Tax the rich? Tax everyone the same? No taxes at all? - Page 3 - Nubblies.net Forums

Mr. Blonde · 09-26-2011, 07:29 PM

Yeah, I think you're pretty much right. We have a world population of almost 7,000,000,000 people. Unfortunately, a large portion of those are going to end up unsatisfied and angry, and want to have somebody to take it out on. It's only natural I suppose. And then with every generation there are new trends and new media that seem to make them seem "different" from other generations, when really it's always been the same.

I wonder what the teenagers and 20-somethings of the year 2050 will be angry about?

Beebs · 09-26-2011, 09:07 PM

Why does nubblies do this to PR ?

Orgazmo · 09-26-2011, 09:18 PM

It automatically underlines and defines some acronyms. Not sure why really. It seems to really enjoy itself, though, so I think I'm just going to let it continue.

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 09-26-2011, 11:02 PM

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 09-26-2011, 11:03 PM

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 09-26-2011, 11:04 PM

Mr. Blonde · 09-27-2011, 02:28 AM

The Low-Down: Contrary To Popular Belief, Few Small Businesses Innovate

thekremlin · 09-27-2011, 03:46 AM

Cool article by Malcolm Gladwell that doesn't have much to do with taxes but has this nugget:

"Up until the 1960s, the gap between rich and poor in the United States was relatively narrow. In fact, in that era marginal tax rates in the highest income bracket were in excess of 90 percent. For every dollar you made above $250,000, you gave the government 90 cents."

Malcolm Gladwell on Bruce Ratner and the Barclays Center - Grantland

DDTempest · 09-27-2011, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

The Low-Down: Contrary To Popular Belief, Few Small Businesses Innovate

So the most important line in this article for me seems to be:

Quote:

Decades of economic theory "usually considers entrepreneurs" as people who "innovate and render aging technologies obsolete"

These aging technologies are in industries that have become monolithic ... vast empires if you will ... for example, telephone companies. Land lines are a couple of decades from being completely gone, few people keep them in their homes because it's a redundant cost. Fortunately a number of telephone companies have worked their way into cell phones / internet providing, but for every phone company keeping pace (while still thinning irrelevant jobs) there is a post service thinning jobs year after year in a shrinking industry that will never turn around. What sort of economic endgame is even possible in a world where the population continues to spiral upwards and new technologies are constantly popping up removing the jobs, relevance, and profitability from older companies?

Mr. Blonde · 10-13-2011, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Example with fake numbers:
You make $50,001 in a year.
1-10000 is taxed at 10% - This means $1000 of tax.
10001 - 25000 is taxed at 12.5% - This means 1875 of tax.
25001 - 50000 is taxed at 15% - This means 3750 of tax.
50001 - 100000 is taxed at 20%. - this means $0.20 of tax.
Had you made one dollar less you would have paid $0.20 less tax, but taken home $0.80 less.
This is how the United States tax system works for standard earned income. Earning more money does not retroactively tax you. Again, this does not hold true for capital gains, they operate differently.

I just heard this today. Is this truly how it works??? If so, why is this fact not commonly recognized?

DDTempest · 10-13-2011, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I just heard this today. Is this truly how it works??? If so, why is this fact not commonly recognized?

Are you trolling us?

DJ FC · 10-13-2011, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I just heard this today. Is this truly how it works??? If so, why is this fact not commonly recognized?

I think the concept of a marginal tax rate is commonly recognized. Either that or you just don't think about the issue at all. I mean how else would it work??? What else did you think it could be?

thekremlin · 10-13-2011, 08:22 AM

All-or-none.

Orgazmo · 10-13-2011, 09:05 AM

But...is it really possible for someone to think that earning an extra dollar could equate to actually taking less money home? (as would be the case in the all-or-none case)

DJ FC · 10-13-2011, 09:14 AM

In some special cases it is economically feasible.

http://mises.org/daily/3822

thekremlin · 10-13-2011, 09:41 AM

Hmm can we label welfare and antipoverty as a negative tax bracket?

DDTempest · 10-13-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ FC

In some special cases it is economically feasible.

The Dead Zone: The Implicit Marginal Tax Rate - Clifford F. Thies - Mises Daily

Can you translate this into lamen's terms?

DJ FC · 10-13-2011, 11:04 AM

There are circumstances where you can be wealthier by not working the next hour or earning the next dollar. If you receive lots of government assistance and it's tied to your income you could be better off not working harder or more.

DDTempest · 10-13-2011, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ FC

There are circumstances where you can be wealthier by not working the next hour or earning the next dollar. If you receive lots of government assistance and it's tied to your income you could be better off not working harder or more.

I got that part, just the explanations for the graphs were a bit convoluted.

thekremlin · 10-13-2011, 11:21 AM

So along that strip from around 0 to 40k where it is pretty much horizontal, for every dollar you earn, you basically sacrifice a dollar that you would have gotten from welfare/medicare/food stamps. So if you make 20k a year and someone tells you if you work extra hours you can make 30k, you would shrug because it would cost you that same 10k in extra taxes/loss of welfare. The fact that the line has a constant slope after 50k means that once you're in that range, you're pretty much taxed at a constant pace, which is surprising until you see that this is a family of 3, so 150k/annum is not rich by the US' standards. I would expect that line to flatten out a little farther down?

