The first thing to change is stopping SS at $160K. Why should a person making $50K pay 6.2% on 100% of their annual paycheck, but someone making $250K only gets taxed on 64% of theirs?
On paper, because the payout is also capped. Billionaires don’t get any larger a payout than those making $160K. And SS is supposed to be an annuity where you get out commensurate with what you put in. Not a subsidy program.
I’m not disagring with the idea. Just pointing out that it’s not as regressive as you suggest without bringing up the payout side.
SSDI is not an annuity but an insurance program. You spend you life paying the premium to collect at 68
Most professional sports teams are a tremendous waste of money -every way you look at it.
The way I look at it is I want to be entertained and watching the best in the world is the best entertainment.
I tell my kids this all the time…“life is not a spectator sport”. I can’t understand the folks that spend their lives sitting on their asses cheering for someone else to participate in something.
If more people had this approach, then sports incomes would moderate a tremendous amount.
So you never go to your kids performances and cheer… What a shitty parent.
No, he said you have to be related to, a friend of, or know the person personally in order for it to fit his loophole criteria.
I wonder if he realizes he can never watch a movie, tv show, or a holiday show, or broadway show, etc by his own logic. Oh wait it’s about the salaries of the performers.
Ok then he needs to lay out his salary cap here to let us know what forms of entertainment are allowed if you don’t know someone on the “stage.â€
Yes. Start with the taxation system. It needs massive simplification. Rates don’t need to increase one just needs to collect from those who are doing very well. You could take more than 50 percent from earners over 500K on income but you mainly would be taking from high earning professionals and the entrepreneurial class.
A doctor friend of mine figured out how much the government was taking. This was 25 years ago in Canada. After he made 150 K the government took 52 percent of income. When he turned around to spend the remaining 48 percent he was charged 15 percent sales tax. He worked in emerg and made about 120 an hour. So he cut back to three 8-10 hours shifts a week. It just contributed to wait times in the local emergency room getting longer.
Or maybe it opened up a job for someone else to also make decent money?
Why is the answer to what happens when the rich just stop working so much, always answered as if no one else would step in and fill the work load.
I hear it about businesses also, well if you cap this then emilo wont grow desoto… well if there is demand for his clothes, another shop will pick up that until they are making enough and decide to not expand and then another business will grow also. Is one company doing $1billion in sales better or 10 companies doing $100 million?
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
Didn’t a baseball player just sign a 10 year 700 million contract? IT does seem a bit silly to me, but if people will support the team, I guess they can pay what they want.
I don’t understand the economics of baseball. I don’t think the average person is paying 300 dollars to see the Dodgers play. Regular people are not supporting baseball directly. Baseball doesn’t seem to be the thing a lot of people watch on TV.
Pretty sure a lot of the revenue comes from the TV deals and therefore the associated advertising.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
Didn’t a baseball player just sign a 10 year 700 million contract? IT does seem a bit silly to me, but if people will support the team, I guess they can pay what they want.
I don’t understand the economics of baseball. I don’t think the average person is paying 300 dollars to see the Dodgers play. Regular people are not supporting baseball directly. Baseball doesn’t seem to be the thing a lot of people watch on TV.
Pretty sure a lot of the revenue comes from the TV deals and therefore the associated advertising.
Thats the thing. The only people I know watching baseball on TV are retired people. People are always talking about NFL football but never about baseball.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
Didn’t a baseball player just sign a 10 year 700 million contract? IT does seem a bit silly to me, but if people will support the team, I guess they can pay what they want.
I don’t understand the economics of baseball. I don’t think the average person is paying 300 dollars to see the Dodgers play. Regular people are not supporting baseball directly. Baseball doesn’t seem to be the thing a lot of people watch on TV.
Pretty sure a lot of the revenue comes from the TV deals and therefore the associated advertising.
Thats the thing. The only people I know watching baseball on TV are retired people. People are always talking about NFL football but never about baseball.
If enough people aren’t watching they wouldn’t be able to sell the advertising.
SSDI is not an annuity but an insurance program. You spend you life paying the premium to collect at 68
Technically annuities are insurance contracts. You’re right, though, that the lifetime payment is an extra insurance-like payment on top of the insurance-y bit on the back end.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
Robin Hood had it right. Take from the rich and give to the poor.
If you make over 500k, the rest should be taxed at 100%. This includes investment income. But, it should be taxed at the local level, not the federal. The dollars should go back to your community, and you have a preference in where it goes. For example, if you make 600K, you get to allocate what charity or benevolent place the 100K goes. This 100K is also not taxed at all at a federal rate.
Soak the rich.
If you did that once you hit the 500k mark you would quit working, you would quit creating more jobs, the economy would go completely in the toilet.
I’m really hoping you missed putting your post in pink.
If you did that once you hit the 500k mark you would quit working, you would quit creating more jobs, the economy would go completely in the toilet.
SDG is a troll. He just write things to troll, and has zero genuine beliefs as far as I can tell.
But what you describe didn’t happen when the highest marginal rate used to be ~70-90%. That era was just as American capitalist kick-ass as any in its history.
The Laffer Curve has been widely descredited, as has the “emotional” argument that “job creators” are this fickle bunch of Galts who will either throw up their hands and quit or else leave the country unless their capacity to gain wealth is uncapped.
Maybe if we cut taxes again “trickle down” will start working and the working class will gain wealth! Or maybe it’s because they just need to stop going to Starbucks…that’s a rich people thing.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
Robin Hood had it right. Take from the rich and give to the poor.
If you make over 500k, the rest should be taxed at 100%. This includes investment income. But, it should be taxed at the local level, not the federal. The dollars should go back to your community, and you have a preference in where it goes. For example, if you make 600K, you get to allocate what charity or benevolent place the 100K goes. This 100K is also not taxed at all at a federal rate.
Soak the rich.
If you did that once you hit the 500k mark you would quit working, you would quit creating more jobs, the economy would go completely in the toilet.
I’m really hoping you missed putting your post in pink.
SDG has a history of very stupid posts. The jury is still out on if he is just plain stupid or uses extreme positions to get some point across in a stupid way.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
The top 1% pay over 42% of the federal income taxes. Whereas, the bottom pay none.
Shouldn’t be shocking that the top expects to be heard on all matters that affect them; skin in the game, and all that. On a state level that usually pays off better. Except in California.
Bye bye rich people, hello 68 Billion $ revenue shortfall.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
The top 1% pay over 42% of the federal income taxes. Whereas, the bottom pay none.
Shouldn’t be shocking that the top expects to be heard on all matters that affect them; skin in the game, and all that. On a state level that usually pays off better. Except in California.
Bye bye rich people, hello 68 Billion $ revenue shortfall.
aka the bottom 99% of the US have such a disproportionately tiny share of the nation’s income that, despite lacking most of the the means to avoid taxes that the top 1% use disproportionately, they’re still only responsible for 58% of federal income taxes. If income equality continues to accelerate maybe one day we’ll be in a situation where 0.1% of the US pay 99% of the taxes. That does not mean the position of the top 0.1% has gotten worse.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
The top 1% pay over 42% of the federal income taxes. Whereas, the bottom pay none.
Shouldn’t be shocking that the top expects to be heard on all matters that affect them; skin in the game, and all that. On a state level that usually pays off better. Except in California.
Bye bye rich people, hello 68 Billion $ revenue shortfall.
That is not how it works. The rich don’t get heard because they pay a lot of taxes, at least at the federal level. They get heard if they give a lot to politicians and PACs, hire lobbyists, host fundraisers, help organize a campaign, or do other such things.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
The top 1% pay over 42% of the federal income taxes. Whereas, the bottom pay none.
Shouldn’t be shocking that the top expects to be heard on all matters that affect them; skin in the game, and all that. On a state level that usually pays off better. Except in California.
Bye bye rich people, hello 68 Billion $ revenue shortfall.
That is not how it works. The rich don’t get heard because they pay a lot of taxes, at least at the federal level. They get heard if they give a lot to politicians and PACs, hire lobbyists, host fundraisers, help organize a campaign, or do other such things.
What you say is true, but it doesn’t mean that politicians don’t factor into their decisions who does (or doesn’t) pay the bulk of taxes.
I promise you no US senator will take my phone call. Many will take a call from Bill Gates, even if it’s in the hopes of garnering a few campaign $
Just the way it is
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
The top 1% pay over 42% of the federal income taxes. Whereas, the bottom pay none.
Shouldn’t be shocking that the top expects to be heard on all matters that affect them; skin in the game, and all that. On a state level that usually pays off better. Except in California.
Bye bye rich people, hello 68 Billion $ revenue shortfall.
So you’re advocating for plutocracy- if we’re not already there?
a country or society governed by the wealthy.
plural noun: plutocracies
“no one can accept public policies which turn a democracy into a plutocracy”
an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.
“officials were drawn from the new plutocracy”
aka the bottom 99% of the US have such a disproportionately tiny share of the nation’s income that, despite lacking most of the the means to avoid taxes that the top 1% use disproportionately, they’re still only responsible for 58% of federal income taxes.
More detail here is useful, though. Around 40% of that 99% pay no effective federal income tax at all. So the middle class gets squeezed. They pay the remaining ~60% of federal income taxes, but at a much higher effective tax rate than the 1%.
This argument is used in reverse. When asked to pay higher rates the 1% puts the back of the hand to the forehead, “We already pay over 40% of all incomes taxes, how we could we possibly be asked to pay more? We’ll just quit or leave the country!”
Edit: Ha, manofthewoods used that reverse “skin in the game” argument already. I actually don’t disagree from the perspective of civil participation. I don’t agree at all from a perspective of responsibility for funding the U.S. government. There’s only so much juice you can squeeze from a rock.
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
Didn’t a baseball player just sign a 10 year 700 million contract? IT does seem a bit silly to me, but if people will support the team, I guess they can pay what they want.
I don’t understand the economics of baseball. I don’t think the average person is paying 300 dollars to see the Dodgers play. Regular people are not supporting baseball directly. Baseball doesn’t seem to be the thing a lot of people watch on TV.
Pretty sure a lot of the revenue comes from the TV deals and therefore the associated advertising.
Thats the thing. The only people I know watching baseball on TV are retired people. People are always talking about NFL football but never about baseball.
If enough people aren’t watching they wouldn’t be able to sell the advertising.
Do we know that the advertising is generating enough to fund the salaries? Or is it the case that very wealthy people and local gov’t funding stadiums are kicking in a substantial portion?
The top 1% of American earners now own more wealth than the entire middle class Per USAToday.
Should something be done? Thoughts.
The top 1% pay over 42% of the federal income taxes. Whereas, the bottom pay none.
Shouldn’t be shocking that the top expects to be heard on all matters that affect them; skin in the game, and all that. On a state level that usually pays off better. Except in California.
Bye bye rich people, hello 68 Billion $ revenue shortfall.
That is not how it works. The rich don’t get heard because they pay a lot of taxes, at least at the federal level. They get heard if they give a lot to politicians and PACs, hire lobbyists, host fundraisers, help organize a campaign, or do other such things.
What you say is true, but it doesn’t mean that politicians don’t factor into their decisions who does (or doesn’t) pay the bulk of taxes.
I promise you no US senator will take my phone call. Many will take a call from Bill Gates, even if it’s in the hopes of garnering a few campaign $
Just the way it is
They’d take his call even if he paid no taxes. Back when Microsoft paid no dividend, his taxes probably weren’t that high. Give a $1mm to your Senator and they’ll start taking your calls, taxes be damned!
If you did that once you hit the 500k mark you would quit working, you would quit creating more jobs, the economy would go completely in the toilet.
SDG is a troll. He just write things to troll, and has zero genuine beliefs as far as I can tell.
But what you describe didn’t happen when the highest marginal rate used to be ~70-90%. That era was just as American capitalist kick-ass as any in its history.
The Laffer Curve has been widely descredited, as has the “emotional” argument that “job creators” are this fickle bunch of Galts who will either throw up their hands and quit or else leave the country unless their capacity to gain wealth is uncapped.
Maybe if we cut taxes again “trickle down” will start working and the working class will gain wealth! Or maybe it’s because they just need to stop going to Starbucks…that’s a rich people thing.
Which is also shown in classic management theory.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs? Money takes care of just basic needs, the bottom rungs. The higher up - i.e. the prestige of creating jobs - aren’t motivated by cash.
Herzberg’s Two factor theory? money is a hygiene factor, not enough of it is bad. However, money doesn’t motivate anyone and really doesn’t motivate anyone to create jobs.
The Laffer Curve has been widely descredited, as has the “emotional” argument that “job creators” are this fickle bunch of Galts who will either throw up their hands and quit or else leave the country unless their capacity to gain wealth is uncapped.
And ironically a 2017 study found that the inflection point of the US Laffer curve would be 76% tax rate
.