Reply With Quote
Midnight pulp has picked the bone out of that Jungle monkey's fro thus causing him to ferociously throw feces at everyone.
Koolaid Man: Low level primate
Everyone else : winners
I realize you may get stuck in a OCD cycle tonight...So I will holla at you tomorrow if I think your next insane rationale requires a response. lol
Now bring your accountant on ...
Midnight pulp has picked the bone out of that Jungle monkey's fro thus causing him to ferociously throw feces at everyone.
Koolaid Man: Low level primate
Everyone else : winners
The only way low level primates get OCD is buy snorting crack. that's if you consider the side effects of licking your teeth and scratching your face as OCD.
Other's get it because it correlates with an epistemoligical-phsycological genius.
Please explain to me how Derek Fisher, who earned his 45 million dollar net worth from SALARY, which is taxed by the MARGINAL RATE, would pay an EFFECTIVE RATE of 15-20% when he can't report one penny of that 45 million as capital gains? What possible deductions can he claim that would cut into his taxable income to such a degree it would place him in a lower bracket? And no, medical bills and airplanes (lol) would not suffice in this instance.Mr. OCD - Let's get past your cloud of "nothing-ness" so that I can explain it yet again in laymen terms..in my example due to the deductions the effective tax rates based solely on individual income ( not even factoring capital gains) is still less than 20%. Example - in 2007 ( I think that was the year) overall across the nation effective tax rate was less than 15% and we're trending downwards in the last couple of years due to the worsening economy.
I would suggest that you look up the definitions for effective tax rate and marginal tax rate since you seem to imply that 35% is the effective tax rate. No one pays 35% on total gross income and especially not million and billionaires... Your argument is pretty comical...those who lack the knowledge might actually think you're right..But I dare you to bring an accountant on this site and challenge my authority on this issue.
and yes I'm not only a trendsetter I'm a jetsetter as well...Now can I have my house back...
If a millionaire only earns his money from salary, you bet he's paying 35%. And I never implied 35% is the "effective rate." Where did you get that idea? I broke it down in my previous post how a CEO would manipulate things to only pay a 15-20% effective rate, by reporting the majority of his income resulting from capital gains. The article you linked illustrates how they achieve this, by reporting 2/3rd of their income as capital gains. Again, FISHER CAN'T DO THAT.
2/3rd of Fisher's income DOES NOT COME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, therefore, he's paying the marginal rate of 35% on that 45 million. What don't you understand?
Last edited by midnightpulp; 09-07-2011 at 12:01 AM.
You're knowledgeable about this stuff.
How in the would a salaried millionaire like Derek Fisher skew things in such a way to only pay 20% taxes?
Primate Kool thinks that by linking an article that shows how the 400 wealthiest Americans pay an effective tax rate of 15% precisely because they report the majority of their income as capital gains somehow proves that Derek Fisher, a salaried NBA player, pays 15% as well.
From Primate's article:
"The first, and most visually apparent, is that the tax rates of the rich are far more closely linked to the capital gains taxes than income taxes. Salaries and wages, the source of income taxed at the blue line, represented only 6.5 percent of these filers’ income. "
I ask you again, Kool. Can Fish report that only 6.5 percent of his 45 million career earnings came from salary?
Obviously not. 100% came from salary, thus Fish would have to pay 35% on any amount above 300K, after deducting the cost of medical bills and airplanes of course
Last edited by midnightpulp; 09-07-2011 at 12:23 AM.
lol tired old bag Fisher
I'm a trend setter.
I set trends.
8
Oh wait, no
Skunker
No. It's The Skunker!!!
lmemulatedao!
lmcontrollinao!!!
This. So that means Duncan >>>>>>>>>>> Kobe with his stacked team
You're knowledgeable about this stuff.
How in the would a salaried millionaire like Derek Fisher skew things in such a way to only pay 20% taxes?
Primate Kool thinks that by linking an article that shows how the 400 wealthiest Americans pay an effective tax rate of 15% precisely because they report the majority of their income as capital gains somehow proves that Derek Fisher, a salaried NBA player, pays 15% as well.
From Primate's article:
"The first, and most visually apparent, is that the tax rates of the rich are far more closely linked to the capital gains taxes than income taxes. Salaries and wages, the source of income taxed at the blue line, represented only 6.5 percent of these filers’ income. "
I ask you again, Kool. Can Fish report that only 6.5 percent of his 45 million career earnings came from salary?
Obviously not. 100% came from salary, thus Fish would have to pay 35% on any amount above 300K, after deducting the cost of medical bills and airplanes of course
The fallacy of your argument and what you don't understand is that it's a graduated tax scale. I've laid this out many times for you. No one as I repeated pays 35% on their gross taxable income.
The tax tables are designed as such that your incremental income are taxed at the higher rates. It seems you understand this only slightly. We don't know what capital gains he does or does not have. His NBA money doesn't mean he does not have capital gains. If he has capital gains then likely he has capital losses which are also deductible.
Regardless whether we're talking capital gains or income taxes your whole scenario completely disregards he gets to takes deductions from his gross taxable income, effectively lowering his tax rate.
Why do I get into it with people who have OCD and other mental disorders I have no idea...it's like arguing with re eds and it's just plain wrong.
Do you understand that after a certain amount (I think around 300K) the progressive structure (10% on your first 8K, 15% on the next 15K, etc) no longer applies and you have to pay 35% on every dollar earned? Oh:
The fallacy of your argument and what you don't understand is that it's a graduated tax scale. I've laid this out many times for you. No one as I repeated pays 35% on their gross taxable income.
The tax tables are designed as such that your incremental income are taxed at the higher rates. It seems you understand this only slightly. We don't know what capital gains he does or does not have. His NBA money doesn't mean he does not have capital gains. If he has capital gains then likely he has capital losses which are also deductible.
Regardless whether we're talking capital gains or income taxes your whole scenario completely disregards he gets to takes deductions from his gross taxable income, effectively lowering his tax rate.
Why do I get into it with people who have OCD and other mental disorders I have no idea...it's like arguing with re eds and it's just plain wrong.
"In 2003, for example, the United States imposed a 35 percent tax on every dollar of taxable income above $155,975 earned by a married taxpayer filing separately. But that tax bracket applied only to earnings above that $155,975 threshold;"
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/M...lTaxRates.html
Fisher far exceeds the 155K threshold, therefore he would be paying close to 35 percent on his total salaried earnings.
He made roughly an average of 4 million per year over his career, now tell me, what deductions can he possibly claim that would subtract so substantial an amount it would place him in a lower bracket? Even if he earned 1 million net a year, he'd still be paying 35% on roughly 845K.
Look, I'll be real with you for a second and admit you know what you're talking about (Yes, I've seen you say your degree is in accounting), but what's happening here is that I caught you making an incorrect statement (that Fish would only pay 15%), and whether than admit error, you're trying to spin your way out of it.
It's simple, as illustrated by the tax bracket, a salaried earner (which Fisher is) would have to pay 35% on every dollar over 155K.
Please elaborate for me how he would contrive it so that he would only be paying 15%?
I will give you credit for two things. 1.) Trying and 2.) Forcing me to temporarily suspend my posting style while at the same time exposing the fact that I really don't have a chimp brain.
My degree(s) are not in accounting, economics, or international business
Your last post proves my point.
The operative words in this sentence is TAXABLE INCOME; again taxable income is AFTER the numerous deductions and credits that the Federal government allows to offset gross income; since we don’t know Fishers exact tax situation and all the deductions/credits he could possibly take against his adjusted GROSS earnings of $45m, I used an estimated average tax rate which is less than the statutory tax rate of 35% and applied that percentage to the adjusted GROSS income)"In 2003, for example, the United States imposed a 35 percent tax on every dollar of taxable income above $155,975 earned by a married taxpayer filing separately. But that tax bracket applied only to earnings above that $155,975 threshold;"
I should make you research this on your own but this is a teachable or pimpology moment for Kool. Before you review the Congressional Budget Office data let Chimp Brain Kool walk you through it ( very slowly):
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...endix_wtoc.pdf
You will want to look at the second set of graphs (on page 12) which relates to households with children. So the very first graph is all federal taxes and the overall effective tax rate by quintile of household income (read the section at the beginning of the graph). The 2nd graph after that relates specifically to individual income tax (i.e. this would exclude social security and any other sources by which the federal government gets tax revenue...those items are broken out separately below the individual income tax graph). But even if you go back to the top and look at the overall (i.e. average among all households those with children and those without (we know children reduce your tax burden even further), the effective for the top (which Derek Fisher is not in) is still less than 20%.
Mid you don’t quite understand effective versus absolute tax rate. Yes, Fisher may be in the 35% tax rate bracket, but as a percentage of his gross taxable income, his actual tax liability is less than 35%
Look closely at the CBO graphs I linked. You will see that the overall (i.e. all federal taxes) for the top 1% of earners (the far right column and which likely includes corporations) is above the 20% but if you go to the middle column (All quintiles which is all tax paying en ies I suppose) and look at the average for 2005 it is just above 20% at 20.5%. However, if you go to the left 2 columns over and look at the 4th quintile (which still might be high for Derek’s income level) it is below 20% and drops from there, and this is looking at the nation as a whole for all federal taxes. If you go to the graph just below it, you will see the same information that relates to individual income taxes only (which is what we're talking about). This shows that even for the top 1%, it is still less than 20%, and if you go to the national average it is under 10%, so from this, my 15% is a conservative number.
You are not alone mid...many people don't understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates and they don't understand the wide gap between the two. Since you don't understand it you simplify it into marginal-rate comparisons like you've clearly done here. Is it (marginal rates) part of the total tax picture , sure, but it's a poor way to simplify a complex system. You laughed when I first exposed you to effective tax rates but they are a much better measure because they accurately measure what people actually pay.
Obama and his crew totally gets it and I'm on board with what they're trying to do because unlike most people here I actually understand it. Don't get bogged down in wedge issues.
Lastly props to Van Jones he's my homie as well. Gotta run the brilliant legal mind Kevin Sr. is ringing me from long distance.
How many food stamps did you give a starving Economics major to write that out for you?I will give you credit for two things. 1.) Trying and 2.) Forcing me to temporarily suspend my posting style while at the same time exposing the fact that I really don't have a chimp brain.
My degree(s) are not in accounting, economics, or international business
Your last post proves my point.
The operative words in this sentence is TAXABLE INCOME; again taxable income is AFTER the numerous deductions and credits that the Federal government allows to offset gross income; since we don’t know Fishers exact tax situation and all the deductions/credits he could possibly take against his adjusted GROSS earnings of $45m, I used an estimated average tax rate which is less than the statutory tax rate of 35% and applied that percentage to the adjusted GROSS income)
I should make you research this on your own but this is a teachable or pimpology moment for Kool. Before you review the Congressional Budget Office data let Chimp Brain Kool walk you through it ( very slowly):
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...endix_wtoc.pdf
You will want to look at the second set of graphs (on page 12) which relates to households with children. So the very first graph is all federal taxes and the overall effective tax rate by quintile of household income (read the section at the beginning of the graph). The 2nd graph after that relates specifically to individual income tax (i.e. this would exclude social security and any other sources by which the federal government gets tax revenue...those items are broken out separately below the individual income tax graph). But even if you go back to the top and look at the overall (i.e. average among all households those with children and those without (we know children reduce your tax burden even further), the effective for the top (which Derek Fisher is not in) is still less than 20%.
Mid you don’t quite understand effective versus absolute tax rate. Yes, Fisher may be in the 35% tax rate bracket, but as a percentage of his gross taxable income, his actual tax liability is less than 35%
Look closely at the CBO graphs I linked. You will see that the overall (i.e. all federal taxes) for the top 1% of earners (the far right column and which likely includes corporations) is above the 20% but if you go to the middle column (All quintiles which is all tax paying en ies I suppose) and look at the average for 2005 it is just above 20% at 20.5%. However, if you go to the left 2 columns over and look at the 4th quintile (which still might be high for Derek’s income level) it is below 20% and drops from there, and this is looking at the nation as a whole for all federal taxes. If you go to the graph just below it, you will see the same information that relates to individual income taxes only (which is what we're talking about). This shows that even for the top 1%, it is still less than 20%, and if you go to the national average it is under 10%, so from this, my 15% is a conservative number.
You are not alone mid...many people don't understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates and they don't understand the wide gap between the two. Since you don't understand it you simplify it into marginal-rate comparisons like you've clearly done here. Is it (marginal rates) part of the total tax picture , sure, but it's a poor way to simplify a complex system. You laughed when I first exposed you to effective tax rates but they are a much better measure because they accurately measure what people actually pay.
Obama and his crew totally gets it and I'm on board with what they're trying to do because unlike most people here I actually understand it. Don't get bogged down in wedge issues.
Lastly props to Van Jones he's my homie as well. Gotta run the brilliant legal mind Kevin Sr. is ringing me from long distance.
500 homie...you know it...I'm holding Jr down with these...Sorry Deepy...
Kevin
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
