The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13..21~22~23 [Next]
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
All this talk about taxes just has me curious. Here in Canada we have a couple of simple ways in which to avoid taxes on part of our income.

RRSP = Registered Retirement Savings Plan = Money invested in an RRSP is only taxed when it is withdrawn upon retirement, not before.

TFSA = Tax Free Savings Account = Money deposited into this account can be invested and the returns on the investment are never taxed.

I think your 'traditional' 401K program functions more or less like our RRSP. Do you also have something like a TFSA?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 01:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 01:19, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 01:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
You know, attorneys just ask the questions. It's the psychologists who say under oath that the killer shouldn't be punished because of his mental disease or defect.


And it's the attorneys who pay those psychologists.

Psychologists also say under oath when the killer is faking it that they are faking it. Of the less than 5% of cases where sanity is questioned, over 95% of those are found to be malingering (faking it) by the psychologists. So far less than 1% of criminals are found NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.)

After NGRI is declared, the insane criminal will likely spend the rest of their lives in an asylum.

Of the few who are found NGRI, the time they are locked away generally ends up being (I think the number was 30%) LONGER than
it would have been if they had been sent to a prison.

Thanks for the opportunity to clear up those common misconceptions. You're a pal.


But the operative question is, of the times when they're faking it, how often is there a psychologist swearing that they're not?


Specifically for murder? I remember two. And I studied a lot of cases. One claimed schizophrenia and the other claimed multiple personalities. I'm sure there are more though, but the MMPI and other tests are getting better all the time. That's not to say there aren't morons in the field, but you in the courts usually screen those ones out.
It takes a lot of experience and a very good reputation to get hired as an expert witness.
And on the rare occasions when an idiot like the one involved in the multiple personality case do get hired, they tend to lose all credibility when the truth comes out, and then the attorneys don't hire them anymore. Or they lose their license altogether.
Incidentally, that multiple was found guilty when the prosecution hired a better psychologist.

Quote:
If I had my choice between X time in prison or 1.3X time in a mental hospital, I'd take the hospital.


I'd go for the prison. Ever been forced to take anti-psychotic medication? It's not pleasant.
Shock treatment? Yup, they still do that.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 01:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 01:27, critter wrote:
For the record, I am NOT in favor of illegal immigration. I am not against legal immigration, but I am against illegals coming in and demanding the same rights as me without going through the naturalization process and becoming citizens.


Since we disagree a lot, let me talk this opportunity to agree with you wholeheartedly.

And FWIW, I wasn't trying to ascribe that position to you; it was just something that the "outsourcing" discussion reminded me of.


I know, I just wanted to make my position clear before the discussion went any further.

BTW, I'm sorry I took the jab at attorneys in the other thread. I was in a bad mood so I took the low blow. It was intended to provoke and there were better ways I could have handled it. Just needed a fight that day.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 01:49, critter wrote:
It was intended to provoke and there were better ways I could have handled it. Just needed a fight that day.


Never happens to me. Smile
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 01:37, balducci wrote:
All this talk about taxes just has me curious. Here in Canada we have a couple of simple ways in which to avoid taxes on part of our income.

RRSP = Registered Retirement Savings Plan = Money invested in an RRSP is only taxed when it is withdrawn upon retirement, not before.

TFSA = Tax Free Savings Account = Money deposited into this account can be invested and the returns on the investment are never taxed.

I think your 'traditional' 401K program functions more or less like our RRSP. Do you also have something like a TFSA?


I know there are types of savings that aren't taxed but I can't remember what they are. My old lady watches those financial advice tv shows and those guys talk about them. Is it a ROTH-IRA? They talk about those a lot... Hm. She's asleep so I can't ask her.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20993 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
The ROTH is great, but limited. Really nobody can tell each person how to save and invest without knowing the spacifics of each individual case. Some may want a bit more risk, some may want less. I know that things have changed over the years. For example since people live well into the 80's now one theory is that even at almost 60, having some risk in a portfolio is not a bad thing because it has a 20 year + window. Again this is not true for all, but for many it depends on who you are and what level makes you comfortable and what your goals are.

