more
> satisfying than creating wealth and sharing it
> with everyone involved. One of my employees just
> recently bought a new boat for his family this
> summer. He was so proud of it he actually brought
> it to the office to show me. I almost cried he was
> so humble. He thanks me all the time for the
> opportunity that he has here and I always tell him
> "Man it's you and all your hard work". He deserves
> a great lifestyle because he's worked his ass off
> for every penny of it. I love paying "my people".I
> really, really do.
>
> This is why you don't see many posts from me from
> around Wednesday afternoons until Monday mornings.
> Nothing much going on, I love the ocean and could
> go on sailing the rest of my life for that matter.
> If things don't change I just might.
>
> Do you remember when Obama told "Joe the Plumber"
> that he was going to "spread the wealth around a
> little" ? Were you surprised and happy when that
> is exactly what he did after you voted for him and
> he was elected?
>
> There currently is a 2 in 10 chance you are
> unemployed. If so I hope your're enjoying your
> time off. I sure am.
>
>
> Thanks Obama,
> McSmack
mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Opa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Re-distributing wealth to the rich sounds like
> a
> > good idea to me.
>
>
> The lack of understanding concerning basic
> principles of economics and the way private
> capital flows in a free market private enterprise
> has always been on full display and not only by
> people like you on this thread. Keynesian
> economics, various hybrids thereof and outright
> socialism permeate every level of our public
> education system from the High School level up.
> The elitist media culture has taken full advantage
> of their position to promote wealth
> re-distribution in large part for several
> generations.They deploy their not so casual
> voluntary and outright blatant propaganda to to a
> largely economically ignorant audience who all to
> willingly lap it up because it makes you feel like
> you're getting even.
>
>
> Currently this year my company and several of my
> associates have put on hold app. 23 million
> dollars in construction projects alone. A large
> part of this is our own private capital we pool
> together for such projects.The rest is leveraged
> at an app. 50/50 split through private banks.
>
> One of my associates has been forced to lay off
> app. 20% of his workforce this spring and summer
> do to the fact we are on hold until our future tax
> liability gets sorted out. Uncertainty related to
> the US tax code and where it is going has created
> all sorts of problems for me and I'm just a small
> company with less than 50 employee's. Fortunately
> we are diversified into areas of service that have
> actually seen some growth this year so layoffs on
> my part have been limited.
>
> I'd much rather be working on projects, hitting on
> all cylinders and hiring more people and paying
> them a good salary but that day currently isn't
> even on the horizon.
>
> I know exactly what you are thinking too! You say
> " Oh poor rich guy! I feel sorry for you. You
> can't make all the money you want and keep it this
> year."
>
> Let me tell you how my summers going. Since I
> haven't had to fly around the country fighting my
> way in and out of airports and living in hotels so
> much this year I've enjoyed a lot more leisure
> time.As a matter of fact this is the first year in
> my life when I've done more leisure rather than
> work related flying. Been going on vacation a
> lot!
>
> More time with my family and friends basically on
> a forced vacation due to the economic outlook. My
> son and I will actually clear almost twice what we
> did last year because we have the means to
> transfer income into this year to avoid the
> confiscatory rates beginning Jan 1 2011. Then next
> year our Fed Income Tax liability will be
> effectively 0 compared to what it would be if we
> weren't able to make this strategic maneuver.
>
> It's really been one of the best times of my life
> so far. We got to go all over The Keys and down
> through the Caribbeans this summer so far just
> soaking it all up. Wine Country this fall, who
> knows?
>
> I'm loving my life but feel a duty to make things
> happen too. One of my partners is 67 years old and
> he is the same way. There is nothing more
> satisfying than creating wealth and sharing it
> with everyone involved. One of my employees just
> recently bought a new boat for his family this
> summer. He was so proud of it he actually brought
> it to the office to show me. I almost cried he was
> so humble. He thanks me all the time for the
> opportunity that he has here and I always tell him
> "Man it's you and all your hard work". He deserves
> a great lifestyle because he's worked his ass off
> for every penny of it. I love paying "my people".I
> really, really do.
>
> This is why you don't see many posts from me from
> around Wednesday afternoons until Monday mornings.
> Nothing much going on, I love the ocean and could
> go on sailing the rest of my life for that matter.
> If things don't change I just might.
>
> Do you remember when Obama told "Joe the Plumber"
> that he was going to "spread the wealth around a
> little" ? Were you surprised and happy when that
> is exactly what he did after you voted for him and
> he was elected?
>
> There currently is a 2 in 10 chance you are
> unemployed. If so I hope your're enjoying your
> time off. I sure am.
>
>
> Thanks Obama,
> McSmack
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 01:17PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McSmack..if you are unemployed within the DC
> metropolitan area...you have only yourslef to
> blame.
I do not reside in the DC area. I have only been in DC once this year to close on a project a few of my partners wanted to do down here in FLA.
I don't doubt that the unemployment numbers are better in DC. The DC area is one of the few areas that has seen employment growth due solely to the growth of government.
Your formula of "uncertainty" being the
> cause of all your woes is pure republikan talking
> points. In other words...bullshit..lies...
One of the main points of my post was to point to the fact that I have no woes.
I am having the time of my life this summer. I don't know how much more plainly I could have explained it to you. The people with the "woes" are all the guys we could have put to work this summer if the aforementioned 23M in contracts were exercised. And were just a small close knit group of guys. Multiply our situation by tens of thousands of times all across this country and you are talking about trillions of dollars of economic activity being choked out by the current economic situation.
you are
> laying people off because the previous
> administration drove the economy into a ditch.
> Now start thinking for yourself and stop blaiming
> Obama for republican bad policies.
I believe I made it clear that employees under my direct control have seen few layoffs
Again fortunately "we" have seen few ( less than 5) layoffs so far this year 2 of which were pretty much voluntary. Vince you know nothing about economics. The only reason I'm responding to your post is because you, unfortunately, make a good example of culturally deep seated and popular economic misunderstanding.
-------------------------------------------------------
> McSmack..if you are unemployed within the DC
> metropolitan area...you have only yourslef to
> blame.
I do not reside in the DC area. I have only been in DC once this year to close on a project a few of my partners wanted to do down here in FLA.
I don't doubt that the unemployment numbers are better in DC. The DC area is one of the few areas that has seen employment growth due solely to the growth of government.
Your formula of "uncertainty" being the
> cause of all your woes is pure republikan talking
> points. In other words...bullshit..lies...
One of the main points of my post was to point to the fact that I have no woes.
