http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...ign=Feed:+wiredscience+(Blog+-+Wired+Science) Rich people are psychologically damaged. The bending point of the Laffer Curve is apparently 84%, which means we could double the marginal tax rate without affecting economic activity. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17860 http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/28/the_laffer_curve_bend_at_84_.html I think we should treat the rich much like a farmer treats any beast of burden. Harness his strengths and use them for the greater good. But for God's sake, keep that harness tight. Because you don't want the big, dumb, destructive beast ruining the farm.
Nationally, borrowers with loans of at least $1 million were in default for an average 792 days last year before banks repossessed their homes, according to an analysis by data provider Lender Processing Services. For loans under $250,000, the wait stood at an average 611 days-a difference of about six months. http://gawker.com/5888923/foreclosures-on-the-top-1-sure-do-move-slowly
Honest to God, the right is going to keep playing the Laffer Curve argument until tax rates for the top 1% are at zero. We're halfway there with the consensus Republican proposals to eliminate capital gains and estate taxes. And marginal income rates will keep getting pushed down, in the name of enabling the "job creators."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twkh0YiInPM"]mo money mo problems (best quality) - YouTube[/ame]
Me and Dave agreeing on healthcare. You and Danny agreeing on taxation. This place may truly be the world's greatest think tank.
Yep. I was basically just for raising the CG tax back to Clinton levels which I think was 20% for long term? I can't remember for sure. We got to talking and ended up with a plan to eliminate CG for people who make less than 20 or 25% of their money through CG and then for the rest, just taxing it as income. For the great majority of the people out there, it would have eliminated some tax and truly would have encouraged investment. For the uber wealthy who have no real salaries (or very small ones) it would tax them the way they should be taxed. Seemed a reasonable outcome to me and one that I certainly didn't just think through on my own. It takes a real debate between people with differing views to get the right result in many instances.
The devil's advocate asks how we distinguish retirees who rely on investment income to pay for day-to-day expenses and a "retiree" like Mitt Romney? Is it safe to assume that the progressive rates would take care of this?
I believe that when you cash out money from your IRA or 401(k) it is taxed as regular income, no? You get the benefit of deferring tax for all of those years, but the money IS eventually taxed. And in retirement, it would likely fall in a lower bracket than during your working years, unless you are super wealthy. Are you talking about other investments than traditional retirement investments?
You are correct about IRA/401K, but there are rules that you need to start cashing out of those accounts. Some of the tax-deferred income once out may be re-invested and generate capital gains. So there is the very real likelyhood that some capital gains can be achieved by the 'poor.'
Ho hum, more nebulous attacks on the "rich" from lefties trying to maintain outrage amongst the ignorant. Desperate to expand their dependent voting class and march us straight to the failed policies of the PIIGS, or worse. As if I haven't heard it all before. Just today another lie was proven to be false. This one shows the extent to which a leftist will go to decieve people. Here you go.
I imagine non-wealthy people may have use means other than 401(k) and other tax-deferred methods to save for retirement. I'm thinking that for the most part, people who are "double taxed" can handle the hit, but I'm just guessing.
Hey, I'm happy to make adjustments that are fair for retired folks. But there are a lot of "non-wealthy" people that have money in 401(k)s. They effectively took the place of pension funds for most working people.
I see, so the lies and decpetions of the left fall into the category of "solving problems" but pointing out these deceptions is "making noise". Gotcha!
I mean that the non-wealthy may use methods in addition to the standard 401(k)/traditional IRA where the contributions are tax-deductible, though I guess this distinction is beside the point.
Well, if needed, this is a pretty easy problem to solve. You can exempt a portion for persons over a certain age, or make the whole thing progressive up to something like $50,000 in income and then tax it like normal income.
forced deductions start at around 70.5 and decrease year after year based on a scale of life expectancy
Perchik: Money is the world's curse. Tevye: May the Lord smite me with it! And may I never recover! (From Fiddler on the Roof)
My response mirrors the name of the author: Piff! I just hope against hope, that tax dollars didn't fund this junk science. At least W.C. Fields was candid enough to describe himself as the child of poor, but dishonest, parents!