BMW i
Forum for the BMW i3, i4 and i8
BMW i3 BMW i8
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

  BMW i Forums > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-07-2019, 06:42 PM   #67
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
15449
Rep
7,546
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
That's great and all if all your income was via a payroll. But that's not how the 1% in the US get their money.

A flat tax wouldn't work in that case either.
This is what I advocate:

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 1
      01-07-2019, 06:44 PM   #68
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
15449
Rep
7,546
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000cs View Post
Average taxes paid (percentage, rate) are interesting, but marginal tax rates are what influence behavior. If my next dollar of income is taxed at 40%, I think a lot about whether to earn it, defer it, or seek some other benefit, not taxed, in its place. At that rate it doesn’t make sense for my spouse to work unless her nominal wage is over $20/hr and likely over $30 because the net take home pay isn’t worth it to us. If the marginal rate is 70% and my income is high enough to face it (or even the higher intermediate brackets which would be part of this, too), then I’m moving income (assets that generate income) to tax havens, hiring attorneys and tax CPAs and taking advantage of every wrinkle in the tax code to avoid paying it. I’d probably set up a charitable foundation, as one example. Since most everyone in those brackets will do the same, tax revenue (dollars taken in by Gov’t) will not match the forecast and may even fall since the strategies can impact most or all income, not just that last, or marginal, dollar.

Worth remembering that when marginal rates were high, there were lots of “loopholes” (legal tax avoidance opportunities). Most of those were closed over time, so a high marginal rate today would likely see much more extreme response.
High rates dis-incent success and penalize those who contribute to the society monetarily.
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 5
City Pig6102.00
2000cs1026.00
Dave 90TT1608.50
cmyx6go2304.50
sirdaft11982.00

      01-07-2019, 06:49 PM   #69
City Pig
Lieutenant Colonel
City Pig's Avatar
Canada
6102
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
That's great and all if all your income was via a payroll. But that's not how the 1% in the US get their money.

A flat tax wouldn't work in that case either.
Ok, but the 1% that is pissing you off still likely pays more in tax than almost the combined rest of the population. If you try to take 70-90% of their income you know that money is going off shore and the government will actually get less. The result of that is the you and I's will end up getting taxed at a higher rate to make up the loss. No?

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/

"In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or 39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes."
Appreciate 4
2000cs1026.00
Dave 90TT1608.50
MKSixer15448.50
sirdaft11982.00

      01-07-2019, 06:49 PM   #70
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
8094
Rep
10,384
Posts

Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Is she going to use the higher taxes to get an apartment? Does she still need an apartment in DC?
__________________
taking it to 7000.
Appreciate 2
City Pig6102.00

      01-07-2019, 06:55 PM   #71
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1984
Rep
4,401
Posts

Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
I'm actually kinda onboard with it. It was also discussed in the article I posted.

It's much, much better than a flat tax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
Ok, but the 1% that is pissing you off still likely pays more in tax than almost the combined rest of the population. If you try to take 70-90% of their income you know that money is going off shore and the government will actually get less. The result of that is the you and I's will end up getting taxed at a higher rate to make up the loss. No?

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/

"In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or 39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes."
Considering the top 1% has over 40% of the wealth of the country they should be paying more than everyone else.
Appreciate 1
minn195868.50

      01-07-2019, 07:09 PM   #72
2000cs
Captain
1026
Rep
627
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Three concepts to keep in mind, and separate, when talking taxes:

Efficiency: how much the taxing authority takes in for a given tax structure

Equity: how equal the taxes are when considering different groups (generally income levels, but could be wealth, age, etc). Equality is challenging because we can talk equality of average tax rate paid, dollar taxes, marginal tax rate, or probably other ways to say there is tax equity.

Fairness: a non-economic way of justifying progressive taxes; the argument being those who make/have more “should” pay more. Or is it more fair to have everyone pay the same rate? Etc.

