fonewear said: »
Get the Pope some poor children and a sappy song then watch the money roll in !
Getting some little kids for a Catholic authority figure?
What could possibly go wrong?!
Pope: Not To Share Wealth With Poor Is To Steal
|
Pope: Not to share wealth with poor is to steal
Getting some little kids for a Catholic authority figure? What could possibly go wrong?!
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » I really think that these things don't occur to many, many people. At least not really. They'll say they do and argue passionately that they're right even with these factors figured in. If they've put hard work in, they're loathe to admit that anything else played a factor in their success. Or are we supposed to sing praises for the people who make the programs we use to succeed, or the pencil makers for making the pencil that was in our workpapers that helped us succeed? If their arguments seem to irrational it's because they are. The reason for their arguments to exist is to reinforce their belief that since your not 100% responsible for your success then they are entitled to take from the fruits of your success. They aren't trying to explain something or debate a point but instead are justifying their decision to steal from the success of others. It's an emotional argument and should be ignored and discarded because you don't fight emotional arguments with rational ones.
[+]
Asura.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » I really think that these things don't occur to many, many people. At least not really. They'll say they do and argue passionately that they're right even with these factors figured in. If they've put hard work in, they're loathe to admit that anything else played a factor in their success. Or are we supposed to sing praises for the people who make the programs we use to succeed, or the pencil makers for making the pencil that was in our workpapers that helped us succeed? If their arguments seem to irrational it's because they are. The reason for their arguments to exist is to reinforce their belief that since your not 100% responsible for your success then they are entitled to take from the fruits of your success. They aren't trying to explain something or debate a point but instead are justifying their decision to steal from the success of others. It's an emotional argument and should be ignored and discarded because you don't fight emotional arguments with rational ones. Did it ever occur to you that the lower class could get affordable education and be successful without stealing from the people who worked for success already? The poor can be in plight they didn't create without it affecting the middle and upper classes.
[+]
So I have the ultimate solution to fixing Social Security, without repealing it.
August 14, 1935, Austin, TX
Social Security Administration, Founded source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Administration Some interesting notes Back in 1935 the the age expectancy was 1935 61.7 source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html in 2015 the age expectancy is 2015 82.19 source http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195 So what does this tell us... it tells us the Social Security Age requirement is three years HIGHER than the age expectancy back in 1935 NOW the age requirement is 17 years HIGHER than the social security age requirement. The Solution: Raise the age requirement to 85 , and anytime the average expectancy raises.. raise the age requirement as well. Asura.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » I really think that these things don't occur to many, many people. At least not really. They'll say they do and argue passionately that they're right even with these factors figured in. If they've put hard work in, they're loathe to admit that anything else played a factor in their success. Or are we supposed to sing praises for the people who make the programs we use to succeed, or the pencil makers for making the pencil that was in our workpapers that helped us succeed? If their arguments seem to irrational it's because they are. The reason for their arguments to exist is to reinforce their belief that since your not 100% responsible for your success then they are entitled to take from the fruits of your success. They aren't trying to explain something or debate a point but instead are justifying their decision to steal from the success of others. It's an emotional argument and should be ignored and discarded because you don't fight emotional arguments with rational ones. You don't feel as much as I feel about the poor !
[+]
fonewear said: » Asura.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » I really think that these things don't occur to many, many people. At least not really. They'll say they do and argue passionately that they're right even with these factors figured in. If they've put hard work in, they're loathe to admit that anything else played a factor in their success. Or are we supposed to sing praises for the people who make the programs we use to succeed, or the pencil makers for making the pencil that was in our workpapers that helped us succeed? If their arguments seem to irrational it's because they are. The reason for their arguments to exist is to reinforce their belief that since your not 100% responsible for your success then they are entitled to take from the fruits of your success. They aren't trying to explain something or debate a point but instead are justifying their decision to steal from the success of others. It's an emotional argument and should be ignored and discarded because you don't fight emotional arguments with rational ones. You don't feel as much as I feel about the poor ! But I'm more oppressed then you so my feelings matter more. Why do you want to hurt the feelings of all those starving kids in Africa, look at them they are so hungry.
[+]
Asura.Saevel said: » fonewear said: » Asura.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » I really think that these things don't occur to many, many people. At least not really. They'll say they do and argue passionately that they're right even with these factors figured in. If they've put hard work in, they're loathe to admit that anything else played a factor in their success. Or are we supposed to sing praises for the people who make the programs we use to succeed, or the pencil makers for making the pencil that was in our workpapers that helped us succeed? If their arguments seem to irrational it's because they are. The reason for their arguments to exist is to reinforce their belief that since your not 100% responsible for your success then they are entitled to take from the fruits of your success. They aren't trying to explain something or debate a point but instead are justifying their decision to steal from the success of others. It's an emotional argument and should be ignored and discarded because you don't fight emotional arguments with rational ones. You don't feel as much as I feel about the poor ! But I'm more oppressed then you so my feelings matter more. Why do you want to hurt the feelings of all those starving kids in Africa, look at them they are so hungry. give them smoothie machines.. they will be good A reliable source told me that the only water flowing in Africa is the bitter sting of tears.
