Taxes

[Bullneck 19107]

10 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

?!?!?!??!?!?

No offense, but you seem to have never taken an economics class.

He watches Fox News.  That's the same thing.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19103]

Long and short, I am well off, but it is fucking insane that I pay more as a percentage of my income in income taxes than Bezos and Musk.  That is the fucking problem.  

It is a problem that I pay more as a percentage of my income than most massive corporations.  

Personally, I think every American should get to deduct from income the cost of living, similar to the deductions that corporations get.  It is bullshit that we pay taxes on income that goes for things like Housing and Food.  

[landman 559]

12 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Why not? It happens automatically. That literally just happened to me when I refinanced during covid. It required a new appraisal of my home. Guess what it had appreciated. So my taxes will go up. Fuck, theoretically it happens every year anyway when they try to raise everyone’s Property taxes. It’s literally how the system is already designed to work. 

An appraisal for a refinance does not impact your property taxes, unless you elect to share it with the appraisal district.  The appraisal district issues valuations which property taxes are based on.  

[Pam Cummings 9644]

Quick note that incredulity has received zero negs for his absolute shitposting and general stupidity throughout this thread(to be fair, it is a bad thread and OP is retarded so it didn't exactly start from a good place). It's almost as if he was trying to troll the thread to receive a bunch of negs so he could go crying about how horrible CR treated him.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Pam Cummings

[CooterBrown 18014]

Keep the tax rates as they are but add a 25% tax on the value of foreign investment and bank accounts held by an American citizen with a total value of over $10M.  It wouldn't affect work stiff expats or even the well off expats but would help eliminate a decent percentage of offshore tax shelters and keep American money stateside. 

 

[SydneyCarton 48108]

35 minutes ago, landman said:

An appraisal for a refinance does not impact your property taxes, unless you elect to share it with the appraisal district.  The appraisal district issues valuations which property taxes are based on.  

The point is moot. People pay taxes on unrealized gains all the time. 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

Regarding flat taxes where "everyone pays their fair share":

It has been shown time and again that further burdening the poor actually burdens the middle class MORE than it already is.  It is in America's better interests to not tax the poor, because the overwhelming majority will work harder, save more, and lean on the government less.  The same argument can be made regarding the middle class vs the wealthy.

Progressive tax codes, how do they work?

As an aside, I love the idea that the ultra-rich and minimally taxed corporations are net charitable.  Some are, yes, but we are 40 years into this stupid experiment and nothing substantial has "trickled down" but shit and piss.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

The point is moot. People pay taxes on unrealized gains all the time. 

Beyond that, when those gains start to diminish -- say, in a real estate downturn -- future valuations account for that and assessments go down.  Depending on the taxing authority, they may or may not try to make up the difference with a higher tax rate, but it's silly to believe that it's impossible to account for losses.

[washparkhorn 9939]

I suspect many have @Incredulity on ignore. I do.

It's his/her/its/their right-wing persona. It's so dead-on, it could be a left-wing sock (Grendel, Mr. Wizard era style). It's more Mr. Phlegm in tone - so there is some precedence for this tone as a functioning example of turdition. 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 hours ago, Captainant said:

DAE #bothsides???

But the poors!!!

[washparkhorn 9939]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Beyond that, when those gains start to diminish -- say, in a real estate downturn -- future valuations account for that and assessments go down.  Depending on the taxing authority, they may or may not try to make up the difference with a higher tax rate, but it's silly to believe that it's impossible to account for losses.

One plan created tax credits to account for the losses. (I believe it was the long-dead billionaire plan).

[SydneyCarton 48108]

I must say, re-reading this thread this morning and homeboy's takes are even dumber than I remember. 

[Captainant 27678]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

I must say, re-reading this thread this morning and homeboy's takes are even dumber than I remember. 

Careful, your mean words are going to neg him off of the board and drive him back to the "CR bad" thread to cry more about his feelings

[SydneyCarton 48108]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Careful, your mean words are going to neg him off of the board and drive him back to the "CR bad" thread to cry more about his feelings

Regardless of political affiliation...and even seeming IQ level of posters...I'm amazed at the general unwillingness of people to admit they made a mistake on message boards. In this instance, a refusal to go back, re read some posts and realize "Oh shit, no one specified income tax, just taxes, I misunderstood something and had a false premise." 

I get it, it's a message board, which by design is going to create debate and conflict. And I'm as big an asshole here as the next guy, probably bigger. But I've been proven wrong or mistaken dozens of times in the last year, and it isn't hard to say "Yeah, I was wrong" or "Yeah, I fucked that one up." But it's damn near impossible for so many  people. 

Fucking knob. 

[Captainant 27678]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

it isn't hard to say "Yeah, I was wrong" or "Yeah, I fucked that one up." But it's damn near impossible for so many  people. 

it is if you worship at the altar of the orange god emperor - that's one of the central tenants of trumpism. Never admit you're wrong, and always double down

[SydneyCarton 48108]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it is if you worship at the altar of the orange god emperor - that's one of the central tenants of trumpism. Never admit you're wrong, and always double down

I get that, but man I'm just talking about message board stuff in general. But yes, obviously it's gotten worse the past 5 years. 

[wildcat09 29354]

The idea that the middle class has it worse than the poor is hilariously stupid and is some of the same baby-brained victimhood you see from the right on everything else. Every suburban Republican that drives an F250 he's never hauled anything with thinks he's a rugged badass who's earned everything by the sweat of his own brow and doesn't see the hundred different government programs and policies he benefits from every day. But he sees a working poor person with food stamps and thinks the government is fucking him over to keep some useless not-really-a-person breathing.

Edited November 2, 2021 by wildcat09

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Regardless of political affiliation...and even seeming IQ level of posters...I'm amazed at the general unwillingness of people to admit they made a mistake on message boards. In this instance, a refusal to go back, re read some posts and realize "Oh shit, no one specified income tax, just taxes, I misunderstood something and had a false premise." 

I get it, it's a message board, which by design is going to create debate and conflict. And I'm as big an asshole here as the next guy, probably bigger. But I've been proven wrong or mistaken dozens of times in the last year, and it isn't hard to say "Yeah, I was wrong" or "Yeah, I fucked that one up." But it's damn near impossible for so many  people. 

Fucking knob. 

Agreed, I had an encounter with Longhornfan_68 last week wherein he probably responded too quickly and too aggressively in his haughtiness but was clearly wrong in a "plain-as-your-nose" factual and logical way. We've all been there if we've posted on message boards long enough, so there would have existed graciousness for a quick owning up of "my bad, I was wrong, but let's continue the conversation forward around the other points I think you are wrong/stupid/whatever in".

But no, because we all exist in each other's minds on a message board and some folks like him aren't really interested in having collaborative discussions and conversations that build upon a back-and-forth, he doubles down and embarrasses himself with some mumbled combination of attempting to shift the goal posts and dismiss my calling him out with "I don't have time right now to explain".

I guess I share this to say, I too am amazed at the general unwillingness of some folks to admit when they are wrong about factual and logical things-- not even opinions. And it's to the detriment of our community and a microcosm of the problems with society at large. 

[52-80 19162]

none of u goldbrickin sheisters pay nearly enough taxes

[DonkeyCigars 143]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The idea that the middle class has it worse than the poor is hilariously stupid and is some of the same baby-brained victimhood you see from the right on everything else. Every suburban Republican that drives an F250 he's never hauled anything with thinks he's a rugged badass who's earned everything by the sweat of his own brow and doesn't see the hundred different government programs and policies he benefits from every day. But he sees a working poor person with food stamps and thinks the government is fucking him over to keep some useless not-really-a-person breathing.

I don't know if this was directed at me because of my post on the previous page, but I never said the middle class has it overall worse than the poor. Clearly that is not the case.

The middle class has a way worse tax situation (subject of this thread) and, when compared to the wealthy and the poor, the absolute worst net gain of their value and monetary reward for their mutually agreed upon value and contributions to business, society and the market. It's not even close. The middle class is subsidizing this country and it feels like some people's response to that is, "well if we take even MORE from the middle class maybe we can bring the poor up a rung or two and bring the middle class down a rung or two", which strikes me as a middle class example of what people say when they say "I can't believe the poor votes against their own interests".

All we are doing in that above example is creating a massive bifurcated voting bloc of poor/middle class and rich, instead of a dynamic sliding scale of income and class where you can move forward or back, without government's intervention/help/blocking, based upon your ingenuity, will, risk tolerance, and luck, and within the span of a single lifetime.

The American Dream, baby.

Edited November 2, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Captainant 27678]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The middle class is subsidizing this country and it feels like some people's response to that is, "well if we take even MORE from the middle class maybe we can bring the poor up a rung or two and bring the middle class down a rung or two", which strikes me as a middle class example of what people say when they say "I can't believe the poor votes against their own interests".

