Romney pays 15% tax rate

[RandFan]

That's less than half of Germany's top tax rate. If Warren Buffet lived in Germany his tax rate would still be much less than his secretary's tax rate. Oh, the humanity! And I can only assume you're still confused what capital investment is.

Doesn't address the question. Could you just please focus on what I'm asking you?

 

[RandFan]

My claim is that lower rates will spur more investment, all other things being equal.

Not all things are equal hence the question that you are ignoring. This is your version of "then a miracle happens". What good is increased investment if it decreases tax revenue and doesn't spur growth?

No, it represents a past capital expense.

No, by definition it is not.

And your knee jerk accusations of straw men are just a canard. Please to stay focused.

You have done nothing to dispprove that premise.

Now THAT'S a straw man as I've said over and over I agree that it will tend to do just that. If I agree with it then why would I try to disprove it? Arguing against a point I agree with is a classical straw man.

I'm going to ask you again, please to focus on what I'm asking.

 

[RandFan]

Does a salesperson on a commission formula have to put capital into a business?

Why is that a difference? You are special pleading. I understand why the interest earned should be taxed at a lower rate. But asserting that a fee should makes no sense.

If not, there's the difference.

Absolutely. A contract sales person is an independent business person. Everything he or she spends to further the business is an investment. I know I was one.

 

[RandFan]

Except that becoming a partner in a business that can earn profits qualifying as carried interest almost invariably does involve investing one's money.

The two are not reasonably connected. If you would address hedge fund managers you might see the problem. But lets go back to the partnership.

• Person A invests $50,000,000 in a capital investment business venture.
• Person B invests $50,000,000 in a capital investment business venture.
• Person A is a partner.
• Person B is not.
• Person A is paid $30,000 a year in carried interest on top of capital gains.
• Person B is paid $30,000 a year in salary on top of capital gains.

Please to explain the difference between Person A and person B?

*I will concede that the above is not likely. It's formulated to make a point. Imagine person B is one of many investors and his initial investment is much less. He does volunteer work and is provided remuneration for his efforts. That is a real world example.

 

[ZirconBlue]

If, and I emphasize "if", lower taxes on capital gains were the only way to get people to invest then I would be for it. Wildcat says the rates should be 0%. But 15% didn't keep Romney from investing. Where is the evidence that there would be more investing? And invest in what?

Well, apparently this lower rate on capital gains was not in effect from 1986-1997. And we all know that there was no investing going on in the 1990s.

 

[Neally]

Show me. Specifics, please. And not just examples, I want to see a population study.

Tell me which examples you don't accept and I'll look for the data:
1. Lower income families tend to have more children.
2. Lower income neighborhoods tend to have more crime.
3. Lower income families tend to use more government welfare/subsidized services like food stamps, government subsidized school lunches, health care, public transportation, etc.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

You mean to tell me that low-income people are more likely to use social safety nets designed to aid low-income people? Nonsense!!

 

[Neally]

You mean to tell me that low-income people are more likely to use social safety nets designed to aid low-income people? Nonsense!!

Exactly, which why asking for some sort of "population study" proving that low income people use proportionally more of society's resources than what they pay for as compared to the wealthy, is rather odd.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Exactly, which why asking for some sort of "population study" proving that low income people use proportionally more of society's resources than what they pay for as compared to the wealthy, is rather odd.

RandFan can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am), but he may have been thinking of that old "Red State/Blue State" image that showed how many net dollars per capita a state gave or received to/from the federal government, which is more or less unrelated to this discussion. Hard for me to say.

 

[Neally]

RandFan can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am), but he may have been thinking of that old "Red State/Blue State" image that showed how many net dollars per capita a state gave or received to/from the federal government, which is more or less unrelated to this discussion. Hard for me to say.

No, that has nothing to do with this conversation which was related to a posting by Tricky claiming that the wealthy use more resources than what they pay for as compared to the poor and thus they should pay a higher tax rate.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

No, that has nothing to do with this conversation which was related to a posting by Tricky claiming that the wealthy use more resources than what they pay for as compared to the poor and thus they should pay a higher tax rate.

In that case, I'd expect it to follow a subsidies/roads track, but that's his argument to make, not mine!

 

[BenBurch]

Tell me which examples you don't accept and I'll look for the data:
1. Lower income families tend to have more children.
2. Lower income neighborhoods tend to have more crime.
3. Lower income families tend to use more government welfare/subsidized services like food stamps, government subsidized school lunches, health care, public transportation, etc.