Mr. Blonde · 10-13-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDTempest

Are you trolling us?

No, I legitimately never have heard this and always assumed your entire income was taxed at a higher rate once you reached that limit (and assumed this was why people who had high income made such a huge tiff about it).

I am not alone in not knowing this: gearguy48 comments on What did you grow up being told by your family only to later find out was totally wrong?

Saint DH · 10-13-2011, 01:10 PM

I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more about the tax code than you know.

Mr. Blonde · 10-13-2011, 01:28 PM

Probably? I didn't study it in school.

Ugly Bastard · 10-13-2011, 01:39 PM

Blonde, here are the U.S. income tax brackets with a calculator if you want to tinker with seeing exactly what %age of your income gets taxed if you make $50k, $100k, $1m, etc...

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

DJ FC · 10-13-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Blonde, here are the U.S. income tax brackets with a calculator if you want to tinker with seeing exactly what %age of your income gets taxed if you make $50k, $100k, $1m, etc...

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

That's federal income tax only.

09-26-2011, 11:02 PM	#54 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,350 Internets: 290966	pr
	#YOLO

09-26-2011, 11:03 PM	#55 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,350 Internets: 290966	Pr
	#YOLO

09-26-2011, 11:04 PM	#56 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,350 Internets: 290966	prpr
	#YOLO

10-13-2011, 09:14 AM	#65 (permalink)
DJ FC MURICAN Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 5,136 Internets: 253094	In some special cases it is economically feasible. http://mises.org/daily/3822
	The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

10-13-2011, 11:04 AM	#68 (permalink)
DJ FC MURICAN Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 5,136 Internets: 253094	There are circumstances where you can be wealthier by not working the next hour or earning the next dollar. If you receive lots of government assistance and it's tied to your income you could be better off not working harder or more.
	The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

09-26-2011, 07:29 PM	#51 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	Yeah, I think you're pretty much right. We have a world population of almost 7,000,000,000 people. Unfortunately, a large portion of those are going to end up unsatisfied and angry, and want to have somebody to take it out on. It's only natural I suppose. And then with every generation there are new trends and new media that seem to make them seem "different" from other generations, when really it's always been the same. I wonder what the teenagers and 20-somethings of the year 2050 will be angry about?

09-26-2011, 09:07 PM	#52 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	Why does nubblies do this to PR ?

09-26-2011, 09:18 PM	#53 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,724 Internets: 311447	It automatically underlines and defines some acronyms. Not sure why really. It seems to really enjoy itself, though, so I think I'm just going to let it continue.

09-27-2011, 02:28 AM	#57 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	The Low-Down: Contrary To Popular Belief, Few Small Businesses Innovate

09-27-2011, 03:46 AM	#58 (permalink)
thekremlin Don't call me Shirley Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: London Posts: 3,271 Internets: 220249	Cool article by Malcolm Gladwell that doesn't have much to do with taxes but has this nugget: "Up until the 1960s, the gap between rich and poor in the United States was relatively narrow. In fact, in that era marginal tax rates in the highest income bracket were in excess of 90 percent. For every dollar you made above $250,000, you gave the government 90 cents." Malcolm Gladwell on Bruce Ratner and the Barclays Center - Grantland

10-13-2011, 08:22 AM	#63 (permalink)
thekremlin Don't call me Shirley Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: London Posts: 3,271 Internets: 220249	All-or-none.

10-13-2011, 09:05 AM	#64 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,724 Internets: 311447	But...is it really possible for someone to think that earning an extra dollar could equate to actually taking less money home? (as would be the case in the all-or-none case)

10-13-2011, 09:41 AM	#66 (permalink)
thekremlin Don't call me Shirley Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: London Posts: 3,271 Internets: 220249	Hmm can we label welfare and antipoverty as a negative tax bracket?

10-13-2011, 11:21 AM	#70 (permalink)
thekremlin Don't call me Shirley Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: London Posts: 3,271 Internets: 220249	So along that strip from around 0 to 40k where it is pretty much horizontal, for every dollar you earn, you basically sacrifice a dollar that you would have gotten from welfare/medicare/food stamps. So if you make 20k a year and someone tells you if you work extra hours you can make 30k, you would shrug because it would cost you that same 10k in extra taxes/loss of welfare. The fact that the line has a constant slope after 50k means that once you're in that range, you're pretty much taxed at a constant pace, which is surprising until you see that this is a family of 3, so 150k/annum is not rich by the US' standards. I would expect that line to flatten out a little farther down?

10-13-2011, 01:10 PM	#72 (permalink)
Saint DH Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,147 Internets: 284753	I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more about the tax code than you know.

10-13-2011, 01:28 PM	#73 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	Probably? I didn't study it in school.

10-13-2011, 01:39 PM	#74 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	Blonde, here are the U.S. income tax brackets with a calculator if you want to tinker with seeing exactly what %age of your income gets taxed if you make $50k, $100k, $1m, etc... Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I propose that Reagan wasn't as cool as FC thinks he was.	Mr. Blonde	Shit Talking Central	96	01-03-2012 01:00 PM
Europeans LOVE Obama	DJ FC	General Chat	4	11-06-2008 03:20 PM
The Surprising Borrowing Habits of the Rich	f3lix	News	4	02-08-2007 12:56 PM
Raise the Gas Tax	DJ FC	General Chat	17	10-31-2006 05:45 PM