Trickle-down economics? - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #46 12-12-2010, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

A neighbor of mine has an interesting solution.

Have a top income tax of ~25% up to a million dollars. Over a million everything is taxed 100% unless it is invested. If it's invested for a year the tax drops to 90%, 2 years - 80% and so on. This would make all wealthy people active long term stake holders in the economy.

I told him it sounds nice but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

That's a great idea, a 25% rate would be pretty good and you can hold your income at $1m through the use of write offs and corporations.

Chas H · #47 12-12-2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

No even close. Please try to read and understand what I posted. Over half the land had to be SOLD in order to keep the land in the family as a farm. No one got a damn dime but the Govt. And now the members of the family that got the land (I am not one of them) have half the acreage to work with because the GOVT needed the money to support ........................... Fill in the blank with YOUR favorite social program.

So yes I am a firm believer in what a person works for their entire life should be theirs and theirs alone. It does not belong to some official in DC. Just because what you worked for has gone up in value does not mean that you as the owner have gotten the windfall.

Farms around here have been incorporated for decades. The death of one of the share holders is not the end of of the farm. You and your relatives screwed up.
People that work every day to provide for their families get taxed around 40%, or more. Why should an heir get money tax free?
The largest "social programs" SS and medicare are funded by their own taxes. The money collected from your relatives might well go to pay for the war in Iraq.

Hatterasguy · #48 12-12-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I'm not certain about the current rules, I keep my cars in my name. At one time there was an advantage to having your corporation own your vehicles, especially if they could be classified as trucks over a specific weight. My point was that it is very easy to minimize your taxes if you are in that income range.

Now they use Cayman Island corporations and African charities. Lots of ways to hide money.

Also no one should be paying the inheritance tax unless its a sudden death. If you have assets that are large enough to be taxed they shouldn't be in your name, they should be in a trust. When you die you should have absolutely nothing in your name.

The bottom line is that people who earn income from a job get soaked since their isn't much they can do to minimize their tax burden. The vast majority of people who do make money own their own companies, which tax laws favor.

For example in RE I can avoid paying taxes to a point by renting out a property and taking a mortgage out against it. This way I get my money out and don't have to pay taxes on it. When I sell I do but I can control that and sell in a favorable year.

kerry · #49 12-12-2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

T Punish the Rich, reward the poor. The only problem is the poor are stupid; witness the many lottery winners who are dead stone broke within five years of winning the lottery. .

Sounds to me as if it is the children of the rich that are being 'punished', not the rich themselves. What reason is there to think that the children of the rich had the same ability to produce jobs and wealth as their parents? If we were really interested in producing more wealth in each generation, shouldn't the wealth of one generation go to the people in the next who are most likely to use it wisely?

Billybob · #50 12-12-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Sounds to me as if it is the children of the rich that are being 'punished', not the rich themselves. What reason is there to think that the children of the rich had the same ability to produce jobs and wealth as their parents? If we were really interested in producing more wealth in each generation, shouldn't the wealth of one generation go to the people in the next who are most likely to use it wisely?

Liberal-nomics, liberals aka "we", deciding who should have access to the wealth of others, rather than people who possess wealth deciding who should have access to it.

Chas H · #51 12-12-2010, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Liberal-nomics, liberals aka "we", deciding who should have access to the wealth of others, rather than people who possess wealth deciding who should have access to it.

Congress is tasked with funding the g'ment. And congress has mostly decided to borrow money rather than require those who benefit from the freedom and liberty of our country to pay for those blessings.

anthonyb · #52 12-12-2010, 06:33 PM

Back to the original topic, it sure doesn't look like trickle-down economics (in the form of the Bush tax cuts) has done much to stimulate growth in the economy over the last 5 years. Certainly not any more than deregulation of the financial industry did much good, besides leading to a financial crisis of historic proportions and the near destruction of the global financial system.

Chas H · #53 12-12-2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyb

Back to the original topic, it sure doesn't look like trickle-down economics (in the form of the Bush tax cuts) has done much to stimulate growth in the economy over the last 5 years. Certainly not any more than deregulation of the financial industry did much good, besides leading to a financial crisis of historic proportions and the near destruction of the global financial system.

Just another example of how Bush did more damage to this country than any terrorist could do.

Billybob · #54 12-12-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Congress is tasked with funding the g'ment. And congress has mostly decided to borrow money rather than require those who benefit from the freedom and liberty of our country to pay for those blessings.

Or in the alternative reducing the bloated scope of government to conform to the revenue parameters!

Billybob · #55 12-12-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyb

Back to the original topic, it sure doesn't look like trickle-down economics (in the form of the Bush tax cuts) has done much to stimulate growth in the economy over the last 5 years. Certainly not any more than deregulation of the financial industry did much good, besides leading to a financial crisis of historic proportions and the near destruction of the global financial system.

Just another example of how Bush did more damage to this country than any terrorist could do.

Suck it up, Boys! It could never have happened without those paragons of leftist virtue and the two highest presidential IQs, One Term Jimmy” I have lusted in my heart” Carter” and Bill “Slick-Have a Cigar, I’ve been impeached-Willie” Clinton

"The original Act was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 12, 1977 (Pub.L. 95-128, 12 U.S.C. ch.30).[38] Several legislative and regulatory revisions have since been enactedGramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[13] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

buffa98 · #56 12-12-2010, 08:20 PM

Chas- There is a slight difference between bucks county pa and central ND. There is no large city trying to swallow the land to build houses. The only part that changed hands was land no money. Because of the way the law is currently written the tax on the transfer of property fall to the purchasers. And to clarify another point that generation had little use for banks,lawyers and a few other necessary evils.

As far as the farm is concerned it will never happen again, cooler smarter heads have prevailed, Using the Kennedy trick...........The farm is now a trust.

elchivito · #57 12-12-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

No even close. Please try to read and understand what I posted. Over half the land had to be SOLD in order to keep the land in the family as a farm. No one got a damn dime but the Govt. And now the members of the family that got the land (I am not one of them) have half the acreage to work with because the GOVT needed the money to support ........................... Fill in the blank with YOUR favorite social program.

So yes I am a firm believer in what a person works for their entire life should be theirs and theirs alone. It does not belong to some official in DC. Just because what you worked for has gone up in value does not mean that you as the owner have gotten the windfall.

I agree with you. I run a family farm that has been in my family for 200 years and will remain there. We've never lost an acre due to inheritance. Somebody screwed up somewhere along the line. Sorry to hear about your family's situation. It's not, unfortunately unique.
The notion that jealousy drives wrath against wall street maggots is nonsense. To repeat, these people contribute nothing to the common good and only take, at the expense of those who actually produce something. Further, the notion that smarter = richer is elitist, bigoted and contemptible.

Chas H · #58 12-12-2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

Chas- There is a slight difference between bucks county pa and central ND. There is no large city trying to swallow the land to build houses. The only part that changed hands was land no money. Because of the way the law is currently written the tax on the transfer of property fall to the purchasers. And to clarify another point that generation had little use for banks,lawyers and a few other necessary evils.

As far as the farm is concerned it will never happen again, cooler smarter heads have prevailed, Using the Kennedy trick...........The farm is now a trust.

Were you ranting against a transfer tax, which is generally a local tax or the a Federal tax on inheritance?
I still see no reason why hard earned income from wages should be taxed while income from having wealthy ancestors should not be taxed.

Skid Row Joe · #59 12-12-2010, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I do not recall wanting to soak the rich but to have them pay their fair share without all the loop holes and shelters that I am not able to take advantage of.

As for the prices. I figured that prices were based on what the market will pay. Their cost may go up if they have to start paying the taxes that are due but they are not going to increase their prices any more than what people are willing or able to pay.

Airlines are a good example of that. They have been hammered by fuel costs and the economy. hey would love to be able to increase their prices but with competition from airlines like Southwest and the unwillingness of people to pay a higher price that will not happen.

Why not?

Explain in full?

Skid Row Joe · #60 12-12-2010, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Sounds to me as if it is the children of the rich that are being 'punished', not the rich themselves. What reason is there to think that the children of the rich had the same ability to produce jobs and wealth as their parents? If we were really interested in producing more wealth in each generation, shouldn't the wealth of one generation go to the people in the next who are most likely to use it wisely?

No one that has a clue what to do with wealth is being punished.

According to the Holy Bible, you will learn that any wealth transfer is to go to Grandchildren, not children.