The Tax Thread - Page 3
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891013 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 252

Thread: The Tax Thread

  1. #27
    BamaNation Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    9,266

    Re: The Tax Thread

    I wouldn’t delegate anything to Montgomery; if you look at what they do, and still wonder why, then safe to say we’d probably never agree on the time of day.
    Medicare is administered by the states and even that is inefficient; why can’t the plan I have in Alabama be valid and provide coverage in Alaska? Most don’t offer any out of state coverage.
    I have no complaints with SS. I don’t think Alabama could manage it better than the feds, but I can’t compare other states.
    I wouldn’t trust those jackasses in Montgomery to pick up my garbage, but IMO that’s all they’re fit to do.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office. Dwight D. Eisenhower

  2. Advertisement
  3. #28
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Bamaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Jacksonville, Md USA
    Posts
    20,692

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by uafanataum View Post
    Well, when you tax someone their entire life and tell them that if they pay these taxes you will provide them a monthly paycheck and some form of health insurance when they retire then you owe them that. I am not saying it was originally the government's job bit they made it their job when they decided to take money from people and now they cannot stop.
    So far they have

  4. #29
    BamaNation All-American bama_wayne1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,637

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by CharminTide View Post
    This didn't seem to fit well in any of the other threads, so I figured I figured I'd make a new one. Not sure how much weight I give this pollster, but the numbers do surprise me, and I think it's a discussion worth having.

    Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

    Q: Currently the top tax rate is 37%. Would you favor or oppose a tax proposal that would apply a 70% rate to the 10 millionth dollar and beyond for individuals making $10 million a year or more in reportable income?


    GOP: 45% support (55% oppose)
    Dem: 71% support (29% oppose)
    Ind: 60% support (40% oppose)

    Total: 59% support (41% oppose)
    Charmin could you tell me if the total line listed here is a straight averaging of the different groupings or a real average of the aggregated votes in their populations? In my work life I don't usually see percentages by group average if the pool sizes for the groups are not equal.

    ps. I'm not saying the numbers aren't correct just curious.
    Last edited by bama_wayne1; January 16th, 2019 at 08:07 AM. Reason: clarity

  5. #30
    BamaNation Hall of Fame CharminTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,127
    Thread Starter

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bama_wayne1 View Post
    Charmin could you tell me if the total line listed here is a straight averaging of the different groupings or a real average of the aggregated votes in their populations? In my work life I don't usually see percentages by group average if the pool sizes for the groups are not equal.

    ps. I'm not saying the numbers aren't correct just curious.
    From the article, it sounds like the total reflects everyone polled, and is not just an average of those three groups.

  6. #31
    BamaNation Hall of Fame cbi1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    17,503

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by uafanataum View Post
    If they were to delegate it to the states then the difference between Alabama and New York would be ridiculous. I think alot of other programs besides social security would be hard to get rid of not because the federal government is necessary but because they have existed for so long they are basically built into the U.S. economy. Ending them would cause a major shock and huge consequences. Maybe if they took a gradual approach with alternate programs to ease the pain...
    The difference between New York and Alabama is enormous in most aspects, and getting rid of government programs is easier than I thought. All you have to do is run out of money and the ability to borrow more.
    Audemus jura nostra defendere
    "When a loaf of bread looks like a banquet, I've no right buying tobacco. " - Grandpa Joe

  7. #32
    BamaNation All-SEC
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,737

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cbi1972 View Post
    The difference between New York and Alabama is enormous in most aspects, and getting rid of government programs is easier than I thought. All you have to do is run out of money and the ability to borrow more.
    It's easy to make the decision if you are unaffected by it. It's hard for those that are affected by it. Also, most of the people that would be affected by it are not in positions of power and have no ability to stop that change. Most of the people with the ability to make huge changes to government are millionaires and will still sit in their comfortable offices, eat nice food, send their kids to nice schools, and get top tier healthcare when they are sick.

  8. #33
    FB Moderator Bamabuzzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Where ever there's BBQ, Crawfish & Football
    Posts
    23,782

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by CharminTide View Post
    This didn't seem to fit well in any of the other threads, so I figured I figured I'd make a new one. Not sure how much weight I give this pollster, but the numbers do surprise me, and I think it's a discussion worth having.

    Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

    Q: Currently the top tax rate is 37%. Would you favor or oppose a tax proposal that would apply a 70% rate to the 10 millionth dollar and beyond for individuals making $10 million a year or more in reportable income?

    GOP: 45% support (55% oppose)
    Dem: 71% support (29% oppose)
    Ind: 60% support (40% oppose)

    Total: 59% support (41% oppose)
    I know this isn't the sports board but this tax law would still impact the people within the professional sports realm. I wonder how this would impact professional sports contracts? For instance, currently there are some NFL and MLB players making approximately $20-30 million per year. This would materially alter the value of their contracts. Assuming (as some have suggested be done) a lot of the "loop holes" are closed to keep the rich from lowering their taxable income. For example, Aaron Rodgers currently makes $34MM/year. Under this tax law, $24 million of the $34 million is taxed at 70%. So, of that $24 MM, Rodgers is pocketing $7.2 MM and paying $16.8 million to the government. The value of that contract is still the same to the team (the Packers). But drastically changes for Rodgers.
    Last edited by Bamabuzzard; January 16th, 2019 at 11:14 AM.
    The existence of God isn't determined in the thoughts of man. God exists, no matter what man thinks.

    "It cost a lot of money to look this cheap."-Dolly Parton.

    "If you ever want to know how good your barbecue is start charging for it"-Myron Mixon

  9. #34
    BamaNation Hall of Fame DzynKingRTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vinings, ga., usa
    Posts
    19,499

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Taxes suck. I paid my taxes a year ago, I shouldn’t have to pay anymore, ever.
    Architects do it with models.

    Roll Tide Roll

  10. #35
    Senior Administrator TIDE-HSV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Huntsville, AL,USA
    Posts
    61,743

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by DzynKingRTR View Post
    Taxes suck. I paid my taxes a year ago, I shouldn’t have to pay anymore, ever.
    Did your income disappear?
    "The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity. - Ellen Parr"

    'If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?' - Steve Jobs

    “I would rather live my life as if there is a god and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.” Albert Camus

    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

  11. #36
    BamaNation Hall of Fame CharminTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,127
    Thread Starter

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamabuzzard View Post
    I know this isn't the sports board but this tax law would still impact the people within the professional sports realm. I wonder how this would impact professional sports contracts? For instance, currently there are some NFL and MLB players making approximately $20-30 million per year. This would materially alter the value of their contracts. Assuming (as some have suggested be done) a lot of the "loop holes" are closed to keep the rich from lowering their taxable income. For example, Aaron Rodgers currently makes $34MM/year. Under this tax law, $24 million of the $34 million is taxed at 70%. So, of that $24 MM, Rodgers is pocketing $7.2 MM and paying $16.8 million to the government. The value of that contract is still the same to the team (the Packers). But drastically changes for Rodgers.
    Well, I can't really speak to that. One tricky thing about this conversation is that it's hard to know what Aaron Rodgers is paying in taxes now. There are so many loopholes and ways to reclassify or shelter income that it's never truly possible to know what someone pays in taxes unless they tell you. And not knowing what their present tax burden looks like makes it hard to analyze any changes.

    I'd wanted to shove this in the thread somewhere, and here is as good a place as any since you brought up the 70% figure. That number wasn't just pulled out of the air by AOC. It's actually a percentage that was calculated by Nobel Prize winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez (LINK). In essence, they ran a bunch of calculations to find the inflection point where taxing high income raises revenue, but doesn't create such a burden on the rich that it disincentivizes participation in the market. An analogy could be drawn to cigarette taxes. Some localities tax cigarettes so much that they create enough of a financial incentive for people to quit that these localities actually start to lose tax revenue due to behavioral change. Diamond and Saez wanted to find that same optimization point and get as close to it as possible without going over and creating that disincentive. Their number was 73% (AOC rounded down). Coincidence or not, that happens to correspond with the highest tax brackets during the post WWII golden age that older folks wax poetic about.

    Now, is that inflection point going to be the same for Aaron Rodgers and Bill Gates? Maybe, maybe not. Does it account for those with a limited earning window versus those with more sedentary jobs who can work well into their 80s? Not really. But CEO and athlete compensation would probably be reconsidered if these changes come to pass. And IMO, it's a pretty good starting point.

  12. #37
    BamaNation Hall of Fame DzynKingRTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vinings, ga., usa
    Posts
    19,499

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TIDE-HSV View Post
    Did your income disappear?
    every single day
    Architects do it with models.

    Roll Tide Roll

  13. #38
    FB Moderator Bamabuzzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Where ever there's BBQ, Crawfish & Football
    Posts
    23,782

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by CharminTide View Post
    Well, I can't really speak to that. One tricky thing about this conversation is that it's hard to know what Aaron Rodgers is paying in taxes now. There are so many loopholes and ways to reclassify or shelter income that it's never truly possible to know what someone pays in taxes unless they tell you. And not knowing what their present tax burden looks like makes it hard to analyze any changes.

    I'd wanted to shove this in the thread somewhere, and here is as good a place as any since you brought up the 70% figure. That number wasn't just pulled out of the air by AOC. It's actually a percentage that was calculated by Nobel Prize winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez (LINK). In essence, they ran a bunch of calculations to find the inflection point where taxing high income raises revenue, but doesn't create such a burden on the rich that it disincentivizes participation in the market. An analogy could be drawn to cigarette taxes. Some localities tax cigarettes so much that they create enough of a financial incentive for people to quit that these localities actually start to lose tax revenue due to behavioral change. Diamond and Saez wanted to find that same optimization point and get as close to it as possible without going over and creating that disincentive. Their number was 73% (AOC rounded down). Coincidence or not, that happens to correspond with the highest tax brackets during the post WWII golden age that older folks wax poetic about.

    Now, is that inflection point going to be the same for Aaron Rodgers and Bill Gates? Maybe, maybe not. Does it account for those with a limited earning window versus those with more sedentary jobs who can work well into their 80s? Not really. But CEO and athlete compensation would probably be reconsidered if these changes come to pass. And IMO, it's a pretty good starting point.
    I think there's no way to even begin to project people's behavior/reaction to it. It probably depends on the individual/industry. I'm just curious as to what people who are in the sports/entertainment industry would do, if anything. This is purely speculation, but I wonder would Aaron Rodgers ask the team to increase his salary in order to recapture the net value of the contract before the tax increase? If the team were to do this (which we have no idea if they would or not) and this became common practice across the league to compensate other players in Rodgers' situation. It would mean the team would have to decide to either eat the additional cost, or pass the cost down to their consumers. Either way, somebody at some point in the transaction is going to have to be the one to absorb the increase.


    Crimsonaudio, any thoughts on how or if this would impact your industry (music industry) as a whole?
    Last edited by Bamabuzzard; January 16th, 2019 at 12:44 PM.
    The existence of God isn't determined in the thoughts of man. God exists, no matter what man thinks.

    "It cost a lot of money to look this cheap."-Dolly Parton.

    "If you ever want to know how good your barbecue is start charging for it"-Myron Mixon

  14. #39
    BamaNation Hall of Fame CharminTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,127
    Thread Starter

    Re: The Tax Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamabuzzard View Post
    I think there's no way to even begin to project people's behavior/reaction to it. It probably depends on the individual/industry. I'm just curious as to what people who are in the sports/entertainment industry would do, if anything. This is purely speculation, but I wonder would Aaron Rodgers ask the team to increase his salary in order to recapture the net value of the contract before the tax increase? If the team were to do this (which we have no idea if they would or not) and this became common practice across the league to compensate other players in Rodgers' situation. It would mean the team would have to decide to eat the additional cost, or pass the cost down to their consumers. Either way, somebody and some point in the transaction is going to have to be the one to absorb the increase.
    Well there is historical data for some industries, since the top tax rate used to be even higher than 70%. But that doesn't work for the NFL, since the average NFL salary in the 1970s was something like 150k (in 2018 dollars) compared to 1.5 million today. Personally, I doubt he'd be able to convince the Packers to up his contract even more, and if every team is under the same salary constraints (who knows how the cap would change), I doubt anyone else would either. But if he's not satisfied with the highest contract in NFL history, Aaron Rogers is free to do more State Farm commercials.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

[CLICK] GET BAMA Calendar