One thing we should clear up about "marginal tax rates" before moving along. I believe balducci is trying to make the following point. (I am sure he will let me know if I am wrong.)

Lets say a person makes $251,000 a year and for the purposes of this example there are 2 tax marginal tax brackets. $0- $250,000 and $250,000 and above. EVERY person who makes under the 250,000 mark is taxed at the same rate 'A'. EVERY person who makes that extra thousand then you move to a higher tax rate FOR ONLY THAT THOUSAND, you still pay THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT ON THE FIRST $250,000. So there is no point at which you actually make less by earning that extra thousand.

Now it seems that after $250,000 a person is considered rich right? This is the theory? That anyone who makes over that amount can certainly afford to pay a higher tax on any money they make OVER 250 a year right? Certainly this will not stiffle growth or creativity will it?

Let me ask the question then. IF a company has $500,000 in sales but not profits is that second 250 taxed at a higher rate in the proposed legislation? I think this is where the sticking point is. Now I hope all the heat is removed from my post, and balducci if I have misunderstood anything here let me know but I think this was the point you were trying to make right? (Up until I ask who is rich that is.)
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Yup, Danny, you nailed it. The funny thing to me is that so many people who have strong views about taxation, whatever those views are, appear not to be aware of how the tax brackets actually work. Which could be part of why they have such strong views in the first place. (Just conjecture on my part.)

I don't know how the government decides the brackets or the associated tax rates (and I have no strong opinion on what they should be). One of the two could almost be set arbitrarily, and then the other set accordingly in order to approximate the progressive taxation system desired. E.g., the $250,000 limit is chosen more or less arbitrarily, and then the other (the marginal tax rate) is set dependent on the bracket that is decided.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20993 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I believe that most peoples view if the tax code is based in ignorance, fear, and anger.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3006 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
What we really need from the conservative fold is another Dwight D. Eisenhower.
(and that's NOT sarcasm--I'm serious.)
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
I'm impressed that Carrie and some others want tax breaks for head bankers and other 'richies' (however you define that group).

Your generosity during this xmas / holiday season is heart warming and inspiring.

As reward, here is an amusing blog post from liberal economist Paul Krugman for your enjoyment:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12......quality/

The SPECTRE of Inequality

I’m still a couch potato, box of tissues close at hand. So I’m watching stuff my Tivo thought I might want to see, which happened to include the old Bond film Thunderball.

And I found myself thinking about inequality.

You see, there’s a scene early in the movie when the minions of SPECTRE, the evil conspiracy, are shown reporting on their profits from dastardly activities. And the numbers are … ludicrously small. I know that’s a running gag in Austin Powers, But it’s true, it’s true!

Even the big one — demanding a ransom for two stolen nuclear warheads — is 100 million pounds, $280 million. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $2 billion — or one-eighth of the Goldman Sachs bonus pool.

It’s just an indicator of how huge top incomes have become that what were once viewed as impressive numbers, the kind of thing only arch-villains might demand, now look trivial. Or maybe the other way to look at it is that we have a lot more arch-villains around than we used to.

PS: Prices haven risen roughly sevenfold since the movie was made. So $280 million is, as I said, around $2 billion in today’s dollars — still a trivial sum by modern Wall Street standards.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
From another forum. Sounds reasonable, but comments welcome:

1. The “tax the rich” proposal simply calls for the marginal tax rate to rise from 35% of taxable NET income to 39.5% of taxable NET income. Since the cost of employees is deductable from the gross income of a small business person to calculate net income, not one penny of the cost of new employee would be taxed at ANY rate.

2. Businesses hire employees when the difference between the cost of the employees + cost of providing an employee with tools, space, heat etc + costs of raw materials consumed by employee is less than income generated by new employee.

If it costs $150,000 to have an additional employee making widgets (or selling widget insurance) and that employee can be expected to generate $120,000 in gross receipts, that employee isn’t going to be hired no matter what the marginal tax rate, because the business would lose $30,000/year.