What thread have you been reading that you think that the "surly libz" think that we should tax the middle class more? The discussion has been around how to increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and has been getting continually derailed by sheeeeiiiiittttt and incredulity's slippery slope "won't somebody think of the middle class" fallacies.

That's basically an encapsulation of the discussion at a national scale - the left argues for increased taxes on the rich and the right obfuscates and leverages their own intellectual dishonesty against the lack of intellectual curiosity of the yall qaeda to continue fallacious arguments against change.

But hey, while you may have voted for the problem and are part of the problem, at least you're beginning to recognize it for what it is.

[wildcat09 29354]

It was more directed at fatty than you, but you're still wrong about the poor getting better tax treatment.

The poor pay few income taxes because they're poor. They're essentially definitionally excluded from the burden of income taxation, because a web of government policies, including tax policies, ensure that there will always be a large segment of American society that is poor. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, it is actually harder for a poor person to become a not-poor person in America than in pretty much any other developed nation. We just don't tax their income to a significant extent because, and this should be obvious but clearly isn't to many people, they don't have a significant level of income. You could tax our working poor at 100% and it wouldn't really make a substantial difference. But all sorts of other taxes and government charges are levied against poor people (and many of those charges are only levied against poor people) and constitute a substantial percentage of the budget of pretty much every city and county in this country.

It is actually expensive to be poor, and much of the reason why is due to tax policies. Meanwhile, there are many deductions and credits that benefit the middle class that the poor can't even dream of qualifying for. Hell, the middle class was arguably created by policies, including tax policies, that explicitly favored white men for decades and still do implicitly today.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It was more directed at fatty than you, but you're still wrong about the poor getting better tax treatment.

The poor pay few income taxes because they're poor. They're essentially definitionally excluded from the burden of income taxation, because a web of government policies, including tax policies, ensure that there will always be a large segment of American society that is poor. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, it is actually harder for a poor person to become a not-poor person in America than in pretty much any other developed nation. We just don't tax their income to a significant extent because, and this should be obvious but clearly isn't to many people, they don't have a significant level of income. You could tax our working poor at 100% and it wouldn't really make a substantial difference. But all sorts of other taxes and government charges are levied against poor people (and many of those charges are only levied against poor people) and constitute a substantial percentage of the budget of pretty much every city and county in this country.

It is actually expensive to be poor, and much of the reason why is due to tax policies. Meanwhile, there are many deductions and credits that benefit the middle class that the poor can't even dream of qualifying for. Hell, the middle class was arguably created by policies, including tax policies, that explicitly favored white men for decades and still do implicitly today.

I guess I don't understand how, when speaking specifically about tax treatment, how you can say in one breath that the middle class get better tax treatment (with the implication that "better" still means crappy) and then in the next say poors are are largely excluded from the IRS/income tax and property tax by virtue of not owning property.

What taxes are the poors being victimized by? Sales tax? Unfair sin taxes because poors are more likely to smoke cigarettes or something? I'm not all the way following.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

What thread have you been reading that you think that the "surly libz" think that we should tax the middle class more? The discussion has been around how to increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and has been getting continually derailed by sheeeeiiiiittttt and incredulity's slippery slope "won't somebody think of the middle class" fallacies.

That's basically an encapsulation of the discussion at a national scale - the left argues for increased taxes on the rich and the right obfuscates and leverages their own intellectual dishonesty against the lack of intellectual curiosity of the yall qaeda to continue fallacious arguments against change.

But hey, while you may have voted for the problem and are part of the problem, at least you're beginning to recognize it for what it is.

I have no idea what the bold is saying and I've read it three or four times. I guess like Tom Hanks once said, I'm not a smart man.

The only thing I have to say in response to your post is that I agree that ultra-wealthy need to pay more. I also think a nebulous term like "middle class" is probably a source of confusion because in my previous post I mention how a 55 year old person who has worked (and paid taxes) the majority of his life and has been able to earn and save 2-3mm bucks is solidly middle class. He is not rich or wealthy and punitively taxing someone like that is a squeeze play, as I was reading a thread where the "surly libz" were talking about $2mm being the baseline to start these ultra-rich taxings (literally a poster put the cut off at $2mm lol)

[SydneyCarton 48108]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I have no idea what the bold is saying and I've read it three or four times. I guess like Tom Hanks once said, I'm not a smart man.