I am having the time of my life this summer. I don't know how much more plainly I could have explained it to you. The people with the "woes" are all the guys we could have put to work this summer if the aforementioned 23M in contracts were exercised. And were just a small close knit group of guys. Multiply our situation by tens of thousands of times all across this country and you are talking about trillions of dollars of economic activity being choked out by the current economic situation.
you are
> laying people off because the previous
> administration drove the economy into a ditch.
> Now start thinking for yourself and stop blaiming
> Obama for republican bad policies.
I believe I made it clear that employees under my direct control have seen few layoffs
Again fortunately "we" have seen few ( less than 5) layoffs so far this year 2 of which were pretty much voluntary. Vince you know nothing about economics. The only reason I'm responding to your post is because you, unfortunately, make a good example of culturally deep seated and popular economic misunderstanding.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 01:20PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost none of that makes any sense, whatsoever.
>
After reading some of your previous posts Voter that doesn't surprise me in the least bit.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost none of that makes any sense, whatsoever.
>
After reading some of your previous posts Voter that doesn't surprise me in the least bit.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
what the hell
()
Date: August 03, 2010 01:32PM
So you write some stupid sentimental story about some dude buying a boat, and somehow this makes you an expert on economics?
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 01:38PM
The only "uncertainty" about next year's taxes is whether all of the Bush tax cuts will remain in effect, or whether congress will let the tax cuts for people with taxable incomes of over 250k expire as planned from 35% to 39.6%. If you are currently making 300k annually, and have the opportunity to make 400k annually but decide to pass that up because you are uncertain whether you will owe an additional 4.6% on that extra income then you, sir, are an idiot.
mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter___ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Almost none of that makes any sense,
> whatsoever.
> >
> After reading some of your previous posts Voter
> that doesn't surprise me in the least bit.
mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter___ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Almost none of that makes any sense,
> whatsoever.
> >
> After reading some of your previous posts Voter
> that doesn't surprise me in the least bit.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 01:39PM
what the hell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you write some stupid sentimental story about
> some dude buying a boat, and somehow this makes
> you an expert on economics?
Disregard the story fuckstool....The shit that drops in my toilet every morning is more of an economic expert than you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you write some stupid sentimental story about
> some dude buying a boat, and somehow this makes
> you an expert on economics?
Disregard the story fuckstool....The shit that drops in my toilet every morning is more of an economic expert than you.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 01:41PM
And by the way, taking all of next year's income this year--guaranteeing that you pay the top marginal tax rate on that income and forgo all deductions and exemptions--to avoid that 4.6% that you might have to pay probably isn't the smartest move either.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
fairfaxdude
()
Date: August 03, 2010 01:41PM
Voter___ Wrote:
................................... If you are
> currently making 300k annually, and have the
> opportunity to make 400k annually but decide to
> pass that up because you are uncertain whether you
> will owe an additional 4.6% on that extra income
> then you, sir, are an idiot.
I'd say that's pretty concise, and yes, you'd be an idiot to do that.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
................................... If you are
> currently making 300k annually, and have the
> opportunity to make 400k annually but decide to
> pass that up because you are uncertain whether you
> will owe an additional 4.6% on that extra income
> then you, sir, are an idiot.
I'd say that's pretty concise, and yes, you'd be an idiot to do that.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 02:02PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only "uncertainty" about next year's taxes is
> whether all of the Bush tax cuts will remain in
> effect, or whether congress will let the tax cuts
> for people with taxable incomes of over 250k
> expire as planned from 35% to 39.6%. If you are
> currently making 300k annually, and have the
> opportunity to make 400k annually but decide to
> pass that up because you are uncertain whether you
> will owe an additional 4.6% on that extra income
> then you, sir, are an idiot.
>
Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not passing up extra income . We are in the process of transferring income from next years payroll into this year to avoid the higher tax rate.
As an example the difference on $1,000,000.00 of straight cash payroll (not to mention bonuses) outlay could be as high as 46k next year.
That is more than a lot of people make in a year. Whether I'm an idiot or not is beside the point. My accounting people aren't!
It is a very easy principal to understand. Pay yourself this year for next year.
As the current law stands we will be saving well over six figures by doing this.
Research it yourself and you'll find that I'm not the only "idiot" doing this.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only "uncertainty" about next year's taxes is
> whether all of the Bush tax cuts will remain in
> effect, or whether congress will let the tax cuts
> for people with taxable incomes of over 250k
> expire as planned from 35% to 39.6%. If you are
> currently making 300k annually, and have the
> opportunity to make 400k annually but decide to
> pass that up because you are uncertain whether you
> will owe an additional 4.6% on that extra income
> then you, sir, are an idiot.
>
Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not passing up extra income . We are in the process of transferring income from next years payroll into this year to avoid the higher tax rate.
As an example the difference on $1,000,000.00 of straight cash payroll (not to mention bonuses) outlay could be as high as 46k next year.
That is more than a lot of people make in a year. Whether I'm an idiot or not is beside the point. My accounting people aren't!
It is a very easy principal to understand. Pay yourself this year for next year.
As the current law stands we will be saving well over six figures by doing this.
Research it yourself and you'll find that I'm not the only "idiot" doing this.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 02:13PM
I don't know enough about your personal situation--or whether you are even describing it accurately--to know whether the income shifting strategy makes any sense or not. But you clearly tried to leave the impression that you and your partners were sitting on 23M in projects because you were uncertain about future tax rates. That is bullshit, plain and simple.
mcsmack Wrote:
>
> Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm
> not passing up extra income . We are in the
> process of transferring income from next years
> payroll into this year to avoid the higher tax
> rate.
>
> As an example the difference on $1,000,000.00 of
> straight cash payroll (not to mention bonuses)
> outlay could be as high as 46k next year.
> That is more than a lot of people make in a year.
> Whether I'm an idiot or not is beside the point.
> My accounting people aren't!
>
> It is a very easy principal to understand. Pay
> yourself this year for next year.
> As the current law stands we will be saving well
> over six figures by doing this.
> Research it yourself and you'll find that I'm not
> the only "idiot" doing this.
mcsmack Wrote:
>
> Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm
> not passing up extra income . We are in the
> process of transferring income from next years
> payroll into this year to avoid the higher tax
> rate.
>
> As an example the difference on $1,000,000.00 of
> straight cash payroll (not to mention bonuses)
> outlay could be as high as 46k next year.
> That is more than a lot of people make in a year.
> Whether I'm an idiot or not is beside the point.
> My accounting people aren't!