If the same employee could be expected to generate $180,000, that employee will generate a $30,000 profit. No rational human being would agree to generate an additional $30,000 if they get to keep 19,500 after taxes but refuse to hire that additional employee if they only get to keep 18,150 after taxes. Either way, if the employee makes money for the business, the employer hires the employee; if not, the employee doesn’t get hired.

And of course if an employer can hire someone for $150,000 (costs of supplies included) to generate $180,000 in revenues, or hire someone else (in another country, or non-union illegal immigrant) for $75,000, they’ll go with cheap labor.



Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20993 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 19:24, Steve_Mollett wrote:
What we really need from the conservative fold is another Dwight D. Eisenhower.
(and that's NOT sarcasm--I'm serious.)


That would be the first post of yours that isn't sarcastic.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20993 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I want to know why all the screaming for the past 6 years about how these tax cuts ONLY BENIFIT THE WEALTHY, and now that they are about to expire on the watch of the messiah it will hurt the middle class. Why was it that we never heard that it was such a benifit to middle income families these past years? I mean during the election, it was only billionaires and millionaires who benifited!

The reason for that is...

Oh wait maybe the great lib economist Paul Krugman will help us out.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20993 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 19:58, R.S. wrote:
From another forum. Sounds reasonable, but comments welcome:

1. The “tax the rich” proposal simply calls for the marginal tax rate to rise from 35% of taxable NET income to 39.5% of taxable NET income. Since the cost of employees is deductable from the gross income of a small business person to calculate net income, not one penny of the cost of new employee would be taxed at ANY rate.


Ok here is the problem. It is one of politics. As I implied above it is ALL about politics and not economics. That is the problem.

The politics of this work out that the right thinks that it is "GROSS" income that will be taxed. If you can CONFIRM with a link that it is NET income taxed then your post makes sense. The right is telling everyone that a small business that generates over 250k a year will be impacted. See the problem?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16347 Posts

Profile of tommy
And the useless eaters who can not justify their existence they will kill.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2817 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 10:56, balducci wrote:
Try this Budget Puzzle game, if you haven't already:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/......inreview

I balanced the budget with several billion to spare (and, yes, I cut spending very significantly).


In real life, you were then voted out of office by a group of people spreading fear tactics about you.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2817 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 11:56, Carrie Sue wrote:
Zero inheritance tax, period. Taxing the wealth of a person after they die is simply immoral.

Carrie


You're not. You're taxing the income of the person who inherited it.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20993 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 20:35, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 11:56, Carrie Sue wrote:
Zero inheritance tax, period. Taxing the wealth of a person after they die is simply immoral.

Carrie


You're not. You're taxing the income of the person who inherited it.


And a logical arguement can be made that the person who inherits it did not "earn" it and it is a windfall.

A logical arguement can also be made that the money has ALREADY been taxed as well.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 20:35, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 11:56, Carrie Sue wrote:
Zero inheritance tax, period. Taxing the wealth of a person after they die is simply immoral.

Carrie


You're not. You're taxing the income of the person who inherited it.


Nice idea, but not really consistent with the tax rates or with the fact that the tax bills is completely independent of the income of the person who inherits it. If it were income tax, it wouldn't ever go up to 55% (the top federal bracket is 35%), and the tax would vary from person to person; Bill Gates makes a whole bunch more than I do, so if we each inherit $10,000, and it's "income of the person who inherited it," then I'd pay a lot less of that $10,000 than he would. Instead, we'd be taxed at the same rate.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 20:08, Dannydoyle wrote:

I want to know why all the screaming for the past 6 years about how these tax cuts ONLY BENIFIT THE WEALTHY, and now that they are about to expire on the watch of the messiah it will hurt the middle class. Why was it that we never heard that it was such a benifit to middle income families these past years? I mean during the election, it was only billionaires and millionaires who benifited!

The reason for that is...

Oh wait maybe the great lib economist Paul Krugman will help us out.

I honestly don't understand what you are saying. So far as I can recall, the democrats were talking about no tax increases on those at lower end of the income scale all through the last two elections. I don't see how Krugman ties in to anything you said, either.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13..21~22~23 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL