Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
At some point Congress may invite Illinois to leave the Union. Then Illinois could form a new nation with Greece, and everybody can retire at 57.
You know, with all the financial engineering going on, I'm surprised that they don't take a relatively unincorporated part of Illinois, load it up with the debt and spin it off as a new entity.
A more serious response is that it's time to start letting other entities invest in infrastructure in this country. Other countries are doing a lot with this (PPP - Public Private Partnerships) already.
As for the Illinois cloud tax, I'm guessing if this applies to Netflix, it would also apply to anything you buy from the iTunes app store/Google play store? I mean, if it's for Netflix, one can make the guess that there's a lot more that this covers.
@David Since I went to a public school, drive on public roads, am protected by public police, firemen and soldiers and my parents received Social Security, I see paying taxes as part of my civic duty as an American and a way to give back to my community. But perhaps there are those who haven't had this experience and thus believe all taxes are regressive.
There are also plenty of those who think that they are "entitled" (to use that word again) to public school, public roads, protection by public police, firemen and soldiers and Social Security, without paying taxes as part of their civic duty as an American and a way to give back to their community. And they come from all parts of the income spectrum.
Remember Leona Helmsly, one of the "1%": "Only the little people pay taxes". Our new president wanna-be, Mr. Trump, wants an impenetrable wall on the Mexican border, as long as he doesn't have to help pay for it.
My father taught me to respect "Holmes and Brandeis dissenting". From one of their most well known dissents (edited for relative brevity):
It is true ... that every exaction of money for an act is a discouragement to the extent of the payment required, but that which, in its immediacy, is a discouragement may be part of an encouragement when seen in its organic connection with the whole. Taxes are what we pay for civilized society ...
Sometimes there may be a difficulty in deciding whether an imposition is a tax or a penalty, but generally the intent to prohibit, when it exists, is plainly expressed. ...
I can see no ground for denying [the government] its right to use its power to tax unless it can be shown that it has conferred no benefit of a kind that would justify the tax ...
It includes a quote from FDR: "Mr. Justice Holmes said 'Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.' Too many individuals, however, want the civilization at a discount."
The "Bush" tax chart...........for me; the valid chart would to indicate percentages of taxation versus dollar values. What may be used to adjust taxable income varies a lot, eh? Just a thought from Michigan.
guys come on. taxes are on the way up. minimum wage will be kept depressed. rich will keep avoiding taxes. where is the revenue going to come from? remember, we also have to pay for congress' healthcare and pensions plans EVEN after they leave congress and make millions in "speaking engagements" and / or directorships of major corporations.
we are not born with the correct genes. we do not want to be employed doing "public service". so we have to suffer. let's get on with it.
the next tax will be "vacation tax" at the state level. if you take vacation to another state, then you spent money in that state instead of your state of residence. so you have to pay a flat fee for each vacation and then a percentage equal to the sales tax in your state of what you spent while on vacation. and don't forget to do vacation tax planning in advance. if you know you are going to take certain number of vacations, you have to pay taxes in advance or face a 20% penalty when you file your taxes.
hmm... i am not born with the right genes. but what did I ever do to have the genes to recognize those having those genes and make myself miserable?
Also included in the vacation tax will be a "total miles" calculation. You are being alerted to this, so that you may plan accordingly for your next mainland vacation.
Peobably not too far off. Some states are pondering a vehicle tax based on miles driven instead of a gasoline tax. This came about because electric vehicles are getting free ride in that regard.
If they do make the switch, it's probably not that bad of an idea. I understand that taxes are essential for government but when people get taxed for any little action or deed, it comes across as overbearing. Also the switch from infrastructure spending to social spending is divisive amongst taxpayers.
This thread is drifting into dangerous territory so I will stop here. Probably too late since I usually inflame some here.
@Vintage Federal tax rates have not been on their way up for a long time, but are close to historic lows for the post Great Depression era: businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1 And this not to pick on the 1% because it isn't just them that have had low tax rates. We all have. Now state taxes are another matter and depends on the state in which you live: users.nber.org/~taxsim/state-rates/maxrate.html Some state tax rates have stayed the same for years. Others have gone down and others have gone way up. My understanding is since federal tax rates have declined so much, aid from the federal government to the states has declined with it and some states to make up the shortfall have raised tax rates on their citizens. Throughout much of the post war era federal tax rates on the wealthy were 70% or higher. Today they are 39.6%, a slight increase from the 35% we've seen during the Bush era. Also estate tax rates are way down by historical standards and the exemption amount that is not taxed is way up--$10 million for a married couple. And that doesn't include the amount that can be gifted to children tax free before the parents die.
@JohnChisum I wrote about the fantasy mileage tax to be lite-hearted for this topic area. I have not any plan to become involved in the virtue or otherwise, of some taxes. I plan to have a relaxing weekend. Take care, Catch
I agree with Lewis that tax rates are near historic lows (which is why I suggest to people that they consider doing some Roth conversions even if it kicks them into a slightly higher bracket, because tax rates have nowhere to go but up IMHO).
But I feel that the details merit some qualifications.
The current top nominal tax rate is arguably 43.4%. This applies to unearned income (due to the Medicare 3.8% tax). See, e.g. the table in the first column from this doc on the AICPA site.
Some might say that, well, this only applies to unearned (investment) income, not all ordinary income. Fair enough, which brings me to the second qualification.
The 70% nominal rate in the Nixon era (Tax Reform Act of 1969) in the charts given by Lewis only applied to unearned income (other than capital gains). Earned income was taxed at no more than 50%. If one calls this era a 70% period (because some unearned income was taxed at this rate), then by the same logic, the current nominal max rate is 43.4%.
Finally, there is the question of what "top" means in "top bracket". Does it mean the highest income bracket, or the highest tax rate bracket? They are not synonymous. Reagan's 1986 Tax Reform Act created an upper middle class bracket of 33%, even though the tax rate on the highest earners was 28%. See the footnotes in this table of tax brackets year by year from TaxFoundation.org. (See years 1988-1990.)
You let McDonalds and Walmart keep paying people minimum wage. They stay on foodstamps. The CEOs make more millions and perhaps maybe sometimes do some "charity" to assuage themselves of their guilt that in no way compensates for the millions the government has to shell out so that people can minimum wage can live.
Yes. LIVE. I'm sure some jackass will come up with "Living is a not a right", argument one day". Just like "employment is not a right" or "healthcare is not a right". The bottom line is that if people earned a fair wage they can actually live off, then that will generate taxes at least equal or more than what the total tax revenue is. Combine that with the amount Government now does not have to spend subsidizing the Walmarts and McDonalds, I think you have a better shot of cutting the deficit.
Now I don't have a degree in Political Sciencesh*t. I also don't have a Master of Bullsh*t Artistry. So I'm not even qualified to even have an opinion. People want to talk about the "lowest of the low" should only earn $7 an hour. $7 an hour to stand on your feet 40 hours a week. Can one of us stand 8 hours a day in whatever job we are doing and do basically nothing and agree to be paid $7 an hour? If $7 was a livable wage then how about you pay $7 to all the unemployed if they agree to simply stand 8 hours a day doing nothing. That would take LESS money than what the government has to pay so people below poverty line can LIVE.
Sorry now I know I'm digressing, but we are talking about taxes and taxes are levied for one and one reason only. So the government can do what it needs to do. The problem here is government needs this additional revenue to gloss over the mistakes it itself continues to make. The problem isn't Capitalism. The problem is the implementation of Capitalism. Known in some circles as Objectivism. Ever met a poor Objectivist?
@JohnChisum I wrote about the fantasy mileage tax to be lite-hearted for this topic area. I have not any plan to become involved in the virtue or otherwise, of some taxes. I plan to have a relaxing weekend. Take care, Catch
Ask and you shall receive. Coming to a state near you.
Some people are concerned about using gas taxes for other purposes. So where is the outrage when "The federal Highway Trust Fund ... [gets] a congressional bailout four times since 2009"?
This seems like one area where we can let the private sphere deal with data collection. Insurers already bill you based on your mileage. Just have them verify that mileage - on rare occasions I've already had an insurer check my odometer. The government can get the data from the insurer along with the proof of insurance.
Edit: Alternatively, have the odometer checked with the annual car inspection (and require these in all states).
I think the comment that people with fuel-efficient cars will pay as much as owners of gas guzzlers is misplaced. Certainly there is the penalty aspect of a gas tax to spur people into owning more efficient vehicles.
But the main purpose of the gas tax is to pay for infrastructure, and the wear and tear (and need for additional roads) is primarily a consequence of miles driven - electric or Hummer.
Comments
Feels a little desperate, too.
"Yep, I'm sure that these businesses will not relocate out of Chicago or even Illinois, because the taxes will only go for good works. "
LOL, like this?
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/How-Chicago-Spent-400M-On-a-Subway-Superstation-to-Nowhere-293754431.html
It's remarkable that the situation at the link above is not discussed more in the media. It's hilarious.
Regatrds,
Ted
Hot Dogs:
Deep Dish Pizza:
A more serious response is that it's time to start letting other entities invest in infrastructure in this country. Other countries are doing a lot with this (PPP - Public Private Partnerships) already.
As for the Illinois cloud tax, I'm guessing if this applies to Netflix, it would also apply to anything you buy from the iTunes app store/Google play store? I mean, if it's for Netflix, one can make the guess that there's a lot more that this covers.
There have been some successful partnerships, but some of them have been so bad there is a web site devoted exclusively to their disastrous results:ppp-disasters.com/
The really political hot button on PPP's has been regarding water infrastructure and again the results have been less than sterling:
theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/30/water-privatisation-worldwide-failure-lagos-world-bank
Derf
Best,
Lewis
>> [graduated] Taxes are regressive by definition
How so?
Remember Leona Helmsly, one of the "1%": "Only the little people pay taxes". Our new president wanna-be, Mr. Trump, wants an impenetrable wall on the Mexican border, as long as he doesn't have to help pay for it.
Charts from "Mother Jones", Mon Apr. 18, 2011 (This ain't new, folks!)
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
It includes a quote from FDR: "Mr. Justice Holmes said 'Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.' Too many individuals, however, want the civilization at a discount."
The "Bush" tax chart...........for me; the valid chart would to indicate percentages of taxation versus dollar values. What may be used to adjust taxable income varies a lot, eh? Just a thought from Michigan.
Take care,
Catch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/
we are not born with the correct genes. we do not want to be employed doing "public service". so we have to suffer. let's get on with it.
the next tax will be "vacation tax" at the state level. if you take vacation to another state, then you spent money in that state instead of your state of residence. so you have to pay a flat fee for each vacation and then a percentage equal to the sales tax in your state of what you spent while on vacation. and don't forget to do vacation tax planning in advance. if you know you are going to take certain number of vacations, you have to pay taxes in advance or face a 20% penalty when you file your taxes.
hmm... i am not born with the right genes. but what did I ever do to have the genes to recognize those having those genes and make myself miserable?
Also included in the vacation tax will be a "total miles" calculation. You are being alerted to this, so that you may plan accordingly for your next mainland vacation.
Take care in your part of the world.
Catch
If they do make the switch, it's probably not that bad of an idea. I understand that taxes are essential for government but when people get taxed for any little action or deed, it comes across as overbearing. Also the switch from infrastructure spending to social spending is divisive amongst taxpayers.
This thread is drifting into dangerous territory so I will stop here. Probably too late since I usually inflame some here.
And this not to pick on the 1% because it isn't just them that have had low tax rates. We all have. Now state taxes are another matter and depends on the state in which you live:
users.nber.org/~taxsim/state-rates/maxrate.html
Some state tax rates have stayed the same for years. Others have gone down and others have gone way up. My understanding is since federal tax rates have declined so much, aid from the federal government to the states has declined with it and some states to make up the shortfall have raised tax rates on their citizens. Throughout much of the post war era federal tax rates on the wealthy were 70% or higher. Today they are 39.6%, a slight increase from the 35% we've seen during the Bush era. Also estate tax rates are way down by historical standards and the exemption amount that is not taxed is way up--$10 million for a married couple. And that doesn't include the amount that can be gifted to children tax free before the parents die.
I wrote about the fantasy mileage tax to be lite-hearted for this topic area. I have not any plan to become involved in the virtue or otherwise, of some taxes. I plan to have a relaxing weekend.
Take care,
Catch
But I feel that the details merit some qualifications.
The current top nominal tax rate is arguably 43.4%. This applies to unearned income (due to the Medicare 3.8% tax). See, e.g. the table in the first column from this doc on the AICPA site.
Some might say that, well, this only applies to unearned (investment) income, not all ordinary income. Fair enough, which brings me to the second qualification.
The 70% nominal rate in the Nixon era (Tax Reform Act of 1969) in the charts given by Lewis only applied to unearned income (other than capital gains). Earned income was taxed at no more than 50%. If one calls this era a 70% period (because some unearned income was taxed at this rate), then by the same logic, the current nominal max rate is 43.4%.
Finally, there is the question of what "top" means in "top bracket". Does it mean the highest income bracket, or the highest tax rate bracket? They are not synonymous. Reagan's 1986 Tax Reform Act created an upper middle class bracket of 33%, even though the tax rate on the highest earners was 28%. See the footnotes in this table of tax brackets year by year from TaxFoundation.org. (See years 1988-1990.)
You let McDonalds and Walmart keep paying people minimum wage. They stay on foodstamps. The CEOs make more millions and perhaps maybe sometimes do some "charity" to assuage themselves of their guilt that in no way compensates for the millions the government has to shell out so that people can minimum wage can live.
Yes. LIVE. I'm sure some jackass will come up with "Living is a not a right", argument one day". Just like "employment is not a right" or "healthcare is not a right". The bottom line is that if people earned a fair wage they can actually live off, then that will generate taxes at least equal or more than what the total tax revenue is. Combine that with the amount Government now does not have to spend subsidizing the Walmarts and McDonalds, I think you have a better shot of cutting the deficit.
Now I don't have a degree in Political Sciencesh*t. I also don't have a Master of Bullsh*t Artistry. So I'm not even qualified to even have an opinion. People want to talk about the "lowest of the low" should only earn $7 an hour. $7 an hour to stand on your feet 40 hours a week. Can one of us stand 8 hours a day in whatever job we are doing and do basically nothing and agree to be paid $7 an hour? If $7 was a livable wage then how about you pay $7 to all the unemployed if they agree to simply stand 8 hours a day doing nothing. That would take LESS money than what the government has to pay so people below poverty line can LIVE.
Sorry now I know I'm digressing, but we are talking about taxes and taxes are levied for one and one reason only. So the government can do what it needs to do. The problem here is government needs this additional revenue to gloss over the mistakes it itself continues to make. The problem isn't Capitalism. The problem is the implementation of Capitalism. Known in some circles as Objectivism. Ever met a poor Objectivist?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/21/oregon-plan-to-replace-gas-tax-with-milage-tax-raised-concerns-on-privacy-cost/
This seems like one area where we can let the private sphere deal with data collection. Insurers already bill you based on your mileage. Just have them verify that mileage - on rare occasions I've already had an insurer check my odometer. The government can get the data from the insurer along with the proof of insurance.
Edit: Alternatively, have the odometer checked with the annual car inspection (and require these in all states).
I think the comment that people with fuel-efficient cars will pay as much as owners of gas guzzlers is misplaced. Certainly there is the penalty aspect of a gas tax to spur people into owning more efficient vehicles.
But the main purpose of the gas tax is to pay for infrastructure, and the wear and tear (and need for additional roads) is primarily a consequence of miles driven - electric or Hummer.