Has the economy affected you and your tractors?

[timswi]

Tim...if your bonus is being taxed at a rate of 45%, that "tax" isn't going to the federal government.

The sixteenth amendment to the constitution allows for a progressive tax. Look it up.

It actually it is going to the Feds, 40% or so plus 3.07 to the state. My salaried tax rate is around 15%. So you must already be paying the maximum tax rate on your base.

Progressive only a word, the impact is in the regs.

A little perspective on the 15% capital gains and dividends: By buying stock, you are taking a huge risk, and with that risk there needs to be reward. Salaries are generally guaranteed for the amount of work that you traded for it. A stock can go to $0 overnight, and no one knows if or when that can happen. As has happened in the last year, many companies eliminated their dividend. 15% of nothing is nothing.

If those risks are punshed no one will take the risk. Keep in mind those investments keep many of us employed.

in 1996 Congress lowered the investment income tax rate to 15% and the economy took off. The federal budget almost became balanced due to the amount of money flowing through the economy. Unfortunately, that stupid internet thing got in they way and ruined a good thing. Tax law didn't cause that, a new flashy technology that no one understood did.

I have no issue with that aspect of the tax law, and no I don't have much in the way of income in that sector.

I also agree with a previous post, lets keep this on fact and not let it drift into chemical warfare. I'm stating what I have experienced...Politics can be left outside.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Mike,

Are these the only alternatives?

If they lose the tax right off for providing prescription drugs to their retirees that in many instances may already be available through the prescription drug program, then they (the corporations) can choose not to offer the benefit. Another alternative would be to continue to take the charge and let the shareholders pay for it.

On the other hand, the bill provides tax subsidies to many small businesses who want to provide health care benefits to there employees but can't afford to.

Folks can look at this bill from any angle and find things to carp about and things to praise it for. But regardless of how you feel about it Mike, health care is going to be paid for one way or another.

CBO Projection for Obama's 2011 budget "will raise Federal
debt to 90% of GDP by 2020"Source CBO as reported in Washington Times today.
Happy Days are here again.
Thank God we will all have "free" health care!

 

[keegs]

It actually it is going to the Feds, 40% or so plus 3.07 to the state. My salaried tax rate is around 15%. So you must already be paying the maximum tax rate on your base.

Progressive only a word, the impact is in the regs.

A little perspective on the 15% capital gains and dividends: By buying stock, you are taking a huge risk, and with that risk there needs to be reward. Salaries are generally guaranteed for the amount of work that you traded for it. A stock can go to $0 overnight, and no one knows if or when that can happen. As has happened in the last year, many companies eliminated their dividend. 15% of nothing is nothing.

If those risks are punshed no one will take the risk. Keep in mind those investments keep many of us employed.

in 1996 Congress lowered the investment income tax rate to 15% and the economy took off. The federal budget almost became balanced due to the amount of money flowing through the economy. Unfortunately, that stupid internet thing got in they way and ruined a good thing. Tax law didn't cause that, a new flashy technology that no one understood did.

I have no issue with that aspect of the tax law, and no I don't have much in the way of income in that sector.

I also agree with a previous post, lets keep this on fact and not let it drift into chemical warfare. I'm stating what I have experienced...Politics can be left outside.

.....and capital losses are tax deductable.

If you look at tax rates and GDP growth over the past half century or more, there's very little correlation between rates and growth.

Marginal rates on individuals and corporations, up until the '60's, (when average GDP growth was relatively high) were as high as 90% and 50% respectively. And up until Reagan were as high as 70% and 45% respectively.

I'm pretty sure the top corporate rate has been at 35% since the early '90's.

Obviously no one likes to pay taxes, but before we cut them we have to decide as a country what spending cuts go along with the tax cuts. Anything else is just irresponsible poop.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

.....and capital losses are tax deductable.

If you look at tax rates and GDP growth over the past half century or more, there's very little correlation between rates and growth.

Marginal rates on individuals and corporations, up until the '60's, (when average GDP growth was relatively high) were as high as 90% and 50% respectively. And up until Reagan were as high as 70% and 45% respectively.

I'm pretty sure the top corporate rate has been at 35% since the early '90's.

Obviously no one likes to pay taxes, but before we cut them we have to decide as a country what spending cuts go along with the tax cuts. Anything else is just irresponsible poop.

See Laffer curve, There is a DIRECT correlation between lower tax rates and growth.
"Irresponsible poop" Is that a technical term?

 

[keegs]

See Laffer curve, There is a DIRECT correlation between lower tax rates and growth.

Fallbrook, you can believe in Art Laffer, I'm looking at the facts.

BTW...Reagan trippled the debt and Bush doubled it.....believing in the Laffer curve.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Fallbrook, you can believe in Art Laffer, I'm looking at the facts.

BTW...Reagan trippled the debt and Bush doubled it.....believing in the Laffer curve.

Your talking apples and oranges
Debt and growth are two DIFFERENT things

 

[MikePA]

...but before we cut them we have to decide as a country what spending cuts go along with the tax cuts.

This statement is 100% wrong. :mur:

It was proved in the 60s and the 80s, lowering tax rates increases revenue to the treasury. The problem is Congress still spent more than what came in. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

 

[dave1949]

Thanks Dave, I have not been able to turn it down. Perhaps there is no adjustment knob.

Thanks for the discussion nonetheless. :thumbsup:

Excuse me, I should have said thank you back RaT.
It's not a bad thing to swap viewpoints.
Dave.

 

[kenmac]

To the question. The economy has affected my HVAC/ Plumbing business. Affected my Tractor ? No. I'm fortunate to have every thing that I own paid for

 

[_RaT_]

George Orwell was right. This is newspeak.

Work = welfare.
Just so there's no confusion = I want to confuse you.
Some people say = No one says.
Let me be clear = Let me obfuscate.
John Dingell - "...it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."

Pretty funny Mike :laughing: