The Tax Thread

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,555
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
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.
In my opinion, I think you're right. Teams aren't going to increase salaries to compensate for players personal income tax situations. Much like when Sam Bradford was the last rookie to get the insane rookie contract. Rookie's after that operated and still operate under a cap. Doing more State Farm commercials wouldn't help (I know you put blue font on that one) because source of income would have nothing to do with reaching the $10MM threshold.
 

CrimsonNagus

Hall of Fame
Jun 6, 2007
8,469
6,182
212
45
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
I’m going to admit up front that I don’t fully understand taxes and tax law. I’m never going to make that kind of money so it will never affect me but, I have a problem with the government taking 70% of anything. I’m putting in the time, work and education to earn that much money, why does the government deserve to take me for a ride? If I make 20 million, then I only get 3 million of the second 10? Sorry, that’s ridiculous IMO. That’s my hard earned money, keep your hands off.

Shoot, I think my tax rate is too high right now for what my wife and I make. In fact, this great Trump tax cut caused our taxes to go up so, I’m ....ed at taxes and the government right now. The government keeps taking more and more all while we get no raises, or very little cost of living ones that really don’t help much in the end. Yet they keep taking and the national debt continues to grow. Giving the heroin addict more and more funding isn’t going to solve their heroin problem.
 

MattinBama

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2007
11,144
5,453
187
I’m going to admit up front that I don’t fully understand taxes and tax law. I’m never going to make that kind of money so it will never affect me but, I have a problem with the government taking 70% of anything. I’m putting in the time, work and education to earn that much money, why does the government deserve to take me for a ride? If I make 20 million, then I only get 3 million of the second 10? Sorry, that’s ridiculous IMO. That’s my hard earned money, keep your hands off.

Shoot, I think my tax rate is too high right now for what my wife and I make. In fact, this great Trump tax cut caused our taxes to go up so, I’m ....ed at taxes and the government right now. The government keeps taking more and more all while we get no raises, or very little cost of living ones that really don’t help much in the end. Yet they keep taking and the national debt continues to grow. Giving the heroin addict more and more funding isn’t going to solve their heroin problem.
The people that keep helping make sure the stuff in your second paragraph continues to happen are a lot of the same ones you're standing up for in the first paragraph. Just saying.

Broad brush there but worth noting.
 

CrimsonNagus

Hall of Fame
Jun 6, 2007
8,469
6,182
212
45
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
Maybe that’s true, like I said, I don’t fully understand taxes and tax law. Freely taking 70% of anything from private citizen just seems like too much. Plus, when that still isn’t enough, will they come after the middle class as well? That’s my fear.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
Crimsonaudio, any thoughts on how or if this would impact your industry (music industry) as a whole?
It would be nothing but a guess, but I suspect it's pie-in-the-sky thinking that all these congress critters who are bought and paid for will bite the hands that feed them.

The wealthiest of the wealthy (which is what we're discussing here) won't allow this to happen.
 

MattinBama

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2007
11,144
5,453
187
Maybe that’s true, like I said, I don’t fully understand taxes and tax law. Freely taking 70% of anything from private citizen just seems like too much. Plus, when that still isn’t enough, will they come after the middle class as well? That’s my fear.
They've already come after the middle class as far as I can tell.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,555
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
Maybe that’s true, like I said, I don’t fully understand taxes and tax law. Freely taking 70% of anything from private citizen just seems like too much. Plus, when that still isn’t enough, will they come after the middle class as well? That’s my fear.
Playing along with the original poster's suggestion. I would rather enact a progressive corporate tax on certain size companies that benefited their middle class and below employees. The company would have the option of either paying this tax to the government, or distributing it to their employees below the "upper management" level. Giving the company a dollar for dollar credit against this tax at fiscal year end. If the distribution to the employees did not equal the tax, then the balance would be owed to the federal government in corporate taxes. So in essence the tax is "telling" the company "You're either going to pay the money to us or your employees. But either way you're paying the money."

Having rich people pay more taxes directly to the government does absolutely nothing for middle class workers whose wages haven't kept up with inflation for decades. IMO, enacting a 70% income tax on the rich just gives the government more money to waste and we all know that's what would happen.
 
Last edited:

rjtide

1st Team
Dec 15, 1999
522
161
162
AL
Playing along with the original poster's suggestion. I would rather enact a progressive corporate tax on certain size companies that benefited their middle class and below employees. The company would have the option of either paying this tax to the government, or distributing it to their employees below the "upper management" level. Giving the company a dollar for dollar credit against this tax at fiscal year end. If the distribution to the employees did not equal the tax, then the balance would be owed to the federal government in corporate taxes. So in essence the tax is "telling" the company "You're either going to pay the money to us or your employees. But either way you're paying the money."

Having rich people pay more taxes directly to the government does absolutely nothing for middle class workers whose wages haven't kept up with inflation for decades. IMO, enacting a 70% income tax on the rich just gives the government more money to waste and we all know that's what would happen.

as a small business owner i would absolutely be in favor of the above proposal re: enacting a progressive corporate tax/incentive/credit for employee profit sharing.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,555
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
as a small business owner i would absolutely be in favor of the above proposal re: enacting a progressive corporate tax/incentive/credit for employee profit sharing.
And ultimately the federal government would collect any perceived lost revenue (via the credit) on the back-end when the employee with a fatter yearly income paid in more income taxes.
 

rjtide

1st Team
Dec 15, 1999
522
161
162
AL
And ultimately the federal government would collect any perceived lost revenue (via the credit) on the back-end when the employee with a fatter yearly income paid in more income taxes.
no doubt. if congressional lawmakers were serious about putting more money the pockets of middle class workers this idea certainly would do it.....something worthy for them to consider in terms of enacting as tax law.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,555
10,616
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Maybe that’s true, like I said, I don’t fully understand taxes and tax law. Freely taking 70% of anything from private citizen just seems like too much. Plus, when that still isn’t enough, will they come after the middle class as well? That’s my fear.
Then they should stop spending like they already take the 70%.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Playing along with the original poster's suggestion. I would rather enact a progressive corporate tax on certain size companies that benefited their middle class and below employees. The company would have the option of either paying this tax to the government, or distributing it to their employees below the "upper management" level. Giving the company a dollar for dollar credit against this tax at fiscal year end. If the distribution to the employees did not equal the tax, then the balance would be owed to the federal government in corporate taxes. So in essence the tax is "telling" the company "You're either going to pay the money to us or your employees. But either way you're paying the money."
I don't see the two ideas as mutually exclusive. I'm completely on board with proposals to increase wages for the poor and middle class, whether we're talking raising the minimum wage, codetermination, and/or some form of corporate tax incentives that increase worker pay.

IMO, enacting a 70% income tax on the rich just gives the government more money to waste and we all know that's what would happen.
This has sorta been the core conservative idea for decades. It's why conservatives have defended giving the rich all the money: because they supposedly make good capitalist decisions that filter down and help elevate everyone else. But that simply hasn't been true. Yes, government has some inherent inefficiency. It's also true that the combustion engine is an inherently inefficient machine. But at the end of the day, your small personal jug of gasoline isn't going to help move a group of people from point A to B. The bus that it fuels will.

Having slightly higher wages isn't going to help when you get cancer, but large-scale tax-funded risk pooling will. Having a few extra dollars isn't going to keep your car from breaking an axle in an unrepaired pothole, but tax-funded infrastructure maintenance will. An additional $20 each week won't help when your house is on fire, but the fire truck that your county purchased will. Hell, your savings account is probably insured by the federal government, and the potency of that dollar is kept strong by the government too. I could go on for pages, and you know it.

Now, I realize that it's in vogue to say that the government is a wasteful, lumbering beast that doesn't deserve tax revenue. But it's absolute fact that taxes make it possible to do things that no individual or small community ever could, and I feel that gets lost in the propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of eliminating systemic government waste, military boondoggle, and other unnecessary spending. But I feel like this conservative mantra of "taxation=theft" and the variations thereof are glib and dishonest (I'm not saying you're being this way btw, I just don't want the thread to spiral in that direction). And FWIW, if Charmin's view of tax policy came to pass, the proposed tax increases on the 1% would be accompanied by tax relief for lower and middle income tax brackets.
 
Last edited:

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,145
44,863
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
I don't see the two ideas as mutually exclusive. I'm completely on board with proposals to increase wages for the poor and middle class, whether we're talking raising the minimum wage, codetermination, and/or some form of corporate tax incentives that increase worker pay.



This has sorta been the core conservative idea for decades. It's why conservatives have defended giving the rich all the money: because they supposedly make good capitalist decisions that filter down and help elevate everyone else. But that simply hasn't been true. Yes, government has some inherent inefficiency. It's also true that the combustion engine is an inherently inefficient machine. But at the end of the day, your small personal jug of gasoline isn't going to help move a group of people from point A to B. The bus that it fuels will.

Having slightly higher wages isn't going to help when you get cancer, but large-scale tax-funded risk pooling will. Having a few extra dollars isn't going to keep your car from breaking an axle in an unrepaired pothole, but tax-funded infrastructure maintenance will. An additional $20 each week won't help when your house is on fire, but the fire truck that your county purchased will. Hell, your savings account is probably insured by the federal government, and the potency of that dollar is kept strong by the government too. I could go on for pages, and you know it.

Now, I realize that it's in vogue to say that the government is a wasteful, lumbering beast that doesn't deserve tax revenue. But it's absolute fact that taxes make it possible to do things that no individual or small community ever could, and I feel that gets lost in the propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of eliminating systemic government waste, military boondoggle, and other unnecessary spending. But I feel like this conservative mantra of "taxation=theft" and the variations thereof are glib and dishonest (I'm not saying you're being this way btw, I just don't want the thread to spiral in that direction). And FWIW, if Charmin's view of tax policy came to pass, the proposed tax increases on the 1% would be accompanied by tax relief for lower and middle income tax brackets.
well said.
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,193
3,326
187
Playing along with the original poster's suggestion. I would rather enact a progressive corporate tax on certain size companies that benefited their middle class and below employees. The company would have the option of either paying this tax to the government, or distributing it to their employees below the "upper management" level. Giving the company a dollar for dollar credit against this tax at fiscal year end. If the distribution to the employees did not equal the tax, then the balance would be owed to the federal government in corporate taxes. So in essence the tax is "telling" the company "You're either going to pay the money to us or your employees. But either way you're paying the money."

Having rich people pay more taxes directly to the government does absolutely nothing for middle class workers whose wages haven't kept up with inflation for decades. IMO, enacting a 70% income tax on the rich just gives the government more money to waste and we all know that's what would happen.
You’re not old enough to remember, but this is how it worked in the 60’s except it was an honor system; government didn’t threaten anything, they just taxed profits heavily. This was incentive for companies to give workers raises (reducing profits).
Now that taxes are dropped and write offs are plentiful, no need to give workers “ merit” raises - and they haven’t for years, instead pocketing record profits.
You are proposing the same thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,555
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
I don't see the two ideas as mutually exclusive. I'm completely on board with proposals to increase wages for the poor and middle class, whether we're talking raising the minimum wage, codetermination, and/or some form of corporate tax incentives that increase worker pay.



This has sorta been the core conservative idea for decades. It's why conservatives have defended giving the rich all the money: because they supposedly make good capitalist decisions that filter down and help elevate everyone else. But that simply hasn't been true. Yes, government has some inherent inefficiency. It's also true that the combustion engine is an inherently inefficient machine. But at the end of the day, your small personal jug of gasoline isn't going to help move a group of people from point A to B. The bus that it fuels will.

Having slightly higher wages isn't going to help when you get cancer, but large-scale tax-funded risk pooling will. Having a few extra dollars isn't going to keep your car from breaking an axle in an unrepaired pothole, but tax-funded infrastructure maintenance will. An additional $20 each week won't help when your house is on fire, but the fire truck that your county purchased will. Hell, your savings account is probably insured by the federal government, and the potency of that dollar is kept strong by the government too. I could go on for pages, and you know it.

Now, I realize that it's in vogue to say that the government is a wasteful, lumbering beast that doesn't deserve tax revenue. But it's absolute fact that taxes make it possible to do things that no individual or small community ever could, and I feel that gets lost in the propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of eliminating systemic government waste, military boondoggle, and other unnecessary spending. But I feel like this conservative mantra of "taxation=theft" and the variations thereof are glib and dishonest (I'm not saying you're being this way btw, I just don't want the thread to spiral in that direction). And FWIW, if Charmin's view of tax policy came to pass, the proposed tax increases on the 1% would be accompanied by tax relief for lower and middle income tax brackets.

I work for the government, specifically in the educational sector on both the federal and state level. And to be more specific I am on the accounting and reporting side. I am not saying or suggesting no good comes from the government nor am I saying that taxes are bad. What I am saying is I see on a daily basis things like the government needing $50,000,000 to run a $10,000,000 educational grant. The waste I see on a daily basis would nauseate and infuriate you as a taxpayer. Or it should. Taxes have come to be = "theft" in the minds of many because of what I see on a daily basis. Waste that go way beyond "some inherent inefficiencies". And to think the sector of government I work in is the only sector of government run this way would be naive of me or anyone competent enough to fog a mirror. The majority of government operates this way. From federal all the way down to the state level. If I ran my family's finances like the government does with taxpayer's money. I would have long been bankrupt. I have zero issue with collecting taxes, or collecting "more taxes". But I have a real problem when the government continues to want to take in more taxes while giving a middle finger to their fiduciary duty to manage the taxes they are already collecting. The government has zero interest and zero incentive of cutting wasteful spending when "collecting more" is available to them. Thinking that simply implementing a tax that brings in more taxes from the 1% will automatically lower middle class taxes is assuming that the additional monies brought in would be used and managed in an efficient manner. But my daily experience of how government works first hand tells me otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,555
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
You’re not old enough to remember, but this is how it worked in the 60’s except it was an honor system; government didn’t threaten anything, they just taxed profits heavily. This was incentive for companies to give workers raises (reducing profits).
Now that taxes are dropped and write offs are plentiful, no need to give workers “ merit” raises - and they haven’t for years, instead pocketing record profits.
You are proposing the same thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And I have no problem with that. Because the corporation, rather than paying the money in taxes to the government, pay it to their employees. Their employees benefit with more in their bank account, and the company benefits because of higher employee morale, and a more productive/loyal worker.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,527
39,615
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
And I have no problem with that. Because the corporation, rather than paying the money in taxes to the government, pay it to their employees. Their employees benefit with more in their bank account, and the company benefits because of higher employee morale, and a more productive/loyal worker.
That was the premise behind the last tax cut, but it hasn't worked out that way. Corporations, rather than pay higher wages, have used their cash surpluses in massive stock buy-backs. I'm surprised you haven't been seeing that in the news...
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,555
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
That was the premise behind the last tax cut, but it hasn't worked out that way. Corporations, rather than pay higher wages, have used their cash surpluses in massive stock buy-backs. I'm surprised you haven't been seeing that in the news...
With three boys involved in sports and a middle school girl in violin. I barely have time to watch or read the news other than a few quick glances here and there. Hell, I was only able to watch two Bama games from start to finish this season. LOL! I'm not sure whose idea it was to have all these kids. ;)
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,700
16
57
I work for the government, specifically in the educational sector on both the federal and state level. And to be more specific I am on the accounting and reporting side. I am not saying or suggesting no good comes from the government nor am I saying that taxes are bad. What I am saying is I see on a daily basis things like the government needing $50,000,000 to run a $10,000,000 educational grant. The waste I see on a daily basis would nauseate and infuriate you as a taxpayer. Or it should. Taxes have come to be = "theft" in the minds of many because of what I see on a daily basis. Waste that go way beyond "some inherent inefficiencies". And to think the sector of government I work in is the only sector of government run this way would be naive of me or anyone competent enough to fog a mirror. The majority of government operates this way. From federal all the way down to the state level. If I ran my family's finances like the government does with taxpayer's money. I would have long been bankrupt. I have zero issue with collecting taxes, or collecting "more taxes". But I have a real problem when the government continues to want to take in more taxes while giving a middle finger to their fiduciary duty to manage the taxes they are already collecting. The government has zero interest and zero incentive of cutting wasteful spending when "collecting more" is available to them. Thinking that simply implementing a tax that brings in more taxes from the 1% will automatically lower middle class taxes is assuming that the additional monies brought in would be used and managed in an efficient manner. But my daily experience of how government works first hand tells me otherwise.
I agree with you 100% about the waste. I am an accountant for a responsible manufacturer that sells to the government. I hear more about how the buyers are pressuring to spend their budget than how to reduce their spending. They view the amounts that they spend for the government as a sign of their personal worth to the government. Until this ship is turned around I would rather decide what to do with my money than let these power drunken feds have it.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,555
18,298
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
I agree with you 100% about the waste. I am an accountant for a responsible manufacturer that sells to the government. I hear more about how the buyers are pressuring to spend their budget than how to reduce their spending. They view the amounts that they spend for the government as a sign of their personal worth to the government. Until this ship is turned around I would rather decide what to do with my money than let these power drunken feds have it.
The main problem I see in my sector is the program managers of educational grants inflating the funds needed to run a grant without being questioned why they need that much money to run the grant. So a grant that should really require $10,000,000 gets approved for double, triple and sometimes quadruple that amount. The result is $30,000 worth of iPad's being ordered and never being used or taken out of their boxes. Or $20,000 worth of toner for office printers being ordered when the yearly lease agreement with the copier company includes toner. I could literally go on for days and pile up millions of dollars of examples just out of one educational grant. It's unreal. It truly is.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.