The only thing I have to say in response to your post is that I agree that ultra-wealthy need to pay more. I also think a nebulous term like "middle class" is probably a source of confusion because in my previous post I mention how a 55 year old person who has worked (and paid taxes) the majority of his life and has been able to earn and save 2-3mm bucks is solidly middle class. He is not rich or wealthy and punitively taxing someone like that is a squeeze play, as I was reading a thread where the "surly libz" were talking about $2mm being the baseline to start these ultra-rich taxings (literally a poster put the cut off at $2mm lol)

Hes saying the left wants to increase taxes on the rich, and the right says "That's socialism and is stealing the American Dream from hard workers who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Trickle Down Economics!" And an entire class of people who lack intellectual curiosity who can't identify obvious lies fall in line, vote against their own interests, and that power is then harnessed to resist change. 

[sheeeit 129]

14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Asking the simple question of "who, ultimately, will pay for them?" tells you that.

Import tax?  Cool.  The ultimate consumer (Joe and Jane America) pay that.  Property tax?  Everyone who resides in a property -- rent or own - ultimately pay that.   Sales tax?  Everyone pays that, and even with the "exempt the first $50k of income" approach, it falls heaviest on people who need to/typically spend most of their annual available cash on consumer spending (that is, most people who make under $500k or something like that).  Person makes $500k, spends $400k, they get "sales taxed" on $350k, so 70% of their income.  Guy with $100 million in assets uses the assets to give him $2 million in liquidity, but only spends $800k on consumption (the rest is spent on acquisitions of more assets, like real property and stock), gets taxed on $750k of his income -- 37.5% of his income.  We can keep going, but the bottom line is that pretty much everything listed is a regressive tax.

Import Tax- You need to study this much more closely as tariffs do not automatically equal higher prices.  There have been lots and lots of studies on this.  The affect of demand is much more important as is the possible shift to domestic production.

Look at one of the big ones people griped about- steel.  We put 25% tariffs on imported steel in mid 2018.  The tariffs went into effect immediately.  According to everyone here the cost of steel had to go up.  But it didnt.  It went down.  The spot price of steel in June 2018 was 4578 and in April of 2020 (right before covid hit hard) the spot price was 3300.  

Solar panels had a huge tariff imposed in 2018 and we were importing 80% of them.  Prices were lower pre covid in 2020.

We put pretty large tariffs on China and we import more machinery and equipment from China than anywhere else by a long shot.  The price of machinery and equipment had no spike in prices from 2018 to 2020.  In fact, the rate of price escalation (these items have gone up every year since the 60s) was lower in that period.

We imposed 20% tariffs on Canadian lumber in April of 2017.  The spot price for lumber in April 2017 was 399.  In April of 2020 it was 282.

IMO, a small 2% accross the board import tax would actually lower consumer prices over time.  Just like it did in the examples above.

On the sales tax, everyone keeps ignoring all of the transactions that currently pay no sales tax.  You are a lawyer.  When you bill your clients there is no sales tax.  Why?  Insurance companies and large corporations pay the vast amount of legal bills in the US.  Why shouldn't they pay a sales tax on those transactions?  TMobile acquired Sprint for $26B.  No sales tax.  The lawyers and financial advisors and accountants made hundreds of millions in fees and none of them paid any sales tax.  Why?  You are so focused on nominal direct consumer spending that you miss the ocean.

Property Tax- I have no issue if you want to make this tax more progressive.  Exempt the first $200K.  1/4% up to $500K.  1/2% up to $1M.  3/4% over that.  

 

 

[Captainant 27678]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The only thing I have to say in response to your post is that I agree that ultra-wealthy need to pay more. I also think a nebulous term like "middle class" is probably a source of confusion because in my previous post I mention how a 55 year old person who has worked (and paid taxes) the majority of his life and has been able to earn and save 2-3mm bucks is solidly middle class. He is not rich or wealthy and punitively taxing someone like that is a squeeze play, as I was reading a thread where the "surly libz" were talking about $2mm being the baseline to start these ultra-rich taxings (literally a poster put the cut off at $2mm lol)

Sidney beat me to it, but whenever there's an attempt to increase taxes on the ultra wealthy, it's going to be fought with the argument "it's only going to increase taxes on the middle class!!". As evidenced in this thread and literally any conversation on taxes with a republican.

WRT/ wealth levels and savings.... $2-3MM is definitely NOT "solidly middle class", and I would argue is absolutely upper class (if on the lower end)

Median upper class family wealth is just south of $1MM. You've been hanging out with JohnnySilverSpoon too much, donk.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

17 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I guess I don't understand how, when speaking specifically about tax treatment, how you can say in one breath that the middle class get better tax treatment (with the implication that "better" still means crappy) and then in the next say poors are are largely excluded from the IRS/income tax and property tax by virtue of not owning property.

Virtually all renters pay property taxes.  Do you think landlords don't pass that cost along?

 

Quote

What taxes are the poors being victimized by? Sales tax? Unfair sin taxes because poors are more likely to smoke cigarettes or something? I'm not all the way following.

Sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, etc.

[elfenix 34266]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Hes saying the left wants to increase taxes on the rich, and the right says "That's socialism and is stealing the American Dream from hard workers who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Trickle Down Economics!" And an entire class of people who lack intellectual curiosity who can't identify obvious lies fall in line, vote against their own interests, and that power is then harnessed to resist change. 

shit like if the government knows total inflows and outflows from your bank account they're going to use that to squeeze an extra $(unspecified) in taxes out of jim bob, even tho he gets 99.9% of his income from W2 employment and so the government already knows how much money is going in. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Hes saying the left wants to increase taxes on the rich, and the right says "That's socialism and is stealing the American Dream from hard workers who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Trickle Down Economics!" And an entire class of people who lack intellectual curiosity who can't identify obvious lies fall in line, vote against their own interests, and that power is then harnessed to resist change. 

Thanks for the translation; that makes sense and I agree is a problem.

I think the biggest issue is we don't have a shared working definition of these three terms: "Rich", "Middle class" and "Poor".

We have a myriad of different perspectives, experiences and when taken with the concept of relativity, we have a very confusing tableau of policy talking points and goals. If we could create a single source of truth style definition for these things I think we could make progress because my experience tells me that a large enough bloc of folks agree with the "what" of needing to tax billionaires or ultra-rich more, but disagree on the "how" and where the lines are drawn.

[sheeeit 129]

14 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

How the fuck are the “poor” people going to get their refund if you’re taxing everything? They saving every receipt for every purchase o which they paid a sales tax and submitting that shit to the IRS to get their max refund? Seems super realistic. 

No.  The tax refund is set based on income.  No receipts needed.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Sidney beat me to it, but whenever there's an attempt to increase taxes on the ultra wealthy, it's going to be fought with the argument "it's only going to increase taxes on the middle class!!". As evidenced in this thread and literally any conversation on taxes with a republican.

WRT/ wealth levels and savings.... $2-3MM is definitely NOT "solidly middle class", and I would argue is absolutely upper class (if on the lower end)

Median upper class family wealth is just south of $1MM. You've been hanging out with JohnnySilverSpoon too much, donk.

I think we need to add a time horizon of age.

$2mm in wealth for a 30 year old is upper class family wealth. You have your prime earnings years ahead of you and are poised to even more wealth. Plus the person on this side of the x-axis has not paid as much in taxes (paid his dues) but for a likely short amount of time (versus the old man who has paid in for 40+ years).

$2mm in wealth for a 55 year old who is hanging up the cleats: you have $80k a year over to live off of if you live another 25 years (80 years old). That puts you solidly in the middle class, even after you account for any other retirement benefit ($3k more a month in social security, etc.)

[SydneyCarton 48108]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think we need to add a time horizon of age.

$2mm in wealth for a 30 year old is upper class family wealth. You have your prime earnings years ahead of you and are poised to even more wealth. Plus the person on this side of the x-axis has not paid as much in taxes (paid his dues) but for a likely short amount of time (versus the old man who has paid in for 40+ years).

$2mm in wealth for a 55 year old who is hanging up the cleats: you have $80k a year over to live off of if you live another 25 years (80 years old). That puts you solidly in the middle class, even after you account for any other retirement benefit ($3k more a month in social security, etc.)

I actually came here to post something similar. Age does matter. 

A guy who is 65 years old who has managed to save 2mm and is retiring to a fixed income isn't going to be setting the world on fire with cash. They can live comfortably, if they're smart and conservative with their money, but these guys are still praying for no major health issues. They probably die with very little to pass onto their heirs, if they have any. If you hit 59 and a half for a Roth IRA penalty free reduction (or any other designated retirement age) there should be a pretty high floor on what you can still have taxed as income, imo. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Virtually all renters pay property taxes.  Do you think landlords don't pass that cost along?

 

Sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, etc.

To what extent are those property taxes being passed along? How are we accounting for that? I'm not saying you are wrong-- I think landlords will pass along as much as the market will allow and that they should if they are in the business of optimizing value-- but not being a tax professional I'm not sure what the mechanisms are to account for this outside of just fuzzy logic.

 

[wildcat09 29354]

I didn't say poor people are excluded from property taxes. Poor people pay rent, which usually covers their landlord's property taxes. They also pay sales taxes and working poor pay payroll taxes.

But most of what I'm referring to aren't even called "taxes," because those who impose them don't want people like you to think they're taxes, but by any reasonable definition of the word "taxes," they qualify. I'm talking about traffic tickets, fines for nonpayment, court costs, etc. All of these are levied disproportionately against poor people and can make up 50% or more of a city or county's budget. Those are taxes. They are compulsory levies to fund government and are punishable by imprisonment for failure to pay. By any definition of "tax," they qualify.

But even if you want to exclude those tickets, fines, fees, and similar charges that are imposed pretty much only on poor people, well, I've got some bad news for you (well, bad news for your argument, could be great news for your bank account):

Quote

Our findings are striking. One in four low-wage workers face marginal net tax rates above 70 percent, effectively locking them into poverty. Over half face remaining lifetime marginal net tax rates above 45 percent. The richest 1 percent also face a high median lifetime marginal tax rate – roughly 50 percent. Double taxation matters.

...

Our findings are striking. First, American households typically face high marginal net taxes on working. Their median tax rate is 43.2 percent. Second, when one disaggregates by age and resource level, one sees a U-shaped pattern, albeit it minor, in median rates with the bottom and top quintiles facing higher rates of marginal net taxation than those in the middle three quintiles. Third, marginal tax rates among the poor are very highly dispersed. Fourth, one in four bottom-quintile households, regardless of age, face marginal tax rates above 65 percent. Thus, a major share of poor households are effectively locked into poverty by America’s fiscal system. Fifth, in ignoring the double taxation of earnings (because of the subsequent taxation of earnings from saving), conventionally measured marginal tax rates – current-year marginal tax rates – significantly understate the more comprehensive remaining lifetime marginal tax rate. Sixth, state-specific tax and benefit provisions produce major differences across states in marginal and average tax rates. Indeed, a typical household can raise its lifetime living standard by as much as 8.1 percent simply by moving states.

That's from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, not some hippie college study. They looked at the impact of personal income taxes, corporate income tax, FICA, sales taxes, estate and gift taxes, and Medicare Part B premiums, and the following transfer programs: EITC, CTC, social security benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, medicaid, medicare, ACA, Section 8 vouchers, and childcare assistance, and found that when all of these programs are taken together, they fuck the poor the hardest, the richest 1% (in terms of income, so we're not actually taking about the wealthy here) the second-most, and the middle class actually gets fucked the least. And for some reason they didn't even take into account the impact of the mortgage interest deduction, which certainly doesn't help the poor. 

It would be nearly impossible for you and your party to be any more wrong about how the government operates and who it helps. It overwhelmingly helps middle class (white) Americans and bleeds the poor dry to do so, and then takes a large chunk from working professionals, self-employed, and small business owners to cover what the poor can't.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I didn't say poor people are excluded from property taxes. Poor people pay rent, which usually covers their landlord's property taxes. They also pay sales taxes and working poor pay payroll taxes.

But most of what I'm referring to aren't even called "taxes," because those who impose them don't want people like you to think they're taxes, but by any reasonable definition of the word "taxes," they qualify. I'm talking about traffic tickets, fines for nonpayment, court costs, etc. All of these are levied disproportionately against poor people and can make up 50% or more of a city or county's budget. Those are taxes. They are compulsory levies to fund government and are punishable by imprisonment for failure to pay. By any definition of "tax," they qualify.

But even if you want to exclude those tickets, fines, fees, and similar charges that are imposed pretty much only on poor people, well, I've got some bad news for you (well, bad news for your argument, could be great news for your bank account):

That's from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, not some hippie college study. They looked at the impact of personal income taxes, corporate income tax, FICA, sales taxes, estate and gift taxes, and Medicare Part B premiums, and the following transfer programs: EITC, CTC, social security benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, medicaid, medicare, ACA, Section 8 vouchers, and childcare assistance, and found that when all of these programs are taken together, they fuck the poor the hardest, the richest 1% (in terms of income, so we're not actually taking about the wealthy here) the second-most, and the middle class actually gets fucked the least. And for some reason they didn't even take into account the impact of the mortgage interest deduction, which certainly doesn't help the poor. 

It would be nearly impossible for you and your party to be any more wrong about how the government operates and who it helps. It overwhelmingly helps middle class (white) Americans and bleeds the poor dry to do so, and then takes a large chunk from working professionals, self-employed, and small business owners to cover what the poor can't.

Thanks for posting this. I understand this better and you and your position better. I'm more or less sold and with you.

It feels like we (America) have a fundamental misalignment and need to have the hard conversation about what outcomes we want and what outcomes we can afford. What are the table stakes, what are the outcomes that we must have and what are nice to haves, etc. I mentioned in another post but the biggest issue is we don't have shared definitions for these things and we absolutely have to be singing from the same sheet of music or we will continue to have this noise...this cacophony and din of misalignment. 

If we don't find a way to take a step back and do this, we will never get healthy consensus and it will be an antagonistic political pendulum as it has been.

Edited November 2, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Captainant 27678]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

Thanks for posting this.

It feels like we (America) have a fundamental misalignment and need to have the hard conversation about what outcomes we want and what outcomes we can afford. What are the table stakes, what are the outcomes that we must have and what are nice to haves, etc. I mentioned in another post but the biggest issue is we don't have shared definitions for these things and we absolutely have to be singing from the same sheet of music or we will continue to have this noise...this cacophony and din of misalignment. 

If we don't find a way to take a step back and do this, we will never get healthy consensus and it will be an antagonistic political pendulum as it has been.

Wow, it's almost like a rogue entity has worked tirelessly over the last three decades on producing and weaponizing the own media apparatus to incite a fundamental misalignment. Some sort of news corporation, if you will.

What's that? They're telling me trickledown economics are the way, the truth, and the light? And that poors and black people want to redistribute all our wealth? It aligns with my prejudicial worldview, therefore it must be true! Tucker told me so himself!

[DonkeyCigars 143]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wow, it's almost like a rogue entity has worked tirelessly over the last three decades on producing and weaponizing the own media apparatus to incite a fundamental misalignment. Some sort of news corporation, if you will.

What's that? They're telling me trickledown economics are the way, the truth, and the light? And that poors and black people want to redistribute all our wealth? It aligns with my prejudicial worldview, therefore it must be true! Tucker told me so himself!

I assume you are speaking generally and more royally here as I over-rotate and don't watch any media at all, outside of sports, children's shows on various streaming channels and movies on airplanes.

[Blotto 23525]

16 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

No.  The tax refund is set based on income.  No receipts needed.

So the poorest (who already live check to check) pay additional sales tax all year long (more money out of pocket) and then somehow the government knows eactly what they paid and how to calculate/provide their refund? Or is there going to be some generic refund figure that applies to all people in a particular income bracket that doesnt accurately reflect what an individual may have purchased/paid taxes on. Purchase of a car for example, causing a spike in sales tax paid in one year....sorry.

Explain the mechanics here. Why should the segment of society struggling the most to get by (in many cases deciding each month which bills to pay and which to ignore), float the government a 2% loan. Who does that benefit? 

[sheeeit 129]

14 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

?!?!?!??!?!?

No offense, but you seem to have never taken an economics class.

Huh?  You seem to be under the impression that tariffs are always paid by the country imposing them and always result in higher prices.  That is not true at all.  I mentioned a few up thread.  Look at Laundry Equipment.  We hit China hard on tariffs for washing machines in 2018.  The CPI for laundry equipment was down over 12% from the time of the tariff to pre covid in April of 2020.

In most cases, small tariffs are absorbed by the importing company and price increases are not realized by consumers.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

14 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Taxation is violence. 

Life is a highway.

[Blotto 23525]

13 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Huh?  You seem to be under the impression that tariffs are always paid by the country imposing them and always result in higher prices.  That is not true at all.  I mentioned a few up thread.  Look at Laundry Equipment.  We hit China hard on tariffs for washing machines in 2018.  The CPI for laundry equipment was down over 12% from the time of the tariff to pre covid in April of 2020.

In most cases, small tariffs are absorbed by the importing company and price increases are not realized by consumers.

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/washing-machines-2018-tariffs-effect

Quote

The response following the 2018 tariffs was different—with important implications for how policymakers should weigh the costs and benefits of trade policy. 

Foreign manufacturers moved production again, this time opening plants in the United States. Still, washing machine prices spiked 12 percent. What’s more, dryers got more expensive as well, even though they weren’t subject to the tariffs. The median price of washing machines and clothes dryers increased by about $86 and $92 per unit, respectively. Taken together, an estimated 108 to 225 percent of the 2018 tariffs were passed through to consumers via higher prices. 

The reason for this comes down to pricing strategy, Flaaen said. Washing machines and dryers are complementary products that are typically bought together, and retailers price them about the same. 

Facing increased costs of selling washers in the US, companies made up for the lower margins by raising prices on dryers as well. 

“This particular pricing strategy of these firms led to this complementarity in the effects of the prices,” Flaaen said. “They wanted to keep those prices the same even after the tariffs... It’s spreading out the effect of the tariffs across the washing machines and dryers.”

So there was this unintended effect on dryer prices. What’s more, domestic companies like Whirlpool, Maytag, and GE also raised their prices even though their products weren’t affected by the new tariffs. 

The result is that more than 100 percent of the tariffs were passed through to consumers via higher prices. Overall, the authors estimate that consumer costs increased by just over $1.5 billion annually, dwarfing the estimated $82 million the US raised in tariff revenue. And while some jobs were created—mostly through foreign producers shifting work to the US—they were not nearly enough to offset the losses. The authors estimate that 1,800 additional jobs were created from the tariffs, with annual costs to consumers of around $815,000 per job created. 

 Edit  - are you just making bullshit up? 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Blotto

[jimmyjazz 45963]

8 minutes ago, Blotto said:

So the poorest (who already live check to check) pay additional sales tax all year long (more money out of pocket) and then somehow the government knows eactly what they paid and how to calculate/provide their refund? Or is there going to be some generic refund figure that applies to all people in a particular income bracket that doesnt accurately reflect what an individual may have purchased/paid taxes on. Purchase of a car for example, causing a spike in sales tax paid in one year....sorry.

Explain the mechanics here. Why should the segment of society struggling the most to get by (in many cases deciding each month which bills to pay and which to ignore), float the government a 2% loan. Who does that benefit? 

I can imagine some sort of Federal tax exempt ID card, which allows those below a certain taxable income to avoid sales tax.

Simple in concept, no doubt completely butchered in practice.

[Blotto 23525]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I can imagine some sort of Federal tax exempt ID card, which allows those below a certain taxable income to avoid sales tax.

Simple in concept, no doubt completely butchered in practice.

no doubt

[SydneyCarton 48108]

7 minutes ago, Blotto said:

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/washing-machines-2018-tariffs-effect

 

TOUGH ON CHINA!

[sheeeit 129]

16 hours ago, immamac said:

This is a strong post. You absolutely should pay taxes on any leverage against unrealized gains (even margin). If it just stays purely unrealized then it should not be taxed.

Maybe you need to clarify this.  Are you saying that if someone takes out a loan against an asset, that the loan proceeds should be taxed as if they were income or that the asset used to collateralize the loan should be taxed at that point?  

[Beau Vine 54241]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Import Tax- You need to study this much more closely as tariffs do not automatically equal higher prices.  There have been lots and lots of studies on this.  The affect of demand is much more important as is the possible shift to domestic production.

Look at one of the big ones people griped about- steel.  We put 25% tariffs on imported steel in mid 2018.  The tariffs went into effect immediately.  According to everyone here the cost of steel had to go up.  But it didnt.  It went down.  The spot price of steel in June 2018 was 4578 and in April of 2020 (right before covid hit hard) the spot price was 3300.  

Solar panels had a huge tariff imposed in 2018 and we were importing 80% of them.  Prices were lower pre covid in 2020.

We put pretty large tariffs on China and we import more machinery and equipment from China than anywhere else by a long shot.  The price of machinery and equipment had no spike in prices from 2018 to 2020.  In fact, the rate of price escalation (these items have gone up every year since the 60s) was lower in that period.

We imposed 20% tariffs on Canadian lumber in April of 2017.  The spot price for lumber in April 2017 was 399.  In April of 2020 it was 282.

Is this for real?

[sheeeit 129]

31 minutes ago, Blotto said:

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/washing-machines-2018-tariffs-effect

 Edit  - are you just making bullshit up? 

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

That data is cherry picked.  There was an initial spike in prices due to the tariffs but, as I keep saying, demand and production changed and by April of 2020 the prices were, in fact, lower than before the tariffs.

Edited November 2, 2021 by sheeeit

[wildcat09 29354]

Lol, this fucker is complaining about cherry picked data then picks prices from April of 2020 to argue his point.

Sheeeit is just the shittiest troll.

[Captainant 27678]

6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Is this for real?

sheeeeeit is cherrypicking and misrepresenting stats like a motherfucker (or at least mindlessly repeating whatever fox told him). Here's the actual raw data and not a trend tracker that obfuscated the data

Go figure! A lack of intellectual curiousity combined with repeating intellectually dishonest talking points.