Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by UncleBob Please explain how those things are mutually exclusive from one another?

A "massive" tax increase should cause more than a "drop in the bucket" of revenue.

Massive sounds like something with a lot of zeroes behind it while drop in the bucket sounds like something with maybe 5 or 6 zeroes. While I realize it's a standard tactic used by both sides, it's silly and far too easy to see through the BS.

Hypothetically speaking, of course... if your federal tax liability were to increase by $50,000, would you consider that a "massive" tax increase

And how long would that $50k substain our Federal government?

Originally Posted by UncleBob Hypothetically speaking, of course... if your federal tax liability were to increase by $50,000, would you consider that a "massive" tax increase And how long would that $50k substain our Federal government?

Longer then $0

Originally Posted by camoor Longer then $0

nelsonhawhaw.jpg

Seriously bob, think about the math behind that statement.
Current top tier is 35% for income over $388,350.01
Reverting to 2002 tiers, the top tier is 38.6% for income over $307,050.01

Let's make the equation easier for the sake of argument and call it $300k.

How much income do you need to have for a 3.6% rate increase to cover a spread of $50k? At a 10% increase it'd have to be $500,000 OVER $300k. But it isn't 10% is it? Nope. For a real $50k tax increase, your income (and mind you this is actual paycheck income since we're talking income tax and none of that silly dividend or CG income that is still a paltry 15%) would have to be.......











$1,688,888.89

Yep. You need to make just short of one point seven million dollars in total income to be subject to a $50k increase. Fifty grand is like an afternoon in the whorehouse for someone with that kind of cash.

So no, it wouldn't be a massive tax increase at all.

LOLZ...thanks for doing the math. I was tempted, but too lazy and he'd probably shift goal posts anyways.

Now do the math on capital gains for extra lulz.

CG going back to 40%?

That's pretty easy as your current liability would be multiplied by 2.66666

So if you owed $10k now, you'd owe $26,666.66

Of course you'd also have to sell that little $26,500 full profit investment that you kept after saving all your pennies to have a liability of $10k under the 40% rule... Using a very (oh I'm about to do it!) liberal 10% ROI per year, want to take a guess at what your initial investment had to be and how long you needed to keep it (and have that lovely 10% ROI continue year in and year out which is less possible than me having A-to-M with Natalie Portman in the next three minutes)?


An initial investment of that $5k you've just got laying around would require approzimately 18.5 years. Which begs the question, why the would you sell 100% of an investment that is getting you 10% per year?!?

oops, forgot the tax free first $1,500 as well as taking out the initial $5k investment which wouldn't get taxed. Looks like we need to add about 3.5 years...

Why sell? Because taxes, you stupid motherer!

well shit, you got me there!

going back to how preposterous a $1.7m income is:
Hourly wage considering 2,080 hours worked per year and no OT: $811.965 per hour
# of hours at that wage to cover $50k: 61.5789 so yeah, a week and a half of work going to taxes to cover the spread, subtract 6.25% for employee half of SS/Medic for all income over $102k as well and you're looking 6 days of work tops...

Weekly wage considering 5 days a week for 52 weeks per year: $6,495.7265

Monthly wage: $140,740.74
More than most of us here on this board make in 2 years...

Assuming avg family income of $50k per year (yeah, I know it's lower than that), $1.7m is more than 33x the earnings.

So bob, knowing that you'd be "massively" penalized for your success, would you turn down 33 times what you make now? I mean, think of all the job creating you could do!

Again, if your tax liability went up by $50,000 would you consider it a massive tax increase? And how long would that extra $50k keep the federal government runnung?

I'm still trying to understand the idea that the two statements are mutally exclusive

A tax inxcrease on an individual could be upto 100% of their sum total income and still not be a drop in the bucket towards funding the spending done by our government. You're all hung up on that $50K amount - yet haven't explained your comment.

jesus christ.

Your inability to cogitate isn't my problem. I put together a nice bit of proper math to explain how you're off base. I'm not "hung up" on the $50k, you presented it, thinking that it must be a "massive" amount. To get to a $50k increase, the income required is astronomical, quite literally a "drop in the bucket" for that earner... Pick another dollar amount, I'll get there just as easily. I'm pretty good with this algebra stuff!

So.
Something cannot be both massive and not massive. It's having it both ways and the lovely Miss Natalie don't play that. A "massive" tax hike would produce a "massive" revenue increase, while a "drop in the bucket" tax increase would produce a "drop in the bucket" revenue increase.

I have now succinctly explained my comment, shown proof of concept, re-explained my comment, offered you an opportunity to try new examples which I will proof (math term, not a mistake on "prove") and made a couple more fun jokes along the way.

Your unwavering devotion to the talking point is proven. What I'm pointing out is that it's bad salesmanship because it's complete BS. Beyond not comparing apples to apples, it poorly compares apples to footballs while trying to explain it all away with spaceships...

Originally Posted by nasum So. Something cannot be both massive and not massive.

Again, this is where you wrong and you've failed at the test.

The first part of the question required virtually no math and you did not answer it. I did not ask anything about the hypothetical amounts of money and percentages of taxes you'd have to pay in order to have an increased tax liability of any amount. I specifically asked *you* if the government were to increase *YOUR* tax liability by $50,000, if that would be "massive" to *YOU*. You completely failed to answer that.

And yes, something can be both massive and not massive, as, in this case, you're using a relative term. The amount an individual is taxed *can* be massive in comparison to their individual income - while being "not massive" in comparison to spending at the Federal level. Simple. Basic. I don't see why YOU are having such an issue understanding this.

Now, I'm not debating if any particular purposed tax increases are "massive". That's a whole different issue. I'm saying, as my original statement said, the increase of one's individual tax liability can be "massive" to that individual while not making a dent in overall Federal government spending.

If we're to follow your faulty logic, then I think everyone making less than $25k/year should have to pay 100% of his or her individual income into Federal Taxes. The amount raised from this "soak the poor" tax increase would not make a dent in Federal spending, therefore isn't massive - thus is okay. Per your logic.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Again, if your tax liability went up by $50,000 would you consider it a massive tax increase? And how long would that extra $50k keep the federal government runnung? I'm still trying to understand the idea that the two statements are mutally exclusive A tax inxcrease on an individual could be upto 100% of their sum total income and still not be a drop in the bucket towards funding the spending done by our government. You're all hung up on that $50K amount - yet haven't explained your comment.

Let me ask you a question.

You can have 50K or you can have 0K.

Which one do you want?

Depends where that $50k came from?

Originally Posted by UncleBob Depends where that $50k came from?

A superrich guy who can more then afford to make the offer.

Is he saying "You can have this, no strings attached.", do I have to let him sleep with my wife, or do I have to take it by force?

bob is either a massive troll or one dumb motherer.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Again, this is where you wrong and you've failed at the test.

Test? What test?

The first part of the question required virtually no math and you did not answer it. I did not ask anything about the hypothetical amounts of money and percentages of taxes you'd have to pay in order to have an increased tax liability of any amount. I specifically asked *you* if the government were to increase *YOUR* tax liability by $50,000, if that would be "massive" to *YOU*. You completely failed to answer that.

As clear as possible: No. It would not be massive because my income would be 1.68 million dollars per year.
Unless you're in fantasy land and you're suggesting that my tax liability went up by that amount based on my current income. If that's what your question really is, then my answer is giraffe.

And yes, something can be both massive and not massive, as, in this case, you're using a relative term. The amount an individual is taxed *can* be massive in comparison to their individual income - while being "not massive" in comparison to spending at the Federal level. Simple. Basic. I don't see why YOU are having such an issue understanding this.

Because that's combining objective and subjective. We're not making a pie here where you just get tto throw in whatever ingredients you want. We're dealing with concrete absolutes. The PR job is complete BS.
1.) 3.6% is not a massive increase in real %, nor is the 10% increase from current level (35 times 1.1) especially considering it's only on income over a third of a million dollars and income that is also not subject to half of the payroll taxes.
2.) Buying into the talking point and deciding that it sounds good enough to wrap your noodle around doesn't mean it's actually true or correct.
3.) Pulling $50k out of your ass to illustrate a massive increase without applying it to reality means nothing. You're again combining subjective and objective. When pulling things out of your ass, give 'em a sniff test to see if it should be put back in your ass before being posted for the public...

Now, I'm not debating if any particular purposed tax increases are "massive". That's a whole different issue. I'm saying, as my original statement said, the increase of one's individual tax liability can be "massive" to that individual while not making a dent in overall Federal government spending. If we're to follow your faulty logic, then I think everyone making less than $25k/year should have to pay 100% of his or her individual income into Federal Taxes. The amount raised from this "soak the poor" tax increase would not make a dent in Federal spending, therefore isn't massive - thus is okay. Per your logic.

But that's the problem. A 100% income tax on income <$25k isn't real. Also, it likely wouldn't raise a massive amount of revenue, which is a key point that you've missed this whole time.