|
If you like social mobility, you should be ok with HENRYs. They are the socially mobile: no assets, but have managed to get on the path to owning them. This is understandably very annoying if you’re not on the same path (or are on the same path but with less: when I was working as a corporate lawyer, I was deeply resentful of the guys my age working in bulge bracket banks and investment funds making say 120-300% of what I was earning). After I quit law and my salary rebalanced to normal levels, I oddly felt a lot less resentful about income and suddenly overall wealth seemed a lot more important. If you believe that merit alone governs distribution of income - nobody is stupid enough to think that it governs distribution of assets - then you probably think it’s fair that HENRYs earn what they do, and also, I have a bridge to sell you. But if you can accept that it’s unfair in a way that’s not important compared to inequality in assets, you’re more likely to fix the actual problem. Like, let’s say you tax income at 100% on all earnings above median salary. Great. The social order is totally entrenched at this point. HENRYs are annoying, but that’s not the same as being the problem that needs fixing. Honestly a global 100% estate tax would be the best fix, but not much chance of that.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I mean yeah? When people are proposing reactions to this bill that are more handouts to the rich under the guise of #resistance, while making spurious arguments based on bad data, handwaving, outright lies, and temporarily-embarassed-millionaire reasoning that they're just one certificate away from pulling down $200k in Fairfax County and then they'll be the ones benefiting from the Democratic Party's turn to the rich, it's probably worthwhile to make an argument against bad policy and debunk the bad reasoning being trotted out to support more tax cuts? I am arguing it is as stupid policy not a 'handout to the rich'. People are simply trying to explain that 200k in fairfax county is different than 200k in jefferson county, AL. Also, the 'wealthy' are going around it. Also, married couples get hosed harder than individual filers since the deduction is 10k for both. I can't wait til all the 'wealthy' put their houses in a trust and gets an uncapped SALT deduction. So is a married couple in FairFax County earning 200k with 3 kids 'wealthy'? What about 2 computer janitors in the Bay? Whatever, this argument is dumb. I'm done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
There's not a single solution anyone in this thread is going to come up with that will ever make it's way to someone with the power to actually do something or that will ever see the light of day except through multiple discovery/origination. So by all means, continue the impotent verbal slap fights to stoke your superiority complexes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:There's not a single solution anyone in this thread is going to come up with that will ever make it's way to someone with the power to actually do something or that will ever see the light of day except through multiple discovery/origination. So by all means, continue the impotent verbal slap fights to stoke your superiority complexes. OK close thread/forums then, no one in power will ever read it so debate and discussion on any subject is pointless pkay posted:I am arguing it is as stupid policy not a 'handout to the rich'. People are simply trying to explain that 200k in fairfax county is different than 200k in jefferson county, AL. Also, the 'wealthy' are going around it. Also, married couples get hosed harder than individual filers since the deduction is 10k for both. I can't wait til all the 'wealthy' put their houses in a trust and gets an uncapped SALT deduction. If the truly wealthy don't pay income taxes on their State and Local Taxes because they will just get around it with their magic wealthy powers, then capping the deduction wouldn't have been necessary to fit the tax bill under $1.5T. Duh. You can't put your own house in a trust to evade property taxes, because a trust must pay the property taxes on any property it owns, if you could then the wealthy would never pay property taxes now and the deduction cap would have no effect on the budget nor would it have any effect on public school funding. It's weird how so many Democrats still fall for conservative framing. Almost all of the former uncapped SALT deduction went to the wealthy (>88% of it) because, like all uncapped deductions they benefit the wealthy more because they all itemize and because having a higher marginal rate means deductions are more valuable to them, but here I am reading the same argument conservatives make against the estate tax "oh the wealthy will always find a way around it so no point in taxes then" pkay posted:So is a married couple in FairFax County earning 200k with 3 kids 'wealthy'? What about 2 computer janitors in the Bay? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
I'm sorry but using property taxes to fund schools Is the best way to fund them. If you use anything else it's gonna be a major pain in the rear end. Property taxes are the only thing both businesses and individuals are going to pay at a similar rate. Raising income taxes and business taxes are not going to be popular and properties loving need to be taxed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:10
|
|
|
TheNewt posted:I'm sorry but using property taxes to fund schools Is the best way to fund them. Pooled and redistributed at the state level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Pooled and redistributed at the state level. Whoa get a load of crazy guy over here with his crazy ideas about equitable school funding. That's crazy talk. Insanity. How will such a cockamamie plan ever get tax breaks into the hands of high earners?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
looks like vitalsigns also posts on AskTheDonald
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Pooled and redistributed at the state level. As a filthy Euro socialist I would say to pool and redistribute at the Federal level because you just know how the red states will distribute the money. Also it should be weighted to disadvantaged children, so the more in poverty children a school has, the more money they get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:looks like vitalsigns also posts on AskTheDonald An argument doesn't become false just because a Republican or a Trumper makes it, guy. Do you think Trump ragging on Bush's Iraq War means the Iraq War was good too? E: Isn't this the same deflection that comes up every time a Dem takes bribes from Wall Street or Big Pharma? Find a Republican disingenuously criticizing this, and then magically it becomes okay and anyone who criticizes blowjobs for the rich can be smeared as a secret Republican, get a new playbook lol, most Americans aren't interested in rhetorical games Democrats play to justify being Republican-lite. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