Three separate issues that tend to get conflated. AOC has a strong tone of soak the rich (fairness) in her proposal, with no real consideration of efficiency.
Appreciate 3
MKSixer15448.50
Dave 90TT1608.50
City Pig6102.00

      01-07-2019, 08:22 PM   #73
yousefnjr
Lieutenant Colonel
1481
Rep
1,926
Posts

Drives: ‘06 Z4MR, ‘19 i3S
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bay Area, CA

iTrader: (2)

Those titties tho
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2019, 08:35 PM   #74
schoy
Captain
636
Rep
781
Posts

Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

For all of you calling her "nuts" or a "nutjob" (or any other derogatory term), realize this:

She is simply citing a study done by Peter Diamond (Nobel Laureate in Economics, professor emeritus at MIT) and Emmanuel Saez (Professor of economics, UC Berkeley) in 2011 that reached the same conclusion. Their report can be found here: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/...7/jep.25.4.165

I doubt anyone who has posted on this thread has the credibility or mental chops to refute their study. But feel free to post links from people that do.
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2019, 08:45 PM   #75
ScottSinger
Brigadier General
1613
Rep
4,431
Posts

Drives: M235i 6spd
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Mid-Atlantic

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
For all of you calling her "nuts" or a "nutjob" (or any other derogatory term), realize this:

She is simply citing a study done by Peter Diamond (Nobel Laureate in Economics, professor emeritus at MIT) and Emmanuel Saez (Professor of economics, UC Berkeley) in 2011 that reached the same conclusion. Their report can be found here: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/...7/jep.25.4.165

I doubt anyone who has posted on this thread has the credibility or mental chops to refute their study. But feel free to post links from people that do.
Did u read the Paul Krugman piece ?
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2019, 08:55 PM   #76
JohnnyCanuck
Major
Canada
1012
Rep
1,212
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi RS3
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
I think I was clear about different levels of government getting my money. With respect to Trudeau, I can't tell if he's a liar or an idiot based on what he's done with the debt and deficit. I'm still waiting for the budget to balance itself. He is now going to take a lot more of our money in the form of the carbon tax, the fact he's told us it'll be revenue neutral and given his track record so far I think I'm on pretty safe ground complaining about the federal government and it's taxes.
You're being completely revisionist. You posted that this (super high marginal tax rates) had been "tried by Trudeau" to ill effect.
  1. Wrong. Not tried by Trudeau (fact is highest marginal tax rate is 33%).
  2. Wrong. While federal revenue dropped the first year, it increased significantlyin the second year.
  3. And you selectively posted an out of date article that itself didn't actually support your argyment.

You posted partisan BS and got called out for it. You then made a somewhat more rational post that was still factually wrong (in blaming the federal government for Ontario taxation issues) and got called again. You then respond with this ... more rationalism and revisionism.

Last edited by JohnnyCanuck; 01-07-2019 at 09:12 PM..
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2019, 09:01 PM   #77
2000cs
Captain
1026
Rep
627
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
For all of you calling her "nuts" or a "nutjob" (or any other derogatory term), realize this:

She is simply citing a study done by Peter Diamond (Nobel Laureate in Economics, professor emeritus at MIT) and Emmanuel Saez (Professor of economics, UC Berkeley) in 2011 that reached the same conclusion. Their report can be found here: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/...7/jep.25.4.165

I doubt anyone who has posted on this thread has the credibility or mental chops to refute their study. But feel free to post links from people that do.
There are several problems with the study, and I do have the chops. I don’t think an econometric analysis or counter argument to this paper is really the subject for this thread or forum. So I will stop there. But here’s a link to a credible source: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

Last edited by 2000cs; 01-07-2019 at 09:21 PM..
Appreciate 2
Run Silent12308.50
MKSixer15448.50

      01-07-2019, 09:12 PM   #78
JohnnyCanuck
Major
Canada
1012
Rep
1,212
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi RS3
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (1)

The one thing missing from this thread (as I read through it), is the actual quote from Ocasio-Cortez. What she said is:

Quote:
You look at our tax rates back in the ’60s, and when you have a progressive tax-rate system, your tax rate, let’s say, from $0 to $75,000 may be 10% or 15%, etc. But once you get to the tippy tops, on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%.
Look at historical marginal tax rates:

In other words, she is factually correct in her statement that historically, the US has had marginal tax rates in the range of 70% (or higher).

The quote also does not explicitly state that she is advocating for marginal tax rates at that level. That is a reasonable inference, but it's being stated as fact that she made that argument. She doesn't appear to have. She may have elsewhere so I will treat the inference as a policy statement but wanted to point out the difference between the quote and an interpretation.

Lastly, even if the inference is her argument, it is not irrational nor the ramblings of a "nut-job" nor "wacky". There is plenty of support for it, at least in elements of it ranging from economists, to fiscal policy experts (such as the link that schoy posted , all the way to Warren Buffet (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/o...h.html?_r=1&hp).

In fact, on a pure fiscal policy level, if she is arguing for a 70% marginal tax rates on the extremely wealthy, it is far more rational than the successive tax cuts compounded over successive tax cuts that's been at the heart of US policy making for decades. That is fiscal foolhardiness and economic policy folly and the proof of that is ample.

I do not agree that the highest marginal tax rate should be at that level (although put the flat tax back where it belongs with the flat earth). I am not defending the rate itself. I am simply pointing out that there is a rational policy underpinning to it that is actually stronger than that which underlies the latest rounds of tax cuts.

You might not like her. You might not agree with her politics (I don't generally), but make no mistake: she's whip smart and appears to do her homework before speaking. She will eat those who try to discount her as a left-wing loon for lunch.

Last edited by JohnnyCanuck; 01-08-2019 at 11:11 AM..
Appreciate 3
Jockey1984.00
minn195868.50
MrRoboto1740.50

      01-07-2019, 09:19 PM   #79
dsad1
Lieutenant Colonel
715
Rep
1,781
Posts

Drives: car
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Well, look at what happened with the last tax cut. The top brackets got the biggest break and the rest of us got a smaller one.

Let's also face it, the Top 1% don't pay their taxes via an income tax. Even Romney admitted he only pays around effectively 14-15% because of the way he makes his income.
Quoting someone's effictive tax rate doesn't mean much if you are not going to tell the whole story.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charles.../#69cf952d7eff
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2019, 09:27 PM   #80
N54Yankee
Major
N54Yankee's Avatar
United_States
1627
Rep
1,269
Posts

Drives: N54 135|Cobb|M3 control arms
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

She's a nit-wit
Appreciate 1
glennQNYC5596.50

      01-07-2019, 09:35 PM   #81
schoy
Captain
636
Rep
781
Posts

Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000cs View Post
There are several problems with the study, and I do have the chops. I don’t think an econometric analysis or counter argument to this paper is really the subject for this thread or forum. So I will stop there. But here’s a link to a credible source: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
And this is fair. All I'm asking is that:
1) Derogatory putdowns of AOC of her income tax policy stance that is based on a perfectly reasonable study is unnecessary

2) If you want to argue her policy stance, argue the source (i.e. the paper).
Appreciate 3
2000cs1026.00
minn195868.50

      01-07-2019, 09:45 PM   #82
gary_william
Private First Class
162
Rep
112
Posts

Drives: 2013 128i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Vancouver, WA

iTrader: (0)

Maybe they (the federal government) should just spend less.
Appreciate 9
dsad1714.50
2000cs1026.00
City Pig6102.00
c1pher1605.50
MKSixer15448.50
kscarrol2197.00
UncleWede8094.00
sirdaft11982.00
xander_g712.50

      01-07-2019, 09:57 PM   #83
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1984
Rep
4,401
Posts

Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsaad1 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Well, look at what happened with the last tax cut. The top brackets got the biggest break and the rest of us got a smaller one.

Let's also face it, the Top 1% don't pay their taxes via an income tax. Even Romney admitted he only pays around effectively 14-15% because of the way he makes his income.
Quoting someone's effictive tax rate doesn't mean much if you are not going to tell the whole story.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charles.../#69cf952d7eff
Did you read that article? Because even it admits it's impossible to figure out what their effective tax rate was.

