|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/21/2008 10:21:16 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 183
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
From a programming standpoint, claiming there's an issue at the $1 million mark is... entirely ridiculous.
I know, and what's even more ridiculous is that most Americans would buy into this nonsense.
A great many people bought into the idea that civilization as we know it was going to come to an end after December 31, 1999. This was due to the fact that many applications had reserved only space for two digits in the year field, and were going to cycle back to January 1, 1900 instead of advancing to January 1, 2000. It didn't happen. The effect was real, but it had only minor consequences.
And this example puts the "above 1 million" remark in better perspective. It is, of course, absurd to think that any computer dating back to the Intel 8080 and before would be limited to numbers less than 1 million. However, some databases and applications might have reserved insufficient space to record incomes greater than $1 million. However, the IRS applications are unlikely to suffer from this design flaw, because they clearly have to deal with larger incomes in the normal course of their operations.
The confidentiality question is much tougher. When the IRS releases aggregate statistics they have to be extremely careful not to give out enough information to enable a clever hacker to derive the confidential information of individual taxpayers. This can be enourmously subtle.
But, if you ask me, there's a much deeper problem than that at work with income statistics. It's the difference between the median income and the average income. In the minds of most ordinary people, averages are used as if they were medians. The statistics aren't the same.
It's very possible that the average income is high enough to support, say, the cost of a kidney transplant, but the median income is not high enough. This would mean, if true, that more than half of the people would find a kidney transplant beyond their means.
The "long tail" of the income distribution due to the very rich is a problem for statisticians regardless of whether they use computers or pencil and paper. And, just to throw another monkey wrench into the works, you have to consider that many of the "super rich" who control a share of the US economy are neither citizens nor residents of the United States. As a debtor nation, we are incresingly at the mercy of international investors.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/21/2008 11:36:16 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1500
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
A great many people bought into the idea that civilization as we know it was going to come to an end after December 31, 1999. This was due to the fact that many applications had reserved only space for two digits in the year field, and were going to cycle back to January 1, 1900 instead of advancing to January 1, 2000. It didn't happen. The effect was real, but it had only minor consequences.
Yeah, I spent 6 months of my life fixing this. Heh
The main issue was that the *input* only required the user to type the last 2 digits of the year. Not that the storage had much to do with it (unless they were storing with a char array of 2, which is kind of rare in my experience because it makes year math a little more of a pain in the rear than it really needs to be). So, while there was generally storage space where they were storing numerically, the problem was that the entire number was simply not *there*. This was generally easily fixed by extending the input text box to handle 4 characters, and running a script over old data to extend it to include the preceding "19" properly prior to the rollover. For applications that really did use char[2], you just had to change that to char[4] in the code, run a script again, and you're good for another 8,000 years.
If they're storing money values as strings they're being really dumb, due to the fact that even more than dates, the money values need to be in a format that can reasonably be used in mathematic operations. Even simple things like sorting becomes difficult if you're trying to store numerical values as strings, so we try to avoid that whenever possible. Granted, maybe they really are being that stupid... but even so, it could be easily fixed by just extending the char array, which is very very simple. So, either they're being stupid, lazy, or both. ;)
Interestingly, the original time_t struct most commonly used to store numbers will roll over January 19, 2038 in the 32 bit system. Unfortunately we do not have any cool little designations for it like "Y2K".
Don't panic, though, we've already got a fix, everyone's going to 64 bit by then, at which point we won't run out of digits for, I think it was something like 3 billion years last time I crunched the numbers but that's been a while.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/21/2008 3:50:49 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
You're absolutely correct!! Since he makes more money he shold pay more taxes! GUESS WHAT: HE ALREADY DOES PAY MORE!! He probably pays more in taxes than 90% of us combined on this forum.......
Where did I say that Bill Gates should pay more? I am just saying that it is not unreasonable to have a tax system where people like Bill Gates pay more and that it is reasonable to have a tax system where those who benefit more from government also pay more.
And as I pointed out he already does pay more
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
quit trying to bleed more out of him just because you are envious of his wealth!
There is no excuse for this assertion. You have no right to accuse me of being envious. Did I say that Bill Gates was a bad person and need to be punished because he was wealthy? Did I even say anything negative about his wealth? No, all I said was that because he benefits more from the fact that the government protects property rights (which you conceded), that it is reasonable that he pay a higher share of the tax bill. Where you find envy in there is beyond me.
I find envy in the fact that while he is already paying more in taxes that you think he should be paying more because he has more property!!! What about the other things that our government provides us with such as freedom of speech, freedom to travel (on Federal funded roads no less) freedom of association and any number of other intangible freedoms that we possess. Neither Bill Gates nor anyone else these "rights" in greater proportion than you or I.
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/21/2008 10:06:32 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 2031
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Don't panic, though, we've already got a fix, everyone's going to 64 bit by then, at which point we won't run out of digits for, I think it was something like 3 billion years last time I crunched the numbers but that's been a while.
So in 3 billion years, we have to do this again?!? One more bit and you could have extended it to 6 billion, and then we could have just let the expanding sun take care of everything.
You computer guys are so short-sighted!
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/21/2008 10:53:06 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 605
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
And as I pointed out he already does pay more
Ok, so you fabricated a disagreement where there was none.
quote:
I find envy in the fact that while he is already paying more in taxes that you think he should be paying more because he has more property!!!
What I pointed out, is that Bill Gates has more property than the rest of us, and of course, by property I mean real and personal property, both tangible and intangible. Therefore, he benefits more from the protection of property rights that our legal system provides, so therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect him to pay taxes in proportion to the benefit that he receives from the government.
Now, notice, I never said that Bill Gates either pays too much or too little in taxes. I just used him as an example of why it is reasonable that he pays more in taxes than the average worker. How you can construe envy out of that is beyond me.
quote:
What about the other things that our government provides us with such as freedom of speech, freedom to travel (on Federal funded roads no less) freedom of association and any number of other intangible freedoms that we possess. Neither Bill Gates nor anyone else these "rights" in greater proportion than you or I.
Who benefits more from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Bill Gates or the average taxpayer. Who benefits more from the patent office, Bill Gates or the average taxpayer? Who benefits more from the FAA or the FDIC? We don't all benefit from all government programs equally.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/14/2008 10:19:31 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2942
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Those who have more property get more protection from the government protecting our property rights. I get more benefit today than I did when I was a poor graduate student. So it is not unreasonable to expect me to pay more than I did then.
You make the assumption that "everyone" is paying something.
quote:
What I pointed out, is that Bill Gates has more property than the rest of us, and of course, by property I mean real and personal property, both tangible and intangible. Therefore, he benefits more from the protection of property rights that our legal system provides, so therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect him to pay taxes in proportion to the benefit that he receives from the government.
So the medical doctor who works for a hospital, rents an apt here but has purchased a home in Rome, Arustraia and England and earns a million dollars per year should pay less in taxes than the farmer who owns lots of land, upwards to a million dollars in farm equiptment and makes little money?
quote:
What I pointed out, is that Bill Gates has more property than the rest of us, and of course, by property I mean real and personal property, both tangible and intangible. Therefore, he benefits more from the protection of property rights that our legal system provides, so therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect him to pay taxes in proportion to the benefit that he receives from the government.
Now, notice, I never said that Bill Gates either pays too much or too little in taxes. I just used him as an example of why it is reasonable that he pays more in taxes than the average worker. How you can construe envy out of that is beyond me.
Jim has 12 children and a wife. In this country he has the same freedom. I have only one child and a spouse.
Because Jim's family profits more from the strong military does Jim need to pay more? His family benefits more from a strong military than I do?
< Message edited by P31W -- 11/14/2008 10:36:24 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/14/2008 10:27:26 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2942
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
How much is it worth to Bill Gates that the US protects property rights? Millions.
How much is it worth to you that the US protects property rights? Probably somewhere in the thousands.
But Bill Gates PAYS PROPERTY TAXES. In addition to "inventory tax" and "personal property tax".
AND
He paid income tax on the money he earned to buy that property.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/14/2008 10:33:21 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2942
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Generally, European countries have done fairly well with their Value Added Tax systems, which is another form of a sales tax.
Here is the problem I see with this. Beeper is an Economics Professor and pops in from time to time. He can use the fancy words to say what I am about to say and give the studies to support this.
I already collect 7% in my own state and up to 9% in other states. I already am faced all the time with people 'wanting to pay cash" and not pay sales tax. Now if we stop our state income tax and put it at a fixed 3% that would make a 10% tax. Now if we add another federal tax on top of that and make it 30% people would not NUTS wanting to pay cash under the table. Crooks would benefit greatly who have nothing really to lose or who were small businesses. People with money and who were honest would have Uncle Sam all over their buisneses all the time.
Beeper said that when the rate hits 30% compliance is a huge problem. I agree.
Besides that many small businesses would have to hire an additional employee just to keep up with these taxes and be ready for the constant state, local and federal audits that would probably occur on a yearly or every two year basis. (most state I collect for hit us about every 3 years and we have never been found guilty of any violations)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/16/2008 12:18:39 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 605
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
You make the assumption that "everyone" is paying something.
Actually, I am not assuming anything. My point was to challenge this notion that government benefits are like the beer in this example, the idea that everyone is getting the same amount. This is clearly not true, some benefit more from government than others.
quote:
quote:
What I pointed out, is that Bill Gates has more property than the rest of us, and of course, by property I mean real and personal property, both tangible and intangible. Therefore, he benefits more from the protection of property rights that our legal system provides, so therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect him to pay taxes in proportion to the benefit that he receives from the government.
So the medical doctor who works for a hospital, rents an apt here but has purchased a home in Rome, Arustraia and England and earns a million dollars per year should pay less in taxes than the farmer who owns lots of land, upwards to a million dollars in farm equiptment and makes little money?
The medical doctor who works for a hospital has much property as well. The medical degree and medical license are forms of intellectual property. So he also has property that the government protects. Also, the contracts he has for his services are property as well. Try and have a surgeon perform an operation and then not pay. What will happen, you will get sued. So our doctor is benefiting from the court system in a significant way, and so therefore should pay an amount in taxes proportionate to his benefit.
quote:
Jim has 12 children and a wife. In this country he has the same freedom. I have only one child and a spouse.
Because Jim's family profits more from the strong military does Jim need to pay more? His family benefits more from a strong military than I do?
If we didn't have a military what could happen to your net worth? Thugs could come along and take your physical property and you would be significantly harmed. So I wouldn't say that you benefit less from the military. The military protects both people and property.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/16/2008 12:20:25 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 605
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
But Bill Gates PAYS PROPERTY TAXES. In addition to "inventory tax" and "personal property tax".
AND
He paid income tax on the money he earned to buy that property.
Where did I ever imply otherwise? I never said that he is paying too much or too little. What I said is that because he benefits more from the government than the average taxpayer, he should pay more in taxes than the average taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/16/2008 3:29:19 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
I find envy in the fact that while he is already paying more in taxes that you think he should be paying more because he has more property!!!
What I pointed out, is that Bill Gates has more property than the rest of us, and of course, by property I mean real and personal property, both tangible and intangible. Therefore, he benefits more from the protection of property rights that our legal system provides, so therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect him to pay taxes in proportion to the benefit that he receives from the government.
And since he has more property and it's probably worth a great deal of money) then he is paying significantly more in property taxes when compared to other folks. He's already paying his "fair" share
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/16/2008 3:31:44 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
You make the assumption that "everyone" is paying something.
Actually, I am not assuming anything. My point was to challenge this notion that government benefits are like the beer in this example, the idea that everyone is getting the same amount. This is clearly not true, some benefit more from government than others.
You're absolutely correct! There are those that benefit more than others.....it's my contention that those benefiting more are paying less and asking the rest of us to pay more.
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/16/2008 3:36:03 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 605
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
And since he has more property and it's probably worth a great deal of money) then he is paying significantly more in property taxes when compared to other folks. He's already paying his "fair" share
Is he? Prove it. I didn't make a claim either way. My point, which nobody has argued over is that the story that motivated is erroneous in that it assumes that everyone gets the same benefit from government. People receive different benefits from government. Until we know what everyone receives from government we cannot say anything about the fairness of any tax system.