[+]
Zackan said: » August 14, 1935, Austin, TX Social Security Administration, Founded source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Administration Some interesting notes Back in 1935 the the age expectancy was 1935 61.7 source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html in 2015 the age expectancy is 2015 82.19 source http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195 So what does this tell us... it tells us the Social Security Age requirement is three years HIGHER than the age expectancy back in 1935 NOW the age requirement is 17 years HIGHER than the social security age requirement. The Solution: Raise the age requirement to 85 , and anytime the average expectancy raises.. raise the age requirement as well. Right, employers already won't touch someone over 60, let's force them to work another 20 years. Did it occur to you that executives have a lower effective tax rate than most of their employees or that executive salaries have risen 4-500% adjusted for inflation in just the last 30 years while middle class incomes have risen less than 60%? Might it make sense for them to pay the same effective tax rates to help pay for all the benefits they are also entitled to even if they don't need them? People who don't drive are still paying for roads, people who don't receive welfare are still paying for it, why should anyone not? where are you getting that executives have a lower effective tax rate than their employees? Last I checked, the more you make, the higher tax bracket you are in. And since they are executives that means they are not the owner of the business and so can't write off the expenses of the business.
[+]
Leviathan.Protey said: » where are you getting that executives have a lower effective tax rate than their employees? Last I checked, the more you make, the higher tax bracket you are in. And since they are executives that means they are not the owner of the business and so can't write off the expenses of the business. Effective tax rate is the rate you pay of your gross income in relation to your adjusted income. Here's the rub: Executives average yearly salary is hovering just below 12 million dollars. The progressive tax rates cap at ~450K. That's just their cash salary. A very large portion of an executive's compensation packages (some as much as 75% of total compensation) can include stock options (ISO) that are taxed at a much lower rate. And, the real value of those options once exercised is their appreciation, which is taxed at the capital gains rates. This does a decent job of explaining how effective tax rates are determined. Tax people will tell you that exercising your deductions is what you're supposed to do, and that everyone is entitled to the same deductions, which is true. But, TP neo-cons will say in the same breath that the EITC is a scam, which makes no sense, and that the rich pay most of the taxes, which is dishonest. 10% of the population gets almost 90% of new income but pay only about 34% of the total taxes, that's 90% of private income generating only slightly more tax revenue than the 10% earned by everyone else. That's just income, accrued wealth accounts for another significant chunk of money that isn't being taxed at the same rate on both ends. I'm not saying tax the rich more, just stop pretending they're getting the brown end of the lollipop. Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » where are you getting that executives have a lower effective tax rate than their employees? Last I checked, the more you make, the higher tax bracket you are in. And since they are executives that means they are not the owner of the business and so can't write off the expenses of the business. Effective tax rate is the rate you pay of your gross income in relation to your adjusted income. Here's the rub: Executives average yearly salary is hovering just below 12 million dollars. The progressive tax rates cap at ~450K. That's just their cash salary. A very large portion of an executive's compensation packages (some as much as 75% of total compensation) can include stock options (ISO) that are taxed at a much lower rate. And, the real value of those options once exercised is their appreciation, which is taxed at the capital gains rates. This does a decent job of explaining how effective tax rates are determined. Tax people will tell you that exercising you deductions is what you're supposed to do, and that everyone is entitled to the same deductions, which is true. But, TP neo-cons will say in the same breath that the EITC is a scam, which makes no sense, and that the rich pay most of the taxes, which is dishonest. 