President vs. Arizona

[hemet dennis]

So you're saying we should have the top pay even less?

Why should anyone pay more then any other person ?

 

[AquaEyes]

Why should anyone pay more then any other person ?

Because if taxes were evenly assigned by head count, most of us would be in poverty.

 

[hemet dennis]

Keeping this on jobs.
The only reason for a business is to make money.
If you want to start a business and you find out that if you open on the north side of the street you have to get 10 permits and be heavily regulated and heavily taxed, but if you open on the south side of the street you only need 1 or 2 permits that you can get sooner and not have as much regulation and pay lower taxes. where will you open your business ?

 

[hemet dennis]

Because if taxes were evenly assigned by head count, most of us would be in poverty.

So my reward for working harder and investing smart is higher taxes ?

 

[AquaEyes]

So my reward for working harder and investing smart is higher taxes ?

The net between the higher income and the higher taxes is still greater than your income before, so you're still better off. However, by having taxes increase along with income, it serves to inhibit some of the increase in income at the expense of others. For example, if a company is growing and becoming more profitable, the CEOs could allocate most of the profit toward their own salaries, or they could distribute it further down the line. If the CEOs' taxes wouldn't increase along with their increased salaries, there's no inhibition against them keeping it all. If doing so leaves them with little net because of increased taxes, the alternative of increasing salaries proportionally throughout the company becomes more attractive. When more people have increased purchasing power, it means producers will sell more products. When only a few people drastically increase their own purchasing power, the resulting consumption is not as dispersed.

I think the misconception is the income level of the top 5% -- something I'd wager no one on this site will ever see. "Working harder and investing smart" would have to result in you going from a five figure income to an eight (or more) figure income for this "punishment" to take effect. This is not a reality for most people, even though proponents of the "punishing success by increasing taxes" idea seem to paint it that way.

 

[hemet dennis]

The net between the higher income and the higher taxes is still greater than your income before, so you're still better off. However, by having taxes increase along with income, it serves to inhibit some of the increase in income at the expense of others. For example, if a company is growing and becoming more profitable, the CEOs could allocate most of the profit toward their own salaries, or they could distribute it further down the line. If the CEOs' taxes wouldn't increase along with their increased salaries, there's no inhibition against them keeping it all. If doing so leaves them with little net because of increased taxes, the alternative of increasing salaries proportionally throughout the company becomes more attractive. When more people have increased purchasing power, it means producers will sell more products. When only a few people drastically increase their own purchasing power, the resulting consumption is not as dispersed.

I think the misconception is the income level of the top 5% -- something I'd wager no one on this site will ever see. "Working harder and investing smart" would have to result in you going from a five figure income to an eight (or more) figure income for this "punishment" to take effect. This is not a reality for most people, even though proponents of the "punishing success by increasing taxes" idea seem to paint it that way.

Simple question what side of the street do you open your business on ?

 

[hemet dennis]

The net between the higher income and the higher taxes is still greater than your income before, so you're still better off. However, by having taxes increase along with income, it serves to inhibit some of the increase in income at the expense of others. For example, if a company is growing and becoming more profitable, the CEOs could allocate most of the profit toward their own salaries, or they could distribute it further down the line. If the CEOs' taxes wouldn't increase along with their increased salaries, there's no inhibition against them keeping it all. If doing so leaves them with little net because of increased taxes, the alternative of increasing salaries proportionally throughout the company becomes more attractive. When more people have increased purchasing power, it means producers will sell more products. When only a few people drastically increase their own purchasing power, the resulting consumption is not as dispersed.

Nice try but.
So I as CEO want to bring home $75,000 so if the tax rate is 25% I need to pay me $100,000 now if you raise the tax rate to 40% how much do I have to pay myself to bring home $75,000 ? Your plan doesn't work does it ?

 

[hemet dennis]

I think the misconception is the income level of the top 5% -- something I'd wager no one on this site will ever see. "Working harder and investing smart" would have to result in you going from a five figure income to an eight (or more) figure income for this "punishment" to take effect. This is not a reality for most people, even though proponents of the "punishing success by increasing taxes" idea seem to paint it that way.

But if I do a lot less I will get free food and a welfare check and pay no taxes.

 

[chickened]

Anyone that has ran a legitimate business would agree with what HD has said, you can teach and run all the models you want but you cannot predict the unintended happenings. People simply raise their prices, government prints more money, it becomes worth less and pretty soon we all have more money but it buys less.

Trickledown does work but not in a heavily dependant social program atmosphere.

AE what is your school loan payment per month? I bet it is 15% of your income... how do you propose paying that back working minimum wage? somebody has to pay it, so far it is has been the middle class mainly because there are more of them... simple economics... sell one 5 million dollar home or sell 100 150,000.00 dollar homes with a bigger market.

People working factories cannot afford large ticket items only large business and when the sell those items used they trickle down to the businessman that can afford to purchase it and so on and so on.

The current system of bailouts has not worked and will not work. The economy if ran like social programs would work great only problem as any accountant will tell you somebody somewhere will pay... it won't be the wealthy never has been never will be. It is a theological pipedream.

 

[hemet dennis]

Anyone that has ran a legitimate business would agree with what HD has said, you can teach and run all the models you want but you cannot predict the unintended happenings. People simply raise their prices, government prints more money, it becomes worth less and pretty soon we all have more money but it buys less.

Trickledown does work but not in a heavily dependant social program atmosphere.

AE what is your school loan payment per month? I bet it is 15% of your income... how do you propose paying that back working minimum wage? somebody has to pay it, so far it is has been the middle class mainly because there are more of them... simple economics... sell one 5 million dollar home or sell 100 150,000.00 dollar homes with a bigger market.

People working factories cannot afford large ticket items only large business and when the sell those items used they trickle down to the businessman that can afford to purchase it and so on and so on.

The current system of bailouts has not worked and will not work. The economy if ran like social programs would work great only problem as any accountant will tell you somebody somewhere will pay... it won't be the wealthy never has been never will be. It is a theological pipedream.

It's a ponzi system and all is well till you run out of rich people to pay the way of all the others.