No, I am talking about the other side. Show me that the rich do not require disproportionately more services. That is what you asserted.

 

[BenBurch]

Exactly, which why asking for some sort of "population study" proving that low income people use proportionally more of society's resources than what they pay for as compared to the wealthy, is rather odd.

But that is not what I asked and not what you asserted.

Answer what I asked.

If you didn't understand it, you do now.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

No, I am talking about the other side. Show me that the rich do not require disproportionately more services. That is what you asserted.

I'm far from one to agree with Neally most of the time, but it appears that this is what he attempted to do. Showing (of course, he has no citations, but says he can provide them if need be) that poorer people use more services than the rich logically shows that the rich do not use more services than the poor.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

But that is not what I asked and not what you asserted.

Answer what I asked.

If you didn't understand it, you do now.

Apologies for the double post, but the way I read his assertion (namely the "just the opposite" comment with which you disagreed) was that he could provide examples of the poor using more services than the rich, fulfilling the "opposite" condition of the rich using more services than the poor. I don't see how providing an example of the poor using more services than the rich would fail to meet your standards? Do you expect him to provide evidence of the rich not doing something, or would him providing an example which fulfills the requirement by logical inference not suffice?

ETA: Of course, this is dependent on Neally actually providing the evidence, but it seems like evidence for what he's saying (in specific his third numbered claim) would not be too hard to find on his part. I'm not in ideological agreement with him, I'm just saying that you're claiming he's making a deflective argument when it certainly seems to me that he is not.

 

[Bri]

No, that has nothing to do with this conversation which was related to a posting by Tricky claiming that the wealthy use more resources than what they pay for as compared to the poor and thus they should pay a higher tax rate.

The argument for progressive taxes is usually something along the lines of people who benefit more from society's resources should pay more for them.

Perhaps he meant that someone with more money has benefited more from roads, the relative stability/security provided by the military, etc.

Or maybe he meant that the wealthy receive more tax expenditures than do the poor.

Or maybe he meant that wealthy companies exploit more of our natural resources than do the poor.

-Bri

 

[Francesca R]

The argument for progressive taxes is usually something along the lines of people who benefit more from society's resources should pay more for them.

That's a shaky argument and not the one I am familiar with, which is those more able to pay for public goods and the welfare system should do so.

The idea that wealthy folks consume more public spending than poor folks is wobbly, to say the least.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

That's a shaky argument and not the one I am familiar with, which is those more able to pay for public goods and the welfare system should do so.

The idea that wealthy folks consume more public spending than poor folks is wobbly, to say the least.

This is the one that I am most familiar with, as well.

 

[Bri]

The idea that wealthy folks consume more public spending than poor folks is wobbly, to say the least.

I didn't say the rich consume more public spending. I said that they have benefited more from it.

I have also heard the argument you stated, that those more able to pay for public goods and the welfare system should do so.

-Bri

 

[Neally]

No, I am talking about the other side. Show me that the rich do not require disproportionately more services. That is what you asserted.

You asked for counter evidence to the rich using more services which would be the poor using more services. I gave you a list of examples to choose from. Regardless of the wording, if the poor use more of those services, the rich use less, thus proving my point.

The argument for progressive taxes is usually something along the lines of people who benefit more from society's resources should pay more for them.

And I'm saying that the argument for progressive taxes on the wealthy may be made for other reasons, but I don't see it being supported because they use disproportionately more of society's resources.

The property taxes on a $500,000 home are ten times that of a $50,000 home, yet in all likelihood, the family of the $50,000 home is larger, thus using more school resources, is in a higher crime area, thus uses more police services, etc. Note that this is an example of a flat % and shows that even at a flat % there is no rationale to say that the $500,000 home should be tax at a higher %, in fact the opposite is true. Lower income people tend to use disproportionately MORE government services/resources.

I didn't say the rich consume more public spending. I said that they have benefited more from it.

What's the difference between benefited more and consumed more? Does someone paying ten times the amount of property taxes get 10 times the amounts of benefits from society, or are they getting so much more that they should be progressively property taxed so that they are paying 20 times the amount as someone else?

I have also heard the argument you stated, that those more able to pay for public goods and the welfare system should do so.

Well at least that would make more sense as an appeal to charity and goodwill rather than the idea that the wealthy consume disproportionately more.