10% of the population gets almost 90% of new income but pay only about 34% of the total taxes, that's 90% of private income generating only slightly more tax revenue than the 10% earned by everyone else. That's just income, accrued wealth accounts for another significant chunk of money that isn't being taxed at the same rate on both ends. I'm not saying tax the rich more, just stop pretending they're getting the brown end of the lollipop. Basically the rich know all the loopholes to reduce there taxes, Corporations are indeed evil, they do lobbying and invest alot of money into money people so they don't have to pay the taxes. Odin.Jassik said: » Zackan said: » August 14, 1935, Austin, TX Social Security Administration, Founded source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Administration Some interesting notes Back in 1935 the the age expectancy was 1935 61.7 source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html in 2015 the age expectancy is 2015 82.19 source http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195 So what does this tell us... it tells us the Social Security Age requirement is three years HIGHER than the age expectancy back in 1935 NOW the age requirement is 17 years HIGHER than the social security age requirement. The Solution: Raise the age requirement to 85 , and anytime the average expectancy raises.. raise the age requirement as well. Right, employers already won't touch someone over 60, let's force them to work another 20 years. Did it occur to you that executives have a lower effective tax rate than most of their employees or that executive salaries have risen 4-500% adjusted for inflation in just the last 30 years while middle class incomes have risen less than 60%? Might it make sense for them to pay the same effective tax rates to help pay for all the benefits they are also entitled to even if they don't need them? People who don't drive are still paying for roads, people who don't receive welfare are still paying for it, why should anyone not? So what? Bottomline is age expectancy is the reason social security is broken. It is the reason why money is taken from non social security funds to support social security. There is literally no REAL PERMANENT(not counting repealing it all together) way to fix social security UNLESS you adjust age requirement with age expectancy. Basically, health technology is screwing over our social security program. Back in 1935 the average person died at 62. If they 'don't touch' people after 60... then thats a 5 year gap. So change laws to require non age discrimination up to age 80.. change social security to age 65. problem fixed. Zackan said: » Basically the rich know all the loopholes to reduce there taxes, Corporations are indeed evil, they do lobbying and invest alot of money into money people so they don't have to pay the taxes. Not so much, it's not that they know the code or can afford better accountants, it's that, just like your SSI example, the goalposts have moved. Zackan said: » So what? Bottomline is age expectancy is the reason social security is broken. It is the reason why money is taken from non social security funds to support social security. There is literally no REAL PERMANENT(not counting repealing it all together) way to fix social security UNLESS you adjust age requirement with age expectancy. Basically, health technology is screwing over our social security program. Back in 1935 the average person died at 62. If they 'don't touch' people after 60... then thats a 5 year gap. So change laws to require non age discrimination up to age 80.. change social security to age 65. problem fixed. Not saying I disagree, but a large portion of the SSI issue we currently face is the reduced revenue due to stagnant wage growth for the vast majority of earners, repetitive borrowing from the fund to cover budget shortfalls, and the significant bulge in the age demographics with the baby-boomers hitting retirement age. SSI requires a strong middle class and fairly flat age demographics to remain solvent. Increased life expectancy is just one factor, which most definitely does need to be addressed, but not by simply increasing retirement age to beyond life expectancy. I'm guessing you're nowhere near retirement age. Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » where are you getting that executives have a lower effective tax rate than their employees? Last I checked, the more you make, the higher tax bracket you are in. And since they are executives that means they are not the owner of the business and so can't write off the expenses of the business. Effective tax rate is the rate you pay of your gross income in relation to your adjusted income. Here's the rub: Executives average yearly salary is hovering just below 12 million dollars. The progressive tax rates cap at ~450K. That's just their cash salary. A very large portion of an executive's compensation packages (some as much as 75% of total compensation) can include stock options (ISO) that are taxed at a much lower rate. And, the real value of those options once exercised is their appreciation, which is taxed at the capital gains rates. This does a decent job of explaining how effective tax rates are determined. Tax people will tell you that exercising your deductions is what you're supposed to do, and that everyone is entitled to the same deductions, which is true. But, TP neo-cons will say in the same breath that the EITC is a scam, which makes no sense, and that the rich pay most of the taxes, which is dishonest. 10% of the population gets almost 90% of new income but pay only about 34% of the total taxes, that's 90% of private income generating only slightly more tax revenue than the 10% earned by everyone else. That's just income, accrued wealth accounts for another significant chunk of money that isn't being taxed at the same rate on both ends. I'm not saying tax the rich more, just stop pretending they're getting the brown end of the lollipop. There is more than one definition of effective tax rate, the one I had in mind is: Quote: Tax Brackets and Effective Tax Rates If your marginal tax rate is, for example, 25%. That doesn't mean that ALL of your income is taxed at 25%. Income is actually taxed at different rates. Here's how it works: Say that your income for 2014 is $40,000 and your filing status is single. Your first $9,075 will be taxed at 10%. Every dollar from $9,076 to $36,900 will be taxed at 15%. And every dollar from $36,900 to $40,000 will be taxed at 25%. So, if you added up the taxes that you pay on each portion of your income, and then divide it by your total income (then multiply by 100), you would get your "effective tax rate". This is the actual rate you pay on your taxes, regardless of your marginal tax rate. Also, the cap may be at ~450k, but it's still about 40% tax rate for anything over that amount, while the vast majority of other people are paying 15-25%. But I do acknowledge your argument about the stock options. Capital Gains tax rate caps at 15% iirc. Leviathan.Protey said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » where are you getting that executives have a lower effective tax rate than their employees? Last I checked, the more you make, the higher tax bracket you are in. And since they are executives that means they are not the owner of the business and so can't write off the expenses of the business. Effective tax rate is the rate you pay of your gross income in relation to your adjusted income. Here's the rub: Executives average yearly salary is hovering just below 12 million dollars. The progressive tax rates cap at ~450K. That's just their cash salary. A very large portion of an executive's compensation packages (some as much as 75% of total compensation) can include stock options (ISO) that are taxed at a much lower rate. And, the real value of those options once exercised is their appreciation, which is taxed at the capital gains rates. This does a decent job of explaining how effective tax rates are determined. Tax people will tell you that exercising your deductions is what you're supposed to do, and that everyone is entitled to the same deductions, which is true. But, TP neo-cons will say in the same breath that the EITC is a scam, which makes no sense, and that the rich pay most of the taxes, which is dishonest. 10% of the population gets almost 90% of new income but pay only about 34% of the total taxes, that's 90% of private income generating only slightly more tax revenue than the 10% earned by everyone else. That's just income, accrued wealth accounts for another significant chunk of money that isn't being taxed at the same rate on both ends. I'm not saying tax the rich more, just stop pretending they're getting the brown end of the lollipop. There is more than one definition of effective tax rate, the one I had in mind is: Quote: Tax Brackets and Effective Tax Rates If your marginal tax rate is, for example, 25%. That doesn't mean that ALL of your income is taxed at 25%. Income is actually taxed at different rates. Here's how it works: Say that your income for 2014 is $40,000 and your filing status is single. Your first $9,075 will be taxed at 10%. Every dollar from $9,076 to $36,900 will be taxed at 15%. And every dollar from $36,900 to $40,000 will be taxed at 25%. So, if you added up the taxes that you pay on each portion of your income, and then divide it by your total income (then multiply by 100), you would get your "effective tax rate". This is the actual rate you pay on your taxes, regardless of your marginal tax rate. Also, the cap may be at ~450k, but it's still about 40% tax rate for anything over that amount, while the vast majority of other people are paying 15-25%. But I do acknowledge your argument about the stock options. Capital Gains tax rate caps at 15% iirc. Capital gains rates used to cap at 15%. Now, under 26 U.S.C. 1(h), the highest maximum capital gains rate is 20%. On top of that, Obamacare imposes a 3.8% medicare surtax on capital gains, which places the top-end maximum capital gains rates at 23.8%. Also, the bit above providing an illustration of the Section 1 tax ladder is helpful for those unfamiliar. It's a scaling ladder, not a flat rate. Quote: Basically the rich know all the loopholes to reduce there taxes, Corporations are indeed evil, they do lobbying and invest alot of money into money people so they don't have to pay the taxes. I would like to add some input here. When you refer to "corporations," you are picturing large, publicly-traded Corporations incorporated under Subchapter C. A majority of Corporations (again, not taking into consideration market share or revenue, just a numerical count), are S-Corps and smaller C-Corps. These closely held Corporations are entities which are typically run by families or business partners who have banded together under the Corporate banner for the insulation from liability which the Corporate form offers them. Point is, you mustn't harbor animosity towards all Corporate entities - a majority of incorporated business is actually small business owned by close and personal shareholders. The image of a disinterested, steely and evil public corporation is misapplied to not only all other forms of incorporation, but to much of management in the world of commerce. The only companies with the kind of lobbying power and clout which you have described are, by and far, the minority.
[+]
Cerberus.Logical said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » where are you getting that executives have a lower effective tax rate than their employees? Last I checked, the more you make, the higher tax bracket you are in. And since they are executives that means they are not the owner of the business and so can't write off the expenses of the business. Effective tax rate is the rate you pay of your gross income in relation to your adjusted income. Here's the rub: Executives average yearly salary is hovering just below 12 million dollars. The progressive tax rates cap at ~450K. That's just their cash salary. A very large portion of an executive's compensation packages (some as much as 75% of total compensation) can include stock options (ISO) that are taxed at a much lower rate. And, the real value of those options once exercised is their appreciation, which is taxed at the capital gains rates. This does a decent job of explaining how effective tax rates are determined. Tax people will tell you that exercising your deductions is what you're supposed to do, and that everyone is entitled to the same deductions, which is true. But, TP neo-cons will say in the same breath that the EITC is a scam, which makes no sense, and that the rich pay most of the taxes, which is dishonest. 10% of the population gets almost 90% of new income but pay only about 34% of the total taxes, that's 90% of private income generating only slightly more tax revenue than the 10% earned by everyone else. That's just income, accrued wealth accounts for another significant chunk of money that isn't being taxed at the same rate on both ends. I'm not saying tax the rich more, just stop pretending they're getting the brown end of the lollipop. There is more than one definition of effective tax rate, the one I had in mind is: Quote: Tax Brackets and Effective Tax Rates If your marginal tax rate is, for example, 25%. That doesn't mean that ALL of your income is taxed at 25%. Income is actually taxed at different rates. Here's how it works: Say that your income for 2014 is $40,000 and your filing status is single. Your first $9,075 will be taxed at 10%. Every dollar from $9,076 to $36,900 will be taxed at 15%. And every dollar from $36,900 to $40,000 will be taxed at 25%. So, if you added up the taxes that you pay on each portion of your income, and then divide it by your total income (then multiply by 100), you would get your "effective tax rate". This is the actual rate you pay on your taxes, regardless of your marginal tax rate. Also, the cap may be at ~450k, but it's still about 40% tax rate for anything over that amount, while the vast majority of other people are paying 15-25%. But I do acknowledge your argument about the stock options. Capital Gains tax rate caps at 15% iirc. Capital gains rates used to cap at 15%. Now, under 26 U.S.C. 1(h), the highest maximum capital gains rate is 20%. On top of that, Obamacare imposes a 3.8% medicare surtax on capital gains, which places the top-end maximum capital gains rates at 23.8%. Also, the bit above providing an illustration of the Section 1 tax ladder is helpful for those unfamiliar. It's a scaling ladder, not a flat rate. Quote: Basically the rich know all the loopholes to reduce there taxes, Corporations are indeed evil, they do lobbying and invest alot of money into money people so they don't have to pay the taxes. I would like to add some input here. When you refer to "corporations," you are picturing large, publicly-traded Corporations incorporated under Subchapter C. A majority of Corporations (again, not taking into consideration market share or revenue, just a numerical count), are S-Corps and smaller C-Corps. These closely held Corporations are entities which are typically run by families or business partners who have banded together under the Corporate banner for the insulation from liability which the Corporate form offers them. Point is, you mustn't harbor animosity towards all Corporate entities - a majority of incorporated business is actually small business owned by close and personal shareholders. The image of a disinterested, steely and evil public corporation is misapplied to not only all other forms of incorporation, but to much of management in the world of commerce. The only companies with the kind of lobbying power and clout which you have described are, by and far, the minority. Point taken, So how do i say corporations like google and other big corporations are 'the root of all evil' since i do not want to mistakenly lump smaller companies into that Odin.Jassik said: » Zackan said: » Zackan said: » So what? Bottomline is age expectancy is the reason social security is broken. It is the reason why money is taken from non social security funds to support social security. There is literally no REAL PERMANENT(not counting repealing it all together) way to fix social security UNLESS you adjust age requirement with age expectancy. Basically, health technology is screwing over our social security program. Back in 1935 the average person died at 62. If they 'don't touch' people after 60... then thats a 5 year gap. So change laws to require non age discrimination up to age 80.. change social security to age 65. problem fixed. Not saying I disagree, but a large portion of the SSI issue we currently face is the reduced revenue due to stagnant wage growth for the vast majority of earners, repetitive borrowing from the fund to cover budget shortfalls, and the significant bulge in the age demographics with the baby-boomers hitting retirement age. SSI requires a strong middle class and fairly flat age demographics to remain solvent. Increased life expectancy is just one factor, which most definitely does need to be addressed, but not by simply increasing retirement age to beyond life expectancy. I'm guessing you're nowhere near retirement age. Nah I am not. FYI i am 60% joking here. Just making a pure logic argument is all. If Age expectancy was 62 at foundation with a required age of 65... then logic dictates that in order for it to work as designed if age expectancy is now 82... then required age needs to be 85^^ Simple logic argument thats all..(overly simplistic as well, but i dont mind! making this argument lightheartedly anyway) Odin.Jassik said: » Executives average yearly salary is hovering just below 12 million dollars. Odin.Jassik said: » A very large portion of an executive's compensation packages (some as much as 75% of total compensation) can include stock options (ISO) that are taxed at a much lower rate. Odin.Jassik said: » that the rich pay most of the taxes, which is dishonest. Odin.Jassik said: » 10% of the population gets almost 90% of new income but pay only about 34% of the total taxes, that's 90% of private income generating only slightly more tax revenue than the 10% earned by everyone else. Odin.Jassik said: » That's just income, accrued wealth accounts for another significant chunk of money that isn't being taxed at the same rate on both ends. Cerberus.Logical said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » where are you getting that executives have a lower effective tax rate than their employees? Last I checked, the more you make, the higher tax bracket you are in. And since they are executives that means they are not the owner of the business and so can't write off the expenses of the business. Effective tax rate is the rate you pay of your gross income in relation to your adjusted income. Here's the rub: Executives average yearly salary is hovering just below 12 million dollars. The progressive tax rates cap at ~450K. That's just their cash salary. A very large portion of an executive's compensation packages (some as much as 75% of total compensation) can include stock options (ISO) that are taxed at a much lower rate. And, the real value of those options once exercised is their appreciation, which is taxed at the capital gains rates. This does a decent job of explaining how effective tax rates are determined. Tax people will tell you that exercising your deductions is what you're supposed to do, and that everyone is entitled to the same deductions, which is true. But, TP neo-cons will say in the same breath that the EITC is a scam, which makes no sense, and that the rich pay most of the taxes, which is dishonest. 10% of the population gets almost 90% of new income but pay only about 34% of the total taxes, that's 90% of private income generating only slightly more tax revenue than the 10% earned by everyone else. That's just income, accrued wealth accounts for another significant chunk of money that isn't being taxed at the same rate on both ends. I'm not saying tax the rich more, just stop pretending they're getting the brown end of the lollipop. There is more than one definition of effective tax rate, the one I had in mind is: Quote: Tax Brackets and Effective Tax Rates If your marginal tax rate is, for example, 25%. That doesn't mean that ALL of your income is taxed at 25%. Income is actually taxed at different rates. Here's how it works: Say that your income for 2014 is $40,000 and your filing status is single. Your first $9,075 will be taxed at 10%. Every dollar from $9,076 to $36,900 will be taxed at 15%. And every dollar from $36,900 to $40,000 will be taxed at 25%. So, if you added up the taxes that you pay on each portion of your income, and then divide it by your total income (then multiply by 100), you would get your "effective tax rate". This is the actual rate you pay on your taxes, regardless of your marginal tax rate. Also, the cap may be at ~450k, but it's still about 40% tax rate for anything over that amount, while the vast majority of other people are paying 15-25%. But I do acknowledge your argument about the stock options. Capital Gains tax rate caps at 15% iirc. Capital gains rates used to cap at 15%. Now, under 26 U.S.C. 1(h), the highest maximum capital gains rate is 20%. On top of that, Obamacare imposes a 3.8% medicare surtax on capital gains, which places the top-end maximum capital gains rates at 23.8%. Also, the bit above providing an illustration of the Section 1 tax ladder is helpful for those unfamiliar. It's a scaling ladder, not a flat rate. Quote: Basically the rich know all the loopholes to reduce there taxes, Corporations are indeed evil, they do lobbying and invest alot of money into money people so they don't have to pay the taxes. I would like to add some input here. When you refer to "corporations," you are picturing large, publicly-traded Corporations incorporated under Subchapter C. A majority of Corporations (again, not taking into consideration market share or revenue, just a numerical count), are S-Corps and smaller C-Corps. These closely held Corporations are entities which are typically run by families or business partners who have banded together under the Corporate banner for the insulation from liability which the Corporate form offers them. Point is, you mustn't harbor animosity towards all Corporate entities - a majority of incorporated business is actually small business owned by close and personal shareholders. The image of a disinterested, steely and evil public corporation is misapplied to not only all other forms of incorporation, but to much of management in the world of commerce. The only companies with the kind of lobbying power and clout which you have described are, by and far, the minority. I knew that I wasn't the only one here who knows about taxes.
[+]
Cerberus.Logical said: » I would like to add some input here. When you refer to "corporations," you are picturing large, publicly-traded Corporations incorporated under Subchapter C. A majority of Corporations (again, not taking into consideration market share or revenue, just a numerical count), are S-Corps and smaller C-Corps. These closely held Corporations are entities which are typically run by families or business partners who have banded together under the Corporate banner for the insulation from liability which the Corporate form offers them. Point is, you mustn't harbor animosity towards all Corporate entities - a majority of incorporated business is actually small business owned by close and personal shareholders. The image of a disinterested, steely and evil public corporation is misapplied to not only all other forms of incorporation, but to much of management in the world of commerce. The only companies with the kind of lobbying power and clout which you have described are, by and far, the minority. Another thing to consider that all Subchapter "S" Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, and Partnerships are not taxed at the lower Corporate Tax Rate, but at the much higher Individual Tax Rate because the income made by these companies (well over 95% of all businesses in the US are businesses organized other than Subchapter "C" Corporations) have their taxable income passed through to the owners, and the owners themselves pay the taxes. In some cases, all of the taxable income is passed to one owner (Single Owner S-Corps and Single Member LLCs).
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » A reliable source told me that the only water flowing in Africa is the bitter sting of tears. for some reason this came to mind YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Where in the *** did you get your number from, your ***? My number is from the SEC, Fortune 500 CEO's. All corporations have a CEO, even very small privately owned corporations. We're not talking about a family bakery, we're talking about publicly traded corporations. Including small business owner/executives is the equivalent of including fake Rolex's in an average price of Rolex's statistic. And, for the record, your figure is based on voluntary information for ALL corporations, not just publicly traded ones. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Wrong again. Executive stock options are generally non-statutory stock options, and are taxable as compensation on the year it is received No, just no. You can't H&R *** canon on this. Most non-executive stock compensation are non-statutory unless they're part of a buying program, executives are almost always given ISO's, which often cannot be exercised for years, so their actual value is taxed as capital gains and not income. You know better. Basically, they're paid a dollar which they cannot spend, it's taxed as a dollar, then 2 years later they can spend it, only now it's 12 dollars, and it's taxed as capital gains. The majority of it's actual value is not considered income. It's a "legitimate" tax code that everyone has access to, except the 99.9% of the population that doesn't get ISO's... Asura.Kingnobody said: » Spreading lies like you do is dishonest. And the Tax Foundation is hardly a non-partisan source when it comes to taxing the rich. If you focus solely on INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES, which is why I said it's dishonest. Individual income taxes make up less than 40% of total taxes paid. When compared to the whole, the difference is the top 10% paying roughly 22% of total taxes and the other 90% paying about 18%. Even if we used your graph, why is 90% of the income only responsible for 68% of the taxes? Also, on the topic of The Tax Foundation and their bias. Do you find it odd that most of their current and previous directors were executives of energy conglomerates? (Koch, Exxon Mobile, BP) or maybe that just about all the rest were former Republican congressmen? It's a conservative think-tank, and their practices have come under scrutiny repeatedly in the last several decades, often drawing the ire of even right-leaning watchdog groups. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Accrued wealth is already taxed wealth. But I'm sure you are all for taxing that wealth again. That is, until you realize that the same tax that is taxing the wealth is also draining what little savings anyone has (taxes cannot discriminate, when you set a tax to tax one group of people, you tax everyone, it is against the constitution to create a tax only one group of people would pay). So, let's go ahead and tax wealth, and watch poverty rates soar because of it! I'm not talking about the family farm, I'm talking about investments, which are commonly held abroad by wealthy people. Foreign holdings are treated differently than domestic, especially when their value appreciates. And, once again, I haven't advocated taxing accrued wealth or increasing taxes on the rich, or any of the pseudo-conservative doomsday prophecies you people spout off whenever someone points out the serious problems when wealth is spread this unevenly in a population.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » My number is from the SEC, Fortune 500 CEO's. All corporations have a CEO, even very small privately owned corporations. We're not talking about a family bakery, we're talking about publicly traded corporations. Including small business owner/executives is the equivalent of including fake Rolex's in an average price of Rolex's statistic. And, for the record, your figure is based on voluntary information for ALL corporations, not just publicly traded ones. Odin.Jassik said: » No, just no. You can't H&R *** canon on this. Most non-executive stock compensation are non-statutory unless they're part of a buying program, executives are almost always given ISO's, which often cannot be exercised for years, so their actual value is taxed as capital gains and not income. You know better. Basically, they're paid a dollar which they cannot spend, it's taxed as a dollar, then 2 years later they can spend it, only now it's 12 dollars, and it's taxed as capital gains. The majority of it's actual value is not considered income. It's a "legitimate" tax code that everyone has access to, except the 99.9% of the population that doesn't get ISO's... Most qualified incentive stock option programs limits the amount of options received by an individual up to $100,000, and the number of years between the qualified program receipts. Meaning that the compensation stock received are generally disqualified as ISOs if the options given are over $100,000. These are options where the grant amount and date are compared to the FMV of the stock on that date. So, nearly all options given to executives you are cherry picking in your argument receive non-statutory options as compensation, reportable as income on the year they receive it. Just in case you don't believe me: Source Odin.Jassik said: » If you focus solely on INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES, which is why I said it's dishonest. Individual income taxes make up less than 40% of total taxes paid. When compared to the whole, the difference is the top 10% paying roughly 22% of total taxes and the other 90% paying about 18%. Even if we used your graph, why is 90% of the income only responsible for 68% of the taxes? Odin.Jassik said: » I'm not talking about the family farm, I'm talking about investments, which are commonly held abroad by wealthy people. Foreign holdings are treated differently than domestic, especially when their value appreciates. Protip: Individuals pay on worldwide income, not just domestic. Odin.Jassik said: » And, once again, I haven't advocated taxing accrued wealth or increasing taxes on the rich, or any of the pseudo-conservative doomsday prophecies you people spout off whenever someone points out the serious problems when wealth is spread this unevenly in a population. Odin.Jassik said: » That's just income, accrued wealth accounts for another significant chunk of money that isn't being taxed at the same rate on both ends. Asura.Kingnobody said: » You are putting a number out there for "shock" value, but it's not an amount anywhere close to reality. You are purposefully excluding about 95% of corporations out there because they don't fit your little narrative. You are cherry picking facts that suits your argument, which is par for the course for a liberal argument. Because ~90% of corporations are closely held and only incorporated for liability reasons, publicly traded corporations are the big boys, the ones that actually matter in this conversations. I'm not making an argument, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the way income and taxes are divided. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Where in the world do you get your "40% of all federal taxes are from individual income tax" number from? Source please. Although, I highly doubt you can provide one. Congressional budget office has breakdowns, here's a nice pretty graph  Quote: Protip: Individuals pay on worldwide income, not just domestic. I'm done talking to you, you try to bully people around citing random tax codes and spouting accounting babble. You can't even stick to one topic, you just bounce around attempting to talk above people, I'm sure you do it in real life as well. Forever alone. Odin.Jassik said: » Because ~90% of corporations are closely held and only incorporated for liability reasons, publicly traded corporations are the big boys, the ones that actually matter in this conversations. I'm not making an argument, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the way income and taxes are divided. Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Where in the world do you get your "40% of all federal taxes are from individual income tax" number from? Source please. Although, I highly doubt you can provide one. Congressional budget office has breakdowns, here's a nice pretty graph But if you want to go that route, the top 50% wealthiest individuals in this nation pays almost all of the individual income tax. They also pay more than 75% of the payroll taxes (mainly because they pay both the employer and employee portion by either as part of their partnership/S-Corp income and also their wages, or self-employment taxes, which captures both sides on the individual level). So, you want to add them together and see how that compares to your cherry picking argument? Odin.Jassik said: » We're not talking about income, we're talking about capital gains. Odin.Jassik said: » I'm done talking to you, you try to bully people around citing random tax codes and spouting accounting babble. You can't even stick to one topic, you just bounce around attempting to talk above people, I'm sure you do it in real life as well. Forever alone. But at least you are admitting that you are wrong by walking away from the argument to save face. Have fun, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Except you were saying all executives average salaries are around $12 million/year. Not "Fortune 500" but all executive salaries. We were talking about big corporations and I never used the word "all". Keywords for the day "context" and "reading comprehension". Asura.Kingnobody said: » Right, and an individual only pays individual income taxes, and payroll taxes just pop out of nowhere in your little world? We're talking about SSI budget shortfalls, why the heck would individual income taxes be the only pool to discuss when it's separate from SSI? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Are you saying that only foreign income is taxed at captial gains rate? Shall I prove you wrong again? Once again, not talking about foreign income, and you know for a fact there are plenty of off-shore places to park capital. Asura.Kingnobody said: » But at least you are admitting that you are wrong by walking away from the argument to save face. Have fun, don't let the door hit you on the way out. LOOOOOL Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Except you were saying all executives average salaries are around $12 million/year. Not "Fortune 500" but all executive salaries. We were talking about big corporations and I never used the word "all". Keywords for the day "context" and "reading comprehension". Asura.Kingnobody said: » Right, and an individual only pays individual income taxes, and payroll taxes just pop out of nowhere in your little world? We're talking about SSI budget shortfalls, why the heck would individual income taxes be the only pool to discuss when it's separate from SSI? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Are you saying that only foreign income is taxed at captial gains rate? Shall I prove you wrong again? Once again, not talking about foreign income, and you know for a fact there are plenty of off-shore places to park capital. Asura.Kingnobody said: » But at least you are admitting that you are wrong by walking away from the argument to save face. Have fun, don't let the door hit you on the way out. LOOOOOL Odin.Jassik said: » You can't even stick to one topic, you just bounce around attempting to talk above people Secondly, Odin.Jassik said: » We were talking about big corporations and I never used the word "all". Keywords for the day "context" and "reading comprehension". Odin.Jassik said: » Here's the rub: Executives average yearly salary is hovering just below 12 million dollars. Odin.Jassik said: » We're talking about SSI budget shortfalls, why the heck would individual income taxes be the only pool to discuss when it's separate from SSI? Odin.Jassik said: » Once again, not talking about foreign income, and you know for a fact there are plenty of off-shore places to park capital. Odin.Jassik said: » I'm talking about investments, which are commonly held abroad by wealthy people. Foreign holdings are treated differently than domestic, especially when their value appreciates. I thought we cured you KN.
Asura.Kingnobody said: » But at least you are admitting that you are wrong by walking away from the argument to save face
[+]
Well, for somebody who has no *** to give, he certainly giving a ***.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.