Here come the tax hikes

Hey tiny, you're working too hard. Why don't you just dumb it all down for wtf the way I did a few years ago with this lunch metaphor.

Then you can sit back and watch his fucking head explode!

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...4&postcount=16

Hey tiny, you're working too hard. Why don't you just dumb it all down for wtf the way I did a few years ago with this lunch metaphor.

Then you can sit back and watch his fucking head explode!

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...4&postcount=16 Originally Posted by lustylad

That's a pretty good analogy for the Bush tax cuts. The 2017 tax cut didn't do anything for many upper income taxpayers, who continued to pay around a 34% or 35% marginal tax rate.

As to working too hard, another fantasy of mine, way up there, but below boning AOC, is sitting next to Saez or Zucman on a plane, where I could trash the MF's worthless lying ass uninterrupted for a few hours. Since that will never happen I must be content to trash them here, on a hooker board.

LL - your post is reproduced here:


Originally Posted by Ex-CEO
How about letting everyone vote on whether they want more in the way of transfer payments and other forms of government support? All paid for by high income earners, of course. What do you think would happen if a small community of five wolves and four lambs voted on what to have for dinner?

Better be careful what you wish for!


What would happen? It would probably be something like the following lunch scenario...


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for lunch and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily lunch by $20.00." So lunch for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat lunch.

So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% off).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% off).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% off).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% off).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% off).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% off).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat lunch for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare the amount they got off.

The sixth man said, "I only got $1 off out of the $20 while the tenth man got $10 off!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only got $1 off, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 off, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and told him they they were angry that he got so much off while they each got very little.

The next day the tenth man didn't show up for lunch, so the nine sat down and had their lunches without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money amongst all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the largest benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Tiny....you do not think companies do not consider the FICA tax they pay as not part of employee compensation? Is it any different than say the insurance they pay for employees.

And we can have a discussion on the Cadillac tax McCain spoke of if you like.

Hey tiny, you're working too hard. Why don't you just dumb it all down for wtf the way I did a few years ago with this lunch metaphor.

Then you can sit back and watch his fucking head explode!

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...4&postcount=16 Originally Posted by lustylad

They stupidity of your simpleton analog is no different now than then.

Flat % tax like 1-2 % would be fair

wtf and the DPST/ccp marxist/fascists are not interested in 'fair'

They want 'their money' to Rule - not serve teh people of America.

Sadly I agree , Elites , corps all about mo money

wtf and the DPST/ccp marxist/fascists are not interested in 'fair'

They want 'their money' to Rule - not serve teh people of America. Originally Posted by oeb11

Oh Jesus H Christ are you naïve or what?

Both parties want that....I thought educated rational folks knew that was a given.

Tiny....you do not think companies do not consider the FICA tax they pay as not part of employee compensation? Is it any different than say the insurance they pay for employees.

And we can have a discussion on the Cadillac tax McCain spoke of if you like. Originally Posted by WTF

I more or less agree with that. The FICA tax paid by the company should not be considered to be paid by the employee. That's an argument being used in the Vox video to try to show the tax system is not progressive. The Vox argument makes a lot less sense IMO than saying this is a tax paid by business owners and adding it onto their tax burdens when looking at progressivity. But yeah, the best treatment is probably to consider it another cost of business, the majority of which is passed onto the consumer as higher prices, even though the tax does actually eat into the profits of the business owner.

[I]Suppose that every day, ten men go out for lunch and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. Originally Posted by oeb11

If only our tax code were this simple.........

the tenth man, invests his money in stocks and lives off dividends, still the wealthiest, but paying a 15% tax rate on $500,000 income.

the ninth man follows the lead of man 10, he starts an LLC and becomes the president of his wealth, the LLC has a bank account of $300,000 and from said money he draws off $30,000 yearly salary, while all other profits and investments are going into the LLC. The LLC reinvests all revenue, year over year and pays 0$ tax

now man #10 and #9 are according to our tax loop holes, man 5, 6 respectively, while having a net worth 3 times greater than man 7 8 9 and 10.

They show up for lunch with their $1 and $3

If only our tax code were this simple.........

the tenth man, invests his money in stocks and lives off dividends, still the wealthiest, but paying a 15% tax rate on $500,000 income. Originally Posted by bf0082

The tenth man pays a marginal 23.8% rate if he's in the highest tax bracket and lives in Texas. He pays 37.1% if he lives in California.

the ninth man follows the lead of man 10, he starts an LLC and becomes the president of his wealth, the LLC has a bank account of $300,000 and from said money he draws off $30,000 yearly salary, while all other profits and investments are going into the LLC. The LLC reinvests all revenue, year over year and pays 0$ tax Originally Posted by bf0082

The LLC pays no tax, but the ninth man pays tax on his share of the LLC's earnings, whether or not they're distributed. If he's in the highest tax bracket, his marginal tax rate is 40.8% if he lives in Texas or 54.1% if he lives in California. After Biden jiggers the tax code, the rates will be higher.

But hey, if you're a multi-millionaire Democrat like John and Teresa Heinze Kerry, then you just invest all your money in tax free municipal bonds, pay "0" tax, and then complain about how the wealthy don't pay enough tax.

If only our tax code were this simple.........

the tenth man, invests his money in stocks and lives off dividends, still the wealthiest, but paying a 15% tax rate on $500,000 income.

the ninth man follows the lead of man 10, he starts an LLC and becomes the president of his wealth, the LLC has a bank account of $300,000 and from said money he draws off $30,000 yearly salary, while all other profits and investments are going into the LLC. The LLC reinvests all revenue, year over year and pays 0$ tax

now man #10 and #9 are according to our tax loop holes, man 5, 6 respectively, while having a net worth 3 times greater than man 7 8 9 and 10.

They show up for lunch with their $1 and $3 Originally Posted by bf0082

Well played sir

The tenth man pays a marginal 23.8% rate if he's in the highest tax bracket and lives in Texas. He pays 37.1% if he lives in California.
Originally Posted by Tiny

Do they call that a "Beautiful Weather Tax"?

I more or less agree with that. The FICA tax paid by the company should not be considered to be paid by the employee. That's an argument being used in the Vox video to try to show the tax system is not progressive. The Vox argument makes a lot less sense IMO than saying this is a tax paid by business owners and adding it onto their tax burdens when looking at progressivity. But yeah, the best treatment is probably to consider it another cost of business, the majority of which is passed onto the consumer as higher prices, even though the tax does actually eat into the profits of the business owner. Originally Posted by Tiny

Well it is not entirely ridiculous for Vox to say that it is paid by the employee with the idea that tax would be going to a higher salary.

You thought is that the company would not pay the employees that tax were it to be dropped but instead bank it.

Different companies would do differently I suppose.

Bottom line....no matter how you look at the tax system. We are not paying in enough to cover the cost of our wants. If so...we wouldn't have this 30 trillion dollar debt.