The Pawlenty Plan/My plan.

[MinnesotaBrant]

Where is your source for this ?

You haven't just taken the average personal income and doubled it have you ? If you have then you're not doing it right.

According to the best figures I can find, average household income in the United States is around $50,000 Source



Okay, so you have disposable income of $200 a month. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of families out there where it is zero (or negative). Also, it's in your interest to minimise your stated disposable income in your dealings with the IRS.





Firstly, the figure of $68,000 is too high, an average household has an income of around $50,000

Secondly, most of those families have expenses you don't have like:

- Kids - a child currently costs around $250,000 (over $2,000 a month) to raise
- Student loan repayments
- Exceptional medical expenses




You're assuming (incorrectly) that everyone has the same level of expenses as you. Some people's expenses are much high, some are considerably lower.



Your performance in other threads shows that there's no point attempting to get you to concede that you may be mistake. This thread is a perfect example. You've moved the discussion on from your tax plan without acknowledging that there are gaping flaws in that plan onto an exchange best described as "I would like more money and/or not to have to pay taxes".

Why the heck should I (or anyone else) pay your taxes when the solution is clear. If you want more money, go out and get a better maying job, or better yet start your own business and get yourself - and a bunch of other people - better paying jobs.



Well you can hardly deduct things you didn't pay...

So in addition to not paying your taxes you don't pay your medical bills.

Of course if you had what you term socialised medicine, you wouldn't have personally borne these costs but it would have relied upon you paying your taxes - something you appear reluctant to do.



Long story short, get a better paying job

Ok my voices told me <SNIP> . They were not far off. Household income is not the same as couples income. In the US household income can mean alot of things. You need to look at couples income. The rest of it was a little slow. Since you did not state you pay 35k sterling in taxes I assume you didn't. What the heck I will reply to your entire post. First of all what I am referring to as disposable income is different than what you think it is. For me its more of an emergency fund. Different expenses doesn't matter unless its work related expenses, the only way you can win this arguement is to put your money where your mouth is. Then I will give you the answer and you can move on with your life.

Edited, breach of rule 0.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Ok my voices told me <SNIP> . They were not far off. Household income is not the same as couples income. In the US household income can mean alot of things. You need to look at couples income. The rest of it was a little slow. Since you did not state you pay 35k sterling in taxes I assume you didn't. What the heck I will reply to your entire post. First of all what I am referring to as disposable income is different than what you think it is. For me its more of an emergency fund. Different expenses doesn't matter unless its work related expenses, the only way you can win this arguement is to put your money where your mouth is. Then I will give you the answer and you can move on with your life.

Edited, breach of rule 0.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Fine I will give you the answer anyway. First of all, this post is mainly a complaint about the fairness of the tax system. Since the tax code was created mainly to serve influence peddlers and lobbyists it can hardly have a chance to be fair. As you may or may not know, politicians do not pay attention to the needs of middle class tax payers until just before the elections, then as soon as they are elected, they turn their backs on them. So, to argue for the tax code Is an argument against fair taxation. I suggested you pay my tax since you suggested I was cheating other poorer people by not paying them. Since it is extremely unlikely that they will get much of that money, the only way, in my mind, was for you to pay it, since you are the one that seems so concerned.

Its all just woo anyway I wouldn't be too concerned.

I do wonder how you figure that kids cost 2k a month? After all they do eat less than an adult, at least until the teenage years. This seems unlikely since alot of people are raising kids on less than 2k a month. Alot of them even are not on government assistance. I did look up that the IRS withholding on a kid is not 5k as I assumed, but somewhat more than 3k. I am not up on what the current tax advantages are on having a kid. You know that you do not have to pay for a kids college. Alot of people don't. After 7 years or so, they may go to college on a pell grant anyway. Plus, there's always the military.

 

[The Don]

Ok my voices told me <SNIP> . They were not far off. Household income is not the same as couples income. In the US household income can mean alot of things. You need to look at couples income. The rest of it was a little slow. Since you did not state you pay 35k sterling in taxes I assume you didn't. What the heck I will reply to your entire post. First of all what I am referring to as disposable income is different than what you think it is. For me its more of an emergency fund. Different expenses doesn't matter unless its work related expenses, the only way you can win this arguement is to put your money where your mouth is. Then I will give you the answer and you can move on with your life.

I am sorry, I have clearly hit a nerve. I wish you well and hope that you manage to sort out your finances. Me continuing to harp on about it isn't going to help.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

No, this post is actually a woo ritual. The first part was price things fairly. This didn't happen, The second part is practice what you preach. This didn't happen. The third part was if it can be true, then it is true. This didn't happen.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I guess I was insulting to Don. But the media did notice that people who pay capital gains as part of their income tax pay alot less than folks who collect a salary. That was the unsaid part of this posting. At the time of this posting, the economist was running an article that said a families making less than 50k a year pay no taxes which is a big lie.

 

[The Don]

I guess I was insulting to Don. But the media did notice that people who pay capital gains as part of their income tax pay alot less than folks who collect a salary. That was the unsaid part of this posting.

I believe that there are a number of reasons why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income:

• Capital gains often take many years to make before they are cashed in. Taxing them as income may be unfair because it would ignore all those years where there was no capital gain
• It (allegedly) encourages entrepreneurs to retain capital in their businesses which means that they are more inclined to invest in those businesses and generate more jobs for the rest of us
• To achieve a capital gain, the investor has had to take a risk.
• Being cynical - those people best able to influence politicians, the rich and powerful, are more likely to have the size of investments which are likely to achieve significant capital gains

Of course what has happened is that those people with excellent accountants and tax advisers have managed to structure income to look like capital gains so that they are reaping the rewards without actually generating the benefits for the rest of society.

Some of this kind of thing can be addressed through legislation. Here in the UK it is now illegal to make transactions solely for the purposes of tax avoidance, even if those transactions are themselves legal.

At the time of this posting, the economist was running an article that said a families making less than 50k a year pay no taxes which is a big lie.

I agree that this would be a lie.

Do you have a link or reference for that article ? It would be extraordinarily sloppy reporting for The Economist to say this. Even if it was true that families making less than $50k pay no federal income taxes they still pay property taxes, sales taxes and so on.

Or course it depends how everything is calculated. They make take into account other benefits (like pro-rating all services they get) or something else to make some kind of political point.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

xzczxc

I believe that there are a number of reasons why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income:

• Capital gains often take many years to make before they are cashed in. Taxing them as income may be unfair because it would ignore all those years where there was no capital gain
• It (allegedly) encourages entrepreneurs to retain capital in their businesses which means that they are more inclined to invest in those businesses and generate more jobs for the rest of us
• To achieve a capital gain, the investor has had to take a risk.
• Being cynical - those people best able to influence politicians, the rich and powerful, are more likely to have the size of investments which are likely to achieve significant capital gains

Of course what has happened is that those people with excellent accountants and tax advisers have managed to structure income to look like capital gains so that they are reaping the rewards without actually generating the benefits for the rest of society.

Some of this kind of thing can be addressed through legislation. Here in the UK it is now illegal to make transactions solely for the purposes of tax avoidance, even if those transactions are themselves legal.



I agree that this would be a lie.

Do you have a link or reference for that article ? It would be extraordinarily sloppy reporting for The Economist to say this. Even if it was true that families making less than $50k pay no federal income taxes they still pay property taxes, sales taxes and so on.

Or course it depends how everything is calculated. They make take into account other benefits (like pro-rating all services they get) or something else to make some kind of political point.

Hmm, the Economist article was made when this was first posted. My understanding is that the Economist is a conservative mouthpiece and not really a news magazine. Buffet changed that argument saying that he pays less as a percentage in taxes than his secretary. Articles have since come out saying that the rich are not the real job creators. Its disgruntled former employees. Off the top of my head I hear that 80% of the businesses in america are small business that have nothing to do with the stock market. The stock market is probably inefficient at creating permant jobs anyway.

 

[The Don]

Hmm, the Economist article was made when this was first posted.

The Economist content isn't fully available online. The best I can find are things like this:

https://www.economist.com/users/j-watanabe/comments

Which is on the Economist website but not Economist copy.

My understanding is that the Economist is a conservative mouthpiece and not really a news magazine.

I think that is an unfair misrepresentation of the Economist's editorial policy. By its nature it may be right of centre and it could be described as being over-analytical or snobbish but I think that describing it as a mouthpiece is unfair.

Buffet changed that argument saying that he pays less as a percentage in taxes than his secretary.

Warren Buffett is a poor example because he is *exactly* the kind of person who should benefit from lower taxes on capital gains:

• He personally invests his own money
• He holds onto his investments for the long term
• He invests in businesses and tries to improve their performance (rather than just asset-stripping)

He genuinely appears to want to add value and does not seem to be unduly rapacious.

Articles have since come out saying that the rich are not the real job creators. Its disgruntled former employees.

Please provide evidence of this.

In any case, why should a disgruntled former employee who has to invest years of their life into building up a business (and taking personal financial risks and re-investing in the business rather than taking a generous salary all those years) have to surrender a large percentage when they sell up ?

I personally do not have a problem with genuine entrepreneurs and wealth creators getting a reward for the years of risk-taking and under payment when the time comes to reap the rewards. I do have a problem when the rules created to help genuine entrepreneurs and wealth creators are subverted to provide tax avoidance schemes.

Off the top of my head I hear that 80% of the businesses in america are small business that have nothing to do with the stock market. The stock market is probably inefficient at creating permant jobs anyway.

It depends on how you slice the cake.

Over 50% of people employed in private industry in the U.S. are employed by firms that have more than 500 employees:

Source: http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

There are many more small businesses than there are large businesses but you'd expect that. Whether or not these businesses are on the stock market is a different matter. The purpose of a stock market floatation is usually to provide either capital for investment or for the business's founders to realise some gain form their investment.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

The Economist content isn't fully available online. The best I can find are things like this:

https://www.economist.com/users/j-watanabe/comments

Which is on the Economist website but not Economist copy.



I think that is an unfair misrepresentation of the Economist's editorial policy. By its nature it may be right of centre and it could be described as being over-analytical or snobbish but I think that describing it as a mouthpiece is unfair.


Warren Buffett is a poor example because he is *exactly* the kind of person who should benefit from lower taxes on capital gains:

• He personally invests his own money
• He holds onto his investments for the long term
• He invests in businesses and tries to improve their performance (rather than just asset-stripping)

He genuinely appears to want to add value and does not seem to be unduly rapacious.



Please provide evidence of this.

In any case, why should a disgruntled former employee who has to invest years of their life into building up a business (and taking personal financial risks and re-investing in the business rather than taking a generous salary all those years) have to surrender a large percentage when they sell up ?

I personally do not have a problem with genuine entrepreneurs and wealth creators getting a reward for the years of risk-taking and under payment when the time comes to reap the rewards. I do have a problem when the rules created to help genuine entrepreneurs and wealth creators are subverted to provide tax avoidance schemes.



It depends on how you slice the cake.

Over 50% of people employed in private industry in the U.S. are employed by firms that have more than 500 employees:

Source: http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

There are many more small businesses than there are large businesses but you'd expect that. Whether or not these businesses are on the stock market is a different matter. The purpose of a stock market floatation is usually to provide either capital for investment or for the business's founders to realise some gain form their investment.

Yeah a small business down the street just went under. This is off subject but I wonder if financial instuments, such as the stock market, contribue to the unequal distribution of wealth in this country.

The article about who creates jobs in this country I cant find. There is a difference between creating jobs and having employees. I would and could argue that the stock market is inefficient at creating jobs. They are still cutting right? New business creates jobs.