The US is insolvent !

uscitizen said:
Now we know why Dix is not a CEO :D
Click to expand...

I had the job, I don't want it! Unless it's like the CEO of Microsoft or Apple, then I'll sign a contract.

It has nothing to do with being a CEO, or understanding tax law. I realize you idiots need to find some irrelevant point to attack and criticize unfairly on, but this is ridiculous. I have not even mentioned tax law. It's fairly normal common sense to conclude, most rich people own some business, and no business is owned and operated on its own, someone owns it.

Let's take a pinhead premise to the chalkboard... Let's say we adopt a law that says CEO's who make over $1m a year, have to pay 90% tax over that amount, where they are now paying 36%... How many CEO's would be negotiating contracts of $1m or less, and taking all sorts of "incentive bonus" type deals, which would always be in the loopholes of the tax laws? How many would divert their incomes to tax deferred bonds, or foreign investments, to avoid the 90% tax burden? Most people who have established themselves with a home, savings, retirement, etc., don't require a lot of personal income to maintain it. It's far more advantageous to them, to have the money go into secured tax shelters, and avoid paying the government 90% of what they earn. Like I said, these people didn't become rich by being stupid, and they will not just sit "statically" by and let you rape them with taxation.
 
"Now, it's my argument, that most of these rich people who make a personal income, are doing so at the expense of a corporation or business they own."

A few salient points:

1. Most corporations are not "owned by rich people" but are, in fact, owned by shareholders. The vast majority of wealth derived from corporate America comes from publicly traded corporations.

2. Any rich person who gets rich "at the expense of the business they own" does not stay an owner very long. Privately held corporations that continue to be profitable are ones where the ownership is more worried about continuing the growth and profitability of the enterprise than they are with their own short term remuneration.

You may have been CEO once (although I sincerely doubt it) but the fact that you think that CEO's get rich at the expense of their corporation is pretty compelling evidence as to why you no longer hold that position. My guess is that you may have held the franchise to a One Hour Photo kiosk at a strip mall somewhere near your trailer park, but you clearly do not understand how corporations work - certainly it is clear that you do not have enough knowledge about business, or tax law or finance to understand how a marginal increase in the individual tax rate on the highest bracket of income earners would have negligle impact on the profitability of corporations or on their ability to serve as engines for economic growth and prosperity.
 
and most rich people do not own privately held corporations, but rather hold diversified portfolios that include stock in publicly traded corporations. For every wealthy owner of a privately held corporation in America, there are thousands of wealthy stockholders who own small shares of public corporations. Returning the marginal tax rate on those wealthy Americans to the levels experienced during the Clinton administration would have ZERO impact on corporate America... and ZERO impact on middle class and working class America.
 
and Dixie.... I work for the CFO/Treasurer of a large regional utility. I feel very certain that he would continue to make decisions that were in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders - as represented by the BoD - regardless of whether his marginal personal income tax rate was 35% or 38%. The only impact such a tax increase would have on him would be something like having to drive his Porsche Cayenne for three years before trading it in for a new one rather than the two year turn around he now enjoys. He would not alter his decision-making about our business based upon a paltry three or four percent increase in his own marginal personal income tax rate.
 
1. Most corporations are not "owned by rich people" but are, in fact, owned by shareholders.

Who are, by and large, rich people. The argument still stands, rich people who are making money, are doing so through their own business ventures, in other words, business is how they are earning a personal income in the first place.

Tax the rich, you won't harm business, is as ridiculous as tax the business, you won't harm the rich! Neither of them work in logic, because business and rich people are joined inseparably at the hip. You want to maintain some illusion of separation, as if rich people have nothing to do with business, and that just isn't the case, they are the ones behind the business, by and large, and when you effect their income, you effect their business.

Very few poor people run a business...
Some middle class can manage to run a small business...
Most business in America is run by rich people.

Whether it's a corporation, run by a whole lot of rich people, or a company owned by a rich person, or their family, most all business is run by wealthy people. Thus, most wealthy people derive their incomes from business they are involved in.
 
Dix, Lots and lots odf stocks are held in 401K accounts now a days. This sort of relates a lot towards the working classes.
Whatsamatter forget your get rid of SS speeches ?
 
and most rich people do not own privately held corporations, but rather hold diversified portfolios that include stock in publicly traded corporations. For every wealthy owner of a privately held corporation in America, there are thousands of wealthy stockholders who own small shares of public corporations. Returning the marginal tax rate on those wealthy Americans to the levels experienced during the Clinton administration would have ZERO impact on corporate America...

Bullshit. You want to increase the tax on stock dividends? Okay, why does Mr. Rich feel compelled to invest his money in any sort of aggressive stock again? So he can pay you more of his dividends in taxes? That makes perfect logical sense, doesn't it? Risk your money to pay Uncle Sam more of it! Yes, it would have an effect on stock trading, and this would effect corporate America, and I didn't include the part about middle class working Americans, because it goes without saying, if it effects corporate America, it effects us all.
 
Dixie said:
-US Citizen: "If Mr. Rich does not invest his money he makes no money....."

-Dixie: "Certainly not if it's taxed at 90%"
Click to expand...


Federal Income Taxes 101 - A lesson for Dixie


Investment income has NEVER been taxed at a 90% rate. Investment income makes up the majority of rich people's income. Capital gains and dividends and other forms of investment income have always been taxed at rates in the range 15-30%. I think you don't even have to pay any federal tax on interest from municipal and state bonds. ZERO federal tax on bond interest.

Did you actually believe Rush Limbaugh's propoganda that the rich were paying 90% in taxes in the 1950s???


The top marginal rate for federal income tax in the 1950s was 90%. That's NOT the average overall rate. You DO understand this, right? That means only income from things like wages in excess of something like $300,000 dollars was taxed at 90%.

First, virtually no "rich people" were drawing a payroll check that exceeded 300k in 1955. Rich people get most of their income from investment not payroll wages. Second, even those people who were making wages exceeding 300k, weren't paying 90% of their income in taxes. Do you understand?
 
I understand, the more you tax rich people, the more they will find ways to not make taxable incomes they have to report. If it means not investing in stocks, that's what they will not do... If it means not investing venture capital in a business, that's what they will not do... whatever they have to not do, to report a personal income to Uncle Sam. They have no incentive.

You idiots keep wanting to claim their incentive would be to make more money, but why? If it's eaten up in taxes, it seems a bit stupid. They don't need to make any more money, they have plenty to live on and never claim another dollar of earned income. So why would these rich people want to risk a damn thing, if their reward is not going to be worth it, after taxation?

The top marginal rate was 90% then 70% before Reagan dropped it to 39% and Bush to 36%. The evidence for growth is obvious, since the Reagan cuts, our economy has not experienced stagnant growth. Enabling the rich old farts to spend their fortunes on new ways to make money and produce jobs, is what keeps the economy growing. When you do something to stifle that, by telling the rich old farts they are better off just keeping that stash in their mattress, you will ultimately create economic stagnation.

The problem with pinheads is, you all see things from a static perspective, because rich old farts have been spending their money the past 30 years, to fund all sorts of enterprises and create all sorts of jobs, as well as churning the economy in every associated way you can imagine, you think it will just always be like that! If you take away their incentive to do this, they will stop doing it! This just stands to reason... If you put business out of business, you can kiss your economy goodbye and flush it.
 
So you were WRONG (again) when you stated that investment income ever has, or ever will be taxed at 90%. It never has, never will be, and no one has even remotely suggested it.


-US Citizen: "If Mr. Rich does not invest his money he makes no money....."

-Dixie: "Certainly not if it's taxed at 90%"


In short, you just pulled that assertion out of your ass. Typical.
 
Cypress said:
So you were WRONG (again) when you stated that investment income ever has, or ever will be taxed at 90%. It never has, never will be, and no one has even remotely suggested it.


-US Citizen: "If Mr. Rich does not invest his money he makes no money....."

-Dixie: "Certainly not if it's taxed at 90%"


In short, you just pulled that assertion out of your ass. Typical.
Click to expand...

You're such a fucking moron, you don't understand my sarcastic remark?

I know you idiots really want to entangle me in some tax law argument, and I have already said that is not what we are discussing here. I understand that business is separate from individual, but I also realize business is owned by individuals. Most wealthy people who are reporting a taxable income, are doing so as the result of their business. No one is discussing whether they invest in stocks or receive dividends from that as well, many wealthy people do this too. As you point out, that is not what we are talking about, it's not personal income which would fall in the old 90% marginal rate.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can think, taking 90% of a man's earnings in tax, is right. I don't care if you are rich or what.
 
most wealthy people do not "own" a "business"...
and nobody is suggesting that we return to a 90% marginal tax rate on personal income.... to haul that out is ridiculous
 
I honestly don't understand how anyone can think, taking 90% of a man's earnings in tax, is right. I don't care if you are rich or what.

But waving that 90% figure around, is a phony argument. Either your lying, or you have a seventh-graders knowledge of tax law.

Investment income NEVER has, and never will be taxed at an effective 90% tax rate. NO ONE has even remotely suggested it.

Wages have NEVER been taxed at an effective tax rate of 90%. The top marginal tax rate of the 1950s did not mean that 90 cents on every dollar of a rich person was taken in tax. Because it was a top marignal rate not an effective rate. You DO understand this don't you?
 
Cypress said:
I honestly don't understand how anyone can think, taking 90% of a man's earnings in tax, is right. I don't care if you are rich or what.

But waving that 90% figure around, is a phony argument. Either your lying, or you have a seventh-graders knowledge of tax law.

Investment income NEVER has, and never will be taxed at an effective 90% tax rate. NO ONE has even remotely suggested it.

Wages have NEVER been taxed at an effective tax rate of 90%. The top marginal tax rate of the 1950s did not mean that 90 cents on every dollar of a rich person was taken in tax. Because it was a top marignal rate not an effective rate. You DO understand this don't you?
Click to expand...


Clearly, he does not. He is a blustering moron... nothing more.
 
uscitizen said:
Where did you read or hear 90% dix ?
Or you just tripping again ?
Click to expand...

He got the 90% rate, from years of listening to Rush Limbaugh. Who evidently convinced Dixie, that in the 1950, rich people were paying 90 cents of tax on every dollar earned.

Dixie doesn't understand that the 90% figure was the top marginal rate on wages, and the investment income is taxed differently typically - and at a much lower rate. I saw that the effective tax rate on capital gains in 1955 was less than 15%.


So, to answer your question, Dixie pulled the number out of his ass, from something he heard on Rush Limbaugh.

Rich people never have, and never will pay 90 cents on the dollar in taxes on their annual income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top