Mass Psychosis

[nathanm]

Pardon me.  I thought for a moment that you "saw the light" that taking from the rich isn't necessary.

No more than taking from the poor. I'm getting frustrated that every time it comes time for the rich to hold up their end of the bargain, they change the effing law. Were it not for the deal in the 80s to use Social Security money to shore up the general fund, they wouldn't have been able to have their tax cuts then. But now that it's time for them to kick in to repay the money they borrowed from the trust fund, they claim we've got to gut Social Security. What's up with that?

I don't think that expecting someone to hold up their end of a bargain is "taking."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Where is your compact fluorescent bulb?  Save some money.  Plus, very soon you won't be able to replace that with incandescent - just a couple more years of Tommy's old bulb left.  May need to stock up?

[guido911]

No more than taking from the poor. I'm getting frustrated that every time it comes time for the rich to hold up their end of the bargain, they change the effing law. Were it not for the deal in the 80s to use Social Security money to shore up the general fund, they wouldn't have been able to have their tax cuts then. But now that it's time for them to kick in to repay the money they borrowed from the trust fund, they claim we've got to gut Social Security. What's up with that?

I don't think that expecting someone to hold up their end of a bargain is "taking."

I don't know what "bargain" I made with the government. Could you please explain? Maybe not because in your mind all money earned (except by the poor of course) belongs to the government and not the earner.

[Red Arrow]

No more than taking from the poor. I'm getting frustrated that every time it comes time for the rich to hold up their end of the bargain, they change the effing law. Were it not for the deal in the 80s to use Social Security money to shore up the general fund, they wouldn't have been able to have their tax cuts then. But now that it's time for them to kick in to repay the money they borrowed from the trust fund, they claim we've got to gut Social Security. What's up with that?

I don't think that expecting someone to hold up their end of a bargain is "taking."

I expect you will when you find that rich gets into 5 figure salaries.

[Red Arrow]

Where is your compact fluorescent bulb?  Save some money.  Plus, very soon you won't be able to replace that with incandescent - just a couple more years of Tommy's old bulb left.  May need to stock up?

They're in the attic, probably run 10 hours per year at the most.  No toxic waste with a normal incandescent.  Have you seen the pictures of the burning compact fluorescent bulbs? Plus, they are not hard wired.  I have to plug them in each time I want them to come on.

[Red Arrow]

No more than taking from the poor. I'm getting frustrated that every time it comes time for the rich to hold up their end of the bargain, they change the effing law. Were it not for the deal in the 80s to use Social Security money to shore up the general fund, they wouldn't have been able to have their tax cuts then. But now that it's time for them to kick in to repay the money they borrowed from the trust fund, they claim we've got to gut Social Security. What's up with that?

I don't think that expecting someone to hold up their end of a bargain is "taking."

From your previous posts, I expect your income to be high 5 figure, maybe low 6 figure.  What do you think is a fair tax rate for you in percentage?   To keep it simple, let's just consider Federal Income tax.  Not marginal rates but overall.

[nathanm]

I don't know what "bargain" I made with the government. Could you please explain? Maybe not because in your mind all money earned (except by the poor of course) belongs to the government and not the earner.

You personally didn't. Social Security tax was increased so that income tax could be reduced. That was the deal. Sorry you weren't around for it. Talk to Mr. Raygun.

And no, all money doesn't belong to the government. Enough money to pay for what we the people have voted for the government to do does.

[nathanm]

From your previous posts, I expect your income to be high 5 figure, maybe low 6 figure.  What do you think is a fair tax rate for you in percentage?   To keep it simple, let's just consider Federal Income tax.  Not marginal rates but overall.

I believe I mentioned it in an earlier thread, but without looking at my 1040, it was around 15% this year. Stupidly low, given the income.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And yet, nathan, you still gotta pay a higher percentage the guido.  I have definitely received the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that you work on a W-2 basis.  You have no opportunity to manipulate that to achieve the "proper" ratio" of W-2 income to dividend (or better yet, ISO!!) to achieve your "proper" financial goals.  Hence, you have neither the right nor the gravitas to sit on high and pronounce enlightenment on how badly you are mistreated by the system.  (You shoulda gone to law school!  Or at least MBA school!)

But he is an island.  A rock unto himself with no real connection (nor obligation) to society or anyone else.  He IS the rugged individualist characterized (caricatured?) in all the long gone, but not forgotten Marlboro ads. (Dare I say the 'most interesting man'...no, that's too much.)  He is above the lowly great unwashed masses of people, and as such he and 'his kind' should have the perks and benefits.


Ok, will try to lighten up some...it is just too, too much to ignore!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Red,
I had one that started to blow up on me.  The base charred, lots of hissing and sizzling.  Luckily it stopped of its own volition.  Better stock up on those 'cause they are gonna disappear.  All the places I still use them means I need about 15 or 20 for a lifetime supply.  (Not many and not used much.)

[Red Arrow]

I believe I mentioned it in an earlier thread, but without looking at my 1040, it was around 15% this year. Stupidly low, given the income.

I didn't ask what you paid.  I asked what you thought would be a fair percentage.

[heironymouspasparagus]

3% more.  How about it Red, is that too much??

And keep all the exemptions, deductions and exclusions that are in place now, including the long term capital gain treatment of stock/bond type investments that are made by an individual who actually purchases that investment (and holds for one year).

What should be eliminated - should NEVER have happened - is for one person to benefit from preferential treatment of having someone else pay for a so-called "investment" - the ISO, or Incentive Stock Option, and then have it treated as anything other than ordinary income.  There is NO investment component to it.  There is no building of companies, creation of jobs, or any other valid component of free enterprise capitalism involved in that process.  It is a grotesque mockery of capitalism (as put forth in testimony by the most successful captains of industry - you know who they are; the ones guido poo-poos as just not relevant).

The ONLY thing it contains is scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours cronyism between boards of directors.  With the entire rest of the US tax base subsidizing the process.  To the tune of enough trillions of dollars so that instead of the US debt being paid off, as was realistically in process for about 2015 or so, we are now deeper in debt than anyone, anywhere in the history of not just the world, but the entire solar system!  And maybe the galaxy!!

[nathanm]

I didn't ask what you paid.  I asked what you thought would be a fair percentage.

For me? Probably around 30%. Yes, I would not be terribly opposed to my tax doubling. I'd like a bit of warning so I can plan for the new tax rate, but otherwise, fine. The various governments do a lot for me and are drowning in red ink. Cutting spending isn't realistically going to close the funding gap, as most of the increase is in social security and unemployment extensions, much less pay off debt. (Treasury yields are strongly indicating that we have no need for fiscal restraint at present, but it's gotta be done sometime)

I am weird though. I think the people who gain more benefit from the infrastructure our taxes pay for and have a greater ability to pay should shoulder more of the burden. I'm perfectly OK with people making $8,000 a year paying zero income tax. I don't really need people who already have enough misery to pay out of some sense of "fairness."

[Red Arrow]

For me? Probably around 30%. Yes, I would not be terribly opposed to my tax doubling.

I am weird though. I think the people who gain more benefit from the infrastructure our taxes pay for and have a greater ability to pay should shoulder more of the burden. I'm perfectly OK with people making $8,000 a year paying zero income tax. I don't really need people who already have enough misery to pay out of some sense of "fairness."

30% of your Federal Adjusted Gross Income directly to the Feds in income tax is quite generous.  You are certainly more generous than I am.  We really need to get that line on Form 1040 for a voluntary individual increased tax contribution.  I would be very opposed to my tax doubling.   I am at 16% of Federal AGI for Federal Income Tax. Then of course we throw all the other taxes like state income tax, sales tax, car tags, gasoline tax...  It's been a lot of years since I've seen as much as 50% of a pay raise in my take home check.

Single with no dependents on the Fed tax gets $5700 standard deduction, $3650 personal exemption.  No one making less than $9350 pays Federal Income tax.  I have no problem with that.  This year Oklahoma finally matched the Federal standard deduction. Now if OK would match the personal exemption, that would help the little guy too.  Full time minimum wage is about $15,000. per year based on $7.25/hr.  I know there are jobs where tips are counted etc but as a common starting point I believe there should not be too many primary wage earners only making $8000/yr. 

I don't see that I use that much more infrastructure than someone with less income.  I use different infrastructure.  Someone riding a city bus uses the same roads that I do.  Public transit is subsidized all over the country (which I don't mind).  City parks are nice.  They typically don't generate any revenue (that I am aware of) and represent a loss of property tax and cost money to maintain.  I get charged rent on the ground my hangar is on at RVS and have to provide the Tulsa Airport Authority (TAA) with liability insurance in case someone gets hurt in my hangar and decides to sue TAA. Is the City of Tulsa a named insured on your home owners insurance?  The City of Tulsa (or TAA) gets about $.13/gallon on all the fuel sold at either TUL or RVS.  There are other fees involved at the airport depending on whether "you" are a business or just a private plane owner.  I voted for Vision 2025 but have yet to attend an event at the BOK Center.  There were some community improvements in Bixby too but I don't know what they were.  I almost always vote in favor of school issues but I have no children.  I think I am not getting a free ride on infrastructure.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Come on, Red, do you think 3% would be too much an increase??  Stick your neck out a little here...  nathan and I have both stepped up and made a definitive statement.