Helith posted:As a filthy Euro socialist I would say to pool and redistribute at the Federal level because you just know how the red states will distribute the money. Also it should be weighted to disadvantaged children, so the more in poverty children a school has, the more money they get. This is a great idea, and if it wouldn’t cause Civil War II electric boogaloo that would be even better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:An argument doesn't become false just because a Republican or a Trumper makes it, guy. i wasn't being serious man, i just thought it was funny
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ra9cXx1-o
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No that's not how the deduction cap works. The SALT deduction does not affect blue state budgets at all, provided said blue states don't cater to the rich by deliberately cutting state taxes to offset the imposition of the cap. The deduction, like all tax deductions, basically subsidizes certain activities, in this case state spending. States are able to raise a certain amount of money without increasing the tax burden on their citizens. The idea behind getting rid of the SALT deduction is to pressure high tax/high service states to cut their taxes and spending by taking away that subsidy. It's good that states are finding creative solutions to get that lost federal subsidy, certainly that's a better solution than just allowing the tax burden on citizens to increase which would 1. be politically bad for democratic governments and 2. Have all of the usual costs of raising taxes. You're confused because you are a dumb liberal. Smart liberals know that raising taxes involves costs but think increased revenue (and the spending that can accompany this) is often an outweighing benefit. Dumb liberals think that raising taxes involves no costs at all. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:11
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The deduction, like all tax deductions, basically subsidizes certain activities, in this case state spending. States are able to raise a certain amount of money without increasing the tax burden on their citizens. The idea behind getting rid of the SALT deduction is to pressure high tax/high service states to cut their taxes and spending by taking away that subsidy. It's good that states are finding creative solutions to get that lost federal subsidy, certainly that's a better solution than just allowing the tax burden on citizens to increase which would 1. be politically bad for democratic governments and 2. Have all of the usual costs of raising taxes. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The deduction, like all tax deductions, basically subsidizes certain activities, in this case state spending. States are able to raise a certain amount of money without increasing the tax burden on their citizens. The idea behind getting rid of the SALT deduction is to pressure high tax/high service states to cut their taxes and spending by taking away that subsidy. It's good that states are finding creative solutions to get that lost federal subsidy, certainly that's a better solution than just allowing the tax burden on citizens to increase which would 1. be politically bad for democratic governments and 2. Have all of the usual costs of raising taxes. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:
 Pretty much all of this is wrong. The tax "burden" on Americans was lowered dramatically, not raised, blue states have plenty of room to raise taxes without increasing corporate and personal tax burdens above last year's (and lol at describing taking money the rich don't need and spending on things the poor and middle classes do need as a "burden"), revenue which is desperately needed to fix failing infrastructure and education and health care from decades of federal neglect. The exception is a small number of rich people (I know I know, this doesn't Ifeel true) who fall in a donut hole which I've shown is approximately between 220k and 800k or so in high tax states (I know I know this doesn't feel rich because the Joneses can afford a nicer car than you), a small group of people who are irrelevant to Democratic governments or should be, and who anyway paid higher taxes in recent decades without a problem. They are not hurting, the people hosed over by decades of Reaganism are hurting, and blue states desperately need to be raising money to fix these problems and new ones being created by Republicans in Washington, not fighting to restore deductions for a small group of rich people most of whom are coming out ahead under this bill anyway. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:56
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The deduction, like all tax deductions, basically subsidizes certain activities, in this case state spending. States are able to raise a certain amount of money without increasing the tax burden on their citizens. The idea behind getting rid of the SALT deduction is to pressure high tax/high service states to cut their taxes and spending by taking away that subsidy. It's good that states are finding creative solutions to get that lost federal subsidy, certainly that's a better solution than just allowing the tax burden on citizens to increase which would 1. be politically bad for democratic governments and 2. Have all of the usual costs of raising taxes. Basically, this. He doesn't seem to understand that it has the opposite effect of what he wants. What do you think these municipalities are going to do with sales tax? Who would be more effected by these changes in sales taxes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:23
|
|
|
I'm just smdh at anyone who thinks that any state is going to raise their corporate tax rates when the race to the bottom on that end is long since over and done with. Look at the insanity surrounding the Amazon bidding war and tell me with a straight face that any state or city in this loving country is ever going to raise their corporate tax rate. They're basically to the point where they are paying them to open up shop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
1. The reason not all people in that donut hole are rich is not (as people have been telling you) that they don't "feel" rich, it's that wealth and income are different things and one is much more important than the other. 2. Even if some or most of those burdened by the loss of SALT come ahead in the new tax bill overall, surly it's still bad policy to just acquiesce to the federal GOP attempt to shift some of the burden of funding state governments which had been borne by the federal government onto state taxpayers? Helping state governments work is one of the things the federal government is loving for. I know you want to eat the rich or whatever, but you're literally defending a cut in federal aid to states just to stick it to some people you resent. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
'Rich' is different in different regions. The effect is cumulative too. As places with higher property value homes also tend to have higher local taxes as a percentage. Also, other cost like utilities and fuel tend to also cost more. 350k: NOVA vs BHM NOVA: http://u.zillow.com/p3VP4L/ BHM: http://u.zillow.com/poId/ How are you not understanding this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
As another filthy euro socialist, I'm always amazed by the incredible disparity I see every time someone starts throwing around numbers when talking about US incomes and house sizes. I live in a country (a first world country where, afaik, I'm not missing anything I can get in the US as far as "good things in life" go) where a couple making 100k/y (gross) and living in a city is considered middle class and a 150sq meters house (or a 3-4 br house) would be a sign of being quite wealthy (compared to the average income/house). And when I say gross, I mean that at least a third of that is going into taxes (with higher gains being taxed up to around 50%). I guess labor tax is incredibly low in the US? That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:42
|
|
|
dont ruin page 6000 with this dumbass derail
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:46
|
|
|
As a European who doesn't really understand anything about the US, let me offer you my incredibly valuable insights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:As a European who doesn't really understand anything about the US, let me offer you my incredibly valuable insights. We didn't fight three wars against European powers and win them all to hear your insights. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:1. The reason not all people in that donut hole are rich is not (as people have been telling you) that they don't "feel" rich, it's that wealth and income are different things and one is much more important than the other. This isn't a cut in federal aid to states, it has zero effect on state revenue and there's no need for states to cut revenue in response. It has nothing to do with resentment, I'm making factual arguments backed up by tax and income data that what you're proposing is an unnecessary tax cut for people who don't need it, and no one has been able to offer evidence against this argument that hasn't fallen apart under mild scrutiny. But it's obviously an impossible discussion to have with a certain class of people because affluence fragility kicks in and all I get back is qqing that facts aren't fair to use in an argument and I'm so mean and ungrateful and I must hate them personally blah blah because a dared insinuate that my meritocratic betters won't hurt even if they have to contribute a little more to the country that made them rich after so many years of historically low taxes 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This isn't a cut in federal aid to states, it has zero effect on state revenue and there's no need for states to cut revenue in response. 1. It certainly is a cut in federal aid to the states. That's true even if states still receive the same revenue, which they won't in the long run because: 2. Unless states find a creative way to get back the federal aid, they will face pressure to cut spending, and eventually they probably will in some way. That's why the GOP wanted to cap SALT, which they see as a federal subsidy for high tax states. And they're right to see it that way, that's what it is. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:As a European who doesn't really understand anything about the US, let me offer you my incredibly valuable insights. that person was talking in good faith, asked a genuine question, and international comparisons are not entirely besides the point. no need to be an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
I see y'all are still arguing with the low-information poster who didn't know state income taxes were a thing until like two pages ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
All I want to know is if the unhinged poor are getting taxed more
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
vital signs pulled an all nighter just to poo poo up the thread. amazing dedication in the new year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
In honor of page 6000 and this one guy that thinks he has to reply to every goddamn post:
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I see y'all are still arguing with the low-information poster who didn't know state income taxes were a thing until like two pages ago. It’s hard to see his argument in good faith either. The deduction is taken out of context completely and makes it seem like a defense of the new horrible tax plan. Should we tax people making 75k+ a year more? Sure, we should increase their rates a reasonable amount and that would be great. We can pay off some deficits, expand current programs, and create new ones. But increasing the taxes on people making high five to low six figures while giving massive handouts to billionaires and huge corporations, destroying the budget so we will be “forced” to cut essential funding to Medicaid and SS is complete bullshit and it should make you frothing mad, even if you think we should start a 90% income tax above 50k/year. Congratulations for playing directly into the hands of the Kochs and Waltons who pillage our natural resources and exploit labor grotesquely while they make some extra tens of millions of dollars they’ll never need. Keep focusing that argumentative drive towards people that are mostly working professionals doing skilled labor. Even people making 300k aren’t getting close to the capitalist class. They could (and should) be taxed more, but not so the oligarchs can be taxed less at a rate that still results in a net loss of tax revenue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/948011169746440192?s=17
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
No one misses him. Not even his wife. Especially his wife.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
Oh bless his heart
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:No one misses him. Not even his wife. Especially his wife. I miss him
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realpresssecbot/status/948164732363554816
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
That last line could also be said about Puerto Rico
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
CyberPingu posted:That last line could also be said about Puerto Rico Pretty sure you could convince Trump that they're suffering under the tyranny of the Iranians as well. It might get him to loving do something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:23
|
|