When you talk about the property taxes that Bill Gates pays, are you talking about the taxes on his real property or personal property? On his real estate, or on his stock holdings?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/16/2008 3:37:28 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 605
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
You're absolutely correct! There are those that benefit more than others.....it's my contention that those benefiting more are paying less and asking the rest of us to pay more.
Perhaps you can provide us with some evidence for your hypothesis?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/16/2008 3:44:41 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 605
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
You're absolutely correct! There are those that benefit more than others.....it's my contention that those benefiting more are paying less and asking the rest of us to pay more.
Do you mean like the sugar cane growers that lobby the government to keep out foreign sugar so they can make their millions? Yes, I would agree that they are receiving more from the government than they are paying in taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/17/2008 8:29:01 AM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
And since he has more property and it's probably worth a great deal of money) then he is paying significantly more in property taxes when compared to other folks. He's already paying his "fair" share
Is he? Prove it. I didn't make a claim either way. My point, which nobody has argued over is that the story that motivated is erroneous in that it assumes that everyone gets the same benefit from government. People receive different benefits from government. Until we know what everyone receives from government we cannot say anything about the fairness of any tax system.
When you talk about the property taxes that Bill Gates pays, are you talking about the taxes on his real property or personal property? On his real estate, or on his stock holdings?
What part do I have to prove? That he owns more property therefore he pays more property taxes?
As for the discussion of property taxes.......if you cannot differentiate between property taxes (both real and personal) and stock holdings (what kind of stock are you talking about?......cattle?....futures??)....I'm fairly confident that most people realize that it is property taxes and/or personal taxes although here in Maine unless it is business property there are no personal property taxes levied against individuals
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/17/2008 8:31:01 AM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
You're absolutely correct! There are those that benefit more than others.....it's my contention that those benefiting more are paying less and asking the rest of us to pay more.
Perhaps you can provide us with some evidence for your hypothesis?
Just look at all of the folks that pay no income taxes....according to the insanity of the debates it equals almost 40% of the populace......and they want still more in the form of "refundable credits" which are nothing more than tax welfare imo.
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/17/2008 8:34:58 AM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
You're absolutely correct! There are those that benefit more than others.....it's my contention that those benefiting more are paying less and asking the rest of us to pay more.
Do you mean like the sugar cane growers that lobby the government to keep out foreign sugar so they can make their millions? Yes, I would agree that they are receiving more from the government than they are paying in taxes.
It may surprise you nut I happen to agree with you on this one.....they should not be keeping out foreign sugar but I also happen to think that there should be little, if any, restrictions on the import of almost anything into this country. Let the free market do its job and the economy and the country will do better. I happen to agree with Adam Smith and his invisible hand theory when it comes to the economy
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/17/2008 10:51:10 AM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 605
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
What part do I have to prove? That he owns more property therefore he pays more property taxes?
What I want is proof that he is paying his fair share. The problem I have is that people on the left say he is paying to little, people on the right say that he is paying too much. Neither one can justify their answer.
quote:
As for the discussion of property taxes.......if you cannot differentiate between property taxes (both real and personal) and stock holdings (what kind of stock are you talking about?......cattle?....futures??)....I'm fairly confident that most people realize that it is property taxes and/or personal taxes although here in Maine unless it is business property there are no personal property taxes levied against individuals
As to stock holdings, I am talking about his shares of microsoft and other companies. That is property too. It is the fact that the government protects property rights that makes these stocks valuable, so he gets quite a bit of benefit from the protection of property rights, since he owns quite a bit of shares of many companies. Does he pay his fair share of property taxes on his shares?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/17/2008 5:04:57 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
What part do I have to prove? That he owns more property therefore he pays more property taxes?
What I want is proof that he is paying his fair share. The problem I have is that people on the left say he is paying to little, people on the right say that he is paying too much. Neither one can justify their answer.
I base my assumption of his paying his "fair share" of property taxes on the fact that he is paying at the same mil rate as his neighbors. Does he pay more? Undoubtedly but since it is at the same mil rate then, imo, it is "fair"
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
As for the discussion of property taxes.......if you cannot differentiate between property taxes (both real and personal) and stock holdings (what kind of stock are you talking about?......cattle?....futures??)....I'm fairly confident that most people realize that it is property taxes and/or personal taxes although here in Maine unless it is business property there are no personal property taxes levied against individuals
As to stock holdings, I am talking about his shares of microsoft and other companies. That is property too. It is the fact that the government protects property rights that makes these stocks valuable, so he gets quite a bit of benefit from the protection of property rights, since he owns quite a bit of shares of many companies. Does he pay his fair share of property taxes on his shares?
It would be my contention that he actually pays more than his "fair share" since he is taxed at a higher rate! The company has to pay income taxes on the money that is distributed as dividends (usually at a rate in excess of 35%) and then Bill has to pay again on the exact same dollar at a rate of 31%. This same dollar that is paid out as a dividend has taxes of at least 65% paid on it and that is just the Federal level not including any State or local taxes that are levied. Where is the "fairness" in that?
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/17/2008 7:21:34 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 605
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
I base my assumption of his paying his "fair share" of property taxes on the fact that he is paying at the same mil rate as his neighbors. Does he pay more? Undoubtedly but since it is at the same mil rate then, imo, it is "fair"
Actually, this is the first time that I have heard a conservative claim that the rich are not overtaxed.
quote:
It would be my contention that he actually pays more than his "fair share" since he is taxed at a higher rate! The company has to pay income taxes on the money that is distributed as dividends (usually at a rate in excess of 35%) and then Bill has to pay again on the exact same dollar at a rate of 31%. This same dollar that is paid out as a dividend has taxes of at least 65% paid on it and that is just the Federal level not including any State or local taxes that are levied. Where is the "fairness" in that?
Aren't dividends taxed at 15%? So actually, if he receives income as dividends then he pays a lower individual tax rate on that income than most. Whether that is fair or not does not depend on the rate though. It depends on the benefit he gets from the government versus what he pays into the government.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/17/2008 9:20:31 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
I base my assumption of his paying his "fair share" of property taxes on the fact that he is paying at the same mil rate as his neighbors. Does he pay more? Undoubtedly but since it is at the same mil rate then, imo, it is "fair"
Actually, this is the first time that I have heard a conservative claim that the rich are not overtaxed.
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was related to proerty taxes and property taxes only.
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
It would be my contention that he actually pays more than his "fair share" since he is taxed at a higher rate! The company has to pay income taxes on the money that is distributed as dividends (usually at a rate in excess of 35%) and then Bill has to pay again on the exact same dollar at a rate of 31%. This same dollar that is paid out as a dividend has taxes of at least 65% paid on it and that is just the Federal level not including any State or local taxes that are levied. Where is the "fairness" in that?
Aren't dividends taxed at 15%? So actually, if he receives income as dividends then he pays a lower individual tax rate on that income than most. Whether that is fair or not does not depend on the rate though. It depends on the benefit he gets from the government versus what he pays into the government.
The company is still paying a rate of 35%; add the 15% personal and then add in the State and local and you are well over 60% which is waayyy tooo high!
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 11/17/2008 9:22:46 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 559
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
I base my assumption of his paying his "fair share" of property taxes on the fact that he is paying at the same mil rate as his neighbors. Does he pay more? Undoubtedly but since it is at the same mil rate then, imo, it is "fair"
Actually, this is the first time that I have heard a conservative claim that the rich are not overtaxed.
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was related to proerty taxes and property taxes only.
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
It would be my contention that he actually pays more than his "fair share" since he is taxed at a higher rate! The company has to pay income taxes on the money that is distributed as dividends (usually at a rate in excess of 35%) and then Bill has to pay again on the exact same dollar at a rate of 31%. This same dollar that is paid out as a dividend has taxes of at least 65% paid on it and that is just the Federal level not including any State or local taxes that are levied. Where is the "fairness" in that?
Aren't dividends taxed at 15%? So actually, if he receives income as dividends then he pays a lower individual tax rate on that income than most. Whether that is fair or not does not depend on the rate though. It depends on the benefit he gets from the government versus what he pays into the government.
The company is still paying a rate of 35%; add the 15% personal and then add in the State and local and you are well over 60% which is waayyy tooo high!
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