Even if the 30% is accurate (which even the article says it's a guess) that's still well below what they would've been taxed at if it was a payroll tax.
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2019, 10:11 PM   #84
c1pher
Primo Generalissimo
United_States
1606
Rep
2,417
Posts

Drives: Porsche Macan Turbo
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DC area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
No one will ever go for that even if it makes sense. Getting rid of the IRS and all CPA type folks also would wipe out a whole industry. We already have a consumption tax in sales tax. If you don’t buy anything, you don’t pay anything.

I think this would also kind of spawn all kinds of value added taxes that Europe has conjured up. In the end, poor people would only have the very basics because those items wouldn’t be taxed, but let’s say they want sausage and bacon instead of just meat, then the tax on that is higher since those items have extra ingredients and preparation put into them. This may be an extreme example, but you get my point.

I prefer a flat tax. The USG should just figure out what it needs to be and set a cut off for the poverty line. Let’s say the federal income tax rate is 15%, there would be a window where the poverty line exists where you pay no tax and then within 15% more of that line, you could actually earn less due to the tax rate. I’d say that no employers could pay that amount. Either they pay at or below poverty or 15% higher than the line to cover the delta. Albeit, it wouldn’t be much since you’re talking maybe $4500 a year. For example, if the poverty line is $30k, employers who offer employees salaries shouldn’t pay anything less than $35k taxes for the same job or simply pay $30k non taxed so that the employee is not caught in that small gray area. Hopefully that makes sense.

Or we could do the Herman Caine 9-9-9 proposal that sounded like a pizza deal.

Last edited by c1pher; 01-07-2019 at 10:19 PM..
Appreciate 1
MKSixer15448.50

      01-07-2019, 10:30 PM   #85
DETRoadster
Space Force - 4 Star General
DETRoadster's Avatar
5712
Rep
2,554
Posts

Drives: M2 MG 6MT / Moto Guzzi V7
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
I know exactly how it works and my own personal burden of compliance is well over $7K per year. It's ridiculous.

And if you're in the, "I got a check back crowd", you aren't sophisticated enough to have this conversation. You just made a loan to the government at 0% interest and have 2 additional losses from the aforementioned loan.


Cheers-mk
Good to see you around these parts again, MK!

Your cost of compliance makes me cringe. The wife and I are meeting with a prospective new accounting firm tomorrow. We paid close to $7k last year in keeping things straight for Uncle Sam. I sure miss the days of spending $49 on TurboTax and filing myself. Back when things were so much simpler!

Last edited by DETRoadster; 01-07-2019 at 10:36 PM..
Appreciate 1
MKSixer15448.50

      01-07-2019, 10:50 PM   #86
Delta0311
Banned
7354
Rep
10,128
Posts

Drives: 2011 BMW 335xi E92 2016 228xi
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by minn19 View Post


I guarantee my wife and I pay more in taxes than you (way more) ands we aren't complaining and are "manning up."

All you talk is BS.
No idea how much you make but if you made over $120k last year then congratulations you made more than me. Which in turn means you paid more in taxes, this isn't exactly rocket science. The fact you might make more than me does not shock me nor do I give a flying fuck. What does shock me is the fact you got a wife.

**** edit. Typeo there ment 120 not 160

Last edited by Delta0311; 01-07-2019 at 11:06 PM..
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2019, 10:56 PM   #87
UglyBuzzard
Baba Booey
UglyBuzzard's Avatar
United_States
4270
Rep
1,933
Posts

Drives: Use to be a X5 50i M Sport
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by minn19 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta0311 View Post
They will talk all the BS but when it comes time to man up they are no where to be found.


I guarantee my wife and I pay more in taxes than you (way more) ands we aren't complaining and are "manning up."

All you talk is BS.
Why would you say this? Child makes this comment on a playground.
Appreciate 2
      01-07-2019, 11:01 PM   #88
Delta0311
Banned
7354
Rep
10,128
Posts

Drives: 2011 BMW 335xi E92 2016 228xi
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyBuzzard View Post
Why would you say this?
His fragile ego makes him say right crazy shit.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:46 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST