BF2S Forums How much are taxes going to go up now that the Democrats are in power?

mcminty wrote:

m3thod wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Have a fucking cry. The top rate in Australia is about 45% (it used to be more, 49%). If you don't want the tax rates then move to Singapore - the top rate is only 25%.

I got a mate who is a Director of Lloyd's of London - Asia Division based in Singapore.

That bastard is earning top wack and i pay more friggin taxes!

Lucky bastard. I also read that Singapore doesn't charge tax on foreign income. ie, if you own (lots) property overseas and get rent from it, Singapore will not charge any tax on what you make.

...I might move to Singapore one day.

This is the git.

http://www.lloyds.com/focus_worldwide/a … icle12.htm

Has his own tennis court and swimming pool...heat/humidity is killling him though!

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

We need an overhaul of the tax code before any tax increases/decreases will have any real benefit to this country.  There are so many loopholes in the tax code that it is ridiculous.  Don't kid yourself if you think those in the upper income brackets pay anywhere near the 35-40% mark on taxes.  By the time their accountants and CPAs get done, their tax liability is down into the 18-20% range.

while you are correct that there are definitely loopholes in the tax codes and if you are crafty you can get that percentage down, an increase is still an increase so instead of 18-20% you'd be seeing 22-24% (per the 4% they were quoting above).

i agree that these loopholes need to be closed. 

however, i still remain that we should look to see where the cut-off lies.  is it at 200k or perhaps it should be a bit higher.  i know tons of professional people making 100k each (husband and wife working) that would be hit hard by increases here.  are they rich?  i don't think so but it's relative i guess.  their housing costs offset any perceived 'wealth' since they live in SF bay area where a 1950s shack goes for 600-800k on a postage stamp lot.  Plus, there's transportation and other cost of living issues like education for kids, etc.

Everyone has to deal with those same expenses, but given the cost of living (especially housing) I wouldn't call $200K any more than upper middle class, and certainly not rich.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

while you are correct that there are definitely loopholes in the tax codes and if you are crafty you can get that percentage down, an increase is still an increase so instead of 18-20% you'd be seeing 22-24% (per the 4% they were quoting above).

i agree that these loopholes need to be closed. 

however, i still remain that we should look to see where the cut-off lies.  is it at 200k or perhaps it should be a bit higher.  i know tons of professional people making 100k each (husband and wife working) that would be hit hard by increases here.  are they rich?  i don't think so but it's relative i guess.  their housing costs offset any perceived 'wealth' since they live in SF bay area where a 1950s shack goes for 600-800k on a postage stamp lot.  Plus, there's transportation and other cost of living issues like education for kids, etc.

Everyone has to deal with those same expenses, but given the cost of living (especially housing) I wouldn't call $200K any more than upper middle class, and certainly not rich.

Exactly.  And when i hear about proposed tax increases on the 'rich' and people saying those making over 200k will get hit with those tax increases, that's what should make these people worry.

That's not the way these things work though. You can't have a tax aimed specifically at the very rich, which would seem fairer and more practical, because the very rich just leave and move their assets somewhere else. The $200K mark is a good place to increase taxes, because those earning that amount are very financially comfortable, not rich, but certainly a long way from having financial difficulties (unless they are idiots, and there's no accounting for that). There are also a LOT of people earning that sort of amount, so the revenue generated will be big.

Clearly those earning over $200K will be less affected by a tax increase than those earning $50K, because the amount of disposable income they have will still be relatively high. Those earning more have more disposable income and can therefore afford to pay a higher rate of tax - not too high, but higher than it currently is.

sigh.


I predict they will go up 100%. Soup lines and labor pools are the future. And they will eat your 1st and 2nd born.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's not the way these things work though. You can't have a tax aimed specifically at the very rich, which would seem fairer and more practical, because the very rich just leave and move their assets somewhere else. The $200K mark is a good place to increase taxes, because those earning that amount are very financially comfortable, not rich, but certainly a long way from having financial difficulties (unless they are idiots, and there's no accounting for that). There are also a LOT of people earning that sort of amount, so the revenue generated will be big.

Clearly those earning over $200K will be less affected by a tax increase than those earning $50K, because the amount of disposable income they have will still be relatively high. Those earning more have more disposable income and can therefore afford to pay a higher rate of tax - not too high, but higher than it currently is.

but then it becomes a tax on the middle class which goes against what the lefties are saying when they scream 'tax the rich'.

That's the lefties. They're wrong and stupid. Taxing the rich doesn't work, they all just fuck off somewhere else. There have been numerous precedents for this around the world.

I don't like the use of the word class when it comes to income. I understand that in the US, class is essentially based upon income - in much of the rest of the world it isn't and the usage in that context seems completely alien to me.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's not the way these things work though. You can't have a tax aimed specifically at the very rich, which would seem fairer and more practical, because the very rich just leave and move their assets somewhere else. The $200K mark is a good place to increase taxes, because those earning that amount are very financially comfortable, not rich, but certainly a long way from having financial difficulties (unless they are idiots, and there's no accounting for that). There are also a LOT of people earning that sort of amount, so the revenue generated will be big.

Clearly those earning over $200K will be less affected by a tax increase than those earning $50K, because the amount of disposable income they have will still be relatively high. Those earning more have more disposable income and can therefore afford to pay a higher rate of tax - not too high, but higher than it currently is.

but then it becomes a tax on the middle class which goes against what the lefties are saying when they scream 'tax the rich'.

Less affected? No way man - I already pay near 40%, supposedly it's a 35% bracket, but in reality its almost 40%. I have to pay taxes on Capital expenditures (the depreciation break/rate is marginal in comparison). If I buy expensive engineering surveying satellite equipment and vehicles, that is considered profit - and I pay taxes on it. The reality is that this type of equipment is too specific and has a low re-sale value rate. It does not appreciate like property - same as an everyday car. So what is actually left over after Big Bro Sam takes his 35% + needed business capital expenditures - feels more like near or over 40%. In a given year I might pay between 320K to 400K in taxes. And they want more - yeah!

I've been thinking about renaming my business to _ _ _ _ & Sam, Inc. (my silent partner who never shows up for work and wastes my money deserves at least 40% recognition - no?)

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-19 11:15:19)

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

tax increases on people making > $200k does not only mean cigar chomping billionaires but small business people, mom&pop stores, your lawn service, etc.  These guys will be impacted so they might not hire a few extra people to work for them, leading to unemployment.  this unemployment leads to need for more unemployment benefits and therefore more taxes.

Or, mom and pop could incorperate and give themself a salary. Partnerships and ownerships are already at a disadvantage, why not encourage incorperation?

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

However, if we reverse the argument, by reducing slightly the taxes (not only on high wage earners but families of four and what not), this means that the day to day economy will see more money floating around and changing hands.  You will have more money for your business to hire on a few extra guys/gals.  This gives them money to spend at the grocery which by the way employs people as well, etc.  Of course the govt will get it's share in terms of sales taxes but these are often state/local taxes which go to improve your direct community.  i see this as a better alternative, but that's just me.

More money will be floating around, creating inflation. You will have more money to hire people, but it will be worth less.
You're demonstrating what is only a very cursory grasp of macroeconomics right now.

san4 wrote:

The idea that "we know how to spend out money better than the government does" is irrelevant. The point is that the government can spend money on things ordinary citizens can't. How much do you spend to prevent other people from getting contagious diseases they might give to you? Individuals can't spend money on that, only governments can.

Ding ding ding. People are more efficient in spending their money so far as they are capable. However, people cannot afford to purchase goods such as roads.

jonsimon wrote:

san4 wrote:

The idea that "we know how to spend out money better than the government does" is irrelevant. The point is that the government can spend money on things ordinary citizens can't. How much do you spend to prevent other people from getting contagious diseases they might give to you? Individuals can't spend money on that, only governments can.

Ding ding ding. People are more efficient in spending their money so far as they are capable. However, people cannot afford to purchase goods such as roads.

Not specifically true...

Who do you think builds every road, or hospital, or other infrastructure? The government? Well not really - they use private contractors. That business capital is privately owned. They might use tax-money to fund the project, but not necessarily the capital required for the equipment. Also many schools, roads, underground infrastructure improvements are paid-for entirely by the developer (corporate entity with private funds) as mandated by local law. No tax money used here - and the developer pays an impact-fee (5-10K or more) for each unit developed in addition to paying for and building the infrastructure. And, this can include the expansion or redevelopment of existing roads/highways/schools.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-19 11:46:31)

topal63 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

san4 wrote:

The idea that "we know how to spend out money better than the government does" is irrelevant. The point is that the government can spend money on things ordinary citizens can't. How much do you spend to prevent other people from getting contagious diseases they might give to you? Individuals can't spend money on that, only governments can.

Ding ding ding. People are more efficient in spending their money so far as they are capable. However, people cannot afford to purchase goods such as roads.

Not specifically true...

Who do you think builds every road, or hospital, or other infrastructure? The government? Well not really - they use private contractors. That business capital is privately owned. They might use tax-money to fund the project, but not necessarily the capital required for the equipment. Also many schools, roads, underground infrastructure improvements are paid-for entirely by the developer (corporate entity with private funds) as mandated by local law. No tax money used here - and the developer pays an impact-fee (5-10K or more) for each unit developed in addition to paying for and building the infrastructure. And, this can include the expansion or redevelopment of existing roads/highways/schools.

Who would hire the contractors for an extensive roadworks system other than a communal assmebly with authority? What private business would fund roads that do not directly profit them? We would still have dirt roads with the exception of some major toll thoroughfares. There is no way to make a profit off of a public roadsystem, which is why the government funds road development. Infrastructure like waterworks and powerlines are different because the provider has a financial incentive to provide a quality product. No one would maintain a free road except a communal governing  body.

The rich aren't stupid.  They will pass on any taxes in the price of goods and services we buy.  So really who is paying for the tax inscrease?



I've never got a job from a poor person.

jonsimon wrote:

Harmor wrote:

The rich aren't stupid.  They will pass on any taxes in the price of goods and services we buy.  So really who is paying for the tax inscrease?

Sorry harmor, but thats a bit of a logical hail mary.

It is a bit simple. As fuel prices rise, so do the prices of anything associated with a 'gas-delivered' service or product. It's just good business.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-06-19 22:05:12)

jonsimon wrote:

topal63 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Ding ding ding. People are more efficient in spending their money so far as they are capable. However, people cannot afford to purchase goods such as roads.

Not specifically true...

Who do you think builds every road, or hospital, or other infrastructure? The government? Well not really - they use private contractors. That business capital is privately owned. They might use tax-money to fund the project, but not necessarily the capital required for the equipment. Also many schools, roads, underground infrastructure improvements are paid-for entirely by the developer (corporate entity with private funds) as mandated by local law. No tax money used here - and the developer pays an impact-fee (5-10K or more) for each unit developed in addition to paying for and building the infrastructure. And, this can include the expansion or redevelopment of existing roads/highways/schools.

Who would hire the contractors for an extensive roadworks system other than a communal assmebly with authority? What private business would fund roads that do not directly profit them? We would still have dirt roads with the exception of some major toll thoroughfares. There is no way to make a profit off of a public roadsystem, which is why the government funds road development. Infrastructure like waterworks and powerlines are different because the provider has a financial incentive to provide a quality product. No one would maintain a free road except a communal governing  body.

Not really - that is just the way it is. And, as I said "not specifically true." There is a definite need for business to have means of access to a market. It can be a railway, a port of call, air travel/traffic, motor vehicles, etc. The method/means is just a matter of - this is just  the way it is. In America the size of this country and the lack of urban planning from the onset has created a infrastructure sprawl problem.

Goods would, could, can reach various places, centers, cities via any method. And all of it could (not necessarily should) be built with privately owned funds. But in part, that is not what happened and - that is just the way it is. Not how it has to be, nor needs to be in every specific case. Building the National Highway system (the Interstates) with a publicly funded program has created problems as well as meeting the needs of both the public & business. The fact that business can send fleets of trucks, semi's, out on the open road rather than by air, sea or railway, is a matter of - that is just the way it is. There would still be roads and there would still be Interstates regardless of any National program. Just not as many and not as much urban sprawl. Condominium high-rises (vertical building up - rather than out) would be far more popular and Urban centers like NY, LA, Chicago, etc would have even larger populations. So yes you're right there would be more private dirt/rock roads, septic systems, wells, etc in rural areas.

I am not saying that public funded (government) programs are useless or mismanaged (sometimes they are though), I am just saying that they are not in anyway the "necessary" answer in all or many cases. Also, I am implying (something obvious) a direct relationship of (Nation) the National needs to privately created wealth. The government does not really create wealth, that is basically generated in the private sector. The government can help or hinder the effort - but the core of it is associated to private effort. Printed money is the objectification of work, whether it be: a good, land, home, services, etc. It basically represents private wealth.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-20 10:49:27)