>
> It is a very easy principal to understand. Pay
> yourself this year for next year.
> As the current law stands we will be saving well
> over six figures by doing this.
> Research it yourself and you'll find that I'm not
> the only "idiot" doing this.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 03, 2010 02:35PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost none of that makes any sense, whatsoever.
>
>
Yes but he used the "key words" given by Frank Luntz. In a focus group, people did not have a problem with the words "spread the wealth" but did have an emotional not good reaction to the words "redistribution of wealth" - which means something completely different - but they decided to go with redistribution to criticize Obama.
It is fun to watch Frank Luntz's power over the GOP. A GOP member would never say "the war in Iraq", the would say "the war on terror" instead because it tested better.
While many people would foresee a problem displaying religious symbols on "public lands", Frank had the GOPers say "the democrats don't want religious symbols in public spaces" - making it sound like the shopping mall.
So when you hear the key words redistribution, socialism, confiscatory, etc you know Frank Luntz is telling them what to say.
http://www.theworddoctors.com/
http://www.maslansky.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost none of that makes any sense, whatsoever.
>
>
Yes but he used the "key words" given by Frank Luntz. In a focus group, people did not have a problem with the words "spread the wealth" but did have an emotional not good reaction to the words "redistribution of wealth" - which means something completely different - but they decided to go with redistribution to criticize Obama.
It is fun to watch Frank Luntz's power over the GOP. A GOP member would never say "the war in Iraq", the would say "the war on terror" instead because it tested better.
While many people would foresee a problem displaying religious symbols on "public lands", Frank had the GOPers say "the democrats don't want religious symbols in public spaces" - making it sound like the shopping mall.
So when you hear the key words redistribution, socialism, confiscatory, etc you know Frank Luntz is telling them what to say.
http://www.theworddoctors.com/
http://www.maslansky.com/
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 03, 2010 02:36PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know enough about your personal
> situation--or whether you are even describing it
> accurately--to know whether the income shifting
> strategy makes any sense or not. But you clearly
> tried to leave the impression that you and your
> partners were sitting on 23M in projects because
> you were uncertain about future tax rates. That
> is bullshit, plain and simple.
>
>
> mcsmack Wrote:
> >
> > Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough.
> I'm
> > not passing up extra income . We are in the
> > process of transferring income from next years
> > payroll into this year to avoid the higher tax
> > rate.
> >
> > As an example the difference on $1,000,000.00
> of
> > straight cash payroll (not to mention bonuses)
> > outlay could be as high as 46k next year.
> > That is more than a lot of people make in a
> year.
> > Whether I'm an idiot or not is beside the
> point.
> > My accounting people aren't!
> >
> > It is a very easy principal to understand. Pay
> > yourself this year for next year.
> > As the current law stands we will be saving
> well
> > over six figures by doing this.
> > Research it yourself and you'll find that I'm
> not
> > the only "idiot" doing this.
I would venture to say few people who have direct access to 26 million dollars hang out at fairfaxunderground.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know enough about your personal
> situation--or whether you are even describing it
> accurately--to know whether the income shifting
> strategy makes any sense or not. But you clearly
> tried to leave the impression that you and your
> partners were sitting on 23M in projects because
> you were uncertain about future tax rates. That
> is bullshit, plain and simple.
>
>
> mcsmack Wrote:
> >
> > Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough.
> I'm
> > not passing up extra income . We are in the
> > process of transferring income from next years
> > payroll into this year to avoid the higher tax
> > rate.
> >
> > As an example the difference on $1,000,000.00
> of
> > straight cash payroll (not to mention bonuses)
> > outlay could be as high as 46k next year.
> > That is more than a lot of people make in a
> year.
> > Whether I'm an idiot or not is beside the
> point.
> > My accounting people aren't!
> >
> > It is a very easy principal to understand. Pay
> > yourself this year for next year.
> > As the current law stands we will be saving
> well
> > over six figures by doing this.
> > Research it yourself and you'll find that I'm
> not
> > the only "idiot" doing this.
I would venture to say few people who have direct access to 26 million dollars hang out at fairfaxunderground.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Fools
()
Date: August 03, 2010 02:43PM
I don't know mcsmack, but I have read about quite a few people doing exactly what he is describing. Doubtful that he is an idiot. People of wealth certainly can hire very smart accountants to help them keep their money. Why do you think John Kerry, the MA Senator, was keeping his new multi-million dollar yacht in RI? To avoid paying half a million in taxes that he is only now going to pay since he was shamed in the Boston papers over the whole thing. If I had his or mcsmack money, I would do the same thing. I'd rather pay myself than the government anyday as I think most people would.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 02:47PM
Provide some examples then, please. I found one article involving a very wealthy man who took over 800M in stock as income this year because he could lock in the gain at the current 15% capital gains rate instead of whatever it goes up to. That one makes sense, but I'm guessing that wasn't mcsmack. In more ordinary cases it can make sense to shift some income or expenses from one year to the next, which plenty of us do, but shifting all ones income from next year to the current year--assuming your income is not due to capital gains--would not benefit too many people.
Fools Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know mcsmack, but I have read about quite
> a few people doing exactly what he is describing.
> Doubtful that he is an idiot. People of wealth
> certainly can hire very smart accountants to help
> them keep their money. Why do you think John
> Kerry, the MA Senator, was keeping his new
> multi-million dollar yacht in RI? To avoid paying
> half a million in taxes that he is only now going
> to pay since he was shamed in the Boston papers
> over the whole thing. If I had his or mcsmack
> money, I would do the same thing. I'd rather pay
> myself than the government anyday as I think most
> people would.
Fools Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know mcsmack, but I have read about quite
> a few people doing exactly what he is describing.
