What is the benefit to society of Punitive Taxation?

Quote from BigBananaMess : Freezing cold. You were so close with Idi Amin. If you had said Robert Mugabe I'd have given it to you. Final hint: Less blue and more frowny than a Smurf. Has a bowlegged wife and takes lots of vacations.

Are those code words?

Quote from TRNT : This is absolutely not true. In fact it is better to be near the bottom of a bracket than near the top. Needless yo say I agree with you comment about "punitive."

Depends on your bracket. If you make $165,000 filing singly, you pay 33%. Less than $164,550, you pay 28%. 5% of $165,000 is over $8,000. You pay $8,250 a year for making that extra $450, and good luck asking your employer for a 5% raise. 'Course, most employers can and will agree to lower you to the lower bracket upon your request--but $8,000 is a big margin.

There are only two other 5% jumps: one from $8,025 (again, filing singly) and one from $32,550. But that $164,550 bracket is definitely the nastiest you're at the lower end. As for being at the higher end of your tax bracket, I'd rather be making $355,000 taxed at 33% than $165,000 taxed at 33%. Maybe it's just me.

Quote from Mixels : Depends on your bracket. If you make $165,000 filing singly, you pay 33%. Less than $164,550, you pay 28%. 5% of $165,000 is over $8,000. There are only two other 5% jumps: one from $8,025 (again, filing singly) and one from $32,550. But that $164,550 bracket is potentially nasty if you're at the lower end. As for being at the higher end of your tax bracket, I'd rather be making $355,000 taxed at 33% than $165,000 taxed at 33%. Maybe it's just me.

Regarding your last example: which would you like to be:

1. Making 165,001 and the bracket being 165,000 to 5,000,000 taxed at say 30%
2. Making 165,001 and the bracket being 80,000 to 166,000 taxed at 30%

But let's go back to your original comment. Say you make 165,001 and the bracket for 30% is from 165,000 to 5,000,000. You are at the very bottom of that bracket and you said that sucked? How so? Only one dollar of your income is taxed at 30% and you say that especially sucked?

It appeared that you made your comment thinking that when you made that extra dollar or so and you were pushed to a higher bracket that your entire income was taxed at that higher rate. But indeed I know you know that is not true. I think you misspoke when you said being at the bottom of a bracket especially sucked.

Quote from TRNT : Regarding your last example: which would you like to be: 1. Making 165,001 and the bracket being 165,000 to 5,000,000 taxed at say 30% 2. Making 165,001 and the bracket being 80,000 to 166,000 taxed at 30% But let go to your original comment. Say you make 165,001 and the bracket for 30% is from 165,000 to 5,000,000. You are at the very bottom of that bracket and you said that sucked? How so? Only one dollar of your income is taxed at 30% and you say that especially sucked? It appeared that you made your comment thinking that we\hen you made that extra dollar or so and you were pushed to a higher bracket that your entire income was taxed at that higher rate. But indeed I know you know that is not true. I think you misspoke when you said being at the bottom of a bracket especially sucked.

Oops, I messed up. Not thinking straight tonight. Anyway, if you're at the bottom of a bracket, you are probably looking forward to a lifetime of higher taxes on the rest of your raises.

Quote from Mixels : Oops, I messed up. Not thinking straight tonight. Anyway, if you're at the bottom of a bracket, you are probably looking forward to a lifetime of higher taxes on the rest of your raises.

Well, that is factually correct but also that is like looking at a half full glass of water and say it is half empty.

What you say seems right but I do not think it is. So I kinda disagree. If you are at a bottom of a bracket, you have a lifetime of getting raises and not paying a higher tax rate. (Glass is half full.)

One more time, which do you prefer:

1. You make 165,001 and the bracket for 30% is 165,000 - 5,000,000, or
2. You make 165,001 and the bracket for 30% is 165,000 - 300,000, or
3. You make 165,001 and the bracket for 30% is 80,000 - 166,000?

Obviously this is the order of preference: 1, 2, and 3, at least IMO. That is, you are better off to be near the bottom of a bracket. I know it sounds kinda counter-intuitive but if I am wrong, please show me. thanks.

Quote from MISHNAH : 2. What would this extra money be used for?

extra money? what extra money - the gov needs all the money it can get to keep up with it's debt - there hasn't been a positive balance since around 2000, and even then only a tiny bit

instead of complaining about taxes, take a look at where the money actually goes and complain about that instead

Quote from skiman : Punitive how? Punishing what behavior? What do Bill and Warren think that they have done wrong that merits punishment?

Have Bill and Melinda suggested higher maximum tax rates than we have currently have or are scheduled to have next year?

Quote from skiman : Incredibly, we built the greatest economy in the world with higher tax rates. And now, with the lowest rates in a half century, people still manage to bitch and moan. .

Great talking point. It must be, it gets repeated here daily.

We built the greatest economy in the world, after most of the rest of the world's infrastructure was destroyed, and we were able to produce the goods and services to rebuild them. Even the following booms were largely due to our getting a head start.

What do you suggest is going to be our next move?

If we depend on another World War, we might not survive as unscathed as we did after the last one.

Quote from MISHNAH : I see a lot of threads and posts here that are constantly calling for more and more taxation on one group or another, and it usually seems to be just to tax people for taxing's sake without any reasoning beyond what the taxes would go for. So I ask: 1. What is the point of punitive taxation just because somebody earns more than you do? 2. What would this extra money be used for? 3. Why do you believe that govt would somehow use this money in a wiser fashion than the citizens/companies themselves would?

Suppose that you have a money-making machine that earns you $10,000 per month with little or no work. How would it cost to protect this money-making machine from hordes of thieves, anarchists, Commies, Stalinists, Nazis, Mormons, Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, Ponzi schemers, Madoff wannabes, Loughners, etc?

Further suppose that the machine requires trained and educated workers to maintain. How much would it cost for you to educate and train the workers, starting from reading/arithmetic all the way to engineering concepts?

Lastly, suppose that the machine requires electricity, water, and other utilities. how much would it cost for you to build electrical lines, phone lines, water mains, gas mains, and other utilities connections to their respective providers?

That's your tax right there.

Quote : We've all seen these posts and discussions go on and on and on, but I'd like to hear some justification behind why people believe such things. I'm sure we ALL agree that we ALL must pay taxes to support the basic and necessary functions of govt, however in the past half-century, there has also been a sharp increase in govt spending on specific groups of people by taking money away from other groups of people. As I've stated in previous posts, I did live in a Communist country growing up where everything was controlled by the state, and I honestly dont get why a lot of free people in so many countries cling to and desire govt control so badly. Thanks!

I would like you to study the EMTALA Act, especially the part about forcing hospitals to provide emergency medical care to all comers, regardless of their ability or willingness to pay. Do you believe that this is a Communist requirement, something that the Commies in your old country would have implemented?

Quote from Dr. J : Taxes are often used as social tools, as a means to drive behaviour. I'd call 50% taxation punitive. I'm not sure where the breakpoint is, but excessive taxation of "the rich" has roots in jealousy and is meant as punishment.

I don't see how a 50% tax is punitive given that it costs a lot more to maintain, protect, and support all the income-generating assets owned by the taxpayers in the 50% bracket

Quote from andyfico : Obama scapegoats GW and the Republicans. .

I don't see anything wrong with scapegoating individuals who strongly believe that deficits don't matter.

Quote from vaultaddict : I agree. I think our current marginal rates on income are just about right.

I'd certainly like to see the tax code simplified, and more of the loopholes removed. I've even embraced the concept of taxing capital gains as regular income. I welcome that one.

How do you feel about the high number of folks that pay zero federal income tax? It seems a good majority think that should be changed. Even several of the liberals here have expressed that sentiment.

Quote from Elmer : I'd certainly like to see the tax code simplified, and more of the loopholes removed. I've even embraced the concept of taxing capital gains as regular income. I welcome that one. How do you feel about the high number of folks that pay zero federal income tax? It seems a good majority think that should be changed. Even several of the liberals here have expressed that sentiment.

I can certainly agree that a fair number of people that currently have no tax liability should be required to man the oars with the rest of us.

However, I also have no problem, as I'm sure you do, in providing some level of support for those whose needs are far greater than mine, and whose abilities are far less than mine. That'll get me called a Marxist by some, but I think you'll see my point.

That being said, I also get a bit miffed seeing able bodied adults not taking care of themselves compliments of me...

Quote from vaultaddict : I can certainly agree that a fair number of people that currently have no tax liability should be required to man the oars with the rest of us. However, I also have no problem, as I'm sure you do, in providing some level of support for those whose needs are far greater than mine, and whose abilities are far less than mine. That'll get me called a Marxist by some, but I think you'll see my point. That being said, I also get a bit miffed seeing able bodied adults not taking care of themselves compliments of me...

I don't see a whole lot of difference in our opinion. Perhaps just in the details.

Quote from kharvel : I don't see how a 50% tax is punitive given that it costs a lot more to maintain, protect, and support all the income-generating assets owned by the taxpayers in the 50% bracket

And of course, there's no benefit to anyone else for that.....