Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 95
  1. #51
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Lower taxes, obviously.


    Simple exercise: research the most heavily taxed states and compare their economies with those that have lower tax burdens.


    Compare, let's say, California and New York with Texas and Utah.


  2. #52
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Simple exercise: research the most heavily taxed states and compare their economies with those that have lower tax burdens.


    Compare, let's say, California and New York with Texas and Utah.

    Just lower taxes to 3% and we'll have the greatest economy in the world.

    Of course, that 3% will go solely to the Defense budget.

  3. #53
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    And I'll say again that a 3% tax increase on income over $250K or $1MM is the least of their problems when it comes to creating jobs.

    so taxing someone who grosses $250,000 an extra $7500 on the $100,000(15% self-employment tax + 25% Federal Income Taxes) they already pay will create more jobs?

    That would net them about $10k per month. $3k mortgage, $1k car expenses, $1k utilities, $1k food, $1k kids, $1k college, $1k retirement savings, $1k emergency/vacation/living/entertainment etc....

    Leaves a lot of room to create jobs.

    http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxe...ket-rates.aspx
    Last edited by 2centsworth; 02-07-2011 at 11:04 PM.

  4. #54
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221

  5. #55
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    so taxing someone who grosses $250,000 an extra $7500 on the $100,000(15% self-employment tax + 25% Federal Income Taxes) they already pay will create more jobs?

    That would net them about $10k per month. $3k mortgage, $1k car expenses, $1k utilities, $1k food, $1k kids, $1k college, $1k retirement savings, $1k emergency/vacation/living/entertainment etc....

    Leaves a lot of room to create jobs.

    http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxe...ket-rates.aspx
    That's not how it works. The extra 3% is on income ABOVE $250K. So if someone makes $350K they would pay an extra $3,000 in taxes per year, or $250 per month.

  6. #56
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    That's not how it works. The extra 3% is on income ABOVE $250K. So if someone makes $350K they would pay an extra $3,000 in taxes per year, or $250 per month.
    wrong.

  7. #57
    "We'll do it this time" Bartleby's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    2,665
    Simple exercise: research the most heavily taxed states and compare their economies with those that have lower tax burdens.


    Compare, let's say, California and New York with Texas and Utah.

    Maybe too simple. What aspects of their economies are you comparing?

  8. #58
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    Seriously?

    So based on your understanding of the current tax brackets, if I received a raise from $67,500 annual salary to $68,001, married and filing jointly, I would move into the 25% tax bracket and therefore pay 25% of my income to federal taxes, which equates to more than $6,000 more than I paid in taxes when I made $501 less?

    Federal Tax Brackets Married Filing Jointly
    10% Tax Bracket $0 – $16,750
    15% Tax Bracket $16,750 – $68,000
    25% Tax Bracket $68,000 – $137,300
    28% Tax Bracket $137,300 – $209,250
    33% Tax Bracket $209,250 – $373,650
    35% Tax Bracket Over $373,650

  9. #59
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    Seriously?

    So based on your understanding of the current tax brackets, if I received a raise from $67,500 annual salary to $68,001, married and filing jointly, I would move into the 25% tax bracket and therefore pay 25% of my income to federal taxes, which equates to more than $6,000 more than I paid in taxes when I made $501 less?

    Federal Tax Brackets Married Filing Jointly
    10% Tax Bracket $0 – $16,750
    15% Tax Bracket $16,750 – $68,000
    25% Tax Bracket $68,000 – $137,300
    28% Tax Bracket $137,300 – $209,250
    33% Tax Bracket $209,250 – $373,650
    35% Tax Bracket Over $373,650
    If you "the worker" made 68,001 you would pay about $3000 in federal income taxes.

  10. #60
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    Let me start over.

    If the Bush tax cuts had not been extended, how much more in tax would be paid by someone making $250K and $350K?

  11. #61
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    Let me start over.

    If the Bush tax cuts had not been extended, how much more in tax would be paid by someone making $250K and $350K?
    that extra $100k cost about $50k in taxes. if you think adding more to the bill creates jobs sobeit.

  12. #62
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    if you think adding more to the bill creates jobs sobeit.
    Cutting taxes hasn't been a big jobs builder either, judging from the last ten years

  13. #63
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Targeting the megarich for tax breaks maybe wasn't the most effective policy, but it is still very popular.

  14. #64
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    Cutting taxes hasn't been a big jobs builder either, judging from the last ten years
    if you use the unemployment rate as a measuring stick, you're wrong. now if you want to argue the cuts were too concentrated or there should have been more regulation I'm all ears.

  15. #65
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    Targeting the megarich for tax breaks maybe wasn't the most effective policy, but it is still very popular.
    Megarich weren't targeted, but I understand the political mileage the left gets with that.

  16. #66
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    if you use the unemployment rate as a measuring stick, you're wrong.
    I'm from Missouri. Show me.
    now if you want to argue the cuts were too concentrated or there should have been more regulation I'm all ears.
    I suggested the first and agree with the latter.

  17. #67
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Megarich weren't targeted, but I understand the political mileage the left gets with that.
    Whatever gets you through the night.

  18. #68
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    that extra $100k cost about $50k in taxes. if you think adding more to the bill creates jobs sobeit.
    I honestly don't know where you're getting your math.

    The Democrats proposed extending the tax cuts only on income below $250K. That means only income above $250K would see a tax increase. That tax increase would have been 3.6%, returning the top marginal rate back to 38.6% vs. 35%. I don't see how that could possibly be a $50K tax increase for someone making $350K.

    And I never said increasing taxes creates jobs. I said a small increase is the least of small business owners' worries.

  19. #69
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    If the megarich weren't a target then why were Republicans willing to let the tax cuts expire for everyone unless the megarich also got their cuts extended?

  20. #70
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    I honestly don't know where you're getting your math.

    The Democrats proposed extending the tax cuts only on income below $250K. That means only income above $250K would see a tax increase. That tax increase would have been 3.6%, returning the top marginal rate back to 38.6% vs. 35%. I don't see how that could possibly be a $50K tax increase for someone making $350K.

    And I never said increasing taxes creates jobs. I said a small increase is the least of small business owners' worries.
    $100,000 in increased marginal income. you admit federal income taxes on that would be $35,000. Add self employment taxes and you get about $50,000 in taxes. You want to add to the bill sobeit, but federal income taxes are NOT the least of a business owners worries.

  21. #71
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    If the megarich weren't a target then why were Republicans willing to let the tax cuts expire for everyone unless the megarich also got their cuts extended?
    both parties are re ed. I would argue you have the political wool pulled over your eyes.

    Any tax increase in this environment, except for people earning millions a year is going to hurt.

    nevertheless, the entire premise of raising taxes to offset expenditures is flawed.

  22. #72
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    $100,000 in increased marginal income. you admit federal income taxes on that would be $35,000. Add self employment taxes and you get about $50,000 in taxes. You want to add to the bill sobeit, but federal income taxes are NOT the least of a business owners worries.
    They were already paying $35K on that additional $100K with their tax cut; eliminate the cut they would be paying $38.6K. That's an increase of $3,600 from extending the tax cuts.

    I was not aware that the Bush tax cuts had any effect on the self employment tax.

  23. #73
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    And I'll say again that a 3% tax increase on income over $250K or $1MM is the least of their problems when it comes to creating jobs.
    It may be the least of their problems, but it is another problem they don't need to force on employers.

  24. #74
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    No, I was just trying to get it to a level you could understand.









    HA! man you left yourself open for that zinger. To hard to resist.
    Wow...

    You are so ignorant, you think you got me...

  25. #75
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    I would argue you have the political wool pulled over your eyes.
    No, I wanted the cuts to expire for everyone. But I'm under no delusion that the tax cuts weren't intended to benefit the wealthy. To believe that would take more than wool, it's kool-aid.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •