Harris tax plan - raising taxes on high earners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

OP (of the original comment on disincentivization). Yes. Gratifying to see I'm not the only one feeling this way. Hard work and innovation is the engine, the backbone, the heart of our country. Yes, my selfish desires for myself and the people I love fuel my work ethic. Higher taxation chips away at it.

You really see this in Europe. Particularly in Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. No one wants to work and be taxed. Everyone wants to work cash jobs to hide income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

OP (of the original comment on disincentivization). Yes. Gratifying to see I'm not the only one feeling this way. Hard work and innovation is the engine, the backbone, the heart of our country. Yes, my selfish desires for myself and the people I love fuel my work ethic. Higher taxation chips away at it.

PP here, and I am a government employee so I don't really have the same financial incentives as someone working in the private sector or who has their own business.

But, for the good of the country, I do value economic growth to grow the pie all can partake a share of, and that requires highly motivated private sector participants and entrepreneurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of the haters, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $531 billion. The share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 33.2 percent in 2001 to 45.8 percent in 2021.

(This article was updated in 2024.)

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent%20of%20taxpayers%20paid%20more%20than%20%241,to%2045.8%20percent%20in%202021.

Now do wealth.

“The richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth worth $42 trillion created since 2020, almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent of the world’s population, reveals a new Oxfam report today. During the past decade, the richest 1 percent had captured around half of all new wealth.”

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years


“ Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Federal%20Reserve%20data%20indicates%20that,bottom%2050%25%20held%202.6%25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

That's just the declining marginal utility of the dollar. And if you are declining more dollars because the net after tax amount is too small for you, then you can certainly afford a tax hike on your current income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Corporations, some of which supply goods and services subject to inflation increases, have no other productive uses for the tax savings realized by lowering the corporate tax rates?

Corporations, some pay wages that barely surpass inflation, have no other productive uses for the tax savings realized by lowering the corporate tax rates?

Huh. So no trickle down, am I right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

That's just the declining marginal utility of the dollar. And if you are declining more dollars because the net after tax amount is too small for you, then you can certainly afford a tax hike on your current income.

There you go again with "you can afford it." Hopefully driving the nail into the coffin of democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

That's just the declining marginal utility of the dollar. And if you are declining more dollars because the net after tax amount is too small for you, then you can certainly afford a tax hike on your current income.

There you go again with "you can afford it." Hopefully driving the nail into the coffin of democrats.

And there you are again, the slovenly hog wallowing on the dollar-mud created by your worker bees and underlings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

That's just the declining marginal utility of the dollar. And if you are declining more dollars because the net after tax amount is too small for you, then you can certainly afford a tax hike on your current income.

The tax hike wouldn’t be on my current income though. I deliberately don’t earn more than $400k already because the take home isn’t worth it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

That's just the declining marginal utility of the dollar. And if you are declining more dollars because the net after tax amount is too small for you, then you can certainly afford a tax hike on your current income.

The tax hike wouldn’t be on my current income though. I deliberately don’t earn more than $400k already because the take home isn’t worth it anymore.

You all are unreal. Do you really think people believe the crap you are peddling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Can those of you that believe increasing taxes on the wealthy will harm worker productivity or economic growth post historical evidence supporting that claim? Not model where we cannot evaluate inputs, but analysis of historical data that supports the idea that lower tax on the rich help the economy and higher taxes hurt it?

“ Relatedly, they also show little support for the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost wider economic performance (Sowell, 2012). They are, in fact, more in line with recent empirical research showing that income tax holidays, windfall gains and tax cuts targeted at the top decile of the income distribution do not lead individuals to significantly alter the amount they work (Akee et al., 2010; Jones and Marinescu, 2018; Martínez et al., 2021; Zidar, 2019).”

https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315?login=false

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

“ Well-publicized, one-time bonuses for employees that companies announced after the tax cuts were modest overall — averaging $28 per U.S. worker, and amounting to just 2 to 3 percent of the total benefits from the corporate tax cut — while announcements of stock buybacks, which benefit shareholders by raising the value of the stock they already hold, exceeded a record-breaking $1 trillion in 2018.”

“ Workers did not see the increase in wages that proponents of corporate tax cuts promised: “There is no indication of a surge in wages in 2018 either compared to history or to GDP growth.” They also noted that gains in worker wages depend on increases in investment that ultimately raise productivity, but the investment data do not reveal investment increases either.[12]”

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/corporate-rate-increase-would-make-taxes-fairer-help-fund-equitable-recovery