> Doubtful that he is an idiot. People of wealth
> certainly can hire very smart accountants to help
> them keep their money. Why do you think John
> Kerry, the MA Senator, was keeping his new
> multi-million dollar yacht in RI? To avoid paying
> half a million in taxes that he is only now going
> to pay since he was shamed in the Boston papers
> over the whole thing. If I had his or mcsmack
> money, I would do the same thing. I'd rather pay
> myself than the government anyday as I think most
> people would.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Capt. Obvious
()
Date: August 03, 2010 02:50PM
Income shifting occurred in '92 as well. This isn't a novel concept.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Capt. Obvious
()
Date: August 03, 2010 02:54PM
Here you go Voter___
The rich typically avoid tax increases in the short term, experts agree. The last time federal income taxes rose on upper-income earners – in 1993, when the highest rate climbed to 39.6 percent from 31 percent (and a 33 percent rate was created) – about $20 billion of wages were shifted to 1992 from 1993 to avoid the higher tax in 1993, reports Robert Carroll, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation, a think tank in Washington. The moves trimmed tax receipts the government would otherwise have expected by some $1.5 billion, Mr. Carroll estimates.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2010/0610/When-taxes-rise-next-year-will-the-rich-avoid-them
The rich typically avoid tax increases in the short term, experts agree. The last time federal income taxes rose on upper-income earners – in 1993, when the highest rate climbed to 39.6 percent from 31 percent (and a 33 percent rate was created) – about $20 billion of wages were shifted to 1992 from 1993 to avoid the higher tax in 1993, reports Robert Carroll, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation, a think tank in Washington. The moves trimmed tax receipts the government would otherwise have expected by some $1.5 billion, Mr. Carroll estimates.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2010/0610/When-taxes-rise-next-year-will-the-rich-avoid-them
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 03:02PM
Yes, nice cherry picking of quotes...
Other experts don't expect major economic harm from higher taxes.
"Unquestionably, people will undergo a reasonable amount of tax avoidance in response to higher taxes," says Ben Harris, a senior research associate at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. But he doesn't expect tax avoidance to be "so drastic that tax collections will decrease dramatically or that people will take a lower salary or stop investing."
Harvard economist Raj Chetty's estimates of long-term tax avoidance are not far from Carroll's: a 3 percent income drop for every 10 percentage point rise in tax rates. But he doesn't find that such avoidance causes broad problems.
"People have overstated the cost of raising taxes on the rich," he says. "The net effect is simply too small to show up in the economy.... GM will not produce fewer cars. Microsoft will not produce less software. Although CEOs might reclassify some income, this doesn't affect the GDP [gross domestic product]," Mr. Chetty says.
What's more, the highest marginal tax rate proposed by the Obama administration still pales in comparison with earlier top rates, some experts note. For instance, in 1944 and 1945, the top federal rate was a whopping 94 percent. Between 1971 and 1980, the highest federal rate stood at 70 percent, according to the Internal Revenue Service.
Other experts don't expect major economic harm from higher taxes.
"Unquestionably, people will undergo a reasonable amount of tax avoidance in response to higher taxes," says Ben Harris, a senior research associate at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. But he doesn't expect tax avoidance to be "so drastic that tax collections will decrease dramatically or that people will take a lower salary or stop investing."
Harvard economist Raj Chetty's estimates of long-term tax avoidance are not far from Carroll's: a 3 percent income drop for every 10 percentage point rise in tax rates. But he doesn't find that such avoidance causes broad problems.
"People have overstated the cost of raising taxes on the rich," he says. "The net effect is simply too small to show up in the economy.... GM will not produce fewer cars. Microsoft will not produce less software. Although CEOs might reclassify some income, this doesn't affect the GDP [gross domestic product]," Mr. Chetty says.
What's more, the highest marginal tax rate proposed by the Obama administration still pales in comparison with earlier top rates, some experts note. For instance, in 1944 and 1945, the top federal rate was a whopping 94 percent. Between 1971 and 1980, the highest federal rate stood at 70 percent, according to the Internal Revenue Service.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 03:05PM
Besides, those aren't examples just more broad fear mongering. There is always some amount of income shifting, as I said. People shift some income or expenses from one year to the next, or from higher marginal rate earners to lower ones. People defer capital gains or take losses when they have gains to offset, etc. What I said was that it would not normally benefit to shift all of their earned income from one year to another simply to avoid a slightly higher rate.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 03:05PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know enough about your personal
> situation--or whether you are even describing it
> accurately--to know whether the income shifting
> strategy makes any sense or not. But you clearly
> tried to leave the impression that you and your
> partners were sitting on 23M in projects because
> you were uncertain about future tax rates. That
> is bullshit, plain and simple.
>
No it is not. 23m of commercial construction is not really that much. I am saying there is a lot more of this going on all over the country.Talking to a few other developers (much larger than I) I know this for a fact. We are currently finishing a project in Tulsa OK that let and broke ground last fall and don't have anything ( commercial new construction) of any magnitude starting up until the 2nd quarter of next year. Whether people think were fooling ourselves or not, uncertainty in the economy is the primary factor being cited and not just by me. Comm new starts have been rising a little through the spring and summer but I think the number is somewhat seasonal.
One of our projects on hold may go yet this year.It is an apartment complex similar to the one almost complete in Tulsa. There has appeared to be an up tick in demand for apartment units do to what I've been told is a rising residential foreclosure rate in the area of the planned development. Families loosing their homes are either moving into relatives homes or leasing apartments. If everyone stays in on the deal it could possibly break ground in Nov.depending on the areas occupancy rate in the existing market. You don't want to build it if their not going to come.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know enough about your personal
> situation--or whether you are even describing it
> accurately--to know whether the income shifting
> strategy makes any sense or not. But you clearly
> tried to leave the impression that you and your
> partners were sitting on 23M in projects because
> you were uncertain about future tax rates. That
> is bullshit, plain and simple.
>
No it is not. 23m of commercial construction is not really that much. I am saying there is a lot more of this going on all over the country.Talking to a few other developers (much larger than I) I know this for a fact. We are currently finishing a project in Tulsa OK that let and broke ground last fall and don't have anything ( commercial new construction) of any magnitude starting up until the 2nd quarter of next year. Whether people think were fooling ourselves or not, uncertainty in the economy is the primary factor being cited and not just by me. Comm new starts have been rising a little through the spring and summer but I think the number is somewhat seasonal.
One of our projects on hold may go yet this year.It is an apartment complex similar to the one almost complete in Tulsa. There has appeared to be an up tick in demand for apartment units do to what I've been told is a rising residential foreclosure rate in the area of the planned development. Families loosing their homes are either moving into relatives homes or leasing apartments. If everyone stays in on the deal it could possibly break ground in Nov.depending on the areas occupancy rate in the existing market. You don't want to build it if their not going to come.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Capt. Obvious
()
Date: August 03, 2010 03:09PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, nice cherry picking of quotes...
>
> Other experts don't expect major economic harm
> from higher taxes.
>
> "Unquestionably, people will undergo a reasonable
> amount of tax avoidance in response to higher
> taxes," says Ben Harris, a senior research
> associate at the Brookings Institution, a
> Washington think tank. But he doesn't expect tax
> avoidance to be "so drastic that tax collections
> will decrease dramatically or that people will
> take a lower salary or stop investing."
>
> Harvard economist Raj Chetty's estimates of
> long-term tax avoidance are not far from
> Carroll's: a 3 percent income drop for every 10
> percentage point rise in tax rates. But he doesn't
> find that such avoidance causes broad problems.
>
> "People have overstated the cost of raising taxes
> on the rich," he says. "The net effect is simply
> too small to show up in the economy.... GM will
> not produce fewer cars. Microsoft will not produce
> less software. Although CEOs might reclassify some
> income, this doesn't affect the GDP ," Mr. Chetty
> says.
>
> What's more, the highest marginal tax rate
> proposed by the Obama administration still pales
> in comparison with earlier top rates, some experts
> note. For instance, in 1944 and 1945, the top
> federal rate was a whopping 94 percent. Between
> 1971 and 1980, the highest federal rate stood at
> 70 percent, according to the Internal Revenue
> Service.
What? Not the answer you wanted to hear? You ask for examples, you get them, then you get all pissy cause it didn't fit into your argument.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, nice cherry picking of quotes...
>
> Other experts don't expect major economic harm
> from higher taxes.
>
> "Unquestionably, people will undergo a reasonable
> amount of tax avoidance in response to higher
> taxes," says Ben Harris, a senior research
> associate at the Brookings Institution, a
> Washington think tank. But he doesn't expect tax
> avoidance to be "so drastic that tax collections
> will decrease dramatically or that people will
> take a lower salary or stop investing."
>
> Harvard economist Raj Chetty's estimates of
> long-term tax avoidance are not far from
> Carroll's: a 3 percent income drop for every 10
> percentage point rise in tax rates. But he doesn't
> find that such avoidance causes broad problems.
>
> "People have overstated the cost of raising taxes
> on the rich," he says. "The net effect is simply
> too small to show up in the economy.... GM will
> not produce fewer cars. Microsoft will not produce
> less software. Although CEOs might reclassify some
> income, this doesn't affect the GDP ," Mr. Chetty
> says.
>
> What's more, the highest marginal tax rate
> proposed by the Obama administration still pales
> in comparison with earlier top rates, some experts
> note. For instance, in 1944 and 1945, the top
> federal rate was a whopping 94 percent. Between
> 1971 and 1980, the highest federal rate stood at
> 70 percent, according to the Internal Revenue
> Service.
What? Not the answer you wanted to hear? You ask for examples, you get them, then you get all pissy cause it didn't fit into your argument.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 03:29PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Provide some examples then, please. I found one
> article involving a very wealthy man who took over
> 800M in stock as income this year because he could
> lock in the gain at the current 15% capital gains
> rate instead of whatever it goes up to. That one
> makes sense, but I'm guessing that wasn't mcsmack.
Boy you got that right!
> In more ordinary cases it can make sense to shift
> some income or expenses from one year to the next,
> which plenty of us do, but shifting all ones
> income from next year to the current
> year--assuming your income is not due to capital
> gains--would not benefit too many people.
>
I did not say we were shifting all next years income to this year. Several of us are taking substantial salary cuts in 2011 somewhere close to 50%. I have been assured we will save a substantial amount money by doing this and it makes sense.
On $1m of payroll to our top people with tax liabilities at app. $350K this year and next year at a 50% salary cut tax liabilities will fall to $198K on the same employees myself included.Granted they will see a bump in Fed. revenue this year at the lower rate. But I'll wager you receipts for 2011 will continue to dwindle.
I forgot one thing. Much of our conversations around this subject here have centered around coming up with ways to keep guys on board we don't want to loose if things keep going south.We are not in dire straights by any means but finding every last dime we can is part of that effort and I think these damn "bean counters" as I like to call them are doing a pretty damn good job.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2010 03:44PM by mcsmack.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Provide some examples then, please. I found one
> article involving a very wealthy man who took over
> 800M in stock as income this year because he could
> lock in the gain at the current 15% capital gains
> rate instead of whatever it goes up to. That one
> makes sense, but I'm guessing that wasn't mcsmack.
Boy you got that right!
> In more ordinary cases it can make sense to shift
> some income or expenses from one year to the next,
> which plenty of us do, but shifting all ones
> income from next year to the current
> year--assuming your income is not due to capital
> gains--would not benefit too many people.
>
I did not say we were shifting all next years income to this year. Several of us are taking substantial salary cuts in 2011 somewhere close to 50%. I have been assured we will save a substantial amount money by doing this and it makes sense.
On $1m of payroll to our top people with tax liabilities at app. $350K this year and next year at a 50% salary cut tax liabilities will fall to $198K on the same employees myself included.Granted they will see a bump in Fed. revenue this year at the lower rate. But I'll wager you receipts for 2011 will continue to dwindle.
I forgot one thing. Much of our conversations around this subject here have centered around coming up with ways to keep guys on board we don't want to loose if things keep going south.We are not in dire straights by any means but finding every last dime we can is part of that effort and I think these damn "bean counters" as I like to call them are doing a pretty damn good job.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2010 03:44PM by mcsmack.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Johnny Walker
()
Date: August 03, 2010 03:30PM
I wonder how many rich people will die this year to avoid that death tax.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 03:44PM
You can see where I might have gotten that impression...
mcsmack Wrote:
> >
> I did not say we were shifting all next years
> income to this year. Several of us are taking
> substantial salary cuts in 2011 somewhere close to
> 50%. I have been assured we will save a
> substantial amount money by doing this and it
> makes sense.
> My son and I will actually clear almost twice what we did last year because we > have the means to transfer income into this year to avoid the confiscatory > rates beginning Jan 1 2011. Then next year our Fed Income Tax liability will be effectively 0 compared to what it would be if we weren't able to make this > strategic maneuver.
mcsmack Wrote:
> >
> I did not say we were shifting all next years
> income to this year. Several of us are taking
> substantial salary cuts in 2011 somewhere close to
> 50%. I have been assured we will save a
> substantial amount money by doing this and it
> makes sense.
> My son and I will actually clear almost twice what we did last year because we > have the means to transfer income into this year to avoid the confiscatory > rates beginning Jan 1 2011. Then next year our Fed Income Tax liability will be effectively 0 compared to what it would be if we weren't able to make this > strategic maneuver.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 03:52PM
How did that not fit my argument? When rates were increased from 31% to 39% it resulted in only $20 billion in income shifting, which decreased revenue by about $1.5 billion from what it otherwise would have been. To be clear, this means $1.5 less than the amount of revenue that would have been collected under the new rates if no shifting had occurred--it does not mean that revenue declined. Letting the rates expire on top earners is expected to raise an additional $300 billion in revenue. I don't see how it makes sense to not to that because we might get $285.5 billion instead when a few really rich folks shift some income around.
Capt. Obvious Wrote:
>
> What? Not the answer you wanted to hear? You ask
> for examples, you get them, then you get all pissy
> cause it didn't fit into your argument.
Capt. Obvious Wrote:
>
> What? Not the answer you wanted to hear? You ask
> for examples, you get them, then you get all pissy
> cause it didn't fit into your argument.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 05:10PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can see where I might have gotten that
> impression...
>
> mcsmack Wrote:
> > >
> > I did not say we were shifting all next years
> > income to this year. Several of us are taking
> > substantial salary cuts in 2011 somewhere close
> to
> > 50%. I have been assured we will save a
> > substantial amount money by doing this and it
> > makes sense.
>
> > My son and I will actually clear almost twice
> what we did last year because we > have the means
> to transfer income into this year to avoid the
> confiscatory > rates beginning Jan 1 2011. Then
> next year our Fed Income Tax liability will be
> effectively 0 compared to what it would be if we
> weren't able to make this > strategic maneuver.
The two of us (owners) may not even show a salary next year depending on what we can transfer in the way of bonuses to 2010. There are ways to effectively eliminate Federal income tax for one or even two years manipulating when and how salaries and bonuses are dispensed depending what happens with the tax code. I agree it's bullshit it is even necessary. But I see nothing wrong with protecting ones self in what ever legal way possible. I know this sounds crazy but my effective salary could be as little as $1.00 next year. Just because I may not take a salary next year doesn't mean my adjusted gross income will not exceed the amount kicking me up to the 39.6% range factoring in other sources of income.
And we haven't even talked about the AMT.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can see where I might have gotten that
> impression...
>
> mcsmack Wrote:
> > >
> > I did not say we were shifting all next years
> > income to this year. Several of us are taking
> > substantial salary cuts in 2011 somewhere close
> to
> > 50%. I have been assured we will save a
> > substantial amount money by doing this and it
> > makes sense.
>
> > My son and I will actually clear almost twice
> what we did last year because we > have the means
> to transfer income into this year to avoid the
> confiscatory > rates beginning Jan 1 2011. Then
> next year our Fed Income Tax liability will be
> effectively 0 compared to what it would be if we
> weren't able to make this > strategic maneuver.
The two of us (owners) may not even show a salary next year depending on what we can transfer in the way of bonuses to 2010. There are ways to effectively eliminate Federal income tax for one or even two years manipulating when and how salaries and bonuses are dispensed depending what happens with the tax code. I agree it's bullshit it is even necessary. But I see nothing wrong with protecting ones self in what ever legal way possible. I know this sounds crazy but my effective salary could be as little as $1.00 next year. Just because I may not take a salary next year doesn't mean my adjusted gross income will not exceed the amount kicking me up to the 39.6% range factoring in other sources of income.
And we haven't even talked about the AMT.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 05:14PM
Voter:
"Letting the rates expire on top earners is expected to raise an additional $300 billion in revenue."
I'll file this away until 2012
"Letting the rates expire on top earners is expected to raise an additional $300 billion in revenue."
I'll file this away until 2012
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 06:26PM
I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere, mcsmack. Btw, whether you realize it or not, your story is a perfect case against supply-side economics. You and your partners have 23M in capital to deploy and you aren't doing it. Why? Uncertainty. Not uncertainty about next year's top marginal tax rate, or health care, but about the business climate. You aren't deploying your capital because you aren't sure you will have tenants to lease your offices, or home buyers to buy your houses, or customers to buy your widgets, or whatever it is you make or sell. We could cut taxes further for folks like you and let's say then you had 25M to invest, or 30M. You aren't doing it now, so why would you do it then. Businesses aren't going to start building more factories or manufacturing more goods until consumers feel more confident about their personal situations and start to spend again. That's why targeted relief for lower and middle-class income earners is more effective than giving more money back to people who aren't going to spend it anyway.
mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
> ct.cfm?Docid=200
mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
> ct.cfm?Docid=200
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 03, 2010 06:30PM
Another case in point--somebody mentioned John Kerry earlier in the thread. I'll leave aside the question about whether he was trying to avoid paying taxes or not since we live in an age where we refuse to believe anything from those we oppose, and will believe anything from those we agree with, but you can't argue with the fact that the man bought a $7M yacht in the middle of the worst economy we've seen in decades. People with billions or hundreds of millions don't need to cut back in a bad economy--people who have no cushion do.
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere,
> mcsmack. Btw, whether you realize it or not, your
> story is a perfect case against supply-side
> economics. You and your partners have 23M in
> capital to deploy and you aren't doing it. Why?
> Uncertainty. Not uncertainty about next year's
> top marginal tax rate, or health care, but about
> the business climate. You aren't deploying your
> capital because you aren't sure you will have
> tenants to lease your offices, or home buyers to
> buy your houses, or customers to buy your widgets,
> or whatever it is you make or sell. We could cut
> taxes further for folks like you and let's say
> then you had 25M to invest, or 30M. You aren't
> doing it now, so why would you do it then.
> Businesses aren't going to start building more
> factories or manufacturing more goods until
> consumers feel more confident about their personal
> situations and start to spend again. That's why
> targeted relief for lower and middle-class income
> earners is more effective than giving more money
> back to people who aren't going to spend it
> anyway.
>
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
>
> > ct.cfm?Docid=200
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere,
> mcsmack. Btw, whether you realize it or not, your
> story is a perfect case against supply-side
> economics. You and your partners have 23M in
> capital to deploy and you aren't doing it. Why?
> Uncertainty. Not uncertainty about next year's
> top marginal tax rate, or health care, but about
> the business climate. You aren't deploying your
> capital because you aren't sure you will have
> tenants to lease your offices, or home buyers to
> buy your houses, or customers to buy your widgets,
> or whatever it is you make or sell. We could cut
> taxes further for folks like you and let's say
> then you had 25M to invest, or 30M. You aren't
> doing it now, so why would you do it then.
> Businesses aren't going to start building more
> factories or manufacturing more goods until
> consumers feel more confident about their personal
> situations and start to spend again. That's why
> targeted relief for lower and middle-class income
> earners is more effective than giving more money
> back to people who aren't going to spend it
> anyway.
>
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa
>
> > ct.cfm?Docid=200
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
mcsmack
()
Date: August 03, 2010 07:00PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another case in point--somebody mentioned John
> Kerry earlier in the thread. I'll leave aside the
> question about whether he was trying to avoid
> paying taxes or not since we live in an age where
> we refuse to believe anything from those we
> oppose, and will believe anything from those we
> agree with, but you can't argue with the fact that
> the man bought a $7M yacht in the middle of the
> worst economy we've seen in decades. People with
> billions or hundreds of millions don't need to cut
> back in a bad economy--people who have no cushion
> do.
>
>
John Kerry is the perfect example of a rich hypocritical liberal and here is why.
He married into wealth when he married Teresa Heinz widow of Senator John Heinz (famous for the food products company H.J. Heinz) Heinz first met Kerry in 1990 at an Earth Day rally. This was the only reported time that she and Kerry met before the death of her husband. After he died in an airplane crash on April 4, 1991, in Pennsylvania,Teresa Heinz inherited his fortune.The next time she met Kerry was in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 during the Earth Summit, which Heinz attended as a member of a State Department delegation appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Their courtship began in 1993 and they were married May 26, 1995.
So here you have two big liberals gravy training the wealth of the late rich republican Senator John Heinz. Kerry in my opinion has no soul and is certainly no hero. He has been an opportunist only feeding his own greed for wealth and power his entire life. How Ironic though. Everything he has railed against his whole life namely greedy, capitalist,big corporation, conservative ideology (What he wants you to believe) is the only reason he has what he has. Purchasing a 7 million dollar yacht with a dead man's money does not make one a hero or for that matter, anything remotely close to one.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2010 07:20PM by mcsmack.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another case in point--somebody mentioned John
> Kerry earlier in the thread. I'll leave aside the
> question about whether he was trying to avoid
> paying taxes or not since we live in an age where
> we refuse to believe anything from those we
> oppose, and will believe anything from those we
> agree with, but you can't argue with the fact that
> the man bought a $7M yacht in the middle of the
> worst economy we've seen in decades. People with
> billions or hundreds of millions don't need to cut
> back in a bad economy--people who have no cushion
> do.
>
>
John Kerry is the perfect example of a rich hypocritical liberal and here is why.
He married into wealth when he married Teresa Heinz widow of Senator John Heinz (famous for the food products company H.J. Heinz) Heinz first met Kerry in 1990 at an Earth Day rally. This was the only reported time that she and Kerry met before the death of her husband. After he died in an airplane crash on April 4, 1991, in Pennsylvania,Teresa Heinz inherited his fortune.The next time she met Kerry was in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 during the Earth Summit, which Heinz attended as a member of a State Department delegation appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Their courtship began in 1993 and they were married May 26, 1995.
So here you have two big liberals gravy training the wealth of the late rich republican Senator John Heinz. Kerry in my opinion has no soul and is certainly no hero. He has been an opportunist only feeding his own greed for wealth and power his entire life. How Ironic though. Everything he has railed against his whole life namely greedy, capitalist,big corporation, conservative ideology (What he wants you to believe) is the only reason he has what he has. Purchasing a 7 million dollar yacht with a dead man's money does not make one a hero or for that matter, anything remotely close to one.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2010 07:20PM by mcsmack.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter___
()
Date: August 05, 2010 07:37AM
Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.
This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.
By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.
It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.
The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.
David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, is working on a book about the financial crisis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&sq=stockman&st=cse&scp=1
This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.
By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.
It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.
The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.
David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, is working on a book about the financial crisis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&sq=stockman&st=cse&scp=1
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 05, 2010 08:28AM
Republikan poiticians are mere pundits..trying desperately to mimmick their fox "news" heroes.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 05, 2010 04:06PM
Voter___ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans used to believe that prosperity
> depended upon the regular balancing of accounts —
> in government, in international trade, on the
> ledgers of central banks and in the financial
> affairs of private households and businesses, too.
> But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican
> policymakers for decades now, has amounted to
> little more than money printing and deficit
> finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the
> ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.
>
> This approach has not simply made a mockery of
> traditional party ideals. It has also led to the
> serial financial bubbles and Wall Street
> depredations that have crippled our economy. More
> specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused
> four great deformations of the national economy,
> and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to
> each one.
>
> By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced
> federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic
> product, lower than they had been since the 1940s.
> Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and
> engaging in two unfinanced foreign military
> adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic
> spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion
> in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain
> from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years
> earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in
> a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.
>
>
> It is not surprising, then, that during the last
> bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of
> Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street
> casino — received two-thirds of the gain in
> national income, while the bottom 90 percent —
> mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking
> economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth
> gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying
> fruit of bad economic policy.
>
> The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will
> not have a conventional business recovery now, but
> rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and
> downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that
> the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate
> of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these
> circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern
> Republican Party offers the American people an
> irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when
> the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money
> and financial discipline — is needed more than
> ever.
>
>
> David Stockman, a director of the Office of
> Management and Budget under President Ronald
> Reagan, is working on a book about the financial
> crisis.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockm
> an.html?pagewanted=1&sq=stockman&st=cse&scp=1
I would like to see them change the tax cuts to what was suggested - only letting them expire for folks that make over $250K per year.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans used to believe that prosperity
> depended upon the regular balancing of accounts —
> in government, in international trade, on the
> ledgers of central banks and in the financial
> affairs of private households and businesses, too.
> But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican
> policymakers for decades now, has amounted to
> little more than money printing and deficit
> finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the
> ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.
>
> This approach has not simply made a mockery of
> traditional party ideals. It has also led to the
> serial financial bubbles and Wall Street
> depredations that have crippled our economy. More
> specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused
> four great deformations of the national economy,
> and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to
> each one.
>
> By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced
> federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic
> product, lower than they had been since the 1940s.
> Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and
> engaging in two unfinanced foreign military
> adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic
> spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion
> in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain
> from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years
> earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in
> a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.
>
>
> It is not surprising, then, that during the last
> bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of
> Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street
> casino — received two-thirds of the gain in
> national income, while the bottom 90 percent —
> mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking
> economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth
> gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying
> fruit of bad economic policy.
>
> The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will
> not have a conventional business recovery now, but
> rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and
> downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that
> the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate
> of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these
> circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern
> Republican Party offers the American people an
> irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when
> the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money
> and financial discipline — is needed more than
> ever.
>
>
> David Stockman, a director of the Office of
> Management and Budget under President Ronald
> Reagan, is working on a book about the financial
> crisis.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockm
> an.html?pagewanted=1&sq=stockman&st=cse&scp=1
I would like to see them change the tax cuts to what was suggested - only letting them expire for folks that make over $250K per year.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Voter______
()
Date: January 26, 2011 07:37PM
More evidence of why the rich really need those tax cuts...
By Robert Frank
Nothing shines a light on the personal finances of the wealthy quite like divorce. Consider the acrimonious de-merger of billionaire value-fund manager Charles Brandes and Linda Brandes.
The couple divorced in 2005, after she accused him of keeping a “lady in waiting†and he accused her of losing interest in him. According to a detailed account of the divorce by Peter Rowe in the The San Diego Union-Tribune, the couple lived extra-large both before and after their split.
Consider:
* The couple owned six homes–including a $4 million home in Rancho Santa Fe and a penthouse in Manhattan–and had two more under construction. The total value of the homes was more than $40 million.
* At one home, Ms. Brandes began a landscape renovation that cost $1,365,130, not including tile work.
* Mr. Brandes owned 10 Ferraris (valued at more than $4.4 million) and an “extremely long driveway†to race sports cars, dirt bikes and ATVs.
* She had gambling bills of as much as $30,000 a month.
* Mr. Brandes paid Elton John somewhere from $1 million to $1.5 million to perform at his wedding when he remarried in 2006. He paid Christina Aguilera $1 million to perform at a Halloween party.
In the divorce, he gave Ms. Brandes their Rancho home, a house on the beach in Del Mar, the New York Penthouse and two other Manhattan condos along with two condos in Salt Lake City. She also received $18.7 million from their joint savings accounts and investments.
While the investments generated about $154,881 a month, she said she needed more, citing her clothing budget ($70,000 a year), art spending and gambling bills. Her support increased to $500,000 a month, or $6 million.
Yet Ms. Brandes is now taking aim at $140 million from Mr. Brandes’ “S Corp†partnerships. (A spokesperson for Mr. Brandes declined comment. Ms. Brandes’ lawyer didn’t return calls for comment).
Let us assume that Linda played a large or even equal role in Charles’ success, since she says she persuaded him to upgrade his wardrobe, get a speech coach and have his nose “fixed.†She may indeed be entitled to far more than she has already received, since his monthly income is reported to be more than $16 million.
Yet hearing someone say that $6 million a year isn’t enough to live on shows just how removed the economy of the rich has become from the rest of the country. For some people, a party isn’t a party without Elton John and a closet isn’t a closet unless you can fill it for $70,000 a year (U.S. median income in 2009, $49,777).
Do you think Linda is entitled to more?
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/01/25/when-6-million-a-year-isnt-enough/
By Robert Frank
Nothing shines a light on the personal finances of the wealthy quite like divorce. Consider the acrimonious de-merger of billionaire value-fund manager Charles Brandes and Linda Brandes.
The couple divorced in 2005, after she accused him of keeping a “lady in waiting†and he accused her of losing interest in him. According to a detailed account of the divorce by Peter Rowe in the The San Diego Union-Tribune, the couple lived extra-large both before and after their split.
Consider:
* The couple owned six homes–including a $4 million home in Rancho Santa Fe and a penthouse in Manhattan–and had two more under construction. The total value of the homes was more than $40 million.
* At one home, Ms. Brandes began a landscape renovation that cost $1,365,130, not including tile work.
* Mr. Brandes owned 10 Ferraris (valued at more than $4.4 million) and an “extremely long driveway†to race sports cars, dirt bikes and ATVs.
* She had gambling bills of as much as $30,000 a month.
* Mr. Brandes paid Elton John somewhere from $1 million to $1.5 million to perform at his wedding when he remarried in 2006. He paid Christina Aguilera $1 million to perform at a Halloween party.
In the divorce, he gave Ms. Brandes their Rancho home, a house on the beach in Del Mar, the New York Penthouse and two other Manhattan condos along with two condos in Salt Lake City. She also received $18.7 million from their joint savings accounts and investments.
While the investments generated about $154,881 a month, she said she needed more, citing her clothing budget ($70,000 a year), art spending and gambling bills. Her support increased to $500,000 a month, or $6 million.
Yet Ms. Brandes is now taking aim at $140 million from Mr. Brandes’ “S Corp†partnerships. (A spokesperson for Mr. Brandes declined comment. Ms. Brandes’ lawyer didn’t return calls for comment).
Let us assume that Linda played a large or even equal role in Charles’ success, since she says she persuaded him to upgrade his wardrobe, get a speech coach and have his nose “fixed.†She may indeed be entitled to far more than she has already received, since his monthly income is reported to be more than $16 million.
Yet hearing someone say that $6 million a year isn’t enough to live on shows just how removed the economy of the rich has become from the rest of the country. For some people, a party isn’t a party without Elton John and a closet isn’t a closet unless you can fill it for $70,000 a year (U.S. median income in 2009, $49,777).
Do you think Linda is entitled to more?
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/01/25/when-6-million-a-year-isnt-enough/
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Ifiwere Arichman
()
Date: January 26, 2011 08:18PM
> ...Do you think Linda is entitled to more?
Yes.
Absolute dollars doesn't make sense for such a situation - instead, impartial splitting of assets does - no amtter how large or small those assets.
-----------
Of course, I personally believe in soaking the rich with a higher share of the total tax hit but that has little to do with divorce settlements.
When I'm rich...soon! soon!...I'll be hapy to give more than whatever my then tax rate will be.
Yes.
Absolute dollars doesn't make sense for such a situation - instead, impartial splitting of assets does - no amtter how large or small those assets.
-----------
Of course, I personally believe in soaking the rich with a higher share of the total tax hit but that has little to do with divorce settlements.
When I'm rich...soon! soon!...I'll be hapy to give more than whatever my then tax rate will be.
Re: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
Posted by:
Hatemotor
()
Date: January 26, 2011 08:31PM
Opa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re-distributing wealth to the rich sounds like a
> good idea to me.
Remember it's only wealth re-distibution when you are trying to help the working class,,,
"Soak the rich"? that hasn't happened in over 50 years,,,,
History will record the truth,,how a small number of incredibly greedy individuals under the guise of capitalism SOLD THIS COUNTRY OUT
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re-distributing wealth to the rich sounds like a
> good idea to me.
Remember it's only wealth re-distibution when you are trying to help the working class,,,
"Soak the rich"? that hasn't happened in over 50 years,,,,
History will record the truth,,how a small number of incredibly greedy individuals under the guise of capitalism SOLD THIS COUNTRY OUT